We at Neoco have always liked to embrace new technologies and whenever something new or exciting comes out we naturally get excited. This happened with the iPhone, which we now make applications for, and this is bound to happen with the iPad.

The rumour of an Apple tablet has existed for over a year and now that it’s soon to be reality, developers must look at ways they can create applications or adapt their current ones to best fit the new format. Thankfully, the iPad runs the same operating system and contains the same frameworks as the iPhone and iPod Touch so many developers can immediately get to work. The transition, however, may not be as simple as might be suggested by the fact that they both run iPhone OS.

It runs iPhone applications doesn’t it?

It’s well known that the iPad will run most current iPhone applications. Some won’t work due to hardware differences, some because of changes to the underlying frameworks.

The lack of a camera, which many expected to be included, means that all the fun photo adjusting applications become boring (since you must use an old photo form your library) and augmented reality applications (like those that point you to the nearest Tube stop as you look through the camera) obviously cannot work. GPS seems to only be included in the 3G model, so again like with the iPod Touch, this rules out turn-by-turn navigation programs for many people.

Some changes to iPhone OS 3.2 have curiously broken code from past versions. This is presumably an effort to improve the range of functionality, yet in the past they managed to find ways to do so without forcing developers to re-write their programs. Case in point: the Media Player Framework. It’s not clear whether this is just an iPad issue or whether it will affect all devices upgrading to 3.2, but essentially, the mechanism to play a video won’t work. In the past, the only way to play a video was to launch a full screen player. Now you will be able to play videos in smaller boxes, but you have to do so in a different way. Fortunately even if your application featured heavy use of videos, this should be easy to correct.

Then there is the size. Yes, it can run iPhone applications at their native resolution and, yes, it can scale them up to fit more of the screen, but both forms result in an appalling user experience.

At first it might be tempting to just increase the window size to take up the entire screen and leave the rest of the interface in the much the same form, but it should be pretty obvious that this will not make for an attractive application.

Because of these points and more, it is clear that users will expect developers to make iPad-specific applications. In fact, not just iPad-specific applications, but universal applications that work across the range of Apple mobile devices.

Design and interaction

For all their systems, Apple publish Human Interface Guidelines that describe how they envision all application user interfaces and behaviours. For the iPad they say that a few things need to be different from the iPhone/iPod Touch paradigm:

Orientation

If you spin the device round into any orientation and the interface must follow – this happens in a few iPhone applications, but far from all. Curiously, it sounds as though Numbers form the iWork suite for iPad will only work in landscape.

UI

You shouldn’t just make it bigger. As stated above, with such a large and rich screen this would make your application unappealing on the iPad. But it’s not just a case of aesthetics – Apple want applications to look more like the things they act model from the real world. Their Contacts application, for instance, is modelled after a pocket address book. Naturally this won’t make sense for all applications, but Apple is trying to encourage designers to think slightly beyond the traditional iPhone OS interface elements.

• Downplay controls such as buttons and drop-downs
• Avoid full screen transitions – present information in place where possible to improve the overall visual stability
• Use high quality, physically realistic graphics
• Present lists and their detail views together – e.g. the mailbox list and email preview are on the same screen side-by-side in Mail on the iPad
• Reduce modal interfaces (these interrupt the user flow) – e.g. avoid alert message pop ups by presenting responses inline

Having said that, developers shouldn’t attempt to make desktop-style applications – Apple still maintains that across the iPhone OS family applications should each perform one main task in a clear and concise way. I.e. an application shouldn’t sprout new features – only a new interface – and shouldn’t deal with a file system model of opening and saving files (all changes made to something should always be preserved, and only loss of data such as deletions should ask for explicit confirmation).

Actual Multi-touch

The iPhone and iPod Touch have had multi-touch technology for years, but in very few applications, beyond games, is it used. This is probably because there are few situations where it can be put into practice in a meaningful way on the small screen. With the iPad, Apple is encouraging a more touchy-feely approach to applications.

The crux of this? Lots to redesign for existing applications, lots more thinking/sketching/prototyping before making new applications.

Another worry is the increased fragmentation of hardware and capabilities of the devices an application is expected to run on. Fragmentation is one of the much maligned facts of the Android platform. There are so many Android devices with differing screen sizes and system resources that it is hard for developers to accommodate all forms. The beauty of the iPhone OS family used to be that it was simple but now you have 3 iPhones, 3 iPod Touches and 2 iPads, all with varying capacities. With new models coming out almost yearly, it’s foolish for developers to only focus on the latest systems and cut off the millions who bought one just last year.

What exactly is it for anyway?

All in all, Apple’s choices for the iPad suggest that they’ve carefully thought through what sort of niche the device sits in. The fact that it runs iPhone OS is great for developers as there’s not too much to learn and great for users as it will feel natural to those who have used iPhones or iPod Touches. They haven’t overloaded it with hardware features and focused on the software. Despite being both a hardware and software manufacturer, Apple have explicitly stated that it’s hard to compete in hardware – they will be matched very quickly by others. It’s software where they can claim to stand out above the rest.

It’s a little less clear what this niche is though… The iPad is too big to carry in a pocket / have with you always. In contrast, an iPhone would barely leave your side. The iPad isn’t the most convenient things to hold and you probably can’t use it with one hand or on the move. In contrast, you can type a text message on the iPhone with one hand while walking. Its giant screen will wow you, but will your eyes get tired of the bright light and colours after reading more than a few pages?

So be certain of one thing – the iPhone is going nowhere and will remain popular. But will the iPad succeed? We think so if the developer community can build great applications as they have done for its predecessors.

OK so it’s what we expected – isn’t it? Maybe that’s the thing missing? Apple has delivered the iPad and it’s exactly what we thought it would be  – a large iPhone. Maybe all the hype surrounding it meant it was always going to fail in some respects. Unlike the iPhone, which filled an already well-established need, there is no existing need the iPad fills.

The success of the product is going to be in the deals that are made with publishers and such like. It feels like the opportunity the publishing industry has been wanting and waiting for. The device does look like a natural digital fit for books and magazines. We’ve been talking to a few clients for some time now as to how to turn their print publications into successful digital publications. With the current size of the iTunes store and the press around launch this maybe the platform that gives each party what they are looking for and give more power and profit back to the publishers themselves.

The locked-down platform strategy will help the success of the product, raising the quality standard of the content and Apps as it has done on the iPhone. This strategy can only benefit the end-user who already knows how to interact with this new technology before it goes on the sale.

The tablet concepts that have been floating the net prior to the launch of the iPad all seem to have a similar solution for the user, which is to have a web ‘esq’ digital interpretation of a magazine layout. Much like the iPad itself, this is what we would expect. However, we’re going to want much more very quickly.

The content and interface should be focused around the device and the user, not existing magazine or website formats. Publishers and designers are going to need to get over this hurdle quickly if they are to help this industry cherish and grow.

The opportunities for such an intuitive device are massive, but it does require lateral thinking, better use of content integration and mix, and a client who is willing to lead the market. The device should throw up some really exciting solutions which I can’t wait to see.

Overall it looks like it’s going to be a very successful product for them and exceed expectations. I guess the bottom line for the consumer is do I want one? I know I do!

It is generally agreed that when we potter over to Google, hunting for enormously exciting topics to read about, we want it to return the best results possible for a search. But who or what should decide what those “best” results are? Option one – is a machine. Since its conception in 1998, Google has based results on its Page Rank™ algorithm. A method of measuring a page’s importance based on its incoming links, which – it is generally accepted – was Google’s major unique selling point. One of the keys to Page Rank’s success was its pure objectivity. All pages were born equal in Google’s eyes, and had to “earn” their rank by other pages “voting” for them via an incoming link. Google’s – or anyone else’s – personal opinion of a given page was effectively irrelevant.

However there are problems with this which first started to surface a few years ago. Google appeared to be struggling. With the Internet growing at a rate of 10 million pages per day, they appeared to be struggling to find a relevant page for all those obscure topics out there. The tiny amount of relevant content was slowly getting lost in all of the rubbish (and porn).

Option two – is a human. The best current example of a large human created information resource is Wikipedia. Written and reviewed by humans, Wikipedia is a collection of over 9.1 million pages covering almost all topics of interest. Because Wikipedia is peer reviewed so closely, you can almost guarantee a relevant page is returned, whether you’re searching for “Aabenraa”, “Zaafaraniyeh” or “Basil Brush” – the lovable anthropomorphic fox. But there are obvious problems with this. A human created resource is subject to bias. Even when reviewed by large numbers of people, cultural bias still exists.

So why is this relevant? Well – in my opinion – Google has hit a wall (again) when it comes to returning relevant content using purely machine learning. With the Internet now containing more than 1 trillion (that’s 1,000,000,000,000) pages, Google’s job in finding those top 10 relevant pages for a given term is now harder than ever. At the end of the day – for now at least – a computer cannot fully comprehend all of the possible variations a given search term could mean, and the relevance (if any) that those variations can have with each other.

One option Google has is to start applying human editorial judgement to their search results. This however would surely go against Google’s founding principle. Then again, there are signs that Google are starting to consider just that. Their Terms and Conditions used to state that “Google’s indices are indexed by Google’s automated machinery and computers”, but this disclaimer has now been removed. Perhaps the most interesting development to this effect is Google’s recent interface change. When you now perform a search on Google whilst signed in, you are graciously supplied with additional controls relating to their “SearchWiki”. As you can see from the image below, we are now given the options to “Promote” or “Remove” a URL (using the icons to the right of the page’s title).

Now initially, using these options only affects what you (you being the person currently signed into Google) see. However Marissa Meyer (Vice President of Search Product and User Experience at Google) has stated that “in the future it’s likely Google will use the data to at least make obvious changes”. Now this comment, made at Le Web conference in Paris last December, is enormously significant. This is – for the first time – Google admitting that they are going to use human generated information to affect their search results.

So what are the ramifications of this? Well I could go on for quite a while about these, but let’s just stick to the key factors. First, this is going to affect the Search Engine Optimisation (SEO) industry. At present SEO “experts” can go about their task with the sure knowledge that Google will treat the site they’re working on with the pure, unemotional objectivity as every other site online. However once human subjectivity is added into the mixing bowl, all this changes. At this point it doesn’t matter if you have the perfect keywords in just the right positions around your site, if enough users don’t agree that your site matches the search term, then that alone could send it tumbling down the search results.

The other key factor is trust from the perspective of objectivity. One of the reasons for Google’s mass popularity is that when you enter a term to search for, you can be sure that the results returned are not there due to any bias, be it political, religious, cultural etc. However if Google do decide to go down this path, then it’s quite likely that we will start to see a bias on the side of those who choose to use tools such as the SearchWiki. This might not only affect our faith in Google, but more importantly – from Google’s perspective at least – advertisers’ trust in Google. After all, nobody is going to want to advertise with a company who appears to be favouring a competitor.

So what would you rather? An objective search engine run by a machine that returns ok results, or a subjective search engine run by humans that gives “better” results (assuming you side with the bias)?

Nokia has bought Plazes for an undisclosed amount. Plazes is a German location-aware social network site,  which basically lets users know where their friends are.

As discussed at mashup*’s Being Digital last week, location is a really hot topic right now, with everyone in the industry having a go at creating a location/mobile/social network mashup (although most do seem to be getting it all wrong!) and this will no doubt increase even further with the iPhone 3G. Predictions can easily be made that whoever is able to master this and create a useful service with an easy to use interface – and most importantly, of course, monetises this – is going to reap in the rewards. Nokia’s acquisition shows that they too are on the path to creating a location-aware service.

While many users are looking forward to use location based services, it appears that many aren’t keen to expose their location and trade in their privacy, and this will inevitably raise concerns for the success of these services. Apparently, Plazes’ CEO Felix Petersen was caught somewhere else than he was supposed to be – and I’m sure many of us wouldn’t like to be put in the situation where our partner/friends/family/colleagues can see where we are all the time. Think about that sneaky ’sick’ day at work when you have tickets to an event that you can’t just can’t miss! Or when you want a quiet, relaxing night in at home, so you tell your friend that you can’t babysit because you are going out. Or when you tell your partner you have to work late, but you go out with your friends instead. (By the way, I don’t do any of these things…they are just examples…)

Whatever users think about location-aware services, they are definitely something that we are going to be hearing a lot more about over the rest of 08.

TwitPic is a really cool service that lets you easily add photos to your Twitter stream. In its latest release it has added mobile support, a new interface design, a real-time Google map mashup, plus a couple of features that bring additional utility to Twitter and the TwitPic service, including tagging, geotagging, and RSS feeds. These help with the self-broadcasting end of the life streaming spectrum, and they also help to better organize the huge amount of content on Twitter. If only pulling an RSS feed directly from Twitter was so easy.

Tagging and geotagging are not currently available on TwitPic yet, but they will soon become an integral part of the TwitPic service. These new features, along with the TwitPic API, show the ways in which TwitPic is aiding the Twitter economy.

One thought is how will this integrate with the Facebook Twitter API?