SAN FRANCISCO – When I’m on the road, there are few tools in my arsenal that I value more than video chat. But as much as I love it for boosting communication with colleagues during the day and saying goodnight to my kids at bedtime, managing the current mess of disparate and disconnected chat services is a massive pain. And, as the new BlackBerry PlayBook clearly shows, it’s time for a little unity.

Research In Motion’s new tablet, the BlackBerry Playbook, supports video chat through its front-facing camera. So does the Samsung Galaxy Tab. And, according to rumor, so will the second coming of the iPad. The current array of smartphones such as the iPhone 4 and the EVO 4G also support video chat. But so far, it doesn’t appear that any of these devices will actually talk to each other–and that’s just wrong.

As someone who’s been using video conferencing in fits and starts since the mid-1990s, I’m absolutely astounded at the industry’s failure to establish and embrace a unified video conferencing system that works across multiple devices and networks. Rather than move toward a common center by adopting a common standard that lets AIM and iChat users talk to Google and Skype customers, and leaves room for any new service to jump in on the conversation, the leaders in the space have consistently put Silicon Valley power politics ahead of user experience by vying for dominance in the long-nascent category–thereby rendering almost unusable (by mainstream standards) a technology that everyone assumed would have been commonplace before the turn of the century.

Now that Apple, Google, and RIM are bringing this experience to handheld devices, the problem is going to get even worse unless these companies find a way to bridge the video divide. Apple’s FaceTime–originally launched on the iPhone, extended to the iPod Touch, and expected to be available in the next-generation iPad–could possibly emerge as that bridge.

Apple established FaceTime as an open software standard for video chat, meaning that third-parties are welcome to build on it and implement it in their own devices. Details of the video chat protocol used by the RIM PlayBook are not yet known, but screenshots of the device have icons and images that are reminiscent of FaceTime.

Apple has ambitious plans to sell 10 million FaceTime capable devices in 2010 and tens of millions more in 2011. As impressive as that seems, though, its not enough to cement FaceTime as the de facto video chat standard.

But, if devices like the PlayBook get on the FaceTime bandwagon, it could start to gain momentum and reach a level of critical mass. Its not necessarily important that FaceTime, or any single video chat protocol become dominant, but it would certainly help video chat meet user expectations if the various smartphones, tablets, and other mobile devices can all find a way to play nice together.

SAN FRANCISCO – Hardly a week goes by without some fresh evidence of Android’s growing success.

The latest example comes from research firm Quantcast, which on Friday released data showing that Google’s mobile operating system stole significant market share from every other contender in August, especially Apple’s iOS.

By the end of that month, Android had risen to account for 25 percent mobile Web consumption, whereas Apple’s iOS had fallen to 56 percent. Research in Motion’s BlackBerry OS was down to 9 percent.

The real story, of course, is in the trend lines. To get to its present spot, Android rose 2 percent in share over the course of the month, 5.5 percent over the quarter, and a full 18.6 percent over the past year. For iOS it was quite the reverse, taking the operating system down 0.3 percent in share over the month, 3.1 percent in the quarter, and a whopping 11.4 percent over the year.

In other words, Apple’s loss is Android’s gain. Much as iPhone fans might argue the reverse, it’s also no real surprise. In fact, there are three key reasons Android is stealing iOS’s thunder.

1. Choice

Choice is good; it means you can get whatever is best for your business and your users. In the mobile context, Android opens up a world of choice that’s just not available to iOS users.

* In hardware: There’s only one iPhone, and it’s available from one vendor: Apple. That’s not much of a selection from a company that encourages consumers to “think different.” With Android, however, the fact that the platform is mostly open means that the door is wide open on hardware possibilities, including variations in processor, display and other form factor features. Who likes to be forced into one option? One-size-fits-all rarely fits anyone well.

* In the carrier: Even more significant, in my opinion, is the fact that Android users are not restricted to a single carrier. Even if Verizon gets added as an alternative to AT&T for the iPhone, a choice between two still can’t compete with the many options available to Android users. Every major cellular carrier offers at least one Android device, so there’s a good one for everyone and every business.

* In the apps: As in virtually every other aspect of its overall strategy, Apple keeps tight control over the apps that can be sold in its App Market, which means that users can buy only what Apple wants them to buy. The rapidly growing Android Market, on the other hand, offers whatever developers choose to make–which is likely a much better representation of what users want to buy, at least if the capitalist model is anything to go by. As an extra benefit, most of those apps are also free.

* In the content: Like it or not, Flash is part of as much as 80 percent of the content available on the Web. That’s a non-issue for Android users, but those using iOS are not allowed to see such content. What happens when your employees need to view a Flash site from their phone? If it were me, I’d want them to be able to see it without having to jailbreak their device.

* In the experience: With all the many custom ROMs and widgets available for Android, users can make the interface and experience whatever they want it to be. Apple’s iOS? Not so much. You get what Apple wants you to get.

2. Multitasking

If anyone needs to be able to multitask on their phone, it’s the business user. Android allows multitasking just fine, but iOS? Not so fine–rather, even in iOS 4, it’s a bit horrible. As businesses increasingly open their doors to various non-BlackBerry devices, it’s no wonder Android smartphones are the more attractive choice.

3. Security

Because Apple keeps its proverbial cards so close to its chest, it is far more vulnerable to security breaches, as several notable examples have shown. Android, however, enjoys many of the security advantages of the Linux platform it’s built on, owing primarily to the way privileges are assigned.

Its openness also makes security vulnerabilities more likely to be found quickly, and its involvement of the user as an intelligent participant in the process–rather than merely a consumer of the Disney-like “walled garden” experience Apple tries to present–means that fewer problems are likely to slip by. Particularly in a business context, I’d much rather keep control of security in my own hands than leave it up to Apple–or anyone else.

SAN FRANCISCO – More people browsed the Internet last month with a device running Apple’s mobile operating system, iOS, than used Linux to do so. That’s a first for Apple, according to NetMarketShare, a firm that produces metrics on the market share of browsers, operating systems and search engines.

However, the market figures do represent a new way that NetMarketshare has adopted to calculate market share for Apple. “In order to more accurately describe usage share for Apple devices, the iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad are now being grouped under their common operating system iOS,” the firm explained.

“When these devices are combined, they have over one percent of global browsing share, which is now higher than Linux,” it said.

Information at the research firm’s website shows iOS steadily gaining browser market share since October 2009, when its share was 0.44 percent, to last month, when its share was 1.13 percent. Linux’s share, on the other hand, reached its lowest point over the same period, 0.85 percent.

Although devices running Google’s operating system, Android, remain well behind iOS with a 0.20 percent share, they continue to show impressive growth in mobile web consumption. “Android continues to put in a powerful performance as measured by the share of mobile web consumption attributable to devices running Google’s operating system,” reports Quantcast, which analyzes online audiences for marketers.

“In August,” it added, “Android took share from every corner of the market, putting in its best month share gain since November 2009.”

Since May 2009, information at the company’s website shows iOS’s share of mobile web consumption, which is now 56 percent, trending down, while Android’s share, now at 25 percent, continues to rise.

With sales of Android phones surpassing the iPhone and tablet computers using the OS beginning to enter the market, Google’s market will no doubt continue to rise. While there may be some satisfaction in leaping over Linux in global browsing market share, Apple should heed Satchel Paige‘s memorable warning: “Don’t look back. Something might be gaining on you.”

SAN FRANCISCO – Today’s unveiling of a smaller, cheaper Apple TV set-top box is the latest in a long line of tech industry efforts to conquer the living room. Recent reports and rumors have Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Sony all developing low-cost entertainment devices that would stream entertainment bits–movies, TV shows, music, photos, and so on–from the Internet to your HDTV.

These endeavors date back to the Internet’s formative years in the 90s, when numerous hardware, software, and online companies gave the Net-TV fusion a shot, but no one got it right.

The Early Days

America Online, back then the 800-pound ogre of online, tried an interactive TV service called AOL TV that quickly fizzled out. Microsoft and Intel teamed up with MTV to deliver digital TV content to big-screen PCs, which were destined for the living room (well, perhaps not). And Gateway 2000 launched an unsuccessful TV/PC hybrid system, as did Compaq Computer and Thomson Electronics.

Many early efforts failed in part because the technologies needed to make them work–speedy and affordable broadband service, in-home Wi-Fi, and faster processors capable of handling HD video streams–weren’t ready for prime time.

They are now, of course. Online video services like Netflix are seeing a surge in subscribers, while Blockbuster and similar DVD-rental chains are marching toward bankruptcy. The easy availability of low-cost media-streaming hardware, including DVRs, set-top boxes (e.g., Roku and Boxee gear), and various Blu-ray players and game consoles, has helped as well.

Of course, not all recent efforts have succeeded, either. The original Apple TV, which debuted in 2007, long endured a tepid reception from critics and end users alike. Even Apple seemed to ignore it. The aggressive $99 price of the new model, however, will certainly help Cupertino’s chances in the set-top market.

More to Come

The coming months will bring a flood of Apple TV competitors, most notably Google TV, the search giant’s much anticipated set-top box that’s slated to arrive this fall. And Amazon, which already runs a thriving online movie service (which, like Apple TV, offers 99-cent rentals of TV episodes), is reportedly developing a subscription streaming service that would challenge Netflix.

Sony, meanwhile, is expected to announce a new music and video subscription service as early as Wednesday, according to the Financial Times. The service would use Sony’s PlayStation game console and other Internet-connected devices to stream content. Finally, Microsoft is rumored to be developing a TV channel for its Xbox 360 console.

By Jeff Bertolucci
July 26, 2010

By Barbara Hernandez
July 12, 2010

By Paul Venezia
July 07, 2010

By Jeff Bertolucci
June 24, 2010