Why web apps will need Google Native Client

Recently The Register posted a very informative article on Google Native Client and I got the feeling from from representatives from Mozilla and Opera that "this was not a good idea because web apps written in Javascript are good enough and more portable"

I beg your pardon? You think that the current crop of Javascript based web apps is good enough? What they seem to forget is that for a lot of things Javascript based web apps and by Web app I mean apps that run in your browser) have failed miserably.

- Gaming is one of them: why do web games look like some 2D thing out of the 90' ? Why can't I play Battlefield 3 or Skyrim quality games from my browser if my computer has the 3D hardware to do so? The only thing that currently looks like a decent "console quality games on the web" is OnLive and that's because all the processing happens on the server (and it needs a plugin anyway)! Why are most 3D MMORPGs downloads rather than web apps?

- Video is only remotely good with the flash plug-in. Youtube exists for years now but the only way to get decent (meaning hardware accelerated) web video on desktop and mobiles is still flash with no useable standard in sight. and don't get me started with video editing in the browser. Try to code a, Xvid decoder in Javascript and see the performance you get, I bet it will barely be usable.

- Mobile web apps are also a failure. Initially the iPhone was supposed to support only web apps, no app store. Have you seen how well that turned out: developers are fighting to get into the app store and the Android marketplace!

The fact is that current web apps and Javascript are OK for apps that mostly display data or do some limited data manipulation such as email, word processing or spreadsheet, but as soon as you want something more consistent there is not much. Where my web base GIMP (with all its filters and plugins)? where's my web based Audacity? Where is my web based premiere? where's my web base PowerDVD?

If the aim is to replace local applications and games by "browser hosted" web apps, then web apps need to be able to do all the tasks that users are currently performing with their computers with roughly the same level of performance, and that includes high-end gaming and multimedia, and currently there is no way to do that with Javascript.

The representative from Mozilla says that there was a 10 fold increase of Javascript performance in the last few years. To me this means that a few years ago Javascript was 10 time slower than a native application, and as an user I find that is not acceptable. I will not pay for a 3 Ghz computer to have the same performance with webs apps than a 10 year old 300 Mhz computer could provide with native applications.

Why the Tegra 2 sucks at video decoding

Recently several new Tegra 2 based Android tablets have been release by major manufacturers, such as the Motorola Xoom or the Eee pad transformer. Most of those manufacturers are claiming that their tablets have good multimedia capabilities and are proudly promising 1080P video decoding thanks to mojo from the Nvidia Tegra 2 chip. And in a way it makes sense: the Nvidia chipsets and video cards for PC are probably the best at decoding high definition H264 video. Most people purchasing these tablets to play high resolution video will probably be disappointed though because when you look at the specifications of the Tegra 2 platform you will notice that unlike its PC cousins the chip is unable to decode most 1080p H264 videos.

The issue is that there are actually several flavors of H264 videos. You have the Main profile that is relatively easy to decode and is used for things like Youtube and digital camera recordings. The Tegra 2 will have no problem with these. The other kind are the High profiles (yes there are several) that allow a much better compression vs quality ratio. This is used for most videos that you can actually download from the internet: Podcasts, fansubs, bittorent etc... There we have a problem: the Tegra 2 is incapable of decoding these videos in HD. What this means is that unless you are only using the video capabilities of your Tegra 2 tablet to watch Youtube, you will have to stick to lover definitions or transcode videos on your PC before watching them on the tablet, which defeats the point of having a tablet in the first place.

What is disturbing is that Nvidia "PC" chipsets such as the ION are perfectly capable of decoding High profile 1080p H264 video and that consumers purchasing Tegra 2 based tablets will likely expect the same level of functionality. It is only the next version of the Tegra chip (codenamed Kal-el) that will be able to decode HD video in a way similar to Nvidia ION chipsets a point that Nvidia should be much clearer about. If you want a tablet to watch HD, either purchase one with another chip or wait for Kal-el.

Why the iPad sells (to Apple fans only)

Apple announced that the first week-end of iPad sales (that actually includes about a month of pre-orders) totaled 300,000 units. This may seems impressive, but when you look in more details at the sales numbers this is not really good news for the iPad and here is why.

Apple sold to its fans only

A very interesting article from PC World points out that out of those 300,000 users, about 75% were already Mac users and about 66% percent were iPhone users. Now if you also take into account other Apple devices like the iPod touch it is clear that the very large majority of buyers where already major users of Apple products.

Informed people didn't chose the iPad

Another interesting statistic is that around 78% of the buyer did not consider any other devices. This can mean two things:
- First that 78% of the iPad buyers were indeed Apple fans that bought only on the "brand value" rather than on the device actual merits.
- Second that a lot of the people who did actually consider other devices did not choose to buy an iPad. Here is why I think that this scenario is likely:

Why people don't like the iPad

Ars Technica made another interesting poll: Will you buy an iPad, and if not why? About 37% percent of the readership said they would buy an iPad. Now if you consider that a large portion of Ars readership are Apple users and gadget addicts, this is actually not a large number. What is more important are the reason why people won't purchase an iPad. In other words, why did the people that researched the device choose not to buy it. the number one reason is that people don't feel the need for a tablet. the second reason is actual dislike of Apple as a company. The third reason is the inability to purchase apps outside of the app store and the fourth one is the price.

Apple policies are ensuring the iPad failure

If you think about it, reasons 2, 3 and 4 are not technical issues with the iPad but are purely due to Apple policies. If apple was selling the device at a more reasonable price (about $199 to $299 like other ARM based tablets) and was willing to change its policies, mostly regarding the app store and third party application / content they would probably double the number of possible iPad buyers (even I would buy one under these conditions). As it is Apple is currently paving the way for Android and Windows 7 tablets by creating demand for tablet devices but refusing to deliver a product that matches the customers expectations.

Conclusion: the iPad will run out of steam

What I think is that the iPad will initially gain a lot of market share on purchases made by its own customers , but that this will soon run out of steam as these "dry up". Non Apple customers will probably be driven away to competing tablets by Apple policies and the iPad shortcomings. In 5 years I expect Apple to keep about 20% to 30% of the tablet market share and most of the rest to be non Apple devices.

The year Apple lost its mojo

For me 2010 will be the year when Apple lost its mojo. We are only in march but in the space of two months Apple managed to change my feelings of  respect for one of the coolest tech companies to something close to the feelings I have for the likes of SCO. Don't get me wrong, Apple always was a company that was difficult to do business with, but until now its customers where its first priority. Now however Apple has turned against its customers and is destroying its brand.

Back then when Apple had its mojo.

If you looked at Apple a few years ago you would see one of the coolest technology corporations around. It's iPod line of music players was not only cool, but its iTunes software was a breeding ground for media innovation. It practically invented podcasts, allowing anybody to distributes its ideas and culture around in audio or video format. Steve Jobs was pushing the music labels to offer DRM-free songs. The OSX operating system build on BSD was considered the best customer OS, placing robustness, user comfort and usability above almost everything else. It was so good that some serious Linux geeks started using Macs. It is the company that scrapped the wildly successful iPod mini to innovate by releasing the iPod Nano. Apple was just plain cool for geeks as well as the man on the street.

Forward to 2010

Let's contrast this with the situation this year. For new year I purchased a brand new iPod touch, as I considered that the application ecosystem was finally mature. My primary interest was to read eBooks with the excellent Stanza reader, and also to play the games available in the app store. One of the main factors that pushed me toward the iPod was that a large number of adult themed games and applications had finally been accepted in the app store, something that in my opinion took much too long to happen. The fact that the iPod touch could also replace my old mp3 player was a bonus. Everything looked peachy at first, however this would not last long.

Problems starts

The initial setup of the iPod touch went flawlessly thanks to iTunes, but things quickly started to go wrong. First after the installation of Stanza I realized that I could not load my collection of unprotected ePub books purchased from Websciptions through my USB connection. This was possible before, but apparently Apple removed this much needed functionality. There was well a workaround that involved setting up a web server on my computer and downloading my books over my Wifi network. The thing is so involved for an end user that I have yet to do it. Since I choose an Apple product because they were easy to use I can say is that it is a major let down. Then one day most of the sexy games and apps that were such a big part of the iPod Touch attractiveness started to disappear from the app store. Despite contacting Apple to fix this it is still impossible for me to get that kind of content anymore. In the end I gave up, gave my iPod touch to my wife and purchased and Android phone (I needed a new phone anyway). Then a few day later I learned that Apple has started to play the patent troll with my new phone's manufacturer (HTC) to try to stop it from selling its Android devices, forcing me to use their own non-working products! Now as an Apple customer, how do you thing I feel. If you said "You'll never buy anything from Apple again" you nailed it, that exactly how I feel.

Turning against its customers

As I said, Apple has always been a company that was hard to do business with, but up until now they always protected their customers. What has changed is that now Apple is not only hurting their partners, but also their customers. One of the reasons that Microsoft windows is so bloated and insecure but still popular is that Microsoft has learned that once a feature of your products is used, you pretty much can't remove it unless you provide a better alternative. Whether you intended to provide the feature or third party developers created it as an "hack" is pretty much irrelevant: once your customers have started to rely on it, you pretty much have to keep it, or announce an "end of life" years in the future to give your customers the time to find alternative solution. Apple stopped doing this, choosing instead to leave the people who paid for their product out in the cold. This is not the behavior of a respectable technology company.

Not able to innovate anymore

If you look at Apple one thing is clear: they have not released anything new since the iPod touch / iPhone release. The only "new features" we have seen on these devices since their were released were things that should have been there from the start such as copy paste and a decent battery life or brought by third parties such as the Stanza reader. Look at the iPad: it is far from revolutionary: a big overpriced iPod touch! A $499 iPad cost little more than $200 to build, and there are many competitors such as Archos that have similar offerings for $200 to $400. What has Apple to show to justify the huge price premium? Very little as the iPad will be more limited than it competitors: it won't have sexy games, it won't have flash, and I bet it won't be easy to load your existing eBooks on it. What this looks like is a product from a company that is unable to innovate, wants to milk its customers dry for old technology and hopes to retain its user base by preventing other to innovate thanks to its patten portfolio. This is not far from the story of another company called SCO, and we all know how that story finished.

Lets hope Apple can get back on the right path before it is too late.

Why online resources are not free and ChromeOS will fail

Nowadays there seems to be a big push for the use of online resources to replace offline functionality. New operating systems like ChromesOS or Jolicloud are mostly web based, and more and more audio and video services are moving from downloads to streaming. On the surface it looks like this is a big win for freedom as you are much less dependent on your operating system or proprietary applications, all is in the browser. There is a big caveat however: this makes you overly dependent on your internet connection, and in a world that is more and more mobile this is a recipe for disaster.

An internet connection is expensive

The problem with many online services and applications is that they do not take into account the price of the connection. If you have to pay for an ADSL connection at home, then a 3G connection for your smartphone, then a Wimax connection (or another 3G connection, or a Boingo account) for your netbook or iPad you are looking at a frightening bill at the end of the month, even if these services are available. It is likely that many people will only afford an ADSL connection and end up "stuck at home" if they rely on online services for their application and entertainment. Streaming a video clip from YouTube may seem cheaper than purchasing the song, but it is probably not the case once the connection bill is factored in. It may look like a good idea to use picnic for editing and storing pictures, until you have to do it away from home. Initiatives like Google ChromeOS or Jolicloud may seems revolutionary, but I think they will only work for people who do not require to be mobile.

Going in the wrong direction


For years we have been evolving toward a computing experience that leveraged the internet. We assumed it was a great idea to have everything online, close by hand, only we failed to see that this reduced our physical mobility. We assumed that the internet would be ubiquitous and that we would get more and more bandwidth, and to some extend it is true: at home, on our desktops. The problem is that this is the decade of the netbook, the tablet and the smartphone and as far as mobile internet is concerned sufficient bandwidth for everybody  won't be available for years, if not decades. Current 3G networks struggle to provide barely adequate service because they are limited by available spectrum and technology. How will they fare if we all move to online streaming. What bandwidth is required to provide a fluid 480p YouTube or Hulu streaming experience to even 10% of the mobile subscribers on a wireless network? 3G won't do, 4G won't do, maybe 5G will do, but I doubt it. It will take at least 10 years to get there, if not 20, and we are only speaking about 480p,  the performance that a portable DVD player has been delivering for years. Web developers  assumed that we would get more and more bandwidth as the time passes, but users now want to access the net everywhere, meaning we get less bandwidth rather than more, and unreliable connections to boot. Most internet applications are now designed for ADSL and always on internet, but a lot of people are actually going the other way: lighter, more mobile machines, more infrequent connections, less bandwidth, less allowed transfer.

More and more laptops are sold but we are less mobile

More and more people purchase laptops or netbooks because they want to be mobile and take they computing infrastructure with them, but the increased dependence on our internet connection makes us less mobile. My wife has a nice Linux netbook she uses a lot at home, but whenever we get away from home she takes only her old Nintendo DS because most of the games she plays on the netbook are online Flash games and these don't work when the connection is lost. What does that says for the netbook mobility-wise? A failure! Who actually uses his or her netbook out of the house most of the time? Not many peopIe! Who uses his or her smartphone out of the house most of the time? Most people. In Japan mobile net access is overtaking fixed connections, soon the same will be true in the rest of the world. Soon tablets, smartphones and mini netbooks will be the way a lot of people use "computers".

Android will smoke ChromeOS

In the end I think that Android will crush Google's other operating system, ChromeOS because for the foreseeable future most people will still want to be able to take their applications, data, entertainment and games offline, or at least on a limited connection. That is something that Android is much better designed to do than Chrome. That's why streaming and Blu-ray will not destroy DVD sales for some time: impossible to rip the movie to a netbook or iPhone. That's why online games won't kill the Nintendo DS, why music streaming services won't kill iTunes. For these to take off much progress need to be make to ensure the resources are available offline since there won't be enough mobile bandwidth for all. All web applications and games should be cached. Any piece of music, video or web page that has been watched should be available for replay offline. It should be trivial to store online media or data for later consumption. Currently this is not the case and this would mean that browsers would have to be re-engineered, Flash would have to be completely re-engineered etc... Solutions like Google Gears or the HTML 5 specifications for online data don't go far enough as we do not only need to cache web data, we need to cache web functionality for offline use. Web applications and services needs to be designed for intermittent (not always on), low bandwidth mobile connections, not the monster ADSL many people have at home. What may happen is that smart developpers will create multiplatform offline applications using web technologies and tools such as appcelerator, but that will leave ChromeOS on the side.