AR

I don't have a clear vision of how augmented reality (AR) will fit in.  Not that I should - that's for the people who do this for a living - but, after all the demos of HoloLens, iPad and iPhone apps, etc., I still can't see it.  I can see how it is a cool, and difficult to execute, technology.  I can see how AR helps in some technical situations (repairs, in particular, make a lot of sense; maybe to see how furniture or clothing might look in situ?).  But, right now, it feels a little like 3D (much of AR in fact is real-time 3D, it seems) with similar, limited utility.  For example, the games, where something is placed on a table top or in surroundings, AR is fun but, ultimately, I don't see what the difference is vs. just using the gyroscope and generating the entire world in 3D rather than as an overlay.  MAYBE, if actual physical objects in between had presence (for example, in a multi-player shooting game, if one could "take cover" behind an actual object), that would be neat.  But I haven't seen it.

That said, I wonder if AR is like maps.  Something that doesn't seem that different on a device or online vs. a paper atlas but, in reality, hugely different when dynamic, location-aware, meta-data aware, etc.  AR is sort of like a map but much more directed (like a heads up display for a driver).  Just wondering if thinking of AR like a map will help me see why so much energy is being directed to something that still seems like a gimmick or a technology in search of a use.

"Windows Fans"

In most of the articles about Microsoft's write-down of $7.6b on its Nokia deal, as well as the source email itself from Satya Nadella, there is a reference to refocusing Microsoft's mobile efforts on three groups: business/enterprise customers, users of lower-cost phones, and "Windows fans".

The first is fine - I think that Microsoft's franchise has shifted to weight Office more than Windows and so targeting business makes sense (although I'm not sure how giving Office away for free works to earn profits).

The second is dangerous but perfectly plausible.  Not a great customer base but big volumes can go a long way.  Of course, for software, the margins are nearly 100% so competing on price is dangerous but fine (also, hard to see how this works well with targeting business users?).

But the third is baffling.  Who is a "Windows fan"?  I thought Windows was universal because users had no choice, not because users loved the brand.  And I write brand very specifically.  I don't mean that some users don't love a specific version of Windows (personally, I think Windows 7 is great and they really should have just fired everyone and kept raking in the profits from selling it for years). I mean that, given the multiple changes to the OS (especially on mobile but also more generally - see Windows 8 v 8.1), it can't mean that they love their Windows workflow (there is no such thing as workflows generally don't translate from desktop to mobile/keyboard to touch). And it can't mean for the APIs (programmers are not a big enough market to set as one of three core targets for sales).  So it must mean a devotion to the BRAND.  But that seems insane.  And why do none of the articles even question the idea of their being a meaningful set of fans of the Window brand large enough to translate from desktop to mobile?

People like Android but, really, it is by defining themselves against iOS.
People like iOS but, really, it is either by defining itself against Android or against history.  As the OS stops evolving so rapidly (there was no cut and paste only a few years ago...), there will be less to delight and the OS will just fade into the background.  And, what people really like about iOS are the apps available and the integration with other Apple products at a core level.

But I don't think anyone LOVES Windows because there isn't another reasonable comparison.  And the apps don't exist on Mobile.  And I don't think the experience is really so different from Android or iOS that it matters.

So are there only two legs?

UPDATE: iOS app privacy

How does a Google or Microsoft iOS app know that I have other Google or Microsoft apps installed on my iOS device?  For example, if I download and install Chrome (after having, perhaps Google Maps installed and myself logged in), I am greeted with to offer to sign in - and Chrome already knows my Google ID.  Similarly, if I download Word, log-in, and then download Excel, Excel already knows my Microsoft ID.

This is surprising as it means the apps have access to both a list of my existing apps (I think this is okay but not ideal) as well as my user ID (huh?).  Is it possible for me to write an app that can: (i) determine a user's Google ID; and (ii) ask the user to log in and thus give me credentials?  (i) alone seems bad, (ii) is very bad.

Also, noting that I do not even need to provide a password to confirm to Chrome that I am myself, is there some serious security lapse here?

All very odd

UPDATE: Is this related?  http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/06/24/apple-expanding-user-privacy-will-prevent-ios-apps-from-seeing-other-installed-apps.  It's not completely the same (as this seems narrower than knowing my Google ID and Microsoft ID).  But perhaps part of the same framework?

Microsoft Brands

Something is jarring about this clause from today's NYT:  "[Microsoft] is marshaling some of its most powerful brands as never before: Windows and the Xbox."


Windows is undoubtedly well-known.  But "powerful"?  I think of a powerful brand as one that has such strong and favorable connotations that, by simply lending its name to another product, it can also bestow some of its good will.  Windows does not strike me as such a brand. Moreover, extending a brand is risky - better to share the name with equally good products rather than hope consumers will never notice that the new thing is not quite like the old.