Many, including myself, saw the iPad as a “a big iPod Touch”. It took only a few hours of use to completely dispel that belief. The iPad manages to combine a great deal of hardware into a single well designed piece of electronics. Sitting in front of a desktop computer, I look around and notice that all the following is combined into one: screen, CPU case, keyboard, mouse, and in the next version of the device the webcam will be integrated as well.

How did they do this ? Well – the device has become controller, input mechanism and output mechanism in one. By integrating the screen, and adding motion, position and touch sensors, it has become possible to use software to control what the device does with the input it receives. It is not necessary for the sensor that registers keystrokes to be JUST a keyboard anymore  – it can morph into the tip of a paintbrush or a controller for a weapon in a game. Similarly with other components – the screen can become a window on the world, it can be a placid pond, it can be a web browser, a calculator, a paint palette.

Of course the iPad can be used in many ways – as an entertainment device for pre-packaged content such as movies and TV series, or as a device for consuming interactive entertainment in the form of games. It makes the (in my opinion ill-conceived) concept of netbooks immediately redundant. It is serviceable for use as a limited business tool. And yes – for many it is an adequate replacement for print media, in particular magazines and books.

This post is not about the iPad. I am using the iPad to demonstrate that a device with many sensors, and a catholic approach to receiving input, can be used as a generic tool. The hardware itself becomes a generic substrate which is given concrete expression by the software running on the device. The iPad is the first of these devices, a primal ancestor of what is to come. I predict that increasing miniaturisation and the eventual arrival of practical nano-technology and programmable biology, will make “generic” hardware a common reality in ways which we cannot foresee yet. The Internet of Things will be the operating system for all our software.

In summary – convergence means more than the universal consumption of media on IP based devices. In the medium to long term convergence will come to mean the universal configurability of all devices, to deliver whatever function we wish them to deliver.

Ten years ago something like the iPad would have been considered science-fiction. Today’s science fiction will be the must-have product in two year’s time.

Let’s clear up the obvious question first – why have I never used an iPhone before, given that I live and work in the technology and Internet space ? The reason is simply that the device has never really featured in our core work. Yes – I am aware that it was a “game-changer”, yes, I am know that Apple has had unprecedented success with it. Our team has developed quite a number of iPhone apps during the course of the past year, and I have seen many demonstrations of the device’s capabilities. Quite a few SWAT staff members own and use iPhones regularly. And I have played around with iPhones in the past. However – I was recently given an iPhone 3G to use as a application test device (thanks @mcwneks) – and rather than look a gift horse in the mouth, I have started using the handset on a regular basis.

I was already reasonably familiar with the iPhone’s user interface – but what was new was having to deal with the device as an owner would. The very first thing I noticed was how heavy it is. Disconcertingly so, compared to my usual handset – an older model Blackberry Curve. Obviously I could never carry it in a shirt pocket.

The next disappointment was trying to insert a SIM card. It is virtually unbelievable that one has to use a tool, albeit a paperclip, to insert the card! Since this is not something one has to done with any frequency, I was still willing to forgive this small flaw.

But then came the deal-breaker – I connected to the local wireless network, and was faced with the iPhone’s keypad. I am a touch typist, and also a very fast typist on a Blackberry keyboard. It took me more than five minutes to correctly enter the network key. And then I attempted to create an account on the AppStore. After repeatedly (painfully) having to type in my username and password, and being informed that my account has not been activated (despite having clicked the email link to validate my account), it finally dawned on me that I have to install iTunes in order to validate my account.

My dislike of the iPhone stems from these two things:
In the first instance the very poor keyboard interface – I dread having to enter any text in the device. As a business user, who mostly use my mobile device to manage emails, this is an unforgivable failing.
In the second instance the manner in which one is forced to download and install software that is of little value to me, represents a huge problem. A mobile phone should not be tethered to the desktop. (Did I miss something here – is it possible to activate your account without installing iTunes ?). I should also mention that I am an Ubuntu user – and iTunes is decidedly unavailable for *nix users.

I feel very strongly that I will never use the iPhone as a mobile handset in the way that I use a BlackBerry. However – the device’s capabilities as an internet browser is outstanding. What I want is an iPod Touch with 3G capability, or an iPhone with a real keyboard.

Steve ?

Let me provide some background. The majority of our team members, both in South Africa and Brazil, had been Microsoft .Net developers at some point in their careers, and some had never been anything else. We used to hire people based – in part – on their expertise with Microsoft development tools.

As a business unit, SWAT comes into contact with a large number of organisations from around the globe that are members of the MIH group. In our interaction with these companies we were experiencing a great deal of resistance to implementing Microsoft software.

The reasons for this resistance were varied but often based on cost – both the cost of the software and the cost of the people who are skilled in the use of Microsoft tools. Cost was not the only consideration – the general perception out there is that the Web is built on open source software, and that open source is where the best developers want to place their efforts and build their reputations.

It was very clear that we had to cross the great divide if we wanted to stay relevant in the markets where the group operates.

Although we had never been a pure Microsoft shop – we used Flash technologies, Javascript , CSS and their kin, as well as various tools for mobile development – our core development tools were Microsoft Visual Studio, using C# with .Net and ASP.Net, and the challenge was to change our primary development platform.

Our greatest concern was what the reaction of the team members would be – I mentioned earlier that the majority of people in the team at that time were skilled in Microsoft technology, and we were worried that the re-skilling that would be required would present us with a very steep (and costly) learning curve. A further concern was that the changeover may cause people to leave the team, rather than lose the skills they have already acquired in Microsoft technologies.

Once the decision had been made to shift our focus to open source development, we had to choose a platform. The obvious choice was PHP 5.0. “Obvious” because of the wide popularity of the language within the group, the wide support for PHP and the vibrant PHP community. An additional consideration was that PHP is fairly similar to C#, in terms of syntax and in terms of being a “traditional” object oriented language. Although we considered options such as Ruby, we concluded that PHP would represents the best option for migrating to open source.

It has been more or less a year since we finally phased out Microsoft tools, and here’s the summary of our experience:

• Great programmers do not care about the language. We lost no-one because they wanted to work only on Microsoft platforms.
• The web IS built with open source tools – and using open source tools gave us a wider audience.
• Costs for software development tools have plummeted to virtually zero.
• The Microsoft Visual Studio IDE is one of the best (if not the best) development environments available.
• If you are going to use open source, you must be willing to change and adapt all the time. Frameworks, tools and methodologies are continuously changing in the open source world – forget about well-planned migration routes for technology. Be pragmatic, and use what works. We still use Microsoft tools when our clients require it.
• Because it is open source, it is possible to look into the code to find why things do not work as expected. Often it is very hard to find the solution, and there is hardly ever a helpdesk which you can call. But you can look if you want – the option is there.
• Microsoft is not bad. In our experience it is simply a matter of choosing the most appropriate tool for the job, and the Microsoft tools are more suited for enterprise development. Although of course the platform CAN be used for web development.

In summary – the decision to go open source was the best decision for our team, and I would encourage every team that does web development to do the same thing.

(Following soon – SWAT South Africa in pictures)

Before the battle ... Miguel, Tadeu, Rafael, John

Jacques and Roberto

Red team crying after losing...Tadeu, John, Felippo

Renato and Rafael - ready to give their all

BOPE...Otavio and Jacques

Winning team member - Dani Valentin

True grit - Felippo and Renato

His sorrows are drowning him...Felippo

@Braz - Rafael, Otavio, Jacques, Dani, Renato, Katie

@Braz - John, Hein, Katie, Roberto, Tadeu, Miguel, Rafael, Otavio, Jacques, Dani, Renato

I believe that there will always be a relatively small, and relatively very privileged, community of web users in Africa who will be able to use the services which the web enables from devices such as laptops, PCs and iPhones. These are the people who will blog, post youtubes, tweets, flickrs and who “get” the web the way it is being used in North America, Western Europe, and the wealthier parts of the East.There is a much larger part of Africa that is unlikely to ever be able to meet the energy requirements for running desktop (or laptop) computers that are capable of providing full, broad-band consuming, graphically intense user experiences to the consumer. And what’s more – it is my contention that this part of Africa will never need, nor want this service.

Why ? Because of “cultural” differences ? Because of “too low” standards of education ? No – absolutely not. The reason is that Africa will find new, and different uses for the web – for the services that are enabled on the internet – because Africa has different needs. The devices that Africans use to access the web will not be the devices that immediately comes to our minds (us being technologists, geeks, hackers, bloggers, twitterati and the like). It will NOT be iPhones, Blackberries, Macbooks, Dells nor Sonys. I doubt that netbooks are going to feature in any significant way. Africa is going to be mobile.

Africa is going to use mobile devices, with very low energy requirements. Durable, portable devices. Devices that provide utility, not bling. Devices that are hand-cranked, and that can eat sunlight. Africa will use the internet to create a web of relationships. Africans will stay in contact, and foster community using the web their (our) way.

It is up to us – the technologists and evangelists – to facilitate what Africa needs. Let’s take a step back and see the web as an immensely versatile protocol and philosophy that can be adapted to a great many needs. The web is about linking – and we do not need Flash to do that. WAP will do.