Mobile Platforms, User Experience

What I Hate About The Apple Watch… and Why It Will Stay On My Wrist

The long and short of it is: I got one two months ago; I got it in order to better understand where this type of wearable device is going — what it enables that wasn’t possible before and how it will affect our digital life; Like many others I used to be a bit of a watch aficionado but let go of my watches many years ago when I realized my cellphone showed the time; I am an early adopter of sorts but not really a digital junkie; And I’ve been in mobile (professionally) for 16 years now, and have typically seen convergence in this market, not divergence;

Based on this experience — this is my critique as well as my insight (ahem) about where this is going.

So first of all — What is the Apple Watch? I don’t know what the people in Cupertino had in mind, but based on what they delivered, it is really several things.

  • A watch that shows time, date, temperature etc. — Ha!
  • A health / fitness wearable
  • A notification / messaging wearable
  • … and a little tiny iPhone strapped to your wrist, sort-of

The first two categories above are generally well understood by at least early adopter consumers. The latter are newer and the jury’s still out on their utility / desirability. Now if you’re going to build something that people understand, you better deliver what they expect. So here are pet peeves #1 and #2:

#1: Can I please see the time when I want to?

The Apple Watch’s display is off most of the time, to conserve battery. It uses the accelerometer and some background processing to figure out it’s being looked at by the wearer. This works pretty well if my arm is extended (e.g. I’m standing up), but fails much too often when my arm is in my lap or on a desk. This is (a) frustrating and leads to (b) me jiggling the watch all over the place to get the display on, which initially leads the other people in the room to assume I’ve developed a tic (or worse) and often ends up with the conversation sidelining to the Apple Watch (hmm…) but not in a good light. Incidentally this is especially nagging with Siri interaction, which is supposed to start with a similar hand gesture and saying “Hey Siri”. Often it will turn off the display while I’m still talking to Siri because it will decide I didn’t mean to speak, after all.

#2: The Heart Rate Monitor Really Sucks

Heart rate monitoring when I’m on the couch is kinda cool for extreme quantified-selfers. Most people want heart rate monitoring when they are really exercising. More often then not, you will find the iPhone Watch showing you some totally irrelevant measurement taken long ago. For instance look at this photo, taken on a stepper/elliptical at the height of my workout:

This happens at least half the time, and seems to be a software problem rather than a hardware one, because when there is actually a recent measurement, it seems to be very accurate:

These consistent software issues bring me to an overall point that goes beyond the obvious:

#3. A Smart-watch is required to be, well, Smart

All too often there is poor attention to context, and therefore either silly interaction or too much user interaction required. One example are the “stand up” alerts. In keeping with the health keeper approach, the watch will alert you to stand up every hour… even if you’re obviously in a car and moving at 60 mph. It allows you to record your activity, but despite the fact that it measures your heart rate, speed etc. everything is manual — it can’t tell that you’re on a bike (despite your moving at 15 mph with an elevated heart-rate), or that your treadmill session is long over (despite your heart rate dropping to 50 and you being 100% stationary). Integration with the Health app on the iPhone isn’t great either, for instance it will bug you about not exercising despite your entering a 60-minute swimming session in the app manually (and painstakingly).

#4: A New Computing Paradigm Needs a New UX Paradigm

Moving beyond the basics of a watch-cum-activity-tracker to a new breed of computing device, Apple’s approach to delivering value revolves around snippets of information that are typically pushed to the end user. The combination of Notifications (straight out of the iOS Push mechanism) and Glances (a tiny-screen take on app widgets) alongside haptic alerts is supposed to provide a better medium for humans to remain hyper-connected without having to constantly stare at a “big” iPhone screen. In theory, that should allow people to be more intune with their surroundings and the people with them. In practice, it requires the emergence of new user experience practices.

It took years for desktop / web UX designers to master mobile UX, moving from “let’s cram the desktop experience onto a small screen” (and discovering no one wants to use it), to the current-day focus on what’s relevant and usable in a mobile app. Moving from iPhone apps to Watch glances / notifications will require a lot of trial and error before best practices emerge. We are in the early days where many apps are merely frustrating (e.g. Facebook Messenger — I can receive a message but the only response I can send is thumbs up). This is a topic that probably justifies a separate post. Let’s just say that currently some apps are useful, many are just there because management said “we must have an Apple Watch app when it launches” and product managers / designers let their inner mediocretin shine (hey I just invented a new word!).

The incredible useless Lumosity App

Another under-delivering technology at this stage are haptic alerts (taptics). Having the device strapped to your wrist makes vibrations a great way to draw your attention. But frankly I was hoping to be able to get more than a binary “Yo”. Case in point — navigation. I ride a motorcycle and I was really hoping that I could use Apple Maps navigation as a gentle “GPS on your wrist” that I could use without looking at / listening to. But for the love of me I can’t figure out when it says “go left” (three taps?) and when it says “go right” (a series of angry buzzes?).

So Why Can’t I Leave Home Without It?

In truth, this is hard for me to qualify, but three weeks into the experience I found myself leaving home without it one day and feeling, well, naked.

For one, the Apple Watch grows on you. You get used to be able to getting the time without getting out your phone, Siri-on-your-wrist makes a lot of sense (especially in the car), etc. etc.

Maybe even more salient is how lazy we are. I found myself preferring to check some info on the watch rather than on the phone because the watch was strapped to my wrist, whereas the phone was all the way on the other end of the coffee table, requiring the considerable effort of stretching out, reaching over and clicking a button. This is not unlike the reason we all do email on the iPhone even at home, or in front of our desks, despite our perfectly good laptops being in the next room or even right in front of us.

And then there’s the eco-system. The Apple Watch is useful out-of-the-box, cause it syncs with your iPhone, iPad etc. And while a lot about that eco-system is imperfect from a software perspective, it’s still the most complete one out there. Which makes things even more convenient by saving you the hassle of loading it up with stuff, setting stuff up etc. Did I mention people don’t like hassle?

So while the current Apple Watch is definitely a version 1, and while Apples software people (mostly) have a lot of work to do, if there’s one thing I learned about consumer tech over the last 15 years it is that if something new is more convenient for people, then (most) other things being equal, they will easily get used to it and not be able to go back to the old ways. The Apple Watch makes some things more convenient and accessible, and as some of these are already things we do habitually, I believe it is here to stay.

Advertisements
Uncategorized

The Case for Siri

Since Siri’s public debut as a key iPhone feature 18 months ago, I keep getting involved in conversations (read: heated arguments) with friends and colleagues, debating whether Siri is the 2nd coming or the reason Apple stock lost 30%. I figure it’d be more efficient to just write some of this stuff down…

siri icon

Due Disclosure:

I run Desti, an SRI International spin-out that is utilizes post-Siri technology. However, despite some catchy headlines, Desti is not “Siri for Travel”, nor do I have any vested interest in Siri’s success. What Desti is, however, is the world’s most awesome semantic search engine for travel, and that does provide me some perspective on the technology.

Oh, and by the way, I confess, I’m a Siri addict.

Siri is great. Honest.

The combination of being very busy and very forgetful, means there are at least 20 important things that go through my mind every day and get lost. Not forever – just enough to stump me a few days later.  Having an assistant at my fingertips that allows me to do some things – typically set a reminder, or send an immediate message to someone – makes a huge difference in my productivity. The typical use-case for me is driving or walking, realizing there is something I forgot, or thinking up a great new idea and knowing that I will forget all about it by the time I reach my destination. These are linear use cases, where the action only has a few steps (e.g. set a reminder, with given text, at a given time) and Siri’s advantage is simply that it allows me to manipulate my iPhone immediately, hands-free, and complete the action in seconds. I also use Siri for local search, web search and driving directions.

Voice command on steroids – is that all it is?

Frankly – yes. When Siri made its public debut as an independent company, it was integrated with many 3rd party services that were scrapped and replaced with deep integration with the iPhone platform when Apple re-launched it. Despite my deep frustration with Siri not booking hotels these days, for instance (not), I think the decision to do one thing really well – provide a hands-free interface to core smartphone functionality (we used to call it PIM, back in the days), was the right way to go. Done well, and marketed well, this makes the smartphone a much stronger tool.

But I hate Siri. It doesn’t understand Scottish and it doesn’t tell John Malkovich good jokes

As mentioned, I’ve run into a lot of Siri-bashers in the last year. Generally they break down into two groups. The people who say Siri never understands them, and the people who say Siri is stupid. I’m going to discuss the speech recognition story in a minute (SRI spin-out, right?) but regarding the latter point I have to say two things. First, most people don’t really know what the “right” use-cases for Siri are. Somewhere between questionable marketing decisions and too little built-in tutorial, I find that people’s expectations of Siri are often closer to a “talking replacement for Google, Wikipedia and the bible” than to what Siri really is. That is a shame; because the bottom line is that it is under-appreciated by many people who could really put it to good use. Apple marketing is great, but it’s better at drawing a grand vision than it is at explaining specific features (did I mention my loss on my AAPL?). While the Siri team has done great work at giving Siri a character, at the end of the day it should be a tool, not an entertainment app (my 8-year old daughter begs to differ, though).

OK, but it still doesn’t understand ME

First, let me explain what Siri is. Siri is NOT voice-recognition software. Apple licenses this capability from Nuance. Siri is a system that takes voice recognition output – “natural language”, figures out what the intent is – e.g send an email, then goes through a certain conversational workflow to collect the info needed to complete that intent. Natural language understanding is a hard problem, and weaving multiple possible intents with all the possible different flows is complex. It is hard because there is a multitude of ways for people to express the same intent, and errors in the speech recognition add complexity. Siri is the first such system to do it well and certainly the first one to do it well on such a massive scale.

So what? If it doesn’t understand what I said, it doesn’t help me.

That is absolutely true. If speech is not recognized – garbage in, garbage out. Personally I find that despite my accent Siri usually works well for me, unless I’m expressing foreign names, or there is significant ambient noise (unfortunately, we don’t all drive Teslas). There are however some design flaws that do seem to repeat themselves.

In order to improve the success rate of the automatic speech recognizer (ASR), Siri seems to communicate your address book to it. So names that appear in your address book are likely to be understood, despite the fact they may be very rare words in general. However this is often overdone, and these names start dominating the ASR output. One problem seems to be that Nuance uses the first and last names as separate words, so every so often I will get “I do not know who Norman Gordon is” because I have a Norman Winarsky and a Noam Gordon as contacts. I believe I see a similar flaw when words from one possible intent’s domain (e.g. sending an email) are recognized mistakenly when Siri already knows I’m doing something else (e.g. looking at movie listings).

This probably says something about the integration between the Nuance ASR and Apple’s Siri software. It looks like there is off-line integration – as in transferring my contacts’ names a-priori, but no real-time integration – in this case Siri telling the ASR that “Norman Gordon” is not a likely result. Such integration between the ASR and the natural language understanding software is possible, but often complex not just for technical reasons but for organizational reasons. It requires very close integration that is hard to achieve between separate companies.

So when will it get better?

It will get better. Because it has to. Speech control is here to stay – in smartphones as well as TVs, cars and most other consumer electronics. ASRs are getting better, mostly for one reason. ASRs are trained by listening to people. The biggest hurdle is how much training data they have. In the early days of ASRs, decades ago, this consisted of “listening” to news commentators – people with perfect diction and accent, in a perfect environment. In the last year, more speech sample data was collected through apps like Siri then probably in the two decades prior, and this data is (can be?) tagged with location, context and user information, and is being fed back into these systems to train them. And as this explanation was borrowed from Adam Cheyer, Siri’s co-Founder and formerly Siri’s Engineering Director at Apple – you better believe it. We are nearing an inflection point, where great speech recognition is as pervasive as internet access.

So will Siri then do everything?

That’s actually not something I believe will happen as such. Siri is a user interface platform that has been integrated with key phone features and several web services. But to assume it will be the front-end to everything is almost analogous to assuming Apple will write all of the iOS apps. That is clearly not the case.

However – Siri as a gateway to 3rd party apps, as an API that allows other apps that need the hands-free, speech-driven UI to integrate into this user interface, could be really revolutionary. Granted – app developers will have to learn a few new tricks, like managing ontologies, resolving ambiguity, and generally designing natural language user experiences. Apple will need to build methodology and instruct iOS developers, and frankly this is a tad more complex than putting UI elements on the screen. Also I have no idea whether Siri was built as a platform this way, and can dynamically manage new intents, plugging them in and out as apps are installed or removed. But when it does, it enables a world where Siri can learn to do anything – and each thing it “learns”, it learns from a company that excels at doing it, because that is that third party’s core business.

… and then, maybe, a great jammy dodger bakery chain can solve the wee problem with Scotland with a Siri-enabled app.

Oh, and by the way – you can learn more about Siri, speech, semantic stuff and AI in general at my upcoming SXSW 2013 Panel – How AI is improving User Experiences. So come on, it will be fun.

Mobile Platforms

Google acquires Motorola. Say again?!

With so many so-called experts (read: people who use Google and used to have a Motorola RAZR phone) providing different angles on this acquisition, I figured it’s time to chime in. I have a pretty good handle on Motorola (you can Google that!) and think I know something about Google too.

And what I don’t get is the culture clash. Truly. Motorola, like it or not, is an 83-year old Chicago (well Schaumburg) company, and no, the split to MMI and MMS did not change that. It is a slow mover 18,000-employee corporation, with an organization that takes years to design products, and even under Sanjay Jah that could not change much.
You see, when a company is hit as bad as Motorola Mobility was hit in 2008-2009 (and by the way – that happened through their complacence over the success of the RAZR), the good, dynamic, innovative people tend to leave. Especially in a market where Google, Facebook and Groupon are snatching all the good people who’d still like to work for a “safe” company. The culture has not changed all of the sudden, nor was there a good reason for great people to join lately.

Google is, or aspires to be, a fast-mover Silicon Valley company with a flat hierarchy, a market-driven (really numbers-driven) no-nonsense approach, with little respect for old-world processes. And it wants to retain this culture while growing to 25,000 employees.

See the issue?

So if, as some people have suggested, Google is only after the patents and will spin out Motorola again as a stand-alone device manufacturer, not so much has happened in the market (but congratulations to all the lawyers, accountants, bankers and management consultants who’re going to get the fat checks).

But if Google is truly looking to become the anti-Apple and the Motorola team is its weapon-of-choice… well, good luck with that.

P.S.: I especially like the theory that Microsoft was going to buy Motorola which forced Google to buy them first. It’s just lovely.

Mobile Platforms

Post MWC: Android’s Tour-de-force. Is that the shape of things to come?

Over the last week I’ve had several discussions with colleagues about MWC 2011. The general gist of things was “wow, how far Android has gone”. And indeed, Android’s presence at the conference was impressive, to say the least. The usual Android suspects were there, of course – HTC, Motorola, Samsung and others. But what was even more impressive was the vast number of unknown Android manufacturers, mainly Chinese, who’ve flocked to the free platform en-masse. Known names like ZTE and Huawei were to be expected, but upstarts like Malata (who seems to make impressive Android tablets, incidentally) were there by the dozen. And of course – given Nokia’s and Apple’s absence, and RIM’s limited presence, it sometimes seemed like Android is the only game in town.

Malata Android Tablet

The Nokia / Microsoft news just fanned the fire. Essentially while it is a feather in Windows Phone’s cap (not necessarily a beautiful peacock feather, incidentally), it means that Nokia will be out of the smartphone game for a long time. And to judge by the employees’ reaction – could be long indeed.

The general conclusion I heard drawn, then is simple – Android is taking over the market, Android will define the shape of things to come, Android is where to take your mobile start-up / corporate mobile app first cause that’s where all the users will be. Right?

Sorry, it’s not that simple. Contrary to what some people think, Android to phones is not going to be Windows to PCs. At least not in the next 2-3 years. There are many reasons, but I think the most important one lies in the personal relationship between consumers and their phones. Unlike PCs (at the time), phones are a means for personal expression both explicitly (as in what you put on them / use them for) and implicitly (as in making sure your peers know what you have – just like cars). Most smartphone users associate their phone selection and habits with their identity. And with identity, a “one size fit all” strategy doesn’t work, fortunately. So as long as there are technologically credible alternatives with a well differentiated product (e.g iPhone, BlackBerry), they will draw significant audiences.

Furthermore, the wider Android spreads as a mid-market solution, the less appealing will it be to some of these people who seek to distance themselves from “the middle”. Think the Mac cult of the ’90s and early ’00s but at a wholly different level. After all – these devices are used in the open. People see what you use, so better pick the “right” one.

So clearly – the fragmentation in the smartphone space is going to continue. Each platform’s market segment will be different demographically and psycho-graphically,  and these compositions will continue evolving. I expect we’ll keep seeing Android pandering mostly to the mid-market (with of course a meaningful number of power-users and high-end customers too). iPhone will generally remain a high-end phenomenon. BlackBerry may well lose its hold on the enterprise, but acquire new audiences amongst the young and price-conscious (free messaging). And when Nokia eventually rolls out Windows Phone handsets, it is quite possible that their considerable distribution clout in European and Emerging markets will make this a meaningful platform for those audiences.

I believe a very similar phenomenon will be seen in tablets. While Android tablets are improving, the good ones are still not meaningfully cheaper than the iPad. Apple only needs some minor improvements with the anticipated iPad 2 in order to stay in the lead. Only when significantly cheaper tablets (probably running Android 3.0) will come to the market can the balance be upset. And what will we have then? A similar market structure with iPad as the premium product and Android tablets as cheaper, “good enough” devices for mid-market consumers.

Where does this leave the Android makers? With the proliferation of Chinese manufacturers with great pricing power, we will see the PC-wars re-enacted. Margins will drop to low single digits for most manufacturers, probably leading to consolidation and elimination of key brands.

So essentially – nothing earth-shattering really came out of MWC. We will see even more Androids, Symbian and MeeGo are dead (duh!) but little change to the fabric of the market as we’ve known it in 2010.

Mobile Platforms

In Smartphones: Google is King but Apple is Rich

A couple of weeks ago, the inevitable was announced. According to Canalys, a leading mobile market research firm, in Q4 2010 Android has overtaken Symbian as the world’s most-pervasive smartphone platform. According to Canalys, 33.4 Million Android phones were shipped by Google licensees in the quarter – more than double the iPhones or BlackBerries.

While this has been touted with much fanfare, some seemingly contradictory information is “common knowledge” to mobile application developers. It is still much easier to get traction and especially monetize iPhone apps than Android apps. How come? With such momentum for Android, you’d expect it to be at least as successful as iPhone.

The answer, which I’ve been proclaiming for awhile now, can be summed up this way – “Android is the new Symbian”. Now I’m sure some Googlers will resent this, so maybe a different way to put it is – “Android is the new MS-DOS”.

What I mean by this are really two things. First, that Google’s strategy with Android is to reach as far and as wide as it can. That’s one of the reasons it is free to licensees, open-source etc. Google intends to eventually leverage Android by tying it to its other assets and ultimately use advertising to monetize it. This means you can build cheap Android phones and target the mid-market, not just the high-end as other smartphones have (in truth, Android hardware requirements are still relatively high, but Moore’s law is taking care of that cost). Furthermore the abundance of licensees means that a price war is evident – and indeed we now see free (subsidized) Android phones on many operators portfolios. So – Android is becoming the dominant player in the mid-market, with high-end presence too, and ultimately low-cost aspirations. This is exactly the path Symbian took in 2004 – 2008, becoming the world’s leading smartphone platform by volume – but dwindling in consumers’ eyes to a point where it drives low-margin devices, with BlackBerries (initially) and iPhones (later) commanding the high-end, high-margin sector. In 2008, a Nokia executive told me personally that Nokia learned the hard way that the top 10% of the handset market commands 50% of the margin. Think about it – if one company takes over the top 10%, it can be worth as much of all the other companies combined (who sell in aggregate 9 times as much as it does). Right? So this is the second point – a smartphone platform that is focused on mass is doomed to become a low-margin platform. Google doesn’t mind. But it’s licensees are doomed to fighting over scraps.

Now this is a tall order claim, that I couldn’t really publish before, until I ran into this analysis by Asymco’s Horace Dediu:

Which brought to mind Noam Wasserman’s “Founder’s Dilemma” metaphor about Rich vs. King. Apple’s startegy with the iOS devices, just like with the Mac before, is to aim for the top 10-30% of the market. The people who can spend, the people who care deeply about the product they are buying and using. Google’s strategy is more like carpet-bombing. If we can get to 80% of the people, we’ll surely find a way to monetize that.

So is this just an interesting business case? Or Valley gossip?.

If you’re involved in this business in any way – you might be an app developer, a marketer wanting to reach mobile device users through mobile ads or a mobile app / website etc., or a service provider who is pushed to provide a service to his customers through their phones, this is critical info. Cause it means that you are going to reach a different demographic and psychographic when you target the different platform. In the Apple case, your demographic will be skewed towards high-income, users may be more engaged with the product, and there may be more willingness to pay. On the Android platform you will eventually reach more people, but engagement and purchasing intent will be different. And your adoption ratio (compared to the total available Android market) will be different, as many of these users are much less enthusiastic about their phones. Yes – they bought a smartphone, but maybe because “everyone else is getting one” or because “it was free, so why not”. So choose your audience wisely, and plan your marketing moves with consideration for its composition.