Goodbye Android OS and Good Riddance

Back in September 2010 I gave Android a try and as I've blogged about here, I discovered many strengths and weaknesses to the Android OS. Now, a year and change later I have reached a level of frustration that shows no promise of reversing. Google's approach to Android has been a huge disappointment. Android and its inherent instability has forced me to abandon it as a communication platform.

Despite all the hype about openness and upgradable hardware, the fact of the matter is that it hasn't happened. With Google's odd open-yet-not control, Android isn't really open in the "Open" movement sense. Compounding the not open "Open" problem is that both device manufacturers and phone network providers don't want you to update your phone -- they want you to replace it. Why? Revenue and contracts. As a result, there's not a mainstream way of keeping up-to-date with the latest version of the operating system and the fixes it brings. Don't believe me? Take a look at this research done by Michael Degusta on the sad history of Android support. The Android ecosystem is a mess and it is getting worse.

I find it unfathomable that in just a few short years, Android has become like vintage versions of Internet Explorer and resembles the bounded chaos that is the Windows platform -- an incomprehensible array of versions in various states of update and renewal with little promise of convergence without significant effort from the platform owner. To Microsoft's credit, it is working hard to solve this problem; Google, on the other hand, is demonstrating that it doesn't know how to be a consumer-focused platform provider. Let a thousand flowers bloom and never tend the garden.

Normally, I don't really care about such things but when a platform I depend on starts demonstrating erratic behavior without reason to the point of becoming unusable, I can't help but think twice about it. I've kept my little EVO up-to-date and limited apps to those that aid with business productivity -- proven products with proven track records. Then, one day and for no apparent reason the phone got into a perpetual reboot loop. I scoured the support sites and found things that said an update to Microsoft Exchange triggers the problem to a low battery. The saddest part was that there was no answer -- everyone was speculating, but no official channel was solving the problem that appears to be fairly common across HTC EVOs. In the process of my research, I uncovered strange issues on other handsets too. My research points to something greater than a specific device -- to me it points to a flawed approach in integrating the OS with the hardware.

I tried every "fix" to no avail pressing forward until reaching the point of a boot loader-based approach to reset the device. The phone worked for about two days and then started randomly rebooting again at the worst possible time: it crashed in the middle of a call with a client. When a smartphone -- no an operating system -- can't maintain its stability for its primary service, that's it for me. I can no longer depend on a platform that expects me to be its beta-tester. And, for what it's worth, rooting the phone to compile a custom version of Android isn't a solution. I went through that with Silicon Graphics and IRIX in a closed research ecosystem; I'm not prepared to do that in my day-to-day work.

I can no longer trust my HTC phone. I can no longer trust Android OS. I am no longer an Android user.

The Winter of Our Discontent

No matter what side you fall on regarding SOPA and PIPA, today has been a very interesting one for American democracy. What we witnessed were two powerful industries -- big technology and big media -- with substantial lobbying power on both sides come to blows in the court of public opinion.

At the start of the day, the US Congress, a body elected by the people but heavily influenced by industry, was reacting as it always had -- the one with the biggest lobby wins. Big media had waged this war several times before and against this particular foe back in the late 1990s -- media had won (the result: DMCA). This time around, the battlefield had changed and the big technology interests were more organized, which created greater resistance. The battle looked to be a classic old vs. new regional skirmish, except everyone failed to take note of one thing...

There was a new weapon on the battlefield -- the "tank" had arrived.

For the first time in American generational memory, the public stepped forth and by using the very technology big media wanted to limit, lobbied on behalf of itself. The citizen content creator, media consumer, and most importantly, voter had a collective voice loud enough to sway elected officials. Backed by symbolic support from big technology and a critical risk taken most notably by Wikipedia, Americans, through social media, gained access to their elected officials. Congress changed sides.

For one brief moment, Americans participated in 21st-century democracy -- and changed the rules of war.

A Year on the Other Side

A year ago I took a break from being on the university side of education and joined Blackboard as a strategic consultant. Although I was on a higher education CIO trajectory, I felt I needed something different at this point in my career. That's not to say I won't return to the CIO path -- I just needed to try something else at this point in my life.

One question I often get is whether or not I'm still enjoying being on the other side. My answer is simple: yes.

The second question is typically am I enjoying being on the other side more? Well, I am enjoying it about the same. The challenges and learning experiences are different and that's invigorating whereas travel can be intense with long periods of being on the road, which can be challenging in a negative way. But on the whole what I enjoy most, regardless of what side of the fence I'm on, are the opportunities to think out of the box, solve problems, and work with a broad range of people to attain a goal, objective, or most importantly, a vision. These attributes are similar whether I am a technology leader within an institution or working with institutional leaders in a consulting capacity.

What I have learned is that not everyone is cut out to be a consultant in today's world. Working at home as part of a global team creates its own unique kind of stress as you don't have a team at arms length that you can reach out to and bounce ideas off of. At the University of Chicago, I had my staff (Catherine, Roberto, Kaylea, Ken, Emily, Quinn, Michael, Josh, Dale, Val, Beth, Iffy, Jamie and many others over the years) who I would regularly tap in "drive-by 'Chaddings.'" I would hit them with crazy and sometimes outlandish ideas and convoluted questions about how to think about a problem, tackle a strategic issue, or envision a future state. It was a way for me to check in with reality and formulate concepts in my head, and hopefully for them provide an opportunity to step out of their respective roles and think about things in different ways.

Being "remote" and without a staff changed that dynamic, and that took a while to get used to. Fortunately, I had spent several years doing consulting work on the side and that prepared me for this at-a-distance experience. Had I not had someone like Shirley Dugdale to mentor me, I'd be lost today. She and the others at DEGW helped me better understand what it means to be a strategic consultant and the realities embedded in that experience. Distilling concepts and formulating ideas in a strategic consulting context is intense and draining. You have limited time to gather and analyze data, and even less time to translate that information into usable concepts, themes, and recommendations. Then when the contract is up, you provide a report that may or may not lead to something. Time to formulate ideas with others is much more precious as, frankly, time is really money.

My year on the other side has been intense and rewarding. It is something I've done that I don't regret. For those of you who may be at a similar place in your career, I strongly urge to you to think long and hard about it before shifting gears. This path is very different from one you may have experienced before and as such, presents a very different kind of personal journey. You need to truly understand what inspires you and ensure that as a strategic consultant, you get that inspiration; without it, being an individual contributor can be a lonely place.

Reflecting on WKQX, Q101

Q101 was one of only two stations that I regularly listened to in Chicago. Admittedly, I wasn't an avid listener. I tuned in during my Hyde Park years from 1997-2002, took a hiatus during the Mancow period (where I switched to WZZN), started irregularly listening at nights later in the decade, and then reconnected in full force as a loyal listener when I started working at home in September 2010. I never thought I'd care about the loss of a radio station, but more and more I lament the departure of Q101 from the FM dial. This particular station meant something to me.

As I reflect on my experience with WKQX, the music got me to listen, but it was the announcers that made me stay. Without a doubt, Q101 hired some of smartest and most passionate on air music-talent in the Chicago market and quite possibly, some of the best alternative music DJs on air today. James VanOsdol, Sherman, Chris Payne, Electra and others did more than pick songs, they brought the music to life. Shows such as the "Retro Lunch," "Local 101," and "The Last Letter Game" demonstrated smart ways to connect with the listening audience; in fact, I learned something listening to the shows. How many times can one say that about a music-oriented radio station? Heck, even how many times can you say that about the dreck airing on talk radio? About the only other place one can "learn" is via an NPR station and that's just not me.

I believe that the Q101 announcers truly knew and cared about what they put on the air (even when they hated it). When I DJ'ed at a radio station out on the prairie, I didn't take the time to learn the backstory of the music -- I simply put the programming on the air or at times, based on the playlist, told a story with song selection. Beyond that, I kept the station on the air. For Q101, the announcers did more and that, above anything else, is the loss I feel. I can still find alternative music, but the people who put that music into context are no longer there.

Ultimately, radio is a business and clearly the format change of WKQX is one based on a business decision, not one tied to the opinions of one listener. Ratings drive radio decision-making and in the Chicago market, the ratings were just not there for supporting a major alternative station on a prime frequency. So after 19 years, WKQX has gone away and someone else will try to make something of 101.1 FM. I don't know about an Oprah-audience format, but we'll just have to see how that goes.

So with the demise of Q101 as a broadcasting entity, I can't help but feel sad for the air staff, producers, engineers, sales team, and all others who cared about the station, its music, and what it meant to Chicago. Yes, Q101 lost its way and the music programming suffered in recent years. I agree, the music was too managed, too formulaic, and too old (when I tuned back in as a regular listener in October 2010, I immediately thought I was listening to an updated version of an "oldies" station). However, the staff made the best of it and as many have already said, the last days of WKQX as "Chicago's Alternative" went out as it should -- playing the best in alternative with the best talent on the air. The last days may have been its greatest days.

With that, to the staff of the former WKQX, Q101, thank you. You did make a difference -- one listener at a time.

Tablets are Enterprise or "Four Reasons Why This Guy Doesn't Need a Tablet"

2011 marks my 20th year as a mobile computing person. I've used -- not just reviewed or fiddled with -- virtually every flavor of mobile device made for the panoply of operating environments over the last two decades. I've used a dizzying array of laptops, notebooks, Tablet PCs, PDAs, handhelds, mobile phones, smartphones and e-book readers on a daily basis. My office, if you will, has been mobile for 20 years, and about the only device I haven't used is a Blackberry (it just isn't me). So the other morning before I jumped onto a flight, I was shocked to read that CIO's mobility expert, Al Sacco, seems to not understand the difference between a Tablet PC and a mobile tablet and as the piece unfolded, it all went downhill fast. I should have stopped reading.

The piece that jarred me awake on that rainy morning was Sacco's "Four Reasons Why You Don't Really Need a Tablet PC." What perplexed me from the start was that he fundamentally undermined his own argument by saying that "an 'average' tablet user that has no specific business-related purpose for employing such a device, the sheen on the popular form factor is rapidly wearing thin." Since he writes for CIO, shouldn't he understand that in business, technology should have purpose otherwise it doesn't contribute to productivity, innovation, or the bottom line? Wouldn't that be the logical point of view to write from given the audience? Apparently not.

It is clear he's an "average" user (whatever that means as he doesn't provide us with a definition) who doesn't have a business purpose for the technology. I agree that not everyone does have a reason to own or use a tablet and that's fine, so stop there. But why continue to write such a piece in the context of CIO, a publication about technology value in business? What he wrote has little to do with technology in the enterprise and more about his own views of a tablet as casual entertainment device. He could have written the same thing about a Nintendo 3DS or a Sony PSP, but it is what it is.

Like I said, his argument heads downhill and is largely irrelevant in the context of enterprise IT. First and foremost, a we need to address a major conceptual flaw. The Tablet PC is an over a decade-old concept of a laptop or notebook computer that runs a desktop operating system and contains extensions to enable touch or pen-based interaction in addition to the standard array of input methods. I think most would agree that the Tablet PC was a commercial failure. The machines were poor-performing, expensive and in some versions, exceedingly fragile. For the majority of Tablet PCs in the market, the tablet part was a novelty; the rest of the hardware was an underpowered and overpriced PC. In the end it became a niche vertical market device. How Sacco confused the two -- a Tablet PC and a contemporary mobile tablet -- is beyond me.

The next surprise was that he seemed to fundamentally not understand or recognize the paradigm shift that we're now experiencing in IT around mobility -- or at least not in the context of this piece. Today's tablet isn't a PC. To call a tablet a PC is like calling a smartphone a PC; they are related, but clearly not the same thing and with that pivotal error, his four reasons quickly eroded into irrelevance.

1. "Tablets really aren't particularly portable."

A device that weighs next to nothing, one can carry in hand like a paper notebook, and enables a person to work comfortably virtually anywhere without the need for an outlet, a mouse or even a carrying bag isn't portable? Okay, so he admits that he doesn't want to use his hands to carry things and that a device that's smaller than his laptop keyboard is awkward. Although at the same time, he argues that a smartphone isn't awkward because one can put it into a pocket, so that makes it portable. But a notebook can't fit in a pocket and requires a large bag to transport it and that's okay. What the...?

It is clear his personal tastes are coming through -- as they should. He's acknowledging what tablets, smartphones, e-book readers and handheld gaming devices are -- personal technologies.

Today's tablets, like Android, iOS, Windows Mobile and WebOS smartphones, are personal technologies that we choose as consumers to use in the manner that suits us best. That's a huge shift from the enterprise desktop PC model of the last 30 years, which we've merely extended to laptops and notebooks. For example, I carry a compact notebook and a tablet and use them both at the same time (and without the awkwardness encountered by some, apparently). In business, the tablet serves as my library, an image processing tool for business graphics, collaboration tool, brainstorming device, second monitor for my notebook, and a presentation screen. The manner in which I use these technologies is different than my colleagues, and different from their colleagues. When it comes to my PC, however, how and what I use is remarkably similar to most everyone else. Why? The tablet is tailored to match my personal productivity requirements; my PC is tailored to my business. The tools that make me more productive as an individual are different than the ones of my peers. I'm not them, nor are they me -- but we are in the same line of work and use the same enterprise tools.

Purely in terms of specifications, Sacco's portability argument beyond smartphones makes no sense. Tablets in every way are more portable than a laptop. Just peruse the aisles of a business flight sometime and you'll see the evidence. By the way, I take my tablet everywhere without a bag and carry it like a book without difficulty. The laptop stays mostly at home. That's rather portable.

2. "Tablet is Just One More Piece of Hardware to Carry."

Actually, today I would submit that my notebook is another piece of hardware to carry. My job requires a lot of reading and a notebook or smartphone don't cut it. The tablet is ideal for that kind of activity. When I am in the field, I only use my notebook for presentations largely because the player software for my tablet isn't mature enough yet. And when I am working with clients, flipping open a notebook creates a social barrier between myself and others. Tablets don't create that perceptual wall. In essence, my PC is the boat anchor that I carry around.

Now I am not a one device person -- I doubt we will reach that universal technology utopia anytime soon and I think to expect that is a bit naive. As long as technology is also fashion, we will see multiple devices. That said, I never want to fry my eyes for an extended period of time writing a document or reading a report on one of my smartphones (and I suspect my optometrist would agree), and a monster laptop screen isn't worth the fragility, price, power consumption and weight (to that, my chiropractor might agree, too). Besides, I've nearly had notebooks destroyed in flights because of the large screen, cramped space, and reclining front seat nightmare.

In the end, I am a technology appliance guy who strives to use the right device for the right application as doing so makes me more productive. For me, smartphones and notebooks fill specific roles, as do tablets. They are not fully interchangeable.

I spent a decade tethered to my laptop and the weight, size, and clumsiness of the clamshell keyboard design (although a necessity) made using it as a universal device awkward. That said, a laptop is familiar and we tend to gravitate to things that are familiar rather than those that are not. Recently, I interviewed a number of college students and nearly all of them referred to their notebooks and laptops as PCs they "dust off" to use only when absolutely necessary. A laptop is not familiar to them; they gravitate to something else. Food for thought as these students will soon become our employees.

3. "Tablet Browser Limitations."

There is considerable truth in this statement and to buy a tablet for merely Web browsing seems a bit extravagant. When this went off the rails is where the focus shifted toward an application and OS limitation rather than concentrating on the pros and cons, productivity gains and issues of anytime, anywhere access to information, services, and resources in a form factor that is intuitive, instinctual and personal.

Admittedly, not everything works in a tablet context and some things aren't the best fit for smartphones or PCs, either. But to dredge up the Flash argument is simply lame, especially using entertainment rather than enterprise services to support the argument. I make use of enterprise systems and services that depend on Flash for the UI and I absolutely hate it. The implementation is unpredictable and flaky. As Google has demonstrated, well done HTML, JavaScript, and CSS is more portable and stable. To get hung up on Flash is like getting hung up on COBOL. Let it go.

4. "Tablets (Mostly) Aren't Built to Last"

To make a claim like that without any data to back it up is simply irresponsible. I have personally lunched more notebooks through daily use than any handheld or tablet device to date. In fact, I went through a laptop every six months due to screen ribbon cable failure and that occurred across multiple laptops from multiple vendors.

I regularly toss my tablets around my apartment, whereas I treat my notebook with kid gloves. If the notebook screen lid gets twisted the wrong way, the keyboard becomes part of an unfortunately liquid accident, or the chassis flexes in a strange manner, things start to fail and fail quickly. Even back when I had a Motion Computing Tablet PC, I found it to be more rugged than the laptop I had at the time. The thing that Sacco missed is that tablets don't have moving parts. Even with SSDs becoming the norm in notebooks, the keyboards, trackpad buttons, hinges, and DVD drives all contain mechanical elements that will eventually fail. Protecting a screen is far easier than protecting the multiple failure points in a notebook. My advice, get a case.

So, What's the Enterprise Story?

If there is one nugget to mine out of Sacco's piece is that in business, one should adopt tablets with a plan and purpose. But that can be said for any enterprise technology, so what makes tablets any different? Hmmm. Apparently, not much.

I wrote this entire piece on my tablet while flying across country. Why? My laptop was too much of a pain to dig out and situate on the tray table with a glass of soda.