No stuff just fluff: Comparing Blackberry and Apple ads

It is amazing how some companies just refuse to listen and learn from others and are hell bent on being obstinate and pig-headed. At least this was the thought that ran in my head when I watched the promo ad for the upcoming Blackberry 6 OS.

It's kind of a given at this point that Apple is the unsung hero for all 'visual' thinkers. Every Apple show or unveiling is accompanied with oohs and aahs from bloggers on visual presentation, and rightly so. Apple (and some say, Steve Jobs) has refined the art of presentation and is constantly crediting for removing presentations from the shackles of bullets.

Much as I disagree with the tactics used by Apple in their iProducts, I can't help but appreciate their inventive ads - the ads embody the general rules that are identified in Heaths' Made to Stick book. In the book, the authors suggest that in order for an idea to stick in the viewer's mind, it should have the following qualities.

1. Simple
2. Unexpected
3. Concrete
4. Credible
5. Emotional
6. Story

Most of Apple's presentations and advertisements follow this format. They are simple, have an unexpected message (mostly related to the new product), have concrete information, comes from a credible source (in this case, authoritative, at least), has a cute little - most times youthful - song  that appeals to the target audience, and has a nice flow from start to finish (sometimes with a story).



This simple (well, simple in thought, but not simplistic) format has made superstars out of most Apple products. You would think that the competitors to Apple will take to heart what worked for the company and try to improve on it. But nooooooo, that's apparently not how the world works.

Case in point is the new promo bit from Research in Motion for their Blackberry 6 OS in their trade show. I like Blackberry. It's a great product - does what it's supposed to do and is fairly open to developers (better than Apple at least) and does not nickel and dime you for everything.

It is no secret that the iPhone, with all its billion apps, still has significant drawbacks as a decent technology product - lack of multitasking, lack of Flash, relatively low quality camera, etc. While the current OS (5.0) shares some of the problems, the new OS apparently does multitasking and a lot more.

The aim of the ad, at least as RIM intends, is to tell the consumers that the new OS will make the Blackberry a lot more seamless, user-friendly, powerful, and most of all, fun to work with. This is great, but look at the ad.



What's up with the dancing people? The background completely overshadows the foreground. During the whole ad, I was distracted by the dancing in the back, making it really difficult for me to focus on what's new with the OS - definitely not what I believe the intention is. How can a company still not learn - both from itself and from others? It boggles my mind.

The ad is not simple (especially not with all the background dancing and old-school music), it is not emotional (at least not the right kind - I believe they wanted to show that the OS is fun to work with via the dancing, but it annoyed me more than engage me), and it did not have a story (well, the screens flowed decently, but it was too difficult to focus on it with the artificial dancing in the background). The ad missed out on 3 of the 6 points mentioned above, effectively making it a failure.

It also goes to show the power of visual presentation - how fluff can in effect make it look like there is a lot more stuff - something that's important not just for people without stuff, but also for those that do. It is more tragic to see someone make the stuff look less important due to bad fluff than one who makes the stuff look better with fluff.

Top 5 Missed Opportunities for Java

Last year around the time it was becoming evident that Sun was up for acquisition, I had blogged about how Sun could have made money off Java. Given the recent developments of Oracle's acquisition of Sun as well as a number of Java luminaries leaving their long-held posts (including James Gosling, the creator), I wanted to expand on the post a bit more and list the top 5 missed opportunities for Java and leave you at the end with a bit of hope.

Opportunity #5: Enhanced JCP Mechanism
A lot of bigwigs in the industry have talked about the Java Community Process (JCP) - where it falls short and what can be done to improve it. Not having been an active member of the JCP, I cannot comment much more than what has been said already. However, as an active user of Java, the happenings of JCP does impact me.

Personally, I feel that the idea of JCP is great. You have a coordinated steering committee with participation from multiple corporation all having a vested interest in making Java a success. It is reasonably democratic. However, that seems to have given rise to JCP's problems as well. There are two fundamental issues in a democracy, as can be understood from India and USA, the two leading democratic countries in the world.

1. Too many voices can cause cacophony: When the participants are numerous, nothing useful gets done. The Indian democracy is a prime example of this. Those who are supposed to make decisions tend to squabble over petty issues or short-term issues rather than focus on the greater good. 
2. With power comes pork: As can be evinced from the US democracy, great power leads to greater demands from vested interests ('pork' projects). While the participation of major corporations has been great in boosting Java's position in the Enterprise, it has also led to them seeking customizations that can give them an edge against the competitors, who are also part of the process.

Thus, instead of making Java better, the JCP seems to have given rise to more and more politics. I can think of one layman option to fix this.

Instead of Oracle (or Sun) leading the JCP efforts, it must be floated as a separate non-profit organization. Each corporation must pay to be a part of the group. Final decision on a specification must be in a time-bound manner and must be resolved by a common vote. There must also be checks and balances to ensure that things don't get stalled. More importantly, the process must be agile enough to adapt to changes in the industry quickly. I know that most of these were the original goals of the industry, but it helps to revisit the initial goals and see what failed along the way.

Such a non-profit group can also lead to better Intellectual Property management, which seems to be the primary contention among a number of folks.

It is sad to see how the Java ecosystem is going the same way as the multi-party Indian democracy. When someone (Google) does not like the way things are, they form a splinter party (Android). This leads to an erosion of the core base. Now, when time comes to do something useful, those in power are more interested in getting a big enough coalition to retain power than to do anything useful. I hope this is not how the JCP ends up.

Opportunity #4: Desktop Java
When I started working on Java, one of my first projects was on Swing. Having had a bad taste with Visual C++ and Windows apps (it just seemed way too complex), I was excited to see the ease with which I could develop desktop applications with Swing (using Borland JBuilder, which was the best at that time).

At one time, Java came really close to creating its own Operating System and there were talks about a Java OS. However, nothing much came out of it.

In addition, there was another cool innovation within Java that was never utilized very well, and that is the Java Web Start technology. Java Web Start was the grandfather of the Apple App Store. All the pieces were there, but no one really did anything with it. When Java Store came recently, it was too little, too late.

Java could have very easily leveraged on the core components of Swing and Java Web Start and could have developed an ecosystem like App Store for the desktop. The widgets that we see on Windows 7 today could've been delivered with Java Web Start.

Google OS to me is a fancy version of what could have been Java OS. Unfortunately, this did not, and still has not, materialized.

Whenever I see Ubuntu's Software Center, I see the power of Java Web Start and what it could have been, and it saddens me.

Opportunity #3: Applets
I have been involved in Java pretty much since I started getting seriously into the world of computers. My very first encounter with Java was around 1996 when my friend told me that there is something really cool called Applets that could run applications within a browser. It took me a while for me to grasp the concept - how can you run an app inside a static web browser? It would be another two years before I fully understood the technology behind the whole system.

Applets were a great missed opportunity. When applets came into the picture, it was like Jetsons. People imagined all sorts of dynamic web that would be possible in the future due to the technology. Eventually that has been materialized with AJAX and Silverlight and Flash, but it sad to see how the technology that started it all never went anywhere. Java FX again, was too little, too late.

I still think the potential is there, but it would require a significant overhaul before it gets anywhere.

Opportunity #2: Meta-libraries
As I mentioned in my previous blog, I think a huge area where Sun failed to realize the potential of Java was in commercializing it. I don't think the folks at Sun never fully grasped the concept of 'style over substance' - something that Apple has shown all of us since then with iPhone and iPad.

While it was important to focus on the mechanics of various functions, that is never enough. You need a great looking skin on top to sell. While JCP and Java focused on standardization and developing a great API, they never focused on making it user-friendly. It would take Spring and Hibernate frameworks to show the need for the skin. Till then, one had to write a bunch of lines of code just to send an e-mail or create a simple application.

Microsoft .NET still regained its popularity even though it had a lot less functionality than Java primarily because of this reason - there were so many wizards that could be leveraged by a developer to develop an application quickly.

All Sun (and others) needed to do was to create an abstract layer on top of the various APIs that would allow developers to be productive from the start - and what's more, they could've charged companies for it! I still fail to understand why that never happened.

Opportunity #1: Mobile Java
Finally, the biggest missed opportunity of all - the mobile space. After all, Java started as a language for non-desktop systems, such as set-top boxes and toaster ovens. With such a strong foundation and need for atypical systems, Java meandered and never delivered on the promise it started out with - to create a platform for resource-sensitive systems.

Having written a book on this subject, I can understand the rationale. Java wanted to be the lowest common denominator - to be something for everyone. But I don't think they went about doing it right.

One of the reason why Apple is successful is because they have a tight control on both the device as well as the API. They have 2 sizes (iPhone and iPad), compared to a million combinations that Java has to satisfy.

I feel the foundations of MIDP are strong - it is modular (profile-based). However, it is not agile. They could have expanded the concept and created 'feature packs' that would satisfy different types of inputs and screens, with a base foundation. This way, the developer would simply create a base application, and additional feature packs that would be applied based on the device (the download mechanism can determine the packs to download and install based on the need). Such a mechanism could have led to multiple manufacturers rallying behind a single API instead of each developing their own kit (such as Nokia, RIM, and Sony currently do).

It is simply unpardonable that a language that started out as the champion of all things that are not desktop or web failed to finally meet the dynamic demands of its target market.

At the end, I don't think the end is near yet. The foundation of Java is strong. There is a strong user base that can rally behind it when a call is given. All it needs is a good leader who has a long-term vision - I just can't help but see the parallels between Java and the struggles that the two major democracies (US and India) seem to be having. I hope that sanity prevails!

How many points am I worth?

A few months back, I had developed an interest in game development - primarily driven by my mobile device interests. Not having had a prior experience in gaming (except in playing), I thought it would be wise to read up on the subject. After some research, I honed in on The Art of Game Design by Jesse Schell. I am glad I did.

The book itself is not about a how-to on gaming that provides code snippets and exercises but really more on what gaming is and how to develop a mindset towards gaming. Jesse, I learned later, is a professor in Carnegie Mellon University and teaches gaming there. The book is quite fascinating and builds incrementally. Jesse also throws in a number of 'lenses' through which one should look at a gaming problem, with each lens providing a different perspective to the challenge of creating a game. I would strongly suggest that you pick a copy even if you have no inclination to develop games, as many of the concepts transcend gaming.

The fondest memories of my childhood always involved one game or the other, be it cricket with the local kids, pretending like Captain Kirk and playing Star Trek with clay models of "transponders" that me and my cousin used to make, or my and my friend inventing our own games (like 'Alphacross') and spending countless hours in the patio playing it. I think games add an element of fun to learning that is otherwise absent, and for some reason, we seem to forget this fundamental concept along the way and treat games as distractions instead.

Cut to present time - I got a weekly update from TED on non-TED presentations around the web last week and one of the updates was a presentation by Jesse Schell at the DICE 2010 conference about gaming in our lives.

DS Games - E3 2010 - Guitar Hero 5

I think it is a fascinating speech. While it starts a bit slowly, he ends with a bang that I think is more profound than what it seems to be on the outside. Essentially, Jesse claims that many concepts of gaming are already a part of our lives whether we like it or not, and that we are seeing games integrated with our lives in more ways than one and in not-so-obvious forms. He foresees a day when pretty much all our activities will be games where we will earn points in one way or the other by playing 'life' games and more importantly, corporations have an interest in us doing so.

While we are while away from the slightly horrific world of us getting points for brushing well due to the gaps in technology required, I think we are already well into this world and much more than we would like to admit. We get points for traveling around the world to drinking coffee at the local Starbucks.

And I don't think it is just a vision for the future as well. The idea of using gaming can be used in the current real world in more ways than one - think of how much more your children will be interested in doing something if you can mimic the virtual world they are already more familiar with. Same can be done in companies to allow employees to open up and share their knowledge with fellow team members. Another major area where gaming can have a direct application, as Jesse mentions, is in health care. Building on what Wii Fit has shown us, we can leverage games and social media to have a healthy competition regarding our health and fitness.

At the end of the day, everyone wants to be recognized and feel special. Giving a game setting to a challenge can help achieve that easily and cheaply.

I can also not help make a connection between his future vision and an article that Vannevar Bush wrote in the 1940s. The article, "As we may think", is considered a seminal article on personalization. In the article, Bush envisions a time when we will have devices or mechanisms that will augment our memory and keep track of pretty much everything that we do. 70 years later, this still seems to hold true and we seem to be getting closer to his vision than ever!