This is a rather large infographic, I admit, but the historical review is very interesting, and lays a good foundation for the projections which are – at one and the same time – compelling and a little disturbing (click on the image to link to a larger version). Does the outlook thrill you, or scare you?:
Now that everyone who couldn’t bear to wait is feverishly pawing their new iPad (or not), I want to take a few moments to explore the possibility of alternatives.
I’ve admired Apple for the longest time, largely for its design and brand marketing savvy. The company’s innovative techniques have forced the hardware and software industries alike to eschew complacency, at the risk of alienating a very demanding consumer-base. However, I believe that the iPad, while it will certainly not damage Apple’s bottom line (Apple apparently sold more iPad units on its opening day than it sold iPhone units back in June 2007, when that device was launched*), may well contribute to some overdue redress of the perception of the brand, versus the reality of its product line value.
There’s no denying that Apple has made some innovative products, and its oligarchy has ensured that attention to detail and robust design standards have remained mainstays in the development of all hardware and software offerings. However, the company’s commitment to closed systems, proprietary elements, and “walled garden” disdain for open standards has served to goad competitors into an increasing frenzy of responsive innovation. The result has been that the gap between Apple innovation and mainstream industrial emulation has narrowed sufficiently these past few years, so as to position several competing brands almost neck and neck with Apple on this, their latest release.
Blackberry, HTC, Motorola, Palm, and Google have all come out with multitouch interfaces for their handheld devices, in the wake of the iPhone. While few of these brands offer a truly competitive alternative to the Apple iPhone OS, with respect to UI and application experience, this gap may no longer exist with the Tablet. Here below are a few possible competitors to the early bird iPad:
Neofonie’s 11.6” display has much going for it, and is *apparently* going to hit the European market in less than a week. however, the absence of any video footage of note makes one pause…Here are some pictures, at least:
Lenovo IdeaPad U1
For those who can’t decide between a netbook and a tablet…there’s an app a device for that:
Competitively priced, and with some of the features that lots of people are moaning are lacking in the iPad:
If Ballmer is able to deliver on the promise held within these demos, things could get really exciting:
Dell Mini 5
Multitasking, small form factor, data AND phone AND camera…:
They call this a “finger driven PC”, and it certainly has some interesting specs:
Innovative Converged Devices has created a full size (called the VEGA), and a mini tablet (the ULTRA), depending on your carrier preference (the VEGA will be sold via T-Mobile, while the Ultra will go to Verizon). The full size gets my motor running more so than the mini, but the mini is certainly worth a look, if portability is one of your top priorities:
Notion Ink Adam
Saving the best for last, Notion Ink has managed to accomplish what I have been dreaming was possible: to marry the text reading superiority of the Kindle (e-ink), the user flexibility of the iPad, and the multitasking capability of some of the the other tablets mentioned above:
So where does this leave Netbooks? Given that companies like MSI, best known as netbook manufacturers, are set to launch their own tablet devices later this year, I predict that with the rise of tablets, we will see a relative decline in netbook sales. It won’t happen overnight, and devices such as Lenovo’s IdeaPad will certainly cater to those of us who want a little bit from both worlds, but as Android and other mobile OS technologies evolve, and multi-touch and resistive interface technology refine themselves, I think netbooks and laptops will be left with greatly reduced market share.
Yet, just when we think that there are enough worthy alternatives out there to permit ourselves the luxury of making a choice, along comes Google (again!) to suggest they may be releasing their own Chrome OS-based tablet…
I guess it’s like car-shopping these days: if you need one, get one. If you don’t need one, wait a bit. Everything seems to change dramatically on a weekly basis, so whatever you buy this week will be trumped in no time. The firm of Amdahl, Nielsen and Moore is hard at work…
As pundits across the Internet continue to post their predictions for 2010 (what’s the cut-off for this, by the way? It’s bad enough that Christmas starts in October now, but aren’t “predictions” supposed to take place BEFORE the year in question?), I am struck by two things: the struggle between our growing desire for less clutter and our impulse to acquire and hoard, and the continued admiration for truly innovative activity, regardless of its commercial or technological viability.
We persist, as a society, to seek the newest and most disruptive opportunities, if only to engage in flights of fancy. Attendees at this past week’s CES show in Las Vegas will be the first to testify that much of what was touted there as “the next big thing” will never move beyond the prototypical. This is not necessarily due to the nature of the prototype itself, however, but rather the willingness (or lack thereof) of a business venture to invest in that emerging offering.
Before we start delving too deeply in to the obvious realms of technological invention, let me stress that innovation is a concept that permeates every industry and market sector. Whether you are semiconductor company seeking to maintain (and even best) Moore’s law, a TV or film producer hoping your property will have just the right “magic sauce”, or a car manufacturer investing in one alternative fuel research pipeline, as opposed to another: innovation is an “agnostic religion” which has unfortunately become somewhat synonymous with instant viability, and not with process-oriented supportive infrastructures of creativity. In an incessantly bottom-line focused business world, truly supportive nurturing of bright ideas was replaced by desperate flash gambles: far better to throw small investments at multiple opportunities, hoping for speedy returns on one, than to put all one’s proverbial eggs in one basket, and wait patiently for nothing more than the possible…right?
So is there actually a timeline for innovation? Can we plot the building blocks for innovation or, by process of elimination achieve the same, by identifying the obstacles our business culture may have erected, in its past 3 decades of greed (and I do not use the word lightly)?
Businesses today have become too tightly focused on short term ROI, leaving little or no room for creativity or invention. The investment required to support an innovation pipeline is no longer being made by most traditional technology providers, product developers and R&D labs, now focused on saving themselves to prosperity by milking their IP portfolios as efficiently as possible. Admittedly, a few companies, studios, and other enterprises have invested very small sums in “incubator” ventures, recognizing very cautiously the value in maintaining *some* sort of connection to long-term growth models. Others, such as Google and Facebook, hold a commitment at their very core to embed the pursuit of innovation as part of the daily task list of every employee. As a result, the consistent commitment to process and product improvement, regardless of sources or roles, leads to what I call “3M moments”: true innovations realized by everyday employees seeking to meet market needs, supported by companies fostering “permitted bootlegging” policies, rather than R&D investments made only on the basis of direct ROI.
I suggest that – with the exception of military imperatives (World Wars and the like) – the greatest business and social growth has occurred historically when the least pressure has been applied by the businesses “hosting” the research and development leading to that growth. We are now entered in to such a time, when an economic downturn of such harshness has released companies from the day-to-day “make me a buck” pressures imposed by day-trading shareholders of past. The next two to five years present a fantastic opportunity for businesses large and small to integrate innovation pipelines back in to their midterm and long term strategies. There is no distinct single formula for innovation, however, nor any marked timetable. Instead, invention occurs at the confluence of myriad flexible solution environments, be they fiscally, technologically, or socially driven.
People will always come up with brilliant ideas. It then falls to business or academia to incubate those ideas, until such time as the market is able to make best use of them. Take, for example, the seemingly never-ending saga of the e-book. This is not some newly emerging wonder toy. The e-book has existed for more than 20 years. Indeed, over 15 years ago, it was fully recognized as a tangible replacement for print journalism:
I believe that e-books and e-magazines will be mainstream in the very near future, rather than early adopter indulgences. Will print journalism disappear? I don’t know. I can’t see a reason why we should continue to invest in deforestation, unnecessary hard distribution costs, or ink, when the alternative permits us to invest in more sustainable environmental and business practices. E-journalism allows us to pay our reporters more, lets us deliver information under multiple revenue generation models (advertisement-based, subscription-based, single POP-based), and makes more sense in a world seeking less clutter and more time.
Whether we end up holding Kindles, Nooks, Ques, Skiffs, Apple Tablets, or Sony Readers in our hands, our physical relationship with information will continue to evolve, at a pace governed by the consumer, and the speed of adoption will sometimes be influenced by very un-business-like elements. Software elements such as Kurzweil’s Blio may accelerate or arrest this evolution, and if there’s one thing that trumps humanity’s drive for innovation, it is its nostalgia. eBay built an empire on the back of this certainty, and political parties feed off of our thirst for non-existent “good old days”.
Our job as thinkers and business leaders is to balance our responsibilities to our shareholders with our younger dreams, born perhaps when we were bright-eyed undergraduate visionaries: imaginings wherein anything was possible. We were once able to construct whole worlds absent of patent trolls, stock valuations, or balance sheets. Perhaps the greatest innovation of the next 30 years will be the discovery of a formula that elegantly balances commerce and creativity once more, heralding a new and thrilling renaissance. Not so much the undeniably great advances of this past century, but the more balanced and measured movement that brings forth whole societies. Now that would be a great “Reset” to look forward to!
(*William Shakespeare; Hamlet; Act 3, Scene 1)