Mozilla Posts First Firefox Metro Screenshots

Given the success of Windows 7 with an initial October release date, it is unlikely that Microsoft will risk missing the Christmas shopping season as it did with Vista. It does not take much more than common sense to predict that Windows 8 will be released so Microsoft can take advantage of the busiest buying season of the year and hardware makers will be in tow to make sure there are enough hardware reasons to give Windows 8 the necessary support to get off the ground quickly. Software makers are making progress as well. Among the most notable ones: Mozilla.

Reading Brian Bondy’s blog, you could easily get the impression that Firefox Metro is already late. Q2 was the initial goal, but he says there is a ton of work left to do. The current release tracker points to a Firefox 14 release, which would be on or around July 17 (if you get confused about the speedy increase of version numbers, consider the fact that Google’s Chrome Nightly versions just hit version number 20.) If we expect Windows 8 to surface in the October time frame, Mozilla is on schedule and may even have time to work on possible bugs.

Bondy has posted some screenshots of the initial Firefox Metro builds, but there isn’t much to see yet. All we can conclude at this point is that there appears to be a working version with core functionality. What we also know is that the UI is more than likely to change as well as the browser does not yet incorporate Metro UI and Firefox UI guidelines.

The most interesting part is that Firefox Metro was not built using the current desktop Firefox version, but the Fennec XUL platform that is used for Firefox Mobile. The software cores of Firefox Mobile and desktop Firefox are pretty much the same, but Firefox Mobile recently transitioned to a native UI and replaced XUL to improve its startup performance. Bondy noted that the Metro XUL build does not exhibit the same problems as it does on Android and there may be some discussion whether there is a an urgent need to move the Metro build to the native UI or not. If the decision is made to use the native UI, Firefox Metro may be, in fact, delayed.

However, the user is unlikely to see any significant benefit from such a move at this time, but simply realize that Firefox Metro could look like and work like a grown-up version of Firefox Mobile for tablets – which makes sense as Metro caters to touch use and the tablet UI of Firefox has been working particularly well in such an environment. That said, we still have doubt that touch will work on a vertical screen as well as Microsoft predicts.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on April 02

Opera 11.62 Maintenance and Security Update Is Out

Norwegian browser maker Opera Software has just released version 11.62 of Opera to the general public. The release is an update to the current stable channel of the browser replacing Opera 11.61 in the process. The web browser update has been released for all supported operating systems, that is Microsoft Windows, Apple Mac OS X, and various Linux distributions. Existing Opera users can check internally for updates if the update has not been picked up yet by the browser. This is done with a click on the Opera button, and the selection of Help > Check for Updates.

It my take some time before the update may be recognized by the browser. In this case, a download from the official Opera website is an option.

Opera 11.62

Opera 11.62 is a security and stability update for the web browser, which makes it a recommended upgrade for all users of previous Opera versions. The changelog lists five security issues that have been fixed in the new version, including two that could trick users into executing downloads.

The remaining changes are mostly crash and bug fixes. The Windows changelog alone lists more than 20 fixes, including a fix for a WebM decoder freeze in the browser, a fix for scrolling problems in Facebook Chat, and a crash fix when navigating the message list in Opera Mail.

Outlook

When you look into the future, you will see Opera 12.00 looming at the horizon. This version will introduce major new features, including a upgrade to Opera’s core rendering engine Presto, support for HTML5 and CSS3 features that are not supported yet by the browser, and out of process plugins for 64-bit versions of the Internet browser.

Snapshot builds of Opera 12 are regularly posted on the Opera Desktop Team blog for all supported operating system. These snapshots are test versions that should not be installed in productive environments.

Reference: ghacks.net

Author: Martin Brinkmann

How Microsoft And Intel May Miss The Opportunity Of The Decade

Food for thought – If you ask Microsoft, Windows 8 is the idea how an aging operating system is modernizing itself and transitions into a new application and usage model for the next ten and possibly 20 years. On the hardware side, Intel appears to have dropped the tablet mantra a bit and is instead heavily pushing the ultrabook to support its core business, while fending off ARM on the lower end with its Medfield processor. While both Microsoft and Intel are succeeding in marketing new products, one could argue that they are merely technologies that already exist and, conceivably, ignore the true opportunity to change the way we interact with computers – despite the fact that such technologies are available today. Both Windows 8 and the ultrabook are stuck in the Now, rather than being guides to the future.

The Ultrabook: Subtle Innovation

There is an interesting dynamic surrounding the ultrabook. It seemingly came out of nowhere. A name that suggests something different than the product actually is, we are now seeing ultrabooks being displayed in local Best Buy stores where the public can get a first glance at a new, much thinner notebook that is supported by a $300 million marketing injection from Intel: For roughly $1000, you can buy a Macbook Air-like Wintel-notebook that promises much faster startup times. However, if you were very critical, then you could argue that the ultrabook is just a faster version of the failed netbook generation, or, depending on your view, a slimmer version of previous performance notebooks.

The thin&light notebook idea isn’t new and came forward first in the 2002 timeframe, when Intel heavily pushed its SpeedStep Pentium processors. If you were to go back in time, you could easily make the case that the ultrabook is simply another evolutionary step in notebooks and is closely related to the Compaq LTE, widely considered to be the original notebook. The LTE was released in 1989. Or, you could draw a line to the PowerBook 100, considered the first compact notebook released by Apple in 1991. Since 1989, the notebook has not changed: There is still a keyboard and there is still a fold-up screen. It has been an idea the industry has been warming up with different form factors and better processors, memory and storage devices for the past 23 years.

Since 1989, mobile computing has seen several inflection points that fragmented the market, but did not impact the Wintel notebook. For example, ultracompact computers began succeeding in 1996 with the original PalmPilot, enabled by a platform approach that focused on both hardware and software. In 2000, we met early versions of the web tablet and the first smartphone, the Handspring Treo, in 2001. Tablet PCs, predicted to replace the traditional notebook, were released in 2001, but failed to change our usage behavior, because they were outrageously expensive and featured software that did not specifically cater to the new hardware. The UMPC was first marketed in 2006, but faded because of high prices, confused hardware UIs and lack of dedicated software. In 2007, the netbook sparked, but eventually declined due to a lack of attention to detail and innovation. In the same time frame, Apple released the iPhone as a distant successor of the PalmPilot, replicated the idea of success with a cohesive hardware and software platform – and a focus that changed from technology behind the screen to technology that is directly facing the user’s eyes. The iPad followed the same idea in 2010 and it is the seamless fit of hardware and software as well as diligent focus on usability that allowed Apple to change the usage model successfully from physical keyboard input to touch. If we forget that the ultrabook already exists as a commercial success in the form of the Macbook Air, the innovation of the ultrabook as we seen it in 2012, is – in a best case – subtle.

Windows 8: Forced Innovation

The history of the notebook teaches us that only software can make hardware successful. The Compaq LTE succeeded, because it ran Windows and Windows applications at the time and changed user behavior. The PalmPilot succeeded because of PalmOS. The iPhone succeeded because of iOS and applications. Can the ultrabook succeed because of Windows 8? Unlikely, since Windows 8 is not built for PCs. It is built for tablets.

If you were to break out the key selling feature of Windows 8, it would be the Metro touch UI, whose huge tiles are reminiscent of the Windows Phone screen and work extremely well in touch scenarios. The problem is, however, that we are using touch on horizontal devices such as tablets and phones – devices we leisurely call “lean-back devices”. You can use them easily while sitting in a coffee shop, swipe screens and write emails while “leaning back”. Notebooks are not lean-back devices, but “lean-forward” devices by default. You need to lean forward to engage with notebooks. Touch is a challenging proposition for notebooks: While touch is convenient to use on a tablet, it is unlikely that we will find touch on a vertically aligned, back-and-forward bouncing screen to have advantages over a keyboard/mouse data input model. In 2010, Steve Jobs argued during a earnings conference call that touch would not work on a vertical screen and that Apple had therefore abandoned that idea.

Common sense suggests that Jobs was right: Touch never worked in the history of computing on any vertical computing device. It is unlikely to work now. Of course, Metro can be used with a mouse as well, but it is substantially more inconvenient and ineffective to use. You could remove Metro and and replace with a legacy interface, but then you would have to wonder where the appeal of Windows 8 will be. The mainstream consumer does not care about hidden benefits such as memory improvements.

Using touch on a vertical screen on notebooks because we got used to it on tablets, is not a conclusive thought. It is innovation that is not natural and appears to be rather forced. Naturally, Windows 8 will break the sales records of Windows 7, because more computers are likely to be sold and Windows 8 will expand to ARM PCs and tablets. However, the true success of Windows 8 will be on tablets where Metro can shine. On PCs, Windows 8 could turn out to me a major blunder beyond the proportions of Windows Vista. Metro will be fantastic on tablets, but it will be irrelevant on PCs.

Merging Windows 8 and the Ultrabook

Touch for software has somewhat become a requirement, because Apple has it and continues to build on it. The ultrabook may have been shown as a prototype first by Intel, but Apple has made it a commercial success, which will leave the ultrabook the role of being a copycat and never an original. The biggest problem of merging the idea of the ultrabook and Windows 8/touch may be that there is not enough interaction between Intel and Microsoft. It is not a secret that the two do not like each other very much and as long as there is a substantial gap that prevents the development of a cohesive hardware and software platform, we will always get devices such as the ultrabook that do not appear to be one unit, but as hardware that does not fit the purpose of the software – and vice versa. Once in a while, we see a product disasters such as the Origami UMPC or MID

The difference between Microsoft/Intel and Apple is the fact that Apple can control both hardware and software. Another difference is that Microsoft/Intel is focused on developing technology and building a user experience around it. Apple designs the user experience first and then builds the technology around it, which, in combination, is a significant disadvantage for Microsoft/Intel. The only way to be able to overcome this disadvantage would be for Microsoft/Intel to create a joint venture with much deeper collaboration to be able to compete with Apple.

Competing With Apple?

However, if that is the case, do we really want Microsoft/Intel to compete with Apple? In such a competitive scenario, don’t we get what we have been getting for the past decade? Macbook copies. iPhone copies. iPad copies. Why is it that Apple is creating successful trends and Microsoft/Intel as well as their ecosystem is following the trend with an approach that occasionally shifts from copying to evolving – and back?

A few months ago, I was in discussions with VCs about a notebook project and it was clear that the entire market is scared of what Apple might do next. Besides the fact that angel investment money for hardware is a tough one to attract, the question I most often heard was “How do you compete with Apple?” HP, Dell, Lenovo and Acer were not even mentioned. A few days ago, I had a discussion with a leading industry analyst about future notebooks and he focused notebook innovation on Apple has well. “You can’t ignore Apple when you are building a notebook.” Really? Does it always have to be Apple?

If you were to turn this argument around, you would have to ask the question whether Apple would have been able to evolve as it did, had it been focused on the market leader, instead of the opportunities the market leader may be missing. The lack of focus on competition is critical to Apple’s success. To a certain degree, Apple even ignores its competition. The same would be necessary for Microsoft/Intel: Only if they can ignore what Apple does now, they will be able to look beyond Apple and technologies such as touch to invent the next big thing. If they stay focused on Apple, we will see a continued era of an industry that is running behind Apple.

The GestureBook

Here is an idea for Microsoft and Intel to innovate. If we consider the market as it exists today, we know that the PC market has a difficult time to sustain existing sales numbers and consumers are focusing their attention on mobile devices such as phones and tablets. In September 2011, IDC published this quote:

“By 2015, more U.S. Internet users will access the Internet through mobile devices than through PCs or other wireline devices. As smartphones begin to outsell simpler feature phones, and as media tablet sales explode, the number of mobile Internet users will grow by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 16.6% between 2010 and 2015.”

PC sales were just 360 million in 2011, 200 million of which were notebooks. In 2012, that number is unlikely to change very much, as current forecasts simply point to an increase in more expensive notebook sales due to the ultrabook introduction. However, since it is an evolutionary device, the solution could be short-lived for PC makers: Let me quote Gartner’s Ranjit Atwal:

“More worrisome for the long term is that Generation Y has an altogether different view of client devices than older generations and are not buying PCs as their first, or necessarily main, device. For older buyers, today’s PCs are not a particularly compelling product, so they continue to extend lifetimes, as PC shops and IT departments repair rather than replace these systems.“

The takeaway clearly is that there are substantial PC sales that won’t go away anytime soon, but PC makers will have to dramatically innovate to sustain their market and possibly grow again. Supporting this claim is the fact that we are familiar with notebooks as productivity workhorses, but they have become boring in their usage model and are therefore easily replaceable with other technologies. On the other hand, tablets force the user into compromises, suggesting that these may be transitionary devices on the way to a much more capable product with fewer compromises. In the future, notebook models may receive touch keyboards, as soon as high-performance touch technologies without input delays are available, but that may not be the case until 2010 – 2025. So, what UI innovation is possible until then?

Given the possibly transitionary nature of tablets, one could argue that the notebook UI has to evolve, but not follow touch to avoid the comparison with the tablet and rather take advantage of its greater processing power. Option one would be audio input and voice control. However, even in a best case scenario with face recognition support, voice control is only 98% accurate and there is a big privacy issue. Would you want to talk to your notebook on a plane or in a coffee shop? Probably not. Voice control may be a supportive UI, but not the main UI. It may work best in telepresence situations. The other option are gestures.

We have been familiar with gestures for several years now and use the technology withd evices such as the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Kinect. It enables natural interaction with content, there are no nasty fingerprints on the screen and would easily control the mindshare of a future OS UI. Imagine Google Earth being used with gestures while you are standing a few feet away from the screen. What makes this an even more compelling scenario is that Microsoft has the hardware and software IP, and could build a cohesive platform experience far beyond the Xbox. It could also protect the technology from Apple. What it needs is engineering talent to integrate Kinect into a notebook.

A Kinect-equipped notebook is what we would consider an ultrabook. It is, in our opinion, an opportunity that enables the Windows 8 Metro UI and would deliver the experience promised by the marketing of Intel and Microsoft.

Wolfgang Gruener in Business on March 28

Firefox 11 With Chrome Tools Is Prepped For Tuesday Release

Mozilla is ready to launch the 11th generation of its web browser on Tuesday – and it will bring the long awaited Chrome data migration toolset with it. It’s a first feature that goes much more directly after Chrome and is an attempt to regain users that were lost to Google’s browsers.

2011 was a tough year for Mozilla. Not just in the view that Firefox has dropped significantly in market share and that Chrome has surpassed it. Probably the most damage was done by a rather slow moving roll out of some features that were first created by Mozilla contributors, but were adopted by Google first, stealing the spotlight and leaving the impression that Mozilla is just not able to compete anymore. Mozilla appeared, at times, aggressive only in the choice of its words when it attacked Microsoft and Google, but seemed rather timid when the focus was on features. After a long road of delays, we are now getting a few features that are designed to recoup some of the convenience that is offered by Chrome, combined with claims that Firefox is, in fact, making some considerable improvements under the hood, for example in memory performance.

Firefox 11 is not going to be a milestone release that will attract lots of attention, but there is one feature of particular interest. A few weeks ago, the beta of the browser got a feature that now allows users to import Chrome bookmarks, cookies and browsing history. It’s not complete yet, as Mozilla has yet to add passwords, form data and settings as well. However, the basic import function is now available and should make Firefox more attractive to those users who switched to Chrome a while ago, but may have second thoughts about Chrome as Firefox is catching back up.

Surprisingly, the import feature is somewhat hidden and not prominently featured. Users will have to select the bookmark button next to the search field, click on Show All Bookmarks, choose Import and Backup, and Import Data from Another Browser. This could probably be implement in a much more transparent way and Mozilla clearly undersells this feature for its browser. Also, the imported bookmarks are imported in a folder called “From Google Chrome” and there is no option to automatically organize the existing bookmarks in Firefox. Users making the switch have at least some manual work to do to organize their Chrome bookmarks as they are available in Chrome. The good news, however, is that this feature worked flawlessly on four computers here and Mozilla successfully eliminated a hurdle that keeps Chrome users from using Firefox.

Of course, Mozilla is late with this feature and it has taken way too long to make it available, but it’s clearly a situation of better late than never. With a reasonable marketing push, Mozilla should be able to continue the stabilizing trend of its market share and create a foundation to gain back market share. By mid-2012, we should expect Mozilla to have made further improvements: So far, Firefox 12 is rather insignificant from the feature side, but Firefox 13, due on June 5, will get web apps integration, a new new tab page, the home tab application, smooth scrolling, inline URL autocomplete, automatic session restore and a new incremental garbage collector. At this point, Mozilla indicates that only the web apps integration might see a delay and if the current roadmap will actually translate into an actual roadmap, Firefox 13 could be a browser that Google should pay attention to.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on March 12

Nokia 808 PureView: A 41 Megapixel Milestone for Smartphones

Nokia calls it the next breakthrough in photography: A smartphone with a 41 megapixel camera – three times the resolution of current mainstream digital cameras. However, it comes with huge drawbacks that are tough to swallow and create a problem that, without the 808, you simply don’t have. Here is some food for thought why this phone matters, and why it is a technology demonstration that will end up as a commercial flop.

If Kazumi Saburi has read about the announcement of the Nokia 808 today, there is a good chance that he took a moment out of his busy day and reflected on his invention back in 1997. Saburi carries the unofficial title of the inventor of the camera phone. Back in 1997, he was able to convince his managers at Kyocera to lead a project group that created the Visual Phone VP-210, the world’s first camera phone that was released in May of 1999. It’s quite an astonishing story of a humble man who changed our life – I researched and recorded the material in 2005 for T-Mobile and Tom’s Hardware (you can find the text here). The VP-210 was, from today’s perspective, just as humble as its inventor. The image resolution was 220 x 254 pixels – in total 55,880 pixels – and there was enough memory to store 20 pictures in JPEG format on the phone. No flash memory expansions lots, just in case you are wondering. However, also keep in mind that, back then, flash memory cards were sold in 16 or 20 MB capacities and the typical resolution of a DSC was somewhere between 1 and 2 MP that generated pictures with a size of less than a megabyte.

If you used camera phones in the early 2000s, you know what kind of resolution I am talking about – the kind of resolution that isn’t enough to be even called snapshot-worthy. Those first camera phones, which flooded the Asian and European market beginning in 2003, made it difficult to imagine that we would want to look at such a picture on anything else other than a 2-inch cell phone screen. In fact, CMOS sensor chips makers maintained until recently that cameras in cell phones and smartphones are unlikely to ever escape their snapshot status and rival the picture quality of a decent, dedicated DSC. That may have changed today: Nokia has a smartphone with a 41 MP camera, roughly three times the resolution of mainstream DSCs and more than 730 times the resolution of the camera in the VP-210, resulting in 35 MB pictures. Engadget had some time with the device and already concluded that the pictures the 808 can deliver are simply stunning.

A milestone for compact photography

Nokia does not want the 808 to be recognized just because of its ridiculous image sensor. However, it is what is getting the camera headlines and it is what the camera will be remembered for, at least in the near future. While megapixels do not translate to better pictures necessarily, this is the first phone that potentially can take better pictures than your dedicated, average DSC. Also, remember, you can purchase up to 64 GB of microSD memory for less than $200 today and store more than 1800 35 MB pictures taken by the phone in full resolution. Conceivably, this may be the best camera you have ever bought. Keep in mind that regular 40+ MP cameras can cost tens of thousands of dollars today, if you care about resolution alone – which makes the 808 even more fascinating (even if the image qualities do not quite compare).

Innovation or not?

Social networks were, not unexpectedly, abuzz with the 41 MP camera and especially Microsoft employees seem to feel relieved that Nokia can deliver what Apple and others do not. In the end, Windows Phone has not won much in the market yet and Nokia still has to rise from the ashes, even if the Lumia 900 looks promising. For example, one executive told his network that Nokia does not get the credit it deserves and that true innovation solves problems that users don’t know they have.

Of course, that would be a bit short too describe the nature of innovation. Innovation would also have to accomplish a goal of solving a problem without creating new ones, which the 808 actually might do. Where the 808 also appears to fail is a cohesive user experience that Apple provides in such a consistent manner. As much the 808 is a milestone, it is, unfortunately, an unfinished product that won’t live very long, and disappear just as fast as it has surfaced. Here is why.

User Experience

A shocker is the fact that the 808 does not run Windows Phone, an operating system Nokia is betting its future on. And no, it does not run Android either. It runs Symbian Belle. This is one of those cases in which you scratch your head and wonder what they were thinking. A Symbian high-end phone. Really?

This phone is likely to cost at least $500 and more likely $600 when it hits American shores. We know that customers today prefer iOS and Android – and users thoroughly enjoy those apps they can get through app stores. Phones have become social multifunction devices that need to do more than look pretty and have a large (4-inch) screen display and a fast (1.3 GHz) processor. Without a supporting popular platform, a new smartphone is dead on arrival. With Windows Phone 7.5, the 808 would have been Microsoft’s/Nokia’s first true killer phone that has a feature no other phone can touch. If the Lumia 900 made you wonder whether you should consider a Windows Phone, the 808 would have pulled the customers into phone stores and delivered significant sales. With Symbian Belle, the 808 is DOA. A 41 MP is a nice-to-have feature, the app store is generally considered a must-have feature today.

Earlier today, we heard that Android has reached a milestone of 300 million activated devices, with 850,000 new devices joined the installed base every day.

Bandwidth Strapped

At 35 MB a picture, how long would it take you to burn through your bandwidth allowance when you are posting pictures to Facebook? Let’s just forget for a moment that it will also take minutes – not seconds – to upload such a picture as you would want to take advantage of the resolution of the camera: You could send 6 pictures per month on AT&T’s cheapest plan, and 57 pictures on the mainstream 2 GB plan (of course, you can’t do anything else if you send those pictures). If you exploit the 41 MP capability, you will end up with a bandwidth problem with today’s cellular subscription plans (unless you are using Sprint). The choice is to either scale down the resolution for online purposes, which is silly given the fact that you may buy this phone solely because of its resolution, or to get a more generous data plan, which is also silly given the fact that, in 2012, smartphones have become mainstream and you should really be able to send all the pictures you want. Unfortunately, the 808 creates a data volume with a mainstream application that other phones do not create. Sure, you can bust through any bandwidth limit if you follow Verizon’s advice to watch Netflix on a cellular network, but we are talking about simple still images in this case. In order to make the phone attractive to the user, Nokia would have to provide unique high-volume data plans with this phone, which is rather unlikely to happen as carriers happily cash in on data overages. Imagine using this phone abroad and sending a 35 MB picture to your family via AT&T data plan that charges $20 per MB outside the U.S. A single picture will cost you more than what you paid for the phone.

The Bottom Line: Nice

Welcome back, Nokia. The Lumia 900 established credibility, but it is out-of box thinking that will help the company gain traction again. The 808 is hardly the phone that will fly off the shelves, but it is an impressive demonstration of technology. The good news is that we now know what will be possible in phones in the not-too-distant future: Even if this is not the iPhone/Android/Windows Phone that has mass market appeal, we know that someone will get it right one day. With a popular platform behind it, I will be the first in line to buy a phone with such an image sensor.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on February 27

Chrome for Android: It’s Not Enough, Google

Chrome for Android was released with about 3 months delay (or more than 3 years, depending on your view) on Tuesday. Google hopes to replicate the runaway success of the desktop version of the browser, but the browser is less appealing and less accessible to the user than Chrome, which makes this mobile browser an inconclusive product that, in addition, lacks compelling features over rivals.

I have to admit that I had high hopes for this browser and felt that I was a let down by Google today. It is not (yet) the innovative Chrome browser that arrived with a revolutionary concept almost 4 years ago and recently surpassed Firefox as the world’s second most popular browser. Chrome for Android will succeed as Google can leverage its platform ownership top push it as a default browser, but it is, by far, not a slam dunk, which is good news for Mozilla and Opera.

Understanding Chrome

The value of Chrome to Google comes down to a very simple element: Advertising. Google’s business model is based on selling more advertising every month. The more ad viewers (users), the better. Chrome essentially locks users into using Google search and related services, which secures Google’s core business. If Chrome is successful, Google is successful. Every improvement in Chrome can be broken down to the purpose of making Chrome work extremely well with Google’s products and making it easy for users of other browsers to switch, while providing services that makes it look silly to switch back to something else: If Chrome is updated so frequently and automatically, why would you use another browser? The formula still works as Chrome will be breaking the 29% (desktop) market share hurdle this month in StatCounter’s charts.

Chrome for Android has the same purpose: Users of Chrome for Android are safe Google Search users and Adsense viewers. The more users browse with Chrome, the better for Google’s revenue base.

Chrome for Android: What Works

The new browser arrives with a pitch that promises greater speed, simplicity and sync. I will get to speed and simplicity below, and focus on sync first. Synchronization of browsing data is the single most important feature of Chrome for Android. You can take all your open bookmarks, saved bookmarks, browsing history and settings from your desktop and seamlessly use them in the same way on your smartphone and tablet. It is a feature we have been waiting for and it’s good to know that the wait is over (for some). Mozilla is still trying to figure out Sync for Firefox Mobile, but is still using a way too complicated process. Mozilla had an advantage for about half a year and an opportunity to fix its synchronization implementation, but it seems that Google is now taking the lead.

Unfortunately, for Google, that is the only good news.

Chrome for Android: What Needs Work

There are several problems with Chrome for Android. Lack of differentiators may be the least of them. Honestly, do we care about speed? Today, available 4G connection represent a much greater impact on browsing speed than JavaScript implementations or the availability of hardware acceleration. Simplicity is also a somewhat questionable benefit as I personally find Firefox’ swiping interface much more useful and its tab display much more user friendly than the implementation in Chrome for Android.

A more significant problem is availability of the browser (app). Chrome for Android only works on Ice Cream Sandwich and is compatible with only about 1% of Android devices out there. Google’s decision may be related to the fact that the developers have chosen to use a native GUI that requires Android 4.0 as supporting structure, but this limitation is clearly a letdown. And there is no hope for this situation to change: Chrome will only run on Android 4 and up. Period. Even if this is just a beta app as of now, the fragmentation of Android is a problem and will sooner or later become a serious pain in the neck for Google if it wants to roll out software that simply does not support potentially four or five older Android OS versions that are still popular.

Also, Chrome for Android will raise, once again, questions why there is a need for Chrome OS and Android. The Chrome browser will become the fabric that ties together Chrome OS cloud computers, desktop and notebook PCs as well as Android phones and tablets. However, these are two different platforms and it may have been a smarter move for Google to either develop Android as a desktop OS for entry level computers or use Chrome as an underlying HTML5 processing platform for its phones. Chrome for Android will somewhat help Chrome OS computers, tablets and smartphones grow together, but there will always be an awkward hurdle between Android and Chrome that simply does not exist with Apple’s iOS and Microsoft Windows platform (Windows Phone 8 will use the Windows 8 core). That problem may be more amplified if we remember how often we really use a browser on a tablet and a smartphone. Market research suggests that web browsing represents only 10% of the app usage time on a smartphone. It may be slightly higher on a tablet, but there is no denying that phones and tablets are app platforms and not suited to run a web browser in a way notebooks and desktop PCs do. In a way, Chrome for Android is just an app that you will use if you have to browse the web.

The bottom line: Room to grow

Sync is a killer feature for mobile browsers and Google is lucky that Mozilla wasted time and has not figured out how to make syncing bookmark data and other user information in a more convenient way. This feature alone will help the browser to become the standard browser on Android devices. However, the rollout will take quite a while as only Android 4 and up is supported. Mozilla and Opera still have an opportunity to play ball and compete.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on February 08

AMD Consumerizes: Tablet SoCs Ahead

In its first public presentation, AMD’s new leadership explained a new direction of the company to align itself with an evolving CPU and GPU market. In 2013, AMD will be releasing its first SoCs for desktop and tablet computers. Execution will be key for the company to succeed in a highly competitive market that is dominated by ARM vendors and challenged by Intel.

Rory Read, AMD’s new chief executive officer, did not waste any time changing AMD’s roadmap and realign the company in quickly shifting marketing environment for processor manufacturers. Its former GPU rival, Nvidia is more and more emerging as a leading ARM processor supplier for tablets, future subnotebooks and smartphones, Qualcomm and Freescale are additional vendors that are pushing into the computing market from the low-end and Intel is preparing its first serious attack to defend its core business and extend its traditional markets into the tablet and smartphone area in China in Q2 and in more areas of the world possibly sometime in H2 of this year.

Read and his new executives, many of them with a history at IBM, crafted the AMD’s new strategy with the bet that hardware will be consumerized, converged and heavily rely on cloud services. Consumerization, by the way, is a rather way to describe technologies that are first established in consumer markets and then extended to other areas, including enterprise segments. AMD’s client roadmap lists plenty of new products with enough code-names to confuse analysts and satisfy the thirst of enthusiasts. However, there are two products in particular that are interesting – products that AMD will have to keep pushing until their release.

For 2012, the company announced Hondo, a new Z-series APU that will integrate one or two Bobcat CPUs and a basic GPU. It is listed in the tablet and fanless category with a power consumption of 4.5 watts. This product feels a bit like Intel’s Oak Trail (Atom Z670), which failed to gain ground in the tablet game as it was a somewhat half-baked product that did not entirely play by the rules of the tablet requirements game. There is no information about Hondo, and we remain cautious about its potential impact, especially if it becomes available as a choice next to Intel’s potentially more attractive Medfield Atom Z2460 SoC.

Much more interesting is the 28 nm Tamesh, which will be, next to Kabini, AMD’s first SoC. While Hondo will use the aging Bobcat CPU core, Tamesh gets two new Jaguar cores as well as a new graphics engine. Kabini will get up to four cores, but will be reserved for desktop systems. No information has been provided about Jaguar yet, but AMD confirmed that it will be used in ultra-low power APUs.

So far, it appears as if AMD will be competing in the tablet space with x86 processors, which is a brave move as ARM owns the market at this time and is the de-facto core used by Android products, which has been accepted by the industry, including Intel, as the platform with the most promising future next to Apple’s iOS. When available, Tamesh will be a first-generation product that will have to prove its capabilities next to Intel’s ambitious SoCs as well as next to Nvidia, Qualcomm, Samsung and Freescale. It is too early to predict who will win this fight, but we know that x86 is the underdog today and that AMD will find itself in a battle against strong rivals that will not take prisoners.

Combining an ARM core with its GPU technology may have been not as risky as taking the x86 route, , but this is the area of its core expertise and may pay off in the end.

Wolfgang Gruener in Business Products

2012: The Year The Old Browser Died

January 2012 has been a remarkable month for the web browser as we know it. Those who closely follow the popularity of web browsers already know that Chrome has, according to StatCounter, surpassed Firefox in market share in November 2011, thus rearranging the rules of the browser game and turning it, for now, into a two-horse race. Now, Chrome is beginning to approach IE in most regions around the globe and has reduced its distance to IE, on one day, to less than four percentage points. If the current trend, which has lasted for more than 3 years, continues, then Google will surpass IE within 3 months.

We will get new browser market share numbers tonight, but since StatCounter is nice enough to provide daily market share numbers, it is not too difficult to figure what the result will be, less than 10 hours before the official publication. There is a truly historic trend in those numbers and their impact is largely unrecognized today. The conclusion can only be that the browser has grown up from being an application to a platform that will dominate more and more the way we will be using products and services in the future. A vision in which an Internet Explorer could, conceivably, replace much of Windows is not science-fiction anymore, but could soon turn into a scenario of necessity.

History

There are different ways how to break up the evolution of the browser. I prefer the following approach: Invented in 1992, we saw commercial organizations as well as a substantial number of consumers see interest in the (Spyglass) browser, at the time merely an add-on to online services such as Compuserve, in 1993. Beginning in 1995, Microsoft showed his interest in developing IE and started pushing the software into businesses with customization toolkits and an ability to run IE3 with a simple executable – without the need of installation.

While Microsoft trailed Netscape in browser market share, the game changed in 1997 with IE4, when Microsoft almost arrogantly deviated from the HTML standard path and integrated IE4 deeply into Windows and enabled the browser to run “dynamic” desktop applications. This integration wiped out market share for Netscape, which was acquired (and strangled) by AOL in 1998. Until 2004, innovation for the browser largely stood still, but Microsoft was able to establish IE5 and 6 as browser standards around the world. In 2004, Mozilla launched Firefox, which was developed with some assets of Netscape, and reintroduced competition for IE. Until 2008, Firefox gained about 20% market share and became especially popular with consumers, which led me to describe the browser frequently as a “weekend browser” with market share jumping especially on Saturdays, Sundays and holidays.

Chrome launched in late 2008, stirred discussions, but failed to attract market share until Q2 2009. In 2009, Chrome gained 4.5 points market share, in 2010 8.8 points and in 2011 11.6 points, according to StatCounter, while both IE and Firefox are suffering losses. Chrome’s initial success was mostly based on its promise of greater speed and later a reduced browsing interface, both features that were adopted by IE and Firefox in 2010 and 2011. Combined with its advertising leverage, Chrome has the momentum to keep gaining market share at a consistent pace until it reaches market leadership.

The present

January has been, as mentioned above, a remarkable month for Chrome. Its average market share will come in at about 28.4%, up from 27.3% in December. Firefox will fall about half a point to below 24.8%, its lowest level in 43 months, and IE will drop to about 37.5%, down from 38.7% in December. Over the past 12 months, IE lost 8.0 points market share and Firefox 5.6 lost points. Chrome has gained 11.8 points, a new record for Google. The difference of nearly 2 points went to Apple’s Safari, which is now at about 6.5%.

However, the interesting part of those numbers is in the details. Chrome for example, peaked last Sunday at 30.9%, according to StatCounter, the first time it exceeded 30% market share. By the way, one year ago, Firefox fell permanently below the 30% mark. IE dropped to 34.0% market share on Sunday. On a browser version level, Chrome 16 held more than 27.6% of the market, followed by IE8 with 18.5%, Firefox 9 with 15.8% and IE9 with 12.4%. If we consider the fact that Microsoft would like to get rid of IE8 immediately, then Chrome now has more than twice the (HTML5) market share than Microsoft does in the general HTML5 browser market. If we add the fact that Mozilla is closely following Chrome in browser features (including SPDY and the rejection of Microsoft’s H.264 video approach), Chrome and Firefox now own more than 43% of the HTML5 browser market with their most current browser versions, which gives especially Google unprecedented power to push and reject browser features for the mass market.

The immediate future

IE, Firefox and Chrome have been on very consistent curves of market share decline and growth for more than 3 years. If that trend continues, and there is no reason to believe that there will be substantial change even with the launch of Windows 8 and IE10, Chrome will begin to surpass IE market share on individual days within 60 to 75 days. By June or July, Chrome will permanently surpass IE market share, if we remain with StatCounter’s numbers. The meeting point of both curves will be at about 34% market share. Given Microsoft’s historic dominance of this market and the fact that there are now more Internet users who have no idea that Netscape ever existed than those who do, it will be an important sign for the web (if and) when Chrome passes IE in market share and ends an era that has lasted for more than 14 years – an eternity in tech.

So, what does that mean for the user?

Chrome’s gain is, of course, a result of a choice that is being made by the average user. Google is building user loyalty – in part the company is even forcing that loyalty by catering to our laziness to keep our browser updated and is sending those updates to us, silently and, let’s admit it, conveniently. That trend has some obvious implications, for example that Google is following a strategy to make sure that we are using Google Search as a search engine and not Bing, and secure Google’s core revenue base. Consider Chrome a wall that is being built around Google Search. However, there are more implications that are likely going to change the nature of the web browser.

We have been preaching here that the browser is not just a piece of software anymore. It’s the fabric that holds an entire platform together. Conceivably, the browser is evolving and has matured to become much more than a tool that enables the user to enter a URL and view the data stored and visualized at that destination. For Google, Chrome is just happening to visualize websites, but its JavaScript optimizations were intended from the very start to enable rich web applications and services to replace your local software. SPDY and revisions and protocols of TCP are further examples how Google is slowly lifting the browser’s capabilities to run what we may soon perceive as being an alternative to Windows. Then there is Chrome OS, which will be handicapped as long as there is no reliable and affordable always-on wireless Internet connection everywhere, but the vision is certainly there. Then there is Chrome for Android, which will play a much greater role on large-screen devices such as Google TV than it does on smartphones and tablets, which are primarily app-centric devices. For Mozilla, the browser is taking a similar turn with Boot2Gecko, the organization’s approach to provide a Firefox-like OS for phones and tablets, as well as Mozilla’s idea to open up web applications for Firefox. Microsoft is, similar to Windows 98, integrating a much more web-centric approach to Windows 8, with an App Store that will be heavily promoting HTML5 apps to run in IE10. IE is also turning into a platform tool for Microsoft with the essential software and backend that could tie phones, tablets, PCs and consumer electronics devices together. For certain devices, IE could actually turn into the only backend that is required.

The vision

2012 will be a transition year for the web browser and we predict that the browser, as we understand it today, and simply navigate from cnn.com to nytimes.com, will die. The technology and features that are enabling a platform-driven browser, including much more sophisticated home-page applications and interfaces such as the Gamepad API that connects browsers to any popular input device, or the browser communication feature WebRTC, will become much more apparent by the end of the year.

Much of the current momentum appears to be driven by Google and Chrome, even if a good portion of the features that Google has implemented in Chrome have their origins at Mozilla, such as the Gamepad API. Google obviously has a strong interest in growing market share for Chrome and finding a way to make Chrome OS and Google TV much more successful – it would be rather surprising and negligent if the company did not follow such a strategy. The aggressive agenda has forced Mozilla and Microsoft, particularly in 2010 and 2011, to rethink their browsers and they may be under greater pressure if Chrome assumes market leadership, according to StatCounter.

Right now, we are seeing the most competitive browser landscape in history and such scenarios tend to promote innovation and change.

Wolfgang Gruener in Business Products on January 31

“Stumpy” Could Be First To Get Google’s HW Accelerated Chrome OS UI

Chrome developer François Beaufort has posted a screenshot that apparently has been taken on Samsung’s upcoming Chrome OS desktop PC. The big news here is that the hardware-accelerated Aura UI that promises a much richer interface for the user while leveraging the horsepower of a graphics chip will be part of Stumpy. The Chromebox will also integrate more hardware horsepower with an Intel Sandy Bridge processor.

By now we know that the first two Chrome OS computers, offered by Samsung and Acer in a netbook form factor, pretty much flopped, while Google decided to shoot down a much more promising device on trademark violation claims. As Chrome is a cornerstone of Google’s product strategy, it is unlikely that Chrome OS PCs will simply fade and CES revealed that some new devices are on the way, even if the enthusiasm for Chrome OS is much more subdued than it was a year ago.

The one device we believe is waiting for is Samsung’s Stumpy, which is the code name for a desktop Chrome computer (that will be offered next to “Lumpy”, possibly a new Chrome OS netbook). Courtesy of François Beaufort, we learned that Stumpy will be much more powerful than the underpowered and overpriced first-generation products. The test platform of Stumpy uses Intel’s Core i5-2520M processor, which was part of the original Sandy Bridge launch in Q1 2011 and may be replaced with a more up-to-date processor in the production version. The dual-core 2520M runs at 2.5 GHz/3.2 GHz at a thermal design power of 35 watts.

Compared to the 1.6 GHz Atom in the first Chrome OS netbooks, there is substantially more horsepower on tap, there is an opportunity for powerful graphics cards (Intel HD Graphics 3000 at 650 MHz/1.3 GHz are integrated by default) and up to 16 GB of supported DDR3 memory suggest that this will be a much more capable cloud computing device. On the downside, the 2520M lists for a tray price of $225 and if Samsung can’t get a good deal from Intel, we should expect Stumpy to retail for more than $500 because of the processor alone.

The Stumpy surprise is the subtle hint that it is already running the Chrome Aura interface, which departs from the current legacy Chrome interface and features a new UI that leverages GPU acceleration capabilities of a computer. Along with the changes under the hood, we expect a few visual updates that moves the Chrome UI much closer to the capability of a local OS such as Windows. There was no information when Stumpy could be released, but it appears as if this is a much better planned product and not the rapid shot the initial Chrome OS devices were. If Google can contain the price of these new boxes, they should be much more appealing than their predecessors.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on January 17

Intel’s 1.6 GHz Smartphone SoC: Enough To Beat Snapdragon?

Intel unveiled at CES its much anticipated entry in the smartphone battle. Previously code-named Medfield, the Atom Z2460 lacks a snappy name, but it arrives with promising features. Intel has struck a partnership with Motorola as well as Lenovo to get the chip into a commercial devices as early as Q2, but only in China initially. There was also Clover Trail, Intel’s SoC for tablets and hybrids.

It has taken some time until Intel was ready to show off a production-ready Medfield and the result may not be entirely convincing at first sight. The Z2460 uses just a single-core CPU, albeit with hyperthreading support and a virtual second core, and there seem to be some limitations that may raise, at least in some places, eyebrows – such as the 1 GB LPDDR2 (400 MHz) memory limit.

For an entirely new product that is supposed to blow the competition out of the water, this appears to be somewhat underwhelming on the spec side. Also, at first sight, the integrated graphics engine, a 400 MHz version of Intel’s GMA with 240 megapixels per second throughput seems to be below the spec of the upcoming Adreno GPU unit in Qualcomm’s Snapdragon S4 SoC. The system is, of course powerful enough to run 1080p/30fps video for output, but only at 1280×1024 on the local display. Additionally, this is a 32 nm part, while Intel’s rivals are already moving toward 28 nm. It’s not going to kill Intel, and it won’t decide the smartphone race, but the manufacturing process is one of Intel’s key strengths and it will be important for the company to move its Atom SoCs to 22 nm for simple marketing reasons.

Intel has a beautiful spec phone as a Z2460 reference platform at its booth and the performance of the device appears to be doing well as far as the responsiveness of the display and app load times are concerned. At the very least, the phone appears to be very competitive with everything else that is one the market, but we have to wait and see how it performs in the real world. Intel engineers are confident that the Z2460 will deliver. Usually, their performance estimates are on the conservative side, so we are optimistic that the hardware will be, at the very least, on par with high-end ARM SoCs when the Z2460 is released.

The reference device has a 4.03-inch screen, a 1.3MP and an 8MP camera, 14 days of standby power and 45 hours of audio playback. The best argument for the Z2460 is Intel’s claim that the engine has been fine-tuned to work well with the Android software core and excel in Javascript and HTML5 code execution – in speed as well as battery efficiency disciplines.

Pretty hardware alone won’t allow Intel to push the chip into the market. So it is not surprising that Intel is partnering with Lenovo and took the shortcut to Motorola via Google, which some claim annoyed Microsoft, but could have simply been a small payback for Microsoft’s decision to stab Intel in the back by partnering with ARM and inviting more chip companies to equip compact Windows 8 notebooks. Intel isn’t exactly happy that there will be Nvidia-, Qualcomm- and Samsung-based Windows 8 notebooks and the move to work with Google on smartphones all the way is a conclusive move. To respond to the ARM threat in the tablet and low-end computing market, Intel showed off Clover Trail, a 32 nm SoC Intel will pitch for tablets as well as hybrid notebooks (Windows/Android), which will be its offering to compete with ARM in the compact computing space.

The Atom Z2460 will launch in a smartphone in China in Q2. Motorola confirmed that it will be shipping an Intel-based smartphone in the second half of this year.

Wolfgang Gruener in Products on January 10