RIM: Where it stumbled, why RIM still matters and How to fix it

Well, RIM has been in all the news for the past month for all the wrong reasons: lackluster sales, sales estimate cuts and a plummeting share price, you name it. It's always sad to see a once great brand that builds great products diminish in such a way and in such proportions. I obviously wasn't old enough, or perhaps not even born but many will remember when Apple in the late 80s to the mid 90s began to lose its feet and if it wasn't for Steve Job's return to the company he created we mightn't be seeing the iPhone and Mac as they are that have influenced and helped to greatly shape consumer electronics. Sony, currently are elbow deep in a similar sort of decline, in which once ubiquitous and world changing products they created are struggling to even be noticed in a tidal wave of competition. For many, the advent of the Apple iPhone and rise of Google Android marked a beginning of a rapid decline for the maker of the Blackberry.

WHERE RIM STUMBLED:

Perhaps it is only suitable to begin this here editorial with a discussion of how Research In Motion have found themselves in this precarious conundrum. Let's face it, RIM were breezing before the iPhone came around. They had a clear vision for their products and their devices were selling well to both their two distinct consumer groups at the time: the social savvy and the enterprise consumer. I believe that much of the reason that made their vision so straightforward was the fact that the concept of the smartphone itself was so uniform back then. Smartphone was deemed as a device with exclusive features for people who needed them, not wanted them for mindless time consumption or...fun, for want of a better word. Having said that, there was ultimately nothing truly fun about a smartphone when the 'Berry was king, at least not to the extent to which it could be considered more entertaining than the average dumb-phone.

There were several things that made Blackberry unique, and thus, far superior to their competitors: the keyboard, BES services, BBM and of course just the unmistakeable look and feel of a Blackberry. BES services and BBM are the two key points here and they really serve to highlight what went so right with RIM, and subsequently with the arrival of Apple and Google, what went so wrong. Essentially, RIM knew who their products were for and therefore delivered appropriately. A potent combination of a high-quality keyboard and the acclaimed Blackberry Messenger sealed the deal for a solid product for the social consumers. Additionally, BES (Blackberry Enterprise Server) provided a secure and powerful experience for the business consumers, completing once again, a flawless offering.

So what went wrong? The introduction of the Apple iPhone, initially laughed off by Steve Ballmer (don't get me wrong, I love Steve Ballmer) augured a significant shift in the smartphone landscape. The iPhone didn't just bring the smartphone concept to the mass market, but it shifted the entire form factor of the traditional smartphone entirely. Suddenly, the things that had made the Blackberry unique, were undermined significantly. The novelty of the capacitive touchscreen iPhone diminished the appeal of RIM's small display and keyboard combination. Not only this, but the introduction of the now enormous App Store raised the iPhone's after-market appeal enormously and more importantly widened the devices' potential use cases. Blackberry users began to question 'hey, why can't my phone do that?'

Fast-forward three years later, and we see RIM as it is now. Stumbling badly and thus far unable to create a product that truly sticks. What's most saddening isn't that Apple, subsequently Google and potentially Microsoft beat RIM at the smartphone game, but how little RIM did to stop it. The technology industry is a bit like quicksand, the further down you go the progressively harder it gets to climb back up. And I don't mean this in an 8 steps down 8 steps up kind of respect, but more an exponential relationship. Had RIM capitalised on the loyalty of their consumers rather than purely relying on them, the Blackberry's market share probably wouldn't be sliding to quite the extent it is now. Perhaps not sliding at all.

RIM separated themselves somewhat from the emerging smartphone pack and focused on continuing to deliver brilliant messaging and enterprise services whilst the 'fun' factor and user experience so prevalent in competitors slipped by the wayside. This short-sighted decision making was driven by one thing, and one thing only: overconfidence. With the prior success of their products, RIM were simply too confident in their own ways and their own purpose to consider rethinking their products. Consequently, with too much focus to their traditional ways, BBM became the only thing keeping the social savvy consumers attached to their Blackberry's, but the sacrifices that had to be made to obtain this service continued to build to a certain breaking point where the scales tipped out of RIM's favour. Because of this, the Blackberry's market share continues to slip. It reminds me a lot of my situation with my Walkman. The same can be said for the enterprise customers, though certainly to a lesser extent. To many of these business consumers, Blackberry isn't just a phone, it's a way of life. It's so rare and special to be able to boast such exceptional brand loyalty. But if RIM can't deliver products that can simply do more things...well they're going to lose them too.


WHY RIM STILL MATTERS:
This is not just another RIM bashing article, because I strongly believe that RIM still definitely has the assets to get themselves back on track. RIM has not sunk completely into a deep realm of despair and irrelevance. Actually, quite the opposite, to the average Joe's consumer the Blackberry still represents professional and quality handsets and devices.

As much as you can try to convince yourself that it's not, the simple fact is: brand matters. Brand matters a lot. And despite all of RIM's problems, their greatest asset, the intangible 'Blackberry' name is still almost entirely intact. It is arguably the only thing keeping RIM's head above the water. Ask around, and you'll find that most Blackberry users with the exception of the business consumers don't have much in defence of their purchase aside from the fact that 'Bro, it's a Blackberry'. And rightly so, if it's a Blackberry then it must have something going for it. Such a ubiquitous and powerful brand is so rare to see in any industry. In the mobile market the Blackberry name is only rivalled by the iPhone, and from my perspective, is still unmatched. Just the pure delight of telling people that you have a 'Blackberry' goes a very long way. The contributing factors that build this brand though are equally as important to RIM, and these are the things that they can effectively leverage to get themselves back on track. So far, they've made all the right steps towards this redemption.

One thing I've noticed is that there is still something unmistakeably RIM about their products. I had a chance to play with the Blackberry Playbook over the weekend and it was everything that I dreamt it would be: solid, fast and it exhibited a kind of professional polish unparalleled by any Android tablet that I have ever tried. With mobile devices like tablets, even the slightest of lags or missed touches can detract from the user experience significantly because these imperfections are very obvious in touchy-feely devices like this. Having said this, the Playbook ran unbelievably smoothly. Multitasking on the Playbook was brilliant, better than any tablet currently on the market. Most importantly, in just holding, grabbing and using the device I could immediately tell that 'This is a Blackberry'. Such significant brand awareness is enormously hard to achieve, and to have such a powerful asset at their disposal is healthy proof that RIM still matters.

One of the hardest things to achieve in this viciously crammed tablet market is finding ways to differentiate your products from the competition. I outlined this quandary in an older article where I discussed that the accessibility and availability of Android has definitely given consumers choices, but vendors are finding themselves providing virtually identical products to their competitors. RIM has an advantage here, despite their vastly smaller ecosystem, with the acquisition of QNX, RIM decided that it would take the challenging but rewarding path to exclusivity as opposed to the easy path to mediocrity via the Android wave. RIM's announcement that the QNX platform would be used in the company future smartphones is promising in two very important respects: not only are they laying down the foundations for their own platform with their own ecosystem of apps and services but also, given how well QNX works on the Playbook, well, I can only imagine good things.

The Playbook can arguably be considered as RIM's first step to a new beginning. A new platform, a new form factor and a brilliant web experience take a great diversion from the traditional RIM that we have known in the past, the same one that has failed to adapt and is struggling currently. It has been a wobbly first step, no doubt and the continual flooding of Android tablets has offered little succour for a Playbook struggling in a price battle. But I can't help but contemplate whether the Playbook I used over the weekend  was the same Playbook receiving lackluster reviews on many tech sites across the net. It certainly didn't feel like it. It's such a shame then that RIM brought the Playbook to market half-baked and essentially killed off the hype that could have surrounded a potentially exceptional product at launch. Having said this, the Playbook is still a work in progress, but once the omissions are filled (as promised) and the Playbook is able to reach its full potential, I have not an inkling of doubt that the Playbook with its exceptional design, stellar performance and Blackberry name prowess can conquer the shallow 7 inch tablet market.

HOW WOULD I FIX RIM:
So where do we take it from here? The key now, as it always is, is to build an ecosystem around the Blackberry platform and the products and integrate them. Direct integration between the Playbook and Blackberry smartphones is rather lacking currently. Blackberry Bridge perhaps is mildly useful for enterprise consumers but I can't imagine it being very useful for consumers and it would be useless for those without a Blackberry smartphone. RIM need to know that they can't simply lock their consumers in anymore, particularly since their prison is no longer the pleasant stay it used to be. RIM has to realise that ecosystems aren't a selling point of a product but merely a way of providing more integrated services for consumers and furthermore enticing them to buy further into the ecosystem. Thus, a poor product line-up and great ecosystem is of no help since there is no stand out product to effectively lure consumers in in the first place. Engadget 'Switched On' writer Ross Rubin stated 'if you're going to lock in consumers, it's best to build a prison that people want to move into anyway'. I couldn't possibly put it better myself.

RIM in the past thrived on created services and products exclusively for their own devices. But I believe RIM now has to warm up to the idea of working with others and integrating their products with other services out there. For example the Playbook video calling app only works with other Playbooks. Wouldn't it be nice if it talk to other devices too? You could argue that Apple's Facetime is also proprietary, however for Apple it's excusable because they've reached a certain level of ubiquity with their products that it's an unnoticeable hindrance. An owner of a Playbook on the other hand would be hard pressed to find a mate with one too. Even the popular BBM is beginning to lose its popularity as consumers are beginning to find that they can find comparable services that have the ability to converse with other platforms too. With a declining market share, sticking by their proprietary ways would simply convert into a deathly spiral for RIM. They simply no longer have a large enough customer base to make proprietary services useful. It's time for RIM to play nice with others, it's no longer everyone living in RIM's world, it's RIM living in everyone else's world.

That's probably the most important thing I would change at RIM, because proprietary is only really useful if they can leverage a large market share, which is something that RIM has undeniably lost. It's also important that RIM doesn't stop chasing the consumer business. I've read many articles saying that RIM should stick to investing more in enterprise services and providing for enterprise consumers which is traditionally what they've been known for. But the fact is, the Blackberry does mean something to average consumers and it would be wasteful to not take advantage of such a powerful brand. Furthermore, a pursuit of the consumer business is definitely a safer option because, hey, business people like to browse app stores and use 'fun' apps too. If RIM invest solely in the enterprise market and the consumer competitors are able to match or even come close to them in this market, then the competitors' advantage in more 'consumerised' products and services would guarantee a death to RIM's one-trick pony.

Amidst all the negativity, I feel like I'm the only one that has any confidence in RIM. But I think RIM still has plenty of potential. If RIM utilise QNX appropriately and efficiently, I personally do think they have a gem in their possession.

How would you fix RIM?

Playstation Vita sentiments and a forecast for the gaming handheld

Evolution is a biological term that aims to explain the development and change of living organisms throughout a long progression of time. It is universally known that humans as a species used to be apes. Though I still know some people who have not quite left this atavistic state. For gamers, the passion and love for their devices pathologically turns them into living organisms, and thus it can be said that they evolve over time, through the biological process. This can be certainly said for gaming which has gone through its fair share of 'natural' evolution. Its consumer demographics, manufacturers and content have all evolved dramatically throughout time. Along with this, gaming turned from a cult, into a passion and now into a pastime. Now, with the spread of gaming's accessibility, is it now turning casual?

Core gamers grimace at the very thought that their absolute passions can turn out to be someone else's method of time wasting. However the past 5 years to the present has seen gaming go through yet another one of these evolutions; this time, it is the inexorable rise of smartphone gaming. Gaming back in the day was a form of media split by two extremes, you were either a gamer or you weren't. Handheld gaming only existed in forms applicable to people who actually wanted to game. You wouldn't buy a DS or a PSP because you wanted to web browse or take photos. However, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. Smartphones and similar devices have certainly widened the consumer demographic for gaming but in a much more diluted kind of fashion.

The once dichotomous relationship between gamers and non-gamers has now turned into an almost sibling like relationship, in that core gamers and casual gamers are both gamers alike, but fiercely rivalled kin in one big happy family. Having said this, all of this mobile gaming talk is irrelevant unless I put it into context. What does it mean for the core gaming scene? What does it mean for the Playstation Vita?

I've been very frustrated with Sony recently, I didn't believe Sony made the entirely correct decision to opt for Android on their mobile devices, and their blatant apathy to what was once their strongest brand - the Walkman - has been nothing short of unresourceful. Sony was criticised by many sceptics with the initial announcement of the NGP for cooking a tried and failed recipe. Hardware superiority since the earliest days has always been one of Sony's key strengths, however the critics argued that Sony once again betting on pure hardware superiority would prove to be a game loser. These claims though, were short-sighted. From where I stand, the Playstation Vita's (NGP's) unfaltering approach is the best decision Sony has made in a very long time.

Now I have a bit of a confession to make: I'm not a game fanatic, in actual fact it will surprise you that I'm not a gamer at all and my gaming accolade can be summed up with the occasional session of 'Pipe Riders' on Miniclip and a 2 kill streak playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on a PS3 at my mate's place. While camping.

Speculation that mobile and casual gaming will bring detriment to core portable gaming devices and other dedicated consoles is...well nothing more than speculation. The slow sales of the Nintendo 3DS and PSP, particularly the PSP Go has fuelled this short-sighted theory, and the success of Apple's mobile contraptions have continued to feed this fat rumour monster.

Looking down on casual gamers. Those n00bs!

It must be considered though, that dedicated handheld gaming has never quite appealed hugely to the masses, and in many ways has simply been considered as an extension to the primary gaming machine, which is the console hooked up to your television. It's a niche, and will most likely remain that way. I would say that the slow sales of these handheld gaming devices has been attributed to a lack of innovation from the manufacturers but also just a natural lack of potential consumers. The PSP 3000 and Nintendo DS both successfully skimmed the portable gamers from the top of the gaming pack, and their successors haven't provided anything worthy to warrant a necessary upgrade.

Frankly, I think Apple's dominance in the mobile devices market has had almost aught effects in core gaming. In actual fact, relating them in the first place is simply an impertinent comparison. When Steve Job's boasted that the iPod Touch had outsold Sony and Nintendo we all found the very notion quite astounding, that a newcomer could create such a splash. However the statistics were a grossly unfair comparison summed up perfectly with the most overused pun in consumer electronics: comparing apples to oranges. This superficial look at the handheld gaming segment didn't address on key factor, and that is that gaming is not the primary and only selling point with the iPod Touch and iPhone. Like I mentioned before, for smartphones, gaming is a second thought. This gives these devices one enormous advantage when its come to their selling power: and that is multiple selling points, and thus a larger potential consumer demographic.

So, it's not surprising that the iPod Touch outsold Nintendo and Sony combined, because in essence it is more than one device. A more just comparison would have been to place side by side Nintendo and Sony's sales against the consumers who bought an iPod Touch specifically for gaming. I'll be damned if Apple still emerged the winner. The point I'm trying to make is that the dedicated handheld gaming market is here to stay. Casual gaming devices like the iPod Touch don't quite have the firepower, and probably never will to penetrate the desires of core gamers.

The Playstation Vita exemplifies Sony's sentiments regarding core gaming, and that is that core gaming will never turn casual. In the mobile gaming market, casual will always be king purely in terms of the magnitude of its customer base, and that's an unavoidable fact. But, conversely there will always be a small market for the consumers who want to take the experience of their home console wherever they go, and that's where Playstation Vita comes in. By sticking steadfastly by their niche market, Sony have maintained the value of their Playstation brand, and the loyalty of their consumers who, like the company they idolise, will never go casual. Betting on hardware superiority was not only the right way to go because it leveraged Sony's strength in hardware, but it's a product that their current consumer base can connect with. And with a price like US$250 for the base Wi-Fi model, it's an invitation for outsiders to join the family.

It can be argued that the likes of smartphones and other forms of casual gaming will eventually reach the level of core gaming through technological progression, after all, there's no end to improvement. However it is a fact, that it's impossible to ever reach the potential of a dedicated device on a less focused one. Smartphones have managed to reach a similar level of gaming that the PSP 3000 or PSP Go currently offer. By raising the benchmark almost impossibly high with Playstation Vita, Sony has brought very deep sentimental pleasure to core gamers. Now, handheld gamers don't have to feel like the casual invasion is catching up on them. Additionally, this is finally a worthy upgrade for current PSP users.

Having said that, what does 'Vita' mean? Kaz had a lot to say about the term Vita at E3:

"Vita means life, and we're confident that Playstation Vita will be the first product that truly blurs those lines between Playstation entertainment and your real life." - Kaz Hirai.

As Windows 8 changes the rules of Apple’s game

It's been over a week since Microsoft opened up the Windows to Windows 8 at Computex. Windows 8 is undoubtedly the biggest and boldest step that Microsoft have taken with their ubiquitous Windows platforms. Big and bold doesn't always win, but in all honesty it was a move Microsoft had to make, and in many ways Windows 8 still has one foot stuck in the old pond. Ross Rubin in his Switched On column on Engadget summed the change up perfectly with his article title: Windows loses it Windows. And it has indeed. It would not be an outrageous proposition if Microsoft decided to call the upcoming operating system 'Microsoft Tiles'.

Microsoft's latest projects has sparked much debate between analysts and journalists, some saying that the 'one for all' approach compromises on necessary features for both tablet and PC devices, however some say that the convergence provides an unrivalled feature set and experience for both devices. To be honest, I don't agree with any of these, neither do I believe that Windows 8 will be a failure. I like Windows 8 and I believe its potential is interesting and will have enormous effects on the market, both for tablets and personal computers.

Apple's approach to tablets and personal computers is obvious and straight-forward. They've stressed that we live in a post-pc age, essentially where our mobile devices become the core of our computing experiences as opposed to our traditional personal computers. This article comes at a fitting time since Mac OS X Lion was just announced a few days ago which gives me a solid ground for comparison. Lion brings many really interesting and innovative features to OS X, including the iPad like launchpad and multiple desktops – a feature that I really love. The multi-touch gestures that allow you to sweep between desktops and full screen applications and the launchpad all exemplify Apple's continual push for Post-PC. Apple is tablet-ifying the PC.

Microsoft's approach to the two computing segments is remarkably different. To be quite frank, I don't believe Microsoft has ever taken the tablet seriously until now, and most certainly doesn't have the same ideas as Apple on what a tablet should be. In Apple's eye a tablet is a new device that simplifies and makes tasks more convenient. In Microsoft's eyes, a tablet is a convenient and portable version of your PC. Microsoft are clearly aware that the user experience needs to be better optimised for touch-screen, but Windows 7 running on a tablet represents the power and versatility that Microsoft believes is possible in a tablet, and Windows 8 finally provides the user experience which has become imperative in our gadgets.

In essence, while Apple is busy tablet-ifying our PCs, Microsoft is busy PC-ing our tablets. And with the one OS for all approach is also making our PCs a little more like tablets. There was one particular announcement that stood out for me, and that was the announcement that Windows 8 would have the ability to run legacy applications despite the OS's monumental shift away from traditional Windows. This announcement surprised everyone, me included. After all, it would have been a hole-proof strategy to have built the tablet OS separately and maintained and optimised the original Windows OS for traditional personal computers. After all, two separate operating systems would allow Microsoft to fully focus on two different segments and thus provide a full experience for both. Right? It’s very easy to question Microsoft’s intelligence here, especially since surely they have learnt that desktop operating systems clearly don’t work on tablets. However, I doubt Microsoft took this decision lightly. Microsoft’s intentions are more complex than simply providing an operating system that works on tablets and PCs.

What Hybrid PCs would look like (Samsung Slider 7)

I believe that Microsoft is trying to combine the two devices. The risky approach accounts for this perfectly. Windows 8 provides OEMs a potent combination of a beautiful and user friendly tablet UI without doing away entirely with a powerful experience. Naturally, vendors are going to try and leverage both these assets of Windows 8 resulting in a breed of ‘hybrid tablet PCs’. By hybrid tablet PC, I’m referring to the likes of the Samsung Sliders and Asus Transformer. With a touch display to take advantage of the tablet UI and a keyboard to align with the power experience which Microsoft doesn't want to compromise. I’d be hard pressed to say that anyone missed the days of the spin around display tablets of old, I’m experiencing a bit of deja vu here. But unlike previously, I can actually see some real and genuine potential.

In my article stating my views on 'post-pc' I stated that notebook and tablet hybrids are a compromise. They neither offer the pure portability of a stand-alone tablet nor the power and versatility of a notebook PC. However much of the basis of my conclusion was simply that there was no OS optimised for a hybrid device. Before the unveiling of Windows 8 we only had a purely PC operating system and purely tablet and mobile operating systems. With Microsoft's new operating system, they aren't just providing these devices a second shot at life, but they're going to give birth to a new generation of them.

Windows 8 is interesting in that I definitely envision it to be successful in its hybrid form factor, but I can hardly see it as an upgrade for desktops or even normal notebooks currently. A touch oriented UI like the one on Windows 8 will never, and allow me to stress, never, work effectively on hardware that operates with mouse and cursor. Even with the easy keyboard controls that Microsoft promises. I mean, just because there's ultimately nothing wrong with operating the new Metro UI with the keyboard does not mean that it's necessarily better than what we currently have with Windows 7. No way in hell will enterprise which are traditionally slow to adopt new technologies upgrade to a new OS which works in an unwieldy manner with the hardware they currently own. Because of this, I don't really see Windows 8 as a new operating system but rather as an extension to what we have currently. As far as the demos have shown us, Windows 8 operating on a computer without touch-input is awkward, and more importantly not worth an upgrade over Windows 7.

Despite this, I'm absolutely certain Windows 8 on a hybrid PC will sure be a winner for new computer buyers.

Overall, I like Windows 8. It’s innovative, new and daring, but it remains to be seen whether it will be successful. Windows 8 will prove itself to be highly interesting and definitely one to watch. And the unexciting desktop computer space may finally exhibit a long sought for transformation. The touch optimisation of Windows 8 has strong potential to launch a new line of touch desktops, like the Vaio L. In 5 - 7 years time with Windows 8, perhaps our desktop will look like huge touch-screen slates on our desks, wouldn’t that just be marvellous?

OS X Lion is a solid update for Mac computers, but for once maybe Apple played it too conservative (but then again $30 for a new operating system is impossible to say no to). The hybrid PC’s that Microsoft has laid the eggs for could well be the thing that dismantles the universal view of what tablets are. Apple has told the world that tablets are personal ‘post-pc’ devices that are convenient with a beautifully natural user experience. With Windows 8, Microsoft wants to tell the world that tablets don’t have to be ‘post-pc’ and that it’s legitimately possible to combine the power of a full Windows experience with the nature and beauty of optimised tablet UI design. In a similar way that Apple created the game with the iPad, Microsoft has come in and is changing the rules. The big questions is, whether these new rules will gain the acceptance of the masses.

Why I love you, Sir Windows Phone

I'm going to keep this intro short, sharp and shiny. An untimely and most unbidden event occurred to me a couple of weeks ago, my Walkman lost its ability to charge. Often, it's quite difficult to forget instinctive life procedures, however I've got to hand it to my Walkman X1060, she just forgot. And what's more, she's also blatantly refusing to talk to my computer. I've just ordered a new cable off eBay just in case it's a cable problem and I'm still waiting for that to arrive, just hopefully that will fix my Walkman's most unfortunate disorder. Despite this, I know my Walkman won't last forever so I've been searching for alternatives to replace my mobile device shortage, I've decided to settle on the fact that Sony won't ever release a decent Walkman ever again.

The sheer immensity of available devices on the market was simply astounding, I went in with the expectation of landing on my dream device within a day or two, however only a fortnight later have I come to a really solid conclusion. This might surprise you, but I have fallen head over heels for Windows Phone 7. It's disappointing that this operating system is often frowned upon in the tech world for its lack of...well tech geeky features. The lack of customization is probably the OS's biggest claim to shame. Windows Phone 7 has taken a different approach than some of its competitors, and even Microsoft themselves in the past has taken, an entirely different approach. Making an operating system easily accessible and customisable places the nerd in heaven, but often too much freedom and too many options leads to inconsistent and unreliable experiences. Windows, and the previous Windows Mobile have a reputation for being highly technical, at least more so than its competitors. However this time round, I support Microsoft's new approach and strict hardware guidelines for Windows Phone devices, because boy does it pay off.

Microsoft's UI design philosophy

User interface is one of the prime factors of a great mobile experience, and this is the area where Windows Phone 7 truly delivers. It doesn't just deliver because of its visual appeal, nor is it because of its mind-blowing animations, but it is extraordinarily fun to use. The UI experience of Windows Phone really succeeds in taking a big jump away from traditional UI designs epitomised by the likes of iOS and Android. The multiple home screen and widget design of Android simply looks outdated when laid side by side with a Windows Phone. It allows us to beg the question of why we honestly need so many home screens, Windows Phone makes do with one beautifully scrolling collection of 'live tiles'. To be brutally honest, I've never met anyone who actually uses more widgets than the music player, clock, calendar, weather and news feeds; let alone use up all of their home screens. It also shows us why Apple haven't bothered with a widget implementation on their iOS platform yet, though competitive pressure somewhat obliges Apple to do so with their iOS 5.

Live tiles: Another winner for Windows Phone. To be honest I haven't had much experience with the live tiles, as you really have to own the phone for a period of time to evaluate its real world practicality and usefulness. But the concept is brilliant and far as my 10 minute trial of it went, my god its amazing! It really does add to create a really pleasurable mobile experience. The idea of Live Tiles is you can pin the things that matter to you most onto the start screen, and it will show you any updates that occur live. For example, I'm an avid Facebook user, so the Facebook Live Tile will show me any notifications that I receive without the need to access the application. And also without any irritating notification pop-ups. Same goes for Twitter and many many other applications. Heck, I can even pin people to my Live Tile display. Stalking just got a whole lot easier.

Music + Video Hub and the general WP7 sliding interface

Another thing I noticed when using Windows Phone is the feeling that things just really flow. Mind you, I'm not referring to a 'no lag' or 'high-speed' experience here but the design of the 'Metro UI'. Take the Music and Video hub or Zune as an example. When you first open the application it presents you with a list of essentially what you can do: music, video, podcast etc. But if you simply swipe to the right it will present you with your media history of all the tracks you last listened to, swipe to the right again and it will show you new additions to your library of media. This exceptional interface design is really successful in challenging and taking a jab at the concept of navigational buttons (non-tactile obviously). If you're in the music menu, there is no need to tap at anything to switch between the metadata you're viewing, rather swipe to the left or right to switch between artist or album or genre. Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 UI feels natural and intuitive - a theme I discussed in my previous article about the fate of the PC and evolving technologies.

It can be said that the umbrella reason why Windows Phone provides such a pleasurable experience - for me at least - is that it feels like a phone designed for you and adapted to your needs. Most consumers don't like having to adapt and learn their technologies, but rather in essence have technology learn the way they want to do things. This is an area where Windows Phone has hit a home run, perhaps even two home runs with one ball.

UI design is severely underrated, tech analysts have made a big deal about how many apps are available on a platform, how highly featured it is and what not. At the end of the day though, the user interface is what you feel, touch and experience and this should be the thing that makes or breaks a purchase. It's not to say the UI of competing platforms is poor, but this is an element where Windows Phone absolutely delivers. The application range of Windows Phone measures poorly against some competing platforms, but it is sufficient and will continue to grow. I'm going to throw my eggs into the Microsoft basket, and I'll be damned if the platform never gains traction.

Who has a Windows Phone and what are your thoughts on it?

*Next week, I will be doing an in-depth discussion behind the potential of Windows 8 and what it means for consumers and the tech industry.*