Sociable Apps

Why Apple doesn't allow multi-tasking on the iPhone

2008-03-16T12:58:00.001-07:00

Of all the SDK limitations that Apple imposed on its new iPhone SDK, the one that seems to irk developers the most is the limitation on running background processes. While the ability to run in the background is a fundamental part of programming for Windows or Mac, Apple is trying to make the point that developing for the phone is quite different from developing for a PC. So here are 3 reasons why Apple made the right decision:

1) Its clear that mobile apps should conserve battery and bandwidth. There's an limited upside to multitasking on the phone.

2) Extending the API to include lifecycle management will make the iPhone API more complicated.

3) The network is the computer. Phone developers should make use of the communication protocols built into mobile networks such as SMS, inorder to send and receive notifications.

People are dwelling on #1 but #2 and #3 are more important. The only way to have a large number of high quality, bug-free apps is to have a simple API. Making developers responsible for suspending program execution and persisting program state is really going to increase the probability of bugs. As for communication protocols, it doesn't make sense for independent developers to re-implement them. Your typical GPRS/EDGE/UMTS mobile networks are not really packet-based transports, and designing communication protocols for these kinds of networks are difficult. Apple and the operator will have to standardize on a few communication protocols such as SMS or XMPP, like Google has done with Android.

Will Apple's SDK come out before June?

2008-03-01T14:07:00.000-08:00

At the Goldman Sachs symposium, Apple dropped more hints about the new iPhone SDK. As expected, Apple will control the distribution of commercial apps via the iTune store. Like I was musing in a previous post, this could be a good thing if it brings up the quality of apps. iLounge reported that they received an invitation to the March 6th event with the words "Entreprise", "SDK" and "Software update". Most likely the biggest problem will be the release schedule, a number of blogs are speculating that the full SDK will not be released until June. Given the nature of Apple, it certainly wouldn't suprise me. This means Apple's is pre-announcing the developer platform to divert attention from jailbreaking iPhones, much like Google did with open-social. It also means developers should be still be focused on webapps for the near future.

Developer satisfaction with Android continues to fall

2008-02-28T14:08:00.000-08:00

Round 1 of the Android Contest isn't even over yet, and it seems developers already have plenty to gripe about. At first, it was the Android SDK and simulator, which was buggy and didn't include several important features. Google responded by releasing an updated SDK one month before the contest was to expire and extended the deadline of contest until April 14th. Now more cracks have begun to appear. Developers on the mailing list have been complaining about the lack of web-based submission system to track their entries. Comments ranged from disappointment to disbelief:

"Maybe google have no time for better support. Maybe they have no resources or idea for this at this time. But I work hard and hope, that we and our work will be treated seriously. "

"So... it seems Google is kind of "unprepared" for this contest... I would assume if Android is such a big deal in Google's mobile strategy, they'd be putting mountains of resources in it to
make sure it reaches the maximum potential"

It is pretty incredible for a company, whose business is to create webapps, not to have a web-based submission of their own for contests. Especially one as important as Android. This ought to be raising questions about Google's priorities considering it recently announced a competition for sending robots to the moon, with the total prize money being three times that of the Android prize.

Should Apple sell 3rd party iPhone apps with ITunes

2008-02-16T14:19:00.000-08:00

Wired is saying that apps for iPhones developed using Apple's official SDK will be sold on iTunes. Just like how iPod touch users can buy the 1.1.3 maps, emails apps from iTunes store. While there is no confirmation yet, if Apple goes ahead, it will position the iPhone app platform as a serious alternative to the Android platform. There are numerous benefits to developers:

1. Apps can make real money and not just pie-in-the sky advertising dollars (which is as low as $0.15 CPM for facebook apps).

2. Apple will create a directory for apps and possibly vet them for quality and trustworthiness. Conversely, this will mean that to succeed any app must be approved by Apple.

3. No stupid apps or app spam because people won't pay real money for them. Instead of contrived metrics like "number of daily active users", iTunes can use the number of paying customers and their average feedback. Smart developers will let users try their apps for free, and the willingness to pay is the best measure of quality.

4. Successful apps will be able to demonstrate their commercial potential and get funding to release on other platforms such as Android or Windows Mobile or J2Me. Android is offering prizes of $20,000 - $100,000 to developers, but winning a prize from a committee of technologists doesn't demonstrate market acceptance.

This could really be a huge development for the mobile industry. Up until now, a few games companies like Jamdat mobile has monopolized the development of games for cellphones, which imo range from the trivial to the infantile. Operators have been unwilling to sign deals with developers without the "right" pedigree and the "right" set of ideas. This is about openness and open markets succeeding where walled gardens and planned economies have failed

Mobile industry creating FUD around Android

2008-02-14T17:04:00.001-08:00

As if sensing the threat of an open platform to their world of closed gardens, companies from the mobile space are trying to create FUD around the Android platform before it even launches. This from CNET, mobile security companies claim open Android and open iPhone will be a security threat. The claim that closed mobile operating systems like Symbian will be more secure than future open phones is a naked attempt to talk up their own business models in the 'mobile security' biz.

The irony is if Android or the iPhone platform turn out to be half as insecure as existing cellphones, then users will be well advised to turn off their bluetooth. There's plenty of bluetooth hacks floating out there in the wild. But its hard for users to gauge the threat of those bluetooth viruses, because until now cellphones have been closed and cellphone companies don't like to talk about bugs in their phones or offer patches.

Having open platform means security companies and developers can test the vulnerabilities of a platform and make Google or Apple to fix them. Open-ness doesn't mean that consumers will be able to trust and install every application that presents itself as benevolent. After all if anyone can write an app for Android, there will be spammers writing apps which steal your contacts or even worse. That is already scary enough; but take a look at existing mobile phones with their 'App Spam'. Like a cheap PC from a discount store, they often come preloaded with annoying and useless apps, and I can't even uninstall or replace them.

Yahoo acquisition by MSFT good for startups

2008-02-14T10:39:00.000-08:00

The pundits commenting on the MSFT-Yahoo deal are missing one obvious reason why the deal is going to be good for startups and good for Silicon Valley: People still hate Microsoft and once the deal is completed, that just means startups will have a captive audience of 300 million users to poach

Facebook, MySpace Valuation

2008-02-14T10:18:00.000-08:00

As per my last post, Google's missed earnings had led to questions about the revenue and valuation of social networks. Soon afterwards, Facebook revealed that it was targeting a revenue figure of $300 - $350 million this year with a EBITDA of $50 million. When Facebook raised money from Microsoft, their valuation was $15 billion giving the company a PE of nearly 300x.

Now, MySpace and Yahoo are in talks to merge, and supposedly Rupert Murdoch wants $6 - $10 billion for MySpace. Murdoch is a pretty shrewd dealmaker, so we assume thats the maximum he can squeeze out of this deal. But that means Facebook is worth 2-3x what Myspace is. Although Facebook is growing faster than MySpace, it still has only half as many users, and it's recent growth spurt has ended because of Facebook Beacon and because users are un-installing useless and annoying apps. (Also, note that Bebo is rumoured to be on sale for $1 billion) Its seems more likely, Facebook raised money at an inflated valuation and Microsoft should think twice about the value of their investment.

Is Google's Earnings Miss A Disaster for Facebook?

2008-02-01T01:48:00.001-08:00

Google's revenue was up 51% but still missed Wall Street's forecasts. It reported revenue of $3.39 billion, which was slightly short of an expected $3.45 billion. Being Google, the stock tanked after-hours as the market has come to expect stellar earnings every quarter. What was interesting was that Google's CFO blamed the weak numbers on difficulty monetizing social networking traffic such as with its major partner, MySpace. This had led many analysts to question whether monetizing social networking sites is really much hard than we expect.

Microsoft was quick to counter that ad networks on Facebook were doing better than expected. But what exactly does Microsoft expect? Take at MSN Live Search and you'll see Microsoft standards for search are not very high indeed. Meanwhile Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, has been going around selling slices of Facebook priced at $15 billion with nothing but a story as how he plans to make billions. It seems even when Google does badly, it can pull down its competitors. Was there a jedi mind-trick behind Google's earning's explaination? Facebook took a beating after Zuckerberg's failed Beacon initiative and even the once adoring media has now decided Facebook Apps are 'a waste of time'. Are fundamental questions about the viability of advertising on social networks going to undermine Facebook's bubble-like valuation of $15 billion. If Facebook was a publicly traded company, I think traders would be dumping the stock right about now.

Facebook Beacon too much like Big Brother

2007-11-30T16:38:00.000-08:00

In 1984, Winston Smith hides from the Thought Police, who use an un-named technology to read the thoughts of the oppressed citizenry. Although not in the same league as Big Brother, Facebook announced today that they were backing down from having an opt-out e-commerce spying system, that reports your purchases to Facebook.

Aside from protestors and the occasional facebooker who found his holiday gifts out-ed to friends and families, Beacon failed for 2 reasons.

1) Lack of transparency

Beacons works by tracking users behavior across multiple site with cookies. Same trick used by many Ad networks, to do behavioral targetting of ads. But many too users were blissfully unaware of this, and with the high degree of media scrutiny on Facebook, it was bound to be seen by some as violation of user's privacy.

2) Lack of participation by major E-tailers

If Ebay and Amazon had been partners in this Beacon initiative, this would never have happened. Who were Facebook's primary web partners in this conspiracy to track user's behavior: also-ran e-commerce websites. As one facebooker commented, what if she bought a used table because it was dirt cheap and her friends found out.

Any opt-out system would have to be introduced with first-rate partners, who would have to be willing to go to bat for Facebook: essentially sell the idea to their users and address privacy concerns. Imagine, if Amazon had been a partner in Beacon, and had introducted additional controls in Amazon to protect their user's privacy. The message would have been, yes it is opt-out but our trusted partners care about creating the best possible experience. Instead Facebook Beacon became the proverbial industrial fishing net, bringing up plenty of trash and catching the occasional dolphin. Hopefully, facebook learned from this expensive lesson in how to introduce big and controversial ideas to the world.

Verizon to open up its network

2007-11-27T16:43:00.000-08:00

Perhaps feeling Apple and Google breathing down its back, Verizon has announced plans to open up its network to devices and software "not offered by the company". These foreign devices and apps will have to pass tests in a new testing lab to prove that they meet certain "minimum technical standards"

Not sure if this is a real breakthrough because wireless operators regularly partner with 3rd party device and software companies to make products for their network. It seems that Verizon is saying the network will be more open to technology innovators because inter-operability will be determined by technical tests rather than business relationships, and because Verizon plans to publish technical specs for their wireless network in 2008.

NyTimes is reporting Verizon will offer 2 types of service 1) Standard 2) A new bring your own device service.

Open Social night at the Googleplex

2007-11-14T22:51:00.000-08:00

Googlers working on OpenSocial, along with speakers from Plaxo and Hi5, got social with the web community on Wednesday night. In a panel discussion moderated by Silicon Valley Web Guild, they went over the OpenSocial platform, and tried to answer questions about the platform's maturity, commercial potential and openess. The words a "work in progress" was used countless times by Googlers and their Social network partners, as they tried to deflect criticism that OpenSocial was not ready for primetime. The Hi5 and Plaxo networks currently only allow OpenSocial apps to run inside a sandbox, and expect it will remain this way until 2008.

Chris Schalk from Google, expressed satisfaction that overall OpenSocial was very well received and suggested that Google was surprised by the overwhelming interest in OpenSocial from other social networks. Reflecting a pragmatic approach to building out the platform, he identified feedback from developers and partner companies as the primary force in shaping the design of the OpenSocial platform. Ultimately, Google plans to release OpenSocial as open source.

While OpenSocial doesn't currently address many issues of developing apps (Preferably called 'gadgets' by Google) such as policies on fair use of the social graph and how to style apps to fit in with the look and feel of each host platform; there is a definite sense that OpenSocial is an ambitious undertaking. Ultimately, it aims to "free" social networking users data and usher in a golden age of app portability. But it remains to be seen whether OpenSocial can hang together as each social network moves beyond the low-hanging fruit of common data definitions and creates extensions of OpenSocial to realize their unique values.

Food Faves: Looking for testers

2007-11-14T15:56:00.000-08:00

I recently put up the beta version of my facebook app, Food Faves. It lets you share reviews of restaurants and uses AI to compare your tastes with your friends. If you are interested in testing the application, please contact me via email.

Rails Meetup Vancouver: Facebook on Rails

2007-11-14T15:35:00.000-08:00

I gave a talk at Rails Meetup Vancouver on developing a FBML Facebook app using rails, and the advantages/disadvantages of facebook markup vs web standards. In particular, the talk covered the rfacebook gem/plugin and discussed some limitations of that library. Unlike the PHP library which is provided by Facebook, other facebook client libraries are always playing catchup to changes to the development platform. Generally its a good idea to test out the interaction between facebook - rfacebook - backend before jumping into building your app. Here are the slides from the presentation:

| View | Upload your own