@tomiahonen: Windows Mobile & the lack of a migration path

I used to read Tomi Ahonen‘s “Communities Dominate Brands” blog religiously. Stats, stats and more stats, and analysis that took place outside of bubble of the US blogosphere. Now I mostly just skim what has generally turned into a collection of rants about the stupidity of Stephen Elop (though, strangely, never the Nokia board which has signed off on the strategy), the evil of Microsoft, and the general foolishness of believing that the US are anybody in the mobile space. I also used to be active in the comments there, first often in assent, then trying to argue against the more obvious misgivings and factual mistakes.
Now I don’t bother much anymore. But, very occasionally, I still feel the need to comment on something. In this case it’s a tweet from yesterday: “The collapse of MS happened only after MS moronically announced ‘no migration path’ from Windows Mob to Phone7”. The collapse in question here is Microsoft’s market share in the smartphone sphere.

The opinion expressed in this tweet contains two huge mistakes:

It is first of all taking correlation for causation. There is the direct assumption that Windows Mobile was still a viable OS at the time Microsoft announced the switch, and that what prevented users from buying Windows Mobile handsets in the time between the announcement and the launch of Windows Phone was just the announcement of no migration path.
But when you look back at any review of new Windows Mobile device at the time, the main question software side was how well the manufacturer had skinned the device to avoid bringing the user in contact with the system itself. The ideal Windows Mobile device would have been one that completely hid this fact (were, apparently, the HTC HD2 came pretty close). Windows Mobile wasn’t just criticized by reviewers – it was ridiculed, in far worse a way than either Symbian or Blackberry OS have been since. This was universal, not just by the US tech press/bloggers. HTC, as the main quality provider of Windows Mobile devices, had already started to enter the Android Market, and all the other manufacturing partners that Microsoft had were either starting to explore alternatives, or were already on a shift away. Windows Mobile was about to crash and burn no matter what.

The second mistake is assuming that a migration path from Windows Mobile to Windows Phone was an option at all. Migration paths are not a simple matter of decree by the management. They are hugely difficult technical undertakings. Keeping the old enabled while introducing the new doesn’t just add complexity – it multiplies it in parts. The resulting system is universally less perfomant, less reliable, and presents a worse overall user experience than a complete fresh start would have provided. This was doable up to a point with Windows on desktop systems, where each new generation of hardware has always had computing cycles and memory to spare, and the electrical juice to run the extra burden. Processing power, memory and, most of all, battery life are at a premium on mobile devices, so that the extra overhead presents much bigger problems here. More importantly, on Windows for desktops, the input paradigm for the UI has remained constant across versions up until now: mouse-operated pointer control. Migration paths have been a question of under-the-hood technology. Windows Mobile to Windows Phone represented a transition from resistive screens and stylus operation to capacitive screens and touch. This is not just a change of technology, it’s an entirely different UI paradigm. Integrating the old would have meant accommodating these two different input paradigms – which, on a mobile phone, is a recipe for sure disaster. Offering a migration path that enabled the old software to run on the new devices would have accomplished little for the users (just try hitting that 5 x 5 pixel button in a row of three like ones with your finger instead of a stylus), but dramatically worsened the overall experience, and terribly restricted what Microsoft could do in terms of new architecture. There was no way to salvage anything from Windows Mobile without endangering the  viability of Windows Phone in the marketplace.

So: Windows Mobile had to die. That Microsoft made a clean cut and did not offer a migration path is what enabled them to come out with a system that at least has a shot at #3.

PS: regarding the developers, who really were pissed off at Microsoft at the time? Windows Phone currently is the third ecosystem in one respect only: developer mind share. It’s surpassed the Blackberry AppWorld and Symbian, and the new developer tools are universally lauded as the best in the business. There are now more applications for Windows Phone than there ever were for Windows Mobile, and that with the new system at a fraction of the old one’s market share. This was a gamble, but it didn’t turn out as quite the catastrophe that could have been expected.

3 Comments

Filed under mobile

Podcast Diet – “The Web Ahead”

As with any kind of content on the web, the choice of podcasts is immense. I suspect that many share my problem that even the number of those that I subscribe to means that more than I could ever listen to piles up on may various devices. When I find some time for listening, I’m often close to the total petrification that too much choice can bring with it.

“The Web Ahead” is a podcast that recently has managed to snag me out of this state a few times. I’m not necessarily a fan of the ultra-conversational and free-ranging style that this and other 5by5 podacsts adopt. Whether this works depends entirely on the particular combinations of guests and hosts. On “The Web Ahead”, at least for the few episodes that I’ve listened to so far, it stays on the right side of things. Jen Simmons, the host, gets the balance between geekiness and accessibility right, and it’s always good to have somebody host who’s actively and deeply involved in the field a show is about. The guests deliver a good broad overview of their topics, and the topics themselves are highly relevant and current. While the entire thing is something that can easily be listened to while being slightly distracted from e.g. doing something around the house, there are enough nuggets of insight there to make it well worth the while.

Leave a comment

Filed under content

The content industry – crying ‘Wolf!’

As William Patry in his excellent book “Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars” states, most of what the content industry has been doing for the past decade is a campaign of spreading moral panic. They have consistently claimed that the end is nigh, and that the internet, piracy, and modern times are about to annihilate them. There is certainly no denying that times are changing. They always have.

Vaudeville is a sideshow now, hardly anybody listens to radio plays, you don’t need a band anymore to listen to music, and breaking news no longer needs to be printed as a special issue. Technology creates markets, and the next technology takes some of it away. Trying to halt this development is foolish, anti-competitive, and most often, fortunately doomed.

Yet that is exactly what the content industry has been trying again and again. From campaigns against the player piano, which was going to destroy music in America, to statements to congressional committees that the VCR would be to the movie industry what the Boston strangler was to women, every new development signaled the end if it wasn’t stopped. None of them did when they weren’t.

So it’s always good to see reports, or read about them, that make clear that life goes on for the content industry as a whole, such as the one referenced in this ars technica article. As this, and lots of other studies and statistics make clear, there is change, there is redistribution, and the pie may shrink some or grow some, but its certain that not everybody has turned to piracy, people still have a budget for content, and there is still money to be made with the right content and business model.

So the next time the content industry demands that we break the internet to prevent piracy, to shut down people’s internet connections based on mere accusations of wrongdoing, or any of the other insanity they are in the habit of asking nowadays, let’s all remember that there is no real reason for their panic. We’ll still be able to enjoy content we pay for if we ignore their cries and don’t buy into the world behind the looking glass that they want us to create.

1 Comment

Filed under copyright, digital media

Apple != Invention

When discussing Apple, sooner or later somebody will disgustedly ask what Apple ever invented. The question itself is easy to answer: not much. The PC, the GUI, PDAs, MP3 players, touch screens, smartphones and tablets all existed before Apple released the first product in the category. Apple did not invent them. In most cases, though, their releasing a product fundamentally changed the playing field in the category. (As the inclusion of the PDA shows, this is not universally the case. And they needed two attempts for the GUI.) This is because Apple are not an invention company. Their strength is taking the technical basis for an existing product, and then transforming it into an Apple product. This entails leaving out any features that do not work well enough yet, cutting any other features they deem not essential to the core experience, and polishing what remains. This polishing includes all parts of the experience, from packaging to casing to small details of the UI and UX. They then apply a bit of pixie dust (aka the reality distortion field) and market the hell out of it. It is this entire chain that makes Apple, not any particular huge inventive step. Accusing Apple of not inventing new technology thus misses the point of the company entirely.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Pioneer One Percent

Internet distribution has not only opened up possibilities for distribution outside of the established channels – it’s also opened up the possibility of zero-infrastructure distribution. Put something you’ve produced up on a filesharing service such as BitTorrent, and if it becomes popular the consumers themselves will provide the bandwidth for the distribution.

A project that is using this method of is the independently produced science fiction series “Pioneer One”.  The 720p version of the fifth episode has, at the time of writing, about 25,000 seeders. (For torrent size, that is on par with a popular torrent of a current episode of a major TV hit show.) The website claims over 250,000 downloads for the episode, and 3.5 million downloads total. All distributed at next to no cost for the makers.

Of course there still has to be a budget. Cameras are cheaper than ever, the cost for film material and development has vanished with digital production, and the technical means for post-production are there in the form of a standard PC and free software. Everything outside of the technology hasn’t joined the race to zero cost.  Even if all people involved in a project donate their time, there are still items like paying for props and locations, renting lights and other auxiliary equipment, catering and so on. Film production is amazingly complex and expensive.

There are quite a few ways of raising money on the internet for projects like this, and “Pioneer One” is employing a few of them. You can pay for online streaming access, with different price points that give you better quality and added digital incentives. Then there are the donations that give you things up to producer credits and mentions on the eventual Blu-Ray/DVD release. So far only 2100 tickets have been sold, and $ 33,000 collected.

This is a conversion rate in the range of 1%. I have no idea whether this is good or bad for an internet media project. If it is about average, then it might just be that you need viewer numbers on par or in excess of that of a conventional TV show to get equivalent budgets. Crowd-support is not an easy thing.

The packages on offer start out low enough at $ 5 that every fan of the series should be able to afford one.

The average payment/donation was around $ 16, with the last ten contributions listed showing only two $ 5 ones and one $ 50 one (and being relatively close to the average). So once somebody is willing to support the project financially, they are probably willing to spend more than the bare minimum contribution amount. How much more may then just be a question of clever incentivizing. “Pioneer One” is not doing too well on that. I spent $ 10 after watching the first episode, but that was a gesture of goodwill. The silver ticket I bought gives me nothing I want over the episode itself that I torrented (and I watched the torrent instead of streaming, which just doesn’t work while on a train). Even more importantly, the  $ 50 and $ 100 donations are hardly used. Credits may be appealing to some, and it’s possible somebody gifts a stream to a friend, but generally it might the web comics route of offering some physical goods such as T-shirts at a significant markup over cost seems like a better idea.  These are on offer, but not linked to in any obvious way from the streaming website that I first landed on. Clearly there’s room for improvement here.

The series itself? I’ve only just watched the first couple of episodes. The limited budget and production means generally are visible at every point. They’re keeping location shots to a minimum, going for lots of close-ups instead. The dialogue could have needed a more professional script doctor, the acting is often so-so, and even on no budget, the initial voice-over is really, really bad. But overall? There’s a story there, or at least enough hints at one, it’s got a heart, and it’s in the right place. It’s amazing how often this is lacking in modern series storytelling. The minimalist means  also lead to a style that is often refreshingly relaxed. There’s something to be said for a complete lack of Hollywood show-off and just telling what you have to tell. And, most importantly: it’s a SF series, and there aren’t too many of them around to watch. I’ll certainly watch the other episodes once I find the time. If that keeps up the standard, and they offer me a nice coffee mug, I’ll be happy to contribute more, to do my small part to keep the show alive.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Technology giveth …

… and in the case of the transition from VHS to DVD it gave plenty. There is no respect in which DVDs are not vastly superior to VHS tape. Much better picture and sound quality, faster access times, extra soundtracks, optional subtitles,  and all in a smaller form factor. DVDs are not just a better, they are a really good physical storage medium. The transition was swift, and nobody looked back.

The transition from DVD to streaming and downloads is a much less clear-cut case – and not one of just more and better. There are birthing problems such as size of repertoire, DRM is a bother (but hey, you’re renting, not buying, so less bad than with music or books), and the pricing is often unrealistic. But there’s no denying some of the obvious advantages, such as the huge convenience of being able to instantly access the movie you want when you want it.

Except for the fact that I actually can’t. Germany is one of the countries with a large enough market that the atrocity if dubbing movies and TV programmes into German makes economic sense. We also have a deep tradition of doing so. What gets released on the German market if not the movie I want – it’s an adaptation, and almost universally a tarnished one. The DVD age brought with it multiple audio tracks – and usually one of these was the original audio. There were also subtitles that I could use for anything non-English.

Technically multi-track audio is not a problem with online video, and neither are subtitles. But where technology giveth, it also taketh away: Currently, there is virtually no inclusion of the original audio in the German market. There’s the very occasional “original version”, advertised separately, but this falls far short of making the overall selection a viable proposition. With the markets for online video strictly segregated along national borders, the only workaround would be a VPN tunneling provider and the uncertain possibility of paying for a British or Irish service with a German credit card. That’s a couple too many hoops for me for the time being. For now, for my legal consumption of video,  I’m stuck with the anachronism of rotating optical discs.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media

Gaps in my diet

I don’t watch television or listen to radio as part of my media diet. Once upon a time that would have meant not consuming any content produced for either. There were no alternative release channels for broadcast content.  Today, with the close-to-zero overhead and the low costs of online streaming and downloads, abstaining from broadcast media is increasingly merely a decision against this particular form of distribution.

What made me take this decision is the end of the tyranny of place and time. You needed to be in front of a device with reception at the time the programme was aired. I enjoy the freedom of watching and listening when I want, where I want and on the device I have with me at the time. Air times are now as absurd to me as the notion of a book that you can only read at preset times.

What gets lost is, of course, the social focus that programmes provided. You knew that anybody who was into a certain programme would have watched it at the same time, and thus assume it as the basis for a conversation. Now such basis has to be established on a case-by-case basis. Maybe this is something that social networks are going to ameliorate or fix. I can only speculate – there is no way yet to work around the effects of me not being on Facebook.

Leave a comment

Filed under digital media