Two different announcements from Google came out last week with regard to their Android platform and taken together seem to indicate that they don’t care quite as much about their developer partners.

First was the announcement of Google’s App Inventor which puts app development in the hands of virtually everyone.  This would seem to not only diminish the relative value of the development skills that people have been investing in learning the ins and outs of the Android platform over the past year or two. And it would seem to contribute to an increased of low-quality apps that already seems to pervade the Android store, at least in comparison to those found on Apple’s App Store. I’m pretty sure that’s not a good thing.

The second item came from Google’s earning call when Jonathan Rosenberg, Google’s SVP of Product Management said: “I think the most important thing beyond the growth [of the Android ecosystem] is that the most popular app is a browser.”  Rosenberg also noted that search on Android devices grew 300% in the first half of 2010. But monetizing mobile web properties is harder than monetizing apps.

So that tells me a few things. One Google doesn’t really care as much about app growth and still sees search as the key element of its mobile strategy.  But apps are theoretically how developers get paid.  Taken together with numbers quoted on how many dollars have been paid out between Apple and Google through apps it seems to me that if I were considering where to put my development efforts, I would be less interested in developing on the Android platform.

Do you agree with my point of view? Are you putting more resources behind iOS development, Android or some other platform (e.g. RIM or WebOS)?  Let me know.

There were several stories today on TechCrunch about upcoming tablets as well as several…shall we say curious…statements from Microsoft executives at their Worldwide Partner Conference in the nation’s capital.  I find much of the conversation and posturing from vendors and pundits interesting and incredulous at the same time.  Sometimes I’m not even sure if they know what the game is that they’re playing.

From a media perspective it seems to come down to whether you’re an Apple fan or someone who wants to see Apple knocked down a few pegs.  I mean one of the dumber comments I’ve seen was by Inc.’s Renee Oricchio who when comparing a proposed Droid tablet to the iPad asked:

“Who’s more business oriented? Do you really see the UPS man having you sign for a package on his iPad? Hmmm… But, I bet you can see doing it on an Android pad. I can. I can see the UPS man using a mashup app between Google maps and his delivery route data, even Google calendars.”

Is there inherently anything different about an Android-based tablet that could possibly make this statement true? Did I miss where you can’t access Google Maps or Calendars on the iPad or where those services couldn’t be built into an app or via a HTML5-based site. I didn’t think her other points made any sense either.

Anyway, not that anyone’s asking me, but I’d suggest that tablet vendors follow this advice:

1. If it’s not shipping within the next 6 months, shut up. Earlier this week there was an “announcement” of sorts from HP about a flexible tablet based on the WebOS from the recently acquired Palm. Personally I think that WebOS is a great platform and that it provides HP a chance to really own the corporate tablet market. But as someone who owns a Palm Pré, just focus on taking the OS to the next level and get out a new phone and the Slate before you start talking about something that won’t ship for 5 years.  Another example of getting too far ahead of yourself was the Microsoft Courier. When it was first introduced it seemed a dream device, and perhaps most notably a very-non Microsoft-like. It seemed like a sure fire hit…except that Microsoft killed it a few months ago and we’ll never know. But of course none of that stopped Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer from telling the world that he’s hardcore about tablet computers at WPC 2010. Ship something…please.

1. Do not focus on specs. It’s a race to the bottom, not the top. This is the classic mistake that many tech companies make, often borne out of a lack of any real differentiation. It’s also the easiest thing to get “beat” on by the next product the competitor releases. Besides, so many companies use the same components and it’s difficult (if not impossible) for customer to really understand what impact the difference in specs really has on the performance and quality of the product they bought (didn’t we learn this about processor clock speed?).  Author Steven Sinek’s latest book “Start with Why” premise is that best, most profitable companies with the most loyal customer base are those that don’t focus on what they do (focusing on product specs) but have a very clear vision, understanding of “why” they created their company and the products they make flow from that vision.

1. Keep usability front and center. This is the flip side of the spec issue. It’s amazing to me that companies learn the lessons of why different mobile devices have succeeded and others have failed. The success of the first Palm Pilot was its simplicity. There were 4 buttons on the device, built around a customized operating system and the apps worked well.  On the other hand, there’s Microsoft’s Windows Mobile OS. Microsoft proffered this shrunken version of the Windows desktop operating system that was ill-suited to the medium, putting the importance of extending the Windows franchise ahead of the needs of the customer.  Well it worked so well that Microsoft finally had to shed the Windows moniker for the launch of Windows Phone7 this fall.

Yet usability is what’s been behind the success of the iPod, iPhone and now the iPad. Neither of the first two products were first in the market, but they redefined the category and thrust Apple into the American consciousness as never before. The iPad is often ridiculed as a giant iPhone or a device for your Mom, but the execution is excellent and it’s the elegance of the interface, designed for the medium has been the key to the success of the device and Apple’s ability to define the segment – so much so that everyone else on the planet is rushing to join the party.

1. The characterization of the iPad as a consumption device is a false argument. I’m not sure that I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard this repeated. Nor do I necessarily believe that it’s true (at least compared to other similar devices) or whether or not it matters.  There’s no debating that many of the apps that were featured in the launch were consumption based, but considering apps like Documents to Go by DataViz, Evernote, OmniGraffle, Wordpress, twitter apps, I just don’t believe it’s true.  And that’s not considering the fact that we’re looking at a product that’s only been in the market for just over 3 months so the best apps are still in the future. And it’s clear that iMovie for the iPad (just released for iPhone4) is in the very near future.  And if you look at this video, I’d like you to tell me that you can’t create on the iPad with a straight face.

1. One last thing…if your tablet requires a stylus, you’re doing it wrong. Bill Buxton from Microsoft Research recently declared at WPC “A device without a stylus is like chinese food without chopsticks”, meaning that their new tablet concepts are going to use a stylus…something not considered on the oft-praised, but not to be released Courier. When will they learn.

A lot of stuff happened while I was OpenTravel’s 2010 Advisory Forum in Seattle this past week:

1. I’d be remiss if I didn’t start with the successful IPO of Amadeus (AMA.MC), the largest GDS and leader in global travel technology solutions…and Ness Software Product Labs’ signature client in the travel technology space.
2. Apple buys Siri.  It’s not just mobile-web search, Siri also has the ability to learn preferences and not just provide better results back, but help complete activities or business processes like making dinner reservations or booking a flight.  It should be interesting to see how the iPhone experience evolves as Siri deepens the integration with iPhone OS.
3. Salesforce.com and VMWare announce VMForce.  Looks like Salesforce finally admitted that APEX was holding back the Force.com Platform-as-a-Service business and partnered with VMWare to enable direct Java-based development on the rest of the Force.com infrastructure. Good analysis by Enterprise Irregulars Phil Wainwright, Bob Warfield and Brian Sommer.
4. 5 reasons iPhone v. Android isn’t Mac v. Windows. Well said.
5. Another Top 5 list.  This time it’s the untapped or under-exploited opportunities in travel.  Mobile payments, re-booking top the list, but read on to see what other opportunities lie in wait.
6. Steve Jobs’ official position on Apple v. Adobe Flash.  Nothing terribly new (or not already said by Daring Fireball’s John Gruber), but if it’s written by Steve…and he gives it almost 1700 words, you should at least read it.
7. Excellent analysis of what Apple’s announcement of iAds will mean.
8. Tech Crunch’s Michael Arrington announces that with the recent announcements at the f8 conference we’re officially in the ‘age of Facebook’.
9. Forrester’s JP Gownder offers an opinion on why consumers will pay more for products and uses the Mac as a shining example.  I only have two issues with the analysis.  First I think that Gownder mistakenly equates repeat purchase with brand loyalty.  But more importantly, the piece reads as if the three categories can have similar impact. As I’m in the middle of Steven Sinek’s “Start With Why”, I believe “self-selection” (as Gownder calls it) reason is by far the most influential. But if you read the book, self-selection has a lot to do with whether or not a company has a compelling “why”.
10. On top of the Amadeus IPO, two big mergers in the travel industry:  Hertz buys Dollar Thrifty and United and Continental Airlines are set to merge under the United moniker. And it increasingly looks like Google will buy ITA.  A lot of activity for sure.

Today I read a good post by CrispWireless CTO, Xavier Facon, entitled “Apps Call, but will your phone answer? Maybe not.” The post was a response to an MSNBC CES article bemoaning the fact that many apps exist on certain platforms, but not others.  This of course is not news.  Apple’s iPhone had 100,000, Google’s Android 20,000 and Palm’s WebOS just over a 1,000 (please make more, I like my Pre and do have app envy).  The fragmentation of the mobile industry across different operating systems and different hardware systems is well documented and is the bane of many software developers and testers across the world.

The crux of Facon’s post seems to provide tacit support a more standards-based approach coalescing around HTML5, but also acknowledging that the industry is not close to supporting a single standard and therefore they try to solve the quandary by re-writing the app across different platforms. At least Crisp seems to focus on keeping the functionality, something that many companies don’t do.  This is an important decision by Crisp because it helps maintain not just common functionality across devices, but also promotes a common design and better usability as users move from one device to another.

But I want to get back to the standards issue.  As much as software engineering teams across the globe would like to have a standard “write once, run anywhere” approach as they’ve been used to with modern languages like Java, I don’t think there is any likelihood of  this happening in the short to medium term.  It’s really not all that dissimilar to creating desktop apps for Mac v. PC, it’s just that there are more options in the mobile world.  The hardware platform providers like Apple, RIM, Google, Nokia and Palm each have different OS’ that they think create differentiation for their platform and provide better performance/user experience.   If you want to take advantage of the full capabilities of the device, you have to write for the platform.  And the reason behind it all is usability.

While using a standard language like HTML5 may make it easier to program across platforms, but it doesn’t allow you to take advantage of the specific capabilities that the OS and hardware allow for.   Plus you have to design for the form factor.  Mobile apps — perhaps I should  say “good mobile apps” — look vastly different from the content on the web.  They’re designed for action more so than information.  For fingers, not mice.  For use by broader segment of the population who may be less tech savvy.  I mean can you even imagine using an iPhone or Palm Pre without multi-touch and gestures?  Look how that changed the entire experience and drove usage through the roof.  In a recent PhoCusWright report Mobile: The Next Platform for Travel, they demonstrate the difference in presentation and usability between a standard web site, a mobile transcoded site and an app.   Now there are many WAP-enabled sites that run in a browser and provide something in-between the transcoded site and an app, but anyone that’s used a WAP site still prefers and app to get the same information.  Usability is what it’s all about.  The App strategy wins over a WAP strategy.

Google wants HTML5 because it wants a web-oriented portable computing device to better leverage the web apps that is the core of its business. Android is more of a strategy to extend it’s platform rather than to create a new one that is optimized for mobile.

Additionally, an app strategy rather than just a mobile web strategy provides a performance advantage. A downloaded app only needs to get refreshed data over the network rather than reloading the entire page each time.  It’s true that 3G and 4G networks are improving (if you have coverage; no apologies to AT&T coming. As tiresome as the Verizon ads have become, Luke Wilson is seriously annoying), performance is extremely important.  Abandon rates on the web are high for a 3 second delay.  Most people would kill for a 3 second delay on their mobile applications.
So while it may be a pain to code for multiple platforms, it’s the only way to go.

What’s your take?  Agree? Disagree?