It's iPad day in the UK - although I was among the lucky ones to get mine delivered yesterday - and the faithful are queuing round the block for Apple's latest product.
Hats off to the Cupertino crew who have managed, once again, to whip consumers into a frenzy. You don't get this kind of anticipation for a product from many other companies.
Passer-by Jason Lan took this picture of the queue at the Regent Street Apple Store in London and posted it to Twitter.
For me, the intriguing thing about the iPad is ultimately understanding how much or how little its use will change the paradigm of how we use the web, access information and media etc.
I am fully aware of all the limitations and controversies - lack of Flash, Apple's centralised control of the platform, lack of multi-tasking, no camera, no USB ports etc.
But I tend not to buy devices thinking about everything they could do and then subtract points for those features not available - I try to think about my use of technology now and in the future.
If you go back a few years then the capabilities of netbooks, smartphones and tablets were so limited that they were virtually useless. I remember Paul Otellini at CES 2008 predicting the world we are in now - the era of the personal internet thank's to chips like the Atom.
Yes, the iPad is powered by an ARM design, but Moore's Law floats all boats, after all! And the exciting thing is that this is really just the beginning.
Google's Android platform is going to spawn a plethora of tablet devices in the next 12 months, as will the firm's Chrome OS. Atom will continue to power netbooks, tablets and soon smartphones.
These devices, in my opinion, should not be considered desktop or even laptop replacements. Even with the advances of Moore's Law, smaller, thinner, lighter devices will always be underpowered next to the laptops or desktops of the day.
So there's no point using these devices to do the things you used to do on a laptop 12 months ago. The form factor and portability requires re-thinking the things you want to do with these devices.
A great example is the just-launched Wired magazine App for the iPad. It's essentially an interactive version of the magazine. It's not just print, or photos, or video - it's a combination of all three. It's using the quality of the display, the touch interface, connectivity to deliver a different kind of "reading" experience. Here's what it looks like:
People's complaint about the iPad, and tablets in general, is that they are neither fish nor fowl.
But I think we've got to break out of such binary thinking - hopefully we are seeing a new paradigm emerging: Content consumption, and creation, redefined.
Gavriella Schuster, a general manager at Microsoft, said that a virtualised desktop is more expensive to run than the " physical desktop and server.
Here are the key points she made:
Overall, when compared in a well managed office worker environment, VDI is generally 9-11% more expensive than the corresponding PC environment.
VDI reduces hardware costs by 32% but the addition of technology to the data center (e.g., storage, networking) increases software costs by 64%, cancelling any savings.
VDI decreases helpdesk costs by reducing the effort required to troubleshoot desktops, but increases desktop engineering costs due to added expertise and more expensive virtualization resources to manage the desktop environment. Hence, IT operations costs for PC and VDI are almost identical.
Users that move from a well-managed PC to VDI environment complained about a diminished user experience.
As a result of these findings, we believe VDI is an innovative technology that can deliver significant value in specific use cases, such as for shift-based task workers and for contractors. However, for the office worker, the value driver is less clear and will not be based on TCO.
I immediately got on to the phone to Jim Henrys, chief architect for IT strategy and transformation for the enterprise and Stuart Dommett, business development manager for Intel UK and Ireland to talk about this.
So is Microsoft right?
Jim Henrys told me that there needed to be a different starting point in these discussions - and that the point of origin had to be infrastructure and looking at the types of workers in the company - eg are they task workers, desktop users, mobile users etc.
Both men stressed it was important to understand IT serves people, not the other way around. Mr Henrys pointed out that companies had to understand usages - not just those in the present but also those for the future.
He told me: "We see a lot of discussion in the media these days that compare one architecture to another as though there's some sort of promised land out there."
The danger that we face is that the tail is wagging the dog, he said.
"Understand what the business needs first then discuss the architecture. Don't begin with "Which is the most suitable architecture for me until you've done that otherwise you are in danger of maybe making an IT decision that you live to regret because that decision, there are some limitations with it."
I wondered if hybridisation was the solution - offering different models to different parts of the workforce. After all, it seemed to me, that companies were more complex in today's world.
Mr Dommett said: "A lot of companies do tend to think it's virtualisation or no virtualisation."
One of the key points, made by Ms Schuster, I felt was the charge that users didn't like the virtualised desktop experience, describing it as "dimisnished"
But it is important to remember that virtualisation is still, to a degree, an embryonic technology.
Mr Henrys said: "We see a lot of companies interested in this. During 2009 we saw a lot of projects put on hold because of the sever economic scenario. With projects on hold, there was time available to re-evaluate the IT strategy which led to this wave of interest.
"There were a great deal of proof of concept work but I'm not seeing that many deployments coming out of that. Certainly a lot of the enterprises I've spoken to have first hand accounts of how some of the VDI solutions have not offered up any financial return whatsoever and they are now looking at the technology for a workplace flexibility solution where you have multiple users using one terminal, for instance.
"The big surprise we have seen with VDI is the way it turns the IT support model on its head."
Mr Henrys explained that instead of desktop support people being involved in the front line for workers' desktop issues, the data centre support people had to be used because often it could be a UNIX or I/O problem.
"I'm not saying this is wrong, but it is certainly a change for companies to consider," he added.
And of course the key thing to remember is that VDI is just one option among many; a key point made by Jim Henrys which I feel sums up the key benefits of virtualisation.
The chances are that you are reading this on a computer running Windows. Perhaps you are running OSX or maybe Linux. But I'd hazard a guess that more than 99% of people reading this blog do so on a computer powered by one of those three OSes.
And that means, by and large, the UI of your desktop and the way you navigate your computer's content is largely the same. It's a windowed Graphical User Interface that hasn't really changed since when first demoed in 1968 by Douglas Engelbart at Stanford Research Institute (SRI) as part of his invention of the computer mouse.
Further work was carried out by scientists at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), which was established in 1970 by Xerox in Silicon Valley near SRI. Among PARC's many advances were the GUI and the first desktop machine, the Alto, which was also the first computer to use a GUI (including basic windows). It later introduced the Star (mock-up desktop picture below), which built on the GUI developments.
The Apple Mac, launched in 1984, introduced the windowed GUI at a consumer level. According to numerous reports, this came about after Apple CEO Seve Jobs visited PARC in 1979.
And they showed me really three things. But I was so blinded by the first one I didn't even really see the other two. One of the things they showed me was object orienting programming they showed me that but I didn't even see that. The other one they showed me was a networked computer system...they had over a hundred Alto computers all networked using email etc., etc., I didn't even see that. I was so blinded by the first thing they showed me which was the graphical user interface. I thought it was the best thing I'd ever seen in my life. Now remember it was very flawed, what we saw was incomplete, they'd done a bunch of things wrong. But we didn't know that at the time but still though they had the germ of the idea was there and they'd done it very well and within you know ten minutes it was obvious to me that all computers would work like this some day.
And Jobs was right. All computers do work like this today. But for how long in the future?
The fact that computers are now our phones, our netbooks, our set-top boxes, our TVs means that the GUI is changing. For me the biggest change is that the line between the needs of a GUI for content creation and content consumption is changing.
Here's what I mean:
Largely, computers which are open and can be used for both creation and consumption tend to use the traditional windowed GUI. It's a tree system designed to make it relatively easier to store and locate new files and documents created on the machine. And for 30 years they've been represented by a simple folder structure - with a top layer, usually the desktop. The desktop is simply an interface designed to replicate an actual desktop, where it is assumed that the tasks (applications) or documents (whatever these may be) that are most important to you or most needed from a time/accessibility point of view are located.
The folder structure is a very neat way to store material, but it also requires active management to be useful ie Where did I save that document last week?
The advent of indexable search has made the desktop somewhat obsolete - we can find any document on the computer with a simple search - so the desktop has instead become a sort of temporary dumping ground for material; a sort of notebook which we periodically clear or move things from once we thik we want to keep them or know where we want to put them.
As such the desktop has become confused, messy and really rather ineffective.
And each window in this sort of GUI tends to represent a different activity or different "search" for content - either an application or an open folder of documents. We move from window to window as we change our focus.
Contrast this with consumption devices - such as set-top boxes or games consoles - these are computers which have one important UI function - to enable you to find the content on the device and consume it. The users doesn't worry about folder names or structure, or windows - it's a single task system that assumes you won't be looking at old saved programmes while using digitext, for example.
But the lessons of both are coalescing. We are seeing this first and foremost on devices like the iPad. The iPad is UI - forgetting about the touchscreen implications for the moment - are more like the latter than the former.
It assumes single-task usage - and as such every application is full screen. This is, some would say, because the iPad is largely a consumption device. But in my view it is taking the lessons of such devices and applying them to our traditional notion of UI of a computer.
Content created on the device tends to be locked to a particular application, usually the one that created the content. As such the application takes care of things like document management, rather than the user. The user never has to worry about where a piece of content is stored - the application does that.
What this results in is a very clean UI - there are no layers between the user and the computer. There is just activity and content. It makes for a much more intimate experience - akin to reading a book or watching a film. To my mind that is the greatest success of the iPad/iPhone - it has removed many of the barriers between computer and user. And the element of touch adds to this further. The user is literally reaching out to the device and engaging with it like the user interface was an actual physical object.
And Apple should be congratulated because many other firms experimented with touch but they didn't understand the difference touch makes to UI. For years there were touchscreen devices that employed a stylus for users to not only touch the screen but merely to touch the same folders and menus they would see on a desktop computer. This wasn't an improvement at all.
There are problems with Apple's approach, as usability expert Jakob Nielsen has reported. When the whole screen is your interface and your hand directly engages with it, it is important to ensure that there is consistency. But right now there are contradictory effects from different gestures on an iPad.
I don't want to get bogged down too much here in usability. My point is that we're on the cusp of seeing a revolution in the way we interface with our computers, and how that user interface is presented to us.
Beyond the iPad, the rise of tablet computers will see a new paradigm emerge, refining and building on Apple's success, just as Apple built on PARC's.
Google's Chrome OS is looking take the active window paradigm of classic desktop computing and apply it to touchscreen tablets. Screenshots from the development project show an iTunes-style Cover Flow of different application windows.
So what are the implications of all these developments? Perhaps the most important is the most obvious - we're moving beyond the desktop UI because our computers are no longer desktop machines. As the context of their use changes, so does the UI. What excites me most is the potential for the desktop UI to change even when using a traditional desktop or laptop.
And the advent of desktop virtualisation is also interesting - because there is the possibility that the desktop UI for virtualised machines can look anyway the user wants. Why limit ourselves to the traditional folders structure? Document management has always been the driving force behind that UI but I think devices like the iPhone and iPad show that the applications can manage that element - freeing the UI to do other things.
Microsoft has traditionally had two key cash cows (sources of revenue): Windows and Office. As the BBC's Business Edtor Tim Weber notes: "Except in years when Microsoft launches a new operating system, it is Office that generates most of the firm's profits through corporate licensing deals."
It is understandable that Microsoft would do all it can to protect these bountiful bovines.
While there seems no sign of anyone challenging the dominance of the Windows platform there have been a few predictions that Office will be challenged with a paradigm shift from desktop application to cloud-based services.
A number of companies have offered web-based office tools for some time. Two of the best known are Zoho and Google Docs. Both firms offer word processing, spreadsheet and presentation tools which replicate many of the more fundamental features of Microsoft's Office juggernaut.
It's hard to gauge the exact success of Google Docs and Zoho - but there is definite take-up. And the reason? Well, both Google Docs and Zoho offer a free version that does many of the basic tasks we expect from such software. And being cloud-based, the applications and resulting documents are available from any computer, anywhere.
Plus Google Docs and Zoho offer collaboration tools - from online planning to multiple users working on documents simultaneously. Throw in Google Chat to the mix and you have the materials for a new kind of working. No more is there need for complex document tracking protocols as different drafts are sent back and forth via email with endless amounts of annotations and changes marked. One document can exist in the cloud and be updated when and as needed.
Microsoft has responded to this with Office 2010 - the firm is offering its fully-fledged productivity suite, but the first time is offering online tools, called Docs.com.
And the battle between Microsoft and Google is quite fierce.
As Microsoft took the shrink wrap off Office 2010 Google was urging users to "upgrade to Google Apps" - the professional suite of applications it also offers for free.
Google's Matthew Glotzbach wrote: "You probably already own Office 2003 or 2007 (or maybe Office 2000), and there's no need to uninstall them. Fortunately, Google Docs also makes Office 2003 and 2007 better."
Making a direct pitch to the money men, he said: "The only thing you have to lose is a server or two."
Microsoft hit back saying: "They are claiming that an organization can use both [Office and Google Docs] seamlessly," said Payne. "This just isn't the case."
But the blows kept raining down.
Google, in a statement to Computer World said: "It says a lot about Microsoft's approach to customer lock-in that the company touts its proprietary document formats, which only Microsoft software can render with true fidelity, as the reason to avoid using other products," Google said in a statement e-mailed to Computerworld by a company spokesman.
Basically, one of the problems with web-based versions of productivity suites is that sometimes/often a document created in Word, when opened in Google Docs (and vice versa) can lose some/all of the essential formatting. And Google says the reason for that is because of Microsoft's lock-in formats.
Not so, said Microsoft as the two-punch drunk boxers continued to circle each other.
Microsoft responded: "This is about how Google has chosen to implement features, not file formats. Microsoft supports multiple ISO standards for file formats, and they are fully and openly documented, [but] Google simply chooses not to implement certain features, which results in poor document fidelity."
So where does this leave us? Well, it leaves the consumer with choice. Microsoft and Google, plus firms like Zoho, offer free versions of their web-based productivity suites and so it costs nothing to give them a whirl.
I've been a Google Docs users for a couple of years, and have been playing with Docs.com, Microsoft's equivalent, for the last week. Both are excellent for creating simple documents, with perhaps Docs.com having the edge in flexibility, and having that more familiar Word front end.
How about you? Are you planning to shift to the cloud? And will you be using MS, Google or another option?
Intel's CEO Paul Otellini held an investor meeting today and said two particularly interesting things, reported by the FT.
The first was rather important, I think. He said: "We’re transforming ourselves into a computing company, don’t think of us as a chip company anymore."
Without overstating things, I think Otellini has just signalled the reinvention of the firm. To understand think about the firm's origins.
Founded by Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore in 1968 they essentially founded Silicon Valley and spawned the chip industry. The first chip was a RAM chip and three years later the first microprocessor from the firm was released. And in 1974 the 8080 was released - the world's first multi-purpose microprocessor.
From this moment on Intel sparked a revolution - they became the engine of the computing world, and in particular the personal computing world. Intel's role and perception of its role had become fixed - it was the power behind the evolution and revolution in computing.
But now Otellini is saying that they are no longer a chip firm. What does he mean? Well, certainly Intel is not about to stop making chips and I would be incredibly surprised if Intel was going to set itself up as a consumer electronics firm in its purest sense - even if Intel did sell watches in 1972!
Essentially I think he is saying the second great age of computing, the personal computer, is evolving, and perhaps even being superceded.
How we think about computers, how we use them, what we use them for, what they look like, where we find them - it's all changing.
The first signs are here: smartphones have become paradigm-shifting devices capable of delivering the always-on digital world. Netbooks have the sort of power you could find in a desktop a few years ago. Set-top boxes have become rich internet content gateways. Tablet computers are changing the way we use digital content. Desktops have the power of supercomputers and so on.
And Otellini is saying that Intel will be involved with all these sectors - and that it is no longer about simply delivering silicon. It is about platforms, operating systems, working with developers, ensuring software is optimised for the hardware.
In the 1990s Intel took a huge step with the Pentium and Intel Inside campaign, which made people care for the first time about what silicon they had inside their personal computer. Look for more of the same in the years to come.
The second thing he said is: "Everybody says tablets are going to eat the notebooks. On the scale of the PC industry, they’re relatively insignificant."
Of course, he's right. It's like comparing the electric car industry to the combustion engine apparatus. Right now, that is.
Otellini said: "My personal belief is that tablets like netbooks are additive. They’re a new usage model, they’re good for computing, they’re probably good for Intel long term and I don’t think they will take market share away from other devices - you do different things with a tablet than you do with a notebook or a desktop or even a netbook for that matter. A tablet is fundamentally a consumption device.”
It's an interesting comment for a few reasons. Some will see it as a swipe at Apple and the iPad. But I don't think so. Otellini, I think, is saying form and function are still inextricably tied. And he's right because even though computing power gets ever faster and more efficient, and even though today's phones are more than capable of doing what our computers of 10 years ago could only dream of, it's a sliding scale.
Today's desktops are indeed yesterday's supercomputers. And that evolution will continue.
Forget the election - the biggest clash over the last few weeks has been the one between Steve Jobs and, well, everyone.
If Apple isn't tracking down whoever "sold" a prototype iPhone to Gizmodo, the firm is raising the stakes in its battle with Adobe over Flash.
And unlike the flash of lightning alone, this battle is producing light, heat and its own rolls of thunder.
So in a nutshell - Apple has not supported Flash on any of its iPhones, and now its iPad, since launch. For a few years it always looked as though Flash would appear one day. Certainly, Adobe made lots of reassuring noises that Flash would arrive on the devices soon.
But as time ticked on it looked less and less likely. And with the launch of the iPad, Steve Jobs wrote an open letter in which he basically spelled out the reasons why Flash would never be coming to the devices.
The long and short of it is this - and I'll try and be as balanced as I can - Apple feels Flash is an unstable product that has never worked in the mobile space, and it also fears that by letting Flash on to the iPhone/iPad platform - either as a runtime or even as a cross-platform tool for development of apps, the whole future development of iPhone and iPads could be beholden to Adobe. ie Any new version of the devices would have to take into account the numbers of users using a version of Flash that is no longer compatible with the latest firmware/hardware.
Essentially, Apple doesn't want to cede control of the platform to a third party. From Adobe's perspective, and many other developers, Apple is trying to be too controlling - and is afraid that it will lose financial control of the platform. Adobe says its forthcoming version of Flash 10.1 is stable and would work on the iPhone/iPad.
So where does Intel come into all of this? Well, the answer is that is doesn't. Intel is entirely agnostic about such matters - and works to ensure that users can run any type of application.
The latest version of Intel's Atom chips have the smartphone and tablet market firmly in mind - exactly the territory that Apple is finding so fertile. Apple doesn't use Intel's chips in its handhelds - it uses chips based on ARM architecture.
As Jack Schofield at the Guardian explains: "Intel has made extraordinary progress in moving its x86 architecture from large power-hungry Pentium-type chips to very small low-power Atoms. It has narrowed the gap to ARM, and it's not stopping.
"Today's Atom chips are more suitable for netbooks and media tablets than smartphones. The next design, code-named Medfield, could take the fight into ARM's home ground."
The important thing from a user perspective is that Atom can be used to run a range of applications - including those based on Flash. Intel is not prescriptive about how its chips are used. It basically favours choice.
And we seem to be seeing two broad fronts opening up in the tablet/smartphone space:
A controlled ecosystem from the perspective on both consumers and developers - Apple
An open ecosystem giving developers and consumers choice - Android.
So have you made your mind up, yet? According to the pollsters, there are millions of undecided voters waiting to the last minute before voting.
Well, with less than a day to go before the polls open I thought I'd address the topic of technology and the election.
Many were expecting this to be the first "digital election", in the style of President Obama's ground-breaking campaign. But the truth is this has been a television election. The biggest impact on voting intentions has been the presidential style debates on Sky, ITV and the BBC. An innovation for the UK, but part of US elections for more than four decades.
All the main parties have used the internet to build momentum and reach out to voters with Twitter feeds, blogs, and also buying up ad words in Google.
There have been some interesting use of digital - Labour MP Tom Watson has been issuing digital leaflets to update people on campaign issues and policy. And here's a fantastic mash-up of election leaflets online. Gimmicks? Yes. Effective? Perhaps.
But to my mind this has been a digital election; not from the perspective of the parties and their campaigns, but from the voters perspective of engaging in dialogue and reacting to events in real time. Charles Arthur, at The Guardian, has written an excellent overview of how social media has mobilised people - either as physical or digital activists.
Take Twitter, for example. Real-time discussion around the live debates was a fantastic way to engage with others in conversation about the issues and soundbites as they emerged. And there were plenty of firms - one in particular commissioned by BBC News - tracking responses to analyse sentiment in real-time.
I was unable to watch the final two debates live - and instead used Twitter to catch up on the main talking points, and my phone to watch highlights after it had happened.
The BBC's Rory Cellan-Jones has been tracking this election from a digital perspective. Here is his final election diary - and of course, he's used a digital tool to record and share it.
One of the things that you almost certainly haven't heard discussed by the main parties in this election is technology.
That's partly because it's not a big vote winner - and much of the debate around tech was exhausted before the campaign with the passing of the Digital Economy Bill.
This was a hugely contentious piece of legislation - not just because of its contents, but also because many people feel it was rushed through hurriedly.
There's a great overview in audio here. Essentially, Labour and Conservatives both voted for a bill which the creative industries said was necessary to protect jobs from the impact of piracy, while creatives and activist argued that the bill would do nothing to halt piracy, and would also stifle the digital economy by introducing wide-reaching, ill-defined powers that could shut down perfectly legal digital enterprises.
The Liberal Democrats voted against the bill. Adding to the controversy, measures such as a 50p tax to help drive super-fast broadband were dropped at the last second from the bill, in part to ensure the Conservative support, and all parties are freely admitting the bill was badly managed, and will need extensive re-working in a new Parliament.
Aside from that, what else do the parties say about technology? What about their manifestos? In truth, there's not much:
"... Investing in science and research Britain is among the best places in the world to do science, having massively increased investment in research and development as a proportion of national income. We are committed to a ring-fenced science budget in the next spending review. To help us do better in turning research outputs into innovation, we will provide focused investment for Technology and Innovation Centres, developing technologies where the UK has world-leading expertise."
"... In the coming years, priority in the expansion of student places will be given to Foundation Degrees and part-time study, and to science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees, as well as applied study in key economic growth sectors."
They also talk about using technology to cut crime (e.g. CCTV, DNA technology) and drive the production of clean energy.
"...This economic vision reflects our belief in enterprise and aspiration. It is a vision of a truly modern economy: one that is greener and more local. An economy where Britain leads in science, technology and innovation."
Mentions Glasgow/Silicon Valley/Japan/Freiburg to be home to leading green technology in their people/place callouts that feature throughout the manifesto. Mention Green Technology several times - large focus of manifesto, and how they want Britain to be at the forefront of this.
Looking at creating a better focus on Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths (STEM) subjects in schools.
Implementing new technology to curb drug-driving.
Tackling the proliferation of military nuclear technology.
