Switching to iPhone for a bit

I’ve been a fan of Googles products ever since I switched from Alta Vista. So it felt like a natural fit to get an Android device back in the day when it was time for me to upgrade from my dumbphone, and I’ve been using an Android device ever since. I wrote about ecosystems a while ago, and the ecosystem is exactly what’s kept me there: you sign in to your phone with your Google account, and mail, calendar, notes, contacts and photos sync automatically. Also there’s a really great maps application.

In my day job I make web-apps that have to work on mobile first, and iOS is an important platform for me to know. Now I’ve used iOS for years — it’s the phone I bought for my wife and recommended to my dad. We also have an iPad, and I have used an iPhone for testing for years. I’m no stranger to how things work there. But I feel like something special happens when you make a conscious switch to the platform, make it your daily driver. Phones have become so utterly personal devices, they’re always with us and we invest ourselves in them. Unless I jump in fully, I have a feeling there’s some bit I’m missing.

So starting today I’m an iPhone user. No, I wouldn’t call this a switch — call it a “soak test”. I fully expect to switch back to Android — I’m actually eyeing a Moto X 2014. That is, unless the experience of investing myself fully in the iPhone is so compelling that I have no desire to go back, which is entirely possible. I won’t know unless I give it a proper test. Since I’m in the fortunate position to be able to make this switch, there’s no good reason not to. I’ll be using my white iPhone 5C testing device. I expect to be impressed by the camera. I expect to enjoy a jank-free fluidness of the OS, even if I expect to turn off extraneous animation. I’m curious how I’ll enjoy the homescreen and its lack of customizability compared to Android, and I can’t wait to see if the sliding keyboards in the App Store are as good as they are on Android. I should have some experiences to share on this blog in a month or so. Let me know any apps you want me to try!

Switching to iPhone for a bit

I’ve been a fan of Googles products ever since I switched from Alta Vista. So it felt like a natural fit to get an Android device back in the day when it was time for me to upgrade from my dumbphone, and I’ve been using an Android device ever since. I wrote about ecosystems a while ago, and the ecosystem is exactly what’s kept me there: you sign in to your phone with your Google account, and mail, calendar, notes, contacts and photos sync automatically. Also there’s a really great maps application.

In my day job I make web-apps that have to work on mobile first, and iOS is an important platform for me to know. Now I’ve used iOS for years — it’s the phone I bought for my wife and recommended to my dad. We also have an iPad, and I have used an iPhone for testing for years. I’m no stranger to how things work there. But I feel like something special happens when you make a conscious switch to the platform, make it your daily driver. Phones have become so utterly personal devices, they’re always with us and we invest ourselves in them. Unless I jump in fully, I have a feeling there’s some bit I’m missing.

So starting today I’m an iPhone user. No, I wouldn’t call this a switch — call it a “soak test”. I fully expect to switch back to Android — I’m actually eyeing a Moto X 2014. That is, unless the experience of investing myself fully in the iPhone is so compelling that I have no desire to go back, which is entirely possible. I won’t know unless I give it a proper test. Since I’m in the fortunate position to be able to make this switch, there’s no good reason not to. I’ll be using my white iPhone 5C testing device. I expect to be impressed by the camera. I expect to enjoy a jank-free fluidness of the OS, even if I expect to turn off extraneous animation. I’m curious how I’ll enjoy the homescreen and its lack of customizability compared to Android, and I can’t wait to see if the sliding keyboards in the App Store are as good as they are on Android. I should have some experiences to share on this blog in a month or so. Let me know any apps you want me to try!

The Plot To Kill The Desktop

As a fan of interface design, operating systems — Android, iOS, Windows — have always been a tremendous point of fascination for me. We spend hours in them every day, whether cognizant about that fact or not. And so any paradigm shifts in this field intrigue me to no end. One such paradigm shift that appears to be happening, is the phasing out of the desktop metaphor, the screen you put a wallpaper and shortcuts on.

Windows 8 was Microsofts bold attempt to phase out the desktop. Instead of the traditional desktop being the bottom of it all — the screen that was beneath all of your apps which you would get to if you closed or minimized them — there’s now the Start screen, a colorful bunch of tiles. Aside from the stark visual difference, the main difference between the traditional desktop and the Start screen, is that you can’t litter it with files. You’ll have to either organize your documents or adopt the mobile pattern of not worrying about where files are stored at all.

Apple created iOS without a desktop. The bottom screen here was Springboard, a sort of desktop-in-looks-only, basically an app-launcher with rudimentary folder-support. Born this way, iOS has had pretty much universal appeal among adopters. There was no desktop to get used to, so no lollipop to have taken away. While sharing files between apps on iOS is sort of a pain, it hasn’t stopped people from appreciating the otherwise complete lack of file-management. I suppose if you take away the need to manage files, you don’t really need a desktop to clutter up. You’d think this was the plan all along. (Italic text means wink wink, nudge nudge, pointing at the nose, and so on.)

For the longest time, Android seems to have tried to do the best of both worlds. The bottom screen of Android is a place to see your wallpaper and apps pinned to your dock. You can also put app shortcuts and even widgets here. Through an extra tap (so not quite the bottom of the hierarchy) you can access all of your installed apps, which unlike iOS have to manually be put on your homescreen if so desired. You can actually pin document shortcuts here as well, though it’s a cumbersome process and like with iOS you can’t save a file there. Though not elegant, the Android homescreen works reasonably well and certainly appeals to power-users with its many customization options.

Microsoft and Apple both appear to consider the desktop (and file-management as a subset) an interface relic to be phased out. Microsoft tried and mostly failed to do so, while Apple is taking baby-steps with iOS. If recent Android leaks are to be believed, and if I’m right in my interpretation of said leaks, Android is about to take it a step beyond even homescreens/app-launchers.

One such leak suggests Google is about to bridge the gap between native apps and web-apps, in a project dubbed “Hera” (after the mythological goddess of marriage). The mockups posted suggest apps are about to be treated more like cards than ever. Fans of WebOS1 will quickly recognize this concept fondly:

The card metaphor that Android is aggressively pushing is all about units of information, ideally contextual. The metaphor, by virtue of its physical counterpart, suggests it holding a finite amount of information after which you’re done with the card and can swipe it away. Like a menu at a restaurant, it stops being relevant the moment you know what to order. Similarly, business cards convey contact information and can then be filed away. Cards as an interface design metaphor is about divining what the user wants to do and grouping the answers together.

We’ve seen parts of this vision with Android Wear. The watch can’t run apps and instead relies on rich, interactive notification cards. Android phones have similar (though less rich) notifications, but are currently designed around traditional desktop patterns. There’s a homescreen at the bottom of the hierarchy, then you tap in and out of apps: home button, open Gmail, open email, delete, homescreen.

I think it’s safe to assume Google wants you to be able to do the same (and more) on an Android phone as you can on an Android smartwatch, and not have them use two widely different interaction mechanisms. So on the phone side, something has to give. The homescreen/desktop, perchance?

The more recent leak suggests just that. Supposedly Google is working to put “OK Google” everywhere. The little red circle button you can see in the Android Wear videos, when invoked, will scale down the app you’re in, show it as a card you can apply voice actions on. Presumably the already expansive list of Google Now commands would also be available; “OK Google, play some music” to start up an instant mix.

The key pattern I take note of here, is the attempt to de-emphasize individual apps and instead focus on app-agnostic actions. Matias Duarte recently suggested that mobile is dead and that we should approach design by thinking about problems to solve on a range of different screen sizes. That notion plays exactly into this. Probably most users approach their phone with particular tasks in mind: send an email, take a photo. Having to tap a home button, then an app drawer, then an app icon in order to do this seems almost antiquated compared to the slick Android Wear approach of no desktop/homescreen, no apps. Supposedly Google may remove the home button, relegating the homescreen to be simply another card in your multi-tasking list. Perhaps the bottom card?

I’ll be waiting with bated breath to see how successful Google can be in this endeavour. The homescreen/desktop metaphor represents, to many people, a comforting starting point. A 0,0,0 coordinate in a stressful universe. A place I can pin a photo of my baby girl, so I can at least smile when pulling out the smartphone to confirm that, in fact, nothing happened since last I checked 5 minutes ago.

  1. Matias Duarte, current Android designer, used to work on WebOS  

A Chromecast with a Remote

The internet is a series of tubes.

Last week Android TV leaked on The Verge. The leak was conveniently timed right after the Amazon Fire TV release, and featured unusually clear screenshots that were perfectly front facing but appeared lightly filtered, almost as if to make them appear as though they were unintentionally leaked. Regardless of intent, it gave us an insight into the set-top box that Google is supposedly building.

Just a couple of months ago I bought into the Google Chromecast, a headless HDMI dongle that streams the internet to your TV. The Chromecast is as simple as can be: it requires you to use your handset or tablet to control it, so there are no “apps” per se. In fact, in order for Netflix to support the Chromecast, it has to offer its content — movies, TV shows, poster art, box art — as URLs. Because the Chromecast can read nothing else.

That’s where it gets interesting. The article in The Verge suggests an obvious question, why is Google making a set-top box that requires apps when its first successful TV device required none? Thankfully, GigaOM filled in the blanks in their article on the technology behind. If I’m reading the tea-leaves correctly, Google have indeed cracked it, and the Android TV doesn’t really require apps — not in the way we’re used to:

I’ve been told that Google’s new approach wants to do away with those differences by replacing these custom interfaces with standardized templates. Publishers wouldn’t need to come up with their own user interface, but instead would develop apps that provide data feeds to the Android TV platform.

Read it this way: you don’t have to make an app for the Android TV, your content just has to be URL accessible. In fact, if a service is already Chromecast ready, putting it on Android TV will probably require very little work. It’s quite clever; just expose the content-tube endpoint and  you have the best of the internet in a native experience, like an RSS feed for television.

Android TV is just a bigger Chromecast, with a remote-control and an interface, should you prefer that. Ted Stevens was right all along.

A Chromecast with a Remote

The internet is a series of tubes.

Last week Android TV leaked on The Verge. The leak was conveniently timed right after the Amazon Fire TV release, and featured unusually clear screenshots that were perfectly front facing but appeared lightly filtered, almost as if to make them appear as though they were unintentionally leaked. Regardless of intent, it gave us an insight into the set-top box that Google is supposedly building.

Just a couple of months ago I bought into the Google Chromecast, a headless HDMI dongle that streams the internet to your TV. The Chromecast is as simple as can be: it requires you to use your handset or tablet to control it, so there are no “apps” per se. In fact, in order for Netflix to support the Chromecast, it has to offer its content — movies, TV shows, poster art, box art — as URLs. Because the Chromecast can read nothing else.

That’s where it gets interesting. The article in The Verge suggests an obvious question, why is Google making a set-top box that requires apps when its first successful TV device required none? Thankfully, GigaOM filled in the blanks in their article on the technology behind. If I’m reading the tea-leaves correctly, Google have indeed cracked it, and the Android TV doesn’t really require apps — not in the way we’re used to:

I’ve been told that Google’s new approach wants to do away with those differences by replacing these custom interfaces with standardized templates. Publishers wouldn’t need to come up with their own user interface, but instead would develop apps that provide data feeds to the Android TV platform.

Read it this way: you don’t have to make an app for the Android TV, your content just has to be URL accessible. In fact, if a service is already Chromecast ready, putting it on Android TV will probably require very little work. It’s quite clever; just expose the content-tube endpoint and  you have the best of the internet in a native experience, like an RSS feed for television.

Android TV is just a bigger Chromecast, with a remote-control and an interface, should you prefer that. Ted Stevens was right all along.