The Motorola Droid is a Turning-point

First, a confession. As a co-author of Android Application Development http://www.amazon.com/Android-Application-Development-Programming-Google/dp/0596521472 and Chief Architect of an IP communications platform based on Android, my main fascination with Android was based on the Android platform being the most exciting thing that ever happened to client Java and embedded user interface, and to open mobile communications platforms. The Android platform has that sense of perfect balance that I recall from when I first wrote software for the original Macintosh. I enjoy writing Android software even more than I did writing Mac software, both applications and extensions to the Android system software, and I hope a lot of other people will like it, too, which is why I enjoyed spreading the Android software development word through a book.

Using an Android handset was, however, something I did to get work done. So far, the only new-generation smartphone platform that made me want to use it on my own time was iPhone, or, rather, iPod Touch. iPhone, as a phone, was just not that compelling. This gap between Android technology and desire is echoed in others' opinions in the form of pronouncements that Android is the “cool, but geeky” platform. That gap has now closed.

I just got a Motorola Droid, and, instead of a conventional review, I'm going to address the reasons why Android is ready not only to play a significant role in mobile devices, but to do that at the same level of play as iPhone. The Motorola Droid is the first Android-based product that needs no excuses when compared to an iPhone. This is the result of a lot of effort at Motorola to produce a very polished product, plus the maturing of the Android platform, plus some critical applications.

First, the maturing of the platform: Droid runs Android 2.0. For most applications, this won't make a critical difference, and most applications will be compatible with Droid, even if they have not been updated since Android 1.5. Android 2.0 mostly matures the underlying bits – how Android works as a phone, and how the other built-in applications work. Android is now a great phone. Android always had the better UI infrastructure in the Android framework. Now this superiority shines through in a way that should be obvious to the non-geek user.

Motorola did a great job building a product around Android 2.0. The CDMA radio and phone audio keep calls clear and connected. The TI OMAP 3430 CPU makes Android lag-free with buttery smooth visual effects. The touchscreen is big, sharp, accurate, and responsive. The speaker is clear enough to listen to podcasts without external speakers. The industrial design is better in person than in the pictures: It looks massive and square, but it's only slightly less rounded at the corners than an iPhone. It's iPhone-thin despite being a slider; the “frameless” keyboard is friendly to my large fingers and has good feedback. It comes with a 16 GB memory card.

Integration with your Google account is effortless. 20 paces out of the Verizon store, all the 4000+ contacts in my address book were synced and ready to use. And if you have 40,000, you won't have to wait for them all to sync before using them. Sync is a background task and contacts appear in the UI as soon as they are in the handset's database.

There are plenty of competent platforms and industrial designs out there. If that was all there is to it, Nokia would have no worries. The real news in Android is that Google has made it an object of desire, and applications are a big part of that. The tipping point was Google Map Navigation, which makes in-car navigation a feature of Google Maps, but that's not all: Google Listen is second to none for podcast management – which is a lot of what iTunes gets used for. YouTube is, of course, slick as can be. Facebook comes pre-installed and is also very polished. Google Sky Map is an augmented-reality planetarium in your pocket. And on and on. Now there is an amazing and desirable Android app for that.

Android is a new system and it is maturing and improving at a faster pace than iPhone, Symbian S60, or Windows Mobile. There is no feel of a legacy tail dragging behind Android. Applications are impressive and numerous. The app store is simple, fast, and clear. And, while Android is an even-better platform for application developers with the release of SDK r3, Android is no longer just interesting technology.

I used to work in the games business, and the thing about games as products is that features and technologies don't matter if the game isn't fun. Similarly, all the architectural virtue in Android doesn't amount to more than replacing Windows Mobile in the market unless customer say: “That's what I really want.” Motorola's Droid is the first product that can be put on a table next to an iPhone and win the decision entirely on the basis of what the customer sees and experiences within minutes of using it.

And that is a turning point.

The One-page Guide to Google's Plan for Winning at Applications and Operating Systems

Google wants to enable Google applications to run as well as possible as many places as possible. Here is how:

Google applications: Web applications run in browsers, on all kinds of systems. No need to be installed or updated, and hard to block. Anyone with IE, Firefox, Safari, Opera, or, of course, Chrome has access to all the latest applications.

Gears: Web applications run in a sandbox and don't have much access to your system. Gears enables more access. Applications are still in a sandbox, but the Gears-enabled sandbox is bigger, and can persist. This frees Web applications from having to be connected all the time.

GWT: The Google Web Toolkit (GWT) is a radical abstraction of of the browser runtime environment. GWT applications are written in Java and compiled to JavaScript. The GWT library provides fixes for incompatibilities between browsers, as well as a rich UI library.

Chrome: Google's browser. Chrome provides the ideal browser runtime environment for Google applications. Fast JavaScript execution. Separate processes for each Web page.

Chrome Frame: Chrome Frame puts the Chrome browser inside Internet Explorer. This shows the lengths Google will go to in order to give Google applications the best possible runtime environment is as many situations as possible.

Android: Android is a Linux-based OS for mobile handsets and other devices. Android has exploded in popularity among handset manufacturers. This is Google's first win in computing platforms, and Google influences the software “stack” all the way down to the hardware. Android has a Webkit-derived browser.

Chrome OS: Chrome OS is meant for things larger than handsets. Chrome will be Google's attempt to bring a Linux-based OS and Web-based applications to netbooks and PCs.

Google's strategy is comprehensive: Control the software all the way down to the hardware where possible, and, if that isn't possible, be compatible, and maximize capabilities, on every possible platform.

Google's strategy is also technologically coherent: Java, Linux, Webkit, SQLite, Eclipse, and other common components are reused across multiple Google products and platforms. You can expect Google to contribute to and influence the development of these key ingredients. You can also see some design philosophy in common across Google products. For example, Android runs Java applications in multiple tasks, and Chrome runs Web pages/apps in multiple tasks to make these systems resilient to apps that crash.

While Google's applications, like Gmail, are proprietary, Android, Chrome, Gears, GWT and many other components of Google's strategy are open source software, many with permissive licensing that would not preclude competitors from using them. Open source builds confidence in Google's partners and in software developers using Google platforms.

Google's strategy has formed recently and moved quickly. It can be hard to perceive the impact. As fast as Google is implementing this strategy, you can expect a similarly fast emergence of an application ecosystem around Google's strategy. This will be one of the most significant developments in software in the coming years.

How a Customer's Question Frames the Definition of 'What Does a User Interface Architect Do?'

My title is Chief Architect, and the short description of what I do is that I designed the mCUE user interface and telephony middleware systems.

That's not a very satisfactory description for several reasons:

1. The product named mCUE is difficult to pin down: “Unified communications” and “middleware” are industry terms calculated to form meaning in the eye of the beholder.

2. When people hear “user interface” they think “draws pretty pictures”

3. The term “architect” is also nebulous – what is there to architect in a user interface? It's just presentation.

So, when asked, what can I say about the job I do? Recently, a customer's question brought the description of what I do in focus, and also helped clarify the nature of the product I designed. The question was:

How do you ensure consistency of customer experience from platform to platform?

The question was asked because we showed the customer our product in a very portable implementation that depends only on a reasonable Java VM and a small subset of the Java AWT classes, but they needed our product in an environment that requires use of that platform's UI classes and application framework. Why, in this new implementation, should they expect it to work like what they evaluated and liked?

That question gets right to the heart of what it means to design a mobile user experience, and, indeed, right to the heart of the whole project that I have been working on.

My work here started with discussions I had with D2 Technologies' founder David Wong, who is a pioneer in voice over IP technologies (VoIP) and DSP software, on the proposition that VoIP user interfaces were low-quality compared to mobile user interfaces, and that nobody had really thought about VoIP user interfaces the same way as mobile user interfaces.

That is, nobody had thought of VoIP user interfaces as a really important part of the product. VoIP users were fewer, and had fewer options than mobile users. VoIP users were generally enterprise users, accustomed to ill treatment by user-hostile software. VoIP user interface was immature because the resources applied to it were small, and the stakes in the market were correspondingly small. What if we took it seriously and put more mind-share and resources into it than our competitors? Could we make a breakthrough in VoIP user interface and, perhaps, ride that up the value hierarchy to a place among mobile handset technology providers, especially as they found they needed IMS endpoint technologies?

That is how the project that became the mCUE product started at D2 Technologies. It was about VoIP, but, specifically, about what we hoped would be the logical next step for VoIP endpoints: Instead of desk sets that tried to look like PBX phones, VoIP would logically be moving to mobile handset form factors and use WiFi to connect to VoIP systems.

That VoIP user interface market, however, proved to be too small even for a specialist company like D2: WiFi handsets are, still, a tiny fraction of VoIP endpoint market share, and desk sets are still saddled with crude user interfaces. Nor could we make an immediate jump to providing IMS endpoint technology. Only tier-1 OEMs were active in defining their IMS endpoint architectures, and these were mostly prototype efforts.

Nevertheless, we changed our design goals to aim at the intentions of IMS: To make every mode of communication a first-class citizen in the mobile endpoint. And, beyond that, we realized that IMS is not the be-all/end-all of mobile communication. We also made every service a user might want to use a first-class citizen alongside the mobile network. That is, we made IP communication in all modes and media able to either replace, as in a purely VoIP system, or stand alongside mobile service, without relying on an IMS network implementation to aggregate every conceivable IP communication service.

And that gets to the answer to our customer's question: How do we ensure consistency of customer experience from platform to platform? The answer is: we have to, otherwise we could not implement our goals. We must make a new “world” of communications objects that replaces the call-state management in a conventional mobile handset with a model of communication that encompasses all modes, all services, and all networks. And, if user interaction with this much-expanded communications model is consistent in all implementations, the user experience is consistent, no matter the UI toolkit we use to implement the presentation of the user experience.

So, what does an architect of mobile user interfaces do? He makes a model the user is comfortable manipulating, and presents that model in a consistent way across multiple platforms. This sounds a bit general, but aspects of this task are especially critical in mobile user interfaces: The mobile user interface is inherently a multimedia user interface – it used to be almost entirely presented as audible call progress tones and the billions of users of telephone systems worldwide have a strong expectation that the conventions of a telephony user interface and a mobile user interface will be preserved in an interface that brings in other modes of communication.

The mobile interface itself cannot be pulled in new directions very easily, yet assumptions have to be questioned: What, for example, can be done to enhance the task of starting a conversation? On-hook dialing was invented to keep the user off the precious resources of the mobile network until the last possible moment. Now that always-on data connectivity is inherent in VoIP networks and widely available in mobile networks, the “don't touch resources until you absolutely need to start signaling the network to connect a call” assumption is obsolete.

A mobile user interface designer not only makes the presentation of the user experience, he has to be able to design the model manipulated by the interface, and he has to know about the network, and even the business of operating the network, to make a presentation, a model, and a consistent set of functions that work together. And he has to know it all well enough to know the difference between a rule you have to observe and a rule you have to break in order to innovate.

This seems daunting. It is, at least one of the most interdisciplinary pursuits in software design. It is full of both constraints and opportunities. If you are unaware of the constraints you will make mistakes that make you look amateur. If you are unaware of the opportunities and what it takes to exploit them, you only advance by luck. The reward is that good work in mobile user interface design expands your mind the way few tasks can in the increasingly specialized world of software design.

Does PA Semi make sense now?

About a year has passed since, in 2008, Apple acquired PA Semi, a fabless CPU maker with some success selling a high performance, low power 64-bit PPC CPU in embedded systems, for $289 million.

To put that number in perspective, it is less than half what Intel got for its Xscale product when it sold that to Marvell in order to get out of the ARM CPU business.

Apple immediately withdrew commitment to PA Semi's road map and notified PA Semi's customers they should not consider their supply of chips assured. Apple's investor relations put the acquisition into the category of small-firm acquisitions Apple does not feel obligated to explain in detail. In other words “move along, nothing to see here.”

But, of course, there is plenty to want to see: Sun crippled themselves by keeping a CPU business alive too long. Apple shifted CPUs twice in desktop products, from 68k to PPC and finally accepting that nobody can compete with Intel in the high-stakes game of general-purpose CPUs. So what is this dalliance with CPU designers? Is Apple losing the hard-won focus Jobs fought to restore? Is Apple really going to use three different CPU architectures in its product line?

At the time of the acquisition, Intel's Atom had still not found a market: Too power hungry for mobile handsets. Microsoft's UMPC had flopped. And first attempts at netbooks were not a success. Now, however, both markets and technologies have sorted themselves out, and we can discern if this acquisition makes more sense.

PA Semi is a second act for a serially successful founder, Dan Dobberpuhl. Ex of Digital's Alpha and StrongARM projects and founder of SiByte, which was sold at a handsome price to Broadcom, PA Semi is solidly in the first tier of what is a remarkably vital if not very visible market of CPU vendors based on licensed architectures (and novel ones, too, mainly in the area of multicore systems), mainly sold into embedded systems.

That's an important bit of background because it highlights the fact that Apple did not necessarily buy PA Semi to launch a system with a PPC CPU. Dobberpuhl and his team would be as wizardly at making an ARM, MIPS, or even x86 CPU as they would using the PPC architecture. The likeliest target for Apple is to come up with a variant of the ARM architecture with unique performance advantages.

The market has also evolved: Atom is the basis for the success of netbooks. Apple is locked out of the low-cost netbook market because the price points and margins are even harsher than mainstream PC products. Linux has become slick enough to gain customer acceptance in netbooks. Windows 7 got a bit quicker. Android successfully launched despite lackluster hardware and T-Mobile USA's struggles to get out of the lower tier in the US market. More recently, Android looks likely to go up-market from smartphones into a tablet/netbook form factor.

Everyone is gunning for iPhone, and Web access on-the-go is creating new product categories. Apple needs to be able to create a winning product in the Web-pad/netbook categories, and it looks like the PA Semi acquisition will be part of providing Apple with a truly unique advantage where other players are buying their CPUs from Intel or TI, or from makers of mobile SoCs, like Qualcomm.

This is made plausible by the fact that this low-cost/low-power CPU market cannot be dominated by Intel's unique ability to spend mind-boggling sums on state of the art fabs. The model for this segment has been established and refined by ARM and its biggest licensees, like TI. Apple, therefore, does not risk falling into the same trap that chasing architectural advantage in desktop CPUs led to.

In this case, there is no trap, but an opportunity: There is a seam in the market that runs between Atom performance and ARM power-efficiency. It is a complex seam that isn't just about CPU architecture, but also about compilers, operating systems, peripherals, drivers, user interface and SDKs. And the seam is multidimensional: It is not just between Apple and Atom and Windows 7 on cheap netbooks, but Android and larger-than-smartphone devices as well, and with Linux, in the form of Moblin and Netbook Remix also looking to become a threat.

If Apple can give themselves a unique advantage in hardware, with a uniquely powerful ARM or other CPU architecture, sufficient to overcome the netbook price/margin barrier, Apple is uniquely well-placed to provide a continuum of software, from desktop to smartphone and all points in between. If they fail to do this, Apple will give up the potential to create as much value in the emerging Web-pad and netbook segments as they created with iPhone.

Yo mama is a PDA

What is a smartphone?

Frequently, the question comes up “What is a smartphone?” Usually, this question is mixed up with other questions like “What makes a good phone UI?” and “Why don't all phones use a smartphone OS like Windows Mobile?”

The confusion comes from the fact there are “good” or “nice” UIs that can be classified as smartphones, like iPhone, and clumsier UIs that are clearly in the smartphone category, but that are hung up on a design legacy that prevents them being competitive with products like iPhone. Are they all smartphones? Do we need more categories? What about the Linux-based 3G phones in Japan? What about Android?

The PDA design legacy

The idea that handheld devices need an operating system emerged long before mobile handsets became the dominant handheld device. It emerged before one could expect all devices to include a wireless network. It emerged before Web browsing and Web applications became central to handheld device use cases. It emerged before we had a choice between a circuit switched voice network and packet switched data networks. It emerged before the disaggregation of communications services and network access.

Handheld device operating systems originated with PDAs. There are several problems that arise from this design legacy: PDAs started out as non-network-connected “sideloading” sync-oriented devices for carrying your contact list and schedule around with you. Was that even a good idea to begin with? Evidence is, no: The worldwide market for PDAs is less than one tenth of one percent of the mobile handset market. But, like some string of selfish DNA with a will to survive, PDA operating systems began to infect mobile phones.

An awkward relationship

This was never a satisfactory combination: PDA phones were heavy, expensive and sucked batteries. Some PDA users were happy with the ability to keep a large contact list and a synchronized schedule with them, but folding up Microsoft Outlook and putting it in your pocket is not a goal for most people.

The smartphone has had a long, slow growth trend in the market. Only three smartphone OS suppliers remain, one of which is on life-support, one of which can afford products that don't turn a profit for many years, and one which has as their almost-sole customer the largest handset maker in the business

The new need for a better phone OS

We are now long-separated from PDA use cases as key drivers of handheld device UI design. Multimedia, the Web, and a diverse combination of IP and mobile communication on multiple networks, using multiple services now drives the requirements for handset user interfaces. This is why old school smartphone OSs are facing new competition: It was easier for Google to make Android than it would have been to turn Palm OS, or Symbian and UIQ, into a platform that meets Google's requirements for a mobile device OS.

The new requirements:

• An OS that is non-exclusive, cheap to license, and adaptable on my schedule, not the OS vendor's.
• An OS that brings the Web front and center in the user experience. The “mobile Web” is a crock. Everyone wants the real Web.
• An OS that is undemanding of the user: Direct manipulation, touch connected to action, no multi-step operations, no “dialog boxes” - communication is not like filling out forms. In other words, it can't be harder to use than a non-smartphone, and it can't be less intuitive than a media player's UI.
• An OS that accommodates new forms of communication while retaining the simplicity of the mobile phone. Access to all of our modes of communication, all of our networks, and all of our services are converging into one device. The next phone UI should not make this a burden on the user, but a benefit to the user.
• An OS that makes presence central to the user experience. The “start page” of your phone should tell you about your contacts' availability.
• An OS that makes non-verbal communication a first-class citizen in the user experience. All forms of messaging should be treated uniformly, and a single interface should organize all messages.

None of these top requirements existed when PDAs were designed. Your to-do-list is not the most important thing for your mobile device to display. Your calendar is important, but it isn't central to communications tasks.

It is also worth noting that no mobile device meets all these requirements, especially not the communications-oriented requirements. The PDA heritage is being discarded, but what will take it's place? This is, as yet, unclear.

The new wave of smart device operating systems

Symbian (plus UIQ or S60), Palm, and Windows Mobile are the old-timers of mobile device operating systems, and the reason they are under attack from a new wave is that they cannot shake off their PDA heritage. Nokia is making the best of it by putting Symbian on some very capable hardware. But if you want to know why Nokia's amazing phones are not challenging the iPod, Symbian and S60 are the prime suspects. You simply can't build a user experience that is competitive with iPod using a platform born from a PDA (Yo mama!).

So what do we call the new arrivals? Android, the newest arrival, puts the question into focus. Android does away with most of the clutter of the PDA-style interface in favor of a friendly application “dock.” Sure, you could build a busy, multi-tab, form-filling-centric application in Android, but that's not what Google has done. Android's map application is full-screen, clutter-free, and all about direct manipulation. So is Android a “smartphone?”

I, for one, welcome our new Android overlords

I would venture to say that Android's creators hope it isn't thought of by end-users as a smartphone OS, even though it is targeted to the same big-screen hardware platforms as Windows Mobile. Android is for everyone who wants to surf and search on the go, not type-A email addicts who need to check their to-do list every time they glance at their phone. If you have the goal of building a better communications tool for everyone, don't look in a businessman's hip-pouch. You won't find it there any more than you would find inspiration for any consumer mass-market product there.