For some reason I’ve been playing a lot of retro video games lately instead of writing about, or podcasting about, technology. I still think about technology a lot, and work in the industry during the day, but I just haven’t found the time to work on it in the evenings .
One of my favourite games to revisit has been the original Mega Man series. Anyone that played on the original NES will remember Mega Man, probably Mega Man 2.
Just today I beat the original Mega Man for the first time. In lieu of a lengthy post extolling the virtues of Mega Man, here are some screen shots from my victory. I’m going to be working on setting up a live stream of my game play once I get some time.
What follows was supposed to be a short write-up on my post Microsoft Build thoughts, but instead my thoughts got away from me. I still want to talk about Microsoft build and Facebook’s F8 conferences but that will have to happen in another post.
Instead of being a post-Build blog post, this post is about a trend I see happening in modern computing: the death of the operating system and the rise of a new platform layer. In order to explain that statement I’m going to try to explain what I think happened in the past and how it leads us to today. What I hope to show is the decline in power of the Operating System (OS) over time where I think we are headed.
Since this post started with a different focus and evolved into a totally different discussion the arguments contained are a tad short, but bear with me and I will try to expand on this further in the future. Or leave a comment taking me to task and I will try to answer you.
This is the mainframe, mini, and hobby PC era. I am going to leave this aside and focus on modern computing instead. I’ll start somewhere in the mid eighties when the personal computer began to assert it’s dominance within the enterprise and eventually at home:
The Desktop Operating System Era
This is the era where the winner was Microsoft. During this time operating systems were very important, you would pay hundreds of dollars for them 1Most people only paid for operating systems when they purchased a new computer so perhaps to the average consumer operating systems never really had any value? and each new release was surrounded by unbelievable fanfare.2Windows 95 release anyone? The era of the desktop operating system was dominated by large expensive desktop apps (we used to call them applications or programs) that were very tightly integrated with the operating system they ran on.
The Internet Era
After the desktop era came the rise of the internet. This was the heyday of the “world wide web”, when the western world came online and companies like Yahoo, AltaVista, GeoCities, Netscape, and Google came to dominate the computing landscape3None of whom made an operating system and only one (Netscape) made a desktop app.
One of the things that was significant about the internet era was that dominated by a layer that sat on top of all operating systems equally. This meant that you could be on a Mac, a PC, or a Linux box 4And at the end of the era a smartphone and the layer that was the “web” remained largely the same, e.g. outside the control of the operating system and the company that dominated it. It also meant that aside from the web browser being used, users were spending less and less time in desktop apps.
During the rise of the internet the operating system lost it’s position of dominance, to the point where, for most consumers, using the computer meant starting up a browser and visiting Facebook, Gmail, or some other website. This era began the decline of the consumer desktop app and the rise of the free-to-use website.5Desktop apps remained important in the enterprise where software publishers continued to gouge businesses. Notice that the “software” (e.g. websites) that most people used online were free, or free and ad supported in contrast with the expensive applications in the previous era.
The Mobile Era
Next came the mobile era where we moved from desktop computers and the web browsers that ran on top of them, to smartphone operating systems and the apps they ran. This is the era where the entire world came online. In this era the internet moved from being the front end user experience layer to becoming the back-end that powered the smartphone apps that dominated computing. These apps, like the desktop apps of the past, were tightly bound to the mobile operating systems they were designed for. 6Apple’s iOS and Google’s Android.
In this era operating systems went from costing a lot of money to being free. Mobile operating systems never seemed to cost anything, unless you include them in the cost of the phone purchase and, even if you do, the updates were free and no one thought that the sales of mobile operating systems would be directly profitable.
On the desktop Apple was releasing new versions of OS X for $25 and then finally, with the release of Mavericks, OS X was free. On the Windows side Microsoft continued to charge for upgrades and new versions of Windows up until Windows 10, where they made the consumer upgrade to Windows 10 free for the first year. The days when sales of your operating system to consumers are a direct profit center are done. Linux, the other major desktop operating system, continued being free during this period.
The start of the mobile era renewed the importance of the operating system as iOS and Android competed for apps and features. After almost nine years of this both operating systems reached basic feature and app parity, a level of maturity where the importance of the operating system again (as seen earlier on the desktop) begins to decline.
The BOT Era or The Rise of The Mobile Platforms
Now we appear to be on the verge or entering a new era. We are a few years away from virtual reality and augmented reality reaching their true potential, but something else appears to be happening. I think that a new platform is emerging on top of the most popular apps that sit on top of the most popular mobile operating systems. This new platform seems to be doing what the “world wide web” did within browsers on top of operating systems twenty years ago.
What commentators on the Internet 7Along with Microsoft at Build, Facebook at F8, and I would assume Google at the upcoming I/O are all talking about now are Bots. Bots are a layer of technology, or a platform, that will sit on top of the apps and operating systems that we use the most often. They will use natural language processing, deep learning, and the back-end connected cloud to be able to answer our questions, deliver us content, purchase products, and solve problems for us.
This is similar to the “world wide web” in that it is a platform that is sitting on top of another platform. In this case it won’t matter which messaging app, or digital assistant, you choose to use, you will be able to talk to the giphy, weather channel, FedEx, blood sugar, or whichever bots become the most popular.
To put it another way, you will be able to interact with this new “bot” layer in the same way whether you are in Facebook messenger, Skype, using Siri, Google Now, Cortana, or the Amazon Echo. The device, operating system, or app that sits at the bottom of the stack will no longer matter instead it will the be the platform that sits on the top that will rise in importance.
In conclusion I think that bots could be a very big deal, I think that the advances in natural language processing, artificial intelligence, and always-on mobile connections, have brought us to a point where a new interaction layer is possible.
The fact that SDKs are being developed and released means that small developers and companies will be able to populate this layer with bots that operate at a level of sophistication that was not possible at the largest organizations five years ago.
Letting this technology loose onto the billions of people uses the most popular apps and onto the developers eager to serve these new customers will lead to new interactions that we have not yet thought of. This is the bot as operating system and I for one am excited.
A thought crossed my mind as I saw the newly announced Huawei smartwatch, and the new LG smartwatch (LG announced two actually one that runs Android wear and one that does not, more on that in another post) and how they relate to the newly kick-started Pebble Time: what if the Pebble smartwatch is actually a low-end disruptor to the smart-watch category?
Disruptive innovation is a theory put forth by Clayton M. Christensen, low-end disruption being one part of the overall theory:
“Low-end disruption” occurs when the rate at which products improve exceeds the rate at which customers can adopt the new performance. Therefore, at some point the performance of the product overshoots the needs of certain customer segments. At this point, a disruptive technology may enter the market and provide a product which has lower performance than the incumbent but which exceeds the requirements of certain segments, thereby gaining a foothold in the market. – Via Wikipedia
Of course the Pebble was released before the other smartwatches; and we still have to see what the Apple Watch and whatever Samsung announces today at Mobile World Congress do; so it’s not exactly classic low-end disruption. Maybe instead of disruption other products within the category (none of which have sold very well yet) the Pebble is actually a low-end disruptor of the entire smartwatch category?
What if we think we want a Dick Tracy-style smartphone on our wrist, but what we really want is something that tells the time, shows some notifications on our wrist, and has a batter charge that lasts all week?
Up until now I have not been much of a fan of the Pebble, I thought it was too limited. I might just have to re-think what the smartwatch category is all about.
Microsoft has been a central figure in the computer revolution. However like IBM, HP, and Dell a place in computer history does not mean relevance today.
Founded in 1976, Microsoft rose to prominence on the back of a contract IBM awarded them to produce a version of the CP/M operating system for the first IBM PC. Not having a CP/M operating system Microsoft purchased a clone to fulfill the contract. This purchased clone would later become MS-DOS and lead Microsoft to operating system dominance. From Wikipedia:
On August 12, 1981, after negotiations with Digital Research failed, IBM awarded a contract to Microsoft to provide a version of the CP/M operating system, which was set to be used in the IBM PC. For this deal, Microsoft purchased a CP/M clone called 86-DOS from Tim Paterson of Seattle Computer Products for less than US$100,000, which IBM renamed to IBM PC DOS. Microsoft did not have an operating system when they closed the deal with IBM and IBM had not done their homework. Due to potential copyright infringement problems with CP/M, IBM marketed both CP/M and PC DOS for US$240 and US$40, respectively, with PC DOS eventually becoming the standard because of its lower price.
MS-DOS became the de facto operating system for IBM PCs and PC clones. At the time PCs were business tools largely being bought in the enterprise, who continued to purchase the majority of PCs during the nineteen eighties and nineties. A brief quote from the Benedict Evans article: Apple, open and learning from history:
In the 1990s, the PC market was mostly a corporate market (roughly 75% of volume). Corporate buyers wanted a commodity. They were buying 500 or 5000 boxes, they wanted them all the same and they wanted to be able to order 500 or 5000 more roughly the same next year.
When consumers did purchase computers for home use in significant numbers they largely purchased the computers that they had been using at work: PCs. Cheap commodity PCs that came with MS-DOS and later Windows.
This dominance in the enterprise served Microsoft very well. Their operating systems and other software offerings (most notably Office) became huge money makers for them, propelling Bill Gates (the founder and CEO of Microsoft) to the top of the “world’s richest” list.
Does it matter who buys Windows?
The thing about the enterprise, as Ben Thompson has pointed out on more than one occasion and most notably in What Clayton Christensen Got Wrong is that within the enterprise the purchaser of the product (the PC or the OS for the PC) isn’t the end user of the purchased product. The concerns of the CIO when purchasing for the company are quite different from the concerns of consumer purchasing a computer that they are going to use themselves. In other words, compare the reasons a company purchases a fleet of vehicles, with the reasons a person purchases their own car:
A CIO, for example, must justify a software purchase, and said justification usually comes down to balancing lists of features versus prices. Whatever solution scores best, wins.
This, Thompson argues, and I fundamentally agree with, is different from the way in which a consumer purchases a product. If it wasn’t I assume we’d see very few sports cars being sold. Yes consumers behave somewhat rationally and look at price and features, but we also care about the colour of the car and the way it looks, things that have little to no baring on the way it performs. CIOs don’t care what colour your PC is.
Microsoft was never as relevant for consumers as they were in the enterprise. Yes consumers used Microsoft’s operating system but not really out of choice, Windows was the default operating system that came with your family PC or the operating system that you ran at work not much more. Very few consumers made a conscious choice to choose Windows. And yes Microsoft Office became the dominant “office productivity suite” (for lack of a better term) but this was, again, an enterprise driven decision and not a result of consumer choice. Office is a good suite of software but not something that most people need to use at home unless it is for work, this includes students whose job (school) often requires Office.
The Post-PC Era
In the late 2000’s (2007 if you want a year) the computing landscape, and Microsoft’s position in said landscape, changed dramatically with the rise of the smartphone. I would argue that Microsoft didn’t so much miss mobile as many have argued (Windows Mobile, Windows CE, and Pocket PC all predate the iPhone) instead they failed to find success in mobile because it was consumers and not CIO’s that were purchasing the devices.
It wasn’t just who was purchasing smartphones it was how many smartphones were being purchased. Sales of smartphones surpassed sales of PCs in late 2011 and haven’t looked back. Consumers were, and are, purchasing smartphones (running iOS or Android) in numbers that dwarf the sales of PCs. For example in 2013 there were 317,648 PCs sold compared to 1,806,964 smartphones (source: Gartner) and virtually none of those smartphones were running Microsoft’s OS. This meant that Microsoft’s share, and I would argue relevance, declined rapidly. You can see this in the following graph from Benedict Evan’s aptly titled post: The Irrelevance of Microsoft, where you can see Micrsoft’s share of connected devices drop from a peak of 90% down to 20% in four years:
It wasn’t so much that sales of PCs slowed or declined (which they have) it was that sales of computing devices that were not PCs running Windows exploded:
Note: An argument can be made that the rise in the Internet also hurt the relevance of Microsoft earlier than the mobile revolution. This argument is succinctly made by Benedict Evans in the above mentioned post: The Irrelevance of Microsoft. I think you cal look at the failure of Silverlight and many of Microsoft’s web technologies as evidence for this.
A Case for a Less Relevant Microsoft
I think that Microsoft mistook market share for consumer desire.
In a nutshell this is what happened to Microsoft’s relevance:
In the beginning the enterprise purchased the majority of the computing devices, and thus played a large role in shaping computing.
Microsoft grew to operating system dominance on the backs of the enterprise who largely settled on purchasing PCs running Microsoft operating systems and software products.
Consumers also purchased PCs that ran MS-DOS and Windows but largely due to the workplace and PC monopoly. E.G. Windows just came on the PC.
Microsoft was relevant to the enterprise and not to consumers.
Consumers began to purchase smartphones running iOS and Android in huge numbers and, like the enterprise earlier, began to shape the face of computing.
The volume of smartphone sales meant that Microsoft’s share of total device sales went from 90% down to 20%.
In reality it was two things happening in tandem: the change in who was driving the majority of computing sales (moving from PCs to smartphones meant moving from enterprise to consumers) and the sheer volume of smartphones being sold resulted in a Microsoft that controlled a much smaller percentage of the computing landscape. The loss of control resulted in a loss of relevance. Now that consumer buying power controls what happens in computing, companies like Apple, Google, Facebook have overtaking Microsoft for relevance in the same way that Microsoft overtook IBM.
It is also worth noting that Microsoft is trying to reverse this trend through a variety of methods including decreasing the cost of Windows to OEMs for PCs, tablets, and smartphones (even giving it to them at zero cost in some cases); as well as releasing touch-first Office for iOS and Android before Windows. The latter being, as they said, is an attempt to go where the customers are. While many of these are smart moves that will help Microsoft (Azure looks to be a good business for them) it’s not clear that any of them will have any resonance with the consumer market.
It’s also possible for a company to make a very healthy profit by focusing only on the enterprise, and I’m not claiming that Microsoft is going away anytime soon. However one has to only look at the fortunes of IBM, HP, and Dell to see what a lack of relevance can do to a company. Remember this is the first time consumer buying power has directed computing, we are in uncharted waters here and it is not clear what it will do to enterprise focused companies.
Microsoft played a huge role in the computer revolution. They set out (according to the older mission statement) to “put a computer on every desk and in every home” and in the western world they largely succeeded. The downside to this was that they mistook that success for consumer acceptance as opposed to the result of the monopoly position their operating system had in the enterprise.
If you think about it, there is something interesting about that mission statement, it shows that Microsoft, even as it was dominating the enterprise, was looking to win over the hearts of consumers. And while they succeeded in putting a computer in every home, that computer now largely lies dormant while the family computes from the couch on their smartphones and tablets.
There were a few things I wanted to touch on in this post but couldn’t fit in: what happened to IBM, how much more personal smartphones are when compared to PCs, what happens to enterprise PCs at night (nothing), etcetera; maybe in another post.
Also I hope to explore the topic of Microsoft’s relevance a little more in some upcoming posts but in a more personal manner. I was around writing software for Windows for much of the 2000’s so I felt this change in a visceral way as the tools I worked with and created seemed to get less and less important each day. I think it’s an interesting story.
Everyone knows that the Chinese smartphone market is big, it is in fact the largest smartphone market in the world accounting for 32.8% of the overall smartphone sales. If you are an independent Android developer you should be looking at the Chinese market as a source for additional downloads for your apps.
The Chinese Android app ecosystem differs from the Western app ecosystem in one very important way: Google Play does not dominate. In fact, there is no one dominant app store thanks to the Great Firewall of China blocking Google play. Instead of one app store what you have are literally hundreds of different app stores vying for consumers attentions.
As a developer you do not need to upload your app to every single app store, instead targeting the top ten or so stores will get you access to most Chinese Android handsets. If you are not fluent in Chinese getting into a Chinese App Store can be a little difficult. Over the next few weeks I want to look at how to sign-up for developer accounts at a few of the major Chinese app stores and how to release your apps into those app stores.
For now here is a list of the top ten app stores in China (well eleven) and links to their developer pages. The ranking data comes from NewZoo.com but I added AppChina in at the bottom along with TaoBao since Google Play really isn’t interesting for our purposes:
So the last couple weeks had many of the big tech firms reporting their earnings. The biggest surprise was probably how well Apple did. In the words of many: “Apple had a monster quarter”. In fact they had the biggest quarterly profit in history a whopping $18 billion in net income.
Pretty impressive. Here is a little chart that I made up with the revenue from Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Samsung:
Remember when Microsoft was dominating and people thought that there were a Monopoly?
Here is part two of my 2015 tech predictions. If you have not already checkout part one.
Now on with part two, starting with:
The Oculus Rift will not revolutionize anything
I feel like I’m missing something when it comes to the new hype that surrounds Virtual Reality technology. A lot of smart people think that it we be revolutionary, but whenever I think of a VR headset I think of something that I don’t want to wear on my head.
Maybe I feel this way because I came of age during the first round of VR hype and saw how badly that failed because the basic technology really wasn’t there and because it became apparent that we didn’t want everything to be a “virtual” copy of the real world. (Unless we approach holodeck levels of VR I’m looking at you Star Trek and far away from you Lawnmower Man) Maybe we’ve solved the first hurdle, but until the tech is in Star Trek league I’m not sure that we will solve the second.
For those that want to say that you have to try it to believe it, I did try the Oculus Rift DK 1 was wasn’t that impressed.
Gaming? Sure. Training? Maybe. Revolution? Nope.
Big Bold Prediction: Facebook’s $4 Billion purchase of Oculus will start to look like a mistake by the end of the year when the Oculus Rift fails to deliver on the hype.
The Chinese app market(s) will grow in importance
The Chinese smartphone market is the largest smartphone market in the world, which means that the Chinese app market is equally massive and in 2015 app developers in the west will really take notice. We will see more developers (including independents) treat the Chinese market as being equal to, or almost equal to Google Play in terms of targeting importance.
We will start seeing more developers targeting one or more of the many Chinese app stores with their apps, and when they do they will also start integrating Biadu, Weibo, and other Chinese API’s into their apps destined for China in the same way that they currently integrate Google, Apple, or Twitter services now for the western market.
Note: The Chinese market, mostly from it’s many ASOP Android devices (versions of the Android OS that lack Google Services including Google Play) and the blocking by the Chinese government of many western software platforms/services (most of Google’s including an outright blocking of Google Play this year) means that the Chinese market is much different than the western market.
Big Bold Prediction: A Services ecosystem will arise to help western developers release their apps in China.
Microsoft will fail to capture the consumer imagination (again)
I feel a bit mixed about this prediction, I mean I think it’s right, but I also think that with it being Stacha Nadella’s first full year as a CEO we might see some really interesting things coming out of Microsoft in 2015. One the other hand, Microsoft has never been very good at capturing the consumer’s imagination, so the prediction stands.
Microsoft will release Windows 10 in 2015 and we might see a big uptake from the Enterprise world which, by and large, skipped the much maligned Windows 8 release and stuck with Windows 7. (The Windows 8 press was so bad Microsoft skipped version 9 just to distance themselves from it.) But I don’t see everyday consumers caring any more. I don’t think they ever really cared about Windows to be honest, it just happened came on the PC that they bought, or it was the same as what they used at work.
Nowadays most people browse Facebook on the couch with their smartphone (while watching TV) leaving their PC to gather dust in the basement, which means that Windows 10 won’t interest them that much.
We might be do for a home computer upgrade cycle, and the timing of the Windows 10 release might allow Microsoft to post some good consumer numbers (but I don’t really think so) but the magic for the general public is gone (and I would argue that it wasn’t really there in the first place).
In addition to all that Microsoft remains a distant third place in the mobile race. An also ran, not from lack of trying or innovation, and I don’t see them gaining any ground on smartphones any time soon. In fact my far out prediction was them dropping Windows Phone itself.
Big Bold Prediction: Microsoft will sell less copies of Windows 10 in the first three months of release then they did of Windows 8. It will be more popular with the press and get better reviews, but the “consumer desktop” ship has sailed and that means fewer sales for Microsoft.
Extra Note: If Microsoft does deliver a well reviewed version of Windows in Windows 10 it will go a long way to helping the brand with enthusiasts, which is important in the long run, even if it doesn’t boost short-term sales.
Here are some off the wall predictions that I don’t really think will come true but I wouldn’t be totally surprised if they did:
That’s it for part two, I’m not sure if there will be a part three or not. If I do find the time I’d like to cover the Internet of Things and hardware a little bit, which I think will be a big deal in 2015. We are also planning on covering 2015 predictions on The Incoherent Podcast so stay tuned for episode five, where I will probably go over these predictions and maybe go a little bit deeper.
2014 has come and gone, so let’s take a look ahead to 2015.
With the start of the new year I thought it would be fun to post some of my thoughts and predictions for what will happen in technology in 2015. I know that everyone and their dog as “prediction” posts around this time of the year, but I thought it would be a good way to work through some of the ideas for my own personal use (perhaps on a podcast or two). I also like the idea of keeping a record of predictions and then seeing how many of them were true at the end of the year. Sort of like a theory scorecard.
Note: I’m not totally sold on using the word “predictions” for what this (and hopefully a few more) post contains since I’m really theorizing on what I think will happen, as opposed to actually predicting a specific outcome. But since everyone uses “predictions” I thought I would stick with that term. If I was more courageous I’d probably make bolder predictions!
Now, with that out of the way, and in no particular order here are my 2015 predictions (theories):
The Apple Watch will be a huge success
The Apple Watch will sell very well in 2015. I’m thinking somewhere north of 30 million sales (not a number I came up with on my own). I’m still conflicted when it comes to the Apple Watch, but something about it and the category it is trying to create triggers something in my gut.
I feel the 20-30m first year Apple Watch sales estimates are about right for now. Subject to change once we see it, try it, etc.
I want to point out the fact that it’s tethered to your iPhone (cutting off all the Android devices out there and the times you want to leave your phone at home). That the use cases for the device are relatively unknown. That there are too many new methods of input. That we don’t know anything about the battery yet. That the cost is too high and the replacement cycle is too quick for a luxury good.
But even with all of those issues something about the Apple Watch makes me think that it will be a success. Maybe it’s the similarity to the way I feel about the Apple Watch today and the way I felt about this first iPad (I didn’t get it). Maybe it’s Apple’s past successes as a company, I’m not sure but something tells me this is a product that will succeed.
Part of my reasoning is that I think that we are getting to the point where we need to enter a new era for our connected lives. We live in a world where we are all connected nearly 100% of the time and I feel as though the mobile phone paradigm wasn’t setup for that. The smartphone got us there, but I don’t think it’s sufficient for the network that it created.
Maybe I’m wrong about the Apple Watch, but I think that all these connections will give rise to something new in 2015 and it just might be the Apple watch.
Big Bold Prediction: Apple will sell 10 million units in the first quarter and 30 million units in the first year. This will allow them to capture: 90% of the smartwatch market. I actually predicted this in the third episode of The Incoherent Podcast: Weird Statues.
Android will have an existential crisis in 2015
Android will face it’s biggest growing pains in 2015. Google has done a lot to make Android one of the best (if not the best) mobile operating systems to use. It’s the dominant mobile platform on the planet, accounting for 84% of the smartphone sales worldwide, so what’s the problem?
Profits for one. Developers are still making less money on Android then they do on iOS. The Android first app development that has been predicted by those who worship at the alter of market share, has still not come to pass. And it’s not just developers, handset makers are struggling too. Witness the decline of Samsung and HTC.
But also witness the rise of Xiaomi, who is now the 5th largest phone seller in the world, and a phone seller that sells a non-Google controlled version of Android. What does that mean for Google as they try to tighten their control over the operating system by bundling more and more features into their Google Play Services? You have hardware manufacturers struggling when selling your operating system, and others succeeding selling a version of your operating system that you no longer control. (Don’t forget about Huawei, Lenovo, ZTE, and Micromax…)
Android isn’t going anywhere but I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a version of Android that will differentiate from, and compete with, Google’s version of Android. This could happen on a global scale, or on a regional scale as it already seems to be doing in China. Cyanogenmod perhaps?
Big Bold Prediction: A hardware manufacturer will release an Android phone with a differentiate custom version of Android (outside of China) that users will actually want to buy.
App discoverability will become (more of) an issue
There are 1.3 million apps in Google Play and 1.2 apps in the Apple App Store, this makes discovering new apps very difficult. I think this difficulty could give rise to new competing app stores or paradigms (that might actually succeed outside of China) that will differentiate based on discoverability and not necessarily the number of apps.
Big Bold Prediction: A successful and relevant app store or discovery engine for apps, not Google Play or the Apple App Store, outside of China.
Here are some off the wall predictions that I don’t really think will come true but I wouldn’t be totally surprised if they did:
Microsoft will drop Windows Phone
After years of sub-par sales, low low market share, and billions of dollars spent (advertising, development, keeping Nokia on board and then buying Nokia) Microsoft will finally drop Windows Phone.
Super far-out prediction:
Microsoft will fork Android
Not wanting to be left out of the market entirely, after dumping Windows Phone, Microsoft will fork Android and release a Microsoft service based version of Google’s baby on their own hardware. This has the added bonus of tying into my Big Bold prediction for Android above.
That’s it for now, in part two I will give you some of my thoughts on China, VR, Microsoft’s relevance outside of the enterprise, and a few other topics.
So the Chinese App Market Project has paused for the moment. I’ve made some strides in this area but I’ve also switched jobs after spending 14 years with my previous employer. The job switch has forced me to learn another language (C#), which I have been doing in what little spare time I have.
There have also been a series of non-super-serious family incidents that have taken up more of my time. Maybe this is what life is like when you have a family with two small children: moving from one small crisis to the next, then it’s 10:30 pm and all you want to do is have a beer on the couch or go to bed.
I have also found that I have been nurturing a more holistic appreciation of the tech world lately. I feel that this is an expansion of my previous perspective. I feel that in the past I was very much concerned with the nuts and the bolts of tech, and lately (while still being concerned with bolts) I’ve found myself appreciating the larger perspective. Trying to look at the system as a whole to develop a greater understanding of all its many parts, and thinking about how this will play out in the future.
For the moment it’s all mobile for me. I can’t get away from the fact that for the foreseeable future all signs seem to point to mobile taking over more and more of the world. Cheaper hardware, the way we work shifting based on mobile (think about how the PC or the web changed your job). What was your job like 25 years ago before everyone was using a PC? How did it change 15 years ago when the web took off? How will mobile change the way you work? This is what I spend my walks thinking about.
If you follow me on twitter, read the few posts on this blog, or if you know me in real life then you know that I am quite interested in the Chinese app market. You can read the reasons for this interest in my Some thoughts on Mobile post. In short the main reasons for my interest are the numbers of people using Android in China (largest smart phone market in the world) and the way in which the ecosystem developed, mainly without Google Play as the central and de facto app store.
I decided to try to learn more about the Chinese app market in the same way that I had taught myself different programming languages and techniques in the past: pick a project and try to build it. I’ve always found that I learnt the most when I actually had a goal in mind and then worked towards it. In this case it is a bit different, in order to learn about the Chinese market I will try to introduce one of my apps into the market and try to reach a certain level of success.
Make $30.00 in a one month period via AdMob in China. Or (if it is possible to track) get more than 1000 downloads within China
Both goals are not that crazy, but wanted to set something that was attainable given that I am trying to do this in my spare time and I’m not really sure what is possible given legal and cultural differences. I chose to go for a money target as my first goal since I wasn’t sure how easy it would be to track the installs properly within China, and I will need to learn more about which analytics APIs work within the great firewall of china.
Please keep in mind that I do not speak Chinese in any way shape or form. I only speak English and a wee little bit of Canadian French, so I will be relying on Google Translate for much of this project.
To try to achieve this goal, I chose my latest app illuminate. This was the my latest app, and because of my interest in localized markets (including China) I was careful to put all of my strings in string resource files for easy localization.
illuminate is monetized with AdMob ads (banners and interstitials) and was first released on January 25th, 2014. Up until the initial writing of this post on May 4th, 2014 it has only made $1.47 within China. This low number wasn’t that surprising given that it was not translated into Chinese and was only available within Google Play and the Samsung App store.
The First Steps
The first step was obvious: translation, so I bit the bullet and got the strings translated into simplified Chinese via the Google App Translation Service. The translation cost less than $15.00 for both the store listing and the in-app strings and was ready in a couple of days. I was really impressed with the service and if this works I will use it again.
I then uploaded the app to Google Play, Samsung’s app store, Amazon app store, and the 1mobile app store may 4th, 2014. I chose to add 1Mobile because I heard that it did well in China. I also used a localized direct download on this blog (http://selsine.com/美图饰-把文字加到图像上/) because I had heard that direct app downloads are also popular in China. Illuminate is also listed on Xiaomi’s app store: http://app.xiaomi.com/detail/59840 but this was version 1.0.7 taken from Google Play and I’m not sure if it will be updated with the latest translated version.
FYI: 美图饰-把文字加到图像上 is the translated name of the app: 美图饰 comes from “illuminate” and means “Mito Ornaments” or “Beauties Ornaments”, I honestly don’t really know what mito means or why it was translated like that but I put blind faith in the translation company and have assumed that it makes sense locally. 把文字加到图像上 comes from “text on phones” and means “The text added to the image”. I added that last bit (Text on photos) to my store listing to give people an idea of what an app titles illuminate would be for.
I also setup a weibo (often known as the Chinese twitter) account and tweeted or weibo’d out the link to my app a few times.
The next Steps
Now that I have the app translated my next step will to try to get the app listed on some popular Chinese app stores. I have heard that some Chinese app stores will take apps from Google Play and automatically listen them, but I can’t say for certain that this will happen. As I succeed or fail at this project I will track my progress on this blog.