Checking in on smartphone and Twitter usage

Over at Rubicon, we just did a quick consumer survey to check the status of a couple of hot topics in the tech industry, smartphone adoption and use of Twitter. I thought you might be interested. Here's a summary of what we found, and links to the full articles:

Smartphone adoption: RIM leads. In the US, about 10%-11% of the adult population uses smartphones. RIM has just under half of the installed base, followed by Apple at about a quarter.

The users of different types of smartphone have different feature priorities. iPhone users rate web browsing as their #1 feature, followed closely by e-mail. RIM users rank e-mail the most important feature, Palm users choose calendar, and Google phone users are partial to mapping. The profile for Windows Mobile users is similar to RIM's, but less enthusiastic about e-mail.


Mobile phone feature priorities of iPhone users compared to all mobile phone users. Percent of US users ranking a feature in their top four.

I think this is more evidence of something that I've been saying for a while -- most people buy phones more like they do appliances than like computers. They decide which functions are most important to them, and then pick the phone that does those things best, rather than looking for the best general-purpose device.

That's not to say that flexibility doesn't matter at all, but it's secondary. For example, adding third party apps is the #4 priority among iPhone users, and close to tied with several other features. It will be interesting to see how the priority evolves as Apple continues to advertise the daylights out of the app store.

For the full article, click here.

Twitter is a form of entertainment. Usage of Twitter is rising very rapidly -- as of April, it gets more daily visitors than cnn.com in the US, according to Alexa.com.

Our survey showed that the Twitter user base has more than doubled in the last six months. About 10% of US computer users have tried Twitter so far, and about a third of those people have stopped using it. You can decide for yourself if that's a big number or not, but a certain amount of churn is inevitable in any new web service.


Twitter awareness and usage among US PC users.

Most Twitter users say they are casual users of the service, and that it doesn't play an important part of their personal or business lives. The most active 10% of Twitter users say it does play an important role in their personal lives, but not in their business lives.

The overall pattern of usage indicates that for most people Twitter is currently a form of casual entertainment. There's nothing wrong with that, but the future of Twitter will depend on how that usage pattern evolves. Will Twitter become as important as e-mail, or will it be a fad like citizens' band radio (link)? It's too early to tell. But it's already clear that it's a separate medium with its own rules. Companies looking to use Twitter should make sure they understand how it's used; it's not the same as blogging.

For the full article, click here.

The ugliest logo ever, but maybe it makes sense

Logo creation is a thankless task. Almost all of the interesting shapes and doodles were trademarked years ago. Unless you have hundreds of thousands of dollars to spend on artists and lawyers, and a lot of time, you usually settle on using your company name with no artwork at all.

Or you can take the approach adopted by the newly-formed Symbian Foundation, keeper of the Symbian OS:



Yes, that's really the new Symbian logo. I guarantee no one's going to sue them for it, unless it's the producers of the movie Juno:



I've already gone through a couple of stages of reaction to the logo. The first was horror. Not only is the font something out of 1974, but the color is one of the least popular in the world (step outside and count how many yellow cars you can see, or click here or here). I know I've seen uglier logos in the past, but I can't remember where, probably because I tried to block out the memory.

The discussion on All About Symbian has been amusing (link).

Once I got over my reaction, I reminded myself that the folks at Symbian are smart and very deliberate. Let's assume they have a good reason for choosing this logo. What would it be, and what would it tell us about the company and its business strategy?

The new Symbian is an open source software project. They need to appeal to open source developers, many of whom have a reflexive hatred toward slick and calculated marketing. After all, these are the sort of folks who, when allowed to choose their own logos, spontaneously chose a fat, stoned-looking penguin and a drunken ox:



The GNU Gnu Head and Tux the Linux penguin (link)
Tux drawn by lewing@isc.tamu.edu. Gnu head reproduced under the copyleft license (link).

To the open source community, Symbian has historically been kind of an antichrist -- controlled by some of the biggest tech firms in the world, bureaucratic, closed, and incredibly complex. If you're going to win over the open source crowd, you have to overcompensate by being excessively informal, friendly and "childlike." (That's Symbian's word for it, not mine.)

Here's how Symbian explains the logo (link):

It is a brand that’s human and playful and friendly, where you feel the human hand. A brand that enables you to discover unlimited creative possibilities, that wants to share and talk A brand that’s fun, that isn’t fixed, but free to constantly evolve. A brand that’s owned by all the people that create and build with Symbian. A brand that celebrates new ideas and creativity in all forms. A brand that’s truly alive and refreshingly different, because it is! A brand that’s human to the core and that underneath beats a human heart.

In other words, the slick and calculated marketing approach is to give the company the most artless logo imaginable. And from that perspective, I think they succeeded.

I am wondering, though, what they'll do when it's time to use the logo for something other than just decorating a website. OS logos are generally used as compatibility marks. In that role they need to be displayed on screen, and preferably printed on the back of the phone, to let the user know that he or she can run Symbian applications on the device.

Picture a meeting where the folks at Symbian try to convince a product manager at Nokia or Samsung or SonyEricsson that they should print that logo on the backs of their phones, or that it should be displayed prominently on the screen. I don't think it'll go over very well. And even if they did agree to include the logo, the tiny details in the lettering won't show up well when reduced in size. The logo just isn't designed to travel.

So Symbian app developers should ask how they'll be able to market their applications when Symbian OS users don't even know what their OS is. Symbian has never had a good answer to that, and I think the new logo doesn't move them any closer to solving that problem.

Maybe the assumption is that all Symbian phones will have application stores built in, so developers won't need to communicate compatibility. Maybe, but that will still put a big marketing burden on an application developer to explain model by model which phones their apps work on.

The bottom line is that any logo artless enough to please the open source community would be problematic as a marketing tool. As is often the case in marketing, you can't please all your audiences, so you can either be universally bland or you can optimize for one audience. I think the folks at Symbian decided that open source street cred is the thing they need most.

And maybe they're right.

Thoughts on the tech industry bailout

I presume the big topic of discussion at the CTIA conference this week is going to be the government's emergency bailout package for the tech industry. I was surprised this morning when US Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner replaced RIM CEO Mike Lazaridis at the CTIA keynote to announce the package, and ever since I've been scrambling to sort through all the details. A lot of it's still fuzzy, but here's what I've been able to figure out so far:


--The largest single element in the bailout seems to be the $20 billion in subsidies for Motorola. I think the biggest shock here was President Obama's decision to replace Moto's co-CEO Greg Brown with Steve Wozniak. "We tried to get Steve Jobs, but he demanded control over the Seventh Fleet as compensation," Geithner explained. "So we went for the closest substitute we could find. Besides, Woz was available since he just got kicked off Dancing with the Stars."

Geithner said the subsidies to Motorola were originally designed to protect high-paying phone manufacturing jobs in the United States, but then the government discovered that those were all outsourced to China a decade ago. So the government settled on a requirement that the guy who glues the bat-wing logos onto Motorola's phones has to be an American citizen. He has already been hired, his name is Joey Carbonic, he lives in Wenonah, Illinois, and the crowd at CTIA gave him a nice ovation when he was introduced during Geithner's keynote.

There's a rumor at the show that the government also agreed to buy 500,000 unsold ROKR handsets and give them free to poor countries as a gesture of friendship, but that was denied by a government official who spoke to me off the record. "We're trying to get people in those countries to like us," he explained.


--In the spirit of the forced mergers between failing banks, Geithner announced the combination of Sun, Sprint, AOL, and 3Com. Called 3Sprun and combining the best of all four companies, the new firm will specialize in Java-based 56kbps wireless modems.


--I haven't been able to confirm this yet, but Palm has apparently been offered $2 billion in loans if it adapts the Pre to run on biomass power and merges within 30 days with either Black & Decker, Digg, or SonyEricsson. Ironically, reports from Stockholm say that the Swedish government has offered SonyEricsson 20 billion kronor if it merges with Airbus Industrie, so we may get a three-way deal that would see Treos built into the seat backs of every A380.


--Geithner also said $40 billion in grants have been reserved for use by Yahoo and/or Microsoft. "We like to plan ahead," he explained.


Those are just the highlights. There are apparently a lot more deals being arranged, with venture capitalists and members of Congress competing to get subsidies for various firms. The most intriguing rumor so far is the plan to provide three Twitter accounts to every American as part of the stimulus package, to produce the illusion that the country's population has suddenly tripled. And then there's Cisco's buyout of Six Flags to advance the creation of networked roller coasters (hey, it makes at least as much sense as their purchase of Pure Digital).

I don't know how those will turn out, but things are certainly going to get more and more interesting now that the government has decided that the free market can't be trusted to run the tech industry.

By now you've probably realized that this is April 1, and like the extended iPhone survey last year (link), the Spitr announcement in 2007 (link), and the Google-Sprint merger in 2006 (link), nothing I wrote above is true.

I hope.

Watch out for RIM

Based on what you read in the press, you'd think Apple had conquered the entire smartphone market, or maybe that they invented it in the first place. But to me the most surprising story in recent smartphone sales isn't Apple, it's the continuing rapid growth of Research in Motion.

Check out the latest numbers from Gartner (link). As you know if you've been reading this weblog for a while, I have very little faith in third party market share numbers. They're compiled from shipments self-reported by the vendors, and are subject to all sorts of inaccuracies (link). But they do give a very rough picture of what's happening in the market, and the picture they've been drawing recently is mildly astonishing.

Nokia is still the smartphone share leader, with about 41% unit share. But that's down 10 points from a year ago, on a shipment decrease of about 17% year over year. RIM is number two, with over 19% share and shipments up about 85% year over year. Apple is in third: 11% share, up 110% year over year.

So, roughly speaking, in smartphones Nokia is about twice the size of RIM, and RIM is about twice the size of Apple.

I have to put a caveat on that. Quarterly share and shipment growth fluctuates a lot depending on whether a company has just introduced a new product or is clearing inventory in preparation for a launch. So you have to look at several quarters:


Unit smartphone shipments, worldwide, in thousands. Source: Gartner.

That gives a slightly less apocalyptic view for Nokia. It had particularly huge shipments in Q4 of 2007, so it's down year over year, but overall its shipments are flat rather than collapsing. RIM and Apple are both definitely growing fast, though, with Apple's shipments fluctuating a lot as it adjusted inventory before and after the shipment of the iPhone 3G.

But let's put this all in perspective. The definition of "smartphone" is very sketchy; the way Gartner uses the term today, it refers to basically any phone that has an externally-programmable OS in it. Nokia deploys the Symbian OS in all of its high-end phones, so they are all classified as smartphones. So RIM's not really beating up on Nokia's smartphones, it is currently out-growing the entire top end of Nokia's product line. Project out the current trends for a year, and RIM would be close to overtaking Nokia in smartphones. No matter how you parse the numbers, that's pretty amazing.


Why don't you just die already?

This situation is all the more surprising considering that conventional wisdom has said for years that RIM was doomed. First e-mail phones were just a fad, an extension of the pager market. Then they were just a vertical product that only a few specialized groups like stock brokers would care about. Then Microsoft was on the verge of destroying RIM (not once, but every time a new version of Windows Mobile came out). Then RIM was fated to fall into irrelevance unless it licensed Blackberry clones. And on and on...

Fortunately, RIM completely ignored conventional wisdom and stuck to its core business. The rewards have been immense. In its most recent quarterly report (in December), RIM had a revenue run rate of about $12 billion a year, up more than 60% year over year, and profit of about $1 billion a year. The company now employs about 12,000 people. For comparison, RIM's revenue is now about the same as Apple's was four years ago.

Companies with $12 billion in revenue aren't supposed to grow 60% a year, especially when the economy is gasping, so I'll be intensely interested to see RIM's next quarterly report on April 2. In this economic climate I won't take anything for granted. But keep in mind that Nokia is already making ominous noises about its sales (link), while RIM says its unit growth has been accelerating (link).


Face reality

I think the big message from these numbers is that the analysts and press have done a terrible disservice to all of us by creating the fiction that there is a unified smartphone market. That hides the real news. For example, IDG's writeup on the Gartner sales report focused on overall growth of smartphone sales and didn't even mention RIM until the sixth paragraph (link).

I use the term smartphone "market" here for convenience, but as I've said before, there really isn't a single unified smartphone market and there probably never will be, because different people want different things from their phones (link).

If you look carefully at the shipment numbers, this is blindingly obvious. The smartphones from RIM (and Apple) are differentiated products that have special features appealing to particular segments of users (RIM for e-mail fanatics, Apple for entertainment-hounds). They solve customer problems in unique ways that people can value, so their sales are relatively resistant to an economic downturn. Not immune, but I think they're likely to fall less than the others.

And since Apple and RIM serve different markets, they can grow rapidly side by side. One doesn't usually steal sales from the other.

But Nokia has never had a strong play with this sort of product. Most of its smartphones are bought as high-end mobile phones, purchased by technophiles and status-conscious people with money. When the overall phone market slows down, they slow down too.

The analyst numbers told Nokia a comforting fantasy that it was the dominant smartphone company, when in fact it was a very secondary player in the markets served by RIM and Apple. I think this let Nokia avoid the agonizing changes in product development that are required to make a truly differentiated smart phone.

Instead, Nokia has gone off on tangents attacking Google, Microsoft, iTunes, and just about every other target I can think of in computing. It's a bit like a guy at his home putting up wallpaper in the upstairs bathroom while out in the yard his car is on fire.

I continue to be intrigued by parts of Nokia's strategy, especially the Ovi services suite. Nokia will be able to push Ovi out to hundreds of millions of mobile phone users. In theory, that might be a very powerful way for the company to build a mobile data business. But it could be crippled if the most data-hungry users have already been siphoned away by Apple and RIM.


What happens to RIM?

The question about RIM is what are the natural limits on its growth. Not everyone wants an e-mail phone, although RIM has already stretched the market a lot more than I thought they could. But I think the bigger threat may actually be within the company. Beyond about $10 billion in revenue, a tech company starts to require different management techniques. There's enough going on that management has to delegate much more than it did in the past, and processes have to be set up to ensure quality work and smart decision-making in the lower reaches of the company. That transition is incredibly hard for the leaders of a startup to make, and I wonder if the bug-filled launch of the Blackberry Storm wasn't a symptom of a company growing beyond its processes.

On the other hand, RIM has such a long history of beating my expectations that I'm not going to bet against them again.

Speech recognition: Almost ready for mobile prime time

I've always wanted to see speech recognition incorporated into mobile devices. Since you don't have a big keyboard when you're on the go, you ought to be able to just talk to your phone and tell it what to do, or dictate memos to it and have it convert them into e-mails or SMS messages. In addition to being incredibly convenient, this would increase the safety of a lot of drivers. It's a spooky fact, but in surveys I've done more than 10 percent of the US population admitted to sometimes sending text messages while driving.

Not smart, not safe.

So, is voice recognition good enough to let you just talk to your mobile device and then send the converted text as a message?

I first asked myself that question a couple of years ago when I bought a copy of Dragon NaturallySpeaking and a small voice recorder. I tried recording weblog posts and other documents while driving, and then brought the recorded sound back to my computer to convert it into text. The result was a disaster. Dragon was unable to keep pace with the recorded sound in the files, and started dropping sentences, paragraphs, and eventually entire pages of spoken text. I was so disgusted, and so disappointed, that I gave up and went back to listening to sports talk radio while I drove.

Recently a newly appointed product manager at Nuance (publisher of Dragon) sent out a survey asking for feedback on the product. Unlike most product managers, she signed the survey form with her own name and with her own e-mail address. Most product managers wouldn't do that because they don't want to be overwhelmed with feedback. I don't know how much feedback she got in general, or how overwhelming it was, but she got a note back from me describing my problems with the product and explaining why I really wasn't satisfied with it.

I didn't expect to get any reply from the company; Nuance has a remarkably restrictive policy on providing technical support unless you pay extra for it. Usually, companies that do that aren't interested in getting any sort of conversation going with their customers. But to my surprise, I got a note from the product manager not only sympathizing with my problems but offering to send me a copy of the latest version of the software and a voice recorder that she said would work well with the software. I wish my weblog address hadn't been in my signature, so I would know if they do this sort of thing for every frustrated user. But anyway I took her up on the offer.

You can see the results here. I dictated this weblog post using the voice recorder, synced it onto my computer for recognition, and then corrected the (few) errors by hand. There are pluses and minuses to the dictation system. The good news is that the program can now keep up with my dictated speech. I no longer lose sentences or paragraphs of text. I'm also surprised with the way the product recognizes trade names, so for instance when I say Home Depot or McDonald's or Nike or Apple or IKEA or Lowes, Dragon gets the names correct and properly capitalized (I didn't have to fix anything in that sentence).

On the other hand it does make mistakes -- the packaging claims about 99% accuracy, which means that you should expect one word in every hundred to be incorrect. My guess is that I'm getting somewhere between 97 and 99% accuracy. That's not bad. In fact, it's pretty darned impressive. But in practice it still means you have to go back and do a lot of corrections.

The training is close to torture: reading aloud a 20-minute excerpt from a Dilbert book while trying to pronounce every word correctly. Later I tried setting up the program without any training, and it worked exactly the same. So my advice is to skip the training.

The software is not great at understanding where punctuation should be placed in the text. I have learned that I have to give grammatical guidance by saying things like "comma," "period," and "new paragraph" in order to make sure that the text will be reasonably well formatted.

If I just speak naturally the text will come out like this making it very difficult for anyone else to read and even making it hard for me to edit without punctuation inserted it is very hard to get tell where a sentence was supposed to end and another one start add in a few wreck cognition errors by the soft wear and the text is not something you would want to send to someone uncorrected

Speaking with punctuation is unnatural, and could be somewhat distracting while driving. I have to think carefully about the text that I'm dictating, and I believe for some people that could cause them not to pay enough attention to what's happening on the road. I think I can do it safely or I wouldn't do it, but it definitely is an issue to consider.

Overall, I think this approach will make me a bit more productive, so I should be able to produce a little bit more weblog content and maybe get some other sorts of things done as well.

So it's nice for me, and I finally feel like I got my money's worth from Dragon. But is the technology ready for broad deployment in mobile devices?

I think the answer is technically yes, but practically no. Mobile devices are casual-use; tasks that require too much commitment or effort just don't get used. Without careful attention to spoken punctuation, the software produces errors and the sort of run-on text you saw above. Even in a short message, I think it's likely that you'd get more mistakes than you'd find acceptable. Correcting those errors on a small screen with no mouse would be tedious at best (it's an annoying task even on a PC).

More importantly, the software is very sensitive to the quality of the sound file coming into it. I believe most phone microphones and headsets wouldn't produce the required quality. You'd probably get better results with a service that just records your speech and has someone in India retype it (such services exist today).

So, the news from the world of voice recognition is hopeful for mobile users but not yet wonderful. The technology is good enough that you can definitely use it as a substitute for typing if you have physical problems. It's also a useful PC productivity tool for someone who generates a lot of text for a living.

However, I think we're not yet quite at the point where you can just talk to your phone and have it reliably transform all of your speech into text. It's getting better, but it's not all the way there yet. For a mobile device, the dream of just talking is still a dream. But I do think it's a dream that's getting closer to reality.

===========

PS: I'd also like to compliment Kristen Wylie, the product manager at Nuance who responded to my message. Take notes, folks, this is the right way to communicate with customers online -- sign your real name, use an address they can respond to rather than a no-replies mailbox, and when someone has a problem help them solve it.

News flash: Microsoft lied

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" --Claude Rains, Casablanca

I'm a little late in getting to this item, but I recently came across James Plamondon's online confession that he lied while working as a technology evangelist for Microsoft (link). Actually, "lied" is probably the wrong word. James systematically misled and manipulated software developers, and enthusiastically taught others at Microsoft how to do the same. Some samples from his work there:

Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function... "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them). "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting from their early involvement in our technology....

Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling out, so that makes them very prickly to work with....

The key to stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the panel....Sounds marvelously independent doesn't it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our cause....

Get a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity comes up. Since he's well-known, but apparently independent, he'll be accepted....

A Jihad is a road trip. in which an evangelist visits a large number of ISVs one-on-one to convince them to take some specific action. The classic Jihad is one focused on getting Tier A ISVs to commit to supporting a given technology by signing the technology's Letter of Agreement...As in sales, the purpose of the exercise is to close – to get the mark the ISV to sign on the dotted line, in pen, irrevocably.

The Role of ISVs
* Pawns in the struggle....
* Valuable pawns
o We can't win without 'em
o Must take good care of them
* Can't let 'em feel like pawns
o Treat them with respect (as you use them)

Developer Conferences....
* Subvert independent conferences
o Love them to death

Developer Magazines
* Same as developer conferences
* Infiltrate and subvert

You can see the details here. Be sure to skim the comments at the bottom. They're a hoot.

Speaking as someone who led the competitive teams at Apple and Palm for many years, I guess I ought to get worked up about this stuff. But mostly I think it's just old and tired. The whole "Microsoft is evil" theme is kind of pathetic these days, like the trial of an 85-year-old mobster. Yeah, I know, they deserve everything that Google's doing to them. Let's move on.

It's also not really news that a lot of analysts and conferences are on the take. For the record, you should always understand who's paying the bills when any "authority" talks.

I'm usually not moved by someone who apologizes only after being exposed in court and abandoned by his employer (link). But I'll take James at his word that he's trying to make amends.

Apology accepted, James.

That doesn't mean, though, that I agree with his prescription on what the industry should do about the situation. James says the best way to prevent a recurrence of Microsoft's misdeeds is to set professional standards for evangelism:

Microsoft...is this week launching its first public volley in the Mother of All Standards Battles, to control the de facto standards of cloud computing. For Microsoft, this is a life-or-death struggle. When Microsoft's back is to the wall, can it reasonably be expected to refrain from using the TE tactics that it KNOWS will help it win, if its use of those tactics is unrestrained?.... This problem can only be treated, I believe, by professionalizing TE, and thereby inoculating platform vendors against unethical TE practices. That's why I felt compelled to come forward now. Only now have I realized how wrong I was, and by coming forward now, in the opening skirmishes of the Cloud Computing Wars, I can begin to make amends for my past wrong-doing.

James is even writing a book on what he thinks those professional standards should be. That ought to be an interesting read. Maybe Amazon could do a two-for-one offer with the Martha Stewart Guide to Ethical Investing.

But I think the real problem isn't missing standards, it's missing morality. I believe James was able to thrive at Microsoft because the company's hypercompetitive culture condoned dishonesty, as long as you didn't get caught in public. Everybody in the industry believed they worked that way. I think the problem wasn't just in Microsoft's evangelism, it also included the company's marketing, business development, and so on.

Unfortunately, they're not the only company in the tech industry that thinks that way.

The real cure here is not to read a book or professionalize anything. Just take a course in business ethics. Or better yet, save your money and memorize this rule:

Never mislead a customer or partner.

And if an appeal to morality isn't enough to move you, keep in mind that even the cleverest liars eventually get outed. Just ask James Plamondon.

(By the way, James, if you really want to make amends, how about sending the royalties from your book to the stockholders of the companies you damaged or destroyed?)

==============

Thanks to Andrew Shebanow for pointing out this issue, in a cool little essay here.

The Palm Pre: Think Similar

Palm died. Palm OS died. Get over it.

Now let's talk about this new company, and product, that happens to be named Palm. I don't know if they'll survive or not, but they have a chance, and they're definitely interesting.

That was my overall impression after visiting Palm at CES 2009. The differences started with the meeting room itself. Rather than shelling out for a (very expensive) booth, Palm had an upstairs display room off the show floor. That in itself is not unusual; companies low on money often take a display room at CES so they can have some sort of presence at the show. Usually they get very little traffic, because you have to make an effort to find them.

But there was a short line outside Palm's room. A friend and I got into line, and the Palm folks asked us for our business cards. They went away for about 30 seconds, came back, and pulled us both out of line. "You can go right in."

I'm not sure why they did it, since neither of us are VIPs. But somebody was screening the cards and pulling out anyone whose name they recognized. That was the first sign that I was dealing with a different company -- although the old Palm was pretty well organized, that level of attention to detail would have been unusual.

The second difference came when we entered the room itself. A display room at CES usually is an empty space about 40 feet (13m) or more on a side, with one big presentation screen, some chairs, and a couple of demo stations along the walls. You can take in the whole thing in 30 seconds. Instead, Palm had divided its space into almost a maze, with little meeting rooms (lined with couches) and corridors, all set off by gauze curtains. Along the "corridors" were abundant food carts (with servers, another unusual touch), and small stations where employees were giving continuous Pre demos to groups of up to about a dozen people. You could get very close and intimate with the device, although no touching was allowed.

It felt like a technology harem.

I don't think the old Palm would have decorated quite like that, let alone shell out that much money for exhibit space in a time of layoffs and financial stress.

The presenters were extremely well briefed and disciplined, although they didn't feel robotic. They showed the features they wanted us to see, and wouldn't be baited into going further. The overall impression of the space and staff was extreme design consciousness, a bit of opulence, and intense discipline.

Very un-Palm-like. More like boutique Apple without the rock star CEO.


Think Similar

The theme continued in the product. The Pre does not look like the Treo or any previous Palm product. If anything, it looks like an iPhone with some of its limitations fixed. The design of the hardware, graphics, the fonts, the way things move on screen, and the touchscreen gestures are all elegant, and reminded me intensely of the iPhone. You can even do a pinch gesture to shrink and expand things, which I thought was patented by Apple (this shows why I'm not a lawyer).

Unlike an iPhone, you can run multiple applications at the same time and switch between them. There's a thumb keyboard built in. The battery can be replaced. The APIs are supposedly based on web standards, so many people should be able to program the Pre without learning a new OS. Palm says it will have a software store built in, but the app approval process won't be as restrictive as Apple's. Palm will also apparently allow companies to port other platforms, like Adobe Flash, to the Pre, which addresses another iPhone drawback. (There's a comparison table between the iPhone and Pre here, but it focuses mostly on hardware specs.)

In contrast to all the iPhone references, it's very hard to spot any Palm legacy in the Pre (other than the company logo). The calendar still compresses unused hours, which was one of my favorite Palm features. But literally that was the main similarity that I noticed.

The device won't run current Palm OS apps, although I think Palm is open to someone porting a Palm OS emulator to the device if they want to. But I don't know how you'd operate those apps without a stylus. The browser is based on Webkit, so no more Blazer (yay).

The design of the interface looks nothing like Palm OS. Palm's old design ethic was all about sacrificing beauty in order to produce maximum utility. The result was often extremely efficient but plain (okay, ugly). The new Palm treats aesthetics like Apple does -- the device has to be useful, playful, and beautiful. That's incredibly hard to design, but apparently Palm has imported enough Apple talent to pull it off (or at least to make the demos look good).


Will Palm survive?

Prior to CES, it was fashionable for a lot of people online to predict Palm's imminent demise. That was a misreading of how the world works -- we technology insiders lose interest in a brand long before the public does. Palm still has a strong name, and it will get a good hearing in the market.

So the real question is, is the Pre good enough to make Palm profitable? I think it's too early to answer.

For one thing, we can't touch the product yet. The canned demos were incomplete -- I didn't see the dialer or the software store, for example, and I don't know details of how the product will sync. The SDK hasn't been released, so we don't know what it will be like to create apps for the device.

But my biggest concern is about the strategy, not the product. I'm not sure who the customer is for the Pre. Dr. Rob Enderle took time off from diagnosing Steve Jobs' medical condition (link) to tell a San Jose radio station that the Pre is a better e-mail device than the iPhone and a better consumer device than a Blackberry. Which is probably true, but misses the point -- it's probably a worse entertainment device than the iPhone (because it doesn't have iTunes) and probably a worse e-mail device than RIM (because it doesn't have RIM's server infrastructure). So who exactly is it best for?

Mobile devices that sell well usually have a well-defined market of people who look at them and say, "that one's perfect for me." The Pre is intensely elegant, which intrigues aficionados like me, but there aren't enough of us to make a lasting market. Beyond that, it's apparently perfect for people who want a compromise between a Blackberry and an iPhone, but don't need the best of either. Who are those people? And are there enough of them to make a business for Palm? I honestly don't know.

I guess the old Palm installed base might be a first source of customers, but many of them have moved on. Although there's a lot of enthusiasm on the Palm discussion forums (for a wonderfully detailed article, check here), longtime Palm users don't appear to have a lot of compelling ties holding them to the new device. Their old apps won't work, and they'll have to learn a new interface. Usually when a company makes a transition like this without backward compatibility, the user base reads it as an invitation to consider alternatives. Palm cannot take them for granted -- and even if it could, they alone are not enough to sustain the company.


What it means for the industry

Regardless of whether Palm survives, I think the Pre does some important things to the industry. It's the first smartphone that matches the iPhone on overall UI aesthetics, and it fixes many of the drawbacks of the iPhone. Other smartphone companies will be under pressure to match the Pre's features. Mobile companies like Samsung and Motorola, which lack software expertise, look increasingly vulnerable to gradual share erosion.

I'm very hopeful about the application development model for the Pre. By basing its development model on web standards, Palm apparently will empower the world's vast base of web app developers to quickly create Pre applications. If Palm implements the APIs right, that is a very smart move. It aligns Palm with the forces of the web, and might even make Pre the preferred mobile development platform of the web app community.

I don't know if that alone can make the Pre a success -- mobile devices usually build a base first with a particular function and then branch into apps. But it gives Palm a much better shot than it would have had if it tried to create yet another proprietary platform. The brass ring in the mobile app world is getting the attention of the web app community, and Palm now has a shot at it.

Google, are you listening?


What to do if you're a user

Wait.

We'll learn tons more about the Pre as it gets closer to shipping. Apple's undoubtedly working on new iPhone products (I'm betting on a smaller device, like a Nano version of the iPhone), RIM's getting the Storm debugged, Nokia is finishing the N97, and there are rumored to be more Android devices coming.* If you're thinking about getting a smartphone, you're going to have a great selection later this year. Hold out until you understand more about your choices.

__________

*There are probably some more Windows Mobile products coming too, but does anyone care any more?