Gmail pushes iPhone, but is it too little too late for traditional mail?

This week has seen the long awaited release of Google Sync's Push Gmail support for the iPhone (and Windows Mobile). Google Sync has previously provided support for Google Calendar and Contacts with the iPhone through the phone's Microsoft Exchange client, but push support for Gmail was conspicuous by it's absence!

While Yahoo have had a push service for a while, there is growing concern that push notifications have been draining battery life. Google identified that as a concern when developing push for Gmail and cited their own efforts to reduce battery use:

While this type of speed is pretty awesome, push connections tend to use more power than fetching at intervals, so don't be surprised if your battery life isn't quite what it used to be. We've done a lot of work to optimize power usage, but if you prefer to save battery life, you can always turn off push in your phone's settings and fetch mail every 30 or 60 minutes instead.

It will be interesting to see how the new feature pans out. I've had it enabled for a few days now and have noticed the battery drain in addition to a couple of other quirks:

• Battery Life is now on average 1 day. This has decreased by almost 50% although unlike a Blackberry, you can turn push on/off and set custom fetch times so this is not really a problem for me
• What I assume is Google's attempt to reduce battery drain manifests itself in the service only checking for new mail and if there is any, placing a unread number with the mail icon and playing the new mail notification. This sounds sensible but when you open the mail app to read it, the app has to check all over again and plays a new mail notification once the message has been downloaded!
• It appears to notify on new mail better than it does re-sync once mail has been read. I haven't been able to read mail in a web browser and see the unread count on the iPhone mail app icon decrease afterwards. Only when you open the app and it checks again does it sort itself out (even then, occasionally it doesn't!)

There's a couple of bugs above that will no doubt be ironed out in the future, but as a first stab it's not bad. The iPhone Facebook app, for example, can't sync consistently when reading Facebook emails through a web-browser (or when switching between accounts) so maybe it's an Apple thing? And despite all that it is handy to have a audio notification go off (and as default a less intrusive one than SMS messages on the iPhone too).

The use of a Microsoft application (Microsoft Exchange) and one that's hardly cutting edge mail technology either suggests that Google aren't planning to hang around for the long term with this platform. A decision [if true] that appears sound in logic.

When Gmail was released in 2004 it was revolutionary: conversation view messaging, 1GB of storage, the famous Google search capabilities just some of the innovations that moved messaging forward. But it didn't, really. Hotmail responded by increasing the capacity of it's storage and others soon followed suit, but in terms of creative innovations to actual messaging, nothing really changed. Not until Facebook arrived and added an messaging capability to mirrored both traditional email and Google's conversation view did anything seriously adapt to Google's new benchmark.

For a while now that has left me with a feeling that perhaps traditional email and perhaps even Gmail is becoming redundant? Maybe not so for corporate world but certainly on a social level, how many of my friends who I talk to regularly are not on Facebook? [one is the answer, and he know's who he is!]. Over the past 12 months my social emailing through Gmail has plummeted! Facebook has definitely taken up that mantle; providing a service that is easy and uniform to use and can be accessed through a variety of mediums (web, mobile, iPhone, text to name a few). As 99% of my friends are on Facebook, I don't need to remember, store and maintain a list of their email addresses (although I still do, not trusting Facebook will be around forever).

Is it any surprise then that a Gmail-styled mailing application is the one that has grown and become more popular than any other over the recent years? Does this mean the end of dedicated mail providers, unable to gain such a monopoly of users as Facebook has managed? I'm not sure it does and it links nicely back to my view that Google is sitting tight on something new. Well not new as a lot of people already know about Google Wave, but new in terms of blowing everyone else out of the marketplace in one majestic swoop? (I couldn't bring myself to indulge in wave puns!)

At first I didn't really understand Google Wave. I think under examination I probably would still fail a 'Google Wave Comprehension Exercise'. The demo's, screen shots and reviews all give me the impression that it is just too busy an interface for you to get a handle on what's happening. I like to be able to 'see the bigger picture' and other clichés that mean 'to take perspectives that aren't spoon fed to you!' The more I look at it though, I'm more convinced it can cater for these desires and also deliver on the obvious benefits it will bring. I've long advocated using messaging services such as Skype or even MSN Messenger in business, arguing that it would free up Email to be exactly that: Electronic Mail. Google Wave would allow people to use it as both an electronic mail solution and a chat-based solution as it has been designed to do that. Microsoft Outlook and the host of traditional mail providers were not designed to handle chats (a post for another rainy day!).

So are Google holding back on their development of services that involve major use of Microsoft Exchange on the iPhone in order to pave the way for Wave, or are they simply reluctant to use Microsoft technology to facilitate their innovations? In a wider context than just the iPhone, will Google Wave end the old-style mail communication format, or will us end users reject such radical change?

Google Sync's Push Gmail could well be the last hurrah for an antiquated way of electronic communication. It saddens me a little to admit I'm really quite excited by that prospect!

BlogPress Lite comes to an iPhone near me!

I've just noticed that there's an App in the App Store that officially supports Blogger.com for the iPhone. Blogger.com is the company Google acquired some time ago and is considered one of the better blogging facilities (in the interest of fairness WordPress is also suposedly very good, but i've never used it).

This post is something therefore if a test, to see how it works and how I can incorporate it into my posts.

A couple of initital thoughts: the most obvious thing to note is length; posting will need to be short and to the point as my finger already aches! [I should learn to use more than one on this device!]. Also I can't immediately see how to add hyperlinks. Even if you could, it's fairly obvious it work take a long time. Finally, I can't easily research and provide references as I try to do when posting online.

However I think it could be a useful feature, certainly one I've been waiting a while for!




- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Nouvelle Vague: Say Hello and Wave Goodbye!

Sticking to the Music theme a bit more, I've recently discovered French band Nouvelle Vague. In particular I've been impressed with their covers album '3'. On first appearance is looks and sounds like a very good covers album, but delve a little deeper and its actually more of a collaboration between the band and the original artists they are covering. My favourite is without a doubt 'Say Hello, Wave Goodbye', originally a Soft Cell hit. Strangely enough this wasn't my first introduction to the song by way of a cover, as Jools Holland and Marc Almond did an excellent cover for his album 'Jools Holland's Big Band Rhythm and Blues'.

As a rule I wouldn't say I like French pop music especially, however I do like fellow compatriots Air and Nouvelle Vague have a similar feel and quality to them as well. They've been my band of choice for the summer, and I wouldn't bet against them having success in the future. Despite not being exactly commercial, I don't think that would hold them back.

Have a listen, it's defiantly worth an hour of your life!

V Festival 2009: A Final Thought

Thought I'd post my thoughts of this year's V Festival in Stafford, which I've just come back from. It will also make a change to talk about artists that are still alive on these pages!

In no particular order I managed to see the following during the two days: Bjorn Again, Ocean Colour Scene, The Lightening Seeds, The Proclaimers, Alesha Dixon, James, The Human League, Oasis, The Noisettes, Jet, Dizzee Rascal,The Specials, Happy Mondays, Pendulum and The Killers.

OK that was pretty much chronological order over the Saturday and Sunday! It was something of an older affair (something that has been reported of late during the Media as a growing trend). It gave me a chance to see some bands I didn't think I'd ever see, such as The Human League, Happy Mondays and The Specials as well as a nostalgic look back at The Lightening Seeds and probably the only time I'll ever exchange money to see an Abba tribute band!

These older bands were excellent but it was a bit unfortunate that I didn't really know much of their music. I'll make a note to do my research better prior to going in future as it does so much to the experience when you do.

The surprise act of the weekend for me was Alesha Dixon! I had a free slot and went along out of curiosity more than anything other reason and liked what I saw: good songs (pop, but well produced), great stage presence, good rapport with the audience but above all of that you get the sense of a genuine person enjoying what she's doing. Should also mention the dancing! She's got quite an act and if her appearances as a judge on Strictly Come Dancing work out well for her and raise her profile, she'll make quite a success of things in the years to come. Genuinely impressive!

Oasis were poor (I feel having seen them more than a few times previously I can make such judgement) and something was clearly amiss as they then pulled out of the Chelmsford gig. A lot of people really enjoyed Dizzee Rascal and the 'bouncy' stuff was impressive but I was content to sit at the back with a beer! Same really goes for The Proclaimers and that's about as generous as I can be with them!

A final word on a non-music note, the Guinness Garden and V Healthy spots were excellent. I'd been to V a few years ago and didn't seem to remember them being there but it's a sign of good things to come from festivals if they're acknowledging that some of their campers want something a bit more refined! Someone also needs to rethink festival loos but I think that's just a pipe-dream!

Who tweets the Twitter demise?

I was about to post something else and wanted to check a quick reference on Twitter. However, it's down! As Twitter has broken some of the biggest stories of the past 12 months and thus gained a reputation for breaking news quicker than anyone else, who breaks this one? status.twitter.com is presumably located on a separate platform but how many people know it's there?

Who tweets the twitter demise, that's what I want to know!

Stick Cricket: Great game, successful strategy

I've been meaning to post about my favourite ever Internet game for a while now. Stick Cricket's history is quite an interesting read, a rise from a student learning how to develop in flash to one of the best Internet games out there.

I first became aware of this game a few years ago now and it is the only Internet game that has held my attention for longer than a week! I can't quite put my finger on what makes the game so appealing for me, but there are a few factors that probably help. Firstly, the ability to score fours and sixes on a regular basis (the entire point of the game) brings that feel good factor when playing. Secondly, the view you get (a batsman's view) of the ball careering to the boundary is very, very satisfying. It also looks like a proper cricket shot. Sometimes on other games the actual game play isn't very realistic. Finally I think the concept is something that fits the medium it has been developed on. Although originally using stick men, the game has developed but kept to the same ethos.

Apart from the game play elements addressed above I think another reason I really like the game is the way in which Stick Sports has been developed and allowed to evolve. Slowly but surely they've enhanced the Stick Cricket game. New features, new competitions, more variety in how you play have always enticed me back to the game. They tackled the most obvious shortcoming of their game (not being able to bowl) with a challenging online multi player game. It didn't last very long but it was good!

More impressively than the actual innovations that were borne seems to be the strategy they have adopted for development. Stick Sports had a core product and they spent time and money developing it; enhancing the game play and ensuring it maintained its popular appeal and market position. Only after this phase of its strategy had proved successful did it branch out to develop other games to complement the cricket game and produce a range of sports games under the stick sports banner. (The best of these games in my opinion is Stick Tennis)

Although with success has come less discrete advertising and more 'obvious' placement of adverts, this doesn't interfere with the experience of using the sites. They have developed a community feel to the site that although I don't personally see as advantageous, I know a lot of other users do). The site is not in the same league as Cric Info and other cricket media in terms of a cricketing knowledge base, but this seems to be the next phase in the strategy. Blogs and forums are prevalent on the site and there is also 'Live Score' features (although I must confess to not having used these enough to pass comment).

Basically I've been impressed with Stick Cricket since the beginning, and if it is possible to end with an awful pun, believe that from tiny acorns, cricket bats really can grown! [I'm sorry]

It's not the referees that lack consistency...

I've decided to get in early this year. Listening to an interview with Ricky Ponting where he wanted to bemoan umpiring decisions during the 2nd Ashes Test at Lord's but didn't, it occurred to me that football seems to have adopted the wrong mindset when it comes to the perception of referees.

There is a perception that referees 'need to be consistent', presumably with regards to decision making in order to create an expectation that can be attained on a regular basis. This view it would seem is supported not just by fans, commentators and managers, but by referees themselves. I happen to have a few issues with this theory though!

First up it's probably important to define what is currently accepted as a definition of a referee. As usual Wikipedia has it's own view:

A referee presides over a game of association football. The referee has "full authority to enforce the Laws of the Game in connection with the match to which he has been appointed" (Law 5), and the referee's decisions regarding facts connected with play are final, so far as the result of the game is concerned.

This I think covers the 'text book' definition and I would suspect is contested by few. There is probably another angle to explore, that being the common perception of what a referee is. Although there isn't really anything to cite to backup my theory, I suspect a referee is perceived by many as being a person to ensure fair play is achieved. Whilst not a ridiculous suggestion, I think most people connected to Football expect the success rate of this to be 100%. This is where I believe the problem lies!

The expectation of a referee is probably the same as a quiz host or a mortgage broker. In these instances you feed facts into a system and the host or broker delivers a verdict. The interpretation of these facts is automated so there is no subjective judgement to be passed by a human. In reality however, they should probably be closer to a Doctor or a Judge in terms of expectation: recognised to get most decisions correct but accepted that they can not achieve 100% as they are human!

To explore this point further, taking a scientific look at referees can explain the concept. When looking at even the basic of scientific experiments, the focus is on identifying variables from a group of constants in order to evaluate performance. The same can be found in problem solving. In order to diagnose what is wrong, we often find out what has changed first and then work from there. For example when a car breaks down because of a puncture, the puncture is the only variable that changed from when the car was working fine. With a referee, often the only constant when evaluating their job, decisions, performance etc. is the referee himself. Everything else is a variable.

Using a simple example to compare two 'similar' decisions, firstly look for the variables: if we look at two decisions over two games then these will include the date, time, location, probably both teams, maybe a different competition. These are just some of the more obvious variables. Then there are more obscure ones that a based on human behaviour: history between two teams, between teams and referee, previous incidents in press/media, recent criticisms of other referees etc. All of these will have a bearing on how the referee feels, thinks and ultimately acts. A late clip by the full back on the winger early in the game may go unpunished in the first game, receiving just a cautionary word from the referee, yet may be punished with a yellow card in the next game. Why? Unfortunately a variety of reasons! The referee may have been criticised for his decision in the previous game, he may be trying to assert his authority early on in the second game, the referee may perceive the full back deliberately clipped the winger in the second game but not the first.

There are two points that are important from the example above: referees are human and as such can not guarantee that subjective thinking will not come into their decision making and secondly, that only the referee has all the information available to him when making a decision. Commentators and managers can disagree but the only person who has all the information to make a decision is the referee.

So based on the theory and examples above, is it right to lay such expectations on referees? Would the same be made in other professions? There are a few similarities between referees and professions such as judges. Both make decisions that include an element of subjective thought. Both have a recognised appeal process to accommodate human error and mistakes being made, yet judges in general are not a vilified breed.

As an argument against referees, there will undoubtedly be incidents that referees should be expected to make correct decisions on. Black and White issues that take little subjective interpretation. In these instances it is probably fair to ask for a level of consistency and by their own admission, a lot of referees do acknowledge obvious mistakes. But if we are not to expect them to be able to interpret every situation correctly and make the appropriate decision, then what expectation should we have for referees?

Consistency should be found with our approach to how we view referees. More account should be given to the fact that a referee can not always produce consistent decision making due to the wide range of variables involved from one decision to the next. If this primary notion was accepted across the sport it would make a huge difference in the way referees are treated and accounted for. To cite Ricky Ponting, it is acceptable for players/managers and fans to disagree with the decisions taken by referees but they must be accepted as part of the game. Accepted in the same way that a player being injured during the match or sent off for an incident on which all agree was warranted are accepted by all parties as justified in altering the course of the game.

In addition to this there is also merit in the old adage that the decisions even themselves out across a season. Although I do not have any statistics to prove the theory, my hypothesis would be that contested decisions for and against a team even out during the course of the season.

Again to Ricky Ponting and rather than find excuses from questionable umpiring he chose to acknowledge the weaknesses of his side's play as reasons for their failure to win the match. Similarities could also be found in football. How many times has a manager blamed a referee for not awarding a penalty as justification for his side's inability to win the game, yet neglected to acknowledge the abundance of chances his strikers missed in open play? If a player is sent off then again the referee is blamed. Who questions why the player got themselves into that situation in the first place?

To summarise, consistency ought to be sort in the way everyone associated with football approaches the role of a referee in football. They should not be expected to find a level of consistency that exceeds the subjective capacity of their decision making. They should be expected to deliver the best decisions they can, and that erroneous decisions will even themselves out over the longer duration.

A referee is an easy scape goat for those who do not have the ability to question themselves when it comes to failure. A change in mind set to accept the limitations of a referee when evaluating the outcome of a game will go along way to improving the perception of referees and the quality of the decisions they give.