Phil Dhingra

Apple just approved my latest creation, Nebulous Notes, which does one thing, and one thing really well: edit text files in the cloud. If you're like me, you are constantly editing text files, and based on my survey of all the available tools out there, Dropbox is the smartest way to backup your files and access them anywhere.

Nebulous Notes lets you edit your text files that are stored on your Dropbox. Here are some screenshots, see for yourself:

Reviews have already started to trickle in! Here's what AppAdvice.com had to say: "This is quite possibly the best tool for any writer, blogger, or journalist that needs to get work done on-the-go, and also live by Dropbox, which is one of the easiest ways to manage files in the cloud."

Click here to learn more about Nebulous Notes

If you're a developer, I've also open-sourced the file management interface, which shouldn't take no more than an hour to integrate into your iOS apps. For example, if you have an app that lets you record memos or organize photos, rather than forcing users to FTP their files off their iPhone, or have to email the files to themselves, or sync to their iTunes, you can just let them save to their Dropbox accounts. To find out more, check out Nebulous Controller.

Last year, all the experienced people were telling me that it was a great time to buy real estate. And I took their word seriously because I generally trust real estate hearsay more than stock market hearsay. But the thing is, they've been telling me it's a great time to buy every year for the past fifteen years. So then, my process has been to judge how intense their "great time to buy" imperative is compared to previous exhortations. Was this the greatest "great time to buy"? That's what I sensed, and that's why I bought last year.

When they say, "You can't outsmart Mr. Market" that refers to how well the stock market has "perfect information." This "perfect information" is what makes it so that when someone says, "You should buy such-and-such stock based on X piece of information," you can always retort, "How do I know X isn't already built into the price?"

So what about other markets? Does the real estate market contain perfect information? I'd say no. It's a "dumber" market than the stock market, and so you are more likely to beat the "House." Mainly because it often takes years for the real estate market to react to new information. Plus, real estate is easier to value than stocks.

If in the future, everything's free, I believe marketing will play a bigger role, and that the meaning of marketing will change.

For example, the GPL-published book Dive Into Python is available for free to download, and yet people still buy the book. And I'll contend that these consumers aren't stupid, but are rather paying for something else. They're paying the publishers to inform them of the book's existence. They're paying to have the book inserted into their shopping stream (whether at a brick-and-motar or online). And of course, they're still paying for the ink, pages, and binding, which many consumers still prefer over eBooks. Since the actual text of the book is free, nowhere in the shopping chain are they really paying for actual content.

If a banker get a bonus because they had a good year, but they screwed the company for the next 3-4 years, then what good is that? On the other hand, who would accept a pay package that compensated 4-8 years later? Maybe that's what stock options are for. But then again, it may be easier for you to cook the books or do some rapid value extraction to boost the stock price artificially, rather than invest for the long-term.

The incentive-structure for founders and IPO kids, on the other hand, seems more ideal. Their window is 4-12 years before the real payday. In a normal or recession economy, these kids try to build a compelling product that blows everybody away. There aren't enough accounting hacks that can fill that gap. Unless of course, we're in a bubble economy.

It's interesting that the iPad is one of my favorite gadgets of all time, and yet I'm skeptical about its success. Take, for example, laptop-replacement. Before the iPad, I was waiting with bated breath for new Macbook Pro announcements. I'm not anymore. Instead, I'm looking forward to my PC becoming obsolete so I have an excuse to buy a nice 27'' iMac. Then I'll ditch my PC and my Macbook Pro, and just have an iMac, iPad, and (hopefully Verizon-based) iPhone. Because I'm envisioning such a total transformation of my digital life, you'd think I'd be bullish on Apple.

It's a matter of whether you want to compare iPad's future to the Macbook line or the iPhone line. If you compare it to the iPhone, then it makes sense. Students beg their parents, "Please please, buy me an iPhone," which is code for, "Please don't give me a lamePhone." But students don't similarly beg for Macbook Pros. Students simply tell their parents, "I need a laptop for school," and parents then figure out what's the most powerful computer for the cheapest amount of money.

The appeal of the iPad to me is in how well it over-delivers on various slices of digital computing experiences. Unfortunately, the average consumer doesn't notice or appropriately value that. For example, I love how my iPad allows me to work in every room of the Mutual Mobile offices, all in one day. But that's something special and unique that I treasure, while most people are just happy to have good computing power. "My laptop's portable, why do I need an iPad?"

I think nobody can predict how the market will play out, and a lot depends on Apple's execution (and Google's counter-execution). In other words, it's too early to say that this is going to all-of-a-sudden change the way everybody computes. I still stand by the prediction, that this will be the most requested gift this Christmas. But I'm not sure how much of a takeover that represents for Apple.

One of the first things I did with my iPad was purchase a book to read on the Kindle app. I bought Rework for myself, but I actually really wanted a co-worker to read it. Then I discovered that there's no way for me to buy him the Kindle edition!

Similarly, I was checking out some random band on Bandcamp, and there's two options, "Buy" and "Share." But under "Share" you can only tell someone to go and buy an album. There's no way to just buy the album for someone.

I feel that I'm more willing to spend money on microtransactions for other people than myself. I'm more willing to gift an album than buy it myself, simply because I'm more likely to just pirate it if I really want it. If I tell a friend, "Hey, this is a good album, go pirate it," they won't. But if I just buy it for them on lala, then there's a much better chance they'll listen to it.

Why can't I gift you 1,000,000 gold coins on Bejeweled Blitz on facebook? Why can't I gift you apps on iTunes (yet).

Gifting digital goods gives you so much instant gratification that it's worth the rigmarole to pull out your credit card (or remember your favored clearinghouse's password).

(By "clearinghouse," I'm referring to places you trust with your saved credit cards, such as Amazon, facebook, or iTunes. Their entrenchment was the first step toward a microtransaction future.)

The iPad is kind of anti-climatic when it comes to apps. When apps came out for the iPhone, it was brand new and exciting, and since all your friends had iPhones, it was neat to be hanging out together, checking out apps together. The excitement for iPad apps seems about as exciting as software for laptops or desktops. When your friends come over to your house, do you tell them, "Hey, check out this awesome application for my macbook?" No, you just purchase something cool, use it privately, and then that's it.

In other words, I felt like Tarot (my product) for the iPhone was more exciting than Tarot for the iPad. With the iPhone, it feels like "Hey, check it out, I got Tarot cards in my pocket!" On the iPad, the experience is like, "Hey, um, I got, um, Tarot software, on my tablet."

It feels like my iPad-usage is more boring, but more solid. I spend more time using the product, but on fewer apps. It's not like I'm trying random, fun, apps for cheap thrills.

The iPad is more like a book and productivity tool for me. It's not like a cool James Bond gadget that I whip out to do some quick tricks.

There's about seven iPads at the Mutual Mobile offices, and we're not going up to each other saying, "Hey, check out this awesome app!" anymore. We did that maybe in the first couple days. Now the questions are more like, "So, how do you like using the keyboard to do work on it?"

Did you notice how when they trotted out the app download statistics (1 Million Apps downloaded in less than a week), they didn't mention how many were Paid vs. Free? Probably most of those were Free apps.

I think the iPad will be a more quiet revolution, where gradually you will see laptops disappear from ordinary consumers.

The iPad is supposed to save the publishing industry, but based on playing with three solid news-related apps on the iPad, I don't think it will deliver on this promise, at least not in its current state. The NPR, NYTimes, and WSJ apps are very impressive coming out of the gate, and this has spawned predictions of a native app era. This is from Cameron Moll, author of Mobile Web Design:

Frankly, as the adoption rate of iPhone increases and if iPad follows suit, it will become increasingly difficult to argue in favor of a starting point other than iPhone OS. The NPR iPad app, for one, provides a much more pleasant user experience than NPR.org.

But the the disadvantage I find with the NYTimes, NPR, and WSJ apps is that they do not exist within my typical news-browsing stream.

Yesterday, for example, I was using Safari to open three windows: my Google calendar, my work Gmail, and personal Gmail (Safari is the only multi-tasking I've got). Then while I was on a phone call, I got bored and wanted to surf the web a little. So I opened a new Safari window and went through my usual routine (Drudge, HuffPo, The Week, reddit, Google Reader). I didn't tap Home to then go to the NPR app or the WSJ app.

And that's not because of my lukewarm interest in NPR or WSJ. Even if I had a DrudgeReport app or a HuffPo app, I wouldn't have used them.

Native apps are for focused interactions. I find them akin to tuning into a favorite radio station and staying on it for the entire twenty-minute commute (or at least beginning with that intention). There's very few news sources that I consume in a focused manner like that. There's only one that comes to my mind, actually, and it's The New Yorker.

Alternatively, if there was a more unified format and a single place for a "magazine rack" where you could subscribe to nearly-identical isomorphs of print-editions, I'd pay money for that. I'd rack up a handful of subscriptions, even to magazines I don't read that often, like The Economist or Wired. That way, when I turn my focus to the "magazine rack" app, I'd have maybe five subscriptions I could shuffle between. Otherwise, I'm not going to download and fiddle with an experimental Economist app or Wired app.

tl;dr: First, make one website version that looks good on the major platforms (Firefox, IE, iPhone, and iPad). Second, if you have to make an app for the iPad, make it look and feel as much like your print-version as possible, so people can equate the price of the print issue to the price of the digital subscription. Third, get in on the ground floor of some apps or programs that will let a lot of magazines come together under one umbrella, like a magazine-rack.

(via Daring Fireball)

A lot of my friends auto-stream their twitter feeds to Google Buzz. I wonder if you could have the @replies that happen on Twitter also stream into in-line comments on Google Buzz. Just a random idea.