iThink iPad iNitial iThought!

My usual modus operandi is to wait. Wait until the dust has settled, the professionals and 'enthusiasts' have had their say and then have mine. And make it different: a different perspective, approach or in short a view adopted given the benefit of time. I like to mull things over, read opinion, see things first hand and reflect before delivering an opinion of my own. However for reasons I'm not entirely sure about I've decided to leap on the iPad bandwagon and release a few initial observations into the fury of comment, speculation and hype.


I like the iPad. Well what I have seen online and the facts I have been able to gleam from other media reporting. I won't buy it though, at least not at first. I want to and should I have the disposal means I probably would, despite the cautions I can see. 


First to the positives:

• I like the design and visual appeal. The Apple touch screen technology I think will differential it from other tablet products
• I understand the primary use case: to access and browse the internet within seconds
• Cater for the limitations of the iPhone: enhanced user experience when using for longer time periods due to improved screen size and ergonomical design    
• A platform on which to build for the future

The iPad is, in my humble opinion, and aspirational product. I want one because I want the feeling and status it would give me. That is a very strong and emotive reason pull on a product and combined with the pull the Apple brand can achieve for its products will make it a commercial success. 

Owning an iPhone I understand how the iPad build upon the concept. I've heard all the Dom Jolly related criticisms about using it as a phone and to be honest I think that's either naive or facetious! In time the iPad will cater for video conferencing and this is where the phone functionality will come into play. Despite the innovate drag, pull and zoom concepts that are expertly delivered into the touch technology of the iPhone when browsing Safari, you can not escape the reality that a bigger screen would help. Not necessarily sat on a crowded tube, but most definitely when sat on the sofa at home. I think it's the 'sat on the sofa at home' users that Apple are targeting. 

Despite my subjective attraction to the iPad I do understand some of the more negative coverage it has received. I think this has been summed up well by Russell Beatie (via @jackschofield) when he said that the people who were disappointed with the iPad really wanted a MacBook. I think that's valid and explains a lot of the criticism. No the iPad doesn't have web cams, the first version doesn't have 3G, there's no USB and SD interface and it's not an open platform by any means. In my opinion they're deliberate omissions. 

Future releases will have 3G (stated by Apple) and in my opinion cameras. But there are reasons it won't support USB or SD cards and that it isn't an open platform. Not exclusively but I think that reason is Google Chrome OS.

I believe the iPad will go up against Google's Chrome OS powered NetBooks. Steve Jobs' criticism of netbooks: slow and with PC software running them. Google's netbooks? TV like response from power to surfing. That impressive lead time already exists within the iPhone and stated for the iPad. If you consider the iPad from this perspective then you can understand why it doesn't support USB/SD cards and isn't an open platfrom: neither will Chrome OS be! By reducing the variety of components the operating system has to support, it makes it quicker to load, smaller and less prone to errors. In short, quicker to access the internet. It's all about the speed and the internet. 

Google stated that the Chrome Netbooks will be a secondary device in the home used for web surfing and other 'cloud' based requirements. The iPad will be used for web surfing and other Apple based uses. The benefit of both devices is that they accompany existing technology and increase user experience but the downside is that because they don't replace existing technology it becomes expensive.

Over time the third type of device that sits in between the smart phone and the laptop will become an amalgamation of the two and laptops will morph into specialist hardware for specialist tasks. Every home that owns hardware to access the internet will use an iPad, Chome OS netbook. Most homes won't need anything else. Cameras and other peripherals will adopt an open and universal protocol for transferring their data to these devices, most likely wirelessly and the days of USB connections and flash based storage media will be behind us. 

Until then, the iPad won't suit everyone but it will be a success. 

One year and counting...

Despite this post existing and the novelty candle I've chosen as 'suitable' decor, I'm not really into self indulgence and celebration. However it has been almost a year since my first post and against better judgement I've decided to mark the occasion. My aforementioned concerns duly noted, I'd like to reflect on the past 12 months from a perspective of technological change and how the original purpose of a blog has faired, changed and evolved in that time. 


It is with a fair amount of shame that I look back at the screen shots of my first attempt at web development. Even with the caveat of wanting to learn basic HTML it's a poor, poor site! One of the many reasons I decided it had to go was the realisation that it was the experience of creating the site as opposed to the actual use of the site that I valued more (interestingly that's true in part for this blog too). I was happy to take it down and eager to replace it with something more respectable. 


From this point onwards desire and outcome started to differ. The stated aim was to develop a content-managed site through Joomla! that would house a more sophisticated website and incorporate a cared-for blog (my previous blog was an aspiration that remained as such). I was undecided as to the content of the website, having no established use case and perhaps hoped rather than anticipated that I'd find uses. I'm still searching today for appropriate uses and this, along with advances in blogger.com since my 2007 attempt at a blog pretty much stopped the Joomla! experiment in it's tracks. 


I've mentioned before a couple of sites that I based the structure of this blog around: www.jemimakiss.com is one, Scott Bramley's Blog another and the excellent www.newmusicstrategies.com the third. These sites show that you could include more content than just blog posts to a blog site and as such usurp Joomla! and other such platforms altogether. It's not an approach I'd recommend for corporate websites but on a smaller scale it works well. I was able to include links to other blogs I found enjoyable, my social networking accounts and other links of note under one umbrella. The layout is configured using user-friendly wizards and for a novice there's little chance of causing serious damage.


The end result was a web presence I wasn't ashamed of! That was a good first step. However I very much doubted my ability to write what I would consider acceptable posts that people would actually enjoy reading. To this end and true even as I type, I don't publicise my blog. In fact the only link to it remains in the Bio section of Twitter. The reasons for including it on Twitter I'm not entirely convinced by, except that I can acknowledge that I started using Twitter comfortable with knowing that it wasn't a trend I was following that had been laid out by friends, colleagues or other peer pressures. It was something I was happy to embark upon solo and this perhaps explains why I feel more comfortable linking to the blog there. A stated aim I had (if not publically stated) was to develop new skills that were a move away from my current occupation, skill set and interests. I guess part of that was finding an environment where I could do that semi incognito.  


On reflection I think I've achieved what I set out to almost a year ago. If not as all-singing and dancing and in truth probably useless as Joomla! could have provided, but a presence that was easy to create, maintain and develop and in hindsight has allowed me to concentrate on the actual writing elements of the blog (the writing is the main reason I started out). I wanted a place to document my thoughts and 'insights' (probably a definition others will need to vouch for) and develop writing experience and above all a style that at some point in the future, someone might want to pay for (the content editing rather than journalistic side of things). I was happy for these aspirations to be achieved slowly and will be the first to acknowledge that I'm still very much working towards them. 


One area that I think has helped me with the writing side of things has been structure. I decided at the start to concentrate my posts to clearly defined subjects. The plural nature was needed to recognise that I had a wider range of interests on which I wanted to write about but also that I didn't feel confident in writing within the confines of a single subject. A jack of all trades approach to a certain extent. I also decided to use labels to categorise these themes and hopefully enable anyone reading my blog to quickly find what the think may be relevant postings. 


Eventually I settled on three subjects: Technology, Music and Sport. These cover fairly concisely my interests and the areas I would probably enjoy writing about. Music was included almost as an aspirational target as unlike technology the subject is still very much approached from a historical perspective. I felt that meant that more people were likely to have already covered the subjects I wanted to cover and that added a weight of expectation and benchmarking that didn't necessarily come with Technology and Sport. Over the past year it's certainly been the subject that I've struggle the most to write about. 


The second part of the brief for writing was to provide an alternative perspective to the subject being discussed. I like to introduce context and perspective to current topics that often get overlooked in mainstream media reporting and where appropriate relate precedents to situations that have gone unnoticed. I'd like to think my posts regarding Football being a business and how Google's development can be seen to mirror Microsoft's are example in achieving these aims. With Technology in particular I wanted to move away from the descriptive nature of many blog reviews and focus on themes such as impact, effectiveness, world order and in a lot of cases commercial sustainability. Reading a lot of material that documents new technologies it always frustrates me that their impact isn't really explored past the 'with it be a hit or a miss' debate. 


I'm happy with the way my blog has progressed to date and have every intension of continuing in a similar vein in the immediate future. I do understand however that technology changes and hope to be able to incorporate some of those changes in due course. In particular I'm looking forward to using Google Wave for future blog postings. However I am also aware that there are issues I need to address in order to progress from what I believe has been a solid start. 


The issue I think I'll struggle most to overcome is audience. I'm perfectly aware and content with the fact that my audience is practically non-existent. A friend now and again will read and comment and I've had the occasional conversation about my blog with people through Twitter. Despite knowing that I have no audience I find I can write with one in mind. However I don't know how long that mindset will last and it doesn't really challenge me to improve much. Equally though I don't see any benefit in a blog that has nondescript comments from supportive friends if I increase my circulation and promotion. I'm not sure that the purpose of blogs (and certainly mine) is in essence a popularity contest to see how much reaction you can generate. Even with mainstream blogs from media outlets and more niche offerings from the tech world I see little value in the structure of comments and discussions that follow posts. It is difficult to follow a thread or discussion and rarely adds to the experience of reading a particular post. To that extent I'm still wary of mass publicisation and will for the time being maintain status quo and evaluate some more!


As Confucius' musings on a journey's beginning can be related to many a situation, so to will I endeavour to make a start: any feedback, suggestions, comments, objections, opinions, conjecture or abuse is ready to be received!
   

Google Voice: A one word confusion?

As branding goes, Google seems to have hit the jackpot. 'Google' is a noun, a verb, synonymous with 'search' to the extent that most people now confess to 'googling' rather than searching. Part one: success. Part two? Expand into other areas of the web, innovate, keep the google brand and concisely describe new feature. Google Maps, Google Earth, Google Calendar, Google Docs. Check! It does exactly what it says on the tin, and it is clear that it was done by Google. 


Moving away from the Google love-in however, and you may well stumble across Google Voice. In theory, voice on the web, by Google. What could be more complicated? Imagine a little deeper and voice on the web can translate into phones, conversations, voicemail. The list is endless. So why has the latest innovation from Google caused so much controversy? Especially as it's not yet here in the UK and most people probably don't know it exists!


A history lesson is called for...


In 2007 Google acquired a company called Grand Central. It was a service that offered customers the opportunity to merge all phone calls to one number. The Grand Central concept and doubtless technology are now the cornerstone of Google Voice. In essence Google Voice lets you filter all your calls to one number and lays out an unprecedented amount of configurable features that govern your entire telephonic communication. Or as their support pages put it:

Google Voice is a service that enhances the existing capabilities of your phone numbers. With it, you can access your voicemail online, read automatic transcriptions of your voicemail, create personalized greetings based on who is calling, make cheap international calls, and more.

Google Voice allows you to have one number to replace all of your existing numbers. When someone calls that number, the phone that rings and the greeting they receive are dependent on the rules you have created. For example, if you contacts are divided into 'work' and 'friends' then you can configure Google Voice to call you work phone if someone calls whose listed in 'work' and your personal mobile if listed in 'friends'. You can even assign contacts individual voicemail greetings and all voicemail is sent to your email in mp3 format and transcribed into text. 


At face value that is quite a proposition and one that has interested me for some time. I've been waiting eagerly for it's deployment in the UK (it's out as an invite-only beta version in the US). It even got a mention when I reviewed the impressive HulloMail voicemail offering.  So what seems to be the problem? As HulloMail pointed out on their recent blog (and no doubt intended to persuade their customers that Google Voice isn't for them!) the reason it is popular in the States and not yet available in the UK comes down to very different market conditions:

Problem is you can’t map a US solution to a Non-US context and expect it to work. Why not? Cos it’s a solution to their problems and not ours – it’s a superb example of what I call ‘the fallacy of misplaced solutions’. What does this mean? Quite literally – it’s a solution ok, but a solution that’s misplaced – ie ‘out of place’ here in the UK. What I mean is, if you’re stateside then you PAY TO RECEIVE CALLS . So let’s take their universal number for all your life and after concept – OK – so from now on your mum calls this number which then calls you – right so how does that get billed then? Over here mobile has developed with different infrastructure, business models, usage patterns and its our main comms line with the world. So the universalist approach that works for Google in search (ie everyone everywhere searches for stuff and you can advertise to them and build a universal solution on the back of that) won’t work for mobile.

Somewhat 'passionately' put, the salient point appears to be that there are two reasons you would adopt Google Voice in the US: the product features stated above and the many listed here, and secondly, the reduction in cost you would achieve. In the US when someone calls you, you pay. When you call someone else, you pay. A two way call is charged to both people. That's an interesting concept and a post for another day. What Google Voice does however, is absorb the cost of the incoming call and charge you that call at cost. The call from Google Voice to any of your nominated phones is always a local call.

In the UK to adopt this model, you would have to pay a local call rate everytime someone called your Google Voice number. This would add extra cost and seems to be the source of HulloMail's pains. It doesn't want to lose customers (like myself) to Google and so is pointing out the downside of their offering, should the same model be implemented in the UK. This would appear to be a strategic decision of theirs as at present they do not make any revenue from me (not directly anyway).

What I think HulloMail and others miss when unraveling this structure is that Google Voice also offers local rate outgoing calls to all numbers. In the UK that would present significant savings. Whether these savings can offset the costs of receiving calls I have no data with which to start any analysis, but they very well might. Of more interest is the effect this would have on the UK telecommunications market, should Google be successful with Google Voice. I can't see me wanting to pay a monthly fee to a mobile network for bundled minutes that I'm not going to use as my calls will be placed by Google Voice. They would charge me and I would pay them. For receiving calls I'd also be charged by them and be unlikely to be able to use my 'free minutes' from the mobile network to pay. The same would go for personal landlines. I'd want both phones as line rental only and manage call charges through Google Voice.

That's not a situation that is going to be taken lightly I don't suspect. In the US customers already pay to receive calls so the mobile networks can keep that revenue from the end user (Google Voice charges network, network charges user).

I can't find any source to confirm or disprove that this assumption is correct so it will have to stand as supposition. However after a bit of thought it does appear logical. The acid test will be whether the features offered by Google (revolutionary in my opinion) are worth the upheaval. Timing may be an issue and the concept may be received in a couple of years where more mobile phones are 'smart phones' and the distinction between landline and mobile has blurred some (it looks like a Google Voice app would be required to manage the service in the event you weren't near the web). O2 are offering a 'mobile landline' and that seems to point the way the industry is heading.

All of the above I can only assume that Google are aware of and will address should the service come to the UK in the future. An assumption!

Sky Sports on the iPhone. Heaven? (Part 2)

I had the foresight to end my previous post about the new venture between Sky Sports, O2 and the Apple iPhone by including a caviat that the real value for money could only be seen after I could establish weather the Apple Composite TV Cable would successfully stream the Sky Sport's footage from my iPhone to my TV. If it could, it would save a potential £14 a month in Sky TV subscriptions. If...


I excitedly unwrapped my cable at Christmas (tragic in so many different ways!) only to find that the boxing day test between England and South Africa would stream to my TV the audio only! At first I assumed the cable was faulty, wrong or indeed just plain mis-sold but then other content on my iPhone would stream perfectly. Even the BBC iPlayer made the successful transition. A quick Google search later and it appears the app blocks the streaming of the video for exactly the purpose of stopping me and my experiment. Technically I think streaming only works through Quick Time applications within the Safari browser or the iPod application itself. 


I've found this to be a real shame. Not only was the cable expensive but despite the good quality of picture, it is no real substitute for Sky Sports through the Sky box. There's no interactive menu, you can not pause live TV and depending on the network connection the streaming can be flaky. 


As in my other post today, broadband usage has also appeared on the horizon with this topic. To make full use of the service (even if the streaming to a TV did work) would probably require an upgrade in broadband subscription (for me anyway). 


In conclusion? Back to the pub for important football matches I think. I may be tempted to subscribe to the app on an ad hoc basis, but come the summer cricket season I may bite the bullet and return to my Sky Sports TV subscription!

A Spofity sting in the tail...

OK so short-sighted it might have been, absent-minded I think I'd prefer but my Spotify experience over Christmas smashed my download limit from Sky Broadband! The 2GB limit that we'd not previously gone anywhere near was pushed to an impressive 4GB. Fortunately a slap on the wrists was all that ensued, although if we do it again we'll be moved onto the next tariff automatically. A fair policy I think by Sky and hopefully one that they'll not need to implement. 


It is a value addition to the Spotify debate, however, and broadband limitations should be taken into consideration before embarking on the Spotify adventure!

A Test Team of the Decade

I've just read the Wisden's various Test Teams of the Decade, and agree with none of them! So I thought I'd put down mine and my reasons for each player. 


Hayden, Jayasuriya, Ponting, Tendulkar, Lara, Dravid, Gilchrist (wk), Warne (c), Pollock, McGrath, Khan


Having gone through the process I can now see why I agree with none of the teams offered by Wisden! As you might expect there is a lot of convincing arguments for many players in each position and so it does very much come down to personal opinion. 


To quickly rattle through what might be considered as the 'obvious' selections (interestingly all Australian): Ponting, Gilchrist, Warne and McGrath, I'd consider them automatic choices not only because of how good they were during the past 10 years but also because of the success, individually and collectively, that they achieved. I believe these to be beyond reproach in their current positions in any team (with the exception of No.3 where other candidates can bat lower in the order, that is). 


My criteria for selection is based on the following: 

1. Personal success during the past 10 years
2. Contribution to team success during the same period
3. Success in that particular position
4. Impact made during a significant part of the past 10 years, if not continually throughout that period

My controversial selections begin I suppose with Jayasuriya. When you consider him alongside Justin Langer, Marcus Trescothick, Virender Sehwag or even Stephen Fleming then stronger arguments can be made for most of the other players on that list. However it is the personal contribution that is the principle reason I've included him. The age at which he continued to play at such a high level is remarkable. His leadership throughout the beginning of the century enabled Sri Lanka to progress from a developing team to a strong contender in every series they took part in and his ethic and influence on the team is showing itself in their current success. His One Day career should not influence a test team but it is an impressive footnote. 


Tendulkar and Lara in the middle order I don't think could be surpassed as a combination, no matter what the criteria for selection is. My knowledge of cricketing history does not stretch back beyond the early nineties based on first hand experience, but I'd be hard pressed to think of any others for these positions. I have been privileged to see first hand Tendulkar bat, not so Lara. Ponting at No.3 and Dravid as the extra batsmen at No.6 complement these two perfectly (although Dravid could do with batting higher up the list we it not for Ponting). I remember the England v India series in 2003 when both he and Michael Vaughan were outstanding and Dravid at No.3 really personified his 'The Wall' nickname. 


The start of both Tendulkar and Lara's careers came before this century but that should not be held against them. Gilchrist is I think undisputed at No.7 for the runs he makes, the offensive role he plays in that position and his 'keeping ability. Had it not been for him Alec Stewart had success during this period and would be a close call too. He also inspired a generation of aggressive wicket-keeper/batsmen and that as much as his cricket will be his legacy.


Shaun Pollock and Zaheer Khan are probably the debatable bowling options. Pollock became a good all round option at numbers 8 and 9 for South Africa and his bowling record is worthly of inclusion on its own. Captaincy is another notable asset of his and were it not for McGrath then I believe his reputation would be greater than it is today. 



Zaheer Khan is perhaps my indulgent choice and is primarily due to his series against England in 2003. His left arm conventional and reverse swing from around the wicket to England's left handers is some of the best bowling I have seen. His temperament and focal point of an Indian team full of batting super-stars made him seem even more exceptional.

Notable by their absence are any English players. Vaughan, Trescothick and Flintoff I would consider to be the best of the past decade (Graham Thorpe mentioned in dispatches). Of these all have their merits and I'm a big fan of Michael Vaughan so he was under consideration, especially for his early decade form and captaincy. All three had their purple patches but also their problems. Maybe I am slightly harder on English players as I tend to be too familiar with them, weaknesses and all?


A final note about the Captain. I've gone for Warne in line with the common belief that he was the best captain Australia never had. I think he would have offered something very different in that capacity. He always appeared to be forward thinking, inventive and not afraid to take risks as a player and captain for Hampshire and I think he'd have been one of the bolder captains of international cricket. I also don't believe there is a natural captain in my team. 

As a nod to the next 10, I expect Pakistan's Mohammad Aamer, South Africa's Morne Morkel and England's very own Adil Rashid to feature prominently.

   

A Spofity'd Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Firstly, a very Happy New Year to anyone who has read any of my posts over the past year!


This Christmas period I saw for the first time what the fuss about Spotify is actually all about! I've posted before on Last.fm and how I instinctively preferred a web-based model for music streaming and would persevere along that route. Despite having an invitation for Spotify, and even signing up, I hadn't really ventured near it. 


That changed when it came to putting up Christmas decorations. As usual, we knew in the flat there was a Christmas album or two of debatable quality and that we'd like to dig it out to accompany the putting up of Christmas decorations. However after a brief search no CD was forthcoming. It occurred to me that there would probably be an album or two on Spotify so I dug the laptop out, hooked it up to the aux port of the iPhone speaker system and searched. 


Searching was simply. 'Christmas Music' brought back a host of differing results; traditional to contemporary, some really good, some awful! The lead time between search and playing is extremely quick and the more familiar I became with Spotify, the better the music I was able to chose. A search for 'Traditional Christmas Music' gave an instant playlist of Carols and other choral numbers. Similarly 'Rat Pack Christmas' was a good search as it found all the Christmas numbers recorded by Frank Sinatra, Dean Martin, Bing Crosby et al. 


These simple searches gave hours of play that were really effective as background music around the festive period, especially when we had people round. The vast back catalogue of music Spotify has allowed the laptop to be passed around and other music selected which was also a nice touch. It's not a new concept; going through friend's music collection from vignal to CD or the iPod is a common past time, but with Spotify the choice is impressively wider. 


The second use I found for it was for a family party at new year. I was informed a younger contingent had requested amongst others Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga and Pixie Lott. In my defense I'd heard of two of the three and even walked past Taylor Swift at V Festival during the summer! Spofity was excellent in accommodating these requests. A search of each artist gave an impressive list of songs which could be dragged into a playlist and set to shuffle and repeat. Job done. Later in the evening once again the laptop was passed around and songs added to the queue in the playlist. I'm not sure Pixie Lott will following The Smiths in many people's playlists!


The positives of Spotify have genuinely impressed me and I will use it more in the future. I can see myself checking out new music there before buying it as being a traditionalist of sorts I like to own music and believe it's important to buy music. 


There were, however, some notable drawbacks of Spotify. Regardless of the standard line that the adverts 'aren't very noticeable and don't come along very often' I did find them intrusive and annoying. I'm minded that I'm not a fan of commercial radio because of the adverts so I know I'm not particularly objective. I also found the visual adverts that would occupy the entire screen were extremely annoying because there didn't seem to be any obvious way to deal with them. Again maybe I was just missing something? In Spotify's defense there is a premium subscription for people like me who don't like the adverts, and the iPhone application that comes with this subscription is attractive, but at the moment I can not justify the expenditure. I guess that means I'll put up with the adverts. 


Again I'd reiterate that a web-based application would be ideal and would greatly improve the appeal of the service. However the quality of continuous playback over WiFi using a client application is exceptional so I guess that is a price worth paying. 


My friend who introduced me to Spotify was right: Last.fm does seem so 2008 (said in 2008)! It's got a lot of work to do to either catch up or significantly differential itself. One note on Last.fm, it does now incorporate copious adverts so at least a commercial platform is being established.