What should a Playstation Phone be?

Image via Wikipedia

New photos have surfaced purporting to be an early prototype of the Playstation phone. These shots have been shot down by Sony as “definitely fake“.

A Playstation phone–especially one that is rumored to be running the next version of Android, called Gingerbread–is a very compelling device. Sony’s foray into the mobile gaming marketing isn’t really marked with any success, but a Playstation phone might change all that.

Here are some suggestions that would help in the success of such a phone.

Brand it as a Playstation phone. Not a Sony Erricson phone. There’s a big difference in mindshare. People do not care for Sony Erricson phones. People want a Playstation phone.

Market it as a Playstation gaming device… that also does Android. Notice that there’s a difference between this and “an Android phone that plays Playstation games.” There are many Android phones available, but the Playstation Phone has the potential for being the Android phone to have, similar to how the PS3 is the blu-ray player to have.

Build a PSP2 platform and sell games through a proprietary marketplace. Now that doesn’t necessarily mean that Sony should brand it as the new PSP2. The current PSP has largely been a failure, and to continue to ride that horse might prove to be a mistake. Regardless, Sony needs to make a distinctive gaming platform for it. The games should:

• Be separate from the Android platform. Games made for it should run only on the Playstation phone and not on any Android phone; perhaps a proprietary identifying chip in the phone can facilitate that aspect. People should have to buy a Playstation phone to run Playstation games. Gamers shouldn’t be able to get any Android phone.
• Should be sold in its own marketplace, separate from any Android marketplace.
• Be accessed through a proper, sensible UI. Sony should make sure that customers understand the difference between a Playstation phone game and an Android app.
• Take full advantage of a multitouch screen and the physical buttons available.

And Sony should also make it backwards compatible with old, downloaded PSP games. (Abandon the UMD.)

Cater to developers as a mobile gaming platform. Here’s a difference between the smartphone platforms and mobile gaming platforms: the interaction between hardware companies and its developers. For the most part, smartphone makers release an SDK. The developers make an app and that app makes it to a marketplace (or not). Sony shouldn’t necessarily follow Apple or Google in this regard. Gaming device makers (Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft) have a closer relationship to their developers. They provide beta units and work hand-in-hand during development. The end result are higher quality games.

Keep it up to date. The Google Android platform has one particular annoyance that might prove to be compounded in such a device: hardware manufacturers (and the carriers) tend to slack off on updating their handsets to work with the latest version of Android. To many, this fragmentation isn’t a problem, because they can just buy a new phone. This might not be the case with the Playstation phone however, because while people are willing to chuck a G1 for a new EVO, they’re less willing to throw away an old PSP for a new PSP. Sony should work with Google to make sure that you have the latest version of Android on the phone at all times. Only then would people be assured that their brand new gaming device won’t be obsolete in a single year.

Connect it to the Playstation 3. This doesn’t mean bolting on the Playstation Network to the phone. (Microsoft is doing this with XBOX Live and the new Windows Phone 7 phones, and frankly it feels like an afterthought.) Nor does this mean that people should be able to buy games from the Playstation Store on the PS3 and transfer them to the phone using an expansion card or a USB cable. (Though Sony should provide that capability too.) A true relationship between a console and its portable counterpart would involve some sort of additional functionality that Playstation 3 games give to Playstation phone owners. What that is depends on the creativity of the game developers.

Provide cheap games or make the games sharable and re-sellable. Even today, Sony’s competition are games available from Apple’s app store, which usually cost $.99 or $1.99. These games–though not as immersive as those available for the PSP or the DS–are priced at the point where buying a game is practically an impulse buy. Can the Playstation phone have games that match that? Providing games at $5.99 would certainly help, even if those games are DRMed to one account. Otherwise, if Sony (or developers for that matter) insist on pricing games at $19.99, then make sure they can be placed on expansion cards and shared with my friends or transferable to a different account.

Provide a multiplayer environment worth using. The Nintendo DS has wifi to provide their gamers a multiplayer experience, but no one really uses it. The iPhone has had better success by utilizing a cellular data connection. This allows more distance between players, as they’re not locked down to an access point. It seems Sony already understands this. Regardless, Sony will have to figure out a way to provide a multiplayer experience to the phone owners, even while device owners have a close-it-at-anytime mindset.

Choose an angle. When Nintendo released the Wii, they chose a market (common person) that was the opposite of the target of the PS3 and the XBOX 360 (the hardcore gamer). Now, the iPhone has the common person as their target market, and Nintendo is going back to target the hardcore gamer with the 3DS. Who will be the target of the Playstation phone?

Design it well. Remember the Nokia NGage? Let’s learn from its mistakes, shall we. It failed largely because it looked really ugly and it was almost unusable as a phone. The Playstation phone needs to look distinctively like a sleek, Sony style product. Like the Apple iPhone, customers have to be proud to take it out of their pockets to use it. It can’t look like every other Android phone out there. It can’t look like any of the Sony Erricson phones either. People should be able to be fifteen feet away and exclaim, “Hey, is that a Playstation phone?”

WAC Defectors: One More Year to Save Face?

Image via Wikipedia

Earlier, I had written that Hawaii was snubbed by the Mountain West by being passed over for an invitation. Fresno State and Nevada received invitations instead and quickly agreed.

Months later: Hawaii Football defeats both Fresno State and Nevada.

Now Fresno State and Nevada want to stay in the WAC another year. Looks like they don’t want to leave with a loss, huh?

Hawaii has defeated two WAC defectors. To make a statement, Hawaii will have to defeat one more.

The Cost of a Multi-Carrier iPhone

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

MG Siegler on the possibility of Apple releasing a cheap, unlocked iPhone for all carriers, in his article, ‘With Their Carrier-Crippling SIM, Can Apple Do What Google Chickened Out Of?‘:

The company has proven time and time again that they don’t care who they piss off in order to push their own agenda forward. That agenda includes creating the best consumer experience possible. A big part of that in the cellphone business would be allowing customers to buy a phone and pick carriers based on who has the best deals/options.

Sure, Apple might have leverage against the carriers in having the most popular cell phone, but MG forgot one thing: Apple makes their money off of hardware. They need carrier subsidies to meet the $199 price point.

Google makes their money off of advertising, and would have loved to subsidize HTC for a $99 Nexus One. But they caved because Google needed to create market share and needed to sate carrier demands.

Apple’s position is reversed. I’m sure Apple would love to make a $199 unlocked iPhone. But they can’t because they make their money from selling hardware, not advertising. If they sell a $199 unlocked iPhone, they’d lose money.

The all-carrier SIM that they’re probably working on with Gemalto is probably just a cost-cutting measure to be able to make multiple carrier iPhones out of the same factory lines.

Apple’s OSX Lion Magic Trick: Disappearing Scrollbars

 

Image by Tambako the Jaguar via Flickr

 

It seems that Apple might change the way scrollbars look and act in the next major OSX release, called Lion (10.7, due out in Summer ’11).

Obviously, this is an attempt to make the UI more iOS-like and be less cluttered. But is this the right thing to do? Let’s try to answer a few design-oriented questions to find out.

Do scrollbars take too much room? It seems that Steve Jobs thinks so. To a user on the iPhone and iPad, this is true. The scrollbars reserve space on many of your windows; precious real estate when your screen is only 3.5 inches across.

But does it take up too much room for the desktop user? Probably not. Screen resolutions–even on the Macbooks–are getting pretty big. I think the common user can spare the space. The Mac OS scrollbar is just the right size to find and use.

Despite that, I find myself hardly ever using the scrollbar anyway. Today, practically every mouse (or trackpad) available to buy has a scrolling function built into it.

Are scrollbars too distracting? Maybe. The worse thing about the standard Mac OS scrollbar, is that it’s bright blue. (This is a remnant from Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah’s Aqua UI.) And since the scrollbar is extended in many instances, the bright blue bar sticks out. This is more so than any other UI element. They’re down-right ugly, to some users.

Professional users would rather switch the appearance to graphite and better concentrate on the content of the window itself. Even some of Apple’s own applications, like Aperture, Color and all the new iLife applications, use non-standard scrollbars.

 

 

iPhoto's non-standard scrollbars in iLife '11

 

If they are distracting, would you hide them or do something else? Hiding scrollbars seems like overreacting, doesn’t it? I’m sure many people would rather Apple just switch to a simple white on black scroll bar (with a 3D look, of course), like the scrollbar used in Facetime for the Mac.

 

Facetime for the Mac

 

Would you fade them out to half opacity or hide them completely? Maybe a better thing to do would be fade the opacity of the scrollbars by a half. Doing this would keep them out of the way, but keep its on-screen usefulness to those who need it. On the other hand, hiding the scrollbar would take away the distraction completely.

How would you reveal a hidden scrollbar? I see two ways Apple could decide to reveal the scrollbar:

• When you hover your mouse mouse over (or around) the area where the scrollbar is. The downside is that the user wouldn’t know that there’s a scrollbar with which to interact until they accidentally discover it by the mouse-over.
• Whenever the mouse moves. The downside: scrollbars that appear and disappear that often would become very irritating very quickly.

Of course, I’m sure a hidden scrollbar would also reveal itself when someone uses a scroll wheel, ball, or scrolling action on their mouse/trackpad.

If you hide them, would the user miss the information they provide at a glance? There are two pieces of information that today’s scrollbars give:

• How big the document is.
• Where in the document you currently are.

There are only a few applications where users, at any given moment, want to know this. These are applications that handle long documents (or timelines). For example: word processors like Pages, document readers like Preview (when it’s a long document), and video editing apps like Final Cut.

Alternatively, I don’t think I’d miss them in web browsers, iTunes, iPhoto, or even Finder.

However, I can understand that there will be a few instances where a hidden scrollbar might cause a user to miss information further off the page.

At what level would hidden scrollbars be decided? There are many ways Apple could implement disappearing scrollbars:

• System wide: All applications are forced to adopt hiding scrollbars. (Well, applications that use standard scrollbars at least.)
• System user option: The users decide to turn this on or off through a system preference checkbox, much like how users can decide if the scroll arrows are placed together or not.
• Per application: Mac developers decide if the application they create has disappearing scrollbars or not. (This one seems the most likely.)
• Application user option: Users of an application turn it on or off through an application preference.

If the scrollbars are too distracting, what about the rest of the window interface elements? If Apple really does want a cleaner window, then it doesn’t have to stop at the scrollbars. Apple could hide titlebars, toolbars, and expansion boxes. Apple’s embrace of full screen applications are already a step in this direction. Even Quicktime X–which has been out for a while now–has controls and a title bar that hide.

Choosing to hide scrollbars is an interesting design choice, eh? If you were an Apple developer, what would you do?

Related Articles

• Thoughts on Mac OS X Lion (appreaders.com)
• Apple previews upcoming Mac OS X Lion (macworld.com)

Do SD Cards Make Smartphones Less Usable?

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

Paul Thurrott and Windows Phone Secrets has the scoop on Windows Phone 7 and its stance on removable media (SD cards).

Long story made short:

(Micro-SD Cards) must be placed under the battery cover and not be externally accessible. … What you can’t do is swap it out without hard resetting the device. That’s because the storage on the card and the internal storage is comingled, and the system makes no differentiation.

This brings up some questions on how removable storage works on Windows Phone 7 and is also a good exercise in design: If you support expansion cards, how do you implement them?

Do you volume-ize like the Nintendo Wii, making a clear separation between on-phone memory and card memory? How does the UI delineate what’s on what volume? If each volume has its own home screen(s), is that too complicated for the basic user or too constricting for a screen 3-5 inches big?

Within the phone’s UI, dow does the user keep track of the available space (memory) on volume? For the sake of simplicity, should you have to keep track in the first place?

What would you allow on each volume? Applications on one, and files on the other? Both on both? If separate, would that render applications useless if there’s no card? If both/both, how does the user indicate which applications or files go on which?

Do you stripe the volumes, making it act and look like one volume? Do you expect the user to keep track what’s on what? How does this affect the syncing process from phone to computer?

What happens when the the card is ejected while the phone is still on? Do the applications and/or files on the card just disappear? What happens if the phone is trying to write data on the card while it’s being ejected? Does the phone lock up? Does the phone ask you to reinsert the card? Does the phone ask you to restart?

Do you couple applications with associated files? What about standard format files that can be used by multiple applications?

That’s a lot of questions with no easy answers. Good design dictates that any additional power should not come at the expense of the understandability of the device. Seems like whatever the decisions, adding expansion card support would make the device less usable.

I remember using SD cards for my Handspring Treo and my Motorolla Q. I only kept MP3s on them, and never took the card out. Ever. Maybe that’s why I don’t miss them on my iPhone.

Related Articles

• Windows Phone 7 and Removable Storage (windowsphonesecrets.com)

Nokia’s Last Grasp at Relevance: Dual Boot

 

Image via Wikipedia

 

So, the Nokia N900 will be able to dual boot into Maemo 5 and MeeGo.

The question here is why. After all, it’s a phone! Not a desktop. Not a server. A phone! (They call it a mobile computer, but it’s really a bulky phone.) Why in the world would you want to dual boot a phone?!? This is like putting two engines on a scooter.

Dieter Rams once said, “Good design is as little design as possible.” Putting dual boot on a phone seems to blatantly break this design principle as if it were a glass egg thrown off a four story building.

So why does anyone have dual boot? To have access to a second set of applications.

If you simply look at Nokia and its place in the current phone marketplace, you can see why. Nokia is trying to make smart phones without the ‘smart’. None of the OSes that Nokia uses have an application ecosystem that can compare with iOS or Android.

So what does Nokia do? It sacrifices simplicity and usability for twice the amount of applications (which still doesn’t amount to much).

Its a message to developers: “We still matter.”

Developers to Nokia: “No, you don’t. Adopt Android.”

Will Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan Clash on Superman?

Image via Wikipedia

Last week it was announced that Zack Snyder would be taking the reins as director of the Superman reboot. The film is also being overseen (produced) by the man responsible for the Batman reboot, Batman Begins, Christopher Nolan.

The real concern here, though, is that Zack Snyder and Chris Nolan have wildly different styles.

Chris Nolan’s pictures have always had dark cinematography and grounded in realism. Batman Begins might be a bad example, because you’d expect the “caped crusader” to include more night scenes and shadows, but consider Nolan’s other films. Inception, The Prestige, and Memento all had much of the same, weathered, and bruiting feel–murky-colored.

Zack Snyder, on the other hand, has made films that were much more fantastical. No matter how much mud that Snyders puts in his movies, they always include brighter and more colorful elements. Look at the costumes in Watchmen, 300, and the upcoming Sucker Punch.

So who wins here?

If the primary colors of Superman (and positive boyscout attitude) have any say in the direction of the film, it will hopefully be Snyder. Even the main villain, General Zod, dictates a more action-based fist-against-fist storyline than a sinister Luthor-based one.

Will the new Superman have a sullen, gloomy look to it? I hope not. Superman does not belong in Gotham.

Who was Sally Menke?

Quentin Tarantino and Sally Menke, courtesy of The Guardian

The Guardian (UK), has written excellent pieces on Oscar-nominated Sally Menke, and her work as Quentin Tarantino’s go-to editor. They are both excellent reads.

From “Sally Menke obituary“, written by Ryan Gilbey:

Sally Menke, who has been found dead aged 56 after going hiking in California, was the most recent in a tradition of outstanding female film editors which includes Barbara McLean, Anne V Coates, Claudine Bouché, Verna Fields and Thelma Schoonmaker.

From “Sally Menke: the quiet heroine of the Quentin Tarantino success story“, written by Ben Walters:

It’s worth noting that the nurturing aspect of Menke and Tarantino’s relationship went both ways. Editing on Tarantino films would take place not at studio suites but in small, rented private houses – a more personal setup than the norm, but also perhaps a more isolated one. Tarantino thus got into the habit of asking cast and crew members to slip greetings into their work when the opportunity arose, to stop her feeling lonesome.

I hope Quentin continues to drop “Hi Sally” messages in dailies. Sally may not be there to cut film anymore, but she is there (for all cinema editors) in spirit.

Related Articles

• “Hi Sally” :: Sally Menke (zefrank.com)
• Sally Menke, Quentin Tarantino Film Editor, Found Dead In Griffith Park (huffingtonpost.com)

The Gap’s New Logo, Fixed

 

The New Gap Logo, from Marka Hansen

Gap unveiled it’s new logo.

 

Let me be civilized by saying, “Argh!”

Okay. So, I kind of get it. I can even visualize the business requirements:

• modernize it with a Helvetica-like font
• message: “we’re out of the box”
• pay tribute to the classic blue box
• KISS. keep it simple, stupid.

How ’bout this instead?

 

 

An Alternative New Gap Logo, from Kevin C. L. Chung

The Old Gap Logo

 

 

Related Articles

• Marka Hansen: The Gap’s New Logo (huffingtonpost.com)
• People not falling in love with new Gap logo (adweek.blogs.com)

What was said in the Adobe-Microsoft Meeting about Apple [satire]

Image via Wikipedia

The New York Times reported that Microsoft and Adobe met Yesterday to talk about how to deal with Apple. This is probably how the conversation went (and will go):

Microsoft: Hey Adobe! We have this new phone platform. Windows. 7. Phone. Series. Mobile. Etc. So good, our marketing department had to give it many names.

Abode: We’ve seen it. We don’t like the interface. We’re sure we could’ve designed a better one. Have you seen our icons? How bad ass are we, eh?

Microsoft: Yes, yes. Well, we’re afraid that it might fall into the same sort of fail the previous Windows mobile did. We’d blame ourselves and our lack on innovation. But that’s too convenient… so we’re going to blame Apple.

Adobe: We blame Apple too.

Microsoft: Yes, Apple. Our old nemesiseseses. We like to live back to the late 1990s when investors still liked our stock, so we think everything should be on the Web. But our efforts in the HTML5 area haven’t really yielded much yet… so we’re looking to you. And Flash. We can haz Flash?

Adobe: I guess. Just as long as we don’t have to comply with any human interface guidelines. We can have it ready in 6 months. And by that, we really mean 18 months.

Microsoft: That’s a little long. Can we just buy your company and pump billions into it? Then we can halt ALL Adobe Apple development. That’ll really be anti-competi… erm, I mean “vertical.” Like how we bought Bungie for Halo. You think we can successfully launch a platform like the XBox by ourselves? And we’re still making money off that. Why’d you think we named it ‘Reach’?

Adobe: Who do you think we are? Yahoo!? Just give us your billions. We’ll have Flash for Windows Phone ready by the time you launch version 7.1. And by that, we really mean 8.2.

18 months pass.

Microsoft: Hey, thanks for making Flash for Windows Phone! But it craps out half the time, and drains the battery in 30 minutes.

Adobe: Not our fault. Must be your SDK. Did you think we would develop with efficiency and stability in mind?

Microsoft: Well, at least we can use it as a marketing bullet point, I guess…

Adobe: We’ll call you the next time a platform decides to move forward instead of bask in our proprietary lock-in hell.

Related Articles

• Adobe Soars on Report of Possible Microsoft Bid (nytimes.com)
• Adobe Shares Rise on Report of Meeting With Microsoft (sfgate.com)
• Handicapping Names for Microsoft-Adobe (blogs.wsj.com)