The “gaming graph” on Android is very fragmented, with lot of gaming graphs and player networks competing for developer attention. There are a handful of “gaming graphs”, or networks of game players that span multiple developers / publishers and have some level of social connectivity. Some of the leaders are OpenFeint, Mobage (from ng:moco / DeNA), Papaya Mobile, Heyzap, and others. Each of the solutions above has its pros and cons, but they’re not interoperable – they are individual networks with varying degrees of scale. As a developer, choosing which of these to integrate can be challenging. And there is always the option of simply building something for your own use.

Without a platform-wide offering from Google, the individual providers will have to continue to battle it out for domination. Hopefully, eventually one (or possibly two) will win and everyone will use that service for social connectivity. But until then, I think things will be messy.

A centralized place where game developers could publish game activity and where consumers could see what the people they care about are playing could help address the “discovery” problem on Android. In a previous blog post, I shared my thoughts on the discovery problem – you can read it here if you’re interested. Despite Facebook’s recent announcement around HTML5 games, I continue to believe that people who like games are more interested in playing games with other game players, regardless of whether they’re friends on some existing social network. People want to connect around games and game content. So having a centralized place where gamers can share what they’re playing, find new games to play, and connect with others interested in games should help everyone in the ecosystem.

In fact, most of the folks who are providing 3rd party social graphs can make the claim that their networks and offerings, at scale, will deliver exactly what’s described above. With enough players and usage, they can deliver on the value proposition above. But unless one of the existing players gets near complete penetration, it will pale in comparison to what could be achieved by having a platform-wide solution.

Two last questions I’ve been thinking about when considering whether Google could really drive this:

1. Would Google’s many Android partners support and help distribute the system? As we’ve seen in a few cases, not all of Google’s partners are on board with every feature or decision they make around Android. Amazon is going to do there own thing with the Kindle Fire, handset partners are adding their own UI elements to standard Android, and carriers are experimenting with their own app stores for distribution. Even if Google could create an awesome product here, I wonder if their partners across the ecosystem would embrace and support it.

2. Relative to all of the things Google wants to do with Android, where does this rank in terms of opportunities? There are a lot of things that Google has already shared about the future of Android. And there are likely tons of things that are under consideration but have not yet launched. Building a Game Center tool is valuable to one specific set of developers with a specific set of needs.

As always, comments are open. If you liked this post, you can follow me on twitter @chudson for more things like this.

The Samsung Chromebook is not a reasonable substitute to a traditional laptop for the majority of people out there. But it is still a great computer if you already love the cloud and have near-constant Internet access.

If you want a more detailed writeup of this transition from someone who has thought about this issue in greater depth than I have, I encourage you to read Louis Gray’s post. Despite this computer having some shortcomings for the average user, I’ve been pleasantly surprised by how usable it is for everyday uses if you have already moved most of your life to the cloud:

There are two real reasons why I don’t think the Chromebook is a true laptop replacement for the average user today:

1. The Samsung Chromebook requires an Internet connection to have value. While I generally work on my MacBook Air with a reliable Internet connection, I am able to interact with a number of my favorite applications without an Internet connection. The key use cases are working on Word, Powerpoint, or Excel documents when I’m not connected to the Internet, editing or creating notes in Evernote, or working on offline email.

The hardest thing to which to adapt is the fact that I basically cannot use the Chromebook without an Internet connection. It’s basically a browser on top of an OS that boots really quickly. We do not yet live in a world of ubiquitous, always-on (and always available) connectivity. As such, I still need my primary computer to be one that works when I don’t have an Internet connection. The base “free” package of 100MB that comes with this Samsung Chromebook is not large enough for me to use this as my only computer in the absence of Wi-Fi.

2.There are good web-native equivalents to the desktop programs that many users use, but not everyone is ready to make that switch.

The biggest surprise I had in using the Samsung Chromebook was how less dependent I have become on desktop applications than I had realized. I thought about all of the core applications that I use and I realized that there are good web-accessible alternatives that have already become core parts of my life:

-Music: Spotify or Rdio for cloud music vs iTunes client music experience
-Video – Netflix, Hulu, or Amazon for video streaming vs iTunes client experience
-Productivity – Google Docs vs Microsoft Office
-Email – Gmail vs Mac Mail, or Outlook or Sparrow
-Instant Messaging – Meebo or Google Talk vs Skype or other desktop IM client

When I first got the device, I thought the lack of desktop applications would be the biggest thing I missed. To be honest, I never really missed the lack of native desktop applications except for in a few specific situations. For example, the process of trying to mark up an agreement on the Chromebook is hard – Google Docs doesn’t support track changes in the same way that desktop versions of Microsoft Word does. And I have a few other gripes about dealing with spreadsheets. But that’s really it. In the grand scheme of things, that’s a pretty narrow set of complaints.

Ironically, the thing I’m finding most vexing about the device is that it’s hard to work with both Google Apps and a standard Gmail account in the same browser instance. That’s a real need for me and it was kind of frustrating to have to switch back and forth.

You can follow me on Twitter @chudson or leave a comment below.

Like a lot of people, I think the daily deals business is fascinating. But I’ve always wondered when we’d start to see location-based deals for both perishable inventory (empty dinner tables, unsold sports tickets, etc) and more traditional deals inventory that we typically see on the top services. I think it makes a ton of sense for Groupon and Living Social to get into “instant” deals that location-based and / or time sensitive. The business of sending out deals once per day by email or tweet puts a ceiling on growth – opening up the channel to location-based deals allows the deal companies to have much more inventory available at any point in time and to have a more persistent relationship with customers.

There’s one problem with realtime deals, though. In order for them to be effective, you need to have access to or be application that people open several times per day. In my opinion, there are likely very few applications that can clear that hurdle.

Right now there is a short list of applications that I believe are both location-aware and opened several times daily by a meaningful number of users. This is not a complete list (I’d welcome additions), but here are the ones that come to mind:

-Google Maps (no question in my mind this one qualifies)
-Twitter (for those who have location-enabled their tweets)
-Facebook (they report tens of millions of DAU for their smartphone apps)
-foursquare (not on the same scale as the applications above, but I suspect they have a meaningful number of DAU)

There must be others, but I can’t think of them at the moment. Maybe some of the news / content apps are location-aware and get a lot of usage, but I’m not sure that they would be ideal for what I’ll describe below. Ditto on the location-aware photo sharing apps. I think the list of apps that fit this funnel is small but I hope others can point to others that fit the bill.

If you’re a daily deals provider interested in an instant deals experience, you have one core question – how do you get people to open your application several times per day? You could obviously try to make your core application more engaging on a daily basis. And, anecdotally, I hear that people redeem a fair number of daily deal coupons using the mobile applications provided by those vendors. But that is a redemption experience, not an engagement experience. I don’t actually think it’s really easy to create an application that people enjoy so much that they want to open it every day and use it as a way to share their location.

As an aside, the reason the several-times-per day application open rate is necessary is that you need to a) have several opportunities to refresh the user’s location and b) you need to have several times to present location or time sensitive deals. The more opens and location shares per day, the more opportunities you have to reach that customer.

So, for anyone looking to experiment with real-time deals, you need a high activity platform. I can imagine it would be hard to partner with Facebook as they have a deals offering of their own. Ditto on Google with Google offers. Hence the opportunity for foursquare – they have have a good audience and are not working (at least as far as I know) on a daily deals platform of their own. So I think they’ll be successful as a key enabler of real-time deals / offers. And they don’t have to sign up / onboard every single local merchant to make this strategy work as they have the scarce commodity of frequent usage among those who use the application.

Thoughts? Leave a comment below. You can also follow me on Twitter on @chudson.

I think you need three things to really succeed as an app store, based on what we’ve seen from Apple and Google. And to be clear, success means that you as the app store make money and can drive enough distribution to developers that they too can build a big business on the back of your audience.

Payment-enabled customers + device footprint + well-merchandised store experience = Potential to Win as an App Store

1. Payment-Enabled Customers
One of the (many) things that makes the Apple iOS ecosystem so powerful is that Apple has 200 million hard-won credit cards on file. Having had iTunes prior to the app ecosystem meant that they were able to tap into a large audience of users for whom purchasing apps and in-game items is as simple as a single click.

Perhaps the only company more synonymous with one-click purchase experiences than Apple is Amazon – they did for the web what Apple has done for the iOS ecosystem when it comes to ease of transaction. And Amazon has tens of millions of payment-enabled customers by their own admission. I’m not sure why they haven’t gone through the process of making it easier for freemium game developers to integrate some variant of Amazon Flexible Payments Services as a way to charge for in-app purchases. That seems like a no-brainer way to enable freemium game developers to make real revenue through the Amazon Appstore.

2. Amazon’s Distribution Strategy for the Amazon Appstore
I think Amazon has a pretty clear strategy for how they will get their own Appstore deployed to tens of millions of consumers. This is all my speculation – but I think it makes sense:

Phase I: Give away top-tier games that are usually paid for free in order to get consumers to download and install the Amazon Appstore. This is just a simple quid pro quo. The goal is to give customers something of value (a free or greatly reduced install of a game they covet) in exchange for downloading and using the Amazon Appstore on their Android device. Provided Amazon can continue to find developers who want the exposure for their content, this strategy should help seed things.

Phase 2: Work with carriers to get preload deals so that the Amazon Appstore is on many more devices. Doing preload deals is nothing new. If you have relationships with carriers and can afford the economics required to make those deals interesting to them, that’s one way to get the Amazon Appstore in front of more consumers. This might prove to be trickier than it sounds, given that many carriers and handset makers themselves also have designs of building their own app stores. But this is still a strategy worth pursuing.

Phase 3: Launch an Amazon tablet, powered by Android, with the Amazon Appstore front and center as the primary application discovery method. The last thing Amazon can and should do (and is doing) is to build and sell its own Android tablets. This has less to do with games and more to do with the Kindle business. It’s a good hedge in the whole e-reader vs table debate and should allow Amazon to have a larger footprint for its cloud music and cloud video services. I would fully expect that Amazon will integrate its own Android market front-and-center on that product and will put its considerable marketing muscle behind promoting its table to both Kindle users and people who have yet to have settled on a tablet device.

3. Well-merchandised store
No need to belabor this one. Amazon is one of the world’s premier merchandisers when it comes to selling things online. I’d like to think they could bring some creative muscle to app discovery and recommendation.

It’s clear to me that Amazon is still in the early stages of building out their Amazon Appstore and that to count them out based on their current progress seems premature.

Follow me on Twitter – @chudson

By and large, the teams I’ve met are incredibly smart, clever teams of people who I think will impact the world of mobile applications in positive ways. But after having met with a handful of really great folks working in this space, I’m becoming convinced that application discovery is a bigger problem for those applications looking to get discovered than it is for consumers looking for useful or entertaining applications. Three things I’d like to throw out there for discussion:

1. There is a lot of mobile application discovery that happens face-to-face in the real world and will probably never show up in your application analytics system. If you’ve gone out in a major city lately, I’m sure you’ve seen this happen. Someone pulls out a phone and shows off an application. Someone else at the table says, “Wow, that’s a cool application – I’m going to get it right now.” And that person starts downloading the application. That’s the beauty of the the combination of app stores, smartphones, and reasonably good data connections – if you find a new application you want, you can get it nearly instantly. No more waiting until you get home to have a friend invite you or send you an email. Just grab the app in context and grow. I’m not sure that there’s an opportunity for an app to help facilitate that face-to-face communication.

To most analytics systems, these installs will look largely organic (someone just installed your app and it didn’t come from a trackable link of any sort) even though they aren’t. And, as a developer, it’s kind of hard to know how often this is happening for any given application. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway – lots of people will instantly install applications that their friends are using when this discovery happens face-to-face as your friend can often tell you (in his or her own words) why he or she likes the application and how he or she uses it. That counts for a lot for most people.

2. Most consumers are not actively looking for new applications to download, but will download them in order to get something else or based on the recommendation of a friend. I just don’t think most people sit around thinking about applications to discover. Most people are busy doing other things – reading, playing with the applications they already have, chatting with friends, etc. However, as I mentioned above, I do think that there is value in knowing what applications your social graph is using. For example, if you’re trying to make a decision on installing an app with strong network effects (any social networking or communications application, for example), knowing what your friends use has real value. For example, if most of your friends have standardized on using a particular location-sharing, photo-sharing, social networking, or other social application, knowing that can and probably should influence your choice of application to use.

The other use case is the incentivized install use case. If people are using an application and can get a reward in that application for downloading or installing someone else’s application, it shouldn’t be surprising that they are willing to do so – installing an application doesn’t really cost most users anything (other than the space on the device and the time required to install it) and the act of installing an application is a known behavior.

3. Open question – will consumers fire up an application to help them find other applications? One question I have is around how application discovery is delivered as a product. A number of the products in the space today involve opening or installing an application in order to discover additional applications to use. I am not sure this is the model that consumers want, but it’s still too early to tell.

Despite everything I’ve said above, application discovery is a problem for application developers. It’s really just a subset of the marketing challenge we all face in standing out in a sea of tens of thousands of applications that exist in app stores – being discovered is a good way to grow an application and absolutely essential in the growth plans of many companies.

As always, comments are welcome. And if you like this you can always follow me on Twitter.

If you stop and think about it, building a mobile game that is heavily reliant on people checking in is a tough challenge. I don’t have access to anyone’s proprietary data, but my hypothesis is that there are millions of people ACTIVELY checking in on a regular basis and tens of millions of people playing games on mobile devices. Games that focus on check-ins as a core activity are up against a core challenge in that there are 10x (roughly) as many people playing games as there are checking in.

I want to be really clear about what I mean by ACTIVELY checking in. People who ACTIVELY check-in are those who do check-ins of their own on at least a monthly basis. The one thing I want to make sure I highlight is that I am certain Facebook Places has many more people who have checked-in than foursquare simply because 1 person on Facebook can check-in multiple people. So it’s entirely possible that there are people who have been checked in on Facebook Places who are not themselves active users of check-in products. So I think you need to apply some discount to the FB Places check-ins if you’re trying to figure out how large the active audience of checking-in people is.

Whenever I look at this stylized image, it’s clear to me that trying to get location-based games to work for a large audience, relying on check-ins won’t work today. There simply aren’t enough people engaging in check-ins today to build a game based solely on that mechanic as you’ll only get the overlap of people who like games and actively check-in.

What will work? I have no idea. There are lots of smart people working on this. But I am a bit skeptical as to whether or not a check-in centric location based game can get really big today. Check-ins are the future, but location based game developers need a solution today.

If you’re short on time, the summary answer is that I the iPad cannot be a 100% laptop replacement for me during the workday. That being said, I did identify quite a few use cases or types of days where it was perfectly fine to go iPad only and leave the Macbook at home.

To give the iPad vs laptop comparison a fair shake, I thought it was only fair to compare an iPad without an extended / additional keyboard to a laptop. While having an external keyboard would have closed the gap between using an iPad and a laptop, the real goal was to see if I could get by with the iPad as is – if I’m going to carry the iPad plus a dock or keyboard, I might as well just carry a laptop. I should also say that I have been using an iPhone for about two years and am very comfortable with the iPhone operating system and user experience.

Broadly speaking, most of the workdays I have fall into one of three main buckets (or a combination of them):

* Heavy Meeting Days – These are days where I have 6-8 meetings during the day, with maybe 30-60 minutes in between each meeting.

* Heavy Transit Days – These are days where I might not have a lot of meetings, but I do have to make a major transit move or two, going from Mountain View to San Francisco, Berkeley, or somewhere else more than 30 minutes from home. The time spent commuting is a pretty meaty chunk of the day, at least 2 hours or more.

* Desk Days – These are days where I’m mostly sitting at a desk of some sort. It can be a coffee shop, hotel lobby, or some other reasonably comfortable place where I can work for blocks of 1-2 hours at least once per day.

The biggest thing I realized from going iPad only is that it’s a total waste of time to lug around the Macbook on days where I am doing a ton of commuting or have a lot of meetings. By and large, I was able to keep up with email, Facebook, the news, and deal with Google Docs and light spreadsheets / presentations on the iPad alone. When I was going iPad only, I basically just deferred any long emails until I got home (which was generally okay) and deferred playing Flash-based Facebook games until I had a Flash-capable device. Overall, I found that I was happy to use the iPad for about an hour straight to do work before I started wanting to have a full keyboard and larger form factor.

Oddly enough, I did not miss having a full keyboard. Unlike the iPhone or my Droid, where I am pretty fast holding the device with one hand and typing with both hands, the iPad does not allow for easy one-hand typing – it’s too heavy and too awkward. The simple workaround for me was to simply defer typing intensive tasks until I had a full keyboard.

There was one very unexpected surprise. The iPad is a much more capable all-day computer than my Macbook. I generally can’t get more than 2-3 hours of useful stuff done on my Macbook on a single charge. On the flipside, my iPad is able to last an entire day on a single charge with nearly constant use.

So, overall, I was pleasantly surprised with using the iPad as a laptop replacement. At least 2-3 days per week I have a combination of commute and meetings that basically make the laptop useless. When I’m on the go, I rarely get the opportunity to sit down, plug in, and get enough work done to justify lugging around the laptop. I’m happy to have found a new device to lighten the bag for days where I’m on the go.

As always, leave a comment if you like.

You know what strikes me as funny? I would never have felt the need or desire to even try an Android device at all if not for the spotty phone performance of my iPhone. It’s not a lack of compelling features that made me want to try Android – it was the inability to simply complete and maintain a phone call. With something approaching suitable phone performance, I would have remained a happy sole iPhone owner. Below are a few observations from my time using the Android platform:

Google Voice has allowed me to use the HTC Android device without having to go through the trouble of switching my number or blasting all of my contacts with my new number. That makes it a lot easier to test out the phone without the personal switching cost of getting the word out to my contacts.

About 60-70% of the applications I have become accustomed to using on my iPhone are now available on my HTC Incredible. There are usable versions of Foursquare, TripIt, Twitter, Pandora, Mint, Facebook (not quite as good as the FB version, but usable), and the New York Times. Gmail works great, as does the calendar. I’m missing ESPN Radio, XM Radio, and all of my favorite games. I suspect that will be remedied as Android grows.

Developers go where there is usage and volume – developers are unlikely abandon Apple regardless of what it does in terms of platform policies. However, as Android grows, developers will follow.

Getting media on my Android devices still feels broken, especially compared to the iTunes sync experience. But I’ve found that DoubleTwist is serviceable and up to the task. That makes my Android device more fun – I can actually take some of my music with me on the go.

Overall, I think Android has a pretty bright future. Despite all of the free vs closed debate, I think Android stands to be a strong competitor not because it’s open (whatever that means) but because it’s free. Having a very good, competitive free operating system that isn’t bound to one carrier or device should allow the platform to really reach scale. I wouldn’t have believed how much the gap had closed had I not played with devices myself.

Feel free to leave me thoughts or comments below.

If you’re short on time, here’s the punchline – buying an unlocked Google Nexus One is horrible because neither Google nor T-Mobile can get you up and running quickly unless you know what to ask. If you want this phone, just get a contract and be done with it – the two companies haven’t figured out how to support users who come in with a device in hand. Here’s my saga in a few steps:

1. Ordered Google Nexus One unlocked from the online store.
2. Went into T-Mobile and got offered a FlexPay plan – no monthly contract and plenty of options for unlimited or metered voice, text, and Internet.
3. After a few clicks, I had everything up and running – Gmail, Google Calendar, and all of the other core services tied to my Google account. So far so good.

And then I got to Google Voice. Everything went fine until I went to set up my voicemail. All I wanted to do was to forward my voicemail from the Nexus One to my Google Voice number using conditional forwarding. The helper wizard on the device couldn’t make it work. The directions available on the Google Voice site didn’t work. So I picked up the phone and called T-Mobile. They were very pleasant, kind, and helpful, even though they regularly admitted they didn’t know much about the device.

I read the T-Mobile forums prior to the call and a lot of users suggested that you can’t actually do conditional voicemail forwarding if you’re on a FlexPay plan – they simply don’t allow you to do so. I broght this point up repeatedly during my roughly 1 hour call with their support folks. Finally, after some patient work by a Tier 3 unsupported deice rep, we both figured it out – it’s my plan, not the device. After about 30 minutes with the billing department, who kept trying to get me back to technical support, I finally just gave up and told them I wanted to cancel my account. It turns out there actually isn’t a way to convert from a FlexPay month-to-month plan to a postpaid account. And here’s the kicker – even if you bring your own device, signing up for a postpaid account obligates you to sign up for a contract. I don’t mind signing up for a contract if you’re subsidizing my device. But if I’m bringing my own phone, I find that to be a bit insulting.

So now I have this Nexus One and can’t use it seamlessly with Google Voice. It’s a phone, right? This should be a device that showcases how awesome Google Voice is, right? So what I’ve concluded is that buying an unlocked Nexus One is about the worst decision you could make for three reasons:

1. You pay more – the device costs almost $600
2. If you want to be able to use Google Voice to do everything, including voicemail, you need a contract as well.
3. Nobody seems to be able to support the unlocked version of the device and you’ll pull your hair out trying to get help.

Fixing this would be easy. Either Google or T-Mobile could simply direct people who want the unlocked device toward a plan that will actually allow someone to fully enjoy the device and provide a bit more support for those of us who want to get the device up and running quickly.

Overall, I can see the promise in this device. If you’re a power user of Google Apps, this phone is great. But I think I’ll sit this round out and wait until the support and setup issues get resolved before committing to this device.

One of the big risks in being in the platform business is that nobody will build the things on top of it that you as the platform owner want to see built to showcase the opportunity. Facebook built apps on its own platform (photos, groups, events) before their platform really took off. The iPhone launched with some Apple-created apps – Maps (via Google), mail, calendar, etc. There’s a really good reason for this – as the platform owner, you want to make sure that some of the “right” stuff gets built and made available. And what’s the “right” stuff? It’s generally whatever you, as the platform owner, think needs to exist to showcase the power and potential of your platform.

For me, there is only one interpretation of what the Google Nexus phone means. It means that Google did not believe that its handset partners, left to their own devices, were on track to deliver an integrated consumer device (software + hardware) that would properly showcase Android and develop consumer interest sufficient to win iPhone converts or those who want a smartphone but are on the sidelines. The Droid hasn’t done that. Neither has the G1. I don’t think Google necessarily wants to play the role that Apple does in the iPhone ecosystem. But without a strong exemplar of what a great Android device can do, it will be very difficult to compete with the iPhone ecosystem.