Running On Fumes

Despite reporting an operating loss of over 1 billion dollars, Nokia managed to pull off a feat to mollify the investors - 1 million Lumia Windows Phone device sales. That’s actually quite a respectable result considering the device has yet to make a showing in markets such as North America and Australia.

But aside from that, Nokia’s future doesn’t appear to be looking any brighter than it was a year ago, in fact maybe it’s even a little bleaker. What Nokia use to have in the market was exclusivity and scale. The tandem of those two factors ultimately led to Nokia’s commanding success. 

Nokia has neither of these two factors today, aside from the exclusivity of being a 100% committed Windows Phone partner, but really that’s only working for Microsoft. The N9 running Meego Harmattan was certainly an exclusive, but with the promised commitment to run full steam with Windows Phone, Meego Harmattan’s potential may never be realised, or at most, a peripheral pursuit. 

Of course, it’s not like Meego Harmattan had a big chance anyway.

And scale, is something Nokia simply can’t obtain given the R&D required to build any good smartphone, especially if you’re Nokia and really trying to deliver with a bang. Nokia’s now signature polycarbonate shell in the N9 and Lumia 800, 900 models is a feat of engineering that simply couldn’t have been achieved if the company had floored it and delivered a tsunami of Windows Phones in generic form factors and hardware variations. 

The only segment where any economy of scale is possible, is in feature phones, once Nokia’s money-reeling gem but now declining precipitously in developed markets. Of course, there’s still money to be made there, and with most cellphone vendors relaying their focus to encompass smartphones 100%, Nokia is really in a position to take full control of the feature phone market. But there’s a reason why the world and the industry is stepping with both feet into the smartphone pool, it’s because not doing so would be committing to a world that will cease to exist in a very short time.

For Nokia, it’s even more crucial than this. As a company undergoing a brand image overhaul, investing excessively into feature phones would do nothing but hamper Nokia’s planned course to become viewed as a forward thinking company. Consumers can’t think of Nokia and see number keypads anymore.

Aside from the fact that Nokia no longer has significant leverage in the development chain to pump their business anymore, there’s also the issue of getting consumers to sign a contract to their phones which run on a platform that hasn’t gained the amount of traction that the company probably thought it would. Aside from getting the nod from reviewers, consumers are yet to see the great value proposition in Windows Phone.

Sure, 1 million sales exhibits promise, but it’s early days. The company has most likely skimmed the piece of market that gravitated towards Nokia in the first place, but from now on, it’s war and Nokia needs to pose some real fight - not only to lure consumers away from the eminent iOS and Android, but also to funnel them away from the other Windows Phone vendors in HTC, LG and Samsung among others.

The latter, an easy task that the company should win, but the former being a spectacularly tall order.

It stands to beg the question of why Nokia didn’t pursue the Android paved path in the first place. I can imagine it being an appealing option, Nokia’s acclaimed hardware quality and design paired with an OS that has solidified its position in the marketplace. It’s always nice to be on a winning team. But Nokia took a risk with Windows Phone, as a consumer I applaud the path they’ve taken, and from Nokia’s vantage, I would’ve done the exact same thing. 

Success in Windows Phone will yield a significantly greater reward that would be irksome to supplant, whereas success with Android would simply be providing another option, as opposed to a different option. 

It’s an uphill climb from here, and by sucking dry their loyal customer base in the first million sales, Nokia is essentially running on fumes. But since when is business not an uphill battle?  Build beautiful things, make sure people know about it and you can’t really go wrong. 

Also on A Pony For President

TECHGEEK.com.au - Windows Phone 7 is far from dead

Check out my article on TECHGEEK.com.au in response to 'Is Windows Phone's Consumer Focus Killing It?' published on Wired Epicenter.

"Wired Epicenter recently published an article on Windows Phone titled 'Is Windows Phone's Consumer Focus Killing It?' It's certainly reasonable to propose that the consumer focus is a reason for Windows Phone's less than spectacular adoption, but to say that Microsoft's will to satisfy the end consumers to the highest degree possible will be a prominent cause in the platform's possible demise is pushing it much too far.

That's obviously not to plainly suggest that Microsoft taking a very Apple-like approach with smartphones isn't holding them back even slightly. It's a large reason for Windows Phone's general lack of awareness amongst phone shoppers, and the obvious lack of sparkle in Microsoft's Windows Phone lineup. Unlike Google with its Android operating system, Microsoft places strict hardware guidelines on manufacturers developing Windows Phones. OEMs are not permitted to have a screen resolution that is beyond or below 800 X 480 and processor requirements remain particularly strict and unmoving..."

The Social Factor

So, what is the social factor? The social factor is a collective term I like to use to describe a service or product that embraces active user engagement. User engagement not in the sense of poking and prodding said item physically, but personal engagement with a product and personal engagement between users. Thus, commenting and reviewing apps and music on iTunes can be coined as a product of the the social factor, communicating with Youtubers in a comment flame war is an element of the social factor and of course Twitter and Facebook among other social networks are examples of the social factor in its purest form - social networking.

The social realm has received a generous ignition recently, with the release of Google's own Google+ service as well as the revealing - not unveiling - of Microsoft's oddly named Socl service. It's a completely different landscape from not too long ago when the heavenly abode of social was occupied almost exclusively by Facebook and Twitter. Myspace was descending precipitously with the accolade of an also-ran.

Fast forward a few years, to now, and for the most part the social realm paints a fairly similar picture when looking at the colours of the raw hard numbers. Facebook dominates the social networking space with upwards of 800 million active users, and Twitter with a user base of more than 100 million still trumps that of a fast growing Google+. That's all not to mention actual user engagement, an aspect that Google+ has struggled to maintain following the pre-release hype.

Numbers don't count for everything though, and despite Facebook's considerable lead, Google+ isn't out of the game, and Microsoft Socl isn't dead on arrival. Far from it.

The term social networking is a particularly deceitful monicker given the image that most people have of what a social network is. To most people, a social network is simply what Facebook is - a platform for interacting with friends, and sharing content with friends. At that, Facebook's greatest value proposition isn't in the service itself, but the users that inhabit it. In such a business where the most effective way to get users, is to have users, anyone attempting to beat Facebook at its own games playing by the same rules will end up with a slap on the face and a disheartening, unsurprising disappointment.

Google+ and Microsoft Socl are both great platforms by their very own merits, they're not trying to be Facebook killers, and if they were, then they would quite literally be throwing an untrained army of 50 million against a heavily armed pack of 800 million. It's not possible. It will never work. It will never happen. Let's talk about Google+, and what this element of social plays for Google.

Jolie O'Dell of Venturebeat published a comprehensive article recounting Google's Bradley Horowitz's views on their very own 'social network', Google+. Initially, I assumed his general carefree aura on the, I wouldn't say failure, but perhaps under-performance, of Google+ could be none more than the typical cavalier executive talk. But, Horowitz revealed a vision for Google+ that not only negated my impulse expectations, but his trajectory for the Google+ was elegant and clever, bringing to light that the social factor has implications far beyond the superficiality of people interaction.

Google+ is all about an online identity, an online persona that we have - a virtual porting of our real selves. When you're able to put yourself into the products and services that you use, the seeming triviality of technology is put into perspective and given context. It transforms technologies that are passive, into an actively intricate emulation of our real social communications and inner selves. Essentially, even if social interactions form the core of what constitutes social networking and the social factor, it's greater purpose is to make technology that much more personal.

You see, it's basic human nature that we hold much more sentimental value to the things that are closest to our hearts. For most non-cyborg human beings, the 'things' that we are most emotionally attached to are the people around us, our friends, our family, our boyfriends, our girlfriends. Sure I'd cry if I dropped my phone off the balcony but I'd cry a heck of a lot harder if my mom died. I have a mate who was driving himself half bonkers because he misplaced a pen his girlfriend had given him despite that fact that there were many smoother and inkier pens lying around.

Taking into account this hierarchy of sentimental importance, it makes sense to integrate our personal lives into our products because it allows for a much greater degree of emotional attachment - a sly, but clever tactic to keep consumers loyal.

Microsoft Socl in many ways aims to pursue this same vision of a more personal technology, however aims to add more practical benefits to this.

I, as many are am a little spacey on the tid-bits and details of Microsoft's 'maybe not even coming into market' social network, after all, the only half-decent look we've had at it was when The Verge was granted some much appreciated hands on time. The interface design is fairly standard, calling upon the three column layout shared by Facebook and Google+. And Microsoft were not very creative with the colour scheme either with an eerily similar blue to that of Facebook's, though with a slightly lighter and perhaps more pleasant tinge.

A stand out feature though was something dubbed 'social search'. No, it's far from a revelation, but it shows what social is capable of, and why social is so important to completing a product ecosystem. Social search simply allows your friends to see the queries that you throw at search engines, with the hope that they'll be able to chip in too.

As experience should teach us, it's much easier to extract information out of knowledgeable humans than a knowledgeable website. Hence why we have teachers in classrooms as opposed to a Google homepage. With social search, a Microsoft Bing search has potential to provide better results than a Google search.

What's more, for Microsoft, social search finally allows them to put that tortured little Bing to good use, and as a moral boost, Microsoft can finally start telling people that their foray into search wasn't completely absent of fruits. Microsoft have reiterated that search is an important field that they needed to be involved in, and social search certainly does give it something to show for - a fully integrated Microsoft experience. Without Google. And social search gives Microsoft's Bing a reason to be, because currently, aside from the flashy backdrop of good photography - which, let's be honest is only remotely interesting for those who don't know what they're searching for before they arrive at Bing - Google's a better bet anyway.

The social factor is inarguably invaluable in providing a good ecosystem. Apple tried and failed with iTunes Ping, which demonstrates that even Apple is aware of the capabilities that the emotional and personal attachments of social can have on a consumer.

Aside from providing an online identity as Google+ aims to provide, Google+ unifies Google's too-many-laned highway of products into a flowing single vertical. By having a basic identity tied into all that Google provides, it allows the consumer to act as an umbrella over all the Google services they use and leaves them less chance to drop one, forgotten in the rain. It gives the user more control. Furthermore, Socl social search exemplifies the single greatest thing about the social factor by allowing a company to tap into their single greatest asset - the users themselves. 

As Windows 8 propels Post-PC

Not too long ago, Microsoft pulled the wraps off the developer preview of its next generation operating system. I say 'next generation' intentionally as opposed 'next' because Windows 8 truly does signify a revolution for not only Microsoft, but personal computing as a whole. With Microsoft's pre-beta release of Windows 8, I can say without hesitation that computing is without doubt driving head-on into the age of direct manipulation computing, or 'Post-PC' if you like.

Anybody who counts Microsoft out as being an influential figure for the next decade of computing would have to be incredibly short-sighted. Eric Schmidt pointed out earlier this year that he considered his gang of the four most influential consumer technology companies to be Google (naturally), Apple, Amazon and Facebook. Microsoft did not make it into his little clique. This itself would seem almost a mathematical impossibility when you account for Microsoft's market share in the PC arena and also a direct affront to the 'chain of command' given the many ways that Microsoft indirectly and directly affects the lives of people and companies around it. Sure, Microsoft doesn't have the strong-hold it had on multiple markets 5-10 years back, but heck, Microsoft has commanding, monopoly-enabling market share in PCs – and market share means power.

We've all seen Microsoft's success as an underdog, and their success has always coalesced with the idea of 'slow and steady wins the race'. And perhaps slow and steady manifests Microsoft itself as a corporation, an influential giant completely devoid of the agility of its start-up days. The world was sceptical about the Xbox when it launched, it took time to gain traction but Microsoft eventually broke through with the product and it is now the best-selling console in the United States. Windows Phone still sits at the bottom of the smartphone pack with a single digit market share to boast, but Microsoft are in no position to give up on Windows Phone (I'm glaring at you, HP). With Nokia paving multiple new pathways and opening new doors for the platform, there isn't much to justify the opinions of anyone who believes Windows Phone is going down. I can see why analysts are bullish on their prospects for the platform.

At that, there's no reason why we as the consumers shouldn't be bullish on Microsoft and its Windows 8 project either. By all intents and purposes if Microsoft decides to dump the Windows monicker in the same way that they dumped 'Windows Mobile' for 'Windows Phone' it would not be completely out of line. After all, the new OS does not look, or more importantly, feel like Windows at all. It's touch-friendly, it's intuitive, it's animated...it's fun. Microsoft made a big case for touch technology at its BUILD 2011 event, slanting heavily towards an ideology that touch is the future of computer interaction, and I agree wholeheartedly.

As we all are fully aware, Microsoft's approach to slates and tablets has always appeared as half-hearted, not bothering to put in the full effort to have an OS optimised for iPad-like devices with the belief that a powerful operating system could justify the poor ease of use. Consumer reception has likewise been half-hearted. Microsoft obviously overlooked the fact that the power factor of the full Windows experience is only sufficiently augmented with the presence of a keyboard and mouse. So when it comes to slates, looking at Windows 8, despite its often frustrating switches between interfaces it's relieving to see that Microsoft has managed to acknowledge the writing on the wall and subsequently put their heart in the right place.

I guess we can thank the iPad for its applications as an impetus for a stagnating PC market. I believe that people and innovators are the creators of their own fate - yeah I know it's corny and it's cliche, but it's true. The technology market, or automotive market or any market that thrives on innovation isn't and should not be bounded by the perceived limitations of eras or times. I get the feeling that people believe that things have to remain a certain way until a specific time comes that rings a bell for a revolution or an overthrow of the current. Perhaps a good example to illustrate this very point would be flexible display technology - we'd all love to see flexible displays right now and the prospects are exciting but there's always going to be the consensus that the concept is simply too far ahead of its time. I'm glad that Microsoft has shown the gut to propel the industry with a revolution in Windows 8, instead of yet another evolution of Windows 7 which would only vitiate the industry's implacable transition into touch and 'post-PC'.

Windows 8 is not a perfect operating system, it's far from perfect and will most likely take a generation or two to eradicate legacy requirements which are by far its biggest gripe. I'm not predicting that Windows 8 will sell like hot cakes, will be insanely successful or by all means, not be a Vista. The developer preview of Windows 8 though is purely representational of Microsoft's trajectory, and the most I can say is that Microsoft have pointed their unwieldy ship in the right direction. They have proven themselves in the past that they are more than capable of winning a game slow and steady and have proven their ability to successfully leverage their assets and integrate tightly their cobweb of products and services. As far as I can see, these are a few crucial underpinnings for imminent success.  

As Windows 8 changes the rules of Apple’s game

It's been over a week since Microsoft opened up the Windows to Windows 8 at Computex. Windows 8 is undoubtedly the biggest and boldest step that Microsoft have taken with their ubiquitous Windows platforms. Big and bold doesn't always win, but in all honesty it was a move Microsoft had to make, and in many ways Windows 8 still has one foot stuck in the old pond. Ross Rubin in his Switched On column on Engadget summed the change up perfectly with his article title: Windows loses it Windows. And it has indeed. It would not be an outrageous proposition if Microsoft decided to call the upcoming operating system 'Microsoft Tiles'.

Microsoft's latest projects has sparked much debate between analysts and journalists, some saying that the 'one for all' approach compromises on necessary features for both tablet and PC devices, however some say that the convergence provides an unrivalled feature set and experience for both devices. To be honest, I don't agree with any of these, neither do I believe that Windows 8 will be a failure. I like Windows 8 and I believe its potential is interesting and will have enormous effects on the market, both for tablets and personal computers.

Apple's approach to tablets and personal computers is obvious and straight-forward. They've stressed that we live in a post-pc age, essentially where our mobile devices become the core of our computing experiences as opposed to our traditional personal computers. This article comes at a fitting time since Mac OS X Lion was just announced a few days ago which gives me a solid ground for comparison. Lion brings many really interesting and innovative features to OS X, including the iPad like launchpad and multiple desktops – a feature that I really love. The multi-touch gestures that allow you to sweep between desktops and full screen applications and the launchpad all exemplify Apple's continual push for Post-PC. Apple is tablet-ifying the PC.

Microsoft's approach to the two computing segments is remarkably different. To be quite frank, I don't believe Microsoft has ever taken the tablet seriously until now, and most certainly doesn't have the same ideas as Apple on what a tablet should be. In Apple's eye a tablet is a new device that simplifies and makes tasks more convenient. In Microsoft's eyes, a tablet is a convenient and portable version of your PC. Microsoft are clearly aware that the user experience needs to be better optimised for touch-screen, but Windows 7 running on a tablet represents the power and versatility that Microsoft believes is possible in a tablet, and Windows 8 finally provides the user experience which has become imperative in our gadgets.

In essence, while Apple is busy tablet-ifying our PCs, Microsoft is busy PC-ing our tablets. And with the one OS for all approach is also making our PCs a little more like tablets. There was one particular announcement that stood out for me, and that was the announcement that Windows 8 would have the ability to run legacy applications despite the OS's monumental shift away from traditional Windows. This announcement surprised everyone, me included. After all, it would have been a hole-proof strategy to have built the tablet OS separately and maintained and optimised the original Windows OS for traditional personal computers. After all, two separate operating systems would allow Microsoft to fully focus on two different segments and thus provide a full experience for both. Right? It’s very easy to question Microsoft’s intelligence here, especially since surely they have learnt that desktop operating systems clearly don’t work on tablets. However, I doubt Microsoft took this decision lightly. Microsoft’s intentions are more complex than simply providing an operating system that works on tablets and PCs.

What Hybrid PCs would look like (Samsung Slider 7)

I believe that Microsoft is trying to combine the two devices. The risky approach accounts for this perfectly. Windows 8 provides OEMs a potent combination of a beautiful and user friendly tablet UI without doing away entirely with a powerful experience. Naturally, vendors are going to try and leverage both these assets of Windows 8 resulting in a breed of ‘hybrid tablet PCs’. By hybrid tablet PC, I’m referring to the likes of the Samsung Sliders and Asus Transformer. With a touch display to take advantage of the tablet UI and a keyboard to align with the power experience which Microsoft doesn't want to compromise. I’d be hard pressed to say that anyone missed the days of the spin around display tablets of old, I’m experiencing a bit of deja vu here. But unlike previously, I can actually see some real and genuine potential.

In my article stating my views on 'post-pc' I stated that notebook and tablet hybrids are a compromise. They neither offer the pure portability of a stand-alone tablet nor the power and versatility of a notebook PC. However much of the basis of my conclusion was simply that there was no OS optimised for a hybrid device. Before the unveiling of Windows 8 we only had a purely PC operating system and purely tablet and mobile operating systems. With Microsoft's new operating system, they aren't just providing these devices a second shot at life, but they're going to give birth to a new generation of them.

Windows 8 is interesting in that I definitely envision it to be successful in its hybrid form factor, but I can hardly see it as an upgrade for desktops or even normal notebooks currently. A touch oriented UI like the one on Windows 8 will never, and allow me to stress, never, work effectively on hardware that operates with mouse and cursor. Even with the easy keyboard controls that Microsoft promises. I mean, just because there's ultimately nothing wrong with operating the new Metro UI with the keyboard does not mean that it's necessarily better than what we currently have with Windows 7. No way in hell will enterprise which are traditionally slow to adopt new technologies upgrade to a new OS which works in an unwieldy manner with the hardware they currently own. Because of this, I don't really see Windows 8 as a new operating system but rather as an extension to what we have currently. As far as the demos have shown us, Windows 8 operating on a computer without touch-input is awkward, and more importantly not worth an upgrade over Windows 7.

Despite this, I'm absolutely certain Windows 8 on a hybrid PC will sure be a winner for new computer buyers.

Overall, I like Windows 8. It’s innovative, new and daring, but it remains to be seen whether it will be successful. Windows 8 will prove itself to be highly interesting and definitely one to watch. And the unexciting desktop computer space may finally exhibit a long sought for transformation. The touch optimisation of Windows 8 has strong potential to launch a new line of touch desktops, like the Vaio L. In 5 - 7 years time with Windows 8, perhaps our desktop will look like huge touch-screen slates on our desks, wouldn’t that just be marvellous?

OS X Lion is a solid update for Mac computers, but for once maybe Apple played it too conservative (but then again $30 for a new operating system is impossible to say no to). The hybrid PC’s that Microsoft has laid the eggs for could well be the thing that dismantles the universal view of what tablets are. Apple has told the world that tablets are personal ‘post-pc’ devices that are convenient with a beautifully natural user experience. With Windows 8, Microsoft wants to tell the world that tablets don’t have to be ‘post-pc’ and that it’s legitimately possible to combine the power of a full Windows experience with the nature and beauty of optimised tablet UI design. In a similar way that Apple created the game with the iPad, Microsoft has come in and is changing the rules. The big questions is, whether these new rules will gain the acceptance of the masses.

Why I love you, Sir Windows Phone

I'm going to keep this intro short, sharp and shiny. An untimely and most unbidden event occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, my Walkman lost its ability to charge. Often, it's quite difficult to forget instinctive life procedures, however I've got to hand it to my Walkman X1060, she just forgot. And what's more, she's also blatantly refusing to talk to my computer. I've just ordered a new cable off eBay just in case it's a cable problem and I'm still waiting for that to arrive, just hopefully that will fix my Walkman's most unfortunate disorder. Despite this, I know my Walkman won't last forever so I've been searching for alternatives to replace my mobile device shortage, I've decided to settle on the fact that Sony won't ever release a decent Walkman ever again.

The sheer immensity of available devices on the market was simply astounding, I went in with the expectation of landing on my dream device within a day or two, however only a fortnight later have I come to a really solid conclusion. This might surprise you, but I have fallen head over heels for Windows Phone 7. It's disappointing that this operating system is often frowned upon in the tech world for its lack of...well tech geeky features. The lack of customization is probably the OS's biggest claim to shame. Windows Phone 7 has taken a different approach than some of its competitors, and even Microsoft themselves in the past has taken, an entirely different approach. Making an operating system easily accessible and customisable places the nerd in heaven, but often too much freedom and too many options leads to inconsistent and unreliable experiences. Windows, and the previous Windows Mobile have a reputation for being highly technical, at least more so than its competitors. However this time round, I support Microsoft's new approach and strict hardware guidelines for Windows Phone devices, because boy does it pay off.

Microsoft's UI design philosophy

User interface is one of the prime factors of a great mobile experience, and this is the area where Windows Phone 7 truly delivers. It doesn't just deliver because of its visual appeal, nor is it because of its mind-blowing animations, but it is extraordinarily fun to use. The UI experience of Windows Phone really succeeds in taking a big jump away from traditional UI designs epitomised by the likes of iOS and Android. The multiple home screen and widget design of Android simply looks outdated when laid side by side with a Windows Phone. It allows us to beg the question of why we honestly need so many home screens, Windows Phone makes do with one beautifully scrolling collection of 'live tiles'. To be brutally honest, I've never met anyone who actually uses more widgets than the music player, clock, calendar, weather and news feeds; let alone use up all of their home screens. It also shows us why Apple haven't bothered with a widget implementation on their iOS platform yet, though competitive pressure somewhat obliges Apple to do so with their iOS 5.

Live tiles: Another winner for Windows Phone. To be honest I haven't had much experience with the live tiles, as you really have to own the phone for a period of time to evaluate its real world practicality and usefulness. But the concept is brilliant and far as my 10 minute trial of it went, my god its amazing! It really does add to create a really pleasurable mobile experience. The idea of Live Tiles is you can pin the things that matter to you most onto the start screen, and it will show you any updates that occur live. For example, I'm an avid Facebook user, so the Facebook Live Tile will show me any notifications that I receive without the need to access the application. And also without any irritating notification pop-ups. Same goes for Twitter and many many other applications. Heck, I can even pin people to my Live Tile display. Stalking just got a whole lot easier.

Music + Video Hub and the general WP7 sliding interface

Another thing I noticed when using Windows Phone is the feeling that things just really flow. Mind you, I'm not referring to a 'no lag' or 'high-speed' experience here but the design of the 'Metro UI'. Take the Music and Video hub or Zune as an example. When you first open the application it presents you with a list of essentially what you can do: music, video, podcast etc. But if you simply swipe to the right it will present you with your media history of all the tracks you last listened to, swipe to the right again and it will show you new additions to your library of media. This exceptional interface design is really successful in challenging and taking a jab at the concept of navigational buttons (non-tactile obviously). If you're in the music menu, there is no need to tap at anything to switch between the metadata you're viewing, rather swipe to the left or right to switch between artist or album or genre. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 UI feels natural and intuitive - a theme I discussed in my previous article about the fate of the PC and evolving technologies.

It can be said that the umbrella reason why Windows Phone provides such a pleasurable experience - for me at least - is that it feels like a phone designed for you and adapted to your needs. Most consumers don't like having to adapt and learn their technologies, but rather in essence have technology learn the way they want to do things. This is an area where Windows Phone has hit a home run, perhaps even two home runs with one ball.

UI design is severely underrated, tech analysts have made a big deal about how many apps are available on a platform, how highly featured it is and what not. At the end of the day though, the user interface is what you feel, touch and experience and this should be the thing that makes or breaks a purchase. It's not to say the UI of competing platforms is poor, but this is an element where Windows Phone absolutely delivers. The application range of Windows Phone measures poorly against some competing platforms, but it is sufficient and will continue to grow. I'm going to throw my eggs into the Microsoft basket, and I'll be damned if the platform never gains traction.

Who has a Windows Phone and what are your thoughts on it?

*Next week, I will be doing an in-depth discussion behind the potential of Windows 8 and what it means for consumers and the tech industry.*

Where the PC stands in a Post-PC invasion

I thought I would discuss an interesting and also extremely debatable topic today. Currently, where does the traditional PC market stand and what is the outlook? Is it rainbows and flowery hills or murky and hellish depths? Or is it flat and unchanging, remaining a reliable segment of the consumer electronics market. Apple's iPad 2 event was quite some time ago, however there was one theme of the unveiling event that has implanted itself in my mind. Steve Jobs - the visionary, mentioned that we are living in the 'Post - PC' world now. The iPad is Apple's third post PC 'blockbuster', following the ubiquitous iPod and iPhone.

A lot of people will consider this nothing more than a clever marketing ploy, a healthy dose of Steve Jobs charisma and Apple's corporate sugar. After all, it would make logical sense to persuade consumers into the land of post-pc products if you, yourself are almost tyrannically in control of it. However the significance of Steve's statement go far beyond his desire to take your cash, but perhaps we do live in the post-pc world now. I know people who use their conventional PC multitudinously less because of the presence of their post-pc products.

Before one can even debate the future outlook of traditional PC's, it must be first defined what 'post-pc' really means. The prefix 'post' means 'after', so logically post-PC defines products that proceed PC's. This doesn't tell us much. What defines after? It can be argued that 'after' doesn't even have a significance in this instance as we can't be 'after' PCs if they still exist. As a general term, post-pc can be best defined as products that can capably replace our traditional personal computer. Smartphones for example, can do many things that PC does albeit in a smaller and more eye-straining way. This, in essence can be considered a post-pc product.

Having said that, to analyse why a shift in demand might be imminent we have to examine how the average consumer uses their computer. I once read a funny but staggeringly true statement: a computer without internet is like a bowl without fruit. This says a lot about how consumers use computers, it's abundantly clear that we spend the majority of our time on the internet. More than often we will word process, however often the things that we write are merely products of the things that we research. On the internet. We like to think that we use a lot of media software on our computers, but in all honesty a Facebook user would be hard-pressed to say that they spend more time doing other tasks on a computer than they are on Facebook. This is one of the reasons why PC's are getting bitten by our post-pc products, it's because tablets and smartphones browse the internet so well. It's all about user experience and pinching to zoom is significantly more efficient and fun than Ctrl +, using fingers to physically scroll a page rather than a scroll ball is appealing. And of course touching links rather than clicking is pleasingly natural.

I'm not a believer of dying technologies and dying trends. In consumer electronics, things never die, they merely evolve. And that is what I believe is going to happen to our PC. We will always have PC, but in 20 years time it may look a lot different than the one I'm typing on as I speak. There was once a time when technology was all about becoming more advance and gaining leaps and bounds in technicality. The feature-set and sophistication of an offering determined how good it was. However, now I believe we've reached an era where it's all about intuition. The aim now appears to be creating products that are natural and intuitive. But also experiences that successfully mimic the real, tangible products that they replace.

This might be hard to understand, but here's a scenario: Real magazines are so yesterday. It's all about the magazine subscription on your iPad. The flicking of the screen for page turning aims to mimic the experience of a real magazine, which dare I say will never be replaced. Ebook readers aim to do the same with the same flicking motion to turn pages and their paper like displays. This is also why I believe the stylus is up for a come back, the HTC Flyer has revealed its potential. People do not write with their fingers, people write with pens, and the Flyer successfully imitates the usefulness of taking notes and highlighting and circling important points. It's the only tablet on the market which can really act like one of man's timeless creations: pen and paper.

The unreleased Mac OS X Lion heads the PC transformation. The intuition factor of the iPad plays a huge part in the design of Lion. The advertised features are no longer about the inside workings and the intermediates, but rather it's about getting things done more naturally and easily. For example the new Airdrop feature removes the stigma of difficulty out of wireless file sharing. Sharing files shouldn't be a hard task, after all in the real world it would only require you to grab your paper, walk over to the person you want to give it to and physically hand it to them. It shouldn't be any harder than that on a computer. The concept of Airdrop succeeds in creating technologies as easy as nature, simply drag the file onto someone's name.

Having said this, PC will never become a tablet. The sheer feeling of productivity and power of using an actual computer will never be able to be emulated in a touchy-feely device like a tablet or a smartphone. I'm not a believer in keyboard slider tablets either, or the tablets of old with the spin around displays and touch-pen input. On paper, they are superior devices but they are merely a compromise. They neither offer the pure portability of a tablet, nor do they offer the full power of a dedicated personal computer. Nobody will ever be expected to get much work done on a tablet, they are by enlarge convenience devices which allow you to quickly touch up things. They've never been intended to be the device where you can start and complete projects. Tablet's lack of keyboard is one of the main reasons for this. So what about the Asus EeePad Transformer, or Samsung Slider? Yes, you could very well add a keyboard to a tablet, but it doesn't really measure up. If you truly wanted to be productive then I'm sure most people, and I personally would just buy a portable and capable notebook. Like a Macbook Air, for instance.

It's not about the convergence of devices, and it's not about how much a certain device can do but rather how well it does them. This is the philosophy that spells out the future of any of our devices. It's not logical to build a 5 inch smartphone/tablet, as just because it can be two devices at once, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily going to be good at them. Personally, I don't want my phone to be 5 inches, because its large screen real estate would eat into the portability factor. A tablet will supply for my large screen appetite, and personally I don't want my tablet to have a keyboard because guess what? That's what my laptop's for.

Phone, tablet, laptop: three products that serve their purpose fully and well.

Consumers don't want compromise, obviously. Nobody wants a compromise. However many manufacturers are willing to provide just that because they believe that the more devices they can combine into one determines its quality. Rather it is how well it performs its purpose that determines how good it really is. Tablets are defining the shift in consumer technology, their sales are strong because they do some of the things that PC can do in a far more natural and intuitive way. However it can't do the thing that makes PC so essential: efficiently complete work. PC will evolve and will definitely introduce more tablet like features and develop more natural and life-like experiences. But one thing's for sure -

The PC will never become a 'Post-PC' product. The PC is here to stay.