Motorola Pondering Xoom Production Cut

From Larry Dignan at ZDNet:> Jefferies analyst Peter Misek on Friday argued that earnings estimates for Motorola Mobility are too high for the second quarter and 2011 because sales of the Xoom and Atrix haven’t lived up to expectations.

Misek said: Xoom sales have been underwhelming. While marketing has just started we believe MMI will likely have to cut production if it already has not done so. We believe the device has been a bit buggy and did not meet the magic price point of $500. We believe management knows this and is hurrying development and production of lower cost tablets. Importantly we believe management will likely have to make the painful decision to accept little to no margin initially in order to match iPad 2’s wholesale pricing. Yep, totally didn't see that one coming. Not at all. Nope. Never.

Twitter Declares War on 3rd Party Clients

Well, it's official. Twitter has declared war on its 3rd party client developers. Ryan Sarver, Platform lead for Twitter posted a message to developers this afternoon outlining Twitter's policy change. Dave Winer reminds us all that he warned us that one day we would wish we had decentralized from Twitter. I thought he was right then, and still do. The problem is it's hard to move the community. MG Siegler, at Techcrunch, writes:

For much of the past year, the Twitter ecosystem has been in a state of flux. Ever since Twitter bought Tweetie and turned it into their own native iPhone app, third-party developers have been wondering where this would leave them. Further moves by Twitter into Android, iPad, Mac, Windows Phone, BlackBerry, and other spaces have only compounded some of this fear. So Twitter has taken some time today in their developer forum to talk a bit about the state of the ecosystem and give some guidance. It’s blunt, but necessary. Specifically, Platform lead Ryan Sarver has a fairly lengthy outline of Twitter’s line of thinking with regard to third-party clients and services. And while there’s a little bit of dancing around the topic at first, it quickly gets very clear: third-parties probably shouldn’t be creating straight-up Twitter clients any further. Sarver notes that Twitter views a “consistent user experience” as very important to them. And it’s something they’re going to hold third-party developers to a very high standard to maintain. But they don’t want them to mimic Twitter’s own experience with their native apps in order to do this. They’ve updated the API Terms of Service to reflect all of this. “Developers have told us that they’d like more guidance from us about the best opportunities to build on Twitter. More specifically, developers ask us if they should build client apps that mimic or reproduce the mainstream Twitter consumer client experience. The answer is no,” Sarver writes very matter-of-factly. “If you are an existing developer of client apps, you can continue to serve your user base, but we will be holding you to high standards to ensure you do not violate users’ privacy, that you provide consistency in the user experience, and that you rigorously adhere to all areas of our Terms of Service. We have spoken with the major client applications in the Twitter ecosystem about these needs on an ongoing basis, and will continue to ensure a high bar is maintained,” he continues. Sarver notes that according to Twitter’s own data, some 90 percent of active Twitter users now use official Twitter apps on a monthly basis to access the service. “We need to move to a less fragmented world, where every user can experience Twitter in a consistent way. This is already happening organically – the number and market share of consumer client apps that are not owned or operated by Twitter has been shrinking,” he writes. The biggest third-party client in the space is TweetDeck, which was in the process of being acquired by UberMedia when Twitter suspended their apps a few weeks ago for TOS violations. I’ve reached out to Twitter to see where TweetDeck and UberMedia stand now with the new rules. So where should third-party developers look towards in terms of developing for the ecosystem? Sarver highlights the following areas: * Publisher tools. Companies such as SocialFlow help publishers optimize how they use Twitter, leading to increased user engagement and the production of the right tweet at the right time. * Curation. Mass Relevance and Sulia provide services for large media brands to select, display, and stream the most interesting and relevant tweets for a breaking news story, topic or event. * Realtime data signals. Hundreds of companies use real-time Twitter data as an input into ranking, ad targeting, or other aspects of enhancing their own core products. Klout is an example of a company which has taken this to the next level by using Twitter data to generate reputation scores for individuals. Similarly, Gnip syndicates Twitter data for licensing by third parties who want to use our real-time corpus for numerous applications (everything from hedge funds to ranking scores). * Social CRM, entreprise clients, and brand insights. Companies such as HootSuite, CoTweet, Radian6, Seesmic, and Crimson Hexagon help brands, enterprises, and media companies tap into the zeitgeist about their brands on Twitter, and manage relationships with their consumers using Twitter as a medium for interaction. * Value-added content and vertical experiences. Emerging services like Formspring, Foursquare, Instagram, and Quora have built into Twitter by allowing users to share unique and valuable content to their followers, while, in exchange, the services get broader reach, user acquisition, and traffic. Sarver highlights Twitter’s “diverse ecosystem” of more than 750,000 registered apps. But that ecosystem definitely just got altered quite a bit today. I think that Justin Williams, iOS developer of the popular Elements app sums it up nicely: (paraphrased) "Anyone building a product around a platform in which they have no control, should be wary of the platform, especially a platform that is VC funded." My theory? It's all about the Dickbar. Twitter to users, "Here, have a Dickbar!" Users to Twitter, "We don't like the Dickbar! It covers up our timelines!" Twitter to users, "Okay, we made the Dickbar less sucky!" Users to Twitter, "But it's still a Dickbar! Fine then, we'll switch to Twitteriffic, Echofon, Tweetdeck, Hibari, etc". Twitter sees a large amount of people quit using their client. In-your-face trends ad bar plot foiled! Devises new plan... Twitter to developers, "You can't make clients anymore that don't have our 'user experience' (1)". (1): 'User Experience' = Dickbar. Brent Simmons chimes in as well:

Did Twitter just tell client-app developers to stop?

I’m seriously disappointed by this. Not as someone with a Twitter client, but as someone who likes the service and wants my fellow developers to do interesting things. One of the cool things about Twitter is that the service sparked a bunch of UI innovation on the part of some very talented client-app developers. I want to see that continue. But it’s as if they said: no more. Stop. We’ll take over now. Craig Hockenberry also makes the good point that the reason third-party Twitter clients are so important to the Twitter ecosystem is that they innovated when Twitter did not. One question though...did Twitter release this bombshell on the community on a Friday afternoon where they thought that their userbase would be distracted? On the 1st day of SXSW? On the iPad 2 launch day? I can't decide whether I think the existing news stories of the day (earthquake/tsunami, iPad 2, SXSW) will drown out the news or if SXSW will help to amplify it. I'm hoping for amplification. C'mon nerds, gather ye pitchforks and torches.

iPad: The First Year

This was Apple's promo movie as shown during yesterday's event. I cannot think of one other company that I buy products from that does such a good job of tastefully promoting its own products such as this. And although I like to scold my wife from time to time by saying "you're falling for their marketing!", when I watch this video, I do not feel that it's marketing (of course it is) because I agree with it. Let's see Microsoft, Google, Motorola or HP do that.

Photo: President Obama meets with Tech Luminaries

President Barack Obama joins a toast with Technology Business Leaders at a dinner in Woodside, California, Feb. 17, 2011.

Here’s the full list of attendees according to the NY Times, LA Times and SF Chronicle:

  • John Doerr, partner, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers
  • Carol Bartz, president and CEO, Yahoo!
  • John Chambers, CEO and chairman, Cisco Systems
  • Dick Costolo, CEO, Twitter
  • Larry Ellison, co-founder and CEO, Oracle
  • Reed Hastings, CEO, NetFlix
  • John Hennessy, president, Stanford University
  • Steve Jobs, chairman and CEO, Apple
  • Art Levinson, chairman and former CEO, Genentech
  • Eric Schmidt, chairman and CEO, Google
  • Steve Westly, managing partner and founder, Westly Group
  • Mark Zuckerberg, founder, president and CEO, Facebook

Going around the circle, starting from the President's right: Mark Zuckerberg, Unknown, Dick Costolo, Carol Bartz , John Hennessy, Reed Hastings, Larry Ellison, John Doerr, John Chambers, Art Levinson, Eric Schmidt, Unknown, Steve Westly, and Steve Jobs.

P021711PS-0705

Also posted to the official White House Flickr account, a photo of the President speaking with Mark Zuckerberg.

P021711PS-0659

Significant Percentage Of Verizon Android Users To Switch to iPhone

Some weeks ago I wrote a post regarding the iPhone coming to Verizon. My main point was to assert that I thought it would dramatically hurt Android sales. Today, a survey taken by a high-tech online research firm based in Los Angeles called uSamp, has given evidence that I may be correct. The results of this survey were published in an article on Fortune written by Philip Elmer-DeWitt.

From the article:

Survey: 44% of Verizon Android users likely to switch to iPhone on Day One

For Blackberry users it's 66%, and nearly a quarter are willing to stand in like to get one

Drawing from a pool of 4.7 million panelists, uSamp asked a sample of 700 AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) smartphone owners how likely they were to switch to Verizon's version of Apple's (AAPL) iPhone next Thursday, Feb. 10, the first day it goes on sale.

The results are posted in full below the fold. The key findings:

  • Among Android owners, 44% are either very likely (19%) or somewhat likely (25%) to buy an iPhone on Feb. 10.
  • Among RIM owners, 66% are very likely (32%) or somewhat likely (34%) to switch on Day One. Nearly a quarter (24%) of the Android and RIM switchers say they'd be willing to stand in line to get one of the first Verizon iPhones.
  • Owners of AT&T (T) iPhones are less likely to switch (8% very likely, 18% somewhat) but the switchers are more likely (29%) than RIM or Android owners to stand in line that first day. Perhaps they have more practice queuing up for an iPhone.

Most Verizon Android Owners Are Main Stream Users

It is my firm belief that most Verizon Android owners are not open-source geeks/advocates who consciously went to (or stayed on) Verizon to buy an Android because they're anti-Apple. I would wager to say that most Android owners on Verizon are main-stream users who wanted iPhones but because they were unwilling to switch to AT&T. Instead, they walked into a Verizon store and asked a salesperson to give them a phone that was "like an iPhone". The salesperson handed them an Android and sold them on the idea that it was "just as good" so that's what they bought. A certain percentage of these users are not happy. They want to be able to use the same apps that all of their friends who have iPhones can use. They are not happy that the phone doesn't "work as good" as iPhones do (UI, ease of use, stability, battery life - things that Apple geeks can point out, but non-tech savvy users might have a hard time quantifying).

This has all changed. Some of these users will go to Verizon and immediately switch. Some of these users will switch to an iPhone when their contract is up and they can get the subsidized upgrade price. The main change though is that these users are now able to walk into a Verizon store and get the iPhone. Not a phone that is "like the iPhone" or "just as good" as the iPhone...but an actual iPhone. And that is why Android is in trouble.

Much Ado About Nothing

This morning, the New York Times published an article entitled "Apple Moves to Tighten Control of App Store".

The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store.

Apple rejected Sony’s iPhone application, which would have let people buy and read e-books bought from the Sony Reader Store.

Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division.

Am I missing something? From reading the article, my understanding is that Sony tried to submit an app to the store that would allow in-app purchases. The Kindle or Nook apps, for instance, currently do not allow this either. When users click the various "store" links within these apps, it redirects the user to Safari. In other words, no ebook apps currently allow in-app purchases. It is my understanding that this has always been Apple's policy. Nothing has changed. Why is the New York Times feigning ignorance on this? Or are they really just that, ignorant.

The writers of the article, Claire Cain Miller and Miguel Helft go on to say:

The move could affect companies like Amazon.com and others that sell e-book readers that compete with Apple’s iPad tablet and offer free mobile apps so customers can read their e-book purchases on other devices. An iPad owner, for instance, has not needed to own a Kindle to read Kindle books bought from Amazon.

That may now change.

No, it will not.

Why have so many bloggers followed along with this incorrect narrative this morning? This is just Apple enforcing th same policy they always have had and Sony probably whining to the Times because they want special treatment.

On Google's Announcement That Chrome Will Drop Native h.264 Playback Support

I haven't written about what I think is the 2nd biggest news story of the week yet, but I've tweeted about it quite a bit. On Tuesday, Google announced that in a future version of Chrome, to come out later this year, they would drop h.264 playback support. And then, on Twitter, I announced that I would cease using Chrome & move back to Safari.

In short, I think this is an incredibly idiotic move on Google's part. I think this is a purely evil and corporate political move in order to try to do harm to iOS devices. I think that Google is outright lying when they try to claim the reason for this decision is a commitment to open standards and I do not think its a coincidence that they made this announcement on the day of the Verizon iPhone announcement.

Why do I feel all of these things? Rather than do a poor job of articulating my thoughts, as I am a horrible writer, I will instead link you to John Gruber's piece he wrote today. He called it, "The Practical vs. Idealistic Scenarios for the Near-Term Future of Online Video (OR: HOW GOOGLE’S DECISION TO DROP NATIVE H.264 PLAYBACK FROM CHROME SERVES TO PROP UP FLASH PLAYER)".

I see this as coming back to bite Google in the ass. I also see this as the final move, in a steadily crescendoing series of moves that Google has made in recent years that has made me completely lose trust in them as a company. Also on Tuesday I began searching for a way to migrate off of gMail (which I probably will do soon to MobileMe) along with other Google services I use. I no longer want to have anything to do with them as a customer. Google is the new Microsoft. Microsoft is now the new IBM. And IBM is now an irrelevant behemoth of a bureaucratic consulting company that no longer makes anything of value. And I guess Apple is the new...Apple? See, horrible writer.