Are you kidding, its going to be huge?

I've been talking with alot of people about the new iPad. Most people seem to feel underwhelmed by the device. "Why would anyone want just a screen?" I'm not so sure.

Try this thought experiment. Sit in front of your computer with your iPhone next to you. Now, go through all the major functions you use a computer for and try to imagine them on the iPad. It helps if you have the iPad pages from Apple up in your browser. I got so into this thought experiment yesterday that I wasted at least an hour or so and here is my assessment:

Function	Rating	Comments
Watching Video	Much Better	One of the worst things about video on a computer is the keyboard. Try walking around with your computer to another room, its very awkward. Sitting on the couch to watch a TV show on your computer is uncomfortable (and hot on your legs) with a standard computer. The absence of a keyboard here will help tremendously.
Browsing the Web	Much Better	The mouse is the primary way we interact with the Web today (or some kind of integrated clicker on a laptop keyboard.) This is relatively artificial and only exists because we can’t actually touch the screen. Being able to click directly on items is one of the best things about the iPhone and now being able to do that with an almost full size screen will be even better.
Writing/Reading email	Better (probably)	I don’t write long emails, so the keyboard isn’t going to be much of an issue for me . . . in fact, I do about 75% of my email from my iPhone. The browsing capability of email on the iPad looks fantastic. I suspect it will be the best email device.
Playing games	Better	For those of us who are “casual” gamers, this might end up being the best gaming device out there. The screen is amazing and while I won’t be able to have the flexibility of an Xbox or a Wii, I don’t really play those game systems anymore anyway . . . but I have about a dozen iPhone games which will be even better on the iPad.
Slide Arranging	Much Better	I live in PowerPoint and the worst part about it is moving items around on a screen. You can never quite get them to line up correctly. You can’t quite select what you want. The new version of Keynote looks fantastic for slide creation. If it exports well to PowerPoint, then the iPad could take the place of the computer as the dominant slide creation tool.
Drawing	Much Better	Come on, this one is obvious. Drawing and whiteboarding will be much better on this thing. When developers start making applications that allow multiple people with multiple iPads to “whiteboard” together at the same time, there will be even fewer reasons to hop on airplanes for meetings.
Document editing	Even	I don’t think writing long emails, articles, blogs or books will likely transfer to the iPad, but what about editing? I spend a good deal of time editing documents and it may be that the ability to point and type in short comments beats the laptop. We’ll see.
Voice	Worse	But not much worse. Skype will almost certainly come to the iPad. Could it be that Apple is betting on not needing a phone number because audio conversations can be carried through the network?
Video	Much Worse	There is no ability to video conference on this device. For me, this seems to be the biggest gap, but one that I’m sure will be replaced in a future version.

The cost of mistakes

Over the holidays, I was playing with my niece. Like all the nieces and nephews of geeks, we were drawing pictures on my iPhone. We probably drew about 30 different pictures and didn't wear down any crayons or waste any paper (which was really a good thing since we were in the lobby of a very fancy hotel.) Ten minutes prior, we snapped about 50 pictures on a couple of different cameras. Most of the shots are terrible, but we didn't seem to care. There is almost no cost to these mistakes. There is almost no waste (except of course for some electricity.)

Technology is reducing waste in more areas than just in entertaining children . . . computers now design their successors and reduce the likelihood of expensive engineering mistakes, simulations are built of buildings to find architectural flaws before they are ever built, blog posts (like this one) allow people to write small snippets of thoughts that can be thrown away later if they don't measure up to later thinking.

In so many areas, the cost of making mistakes is going down due to the increasing infiltration of technology. And, of course, as the cost of mistakes decreases, the cost of innovation also decreases. Innovation is, after all, a series of testing out ideas and throwing out the bad ones. As the costs decrease, innovation in many areas of our lives is likely to pick up. While some of us are excited about this development, innovation necessarily means an increase in the rate of change in our organizations and in society at large. This reduced cost of mistakes is one of the many things increasing the rate of change . . . and increasing entertainment options for three year olds.

Is crowd sourcing really about the crowd?

Crowd sourcing is another one of those metaphors adopted by the gurus of information technology that has some problems. While this metaphor isn't quite as bad as the cloud metaphor, it still misses the point. The primary problem is that, at least to my mind, the defining characteristic of a "crowd" is that they are not in direct communication with each other. For example, if you are part of a crowd watching a concert, you aren't communicating with the majority of the other people there. If you are part of the crowd watching American Idol, you don't communicate with the other millions of people watching at the same time.

However, you do communicate with a variety of communities. Perhaps you have friends at the concert and you might send them a text message. Or you might sit with a community of friends to watch the latest TV episode. It is communities--networks of friends, families, neighbors, business associates, etc -- that really come together on the web. And yes, these communities can be used to do work. When we built the logo for our new website, we used LogoTournament.com which harnesses a community of graphic designers to create logos. (We loved it by the way . . . if you hop over to our website, can you spot the subtle musical theme in the logo?)

But the reason that these sources work so well is because the people can communicate with each other--they are a community, not a crowd. If we called this trend "Community Sourcing" it would much more accurately represent what is going on, but since it doesn't sound as sexy, I doubt the gurus will adopt it.

iPhone on SNL

Threats of customer disloyalty and even a much ballyhooed user uprising last week don't seem to have done much to sway AT&T to work quickly enough to solve its iPhone driven network problems. Maybe a few jokes from SNL will help?

130 Blogs

One of the things we setup early at Thought Ensemble was contributing to the technology and strategy community in which we work. We try to do that in a variety of ways including participating in local charities and professional organizations, but one of the most important is through our blogs. Early on, we set up a rule that we would average at least 1 blog per week per person. So, this year, between the three full time employees at our startup, we've created over 130 blog entries.

Some of these entries are simply some humor from the day or a link to an interesting post, but some of them are pretty substantial. My favorite from Lisa this year targeted IT Performance Measurement. In it, she re-purposes ideas from Kaplan and Norton and thinks strategically on how to apply them for IT groups. This idea comes from real client work that she conducted with real results.

We also produced a great blog on the financial impacts of doing Agile Development. John cuts through alot of the theoretical debate surrounding these practices and explores the financial impacts. I find the argument pretty compelling and wonder how so many groups refuse to adopt these modern practices considering the strong arguments for their adoption.

My own favorite post was inspired by Deloitte's Shift Index. They point out that whatever it is that management is currently doing in the U.S., it clearly isn't working. Return On Assets has dropped steadily over the last 40 years of so. That inspired a series of blog postings on some of the problems I see in many companies: Tight Ass Management.

So, as this year wraps up, I'm really proud of the company we've started. But mostly, I'm proud because we are participating in the community working to advance the use of technology in the best way possible in our organizations. We've chosen to take a different path in the consulting world: we don't lock up our knowledge, we don't hide it and keep it for ourselves. We believe that contributing to the world is not only the right thing to do, but in the end it will yield better financial results.

Babbage's Difference Engine

Like most kids fascinated with computers, I'd heard about Babbage's 'difference engine' which was arguably the first computer (although he died before ever seeing it in operation.) I had no idea the machine still existed, but this beautiful device can be seen in the Computer History Museum in California for a short time before going into a private collection.

Now, I wonder where the nearest airport is?

Let's all think for a minute

I used to be completely amazed at the budgeting process in most companies. It struck me as odd that people only got together once a year to think. Every year, across this country, businesses come together to do a little internal dance with themselves: they prepare dozens of fancy spreadsheets, estimate new projects, do a little analysis of the market. This ritual yields a spending plan that forecasts out 12-15 months. When I first began work, I was completely amazed that people only got together to think once a year.

Now, I find it even more fascinating, because the budgeting process in most companies seems designed to make people only think they are thinking. The myriad spreadsheets, PowerPoint documents, mind numbing meetings and politicking only give the semblance of thinking. In fact, they seem to prevent real thinking (which isn't usually enabled by a fancy spreadsheet.) Does anyone else think this process is fundamentally broken?

What will mobile kill? Part 4: Cab Companies

Cab companies serve two purposes: (1) to connect customers to certified people who have cars nearby and can pick them up; and (2) a measure of quality control (such as it is) over the drivers and cars. Both of these are put at risk by mobile devices.

It won't be long until I can ask my phone: "Where is the nearest cab?" and then use it to send a text message with my current address and ask to be picked up. Why do I need an intermediary? Further, I'll be able to rate my experience with that cab and driver so that the next person who wants to use them can see if the car smelled bad, the driver swerved too much or was listening to something obnoxious on the radio.

Cabs won't go away, but the intermediaries will be hit hard. By the way, why hasn't someone done this yet? Those of us who live in a city where cabs don't just drive by us every minute could really use something like this.

What will mobile kill? Part 3: Bars

Why do you go to a bar? Ostensibly, to get a drink, but we all know there are other reasons and a lot of those involve meeting people with similar interests, particularly, um, adult interests. OK. Let's just say it. Lots of people go to bars to find someone to date or at least to hook up with, and bars use that attraction to sell them expensive drinks. Bars provide the location for free and profit from a product on the side: alcohol.

But what happens to bars when people can find each other in different ways. A host of applications are competing for the space and mobility is making it easier. Instead of going to a site like Match or eHarmony, before long you'll be able to ask your mobile phone something like "Who within a 5 mile radius would like to go for a hike this afternoon?" and then you'll be able to find them and start talking.

One innovative solution in this space is Serendipity (which, true confessions, is run by a friend of mine). This product allows people to specify their interests, find people nearby and communicate anonymously until they decide they want to meet. It even makes it fun by including games they can play together through text messages. Who needs to go to a bar?

As people have pointed out in the retail posting, there are things that bars can do to compete. They could offer similar services inside the bar. They could team up with surrounding bars to make the entire neighborhood more appealing. But, like retail, they probably won't. And we'll probably see fewer of them in the future as this unexpected competitor . . . the phone, takes business from them.

What will mobile kill? Part 2: Retail

Thanks for all the comments on the post on banks being injured by the rise of mobile phones. They won't be the only ones. Retail stores are already beginning to feel the pinch. I now make no major purchase without Googling the product in the store to see what its price is online.

In the really old days (you know, more than 10 years ago) retail stores made their profit by taking advantage of the lack of information in the market. You didn't know whether you were paying a good price for your new tape deck or Walkman. You went to the closest location that sold that product and almost certainly bought it there.

In the only slightly old days, internet and home computers allowed us to find other options for information on products we wanted to purchase (via Amazon or Google or similar services.) Now, retails stores make their profits by offering immediate gratification and by guessing that most people wouldn't run home to their internet connections to check for better prices. The latter advantage is gone.

In the last two weeks, I've tested the sales staff at both Fry's and Best Buy. In both cases, they will honor a cheaper online price that I found from my iPhone using nothing more sophisticated than a Google search. In other words, I got immediate gratification AND a cheap price (in both cases, it was about 10% less online.)

I don't know how these stores are going to change their business models, but the current approach seems doomed to obscurity.