So its the context for me. For example if I have broadband and write a few letters and some other documents then a cloud Document application will be all I need but if I am writing War and Peace 2 then I am going to need something more specialised.

For the me the strength of the cloud is rapid and wide deployment across platforms, including mobile. It has great potential for interactivity on the go. But for something more specialised something else is needed.

This debate btw has been really useful, I’ve been looking at how servies are catorgorised and its really helped sharpened my views.

Cheers

Stu

I am in agreement with you that you can make great user experiences with mobile web apps – i just disagree with richer.

I disagree quite strongly with your last paragraph in particular it depends entirely on the interaction. Something we haven’t touched on at all is why do you want to use a mobile device in the first place? My own interest is really in looking at why we go mobile and in that respect this is where the opportunities lie.

When we are mobile we work differently our expectations and requirements are different. Quite often we don’t need the depth of interaction or want it that a desktop experience offers us. So in that respect why code solutions that are not needed?

There is huge potential for cheaper low powered devices offering rich interactions. I would challenge your view by giving the example of the learning service I developed which recently won an international award and is designed to work on lower powered devices up.

The key thing for me is finding the right tool for the problem. Sometimes that will be a app, sometimes the cloud and sometimes it won’t be mobile at all.

Cheap phones – don’t have the processing power of higher end phones by definition – and Javascript based applications need more processing power than compiled native applications.

Cloud applications are only now working on the desktop because of the amount of processing power that desktop machines can muster.

Users of cheaper phones are also more price sensitive to any network costs – so need data and UI cached as much locally as possible. Network communication should also not be bloated HTML but only the data – this saves on bandwidth and processing of responses.

The curve for mobile devices will never reach communications that are comparable with the desktop. Communications will get faster – but there will always be blackspots and congestion with mobile data. A mobile web based experience will always have variable response times – because there are too many factors that cause the problems.

I would like it to be otherwise but I can’t see any evidence that mobile communications can become as reliable and predictable as desktop communications – unless there is a way to get around some of the laws of Physics. Buildings interfere, vehicles interfere – other mobile devices interfere.

If you want to deliver solutions for as many people as possible (including the guy on the Tube and the nomad in the Gobi) – then solutions can not assume a good connection is always available and must cache data and UI locally.

If you want to work with slower and lower powered devices – then you can’t expect them to keep working with interpreted languages such as HTML and Javascript – they need compiled code specific to the application they want.

But more importantly than that I don’t see the consumers getting excited about it. Oh sure the geeks are but the people I’ve met with iPhones outside of that circle use them pretty much as is and don’t really have an interest outside of that.

That’s where its a disadvantage to be a passive device. If it was a production tool then users would want to push boundaries but it isn’t its a sit and watch or listen device and most people I’ve seen with it are happy at that.

Now I may well be wrong but I’ve yet to see evidence to contrary. Apps will be a niche market for a niche device. Given that it carries a high price already then it may well be that developers can make a nice living from it, since customers will have high income anyway and that’s all good.

One area I can see contradicting me will be games. Its got good potential as a gaming device and that may lead to extra interest in greater interaction but it hasn’t generally with gaming so far.

I think as Cloud computing gets cleverer and connectivity improves it will provide a challenge to the Apple App model. Browser based applications or specialised downloads al la Yahoo Go or BBC News etc already allow far cheaper phones a richer experience.

You talk of the copy-cat devices – I think all the copy-cats have a problem. Relatively the touch screen and UI are easy to copy but how do they copy the App Store?

The App Store is the key here – and there is no reason why Apple won’t make use of it on other iPod’s and on (future) lower-end iPhones.

But do Nokia have an existing direct relationship with consumers that allows them to charge for components? Would people be prepared to start a relationship with Nokia like that? Would the operators let them?

OHA/Google have launched the Android market-place – but it is not as easy for developers as the iPhone App Store – they must negotiate with each operator. Consumers will also find the lack of quality control an issue. I think Android is a beautiful technical platform – but basically the same old business model.

Now if Nokia partnered on the App Store with Amazon and just gave a fixed cut to operators (as Apple do) – then they might be on to something.

Now this isn’t a negative criticism of the iPhone, as far as I can tell given the construction of the device that’s something it lends itself to quite well. E.g no bluetooth, no video camera etc..

No doubt there are apps out there that challenge that but I’ve yet to meet those outside of our Geeksville who is doing that.

And lets think about the iPod tag. I grew up calling our vacuum cleaner a ‘hoover’ – pretty common when I was younger but we never owned a ‘hoover’ but the brand had become synonymous with the product. However it wasn’t the only option and actually this is a problem for dominate brands – look at how Google try to stop people ‘googling’ because it devalues the brand and can ultimately threaten trade marks legitimacy etc..

The iPhone is expensive and restrictive – only one supplier per country but the proof of pudding is in the sales and clearly enough people want one. That should and has made others sit up and we are starting to see the reactions. First there is mimicry – everyone has a touch screen but already we are seeing improvements, such as the inclusion of the haptic feedback on Android and the 5800. Of course consumers don’t care about this directly but it adds to experience and is indicative that the hardware and software suppliers are increasingly aware they need to make the interface easier to use.

At the price of the iPhone I would be concerned to see a big focus on the device in education and for it effectively to be given tax funded advertising. We need competition, especially in the current climate.

However, without a doubt its part of the equation and I am excited about the influence it is exerting and as companies like Nokia respond with the experience to drive price down then I am hoping we are going to see some good things and some exciting innovations – on lots of platforms.

I’m also surprised about the kind of people who own an iPhone. But it’s still sooo restricted because of cost and operator tie-in. Are all those friends of yours on O2, or did they shell out £400 for an unlocked one?

I do think that you underestimate the ability of Apple in the mobile market place – the current iPhone is still too highly priced for consumers – but Apple always need to move down market. Just look at the iPod story it is not too far fetched that Apple can’t replicate this in consumer smartphones.

I mean the phones that people buy because they want to do something more with their phone – the iPhone brand is now ahead of the Blackberry brand in this area.

I have been surprised by how many of my friends know of or have a iPhone – and the stories of the things they use it for are far more exciting than any I have heard from any ‘normal’ Symbian or Windows phone.

Can I just throw in a few thoughts? As you know, I’m also on the side of ‘content over platform’ in many ways (or device-agnostic, as Stuart calls it), but if we expect one mobile platform to come out on top in the next few years, we’re deluding ourselves. There are just too many factors in the whole ecosystem.

Apple are not in the lead because they attract developers with having the most consumers. They just have the best distribution channel at the moment. It’s easy to sell your content through the AppStore, and it’s reasonably easy to develop content that looks nice, because the iPhone SDK helps you along the way. I’ve seen plenty of awful iPhone apps, which are held together by the nice built-in UI libraries, which make Apple products a beauty to use. That’s what they’ve always been about.

Comparing Apple with any other technology product has always been slightly flawed, because they are so unique in their approach. They keep everything close to their chest (even manufacturing now, with the new Aluminium MacBooks), so they have maximum control over everything. They cater for a small(er) market, and they do it well. But mainstream they will never be, because there will never be another phone running the iPhone/Mac OS. Fact. So to provide mainstream learning on that platform means every learner has to have an iPhone/iPod.

Android, well, it’s been a bit of a damp squib so far. Awful marketing of the G1 meant bad sales from launch. Don’t forget it has also been really bad timing for launching an expensive product, with the bottom falling out of the economy! The people I’ve spoken to who like the device are geeks, basically. And Al, consumers don’t care whether it says ‘Android’ on the box. That doesn’t mean anything to them. It’s early days indeed, but for us to even think of it as a viable platform for mainstream education is more to do with the fact that we are mobile geeks. If it didn’t have Google behind it, we wouldn’t care a bean about that phone, would we?

Another pet peeve of mine is that ‘open source’ thing. Google. Products. Are. Not. Open Source. They’re free, but you don’t get the source, which would really mean flexibility and ‘democracy’ for developers. One day Google might start charging for all this stuff – because they can.

Symbian is now open source, and the next Flash mobile platform will be free for manufacturers to licence too (at last). Oh, and there’s LiMo too. So many fish in the pond, and some of them are *very* big, like Nokia.

The iPhone has given everybody a big kick, but they’re not sleeping. Nokia are pushing services like Ovi and ‘Comes With Music’, which will give iTunes a good run for their money. Not because it’s better, but because there are so many more Nokia phones out there.

Sorry about the rant, would love to hear your opinions.

And Stuart, re: owning the desktop web, Google do, don’t they…?