June 6, 2013 7:58 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
, smart phones
In spite of a plethora of phones and tablets, Microsoft’s mobile strategy has been a disaster to this point.
The latest comScore US smartphone market share numbers are in and once again the news is not pretty for Microsoft. As unbelievable as it seems after all this time, Microsoft lost a tenth of a percentage point in the latest figures to fall to a paltry 3 percent of the US market.
Mind you, this was in a month when Android actually lost .3 of a point and dropped to 52 percent, yet Microsoft wasn’t able to take advantage of even that opening. Instead, Apple gained 1.4 points to 39.2 percent.
Sure, we all know it’s been a two horse race in the mobile phone market for some time, but Microsoft has been making a case for third place, but it can’t even catch up and pass BlackBerry, which itself lost .8 of a point to drop to 5.1 percent. Maybe they’ll meet somewhere in their race to the bottom at zero.
Even if you look at IDC’s worldwide smartphone market share numbers for the first quarter, where Microsoft has actually passed BlackBerry in third place, the numbers are consistent with ComScore’s US numbers at just 3.2 percent.
It doesn’t get any better in the tablet market where Microsoft just slashed prices it charges vendors for software in an attempt to attract more vendors to build Windows tablets. Perhaps a better strategy would be to cut the prices of the units themselves, at least the ones they control, because they aren’t moving. In fact, Microsoft’s worldwide tablet market share according to IDC was just 1.8 percent for the first quarter. Yes, 1.8 percent. That, folks, is barely registering.
If you look at the big picture, the whole Windows 8 strategy to date has been a complete disaster for Microsoft. Even on the desktop where it is the undisputed leader — even as PC sales plunge — Windows 8 has to date done worse than Vista, which was without a doubt the biggest piece of crap OS ever delivered.
Now, I know Microsoft supporters have constantly said to me that you just have to give it time. On the desktop, the latest hope is 8.1 due later this month, but if veteran tech journalist Wayne Rash is right, this update isn’t going to change many minds.
The idea here has always been to have a somewhat consistent experience across all devices. It may not line up perfectly, but the look and feel is very much the same. The desktop has always lead the way for Microsoft and even that is failing badly to this point and likely having a negative impact on the mobile side.
Others have suggested to me that the tablet sales will take off once enterprise buyers get around to buying them. The argument goes that people still have to do work and that PCs and Microsoft Office are how work gets done, and therefore Windows tablets are the logical choice for enterprise users.
But I see a couple of flaws in this logic. First of all, the numbers don’t support the argument. How can you possibly predict big sales when you can’t even generate modest ones, but even beyond that, there is no evidence that people want Windows tablets and in a world where people are bringing their own devices, that matters.
I keep waiting for Office 365 and SkyDrive, the cloud version of Office and SharePoint and Microsoft’s cloud storage solution, to be the saving grace here, but so far that hasn’t happened either and Microsoft’s mobile sales across phones and tablets remain bluer than blue, sadder than sad.
At some point we have to stop making excuses, and suggesting that sales will come if only we wait until the next upgrade. We have to look at these numbers and say that Microsoft’s mobile futility is simply its reality and the sales aren’t there and they aren’t coming either.
Photo Credit: Ron Miller. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
May 31, 2013 1:09 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Too many people don’t want to hear the mounting evidence that the cloud is perfectly safe.
Last week I wrote about a panel I saw at MIT CIO of IT dinosaurs who were clearly afraid of the cloud and cited every bit of FUD that came down the pike. This week, I’m pleased to say I came across a survey of actual cloud users that found that once customers use cloud services, they find most of those fears and concerns are unwarranted.
The survey was sponsored by Computer Associates and conducted by Luth Research and Vanson Bourne of 542 organizations in the US and Europe using various types of cloud services –infrastructure, platform and software– for a year or more. That last point is particularly important because these folks had taken the plunge.
But what the survey found was that for the most part people were highly satisfied with their cloud experiences including security. In fact, the survey found that a majority of respondents were worried about cloud security with 46 percent citing security as the most important factor holding them back from moving a particular app to the cloud. The other top reasons were privacy/legal (34%) and “certain apps are too core/critical to our business” (28%).
Yet interestingly the survey also found that those who had actually moved applications or services to the cloud found the cloud security met or exceeded their expectations a vast majority of the time with only a small percentage saying it failed to meet expectations. The numbers praising the security were actually quite impressive with 98 percent finding it met or exceeded expectations and this was across infrastructure, platform and software service offerings. Indeed, the report stated that when people asked why this was so, almost a third responded that security had not been as big an issue as they had thought it would be.
And while the chief concern of cloud naysayers is always the security risk, what this survey found was when people actually use cloud services, they find that the cloud is not as risky as they believed it was.
As with so many assumptions when it comes to cloud, there is this built in bias that the cloud is inherently less secure than in-house. When you think about it, cloud vendors live and die by the level of security so if they had breaches on a regular basis, they probably wouldn’t be in business very long.
Vendors can cite their security credentials until the cows come home, but it’s hard to convince someone is sure it’s otherwise.
That’s what’s so telling about these results. Many of these folks still share some of those of same beliefs. They move x (email, CRM or file syncing) but they won’t move Y (mission critical app whatever). Yet when they get experience with cloud vendors for the non-mission critical aspects of their businesses, they see that the vendors really do know what they’re doing.
Once a customer experiences success with one aspect of the business, it only makes sense that others will follow as they reap the benefits of moving swaths of their data centers to the cloud.
You might not be able to ever persuade the person who’s truly convinced that the cloud is less secure, but the data continues to pile up that it’s just not true, and sooner or later the FUD we’ve been hearing for years, and were still hearing last week in Cambridge, has to fade away.
Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo
May 24, 2013 7:43 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
I didn’t expect IT pros at an MIT conference to have such old-fashioned notions of cloud computing.
You would think a technology conference at MIT would be full of cutting edge and cool discussions, and for the most part you would be right, but in one instance earlier this week at the MIT Sloan CIO Symposium, I witnessed IT dinosaurs and I was more than a bit surprised by that.
During a session on the misnamed, evolving cloud agenda, I saw a lot of regression instead. I heard IT executives dismiss cloud with tired old arguments, ones that as one colleague put it later, he thought we were long past.
As you would expect the participants suggested:
- The cloud wasn’t secure enough
- It was nothing more than mainframe computing in a different package (It’s not; one was about scarcity; the other is about infinite supply)
- You could get stuck with a cloud vendor (As though that never happens with on-premise licensing schemes).
- Hackers will attack. (As though you’re safe from that behind a firewall)
- User passwords are weak so it is therefore less secure.
In fact, we heard every bit of cloud FUD ever generated over the last five years.
What we didn’t hear in a cloud forum in 2013 was one person actually singing the praises of the cloud as a viable, cost-effective, secure alternative — and that included the CIO of a cloud company.
I’ve been to MIT CIO conferences on and off over the years and I recall one back in 2009 that was all about the cloud. That was because back in 2009, the cloud was still a relatively new concept and CIOs were just getting their heads around the idea of putting data on somebody else’s servers.
Sure, people had been using Salesforce.com since the turn of the century, but that aside, conceptually most CIOs were just coming to grips with it — and at the time that was completely understandable. Yet even then, I heard cutting edge folks talking about cool projects like military-sponsored private cloud setup — even though we didn’t call a private cloud back then.
As I wrote on Daniweb at the time, Rear Admiral Elizabeth Hight, vice director of the Defense Information Systems Agency explained her system. “Hight explained how the military has set up a flexible set of cloud services that enables people in the field to set up and break down a project very quickly, a must in a military situation. Hight said they have a secure system and they are able to provide their constituents what they need on the fly.”
There was more than a bit of irony when Hight talked about her military operation in the cloud and a drug company executive on the same panel complained that the cloud wasn’t secure enough for her organization.
Fast forward 4 years and you have a conference with an innovation theme, a hot topic for CIOs these days as they grapple with trying to staying relevant in a digital world of rapid change. And yet we have a panel full of industry represenatives complaining about the cloud as though it were some new concept worthy of their fear and contempt.
That we are still having this discussion at one of the centers of technological excellence in 2013 is surprising to me, but it was even more incongruent when MIT professor Andrew McAfee bounded on stage for the wrap-up keynote right after the cloud panel discussion ended, and waxed eloquently for 10 minutes or so on the power of digital transformation.
I wonder if the panel participants got the message or if as I suspect they didn’t listen. If not, their organizations will surely suffer as the industry shifts rapidly before their eyes and they are left holding the 2009 IT playbook wondering what happened and how it all got away from them.
Photo Credit: epSos.de on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
May 20, 2013 6:30 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
SAP is making a big bet in the cloud.
SAP, the quintessential big enterprise software company is making a big change. It’s going all in on the cloud, and as the New York Times reports, it’s a move that could alienate some of its enterprise customers.
SAP doesn’t seem to care. There is no “innovator’s dilemma.” It recognizes the future is in the cloud and its firmly aiming its business in that direction. This is in stark contrast to companies like Microsoft and Adobe, which have made nods to the cloud, but haven’t really fully embraced it.
Adobe turned some heads recently when it announced it was dropping the boxed version of Creative Suite in favor of a product they were calling Creative Cloud. It sounded very much like they too were going all in on the cloud, leaving the world of physical software behind, but when you dig a little deeper, you see that it’s not really a cloud suite at all. The main applications of the suite like Flash, Dreamweaver and Photoshop actually are downloaded and installed on your desktop.
As Roo’s mother might have said in Winnie the Pooh, “Roo dear, if the applications are on the desktop, it’s not really a cloud application.” Sure, it has file sync and share and some other cloud pieces, but at its core it’s a desktop subscription service, not a cloud at all, and what appeared to be a brave, even bold move by Adobe isn’t that brave or bold at all.
Similarly, Microsoft talks about the cloud a lot and it says what you expect a cloud vendor to say. Heck, at the SharePoint conference in November it was encouraging customers to go to the cloud version of SharePoint even if its customers weren’t necessarily ready to go with them. But again a closer examination shows this isn’t cloud at all, it’s a fully hosted version SharePoint, same as the one you install in your data center. The only difference is the location of the software.
It’s important to note that Microsoft does offer some pure cloud services in that it owns Yammer, a cloud company it bought last year and it has Azure, which appears to be a pure cloud development platform, but it also throws around the term when it’s not always appropriate.
But now we have SAP saying they’re a full fledged cloud vendor, but can we believe them anymore than the others? I think we can because the evidence points to a huge cloud investment in the form of 7 data centers around the globe and 30,000 computers put to bear on the project for starters.
That would suggest a company that is serious and not just talking the talk and indiscriminately throwing around the term “cloud” for the marketing points it gets from it. The New York Times article even suggests that SAP could be building out infrastructure services that could put it in direct competition with Amazon Web Services.
It always gets interesting when established companies go after the disruptors and try to beat them at their own game. Amazon has a built-in advantage in a significant head start and an acute understanding of the cloud that can only come from a company that’s been built from the ground up as cloud vendor, but SAP brings enormous resources to the table.
Right now SAP appears to be doing and saying the right things, but whether it can make the transformation into a pure cloud vendor remains seen. But it sure should be fun to watch it try.
May 13, 2013 12:59 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Bill Gates recent statement about tablets proves how little Microsoft understands the market.
Last week, I was more than amused to read the statement from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on CNBC about iPad users. While trying to promote Microsoft Surface tablets, Gates’ reportedly told the cable news station: ” A lot of those [iPad] users are frustrated. They can’t type, they can’t create documents, they don’t have Office there.”
Sorry, Bill, but that’s just a completely twisted and confused view of tablet usage in general and iPads in particular. The fact is, if we wanted a laptop running Windows and Office, we would buy one. A tablet is a touch device and as such it’s a totally different animal. While we are still learning how to use it as a content creation device, what we need is a little more imagination about how to take take advantage of the new computing approach, not a return to Windows and Office.
But this statement was revealing in itself because it brings to the surface, if you’ll pardon the expression, the whole problem with Microsoft’s tablet strategy.
They say all the right the things (most of the time) and they sound like they really get tablets, but the fact is they don’t, not even a little bit and the statement from Gates illustrated this better than any discussion of their corporate strategy ever could.
I’ve used Windows 8 and Office 365 on a tablet for instance, and Microsoft has not tuned it to the tablet experience at all. The Windows 8 front-end tiles make sense, but once you get past that into Office 365, it’s the same Office as you’ve always known on the desktop with all its complexity and no attempt whatsoever to exploit the fact you’re on a touch device.
I found myself frustrated trying to use it with my finger as a touch application until I connected a bluetooth keyboard and mouse. So to that extent Gates is right. It really is frustrating using Office on a tablet. But that’s because it’s still essentially a desktop computing application moved part and parcel to another device. There has been no attempt on Microsoft’s part to push itself to redefine Office for the touch experience — and frankly it’s exasperating and baffling. Why wouldn’t you do this unless of course, you don’t understand the new computing model.
As John Blossom wrote on Google + about the update to Windows 8 called Windows Blue, “Microsoft remains attached to the notion of installed software, period. Yet, at the same time, it’s trying to move its customers into cloud-based apps. It has an inherent conflict of interest in this mix,” Blossom wrote. Blossom’s right and what he writes is applicable to Microsoft’s tablet approach. It can’t let go of the old model, even as it tries to move its customers to a new one.
All of this tends to dent their credibility when Gates starts talking about what iPad users might want, and it’s just embarrassing to have your Chairman sounding like a 90s has-been on TV grumbling about iPads, and how what users really want is a return to the days when his company controlled the computing experience, all installed on the hard drive or server.
I’m sure he wishes that’s what most users still want, but so far, there is absolutely no evidence that people want Surface tablets or even that tablet users want a keyboard and a copy of Office on their tablets. That’s may be what Bill Gates wants and what the company he helped found hopes happens — but that’s very different.
The fact is the market has shifted in a dramatic way and Gates moaning on TV about it, only makes Microsoft appear desperate and out of touch.
Photo Credit: batmoo on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
May 7, 2013 8:40 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Mobile devices clearly make workers more productive.
Last week I was traveling covering a conference and over breakfast I read the Wall Street Journal (the paper version). I came across this article, Why Aren’t Smartphones Making Us More Productive? I was concerned. Why aren’t they? Then I read the post and realized it was rubbish.
Of course, smartphones and other mobile devices are making us more productive. Maybe the Wall Street Journal writer needs to find some different sources or maybe economists are having a hard time measuring productivity using whatever tools they have, but make no mistake, it’s happening and it’s like a slow train moving out of the station. It’s going to gain momentum as people figure out new ways to take advantage of mobile devices.
Look at just about any field and mobile has disrupted traditional business. Taxis? How about Uber, which is has driven traditional taxi companies to distraction because it’s much more efficient. You open the Uber app on your smartphone, order a taxi and watch as it comes toward you in real time on a map. It beats standing on a corner with your arm raised trying to get a cab driver’s attention. And it works. People love the service because it’s customer-centric.
How about travel? Take a look at Airbnb, a service that connects travelers with people who have rooms or apartments to rent. Using a mobile and social model, Airbnb lets you search for a place to stay, contact the owner directly and make arrangements. The price is set beforehand, so there are no surprises. The social comes into play because you can rate and comment on the quality of the stay and the accommodations. And it’s working too because it’s so simple and it provides a person-to-person direct link that only mobile devices can bring.
And mobile changes the dynamics in interesting ways for other businesses too. Box customer Sunbelt Rentals, for example, went from a system of using paper binders to using iPads running a custom version of Box. Gartner analyst Karen Shegda reported at a Gartner Portals, Collaboration and Content Summit session last week, that the company saw a 66 percent increase in leases after switching from paper to the iPad and custom app, and reported an astonishing 181 percent return on investment.
Shegda went on to say that Gartner estimated that within 2 years, 20 percent of salesforces will be using iPads. Given the productivity increases of Sunbelt Rentals, it makes me wonder what the other 80 percent are waiting for. One thing I’ve noticed about iPads is that they are a perfect sales tool because they don’t get in the way of the human interaction between individuals. The iPad is a tool that smoothly integrates into the sales process.
And if you get past the selling to the sale itself, you can expedite the process by filling out whatever forms are required and getting an electronic signature on the spot. It’s fast and relatively painless and it’s all done while the customer is ready to buy.
These are just a few examples. I didn’t have to cherry pick them either because there are countless other stories of massive increases in efficiency and productivity being extracted from mobile. Why the Wall Street Journal can’t figure this out is a little baffling to me. The irony is that after saying mobile wasn’t living up to its promise (however you define that), the writer went on to give several examples of his own of mobile productivity increases.
Mobile has the potential to change many different aspects of the business process. All it takes is some imagination. Companies which are reluctant to take the leap may find themselves leap-frogged by the competition or that users simply find more efficient mobile tools on their own.
The bottom line is that smart mobile apps make your workers more productive, no matter what the Wall Street Journal may think.
Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo
April 26, 2013 10:25 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Apple needs to innovate to sustain growth.
I’ve been studying a lot about disruption recently, and one thing is clear. Everyone gets disrupted eventually –and in the digital age the likelihood is accelerated dramatically. So it should come as no surprise that after more than decade of dominance, Apple is facing disruptive forces in several of its product lines.
What will be interesting to watch is how Apple reacts to that unusual position, and if they can continue to innovate in an increasingly hostile environment.
It’s no secret that investors have lost favor with Apple as the stock price has gotten whacked over the last several months, even though evidence from their earnings call this week shows a company that’s still very strong, but getting squeezed on its margins. The focus for many was on the fact that Apple had a reduced year over year profit for the first time in memory, even though its sales figures were actually up year over year.
Apple is still selling product like nobody’s business (literally), selling 37.4 million iPhones in the quarter compared to 35.1 million a year ago. As for iPads? They sold 19.5 million iPads during the quarter, compared to 11.8 million a year ago.
All in all, by just about any measure it was still a healthy quarter. Would you rather have sold almost 38 million iPhones or 4.4 million Lumias? Just saying.
Meanwhile sales of Macs were flat, but as CITEworld editor Matt Rosoff pointed out on Twitter, flat is a whole lot better than the precipitous 14 percent drop for desktop PCs in the first quarter.
The trouble with eye-popping numbers is that it’s hard to sustain year after year, and this especially true as more and more interesting devices compete for our attention. As James Kendrick wrote this week on ZDNet, Apple needs to get its game on in the smartphone race because the iPhone is beginning to look a little dowdy compared to its competitors.
Steve Jobs is not walking through that door.
Same is true for the now venerable (that’s polite for having been around a long time) iTunes. As BusinessWeek reported, iTunes is facing pressure on a number of fronts, especially from streaming services like Spotify (a personal favorite) and rdio. While iTunes changed the music business when it came out, the iPod, which drove that part of the business, is a device that’s well past its prime and people aren’t as interested in owning music anymore. The article quoted, Ted Cohen, a recording industry consultant, who put it this way: “It’s no longer about individual tracks, it’s about access,” says Cohen. “The concept of buying music at 99¢ a song is becoming irrelevant,” Cohen told BusinessWeek.
Overall though, Apple still appears to be a healthy company, but what they can’t do is rest on their past successes and think they can continue to produce at the same level. Sustaining the kind of growth they’ve been on is not easy and probably unprecedented. To continue to grow with shrinking margins, they will need to expand the product line in new directions while updating popular products like iTunes and the iPhone to appeal to the changing tastes of the marketplace.
Tim Cook hinted that there would be new products and services coming in the Fall and throughout next year. I can’t imagine sitting still and getting complacent, but they cleverly plucked low-hanging fruit with the iPod, the iPhone and iPad; recognizing that nobody to that point had done a good job with these products.
Finding similar areas to exploit moving forward is going to be harder, but if Apple hopes to sustain its growth trajectory, it needs to start innovating and fast.
Photo Credit 1: Dick Thomas Johnson on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
Photo Credit 2: thetaxhaven on Flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.
April 16, 2013 7:51 AM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Apple still has plenty of brand clout, as lines last week at the release of the $99 iPhone 5 showed.
I was chatting with a friend regarding Tiger Woods before The Masters this past weekend, and about how we were both rooting for him to do well — even though truth be told, I’m not much of a golf fan. When he was on top, it probably wouldn’t have been the case. Seems we love to hate the top dog, which might be what’s happening with Apple these days.
Seems everyone is quick to look for any sign that Apple is decline. But there’s perception and feeling and there’s reality and as much as the press seems to be hell bent on hating Apple, people just keep buying their products in dizzying numbers.
And if you wanted proof that Apple still has some brand clout, consider that on Friday, T-Mobile began offering iPhone 5s for $99 and saw lines, yes actual lines, outside their retail stores.
Apparently even T-Mobile didn’t expect this. As Wayne Rash reported in eWeek, the stores were unprepared for the popularity of the offer and just a bit overwhelmed. Apparently, they hadn’t dealt with the passion of Apple buyers before.
What those lines proved was the Apple brand still has plenty of reach and people are still willing to wait in a long line to get the Apple product. Samsung may cleverly make fun of those lines in their ads, but the fact is people have so much brand loyalty when it comes to Apple, they are willing to do that and if the T-Mobile experience is any indication, that still hasn’t changed.
Yet, people want to believe Apple is in decline in the worst way, the same way they wanted to see LeBron James and Tom Brady and so many other successful atheletes taken down a notch. Once they win, it’s human nature to want to give someone else a chance.
So now, it seems Apple is the brand everyone loves to hate because it’s so successful. But if it’s true that the youth market is the leading indicator of product popularity, consider that Business Insider reporting this week on a Piper Jaffrey survey of teen mobile buying habits, found 48 percent of teens currently own an iPhone and 62 percent (that’s almost two out of three) plan on buying one when they purchase their next phone. Just 23 percent want an Android according to the Piper Jaffrey survey.
All of these numbers suggest that perhaps, Apple is doing just fine after all and and the perception that it’s in decline could be more wishful thinking than actual fact. It may be indeed that Apple can’t keep up with the growth trajectory its been on these past several years as more competition enters the market and margins get squeezed as the markets mature, but even the strongest Apple hater would have to admit the company is still doing pretty well.
If people are willing to stand in line for iPhone 5s long after they were released, and if rumors are right, not far ahead of the next release, the brand still has some cache even though a lot of you probably wish it would just go the way of Tiger Woods.
Photo Credit: (c) Can Stock Photo
April 9, 2013 12:38 PM
Posted by: Ron Miller
Facebook as the center of your mobile life is a non-starter.
After Facebook made its Android announcement called Facebook Home last week, my first reaction was “this is nuts,” but I decided to let it sit. After almost a week, I still think the idea is a non-starter.
There are so many reasons this is a bad idea, but let’s just explore a few of them.
* Who in their right mind wants to have Facebook as the center of their phoning lives? Zuckerberg made it sound like a feature that my friends’ information comes up on my phone, even when it’s locked. As my colleague Wayne Rash pointed out, unless your socially obsessed, this approach isn’t for you. Is the latest George Takei ditty so fascinating that it can’t wait for me to open the Facebook app and see it? I don’t think so. Facebook just isn’t as important as it wants us to believe.
* Aside from the fact that Facebook thinks I want it at the center of my life, when I don’t, there are other reasons to leave Facebook safely locked in the browser or an app. I don’t want Facebook having access to my entire mobile life. It’s bad enough, the amount of information Facebook has on our lives, do we really want to give it control of our mobile phones? Om Malik thinks not. I’m inclined to agree.
As Malik wrote, “In fact, Facebook Home should put privacy advocates on alert, for this application erodes any idea of privacy. If you install this, then it is very likely that Facebook is going to be able to track your every move, and every little action.” It’s a scary scenario and no thanks, Facebook.
It’s precisely the reason if I were a Bing user, I wouldn’t add Facebook search to my results. I don’t want Facebook and Microsoft sharing all this information about me and how I search and what I do on Facebook. It’s bad enough that Facebook knows what it does, I’m not giving it any more ammunition from my mobile phone. No thanks.
* It’s a blatant power grab of the Android platform. Why would users who choose the Android platform for its openess, give that up to Facebook? The fact is most people wouldn’t. As Alexandra Chang put it on Wired, ” It isn’t a phone made by Facebook. It’s something better than that, and in some ways, more important: a deeply integrated application with its hooks set tightly into the Android platform. Think of it as an apperating system.”
With this move, if people actually did it, Facebook would get the best of all worlds. It would attack Google at the heart of its OS by taking it over before you even get past the lock screen. Great for Facebook, but for users, not so much.
Facebook Home is Zuckerberg’s wet dream of what he wants the mobile experience to be — centered around his service while weakening a key competitor in Google in the process, but this isn’t some teen dream about mobile. It’s reality and nobody in their right mind other than the completely Facebook-obsessed (and even my teen has backed off from it a great deal) are going to go for this.
This makes great theater for tech journalists like me and we love the drama of the announcement and watching Zuckerberg grow as a pitch man, but this approach is a non-starter and I’m predicting right now it’s not going anywhere.
Photo Credit: Kris Krug on flickr. Used under CC 2.0 Share Alike/Attribution license.