Want To Influence a Conference Talk About Smartphones? Tell Me Your Opinion.

[David McNamee]

I'm struggling with a decision, and I would value some input from Smartphone Thoughts readers. I have just been asked to speak at a major conference dedicated to Windows Mobile. I don't want to say which conference since I'm still working on the logistics. However, I'm sure most of you can guess based on recent posts!

Here's my problem. I would have about an hour to discuss Smartphones in the Enterprise Development space. Should I focus the talk on Smartphone 2002 or Smartphone 2003? Smartphone 2002 would be a good choice since it is available now. People can buy the devices and put them to immediate use. However, developers have to use C++ to build applications. C++, despite all its glory, is not the "language of choice" for enterprise developers. That makes Smartphone 2003 a better topic of discussion. The .NET Compact Framework is baked in, meaning developers can use Visual Basic or C#. That opens the door to a wider audience. It's also a lot more fun to talk about! The problem with discussing Smartphone 2003 is that the "when can I get one" question has to be answered with a resounding, "I don't know!"

If you were attending the conference, which would you rather hear about?

[timfield]

I would love to see at least a little brainstorming on what sorts of enterprise solutions make sense on Smartphone. I think many folks are not thinking "outside of the box" on this and could use some inspiration.

Case in point: we are porting our printing SDKs from Pocket PC and Windows CE to Smartphone, including support for CE.Net CF (C#, VB.Net) and standard C/C++. Early testing is very positive for IR printing speed, functionality, and variety of printer support (we plan to support Bluetooth once hardware is available).

But much response is "wow - way cool... ummm, will people really want to print from Smartphone?" So maybe you can raise the bar of expectation on Smartphone apps for enterprise.

I'm really looking forward to your talk!

BTW, I'll be at PPC Summit if anyone wants a Smartphone printing demo.


Tim
-------------------------------------------------
Tim Field
[email protected]
FieldSoftware Products
Printing Solutions for Pocket PC & Windows CE
http://www.fieldsoftware.com
-------------------------------------------------

[brntcrsp]

While I won't be attending the conference (so you should probably remove my 2003 vote) I think it's very important to get organizations used to the idea of code for multiple platforms. By this time many places are using .Net for their code base and this means that they have the spring board into the mobile platform. If they start thinking in terms of mobile applications while they are developing their current .Net apps we will find a great number of companies willing to expand their product line. A Windows Mobile Smartphone should be thought of as a natural extension of their enterprise. While it's true not everyone needs one, I think if we get move dev houses looking to move mobile the better the entire industry will be.

[Kris Kumar]

I feel enterprise apps should be web based...not a big fan of apps which are closely tied to a client platforms..

And when we start talking of web based apps...one layout will fit both 2002 and 2003 smartphones :-)

So as long as the web app can sense the browser type and feed an appropriate layout..I am happy.

And if for some reason u want to write native enterprise apps for the device...then 2003 is my bet.

Reason...2002 SDK is limited..u have to be creative...do a lot of coding to get even minor things done. 2003 offers more to the developers.

Kris

[David McNamee]

I feel enterprise apps should be web based...not a big fan of apps which are closely tied to a client platforms..

I used to feel the same way. After 6+ years of building web-based applications, I can't agree with that any longer. I'm not saying that web interfaces should be abandoned, though. It's just that there is a certain class of applications that lends itself to having rich, platform-dependant user interfaces. Apps that can live with a closed network connection are one of them. Same with apps that demand a very high level of UI responsiveness.

Actually, I'm a fan of architecting solutions so that building additional user interfaces for your application is not an overly difficult task. This way, you can provide the appropriate experience for your users. Some will need web, some will need a desktop Windows client, some will need rich mobile.

[brntcrsp]

Actually, I'm a fan of architecting solutions so that building additional user interfaces for your application is not an overly difficult task. This way, you can provide the appropriate experience for your users. Some will need web, some will need a desktop Windows client, some will need rich mobile.

*applause*

[Andy Sjostrom]

Actually, I'm a fan of architecting solutions so that building additional user interfaces for your application is not an overly difficult task. This way, you can provide the appropriate experience for your users. Some will need web, some will need a desktop Windows client, some will need rich mobile.

*applause*

Very well put! I agree 100%

[David McNamee]

Just a quick update on this topic. My company and I could not work out a scheduling conflict with the customer that my absence would have affected. That means, unfortunately, I will not be able to speak at this particular conference. :cry:

I'd like to publicly thank John Forrester with the Pocket PC Summit for graciously offering this opportunity. It's very humbling to be asked to participate in something that you truly respect.