NetFlix killed the Video Store

Words: Fergal Casey & Ger Healy

In this blog’s first collaboration Think About IT’s Gerard Healy joins Talking Movie’s Fergal Casey to discuss the arrival of NetFlix in Ireland.

1. What is NetFlix?

GH: So, NetFlix is here. What aspect of it should we discuss first?

FC: How about, “What is NetFlix?”

GH: “No one can be told what NetFlix is, you have to see it for yourself,” you mean?

FC: No, genuinely, what is NetFlix? I don’t understand this streaming business.

GH: (sighs) Fine… NetFlix allows you to stream movies and TV on your laptop, tablet or games console. Basically, it’s on-demand TV and films to a computer of your choice.

FC: How?

GH: It’s very much like YouTube. It’s essentially a website (or App in the case of Xboxes, iPads, other non-PC/laptop devices) that streams to your computer, except that it’s a paid service.

FC: So, they don’t post you DVDs in cute red envelopes?

GH: Initially NetFlix offered a “direct to your door” style service when it launched in the US, and it even extended into Canada, but NetFlix are yet to offer anything like this in Europe, and it seems unlikely we’ll ever see it as they’ve been trying to pull the service.

FC: Aw, but if they don’t do that then Netflix guilt is a thing of the past!

GH: I’m not familiar with this concept, but I gather you’re once again lamenting advances in technology, like when you moaned about the death of the cassette tape. It raises an interesting question about the future of physical media, which I’d like to discuss later.

FC: And we will, but damn it all I must lament this advance in technology! I’d rather looked forward to people I know having super-pretentious movies sitting around on top of a red envelope on their television for months on end. The same way people have Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance on their shelves, but really they’re reading the latest Dan Brown…

GH: What’s wrong with Dan Brown?! His books are being made into well-paced, action-packed cinematic adventures. Speaking of which, what do you think of it from a cinematic perspective?

FC: I think Dan Brown movies are definitely not well-paced. Oh, you meant NetFlix! Hmm, well I think perhaps, perhaps, it increases the likelihood of people seeking out offbeat movies simply because it will be so much easier. I think it’s also likely to lead to an increase in dual cinema and online releases as has happened with Werner Herzog’s latest documentary Into the Abyss. But… as much as I’d like to think that people will hunt about in the scrub for interesting stuff now that it’s easier to do so on Netflix, really, to continue shamelessly plagiarising a quote from Brian Eno, I think most people will remain content to stay on the train-tracks of the mainstream. When it comes to physical distribution I think it might well prove to be the death knell for cinema releases for a certain class of films. Into the Abyss for instance doesn’t seem to have as many showings as I’d expect at the IFI, and that could well be because it’s available simultaneously on Volta. It might also act as the final nail in the coffin of film over digital, Christopher Nolan’s IMAX rampaging notwithstanding.

2. What impact is it likely to have on the home film market?

FC: I’d say minimal to be honest for the immediate future. The catalogue just isn’t strong enough. The problem is that the new films aren’t new enough, the old films aren’t good enough, and there aren’t enough films to hide this problem. If you were to join this you’d probably get less choice and quality than browsing the catalogue and then reserving titles from your local council library. And that’s before we mention the fact that if you’re on an Eircom broadband package or using 3G mobile broadband you’ll get about three movies watched before you hit your monthly limit for usage of the internet in its totality, and then pay through the nose to watch additional movies to the tune of maybe your entire monthly NetFlix fee for accessing just one of their films.

GH: Is that scarifying factoid courtesy of The Weckler in The Sunday Business Post?

FC: What do you think?

GH: (sighs) Sometimes I wonder if he said The Matrix was now operational would you just believe him without thinking twice… We’ve already seen the death of Zavvi and Blockbusters on their knees, not to mention Game’s recent demise. I can only see this trend continuing. HMV need to be worried and Amazon might need to be as well. While they’ve innovated with their cloud computing platform (EC2), they are still dependent on their on-line retail, of which DVDs and Blu-Rays form a cornerstone.

FC: I remember when HMV was all music, then downloading destroyed that, then it became all movies, and now that’s changing too… This will hammer HMV when NetFlix get their act together.

GH: I think we should revisit this at the end.

FC: Agreed.

3. Why is its catalogue so poor compared to the US equivalent?

FC: So, before we address the threadbare quality of NetFlix’s catalogue I think we should first applaud their political integrity.

GH: Because they help stop piracy without needing a SOPA law?

FC: No, because they are, uniquely in the Irish political spectrum, beholden to no special interest group.

GH: What are you on about, Fergal?

FC: Click ‘Special Interest’ on the catalogue.

GH: Okay. (beat) Ah! I see what you mean. They have nothing in this category.

FC: A less charitable person might say this was ineptitude that summed up the whole catalogue, but I see what it really is – a proud statement of their political ethics.

GH: So, the catalogue is different from America because of tedious legal reasons involving individual contracts with studios, distributors, and copyright laws and clearances?

FC: Basically I think it’s the hold-up in getting Spaced released in America writ large.

GH: You actually don’t know do you?

FC: No, I thought you were researching this.

GH: Lucky for you, I did. Looking at it from the outside, NetFlix appears to be struggling to get all the necessary studies and TV networks to sign-up and publish their content. The likes of Sky and Apple have stolen a march on NetFlix, seemingly signing exclusive deals for the territory. Add to that the unclear and generally untested nature of internet copyright law in the UK and Ireland; it can only make the studios more hesitant. The NetFlix catalogue is clearly suffering badly as a result.

FC: Can I step in?

GH: To slate the catalogue?

FC: Yeah.

GH: Fire away.

FC:  The best thing about the catalogue is the action genre. It’s just fun, and heavy on the Statham which I approve. Recently added films, which pretty much sink the whole enterprise for many people, are running about a year behind the cinema with Blitz, The Mechanic and Drive Angry heading the films. The front page promises material that doesn’t show up when you browse the selection: Nurse Jackie, Torchwood, 24, Dr Who, Dirty Sexy Money. When you browse you merely find good stuff like two seasons of Dexter, a whole collection of South Park, and cancelled shows like Heroes, The InBetweeners, Prison Break, and The 4400. There’s no sign of recent essential shows like True Blood, Game of Thrones, or Boardwalk Empire.

GH: Well, we were warned not to expect ‘recent’ recent stuff.

FC: Ah, yes, but it gets worse. Horror is a mixed bag of cult classics, awful shlock, the Saw movies…and the Scary Movie movies. Scary Movie is a horror of a film but it’s not a horror film…

GH: You mean that it’s a car crash, right?

FC: Not quite. I can definitely look away. Sci-fi has some decent films and again a huge amount of genre confusion. Ditto Romance, Bitter Moon and Tokyo Decadence square off with rom-coms. Documentaries can’t tell the difference between genuinely good work and the tendentious conspiracy stuff David Aaronovitch mocks in Voodoo Histories. And then there’s the simply bizarre. Gay cinema hilariously omits Milk and Brokeback Mountain, and Indie consists of unsuccessful British films and good American indie films. The thriller section features Hard Candy (yay!) but it’s sadly sub-par as a section, saving old classics like Pulp Fiction and The Usual Suspects, while British films was so empty after tossing all the UK tripe into Indie they had to resort to dragging in TV like BBC miniseries The Day of the Triffids.

GH: My God, are you finished carping?

FC: Yes.

GH: Moving on!

4. Has Hollywood universally accepted NetFlix?

FC: Well, kicking and screaming is usually the way big businesses adapt to change. Not for nothing does Forbes advocate Blowing up the Enterprise as a leadership lesson to learn from Kirk. Nokia finally did it, and maybe Hollywood will too.

GH: What do you mean blow up the Enterprise?

FC: Get rid of something you love in order to compete with something new.

GH: What on earth has that got to do with David Lynch?

FC: Lynch said “Now if you’re playing the movie on a telephone, you will never in a trillion years experience the film. You’ll think you have experienced it but you’ll be cheated. It’s such a sadness that you think that you’ve seen a film on your f****** telephone. Get real.”

GH: He makes an interesting point.

FC: President Bartlett said “Decisions are made by those who show up”. Films are for people who go out, and NetFlix is for people who stay in. Lynch should be a bit less precious about new forms of viewing movies because I think generally his audience would be the type that stays in. Who knows, eventually NetFlix might start to fund auteur film-makers to produce his kind of content for them.

GH: But will people really look for films on NetFlix if they haven’t heard of them from the marketing push of a cinema release first?

FC: Let’s not over-state the power of a marketing push, apparently a 100 million dollar marketing budget for Marvel Avengers Assemble isn’t enough to avoid confusion with a TV show that started in 1961 and ended in 1970…

5. Will NetFlix see an end to piracy?

FC: If you believe The Weckler in the SBP placing a legal option next to an illegal option always withers the illegal option. I think the internet has kind of tutored people to expect content for free, like it’s a divine right. Indeed I read a very interesting piece on that last year. I’m sceptical that Irish people will download legally rather than illegally just because they now easily can. I think there’s a certain ingrained lawlessness in the Irish psyche that regards the law as an unjust imposition, and that any way to get around it is always worth exploring; I could at this point instance the entire nation apparently waiting to see how many people might not pay Phil Hogan’s household tax before deciding whether to pay it themselves. Having said which Moonshiners would seem to indicate the same mindset in America too so who the hell knows? Unless we get silly and suggest that Appalachian dwellers are suffering from a post-colonial hangover too.

GH: Sometimes I think you watch too much Discovery Channel.

FC: Wait till you see the series of Bear Grylls blogs I have lined up…

GH: I agree there will always be a hard core that will always pirate but I don’t think it’s as big as you give it credit for. You really have to start by looking at Google, Apple and Amazon. Once they properly enter the legal streaming sphere, things might really get interesting. That said, faster broadband is key to services like this surviving.

6. What parallels can be drawn between the challenges that NetFlix presents to cinema and previous challengers TV and VHS?

FC: I don’t think it’s quite the same as those two challenges, especially not TV.

GH: Do you not think there’ll be a flood of epics or innovations?

FC: No, because I think the rise of CGI devalues the production values that were behind the 1950s epics. A cast of thousands back then was a big deal, now it’s just blah because people presume they’re all CGI. That’s why flipping a truck in The Dark Knight had an impact, because it’s become so rare to bother doing something physically rather than digitally. Also I don’t think that HD and 3-D are the magic bullets dragging people into multiplexes they were initially thought to be. 3-D has proved to be a chore as far as most people are concerned, just look at how easy it is to see films in 2-D versions; and in many cases cinemas continue to run those versions after dispensing with the headache-inducing 3-D version. I’m still to be convinced that HD is actually a good idea because it tends to take the filmic sheen off of films. If you can see the make-up on the faces of the actors you’ve actually innovated to the point where the technology has become self-defeating.

GH: True, but one has to wonder what value the average consumer actually places on filmic sheen. The largest draws always tend to be the blockbuster and the best example of that in recent time has to be Avatar, which is an epic and an innovation.

FC: I think NetFlix actually poses a more essential challenge in that it might interrogate the medium itself. Is cinema something that’s visually driven story-telling, shown on a big screen, and viewed en masse? That’s a definition Hitchcock or Spielberg would recognise. NetFlix if it becomes too dominant might make it hard to tell the difference between cinema and television. If you’re watching NetFlix rather than cinema-going, and you’re watching what we’ve talked about earlier, the more personal movies, then at what point does a one-off story of a certain length, with a visual kick to dialogue scenes with high production values, that’s shown on a small screen, become indistinguishable from HBO? What would distinguish two episodes of Whitechapel back to back from a really good British crime movie?

7. NetFlix: the future/passing phase?

GH: So, is NetFlix the future or a passing phase?

FC: The revolution will not be televised, it will be streamed.

GH: Are you actually going to be serious now?

FC: Yes, I don’t think it’s going to affect things in Ireland until the catalogue ramps up – which apparently could take as much as a year or two. Right now NetFlix resembles a bookstore that’s opened with half-empty shelves. Yes, it will get better, but why open if it’s not ready yet? But I gather you think different about its potential effect.

GH: I think it’s the start of a revolution. I think it’s going to kill DVD and Blu-Ray stone dead. People will either go to the cinema, or stream films, and–

FC: Can I just cut in here and sort of agree with you in a tangential manner?

GH: Yeah…

FC: Jeffrey Katzenberg said a few years ago that in the future all tent-pole movies would be 3-D, and there would still be 2-D films, but that they’d be small personal projects. I think I’d agree with you that people will either go to the cinema or stream films, and I think they’ll go to the cinema for blockbusters where the mass manipulation of the emotions of the audience and the big screen wow factor is crucial, and they’ll stream smaller films which are more cerebral and demand close attention.

GH: And I think that DVD collections will become a thing of the past, something that’s solely for true enthusiasts like vinyl obsessives building a collection. Novelty box-sets will likely last for a short time before the DVD/ Blu-Ray itself eventually becomes the novelty. This could spawn a generation of DVD/ Blu-Ray enthusiasts like John Cusack in High Fidelity. Even now, I can see Nick Hornby now drafting notes on High Definition.

FC: I stopped collecting DVDs when Blu-Ray appeared. I just thought “I will never watch most of these movies enough to justify the expense, and when I’ve got my collection to a nice point some new technology will just make it obsolete”. But the whole concept of a DVD collection left me cold. The idea of a bad film being worth buying purely for the extras, or the existential crises over differences in boxes between regions, or special editions with different cuts; it all made about as much sense to me as buying a rubbish book for the sake of a nifty introduction and a cool cover.

GH: Didn’t you read One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest for an introduction by Chuck Palahniuk?

FC: Yes. But I think the true equivalent would be a Dan Brown with a foreword by Paul Bettany explaining how he used the role of Silas to make a feature audition tape for the role of the Joker…

GH: I think NetFlix is the vanguard of Google, Apple (and possibly even Amazon) domination of the streamed media sphere. Google TV and Apple TV seem to only be a few months away, maybe a year.

FC: The idea of Apple TV terrifies me, Google TV a little less so, but Apple TV… (whistles) It just seems like something out of a dystopian novel the idea that Apple control so much of your life, how you listen, how you read, how you communicate, what you watch, on and on and on.

GH: I think I’m not well known for my love of Apple fanboys so let’s not get into a nodding contest here about how scared we are by Apple TV. Do you think the concept will take off?

FC: Yes, purely because those companies have so much power that if they want to synchronise things I think they can synchronise things.

GH: I think that you’d really have to see what they can come up with. Certainly anything that Google and Apple touch at the moment seems to be turning into gold. However, both Google and Amazon are yet to enter the market, and Apple is barely dipping its toes. True, Google owns YouTube, but it’s simply not positioning it in the same market as NetFlix.

FC: So it’s safe to say that this is the beginning of a revolution?

GH: Yeah, I think so. There’s a lot of industry weight behind it and user interest seems genuinely strong, and besides, these things only getter better with time. The real measurement of success is how many studios and TV network sign up.

FC: Can I ask you a strategic question about all of this? Do you see a connection on the macro scale between cloud computing and NetFlix – the idea that we’re moving from the need for constant and often unutilised physical possession to just paying for something in the ether when we need to actually use the service?

GH: Cloud computing is a hefty enough topic, and I’ve covered it at some length. It’s mainly a concept aimed at the smaller business, a way of offering high-end solutions (servers with high up time or premium applications) on a much lower cost basis. Rather than paying for server hardware, data centre storage, server engineers, server licensing, clustering, etc, users simply pay a per-usage rate. Like for hosted email, you might pay for each mailbox for each month of use. So in that sense, pay as you go usage, they are some similarities.

FC: Huh, perhaps Tyler Durden got his wish after all. We’ve rejected the basic principles of western civilisation, especially the importance of material possessions.

GH: I don’t think Fight Club is on NetFlix…

FC: (groans) The revolution will begin once NetFlix have got their bloody catalogue together.

XP Really Just Needs to Die Already

As you many have heard, Microsoft has finally announced the end date for its support for Windows XP. This of course also comes not long after releasing the Beta, or Customer Preview as they’re calling it, for its next OS, Windows 8. Few can argue the success and longevity of XP. Its reliability and stability has seen it surpass its original successor, Vista and even the comparatively better Windows 7 has failed to put the final nail in XP’s coffin. Considering the rapid rate of change that the computer industry has always seen, it’s truly a testament to the quality of the product that XP continues to see a shockingly high 28% share of machines still accessing the web today. Despite this fact, we’ve truly come to a point where XP really just needs to die already.

Incredibly, XP is 11 years old and really starting to show its age. It’s so far removed from contemporary thinking on device OSs that are built specifically with tablets, Smartphones and other touch screen technologies in mind rather than the traditional desktop PC. And this is starting to become a problem, not only for Microsoft, but for software developers too. For Microsoft they really need to distance themselves from the thinking that XP and even Windows 7 spawned from. Being associated with XP is actually damaging to Microsoft and its product base. XP is becoming the Phil Collins of the Os industry – a genius product of its time but utterly irrelevant to contemporary society. Microsoft have acknowledged this and can’t kill XP soon enough. Windows 8 is a clear acceptance from Redmond that the days of the purely desktop OS are gone.

Equally for software developers, XP is proving to be problematic. XP was predominantly sold in the 32-bit version, while Windows 7 has seen the push to 64-bit to allow the OS to better take advantage of improving hardware capabilities. Of course 64-bit applications don’t run on 32-bit OSs, making application development more difficult. Couple that with the strong push towards the smartphone and tablet app, and you are left with an increasingly irrelevant OS.

All of this allows Apple to steal a march in its marketing campaigns. The simple fact that an 11 year old OS like Windows XP is still so highly prevalent among Windows users prevalent strengthens any argument made that Microsoft’s best days are behind them. While I disagree, especially being a user of Windows 7 for so long and having looked at what Windows 8 will bring to the table, the continued existence of XP allows the argument to be made in the first place.

Microsoft is having similar problems with the continued use of Internet Explorer 6 and is also pushing for the final holders out to upgrade to a later version of the browser. At the time of this blog posting, little over 700 days of support for XP remain. Add to that, the expected Q3 2012 release of Windows 8, the end of XP is finally in sight. For Microsoft’s sake, one can only hope so because put simply XP really just needs to die already.

Have we truly reached the post PC era – Part 2?

In part one of my examination of the concept of the post-PC era, I looked at the history of the tablet and its strengths. This post will work though their limitations and what is needed to achieve this lofty idea of the post-PC era.

 

Tablets’ Cons:

Tablets are wonderful devices, but they are in no way perfect. Even the undeniably market best, the iPad, has its limitations. Rather than talking about individual devices and flaws, I want to dig into the generic issue, the logic flaws, and the technological limitations. Arguably the greatest of these flaws is tablet’s dependency on 3G. When out of WiFi range, 3G is only option available to tablet users. Unlike laptop users who tend to have native clients with local data storage; tablets have a greater dependency on cloud and thin client apps. Thus the connection to these cloud services is crucial which brings us to 3G. It’s a poor substitute to a proper broadband connection. Yes, it is substantially better than 2G (GSM). Once these devices are taken out of WiFi range, they become severely handicapped by the poor bandwidths of 3G. LTE can’t come soon enough. With substantially higher connection speeds over long range, LTE will allow the continued use of cloud apps, no matter where you are.

 

Tablets are still a new technology with many vendors trying and failing to carve a slice of the market. Vendors drop products at little to no notice and you can quickly end up with an unsupported device with no apps in the pipeline. Even the biggest of vendors aren’t immune to failure with both HP and RIM suffering though the total failure of TouchPads running WebOS and the limitations and irrelevance of RIM’s Playbook. Users will always run the risk of being sold a pup and only by doing their homework, can a user hope of avoiding being trapped with an unsupported crock.

They are those who are dependent on their devices having large screens, which have to type significant volumes and need strong graphics and processor capabilities simply cannot rely on any currently available tablet to do their job. The proliferation of a truly excellent voice-to-text and handwriting recognition solutions may resolve the requirement for keyboards but there may be no getting away from laptops and PCs for some users.

 

The single largest complaint about tablets however, is the lack of support of peripheral devices – USB and SD slots are frequently missing. Cameras, USBs devices, etc simply cannot connect to tablets as a result. NFC may be the simple answer but it is a relatively new technology and is not common to many devices.

 

Summary:
Few could argue that the tablet is not the ultimate consumer device. Its flexibility and portability have brought the tablet to the fore in consumer electronics, leaving little room for either laptops or PCs. However, the lack of a full replacement for the PC/laptop through the lack of big screens, comfortable keyboards, as well as weak 3G network connections are inhibiting widespread adoption of tablets in business. In reality industry will always demand some PCs and laptops – is it for accounts or administrator, graphic designers or helpdesk. These short-comings will be bridged in the near future but until then we will not have fully realised the idea of the post-PC era.

Have we truly reached the post PC era – Part 1?

Those of who frequent the various on-line tech journals, you will no doubt be familiar with the increasingly frequent proclamations that we have now reached the post PC era. Assorted journalists rush to be the first the write off the PC and laptop, with their obituaries seemingly set in stone. Technologies like the iPad and Kindle have revolutionised what we can and can’t with computers, but have we truly reached the post PC era yet? Before we can accurately make a judgement on this question, we must first understand the arguments for and against this bold statement. This post, the first of two no the subject, will work through the pros of tablets while part two will cover the cons as well as identify possible solutions to those problems inhibiting the full realisation of the idea of the post PC era.

Tablets have been floating around for years. These devices were clunky, limited and expensive. The iPad revolutionised this. Bring the cool factor with its brand; Apple introduced the iPad to much acclaim in January 2010. In the short time since its release, opinion on tablets have turned 180 degrees from being branded a joke, a niche product, even a dead technology to manufacturers’ chosen land of computer hardware. So what has brought about this change and why now?

Tablets’ Pros:

Few can deny the appeal of an instant-on computer. The use of solid-state hard drives coupled with a lean OS has allowed the likes of Apple to grant users the instant satisfaction of a zero boot time. Windows users, particularly of aged hardware know only too well the frustration of having to wait 2, sometimes 3 minutes just to use their computer. Apple was immensely cleaver in their timing with the release of the iPad. Poor reviews of the disastrous Windows Vista resulted in consumers to attempt to wait it out, continuing to use their XP machines until something better came along, with the machines all the time getting slower and slower. The benefit of instant-on was clearly palpable among the user base.

The look of feel of OS had changed little since the mid-90s. Clearly, the look and feel had improved over time, but the user interface (UI) was designed around keyboards and mice. The tablet allowed a substantial rethink and brought an easy to use intuitive touchy-feely interface that the likes of Windows still lack to this day (although I’ve high hopes for Windows 8).

This touchy-feeliness was extended to the physical device itself. The ultra-portability of tablets makes them highly desirable to anyone on the move. Using laptops on planes or trains is a substantial pain. Tablets remove this issue which is why they are so attractive to salespersons and others on the move. Couple this with an amazing battery life (up to 5 times longer than a laptop) and screens multiples in size of smartphones, there’s no denying the logic of the appeal.

Part 2 will be released on Wednesday the 1st of February at 18.00 GMT. Until then, why not read the rest of my posts on Think About IT.

Is Facebook Over?

There is no questioning of Facebook’s dominance in the social networking space. It’s unparalleled. Even the mighty Google has failed to match Facebook’s domanance of the social media sphere. The revenues generated by Facebook are astronominical. Facebook was the single most visited website in 2011. This coupled with it’s in-built advertising has meant that Mark Zuckerberg‘s company, in revenue at least, is the match of the biggest and best tech companies – the Microsofts, Apples and Googles of the world.

 

With all of this said, one question keep coming back – what have Facebook done of any note since that initial release? While it has continued to add little bits here and there, they amount to little more than a bit of nip and tuck. Yes, Facebook has modified, refreshed and enhanced it’s user interface, opened up it’s API to outside developers, but where’s the big innovation, (that’s lasted at any rate)?

 

There have been several attempts at expanding Facebook to something more than just a social networking site. Facebook have attempted to reinvent itself as a communications centre. The release of their email service is a clear case in point – it has simply not caught on in any way. Can you honestly tell me of anyone who uses the @facebook.com email address? While user uptake of Google+ has slowed down, there is no doubting that Google have done so much more to achieved this through the likes of GMail, GChat, Google Voice (although it did slip up along the way with Google Wave) and all of that’s before we talk about Chrome, Android, Google Apps, etc.

 

Equally, the much publicised Facebook Smartphone is nowhere to be seen. It simply must be questioned why Facebook feel that they can penetrate a market so dominated by Apple and Google Android. RIM have been significantly pushed aside and Microsoft are floundering. With Facebook apps available for all major smartphone OSs, it is hard to work out what Facebook could bring to the table that is of any great difference? Facebook have give away their USP.

 

Facebook has quite clearly lost it luster and sex appear. The buzz around social networking has died down and become as matter-of-fact and run-of-the-mill as email, YouTube or news aggregators. This is something that is especially evident in that tech magazine and online news feeds have now refocused on the tablet and smartphone markets. Couple this with reports of users are turning away from Facebook in their droves and it becomes near impossible to deny. Maybe David Fincher’s unflattering portrait of Zuckerberg in the  ’The Social Network‘ has caused even greater that expected reputational damage to both Zuckerberg and Facebook itself.

 

It is quite clear that Facebook are in a real danger of becoming the next Yahoo – an advertising giant of utter irrelevance to the average user. Gone are the days of Yahoo’s dominance of the web. While they still make plenty of money, they simply are neither a thought nor brand-leader. They are inter-changeable with a host of mail and search services. Facebook now look to be heading down the same path. I hope that I’m wrong. I enjoyed the idea of an innovative upstart challenging the biggest and best, a 20-some C.E.O of a tech giant revolutionising the industry. Without radical changes, I don’t see Facebook playing any significant part in the evolution of the internet in the future. Facebook will still be there, it just won’t matter.

Has Windows Mobile Failed & How Microsoft Can Recover Part 2

In this, the second part of my exploration of the failings of Microsoft Windows Mobile, I will examine possible solutions to Microsoft’s woes. These will include a revision of their entire strategy – from enterprise integration to centralised app stores.

The greatest failing of Windows Mobile was its inability to attract significant numbers of consumers since the boom in the Smartphone marketplace. Microsoft’s strategy, unlike that of Apple or Google has never truly targeted the average consumer, instead focusing on the Enterprise market. Their mobile OS has been built to enable integration with Exchange, basic Microsoft Office functionality and other enterprise capabilities, while ignoring demands of the average user. Simply put Microsoft need to revise this thinking and to include a number of new enhancements to establish Windows Mobile as a serious option for both consumers and the enterprise market spaces.

Further integration w/ Corporate Network and Cloud solutions

One of the simplest and easiest wins that Microsoft could deliver is proper integration with corporate networks. The sheer dominance of Microsoft in the corporate network sphere is unequaled. This should offer Windows Mobile the simplest of wins. Integration with Active Directory has been somewhat limited to date. Microsoft should push this on further, offering users greater functionality and IT security teams greater management capabilities. Improve the remote wipe and add encryption by default and it’s a winner. This of coarse is somewhat complicated by the advent of  cloud computing. That said, Microsoft are one of the key players in this field. Simply put, Windows Mobile should have apps for all of Microsoft’s enterprise cloud solutions – from SharePoint to Exchange to CRM, the much mooted Navision and lets not forget Skype.

…and Integration w/ Xbox Live

Microsoft got itself into this mess by ignoring the consumer market. The best way to redress this? Integrate with XBox Live. Microsoft’s XBox division is a substantial revenue generator and seeing as how the XBox is a consumer product, surely integration with Windows Mobile is a must if they are to ever target that market. How and what are really up to Microsoft but they need to make it work.

A Centralised App Store

What do Apple and Google’s successes in the smartphone arena have in common? Well lots of this but certainly a central app store has been key to attracting users and generating revenue. This one is a no-brainer and to be fair to Microsoft they already have one on the way with Windows 8 , but why wait? How would it’s desktop/ laptop solution Windows 7 or it’s latest mobile OS, Windows Mango, suffer from the introduction of an app store? They wouldn’t, unless Microsoft is struggling to generate interest among developers.

A bit of Nip and Tuck

The iPhone brought about a quantum leap with the design of not just the hardware but the user interface too of mobile devices. Microsoft need to make the next big move. There ideas for Windows 8, while not universally loved, would represent a massive  improvement on the existing OS. Couple that with smart looking phone with all the gadgets, (NFC, 4G, etc) and you’re onto a winner. The biggest problem with this is Microsoft’s dependence on hardware manufacturers. I think that we can all agree that it’s high time that Microsoft saw some value from its strategic partnership with Nokia or started working on the like of HTC to see if they can exploit any ill feeling steaming from Google’s purchase of Motorola.

Ultimately, the only way that Microsoft can win back a market share of any note is to target the consumer market while making the benefits of their mobile OS clear to IT departments. However, the question remains is it too late? Have Apple and Google pulled too far ahead and what spanner can RIM throw into the works?

You can read part 1 here or the rest of my posts here.

Has Windows Mobile Failed & How Microsoft Can Recover Part 1

In this two part post, I explore the reasons behind Microsoft’s poor market share in the smartphone industry. Part 2 will be released this time next week and in it, I will attempt to identify how Microsoft can respond to and reverse this trend.

 

If you were to ask most about Smartphones, they would likely mention Apple iOS, Google Android and even Blackberries. Few would even think about Microsoft’s Windows Mobile. Even fewer again would actually own one. A 7% market share is something that should deeply worry Microsoft, especially in a market as dynamic and game-changing as the Smartphone industry.  So how has Microsoft, the biggest player in the computer industry for the past 20-odd year, found itself effectively squeezed out of the smartphone industry and how can it re-establish itself within the mobile sphere? Is this merely an extension of Google and Apple eroding Microsoft’s dominance or is there a deeper issue specific to the smartphone market?

 

One of the main reason for this change has been the consumerisation of IT. This has brought a 180 degree change in business thinking with the voice of technology no longer emanating solely from within IT but from the general user populus (and management) as well. Devices like the iPhone, and various Android handsets have blown the traditional mobile and smartphone handsets out of the water. While a quite legitimate argument can and has been made that Windows devices are technologically equals, there is no denying that a focus on aesthetic, a rethink on the user interface and a general focus on consumer applications has turned a lot of heads.  Microsoft’s focus to date has been centered on delivering the necessary functionality to its business customers.

 

Still this doesn’t explain why Blackberry were so dominant before the emergence of the likes of the iPhone. A multitude of factors combined may help explain why Microsoft wasn’t dominating the business smartphone space. Firstly, until the emergence of the iPhone, the trend of new mobile devices saw them get smaller and smaller. This conflicted with smartphone technology due to the limitations of their size and capacity of the hardware components. Simply put the processors, storage and even the screen required by smartphones were inherently bigger and therefore the devices themselves had to be too, thus making them less desirable to the majority of consumers. Building on the huge success of the iPod, Apple complete reversed this trend with the release of the first  iPhone in 2007.

 

Furthermore, the limited capacity of 2G inhibited any substantial data communications. Not only was it slow, it was also expensive. 3G and the data packages that network providers sold with it, again removed this restraint. Rather that having to work offline, (i.e. locally storing data (e.g. email) and drip-feeding the changes over weak connections), the newly available increased bandwidths enabled  live streaming of data to and from devices, meaning that smartphones could work online in a similar way to PCs and laptops.

 

To this day, Microsoft still does not have a central app store available to users. While an app store has been muted to arrive with Windows 8, this has yet to arrive and isn’t due until later this year. This distinct lack of a centralised app store, triumphed by the likes of Google and Apple caused Microsoft to lose further ground in the battle for the consumer. Users clearly preferred the simplicity of having one location to download and apply apps.

 

Finally, cost posed a significant impediment to widespread uptake of smartphones. The unit cost of smartphones were and still are quite high. However, the desirability of smartphones have since mitigated this issue with consumers now willing to pay more for the additional features. Simply put users see the added benefit of smartphones as justification for the additional cost.

 

Check back next week for part 2 where I will explore Microsoft’s options to rebound and re-emerge as a player in the smartphone industry. In the mean time, why not browse the older posts on Think About IT

Cloud Computing – Cloud Storage

Concluding my three-part series of articles on cloud computing, this blog will digress from the focus on cloud app and cloud hosting to look at cloud storage. If you have not yet read them, Part 1 introduced the concept of cloud computing and explained how cloud computing was in fact a general term encompassing several technologies; while Part 2 discussed the industry trends with particular focus on how Microsoft is reacting to the emerging cloud computing market.

In the final part of this series, the concept of cloud storage will be explored further. Cloud storage, simply put, is the concept of storing information in secure locations online rather than on a hard disk on a PC, laptop or server. This has obvious benefits to both businesses and home users, not least enabling data backup and sharing, as well as device synchronising (Gladinet and iCloud). By utilising clustering and load balancing technologies, these solutions offer a much reduced risk to data loss through hardware failure. Furthermore, cloud storage is incredibly flexible and responsive to actual needs. Where traditionally, a business would have to purchase a SAN (or server in smaller cases) capable of not only supporting the existing needs but also the expected growth in needs over the SAN/ server’s lifespan, cloud storage allows business to rapidly increase their storage capacity and thus reduce wasted expenditure.

While the market for cloud storage is still growing, all the major IT vendors have an offering of some type or another. Apple has targeted the home market with iCloud while Microsoft offer end users its Skydrive solution and Google has Google Docs. Admittedly, iCloud is more of a data synchronisation tool rather than a pure online storage tool and could be considered to be more similar to Dropbox and Gladinet than Google Docs or Skydrive. Of coarse, it’s not just the likes of Apple, Google and Microsoft that aren’t the only big IT players targeting the online storage market. With the likes of Amazon with its S3, EMC’s Atmos, HP’s Cloud Drive and Fujitsu’s Cloud Services, to name but a few, all target various sectors in the cloud storage market, .

However, cloud storage is not without its limitations. Some business and/or government departments have concerns or even specific requirements around the retention of data within geographical or political regions. Some companies may insist that data is not stored in certain countries, while the likes of government departments may even insist that data is stored in within its political and legal control. Furthermore, the security of the data within the cloud itself needs to be verified before a company commits to the solution. Isolation of data from other companies and the control of access to an organisation’s data must be clearly controlled and ensured by the vendor. Finally, it must be remembered that with cloud storage, there is a dependency on the internet links and as a result there is a clear read/write performance impact that must be considered before adopting any cloud storage solution.

Ultimately, cloud storage is still in its infancy and may not be for everyone. However if secured and managed correctly, cloud storage can offer clear and real benefits to both businesses and home users alike.

Applications That I Use – Sandboxie

In this latest post in the Applications That I Use series, I look at Sandboxie, an application sandboxing tool.

In today’s web driven environment, it is almost unfathomable that a computer of any description is not connected to the net. Most devices are constantly connected to the web, allowing them to leverage web apps, RSS feeds, email clients and the web itself. Of coarse all of this connectivity means a greater exposure. The internet is littered with websites containing malware. Even legitimate websites are frequently hacked, making it difficult to avoid infection. And the problem doesn’t stop there.  Not all malware comes from the web. What about USB devices? What about malware that exploits weaknesses in PDF readers, in Microsoft Office or any other of the dozens of applications that you have installed? These infections don’t all come via he web browser. Removing infections is a costly and time consuming exercise with no guarantee that your computer or your data will survive. Anti-malware software goes a long way to reducing this risk by catching the malware when they try to run (run-time control) or during its scheduled sweeps (full disc scans.) There seems to be no way to stop malware from hitting your. Even the best firewalls will still let a percentage of threats though.

While some application vendors lead the way in their security thinking, this is not the case for all of them. As a result, it is necessary to mitigate against risks where vendors fail to do so. All of this leads me to Sandboxing. Sandboxing essentially is the segregating of applications away from the rest of the hard disk. By isolating the application within a controlled and confined disk space, application threats cannot spread, thus reducing threats to OS and data alike. Of coarse, by adding in this additional layer, you are inevitably, reducing the performance of the application by adding an added layer, much in the same way that Java is inherently slower than other programing languages. Ultimately it’s a swap off between security and performance.

I fall into the former camp, working with a security first mind set. As a result, I was most pleased when I came across Sandboxie. This free application allows users to choses which programs to run in the Sandbox and when. In addition to this, defaults can be set enabling a user to always open a browser (or other application) in the Sandbox. All of this means that once set up, users need not worry about what application are running in and out of the sandbox and if performance issues appear (e.g. after an update), a user can change their settings at any time. Sandboxie is very simple to use and so very useful and that’s why it’s an application that I use.

Microsoft’s Vision of ‘The Post Virtualistation Era’

In part one of the concept of cloud computing was introduced and the key types of solutions (private vs. public, IaaS vs. PaaS vs. SaaS) were discussed. The below post will discuss the market as it is today and how and why Microsoft is trying to position itself.

In past few months, the push towards the cloud has ramped up. All the major IT players have modified, improved or rolled out what can be loosely called cloud solutions. Microsoft released the second iteration of its BPOS solution, now re-branded Office365. Amazon has tweaked it Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) solution, allowing free inbound data. Apple released the iCloud for data backup. Google continue to develop its Google Docs offering. Even the likes of HP, Fujitsu, EMC and Cisco have gotten into the cloud game. The belief that Cloud is the next generation platform for businesses and end users alike is unwavering and gathering momentum.

In most cases, the above solutions are public clouds. These are publicly accessible (although securely segregated) solutions aimed at as wide an audience as possible. These solutions should have Microsoft worried, who dominate the enterprise server environment. However, if that’s the case, Microsoft isn’t letting on. Instead, they are pushing their own solutions from the likes of Azure and Office365.

While Office365 is a SaaS solution, Microsoft’s Azure (PaaS) and Hyper-V (Private Cloud IaaS) solutions appear to be their main pushes. Both solutions fall under the IaaS tag but while Azure is part of the public cloud, Hyper-V can form the basis of a private cloud. While this is essentially re-branding Server Virtualisation as the private cloud, it does appear to be the simplest migration path for businesses looking to the push their server infrastructure to the cloud. The benefits are simple and clear – cost reduction through consolidation of infrastructure and the removal of hardware scaling costs; the ability and option to reuse existing experience and skills; retention of data outside of the public domain; greater support for data nationalization; better clustering and high availability; etc.

Microsoft has been talking about cloud optimisation and the post-virtualisation era for some time now. They sees it as key to their continued success in the enterprise market. Microsoft’s enterprise offerings (Windows Server, MS Office, MS Exchange, etc) are a corner stone of their revenue stream so the last thing that they need or want is for that to dry up. And to be fair, they are coming to the table with the most wide ranging and inclusive set of solutions available. They’re clearly determined to retain that business and are hedging their bets that if they offer a solution that meets a business’s needs, be it IaaS (Hyper-V), PaaS (Azure) or even SaaS (Office365), then they’ll be on the table, at the very least as an option.

Only time will tell who will make the grade in the world of Cloud infrastructure, but one suspects that Microsoft will be well placed in the final shake-up.

In the final part of this series, the concept of cloud storage will be explored further.