RealityAbsorptionField
Latest
Reality Absorption Field: Navigating the return of Google Maps
When Apple's exiting iOS software chief forestalled the continuation of Google Maps as the default iOS location source in favor of the long-in-development Apple Maps, the crowd responded with its typical mix of adulation for the exceptional presentation quality of the forthcoming software and capabilities as well as a bit of schadenfreude for Google. There, that oughta show 'em to copy and, allegedly according to Steve Jobs, seek to kill the iPhone. But when Apple Maps arrived with its host of inaccuracies and surreal distortions, some of those who sought to kick Google on its way out the door were eager to welcome the search leader back through it. The question on many of their minds is whether it will happen. Differing reports offer inconsistent accounts of how much advance notice Google had or should have anticipated regarding the replacement of Google Maps in iOS. The displaced provider has publicly said that it wants to have Google Maps available everywhere. Even less surprisingly, Google chairman Eric Schmidt has said that he thinks Apple should have stayed with Google's solution. Consistent with this, we've seen reports that Google is not only working on a new iOS app, but that it includes features that the old one lacked, principally free voice-guided turn-by-turn directions. Google, however, can't commit to when, if ever, a new Google Maps app might appear on iOS because Apple gets the final say on its approval. The grappling between the two companies over the Google Voice app that lacks the dialer integration of its Android counterpart became public prior to that app's eventual approval. Google seemed more confident about the imminent iOS approval of its Chrome browser announced at its Google IO developer conference this summer. It has become one of the most popular free apps even though it uses a slower JavaScript engine than the one available to Safari. If Google is doing its part to bring its Maps back to iOS, then, will Apple let it in? A stronger current of decisions indicates that it will. While Apple once blocked apps that replicated the functionality of its own integrated apps, such third-party offerings are now commonly accepted and iOS is richer for it. Prior to iOS 6, Apple had allowed apps that provide free turn-by-turn direction such as the offbeat Waze and the unpalatable MapQuest in addition to a host of offline navigation apps from dedicated hardware brand refugees such as TomTom, Magellan and Navigon. And last week, Apple let in two more navigation applications that shift the competitive location landscape on iOS. The first, Telenav Scout, has been available on the platform for some time, but has finally incorporated free voice guidance for its turn-by-turn directions. The second, Nokia Here, comes from a company that is another location-based information rival to Apple and Google. The bottom line is that, at this point, Apple would face a lot of pressure were it to reject a new Google Maps app while it would have little apparent reason to do so. But that doesn't mean returning to the world the way it was rendered before iOS 6. A Google Maps app would have to be downloaded, giving it a far less prominent presence than being the default option once afforded it. Apple Maps, on the other hand, are continuously improving as more consumers adopt it. And finally, Apple's favoring of default choices for many tasks means that even consumers who install and favor a new Google Maps app will likely continue to often find themselves in Apple Maps -- just as Google Voice users find it hard to avoid Apple's built-in Phone program. But for those who at least occasionally wish that Apple hadn't told Google to get out of Dodge, there will likely soon be an iOS app option it can use to make its way back.
Reality Absorption Field: A slow rise to the Surface
After all the teasing and secrecy and controversy around its launch, the recent announcement by Steve Ballmer that Surface with Windows RT (the only chip-defined flavor of Microsoft's debut branded tablet that's currently shipping) was off to a "modest" start might have seemed like a shocking admission of failure. Did consumers not appreciate its VaporMg exterior? The crisp, car door-inspired snap of its kickstand concealing an SD slot? Its USB port? Extended range Wi-Fi? Angled rear camera? Elaborate choreography-inspiring click? Of course, some consumers have appreciated these points of differentiation, but Windows RT has now become the fourth tablet operating system to get off to a slow start versus the iPad (joining webOS on the short-lived Touchpad, Playbook OS on the sputtering Playbook, and Android). Google's Android OS has has been the only one to make significant gains on Apple's tablets, primarily by employing the familiar tactic of undercutting on price. In the case of products such as the Kindle Fire HD and Google Nexus 7, all profit margin on the razor (hardware) has been sacrificed in the name of trying to use the device to build up sales of blades (content). Ballmer was quick to divert attention away from the slow start out of the gate while also risking further turning off potential customers from the current offering by heralding the arrival of the Surface with Windows 8 Pro. That Intel-based version of Microsoft's tablet will embody the tradeoffs that sent Microsoft looking to support ARM processors in the first place -- among them, a thicker frame and shorter battery life. However, Microsoft believes that Intel-based tablets can leverage their backward compatibility with Win32 applications and PC industry momentum to help build the base for tablet-optimized apps, one of the shortcomings not only of Surface or other Windows RT devices, but of all the tablets that have failed against the iPad. The ideal situation for Microsoft and (other) PC hardware makers would be to extend the tablet or at least minimize its cannibalization of primary PCs -- similar to what the netbook did in the Windows market (albeit more profitably) and what the iPad has done in the Mac market. Of course, in Apple's case, that's easier to pull off because of what had been the $500 entry price difference between the first iPad and lowest-price MacBook (and what is now the $670 delta between the iPad mini and the baseline MacBook Air). Paradoxically, though, despite all the tablet hardware support in Windows 8 and Microsoft itself investing heavily in slow-selling hardware, it's an understatement to say that Microsoft doesn't care about the tablet market. Hence its lack of cognitive dissonance in describing Surface as both a tablet and a PC. It doesn't want to believe that a distinct tablet market exists, and if it does, it wants to make sure that it doesn't continue. That appears to be the only way to stop the iPad, or at least the potential of iPads to grow into a more credible threat to PCs. And so, in contrast to the sales pop that occurs when Apple introduces a new iPad, sales of Windows-based tablets, hybrids and convertibles will follow the more mellifluous mature sales cycle of PCs. It's a slow-growth replacement market, but one that ultimately results in hundreds of millions of devices with baseline capabilities. To Microsoft, the touchscreen of the 2010s is the sound card of the 1990s, slowly but surely penetrating the installed base until it's taken for granted. For Microsoft, there really is no "PC-Plus" scenario. It is the "PC" scenario, the "Plus" a grudging nod to a form factor. As that scenario plays out over the coming years, though, Apple will have a great opportunity to build on its momentum. To seize it, it will need to start thinking more about iPads used in scenarios where iPhones are not. The key to that won't be adding SD cards, kickstands, keyboards and other geegaws to its tablet, but by making the software ever more powerful and capable to create Microsoft's worst nightmare.
Reality Absorption Field: Sizing up the iPad mini
Welcome to Reality Absorption Field, a new bimonthly column where veteran industry analyst and occasional TUAW TalkCast contributor Ross Rubin will discuss industry developments and how they relate to Apple. On October 23rd, following presentation of slimmed-down Macs and a beefed-up iPad, Apple introduced the long-anticipated iPad mini. With its 7.9" diagonal screen, the smaller iPad doesn't seem dramatically smaller than its bigger brother. Indeed, it's screen is a bit more than 80 percent as large as that of the iPad 2, with which it shares the same screen resolution. And at $329 (up to double that stuffed with 64 GB of flash memory and LTE), it's also a bit more than 80 percent of the iPad 2's starting price. At $329, the iPad mini starts at $130 more than the 16 GB Kindle Fire HD or ASUS-built Google Nexus 7. The displays on these 7" devices are about 70 percent of the size of the iPad 2's display, but they cost only half of what the iPad 2 costs. Perhaps in part to justify the price premium, Apple played up both the hardware and software differences between the iPad mini and the Google Nexus 7 at the iPad mini's introduction. On the hardware side, Apple highlighted the iPad mini's lighter weight and premium materials versus the plastic competition. On the software front, Apple showed off the impact of the larger display of the iPad mini on Web content. Apple, which promotes the importance of pixel counts on its Retina displays, ignored raw pixel counts versus the Nexus 7, which has more than a million pixels as opposed to the iPad mini's 786,432 pixels. But taking into account Chrome's tabs and Android's ever-present soft-buttons as well as the iPad mini's 4:3 aspect ratio, the diminutive iPad was able to show more of a Web page's length in landscape mode. The other card Apple (again) played was the optimization of iPad apps as opposed to scaled smartphone apps. One issue, though, is that many of the companies that Apple has highlighted in these comparisons, particularly Yelp and Twitter, compete at least partially with Google and may be less inclined to optimize for a platform it controls. There's no definitive answer as to whether the iPad mini is too expensive as buyers have different budgets. It's certainly more expensive than smaller competitors, but is made of more expensive materials that Apple regularly claims are more valued by recyclers. Also, if one is looking for a tablet close to the iPad mini's size that can access LTE networks, the Nexus 7 is out although one could look to the Galaxy Tab 7.7 or the Droid Xyboard 8.2, Those tablets and the iPad mini round out the 8" class of tablets from major vendors, (although Archos also has an offering there). They give up some portability while creating a larger canvas for apps and movies. The initial reception appears to be very warm. While Apple did not break out iPad mini sales, it noted that, in the first weekend of availability it sold three million iPads, a notable bump from its usual run rate. Most of that was probably due to the iPad mini, which opens up the iPad to less affluent buyers. The fourth-generation iPad, while mostly a dramatic spec bump in terms of processor speed, surely contributed a bump as well as "new" goes a long way with consumers. Apple certainly would have sold even more iPad minis had it launched them at $299. However, it seems likely that Apple, which has brought retina displays to two MacBooks, iPhone, iPod touch and flagship iPad, will eventually bring it to the iPad mini and may want to leave some margin for the more expensive display. Until then, though, the tradeoff between the iPad mini and certain Android tablets such as the Nexus 7 and Barnes & Noble Nook HD, is one of screen size for resolution. Of course, what you can do on those pixels also matters, and the iPad mini has a broad selection of optimized apps. But with its size and especially price so far removed from the likes of the Nexus 7 and Kindle HD, the real question for most buyers who value the iPad experience likely won't be between the Nexus 7 and the iPad mini, but between the iPad mini and its favorable competitive position against the iPad 2. Ross Rubin is principal analyst at Reticle Research, a research and advisory firm focusing on consumer technology adoption. He shares commentary at Techspressive and on Twitter at@rossrubin. Views expressed in Reality Absorption Field are his own.
