OurielOhayon

Man, that's a trailer

Last time i saw a killer trailer like this, it was for Seven, by David Fincher. The same one behind the social network. 

You bet i will watch this

This is how i would have loved Lady Gaga to stay

This video by Stefani Germanotta (her original name) is simply impressive. Far from the crap she's making today.

There is no doubt she's highly talented. Too bad she did not go that way a bit longer!

!

Why i stopped reading Daring Fireball

I arrived late in the run, but i discovered about a year ago Daring Fireball a hugely popular blog by John Gruber about, mainly Apple. It is brilliantly written and so well informed you wonder if the guy is not working in Steve Jobs' office. But after about a year of reading it i decided to stop. The reason? It is impossible to interact with its writer (which he explains here). 

At least from my modest point of view. And for me interacting means having the possibility to drop a comment and participate in a conversation, something i can do on all the great blogs i love to read (like avc.com )

The content, most of the time creates the desire to react and provokes the spark of a conversation but it is killed on the spot by not letting users comment on site. I don't know any better way to make a blog a conversational media. Otherwise this is just a good old tribune behind a (Daring) Firewall.

So i could deal with it right? Well no. I don't like to be provoked and not having the possibility to react. I am sure a lot of John's readers feel frustrated and probably used to this.

When i was writing TechCrunch France i was handling up to 100 comments per posts. I was reading every single one of them and most of the time answering them. Frankly the most interesting part of blogging is the interaction with the users in a close to live conversation in comments. I can understand some people prefer to kill the noise and don't have the time to deal with it (although there are ways to manage this efficiently if you have the right commenting system, like disqus or intensedebate with moderation and email interaction)

Anyways. No comments on a good blog is not a deal for me. This is why i am also stopping reading many newspapers.

The value is not in the information or the point of view but the conversation. And even in Chaos, i prefer a living organic publication rather than a singled-voice site

The biggest pain iOS4 is not solving yet: App syncing

By now, over a 100 million people have downloaded 5 billions apps under the now called iOS, or operating system for mobile devices. Millions of people start to become familiar with the act of downloading an App.  An app is rarely final once you have downloaded it. It needs to be updated for new features or self adaptation to new the iOS specifications or is has to be updated because if pulls content or self refreshes out of the internet.

An app to be fully enjoyed needs to be updated and if it depends on a web service needs to be connected to the web in order to be updated, even to be enjoyed offline. 

iOS is not solving 2 pains that are specific to native apps: easy automatic updating, and automatic content syncing. 

Let me illustrate with examples

Automatic App Updating

You have downloaded say 40 apps. Apple updates its iOS or introduces a new device (say the iPad). Hundreds of developers update their app in order to be compliant. You open your App Store and you see 10 apps waiting for updates. Then every day you will meet this screen, with apps waiting for updates. Personally i hate wasting time with that. And i can be a lot of time once accumulated.

Apple should allow users to give permission to developers to auto-update apps without consent and run the updates automatically in the background when, say, the iPhone is not used more than an hour in a row. To make sure this does not hurt your bill, Apple could allow it to run only when you re on wifi > which is typically what happens when you are at home when sleeping at night.

I want to give Apple once this approval, and that's all. I can revoke it if i need to (i don't see any reason why i would, but let s assume you need to make yourself feel comfortable)

This means that users need to become aware an app has become updated. Apple could do that in a welcome screen in the App Store or by just sending an email when this is done (they do have our emails and they use it to send us the purchase receipt). But that would not be enough.

I think developers need to do something more (which is something i would recommend anyway to do already...)

> Tip to Developers: when you update an app, DO NOT rely on users reading the update pane with new features, instead on the opening push a message with the new features you re bringing. The app that does that best is GoodReader. Check it out. Really well done

Automatic App Content Syncing

You have an RSS reader, or a news app (Wired, ...) or ReadItLater/Instapaper, or even Dropbox or OneMail (for accessing Gmail offline). You need to access the content, but in order to enjoy it you need to first Open the App and wait for it to pull content from the web. This can take some serious time. Specially when you need to move offline for a few hours (in a plane) or want to save roaming fees (abroad). This means you need to specifically open every single app, wait for it to pull out content and repeat that, as many times as needed with each App.

Any iPhone owner who s travelling has met this pain. But if you think about it, even if you are not travelling, having to rely on syncing to get your app updated is a pain. We are more and more used to get content instantly from web services. Waiting to get content, is a pain.

This is why for news and RSS i prefer to surf Google Reader rather than any other killer RSS app (like Newsrack or Reeder) even if super Well done

What's missing? This has to be solved by Apple with a content sync service available to developers allowing them to trigger an Content app update on a regular basis, using simple rules: the app is updated more than X hours/days, it has to be on WIFI, and the iPhone has to be unused for more than X hours. Users in addition must have give specific approval in optin to the developers in order to run that operation. Then there need to be a simple notification tray in the app, indicating when it was last updated, and if a sync should be necessary or not.

The day this part of infrastructure is in place apps relying on content will get a major boost in usage.

Conclusion: Saving 5 billion seconds to the world (and counting)

On average an App update takes about 10 seconds (sometimes a lot more), let s assume that only 10% of the Apps downloaded get updated (because people care enough to run the update) - We're talking about saving 5 billion seconds to the world just for App updating. We re talking about a cumulated time of 82 000 years saved to users.

i have no way to measure how many time this would save for content App updating. But let s take Wired which is a 500MB+ app (of which 400MB of rich media ads...). Each edition takes in very very high speed about 1 or 2 min to download. There is around 100k users who downloaded this app >See how much time is saved? Repeat that by the number of App in your iPhone/iPad

Personally i know it would save me around 30 min each week. Roughly

Beyond those meaningless numbers iOS has the possibility to bring back, what is missing most from Apps, the instant access to content. No lag, No syncing. Getting closer to the Web and a little bit away from the CD-Rom era

Will Apple bring this? I am sure they will. Not sure when though. It took them 2 iterations of the OS to bring Copy Paste.

ps: i seriously doubt, based on what i know that the multi tasking that Apple is going to introduce will allow this kind of background operation. The App needs to get access to a better and specifically designed service for this to happen correctly. And it has to be created by Apple and not by one developer on a case by case

note: i put aside in this note, the necessity of wireless syncing which would be really nice for syncing the content of your PC/MAc with your iPhone. But this is a different matter which requires more technical consideration and background that i have.

Stunning version of Rachmaninoff concerto #1 for Piano

I know this piece by heart. Listened to it hundreds of times. But i never saw it so close and heard it with such clarity. Performed without Orchestra (explaining why she interupts at some points)

2nd movement is even more beautiful

ps: the little genius composed this piece at age 19. What did you do at this age? 

The wrong 15 min. of fame

Today we decided to remove our "old app" from the App Store. It made a lot more noise that we expected. We received so much support from the community and our users that it gave us a little boost of energy to accelerate the upcoming roll out of things we had in plan when we see Apple's unresponsiveness to the update we submitted nearly 2 months ago.

But a few observers are thinking we did this for "publicity". Here is our answer:

It there is something you really don't want as a startup is get to what we did today. Getting attention for a failure whatever the reason is simply not good. We have too much to do. and too many good things coming keeping us busy. And we know how to get attention for many good reasons when needed

No. 

We did what we did because we had no other choice. We could not stand to watch our first version [created in a few days, way before our funding] any longer. It's been too many days in a row, we could not even look at it. This is why we worked our ass off to build a great app for discovery. We pulled this app in version 1, because this was the right thing to do, for us and for our users. We have grown so much lately that app could not even take it any more and we started to received too many complaints.

All the Appsfire team is obsessed with execution and customer satisfaction. We believe the app discovery is far from being solved correctly either by Apple, or by the Apps that have been recently approved. Take a look at our site. We love what we do. We design, we launch, we iterate. We are never satisfied with the status quo. But the app-roval process as we see it did not allow us to upgrade decently the experience for our users in time. So we decided to remove the original app, until we get decent dialogue with Apple.

Will our decision influence Apple in paying attention to us? We certainly hope not. We want to believe that no one has to pull out his own baby for the store in order to get attention. This is not how it should work. Apple knows already we're here. we have talked to enough people at all levels at Apple. We are waiting for an ordinary reaction. simply.

Yes, we are upset right now. But believe me we would have preferred to save to ourself those wrong 15 mins of fame.

Random spicy thoughts on Steve Job's keynote

I am assuming you have seen the great keynote by Steve Jobs announcing the iPhone 4. If you did not take a look here. 

I am going to address little details that i have not seen covered by the hundreds of blog post talking about the iPhone 4

• The Welcome: Steve jobs received the Welcome of a rock star. Even Presidents and ministers don't get that. Don't know how many CEOs get that at all. Truly amazing
• Open/Closed Platform: Steve Jobs clearly made a point about Apple supporting 2 platforms 1 open and 1 closed. He presented them as if they were on an equal status. But this is definitely not the case.  The closed platform (the App Store) is the only one that really provides a clear distribution channel and a payment mechanism which is flawless. There is clearly no advantage from a business point of view (read below) to develop on the open platform, even if it has advantages from a coding POV. Saying you are supporting 2 platforms is not enough. Making them successful is really what matters.

• App-roval process: A point was made that 5% (to put in perspective we re taking about 450 apps - not a small number) of the apps submitted every week are not approved because they either crash, use private APIs, or don't run as advertise. Those are common sense argument. I was more interested in hearing about the other reasons. How about apps that are rejected for "subjective" reasons when Apple decides to (this happened with the "adult" category although playboy and others are still there), or the Frame app, when Apple suddenly decided that Apps can't build their own desktop (nothing mentions that in the SDK). I was also interested in one stats: how many persons are involved in the proces, how is that going to evolve? Apple has to become really transparent about that with consistent rules to keep developers love them in the long term

• 200k apps: why announcing in the poster 220k Apps? when the number on stage was 225ks? Printing logistics i guess > maybe they should have added a 5  in counter-like style after. Was an easy add-on
• MicroSim: Steve said that the microsim was a choice because they needed all the required space. Makes sense. But then why also on the iPad 3G? It is a much larger device and they could have placed a real sim there. My feeling is that they want to drive people to AT&T/Local cell operators to get the new sim, rather than just the device. this is the true reason.

• iAd: the main argument is that mobile ads are disrupting the App experience. But what i saw, is that iAds are also going to happen in the middle of your app experience. It happens in a beautiful and engaging way. But it is interrupting your app experience. Truth of that matter though is that the iAd is not supposed to take you outside the App> meaning it is too be a pretty rich, engaging and complex format so the advertiser gets some form of ROI.
• Wifi demo fail: It kind of reminded me my own recent failed demo of the iPad. Tip: for an App always be ready for an offline demo.
• Demo kit: Does anyone know what set up Apple is using to connect their iPhone to a screen? what connector? what app? what soft?
• Zynia, Really? Maybe i heard not so well, but i think Steve Jobs said Zinia instead of Zynga? Twice? When he says the name he looks at a screen just like he was reading it for the first time. really weird (go to 17min50sec)
• iOS/Facetime names: both names are already registered by Companies (the first being Cisco). I guess it is hard to find available names those days.
• The Gyroscope: i found it cool, but was it really as important as any other announcement? seriously i don't think so. I would have expected the Gamekit for developers to be presented instead. 

• 1 billion USD: this is a very impressive check paid to developers. Is there an 90/10 rule here? i think so. I know a few companies doing 50m+USD/year with Apple (who said there is no business for a company on the App Store). I think there something like 200/300 companies taking most of the check indicated here. A Gant would have been good with this number.
• Schiller? Not on stage/ no in the Ad for iPhone 4. What happened? Greg Joswiak (SVP iPhone marketing) shows up in the ad now.
• Flash: finally coming to the iPhone. yes. but not in the browser. in your camera (sorry Adobe...)
• Apple effect: in spite of all the gizmodo thing, there is something in those keynotes that still leave a surprise effect even if you are familiar with the product you have seen before. The sense of details and sense of orchestration is simply mind blowing and brings a wow effect each single time

The iPhone 4

Amazing. ha ? 

Thoughts on closed vs open

I would like to bring my tiny point of view in what seems to be a gigantic debate: what is better for the web? open or closed platforms?

i'll go simple to make my point: 

• an open web is a web where both developers and users can do what they want. Developers have the freedom to develop what they want. Users have the freedom do use services as they want. Standards and practices are known to all and there is no central authority that controls the rules and practices. 
• A closed web is a regulated web: developers have to comply with rules and users can only use what those developers create.

The web (for computers) as we know it today is rather open. You can develop anything and access it through your browser(s) which comply with standards of navigation which are universal. We used to have a closed Web: portals, limited browsers, absence of standards, web organized in directories rather than links. This has changed and no one would use today a directory or use rather this or that browser to access a specific site (except when Apple showcases html5)

But the mobile web is rather closed. The pipes are controlled by operators, the new ISPs and AOLs of the PC era. The browsers are not running everything either because of limitations (safari and flash) or device capabilities (try an MMOG on opera mini..). The Web is being rebuilt through apps, which are built by developers using App Store SDKs (Apple, Android, Blackberry, OVI, Bada,...). Users are driven to those apps because they are simple and convenient. 

But you simply cannot use the web created for your PC on your mobile phone. It is not designed for those screens (even iPad) and it is not conceived for a touch experience.

This means the mobile web has to be created and Apple got the first shot super right.

So the question is: Will the mobile web remain a closed environment where developers and therefore users will have to comply by rules that are limitative by essence? Or will the mobile web, just like the PC web evolve to an open environment? Let me detail. In the long term: 

• Will cell operators stop to try to make use believe they can also be content providers, just like ISPs tried as and will simply become pipes providers?
• Will App Stores remain the main entry door to the web or will web sites adapt themselves to Web apps accessible universally via your browser?
• Will user prefer a closed, curated, simple/simplified ecosystem to a rich, fully accessible app-less mobile web?

I think the key to those answers lie in how OS owners play it with developers. I am personally very happy with a closed mobile web. I don't care i can't read flash on my iPhone, i love my Apps sometimes even more than the original web sites that are too cluttered and complex. And i believe 99.99% of users are not concerned by the debate, simply because to date there is enough to do with and not enough maturity in usage to realize you need more than that.

And the reason to that: Developers play by App Store rules. They are happy creating apps. And users are happy with it. App Stores are taking away the control Cell operators had once on mobile content> which will drive i believe, operators to become pipe providers, which is what we pay for. Which i believe is a good thing.

i think a closed environment can work for developers but on 3 conditions: it has to be consistent in its rules, efficient in its treatment and monetization and transparent in its communication. Android is providing nearly all of this except on the monetization> which brings many developers not to think to much as to where to allocate their time.

Apple has made an amazing job at creating a working app ecosystem. Tomorrow they will present again how people love apps (4billion download, 200k apps - not really progressing for a while btw, ...) But this shadowing some deep issues that cannot last. 

• Although Apple has a clear SDK but it is not consistently applying the rules: again last week a "Frame" app was removed from the App Store - because apple is not authorizing it, something the SDK does not mention. Can a developer invest so much time and feel one day is app is randomly rejected?
• Is Apple fast enough in reviewing apps? In general yes but this is degrading after a consistent improvement. They managed at some point to reach 95% of apps approved in a week which is great. But lately that has gone down to sub 90% and the number of total apps in not really increasing (200k to be announced tomorrow, is the same number announced when the iPad was announced)
• is Apple transparent enough in its communication with developers? With some of the biggest we know they talk on a nearly daily basis. But that a tiny minority. We submitted our v2 of Appsfire 53 days ago. We know our app was tested very quickly by Apple but since we are not hearing a single word from Apple. There is an email you can reach out to, but no one talks to us. For companies focused on Apple, a near 2 months silence is like a death sentence. And in the meantime they approved 2 similar apps in less than a week. 

In conclusion: the mobile web can remain a closed platform as long as it is fluid enough as an ecosystem. I personally don't care about the rules as long as they are clear, consistently applied and based on a transparent and efficient communication process.

If this is not happening, i don t care about what the next iPhone or Android or Blackberry phone can achieve. If developers feel or start feeling uncomfortable with creating apps which make the mobile web so great, those phones won't have nothing differentiated to offer.

Steve jobs will say it tomorrow: it is all about apps. So if this is the case: this has to be treated with the highest priority. I believe app stores in general, and in Apple case in particular, are under resourced internally. This is an easy fix. But that is not enough: A process where a developer has to wait 2 months (and we are not alone) to get a feedback is not a working process. The allocation of resources is related to the understanding that this is a necessity. 

I don't feel Apple has done enough in that direction. The war Apple has to fight is not against Google or Microsoft, or RIM but with itself making sure they treat decently and fairly developers big, or small. If they do that, and they can, they will win the battle of the mobile web.