Peter Burrows, reporting for BusinessWeek, on Nokia CEO Stephen Elop addressing 2000 employees:

For a moment, Elop, 47, lays into the complacency he sees settling over the company. When he asks how many people in the crowd use an iPhone or Android device, few hands go up. “That upsets me—not because some of you are using iPhones, but because only a small number of people are using iPhones. I’d rather people have the intellectual curiosity to understand what we’re up against.”

He’s absolutely right. And this is something of a contrast to Ballmer’s iPhone snatch/pretend stomp a while back, reported by the Wall Street Journal. Mind you, it’s also a change of heart for Elop himself. From the WSJ article:

Stephen Elop, president of Microsoft’s business division, used Apple products before Mr. Ballmer lured him to Microsoft in early 2008. But at a meeting of Microsoft sales representatives after joining, Mr. Elop placed his personal iPhone into an industrial-strength blender and destroyed it

Yup. That’s a great way of figuring out how to beat the competition: see if its products will blend. At least Elop’s grown up a bit—the question now is whether Ballmer will too.

Fighting talk from Dan Grabham over at TechRadar in Windows 8 could make you rethink buying iPad 3:

An iPad isn’t a do-everything device. Windows 8 tablets will be

Of course, it remains to be seen if Windows 8 tablets are do-everything well devices. Given that many apps will still be designed for mouse pointers rather than touch, I doubt that will be the case.

Despite slow sales, Windows Phone is a surprisingly good phone OS. If you’re guffawing at that last sentence, we reckon you probably haven’t used it.

I totally agree with Grabham here. I’ve only used Windows Phone briefly a few times, but I was impressed with what Microsoft has done. The UI is interesting and, importantly, Redmond didn’t just rip-off Apple’s iOS, unlike pretty much everyone else in the smartphone race. The system being called Windows Phone is fucking stupid, though, and hints at problems Microsoft has in moving on from its past.

Microsoft’s new OS has a potentially game-changing trick up its sleeve. Microsoft isn’t redesigning the Windows that we all know. Indeed, Windows 8 will have a desktop that’s actually very similar to Windows 7. But it will be overlaid by the Windows Phone-style interface. Two operating systems in one, you might say. And that’s actually going to propel Windows 8 devices past their competitors in terms of do-it-all devices.

That actually sounds extremely risky. Mac OS X and iOS share certain aspects of architecture, but they are each designed from the ground up to be suitable for the interfaces of the hardware they run on. Having a single operating system run across traditional computers and tablets is an extremely challenging prospect. Kudos to Microsoft if they pull this off and ‘force’ software creators to make their products work brilliantly with pointers and touch, but I worry Windows 8 will be the same old Windows on the desktop, and also the same old Windows on a tablet, just with a touch skin overlay that works really well for very few applications.

As John Gruber deftly points out in Why Windows 8 Is Fundamentally Flawed as a Response to the iPad:

[I]t’s a fundamentally flawed idea for Microsoft to build their next-generation OS and interface on top of the existing Windows. The idea is that you get the new stuff right alongside Windows as we know it. Microsoft is obviously trying to learn from Apple, but they clearly don’t understand why the iPad runs iOS, and not Mac OS X.

Microsoft’s demo video shows [the full version of] Excel running alongside new touch-based apps. They can make buttons more ‘touch friendly’ all they want, but they’ll never make Excel for Windows feel right on a touchscreen UI. Consider the differences between the iWork apps for the Mac and iPad. The iPad versions aren’t ‘touch friendly”’ versions of the Mac apps — they’re entirely new beasts designed and programmed from the ground up for the touchscreen and for the different rules and tradeoffs of the iOS interface

Gruber claims that the ability to run Mac OS X apps on the iPad, with full access to the file system and other Mac conventions, would make the iPad worse, and that the device is popular due to it eliminating complexity. I think he’s right—in keeping complexity under the hood, Apple has made a system that is so intuitive even toddlers can happily use it. I find it hard to see how Microsoft will be able to do the same with Windows 8, if it remains the same old Windows. Windows Phone, on the other hand, was exactly the right foundation to build on for next-generation Microsoft, so it’s only natural Redmond is marginalising it in favour of ‘proper’ Windows.

Grabham again:

Finally, Windows can emerge from the shadow of the PC as we know it.

And yet remain in the shadow of Windows as we know it.

Lodsys has responded to Apple’s legal slap by suing seven iOS developers. FOSS patents says the unlucky seven are Combay, Inc. (Mega Poker Online Texas Holdem), Iconfactory, Inc. (Twitterriffic), Illusion Labs AB (Labyrinth), Michael G. Karr (69 Positions), Quickoffice, Inc. (Quickoffice Connect), Richard Shinderman (Hearts and Daggers) and Wulven Games (Shadow Era). Again, Lodsys has responded on its blog, and I’m happy to provide translation.

In the May 15, 2011 blog posting, we clearly stated that we are attempting to license every App Developer that utilizes the functionality, regardless of size, and regardless of enabling technology, and that those licenses would be proportional.

This is why the guys we’ve chosen to sue are indies or, in many cases, sole traders, because we’re attempting to screw every app developer, regardless of size. We’ll be right on at the big devs next. Honest.

Rolling developers into belonging to the enabling platform (Apple’s developers or Android developers) and how they are under attack from a troll (rather than it being a rights holder attempts to get paid for its property and questioning the full scope and veracity of the platform provider’s promises, or that App Developers have choices of what functionality to put in their applications and which platforms to sell on)

It’s not trolling when you have a whiny blog! It’s not trolling when you wait until quite a long time after IAP has appeared to sue! It’s not trolling when you only go after small players and threaten their businesses! It’s not trolling when you make nothing yourself and are only in the business of buying up IP and figuring out who you can use it for to sue.

This story is about accountability for actions. If you are a Developer, it’s about knowledge about the scope and risks of your own business.

Dear developers: in future, make sure you check every aspect of everything you do against every patent that has ever existed, ever. Also: fuck you.

Lodsys has only one motivation: we want to get paid for our rights.

We like making money through suing people. Being constructive and creative is for dolts.

There is a more complicated set of motivations from the platform providers and the app developers concerning profit margins, control, ownership of the customer relationship, responsibility for liabilities, cloning, IP rights clearance, what is fair to expect a small developer to understand, who pays and who gets away without paying… all of which are much more intellectually interesting and worthy of analysis and commentary.

Please stop saying we’re evil. We just want to be loved.

While it is true that Apple and Lodsys have an obvious dispute about the scope of Apple’s license to the Lodsys Patents, we are willing to put our money where our mouth is and pay you something if we are wrong.  Therefore, Lodsys offers to pay $1,000 to each entity to whom we have sent an infringement notice for infringement on the iOS platform, or that we send a notice to in the future, if it turns out that the scope of Apple’s existing license rights apply to fully license you with respect to our claim relating to your App on Apple iOS.

We’re not entirely sure we’re in the right here. Still, by offering a grand in cash if we screw up, we hope to make people think we’re lovely, and we’re also hoping they’ll all ignore the fact that a grand won’t cover even a fraction of anyone’s legal fees. Result!

Most successful Application Developers have chosen to develop their applications on more than one platform and sell them in more than one store (where they are contractually allowed to do so).  The press and the blogs seem focused on the specific instances of small developers, who are only on Apple iOS, so those particular developers will be especially well served by our offer.

Or, maybe, we’re just delusional and really do believe our own bullshit. Who can tell?

For those Application Developers who are also providing their Apps on other platforms such as Android, BlackBerry, Windows Phone, Symbian , Windows, Mac OS X, Facebook…etc., and/or on other app stores such as Android Market, Amazon, Ovi, Handango…etc…, then the economic responsibility still applies to those units in addition to the iOS units.

VIC-20 devs had better watch out too.

Please note that this offer only applies to the iOS portion of the licensing responsibility.

We’re more scared of Apple than Google right now.

If Apple’s contracts, or APIs, or actions cause damage to the Application Developer, then Apples total liability to the Application Developer is limited to a maximum of $50.  So, Apple’s downside risk to fight this is $50 per developer and the Application Developer is expected to self-insure for everything remaining.

For some reason, we’ve never noticed that Apple can change its mind on a whim, so we’re sitting here, safe in the knowledge that Apple’s legal team won’t back its devs. Phew! There is no way in which this can go wrong at all.

What Apple marketing is selling, and, in this case, what Apple Legal really has to offer, are not aligned.

Also, Apple’s departments never talk to each other, so we’re totally safe here.

Apple marketing is selling you on the idea that they have what you need and it is yours and you are covered free and clear. Apple legal doesn’t have those rights to offer, and they absolve themselves of all responsibility in your agreement and they have offered you nothing, no license, no indemnification, no obligation to defend you, they offer nothing other than the $50 and no clear way to even get that.

And, luckily, there’s absolutely no way of Apple updating its terms, ever. Again: phew!

For many people, it is easier to call Lodsys and other rights holders names for trying to be compensated for their rights, within a system that is established and known, than it is to consider one’s own responsibility, or the promises and motivations of the platform provider.

We think it’s wrong that if you were, say, an indie band selling CDs through a massive record store, relying on their sales mechanism being legal, you should assume that’s where your responsibility ends. You should really be looking into all aspects of the law, including every patent that relates to your business, before you do anything at all. That is responsibility, sucker.

On May 22nd, Apple’s chief lawyer Bruce Sewell unequivocally announced that Apple’s license to the Lodsys patents gave Apple’s 3rd party developers complete and “undisputable” freedom to use the covered inventions without paying royalties or fearing lawsuits. There was a very positive reaction in the press and blogs.  Apple appeared to give the Developer community what they wanted. Unfortunately for Developers, Apple’s claim of infallibility has no discernable basis in law or fact.

We’re going to kick Apple’s arse in court.

The letter was very surprising as Apple and Lodsys were in confidential discussions and there was clearly disagreement on the interpretation of the license terms of Apple’s agreement.

Even though we were pretty sure Apple wasn’t going to do anything.

Before, during and after these interactions, Lodsys has carefully considered this issue and consulted several legal experts to consider Apple’s claims.

Because, unlike Apple, we have the law on our side! And the law is never open to interpretation!

We stand firm and restate our previous position that it is the 3rd party Developers that are responsible for the infringement of Lodsys’ patents and they are responsible for securing the rights for their applications.

But, really, this isn’t about Apple. Let’s forget Apple.

Developers relying on Apple’s letter do so to their own detriment and are strongly urged to review Apple’s own developer agreements to determine the true extent of Apple’s responsibilities to them.

Really. Forget Apple. Apple who? No idea. Those devs, though, who can’t fight back, because they can’t afford an expensive court case? Remember them, because we’re going to screw them as much as possible, opening the floodgates for more idiots to do precisely the same. Luckily, because everyone’s forgotten Apple, there’s no-one there to defend the devs. Phew!

There really is nothing that can go wrong here for us.

Still wonder whether Amazon has the balls to take on Apple in the tablet space? With its newly launched Mac Software Downloads Store, competing head-on with Apple’s Mac App Store, you’d be crazy to think otherwise.

On the store itself, the good:

[D]ownloads are conveniently backed up in your Games and Software Library where you can download an unlimited number of times for personal use.

Download stuff whenever you want or need to.

The less-good:

Mac Download store features an install-less download process where the customer gets just the product without any unwanted extras, making for faster and easier purchases.

So these are straight downloads, with no client, and, clearly, standard licensing terms. Nonetheless, this is a ballsy move by Amazon, and it’s interesting that it’s pushing Office and Adobe products—things unlikely to arrive on the Mac App Store at all.

Nielsen Norman group has slammed gestural interfaces, in an article entitled A Step Backwards In Usability:

The usability crisis is upon us, once again. We suspect most of you thought it was over.

Given that two-year-olds and centenarians are using iPads, I did, yes.

Well you are wrong.

Oh.

In a recent column for Interactions (reference 2) Norman pointed out that the rush to develop gestural interfaces – “natural” they are sometimes called – well-tested and understood standards of interaction design were being overthrown, ignored, and violated.

Violated? Sounds serious. SOMEONE CALL THE USER INTERACTION POLICE.

 

=====

INT: Nielsen Norman group. Donald A. Norman and Jakob Nielsen get into their superhero outfits and zoom towards the scene.

Super Norman: OH MY GOD, it’s worse than we thought, Jackob. It’s horrific.

Super Nielsen: Yes, new technologies require new methods, but the refusal to follow well-tested, well-established principles leads to usability disaster. I will KILL THE VIOLATORS WITH MY LASER VISION.

Super Normal: You don’t have laser vision, Jakob.

Super Nielsen: Bugger. How about moaning about the iPad in my bi-monthly column for ACM CHI magazine, then?

Super Normal: Sounds great!

END CREDITS

=====

 

OK, *serious face*, these guys do have some good points regarding visbility, consistency, scalability and reliability—all standard tenets of strong usability. Gestures aren’t necessarily easily discoverable in iOS and other touch-based systems, but that’s also largely because many of them are new. Guidelines are, through popularity, slowly being formed. Nielsen Norman group also don’t seem to note that the intuitive nature of gestural interfaces (rather than the abstraction seen in other forms of computing) means that things are more easily learned and less likely forgotten. My dad can happily do stuff on my iPhone, despite not owning any iOS device, yet his Mac still regularly flummoxes him.

Anyway, back to the article:

The first crop of iPad apps revived memories of Web designs from 1993, when Mosaic first introduced the image map that made it possible for any part of any picture to become a UI element. As a result, graphic designers went wild: anything they could draw could be a UI, whether it made sense or not. It’s the same with iPad apps: anything you can show and touch can be a UI on this device. There are no standards and no expectations.

No standards? Really? I’m pretty sure Apple has extensive guidelines on user interaction. But there are apparently other reasons people are having trouble.

The misguided insistence by companies (e.g., Apple and Google) to ignore established conventions and establish ill-conceived new ones.

Yes. Let’s stop innovating.

The developer community’s apparent ignorance of the long history and many findings of HCI research which results in their feeling of empowerment to unleash untested and unproven creative efforts upon the unwitting public.

JUST STOP TRYING NEW THINGS, IGNORANT DEVELOPERS!

In comments to Nielsen’s article about our iPad usability studies, some critics claimed that it is reasonable to experiment with radically new interaction techniques when given a new platform. We agree. But the place for such experimentation is in the lab.

ALTHOUGH IF YOU’RE RICH DEVELOPERS, WE PERMIT YOU TO EXPERIMENT IN YOUR ‘LAB’!

Most progress is made through sustained, small incremental steps. Bold explorations should remain inside the company and university research laboratories and not be inflicted on any customers until those recruited to participate in user research have validated the approach.

Bold explorations like the top-selling iPad and iPhone, you mean, rather than the sustained, small incremental steps we’d previously seen in smartphones and tablets? OK, sounds great. I’ll see you back before the turn of the century and we can party like it’s 1999 until we die of RSI through using our mice until our arms explode. I look forward to it.

Hat tip: Chris Brennan.