Robin on Tech

The codenames assigned to products under development are usually meaningless. As a case-in-point, AMD went through a phase of naming its CPUs after horses, and Intel has traditionally favoured rivers.

So, Microsoft’s choice – about a year ago – of Origami as a development codename name for the Ultra Mobile PC (UMPC) might have been par for the course. Afterall, it clearly doesn’t fold, sprout a tail, or bear any resemblance to a swan. In two respects though, the UMPC is ultimately very close to its moniker: it is pretty but quite useless.

The UMPC is far too bulky to fit in a pocket, so users have to carry it in a bag. It lacks a keyboard, so emailing, word processing and anything which requires sustained data entry are all out of the question. It runs a full-blown copy of Windows XP. XP is a fine operating system, but is pretty impractical at anything below 1024 x 768. The native vertical resolution of various UMPCs is far too small – even to fit some dialogue boxes on the screen. And, on most units, the battery gives out after less than three hours.

So, here we have a device which accomplishes far less than a decent (and pocketable) Windows Mobile device (check out the HTC TyTn for an example of the way it should be done) or an ultra-portable laptop.

• It cannot be easily used for office tasks. Of course, it’s possible to purchase and carry around a compact USB keyboard. But then why not buy an ultra portable laptop and benefit from its larger, higher resolution screen; comfy keyboard and ‘proper’ Windows experience?

• It cannot be used as an effective media player – as it’s far too big and the battery life is far too short.

• It cannot be used for 3D gaming – due to the absence of a decent graphic accelerator

• It’s fairly impractical for web-browsing ‘on-the-go’ as most UMPCs incorporate wi-fi but not 3G

As it’s no good for serious tasks and no good for having fun, who did Microsoft imagine would use this thing? In large usability and information architecture projects, I’m sometimes asked to produce a ‘personas’ document. This is a list of partially fictionalised users (based on real customers). Each user is described, along with their needs, priorities and objectives in relation to the product. Each persona is named, and may even be referred to affectionately during the project, along the lines of “Would Fiona cope with this dialogue box?” or “Is this flexible enough for Ted?” We try to ensure that the full spectrum of users – from the least sophisticated to the most technically adept – are catered for by the product.

The trouble with the UMPC is that it’s difficult to conceive of any situation in which other devices - namely ultra-portable laptops or Windows Mobile devices – couldn’t provide the same functionality more effectively, more conveniently and often at less expense. Can I imagine Ted or Fiona using this device? No.

After nearly a year of poor sales, it appears that the industry still hasn’t learnt its lesson. Instead of abandoning the concept, recent leaks and announcements suggest that Microsoft and its partners are going to have another go. We’re being promised smaller, lighter, less battery-hungry devices and pseudo-UMPCs running on Windows Mobile with keyboards.

Switching to Windows Mobile would definitely be a positive development: running Windows XP on a tiny screen was a daft decision from the get-go. Improving the battery-life and reducing the overall form-factor are obvious Good Things. Unfortunately, it still leaves a device which simply won’t fit inside a jacket pocket, let alone a trouser pocket. It’s too large to carry around everywhere, but too small and too hobbled to work on efficiently. In effect, it falls awkwardly between two established form factors, acquiring none of the positive points of either platform, but suffering all the deficiencies of both.

So, the questions remain. If users already own an ultra-portable laptop or a pocketable Windows Mobile device, why would they purchase a UMPC? If users don’t own an ultra-portable laptop or a pocketable Windows Mobile device, why would they purchase a UMPC? I can’t find an answer to either of those questions.

Rather like the Tablet PC line that preceded it, the UMPC is ultimately doomed. It is a product in search of market that does not exist. One can only wonder how many years of poor sales and badly received product iterations Microsoft and its partners will have to go through before they finally give up on this wretched concept.