Blue Ocean

When Google tells the world it is going after the mobile way, one should always take notice. So, after weeks of procrastination, I finally took a look at Android. My timing was not too far off, since the first Android phone only made its appearance at GSM this week.

In a nutshell, Android is a mobile platform that builds on top of Linux but bundles additional layers such as a web browser (Webkit), a set of applications services (e.g. telephony and messaging) some libraries and a homegrown runtime (ala Java VM). The marketing brochure says that Android is Open (and most of the components are).

Like the first Google phone, Android seems to be a work in progress. A few hours of digging into the developer site and the examples, followed by a sudden crave for caffeine that interrupted my progress, eventually left me with mixed impressions. Yes, I would have to admit that Android was rapidly falling short of my high expectations. After all, the mobile brainchild of a company with such technical talent as Google had to be second to none.

It is not that Android is technically bad. It is quite the opposite, actually. Technically, Android is extremely sound and brings some interesting innovations. It is just that it does not seem very Google-like to me. In particular, it does not fit the Web-centric programming model that you would expect from the inventors of AJAX and precursors to the Web 2.0 movement. Why Google would decide to err so far away from the development model that made their success was really a big surprise to me.

Take for example, Android's application component model. It relies on the new concepts of "Activity" and "Intent". The idea is to enable an application to easily mix different components from other applications within its own view (way back then, Microsoft called this Object Linking and Embedding (OLE)). Great idea, right? Yes, especially, in a mobile environment where users frequently need to switch between messaging, contacts, and calendaring. But then again, why not enabling widgets and mashups as a simpler GUI and component model for mobile? After all, Apple just did that for MAC OS X. instead of making the Web and mobile come together, Android is introducing yet another programming model. As good as it may be, it sounds like a missed opportunity to do what Google does so well: pushing complexity to the cloud, and simplicity to the client in order to enable the largest developers community.

This is my sole disappointment, really. Android does not try hard enough to enable the Web programming model into the mobile. Instead, like any traditional mobile OS company, it makes it a second-class citizen. In doing so, Android confines most of the Web developers to the browser. That kind of traditional device-top approach is exactly what you would expect from non-Web companies like Nokia, Sun or IBM, but from Google? Where are the XHTML, CSS, JavaScript and all the REST (pun intended) of the Web 2.0 technologies that made us scream "WOW" the first time we saw that Google map drag along the mouse?

Yet, Google is standing strong behind Android. Therefore, I would expect Android to enjoy a long and prosper future. It just seems strange that in the end, Google decided to opt for a development model that is foreign to its own DNA. Ah! But on the other hand, they did call it Android, didn't they?

Posted by Nico Popp at 02:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Today, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, IBM and VeriSign are joining the OpenID Foundation board. After the OpenID deployment from Yahoo! and Google earlier this year, this is one more piece of good news for the OpenID afficionados. I know that all of us involved with OpenID at VeriSign are really excited with the latest developments. Since OpenID is a key element of VeriSign's identity strategy, I thought I would take a minute to discuss the role and the importance of the Foundation moving forward.

IP Free Open Technology:

If we have learned one thing form the success of DNS and SSL, it is the importance of Intellectual Property (IP) free open standards to the success of any new Internet technology. Without them, the chances of broad adoption for any new Internet technology are as good as the odds for a wild card team to win the Superbowl extremely slim. Identity services are no exception to the rule. So, the Foundation's primary goal will be to ensure that OpenID always remains open and free to the Internet community. Concretely, this means that the Foundation will work with identity vendors and the community to protect OpenID Intellectual Property Rights and its free usage policy. Technologies always evolve and improve; we needed a body to exercise ongoing vigilance. There cannot be any compromise on this point. The good news is that everyone on the board has already embraced this idea as a fundamental principle.

Where the Ying and the Yang Meet:

OpenID is essentially a grassroots technology. So far, the specification and the implementation have been mostly driven by the technical community. I would argue that it is a good thing. Had the vendors be involved too early, the technology may not have ended up as brilliantly simple and as easy to deploy, and OpenID may not have enjoyed the initial community enthusiasm and rapid deployment (remember Liberty Alliance?). This grassroots model has proven to work so we must keep it moving forward. At the same time, as large identity service providers and software vendors join the OpenID bandwagon, we needed an entity to facilitate the exchange of ideas and product requirements between the grassroots and business communities. A Yahoo! or a Google may need specific product enhancements. A VeriSign may ask for some additional security elements. At the same time, the OpenID technical community needs to be able to keep on innovating and take the technology into new directions. The Foundation will be the place to facilitate the debate and prioritize the efforts.

Creating a Second to None OpenID Experience:

With Google, AOL and Yahoo! deployments, OpenID is off to a great start. 350M users have now access to the technology. One challenge remains: very few of these 350M consumers are using OpenID or are even aware that the technology exists. This leads to one of the important roles for the Foundation: to drive consumer adoption. The Foundation will own the Open ID brand and logo. It will define and protect its proper context of use. More importantly, the Foundation will need to make these assets to be synonymous to "insanely great user experience' in the mind of the consumers. There is little doubt that the success of OpenID will be tied to the quality of the user experience it brings to millions of consumers. Yahoo! already improved that user experience. The Foundation will take it further and enable a true "one-click" or even "zero-click" user experience for login, registration, payment and all other forms of Internet activities that require identity information exchange. The Foundation will be the place to funnel the best ideas from the community and set the best deployment practices.

At VeriSign, we are truly excited to be board members of the Foundation and support its mission. Bill Washburn, a former colleague, and a friend is heading the Foundation, and I cannot think of a better person to help drive consensus across so many distinct personalities. That certainly makes it yet more reasons to be excited. Let us get to work!

Posted by Nico Popp at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)