gordon’s posterous

Here’s the test. Take some normal people, where by “normal” I mean people who have never heard of TechCrunch or Daring Fireball. Give them brand new still-in-the-box iPhone 4’s and HTC Evos. Now ask them to make a video call to one another. With the iPhone 4, they’re going to be able to do it. The only thing that’s technically confusing about FaceTime is that it only works via Wi-Fi (I think many people have little understanding of the difference between Wi-Fi and 3G data — at least insofar as why a feature would work over one but not the other). Otherwise, FaceTime is as easy to use as making a regular voice call. There is no such thing as a “FaceTime account” you need to create or log in to. It doesn’t require the installation of any third-party apps. All you need to know is that the iPhone 4 can make video calls, and that the feature is called “FaceTime”. And I’ll bet the little instructional card inside the iPhone 4 box will make that perfectly clear.

How many normal people even know that Qik and Fring exist? Are Android users supposed to install both apps, so they can make video calls to people who’ve only installed one or the other?

It’s not that there’s anything wrong with Qik or Fring in and of themselves. Nor is it to say that Android doesn’t have its own first-to-do-right features, like, say, the ability to dictate text-to-speech in any text field. It’s about the mindset of the companies that made the phones. Do you include the half-baked stuff, or hold it until it’s fully-baked? Apple wasn’t going to include a front-facing camera until they had software that made it useful in an iPhone-caliber way. HTC is happy to include a front-facing camera and leave its utility (and user experience) in the hands of third-party developers.

Android and iPhone fans will read the preceding paragraph very differently. Android fans will read it and say, “Exactly — give us the hardware and let developers figure out what to do with it.” iPhone fans will read it and say, “I can’t wait to get an iPhone 4.”

Great post from John Gruber. Check it out in full here.

Goes directly in line with my last post on why FaceTime will be successful at bringing video calling to mobile.

One-tap simple.

FaceTime works right out of the box — no need to set up a special account or screen name. And using FaceTime is as easy as it gets. Let’s say you want to start a video call with your best friend. Just find her entry in your Contacts and tap the FaceTime button. Or maybe you’re already on a voice call with her and you want to switch to video. Just tap the FaceTime button on the Phone screen. Either way, an invitation pops up on her iPhone 4 screen asking if she wants to join you. When she accepts, the video call begins. It’s all perfectly seamless. And it works in both portrait and landscape modes.

FaceTime is going to be huge. I can't wait to be able to make video calls with all my friends and family here and back east.

Sachin, of Posterous fame, thinks FaceTime will be successful because you don't need an account. This is a guy who knows about software. Much of Posterous' success stems from the fact that you don't need an account to get started, you can immediately start posting without an account. (FYI, this blog is hosted with Posterous)

Sachin makes the point:

"FaceTime will work because it doesn't change the device you use or your existing behavior."

I couldn't agree more. Apple makes it work right out of the box with no software or new accounts needed.

Now there's a hell of a lot of work going on in the background to make this possible. But not to users.

And that's the thing about Apple. Their software is simple and "just works."

We can't say that about most other companies, especially when it comes to mobile.

People have asked what the killer app of the iPad is. It’s obvious! The killer app of the iPad is chilling out. You don’t sit it down in your lap, the screen doesn’t come up and block reality- it’s something you pick up and hold. And, like a book, you can simply put it down.

Reading a Kindle in a coffee shop is a casual thing, you can sip your coffee as you linger over the words, taking breaks now and again to people watch a bit. Reading on your laptop is intense- you fall into the world of the glowing rectangle, and shifting away from that world feels awkward, stilted.

The iPad lets you use a computer like a book. You pick it up. You watch a YouTube video. You watch a tv show. You play some music. You check your email. However, each of these things happen in isolation. You are checking your email, you are watching a YouTube video, or you are reading Huffington Post. There’s no in-between. You aren’t consumed by the device, because there’s no ability to be efficient while working on it. It is a device that’s functional enough to be useful, and stilted enough to be inefficient. It’s the first Personal Computer- good for hanging out in the living room, terrible for ‘real’ work. That’s why it’s fantastic! You can leave your ‘pad on the kitchen table, wake up, make yourself a cup of coffee, and browse a couple sites as you sip coffee. Then, when you’re done, you walk away and go to your ‘real’ computer to get work done.

The iPad is there for 1 or 2 hours a day, after work, before work, at the coffee shop, on a plane. Everywhere that your goal is specifically not to be efficient, but rather to chill out. The iPad’s a personal computer. Right now, we only have work computers.

Great post. Sums up my feelings on the iPad.

But: everyone I spoke to in the press room was raving first and foremost about the speed. None of us could shut up about it. It feels impossibly fast. (And our next thought: What happens if Apple has figured out a way to make a CPU like A4 that fits in an iPhone? If they pull that off for this year’s new iPhone, look out.)

Apple doesn’t talk much about the technical details of the iPhone. They never talk about CPU speed or the name of the chip being used. They don’t tell you how much RAM is in there. Part of their vision for moving computers from technical culture to popular culture is about getting away from defining these things by their technical specs. So the prominent talk about A4 is telling. This is something they want us to notice.

I mentioned this year-ago quote from Apple COO Tim Cook the other day, but it’s apt here, too. Cook told BusinessWeek, “We believe in the simple, not the complex. We believe that we need to own and control the primary technologies behind the products we make, and participate only in markets where we can make a significant contribution.”

Apple now owns and controls their own mobile CPUs. There aren’t many companies in the world that can say that. And from what I saw today, Apple doesn’t just own and control a mobile CPU, they own and control the hands-down best mobile CPU in the world. Software aside (which is a huge thing to put aside), it may well be that no other company could make a device today matching the price, size, and performance of the iPad. They’re not getting into the CPU business for kicks, they’re getting into it to kick ass.

Apple is now in control of their own processors. Thus, they're finally in charge of the whole system, top to bottom. This is a big deal.

The quote from Jobs says it all, “Apple is a mobile devices company.”