Silverlight on the iPhone? Time for some speculation....

Let's review what we know:

• Apple is opening up the iPhone (and iPod Touch) to all developers.  To quote Steve Jobs:

"We want native 3rd party apps on the iPhone"

• Microsoft showed a demo of Silverlight running on a Windows Mobile device at last year's Mix in 'Vegas.  Ongoing comments from various developers have shown that there will be a mobile release for Silverlight - but no-one has commented on when or how this will happen.
• I asked Scott Guthrie at Mix in London whether Silverlight would be available on the iPhone, to which he replied that Apple was not allowing 3rd party apps on the phone.  Clearly, that's changed.
• Silverlight is Microsoft's first real attempt to have true cross platform development.  They're even supporting the Moonlight initiative.
• Also demo'd at Mix in London was a Silverlight app that didn't require the browser to run...
• We also know that Apple is willing to work with Microsoft, as we have Silverlight on Safari already

Now - what can we gather from this.  Put aside the Microhoonanigans for a while, in which Microsoft is desperately trying to revive an online strategy and be relevant...

If they could convince Apple to allow them onto the iPhone, it seems they have a much bigger slice of a much bigger pie.

Scoble is already speculating that Google is quite happy to let Microsoft and Yahoo fight it out, as they have their eyes on the real prize - mobile apps.

Generally speaking - the market for mobile applications are still in it's infancy, but you already have a situation where most people have more than one phone - so the potential is huge.

So, can Microsoft pull this off?  More importantly, is anyone in the big house even thinking that this is strategically important?  You would think so - given their recent win with Sony Ericsson.  If not - that's why they're making desperate bids for Flickr...

This will be a great start in effectively countering Google's Android.

Of course - only time will tell, but what if it were true....

I keep thinking I complain too much...

I buy a new laptop roughly every two years.  As we don't get a new OS release every two years, there tends to be only one thing that drives me to do this - PERFORMANCE!

I get fundamentally frustrated when applications and OSses don't behave the way they should.  Having to wait a few several seconds on my blazing fast brand new Dell XPS with 2GB of RAM, seems stupid - what did I spend all that money for?

Obviously, there are a number of key culprits to this - primarily  things like Outlook.  But I'm not convinced I can or should blame Outlook for all my problems.  While Outlook may be a resource hog, it's by no means the only culprit.  And I refuse to take the line blaming Microsoft for all the world's software ills, because

1. I run some EXCELLENT Microsoft software on a daily basis.  I'm typing this using Live Writer, and I can honestly say it's one of the frostiest bit of code I've used recently.
2. Most companies make software that annoy me, with Adobe very high on the list :)  Acrobat Reader is like a crash waiting to happen... 
(see the comments in this scoble post)

I spent last night looking at a bit of demo code from Microsoft, showing developers how to implement a WPF client for RSS feeds.  What I found interesting frustrating is that while the layout is really cool, and the app looks beautiful, the behaviour is just plain BAD!  Using the system is non-intuitive, and doesn't lend itself to a great user experience.

This is disappointing as the goal of the demo starter kit is specifically to show how you can create user experiences using WPF that are incrementally better than those you experience in a browser.

The sample does a great job of showing off the excellent layout and screen reading system in WPF, but at the same time does a horrible job of making it usable.

So the question is:

"Does this happen because Microsoft and developers in general doesn't care about user experiences enough?  Is Apple the only company that focuses on this?"

One of the fantastic things about the iPhone is that amazing responsiveness of the touch interface.  Now, how is it wrong of me to expect a more responsiveness from a computer with at least 10 times the processing power and memory?

How can we force developers to take responsiveness into account when developing apps?  Have they all become so used to a massive amount of available memory and processing power that they assume the hardware should solve there performance issues?

That may have turned into a bit of a rant but it truly annoys me.  I'll call this part 1, and follow up examining performance in more detail in a future post.

Air of Vista?

Vista in an envelope?

The MacBook Air gets a review over at Ars Technica, and reviewer Jacqui Cheng has a horrible time of it.  Remember those problems with Vista where it's al but impossible to transfer files across the network?  Well, it looks like the McAir is suffering the same problems.

To quote Jacqui :

"Well, my patience lasted about five hours. Five hours later, the transfer still had not started, because the Air still had not calculated the amount of time it would take."

That pretty much sums up my own experiences with copying files in Vista, so I wonder is somehow Microsoft and Apple have started sharing code?  Or maybe just bugs....

Ms Cheng goes on to complain about performance, with a full set of benchmarks available. One of the main culprits here seems to be the 4200rpm drive.  As noted before, we're really waiting for those first SSD reviews.  She plans to write a follow up as soon as those SSD numbers become available.

She does have a number of very good things to say about build,d quality, how pleasant the form factor and weight is, etc.

Overall, I suspect it's going to be up to individual users.  Regardless of how hard you try, a reviewer cannot get or give a true picture of a machine unless you use it as your main machine for at least a month or so.  Some will like it, some will hate it.  But will it become a true icon like some Macs of the past?  We'll have to wait and see.

Microsoft, Yahoo and Google

The news is old already, and yet there's lots of interest in the news that Microsoft has bid for Yahoo. It's going to take at least a year before this actually happens (if it does), but the impact on the web landscape will be significant.
To that extent, Google has decided to claim that the move may limit competition. of course, this is Google's right. Just like it's Microsoft's right to make the bid in the first place, and up to the Yahoo board and shareholders to decide whether to accept it.
However, it seems a bit ludicrous that Google can still call Microsoft evil. Google has as much, if not much more power in the Internet space than Microsoft, so the move will possibly create a decent competitor for Google. Now is not the time for them to run home crying to mummy, but rather to make sure they have their plans in place.
The Internet is once again becoming a REALLY interesting place....

Microsoft to acquire Yahoo !

The mini-borg (google is now the borg) has apparently offered $44.6 billion for Yahoo.  The two companies have been in discussion since 2006, and the move seems to be a direct attempt at countering the threat from Google.

The offer represents a 62% premium over yesterday's closing price, so shareholders will be rejoicing everywhere!  Pity yours truly no longer owns any YHOO.

I assume the impact of this move will help Microsoft better define it's struggling online business, as they've never been able to be very successful with the various MSN and Live offerings.

Watch this space for more info on the merger.

More here.