Showing posts with label Barbara Krasnoff's Most Recent Posts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barbara Krasnoff's Most Recent Posts. Show all posts
Monday, 21 November 2011
Survey finds Windows Phone 7 becoming a favorite with app developers
Windows Phone 7 has suddenly become a favorite with app developers, the number three platform behind iOS and Android, according to a just-released survey from Appcelerator and IDC. This is big news for Microsoft, because in mobile, where developers go, consumers generally follow.
The joint Appcelerator/IDC survey found that 38% of developers are "very interested" in developing for the smartphone platform, a leap of 8% compared to the last quarter. It's the highest interest in Windows Phone 7 that Appcelerator and IDC have found in their surveys. At 38%, Windows Phone 7 trails iOS at 91%, and Android at 83%. Blackberry, meanwhile, continued its precipitious slide, dropping 7% to 21%.
Those numbers are for smartphone OSes. For tablets, the iPad weighs in at 88%, Android tablets at 68%, and Blackberry PlayBook at 13%. No numbers were reported for Microsoft-based tablets.
Why the sudden jump for developer interest in Windows Phone 7? The deal with Nokia is clearly paying off. Here's what the survey says:
When it comes to developer interest, I don't think that Windows Phone 7 will ever catch iOS or Android. But it doesn't need to in order to succeed. Windows Phone 7 is more task-oriented than either of those operating systems, and so doesn't need to rely as heavily on apps in order to draw in consumers. As long as it has a healthy ecosystem of apps, it should do fine.
So even though for now Windows Phone 7 sales continue to lag considably behind both iOS and Android, the new developer interest is a good sign for future sales.
The joint Appcelerator/IDC survey found that 38% of developers are "very interested" in developing for the smartphone platform, a leap of 8% compared to the last quarter. It's the highest interest in Windows Phone 7 that Appcelerator and IDC have found in their surveys. At 38%, Windows Phone 7 trails iOS at 91%, and Android at 83%. Blackberry, meanwhile, continued its precipitious slide, dropping 7% to 21%.
Those numbers are for smartphone OSes. For tablets, the iPad weighs in at 88%, Android tablets at 68%, and Blackberry PlayBook at 13%. No numbers were reported for Microsoft-based tablets.
Why the sudden jump for developer interest in Windows Phone 7? The deal with Nokia is clearly paying off. Here's what the survey says:
Microsoft is enjoying symbiotic success with Nokia. When asked why developers are more interested in Windows Phone 7 now than a year ago, a plurality (48%) said it was the Microsoft/Nokia partnership.In addition Nokia's Lumia Windows Phone 7 device convinced developers that the platform has a future. The survey found:
Nokia also received high marks from its new Lumia Windows Phone 7 smartphone announcement last month, with 28% of developers saying they are 'very interested' in developing for the device. This is more than double the interest in Nokia's own Symbian and MeeGo OSes since Appcelerator began reporting mobile platform interest in January 2010.Even though Windows Phone 7 still clearly lags behind both iOS and Android in developer interest, an 8% jump in a single quarter is a very good sign for the eventual health of the OS. Consumers remain enamoured with smartphone apps, and this is one area where Windows Phone 7 has had problems. As more developers write for Windows Phone 7, the app availability gap between it and iOS and Android will narrow.
When it comes to developer interest, I don't think that Windows Phone 7 will ever catch iOS or Android. But it doesn't need to in order to succeed. Windows Phone 7 is more task-oriented than either of those operating systems, and so doesn't need to rely as heavily on apps in order to draw in consumers. As long as it has a healthy ecosystem of apps, it should do fine.
So even though for now Windows Phone 7 sales continue to lag considably behind both iOS and Android, the new developer interest is a good sign for future sales.
Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Can the Netflix Player take on the Apple TV
The Apple TV, with its easy access to the iTunes store of videos, may have a competitor -- Roku's Netflix Player, which enables consumers to watch their instant-play Netflix selections on their living room TVs. Like the Apple TV, the Netflix Player is built for media fans who may not be technically ept, but who want to build themselves a media center based on Internet access.
However, there are some distinct differences. The Player doesn't download and store media files itself (which is how Apple TV operates); it simply streams them from Netflix via your network connection and onto your TV screen. The actual device is so small (1.75 x 5.25 x 5.25 inches), it will fit almost anywhere around your set and not be noticed. It connects to a power supply and to your TV input; the product comes with a composite cable, but can also use S-video, component, and HDMI (and the "Getting Started" documentation actually lets you know which will give you better quality video and audio).
Unlike most of the "easy-to-use" software and hardware that I've had to wrestle with (Microsoft's first Windows Media versions come to mind), this one really is simple to install. As soon as I hooked it up and
found the right input channel on my TV, I was presented with a setup wizard that found my connection, asked me to put in my network security key (using a nicely simplistic onscreen keyboard and the device's small remote), downloaded an update, restarted the system, and then gave me a five-character code that I was asked to enter into Netflix (using my computer). I entered the code, and immediately both Netflix (on my computer) and Roku (on my TV) told me that I was activated.
Setup took under 15 minutes from unboxing to watching.
Instant Netflix
The Netflix Player gives you access to any of the Netflix movies that you've entered into your Instant Queue (while the service has offered its "Watch Now" feature for a while, the existence of a queue for those films is relatively new). You click on the movie icon for a description of the film; click again, and it starts to play.
I chose several films from my queue and found that the quality of the picture, while not of the highest (I was using the included composite cable over a WiFi connection, which could have had something to do with it) was quite satisfactory. The quality of the stream on my home network was, on the whole, good; there was at least one time when the image stuttered a bit; and when I ran a Youtube video on my computer simultaneously, the download (on my computer) was slightly slow. But on the whole, not at all bad.
You have limited control of your queue via your TV; you can choose a movie to watch, rate it, or delete it from your queue; if you want to add movies or otherwise work with your account, you have to do that via your computer.
The Netflix Player also automatically bookmarks the movie so that you can continue from where you left off (although it's not foolproof -- when I walked away from my set once for about 90 minutes, came back, and tried to start from where I'd left off, the system sent me back to the beginning).
On the other hand, Netflix has come up with rather an inventive method for fast-forwarding through streaming video -- as the company encodes its titles for instant watching, it records a still frame every 10 seconds; when you download the movie, you also download JPEGs of those frames. This allows you to "fast forward" through those JPEGs. When you've chosen the point you want to start at, you have to wait a minute or two as the video downloads -- but it works.
Is this an Apple TV killer? Possibly. I imagine that the Netflix Player will actually appeal to a completely different audience: those who prefer to pay a monthly one-price-fits-all in order to, essentially, rent as many movies as they like, as opposed to those who want to purchase their films at a separate price per download.
Me, I'm in the first camp. I like the freedom to sample videos, or decide halfway through that I want to "walk out" on a film without regretting the price I paid for it. I will admit that the selection of films that Netflix offers for streaming (as opposed to their selection of CDs) is still pretty limited; those who purchase the Netflix Player will be pretty much taking it on faith that the library is going to expand.
But at a one-time cost of $99 -- and especially if you're already paying Netflix's $8.99/month fee -- the Netflix Player is pretty much a no-brainer.
However, there are some distinct differences. The Player doesn't download and store media files itself (which is how Apple TV operates); it simply streams them from Netflix via your network connection and onto your TV screen. The actual device is so small (1.75 x 5.25 x 5.25 inches), it will fit almost anywhere around your set and not be noticed. It connects to a power supply and to your TV input; the product comes with a composite cable, but can also use S-video, component, and HDMI (and the "Getting Started" documentation actually lets you know which will give you better quality video and audio).
Unlike most of the "easy-to-use" software and hardware that I've had to wrestle with (Microsoft's first Windows Media versions come to mind), this one really is simple to install. As soon as I hooked it up and
found the right input channel on my TV, I was presented with a setup wizard that found my connection, asked me to put in my network security key (using a nicely simplistic onscreen keyboard and the device's small remote), downloaded an update, restarted the system, and then gave me a five-character code that I was asked to enter into Netflix (using my computer). I entered the code, and immediately both Netflix (on my computer) and Roku (on my TV) told me that I was activated.
Setup took under 15 minutes from unboxing to watching.
Instant Netflix
The Netflix Player gives you access to any of the Netflix movies that you've entered into your Instant Queue (while the service has offered its "Watch Now" feature for a while, the existence of a queue for those films is relatively new). You click on the movie icon for a description of the film; click again, and it starts to play.
I chose several films from my queue and found that the quality of the picture, while not of the highest (I was using the included composite cable over a WiFi connection, which could have had something to do with it) was quite satisfactory. The quality of the stream on my home network was, on the whole, good; there was at least one time when the image stuttered a bit; and when I ran a Youtube video on my computer simultaneously, the download (on my computer) was slightly slow. But on the whole, not at all bad.
You have limited control of your queue via your TV; you can choose a movie to watch, rate it, or delete it from your queue; if you want to add movies or otherwise work with your account, you have to do that via your computer.
The Netflix Player also automatically bookmarks the movie so that you can continue from where you left off (although it's not foolproof -- when I walked away from my set once for about 90 minutes, came back, and tried to start from where I'd left off, the system sent me back to the beginning).
On the other hand, Netflix has come up with rather an inventive method for fast-forwarding through streaming video -- as the company encodes its titles for instant watching, it records a still frame every 10 seconds; when you download the movie, you also download JPEGs of those frames. This allows you to "fast forward" through those JPEGs. When you've chosen the point you want to start at, you have to wait a minute or two as the video downloads -- but it works.
Is this an Apple TV killer? Possibly. I imagine that the Netflix Player will actually appeal to a completely different audience: those who prefer to pay a monthly one-price-fits-all in order to, essentially, rent as many movies as they like, as opposed to those who want to purchase their films at a separate price per download.
Me, I'm in the first camp. I like the freedom to sample videos, or decide halfway through that I want to "walk out" on a film without regretting the price I paid for it. I will admit that the selection of films that Netflix offers for streaming (as opposed to their selection of CDs) is still pretty limited; those who purchase the Netflix Player will be pretty much taking it on faith that the library is going to expand.
But at a one-time cost of $99 -- and especially if you're already paying Netflix's $8.99/month fee -- the Netflix Player is pretty much a no-brainer.
Hands On: Adobe's Buzzword has definite possibilities
As a writer who is really tired of trying to synchronize my documents between three different notebooks, I've been searching for the perfect online word processor. Haven't found it yet -- I keep bouncing back and forth from Google Docs to Zoho Write -- but with Adobe Buzzword, I think we're getting closer.
Actually, Buzzword is part of Acrobat.com, Adobe's new hosted collaboration service, which is currently in public beta. The buzz about Buzzword has been pretty positive, and I've got to say, I'm pretty impressed myself.
With online applications, very often beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- what you think about the product and how well you can use it has a lot to do with whether you're comfortable with the look and can work with the interface. In this case, I was surprised how comfortable I was with Buzzword in a very short time -- it is a bit more like a traditional "word processor" like than Google Docs, but the way its features are organized is a bit less overwhelming than Zoho Write.
For example, Buzzword's features are grouped in categories represented by icons found at the right-hand side of the upper toolbar: Font (the default open toolbar), Paragraph, List, Image, Table, Comment, and Docs (which brings up your list of existing documents). Roll over an icon and it slides over to the left to reveal the name of the category. Click on it, and the entire toolbar slides gracefully out over the length of the window, giving access to its tools.
Other nice touches: For those of us anal enough to need a constant reminder of our word counts, Adobe provides a running total at the bottom right-hand corner, along with the number of "flagged" (i.e. possibly misspelled) words, a history timeline that lets you revert to a previous version, a sliding bar that shows where you are in your document, and a rather strange-looking save icon. And Buzzword actively encourages you to make comments: a tiny floating icon on the right side of your document invites you to fill in a comment box.
Of course, Adobe's advantage here is that it's got the example of its competitors to follow. As a result, many of the features in Buzzword -- such as inserting images and tables -- were planned as part of the application from the beginning rather than shoehorned in later.
On the other hand, there are some features are missing. The one that really surprised me was the fact that you can't tag your documents -- or organize them into folders -- which is a rather awkward omission for a Web-based app.
Buzzword's ability to share documents with others is pretty similar to that of Google and Zoho, with one nice exception: it lets you allow another user to add comments, but not otherwise affect the original document.
The other application included in Acrobat.com, called ConnectNow, is not bad either. In fact, it's pretty good. You can invite up to three people (free) to a collaboration space that includes chat, the ability to share your desktop, a whiteboard, and the ability to use a Webcam or upload a file. It's simple to use, worked very well (although when I shared my desktop with a coworker, she reported that the it looked somewhat blurred at her end), and gave me less problems than more professional meeting-room applications have given in the past.
I don't know whether I'm ready to switch to Buzzword quite yet -- for one thing, it's very much a beta, and for another, I'm not sure how well it's going to work on my Linux-based Asus Eee yet -- but I'm certainly going to keep an eye on it.
Actually, Buzzword is part of Acrobat.com, Adobe's new hosted collaboration service, which is currently in public beta. The buzz about Buzzword has been pretty positive, and I've got to say, I'm pretty impressed myself.
With online applications, very often beauty is in the eye of the beholder -- what you think about the product and how well you can use it has a lot to do with whether you're comfortable with the look and can work with the interface. In this case, I was surprised how comfortable I was with Buzzword in a very short time -- it is a bit more like a traditional "word processor" like than Google Docs, but the way its features are organized is a bit less overwhelming than Zoho Write.
For example, Buzzword's features are grouped in categories represented by icons found at the right-hand side of the upper toolbar: Font (the default open toolbar), Paragraph, List, Image, Table, Comment, and Docs (which brings up your list of existing documents). Roll over an icon and it slides over to the left to reveal the name of the category. Click on it, and the entire toolbar slides gracefully out over the length of the window, giving access to its tools.
Other nice touches: For those of us anal enough to need a constant reminder of our word counts, Adobe provides a running total at the bottom right-hand corner, along with the number of "flagged" (i.e. possibly misspelled) words, a history timeline that lets you revert to a previous version, a sliding bar that shows where you are in your document, and a rather strange-looking save icon. And Buzzword actively encourages you to make comments: a tiny floating icon on the right side of your document invites you to fill in a comment box.
Of course, Adobe's advantage here is that it's got the example of its competitors to follow. As a result, many of the features in Buzzword -- such as inserting images and tables -- were planned as part of the application from the beginning rather than shoehorned in later.
On the other hand, there are some features are missing. The one that really surprised me was the fact that you can't tag your documents -- or organize them into folders -- which is a rather awkward omission for a Web-based app.
Buzzword's ability to share documents with others is pretty similar to that of Google and Zoho, with one nice exception: it lets you allow another user to add comments, but not otherwise affect the original document.
The other application included in Acrobat.com, called ConnectNow, is not bad either. In fact, it's pretty good. You can invite up to three people (free) to a collaboration space that includes chat, the ability to share your desktop, a whiteboard, and the ability to use a Webcam or upload a file. It's simple to use, worked very well (although when I shared my desktop with a coworker, she reported that the it looked somewhat blurred at her end), and gave me less problems than more professional meeting-room applications have given in the past.
I don't know whether I'm ready to switch to Buzzword quite yet -- for one thing, it's very much a beta, and for another, I'm not sure how well it's going to work on my Linux-based Asus Eee yet -- but I'm certainly going to keep an eye on it.
Hands On: Evernote offers hope for packrats
A relative of mine has been bravely cutting and pasting text from various Web sites into Sidekick, a long-orphaned information aggregator, for years now. I felt that it was time to find her something a bit more up-to-date that played well with the Web. She didn't want to pay for Microsoft OneNote. I found her Evernote instead.
Evernote is an interesting combination of the old and new -- if you consider "old" being a desktop client, and "new" being a Web-based app. It lets you clip information from any application on your PC in a variety of media forms -- Web pages, emails, images, videos, documents, whatever -- and create a series of "notes." An icon in your Quick Launch bar lets you save anything on your desktop; you can also put an icon on your browser toolbar.
The info, once gathered, can be categorized and/or tagged. You can then either browse through your Evernote notes, do a search, or find it by clicking on the category and/or tag.
I tried two iterations of the application: Evernote for the Web and Evernote for Windows (it's also available in Mac and mobile versions). The Web version, of course, makes it possible to access your notes on almost any machine; it syncs nicely with the desktop client (either automatically on a regular basis or manually). It is more limited than the desktop version in number of features (not surprisingly), and needs a bit of work; for example, the Save Changes button also takes you out of edit mode, which is frustrating for those of us who live by the "save often" philosophy.
As a result, I began working with the desktop client as a standard, and using the Web version when I needed to. And so far, I'm very impressed; while my personal jury is still out as to whether this will really tame my rather nasty info glut, it looks like it may actually work. I've been able to, for example, drop bits of info about new products and sites into Evernote, and then browse them to see what I should investigate next.
And there are a lot of interesting features in there that make you want to really dig around in the application. A good example: the ability to do a search on text within images. You can, for instance, snap a photo of a document, send it to Evernote (you can email data to your account) and then do a search on the words within the document. (The image is processed by Evernote's servers, so if you place an image in your desktop client, you need to sync it before you can do the search.)
Related Post Mike Elgan: Photographic memory at last (no, seriously!)
Evernote is currently in a sort-of-private-beta -- you need to register to use it, and registration is offered either by invitation (each user gets 20) or by emailing the company. I received an invitation to register about 24 hours after requesting one via the Web site. According to the company, when Evernote goes out of beta, there will be a free version and a premium paid version which will offer "higher quotas" -- in other words, the free version will most likely have some limits on content.
Still, for now, Evernote is a real find for those of us who are information packrats.
Evernote is an interesting combination of the old and new -- if you consider "old" being a desktop client, and "new" being a Web-based app. It lets you clip information from any application on your PC in a variety of media forms -- Web pages, emails, images, videos, documents, whatever -- and create a series of "notes." An icon in your Quick Launch bar lets you save anything on your desktop; you can also put an icon on your browser toolbar.
The info, once gathered, can be categorized and/or tagged. You can then either browse through your Evernote notes, do a search, or find it by clicking on the category and/or tag.
I tried two iterations of the application: Evernote for the Web and Evernote for Windows (it's also available in Mac and mobile versions). The Web version, of course, makes it possible to access your notes on almost any machine; it syncs nicely with the desktop client (either automatically on a regular basis or manually). It is more limited than the desktop version in number of features (not surprisingly), and needs a bit of work; for example, the Save Changes button also takes you out of edit mode, which is frustrating for those of us who live by the "save often" philosophy.
As a result, I began working with the desktop client as a standard, and using the Web version when I needed to. And so far, I'm very impressed; while my personal jury is still out as to whether this will really tame my rather nasty info glut, it looks like it may actually work. I've been able to, for example, drop bits of info about new products and sites into Evernote, and then browse them to see what I should investigate next.
And there are a lot of interesting features in there that make you want to really dig around in the application. A good example: the ability to do a search on text within images. You can, for instance, snap a photo of a document, send it to Evernote (you can email data to your account) and then do a search on the words within the document. (The image is processed by Evernote's servers, so if you place an image in your desktop client, you need to sync it before you can do the search.)
Related Post Mike Elgan: Photographic memory at last (no, seriously!)
Still, for now, Evernote is a real find for those of us who are information packrats.
Hands on: Panasonic's Lumix DMC-TZ50 sends images over WiFi
An admission: I'm not a professional photographer, or even a terribly good amateur. But I like taking pictures, I like producing reasonably good images, and I like occasionally experimenting with interesting camera settings. One digital camera that I'd strongly consider is the Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ50.
Here are the basic statistics: The TZ50 comes with a 9.1 megapixel sensor, 10x optical zoom, and 28mm wide-angle lens.
Here's my subjective take: After using the camera for a couple of weeks, I've got to say that this is one nice piece of equipment. The 3-inch LCD is easier to see in bright sunlight than any camera I've played with to date. The camera comes with a wide range of features, starting with the Intelligent Auto (iA) mode, which is a great asset for those of us who didn't pass Basic Photography 101.
I tried the iA mode in a variety of environments, including inside a dark tent in which most of the lighting was coming from various computer displays. It performed beautifully -- especially the automatic focus, which worked like a charm.
If you're more expert, or want to experiment a bit, you can use the dial on top of the camera to select Normal Picture mode (which lets you adjust your photos manually). You can also choose Scene mode (which sets the camera according to the type of environment you're shooting in), Motion Picture mode (video, of course), Clipboard mode (which lets you take a quick-and-dirty image for record-keeping purposes), and WiFi mode.
This last is one of the selling points of the TZ50: The ability to use WiFi (or a T-Mobile HotSpot account) to upload images from the camera directly to a Picasa Web album. The first time you use the feature, the camera creates five pre-named Picasa albums in your account; you can then upload your photos into any of the five directly from the camera.
It's an interesting feature, and works nicely, up to a point. I tried it on my home network and it took me about 10 minutes to set it up, after which I was able to upload several 5 megapixel images to my Picasa account with no problem (it takes the TZ50 about 20-30 seconds to upload each image). However, there are limits -- when I tried to upload 11 images, I got a message on the camera insisting that "No Additional Selections Can Be Made." When I tried to upload 10 images, I was unable to do it in three tries; the network connection timed out after about 6 or 7.
Another problem with the WiFi feature has to do with the way WiFi connections are implemented in public spaces and semi-private ones (such as hotel rooms). The TZ50 will pick up hotspots and let you know if they're available, but if the WiFi service has any type of agreement or other Web-based form that you have to work with in order to use it, you're out of luck.
Besides the WiFi mode, there are a several subtle differences between the $450 TZ50 and its predecessor, the $350 TZ5 -- for example, the latter has a 9.0 megapixel sensor, rather than 9.1. If I were given a choice between the two, I would probably go for the less expensive camera -- at least, until the WiFi mode becomes a real advantage rather than just a fun (but not all that practical) feature.
But with that in mind, I do have to say that the Panasonic Lumix TZ50 is a really fine camera.
Here are the basic statistics: The TZ50 comes with a 9.1 megapixel sensor, 10x optical zoom, and 28mm wide-angle lens.
Here's my subjective take: After using the camera for a couple of weeks, I've got to say that this is one nice piece of equipment. The 3-inch LCD is easier to see in bright sunlight than any camera I've played with to date. The camera comes with a wide range of features, starting with the Intelligent Auto (iA) mode, which is a great asset for those of us who didn't pass Basic Photography 101.
I tried the iA mode in a variety of environments, including inside a dark tent in which most of the lighting was coming from various computer displays. It performed beautifully -- especially the automatic focus, which worked like a charm. If you're more expert, or want to experiment a bit, you can use the dial on top of the camera to select Normal Picture mode (which lets you adjust your photos manually). You can also choose Scene mode (which sets the camera according to the type of environment you're shooting in), Motion Picture mode (video, of course), Clipboard mode (which lets you take a quick-and-dirty image for record-keeping purposes), and WiFi mode.
This last is one of the selling points of the TZ50: The ability to use WiFi (or a T-Mobile HotSpot account) to upload images from the camera directly to a Picasa Web album. The first time you use the feature, the camera creates five pre-named Picasa albums in your account; you can then upload your photos into any of the five directly from the camera.
It's an interesting feature, and works nicely, up to a point. I tried it on my home network and it took me about 10 minutes to set it up, after which I was able to upload several 5 megapixel images to my Picasa account with no problem (it takes the TZ50 about 20-30 seconds to upload each image). However, there are limits -- when I tried to upload 11 images, I got a message on the camera insisting that "No Additional Selections Can Be Made." When I tried to upload 10 images, I was unable to do it in three tries; the network connection timed out after about 6 or 7.
Another problem with the WiFi feature has to do with the way WiFi connections are implemented in public spaces and semi-private ones (such as hotel rooms). The TZ50 will pick up hotspots and let you know if they're available, but if the WiFi service has any type of agreement or other Web-based form that you have to work with in order to use it, you're out of luck.
Besides the WiFi mode, there are a several subtle differences between the $450 TZ50 and its predecessor, the $350 TZ5 -- for example, the latter has a 9.0 megapixel sensor, rather than 9.1. If I were given a choice between the two, I would probably go for the less expensive camera -- at least, until the WiFi mode becomes a real advantage rather than just a fun (but not all that practical) feature.
But with that in mind, I do have to say that the Panasonic Lumix TZ50 is a really fine camera.
Hasbro finally shuts Scrabulous down
Until today, I had two Scrabulous games going in Facebook: One where I was holding my own with three colleagues (after a disgraceful showing in the last game), and a second where I'm wiping the floor with a good-natured friend. But no longer -- Facebook has finally shut down its highly popular (and copyright violating) version of Scrabble.
It was only a matter of time. Hasbro has sued the the creators of Scrabulous -- Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla -- and their company, RJ Software, in New York federal court for copyright infringement.
I can certainly understand why Hasbro would challenge the Agarwalla's right to run their extremely popular version of Scrabble on Facebook. The company owns the rights to Scrabble in the United States fair and square (Mattel owns it elsewhere). In fact, I understand that nobody is really denying that Hasbro owns the copyright and that the Agarwallas don't really have the legal right to push an online version of the game. Scrabulous is Scrabble. No question about that.
The problem, up to now, has been that (a) Hasbro's beta version of Scrabble was rumored to be buggy, slow, and just not as good, and (b) Hasbro didn't want to pick up the negative publicity that would ensue should approximately half a million Scrabulous fans suddenly be denied their word fix. However, it looks like the company finally made its move.
Well, Hasbro's PR machine had better get working, because the negative publicity is coming fast and loud. Click on the Scrabulous link, and all you get is a notice that the game has been disabled for U.S. and Canada users "until further notice." There were dozens of news stories today, many featuring aggrieved game players complaining about their missing games.
Knowing very well that you can't go by rumors when you're judging a product, I decided to install the authorized version of Scrabble, invite a friend or two to join a game, and see if Hasbro's product was really not as good as Scrabulous. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible -- when I tried to view the application, all I got was a message that said that the company is making changes for its official launch in August, and that Scrabble would be available "as soon as possible."
Not what I wanted to see.
A word of advice to Hasbro -- if you plan to protect your copyright by shutting down a highly popular game, and want to avoid annoying a large population of possible customers, you might want to make sure that you have something to take its place first.
It was only a matter of time. Hasbro has sued the the creators of Scrabulous -- Rajat and Jayant Agarwalla -- and their company, RJ Software, in New York federal court for copyright infringement.
I can certainly understand why Hasbro would challenge the Agarwalla's right to run their extremely popular version of Scrabble on Facebook. The company owns the rights to Scrabble in the United States fair and square (Mattel owns it elsewhere). In fact, I understand that nobody is really denying that Hasbro owns the copyright and that the Agarwallas don't really have the legal right to push an online version of the game. Scrabulous is Scrabble. No question about that.
The problem, up to now, has been that (a) Hasbro's beta version of Scrabble was rumored to be buggy, slow, and just not as good, and (b) Hasbro didn't want to pick up the negative publicity that would ensue should approximately half a million Scrabulous fans suddenly be denied their word fix. However, it looks like the company finally made its move.
Well, Hasbro's PR machine had better get working, because the negative publicity is coming fast and loud. Click on the Scrabulous link, and all you get is a notice that the game has been disabled for U.S. and Canada users "until further notice." There were dozens of news stories today, many featuring aggrieved game players complaining about their missing games.
Knowing very well that you can't go by rumors when you're judging a product, I decided to install the authorized version of Scrabble, invite a friend or two to join a game, and see if Hasbro's product was really not as good as Scrabulous. Unfortunately, that wasn't possible -- when I tried to view the application, all I got was a message that said that the company is making changes for its official launch in August, and that Scrabble would be available "as soon as possible."
Not what I wanted to see.
A word of advice to Hasbro -- if you plan to protect your copyright by shutting down a highly popular game, and want to avoid annoying a large population of possible customers, you might want to make sure that you have something to take its place first.
Watching us is dangerous
As the Recording Industry Association of America continues its sacred quest to prevent consumers with access to technology from doing anything that even hints of media piracy (apparently by hiring unlicensed investigators to help), it looks like media companies are employing older technologies to try to stop viewers from even thinking about copying their TV programs.
Last night, my husband and I were watching a time-delayed version of Eureka, a reasonably entertaining comedy/drama on the Sci Fi channel. We were about to delete the program from the DVR when I noticed that some kind of image with very large type had flashed briefly at the end of the closing credits.
We took the recording back a minute or so and played the credits back very slowly, a couple of seconds at a time. Sure enough, in large white letters on a dark screen, a message read: "Watching us is hilarious. But copying us is dangerous. Don't do it." It had lasted under a second.
So the Sci Fi channel is now using subliminal messaging to try to discourage its viewers from copying (and, presumably, distributing) its programming.
Part of me -- the part that's a confirmed science fiction reader -- immediately flashed to an imaginary scenario in which thousands of Eureka watchers, programmed by hidden subliminal messages, mindlessly howl with laughter during the program, and then throw their DVD recorders out the window, chanting, "Copying is dangerous. Don't do it." While Sci Fi channel executives sit in plush uptown offices stroking their mustaches and cackling with evil glee.
The other part of me is wondering whether there is any point at which media companies and the RIAA will realize that playing these games only serve to further alienate their customer base -- and won't do a whole lot to prevent piracy. Except, perhaps, make us laugh.
Last night, my husband and I were watching a time-delayed version of Eureka, a reasonably entertaining comedy/drama on the Sci Fi channel. We were about to delete the program from the DVR when I noticed that some kind of image with very large type had flashed briefly at the end of the closing credits.
We took the recording back a minute or so and played the credits back very slowly, a couple of seconds at a time. Sure enough, in large white letters on a dark screen, a message read: "Watching us is hilarious. But copying us is dangerous. Don't do it." It had lasted under a second.
So the Sci Fi channel is now using subliminal messaging to try to discourage its viewers from copying (and, presumably, distributing) its programming.
Part of me -- the part that's a confirmed science fiction reader -- immediately flashed to an imaginary scenario in which thousands of Eureka watchers, programmed by hidden subliminal messages, mindlessly howl with laughter during the program, and then throw their DVD recorders out the window, chanting, "Copying is dangerous. Don't do it." While Sci Fi channel executives sit in plush uptown offices stroking their mustaches and cackling with evil glee.
The other part of me is wondering whether there is any point at which media companies and the RIAA will realize that playing these games only serve to further alienate their customer base -- and won't do a whole lot to prevent piracy. Except, perhaps, make us laugh.
Quick Look: Kodak's ScanMate i1120 and NewSoft's Presto! BizCard
Back in May of this year, I took a look at the ScanSnap S300, a portable scanner that creates PDF files from scanned hardcopy documents. If you need something with a bit more range, you may want to look at the Kodak ScanMate i1120 scanner, which retails for $370 to $400.
The scanner is nicely compact (at 5.8 x 11.8 x 6.2 in. and 5.9 lbs, it's not quite as portable as the ScanSnap) and easy to set up. Its onboard interface is extremely simple, especially for a business device. There are only two buttons on the device itself: the first lets you select one of nine pre-programmed scan configurations (an LED clicks up one numeral every time you hit the button, and then cycles back to 0), while the other starts the scan.
This is what Kodak calls its "Smart touch" feature, and it works pretty well. You can either use the pre-set settings that come with the scanner, or tweak them to suit your own needs. For example, you can set
configuration 2 to copy both sides of a document as a color file and save it as a PDF, and set configuration 3 to save it in black-and-white and send it to a printer. The only flaw in this setup is that it's not that easy to remember which number applies to which configuration -- so I found myself going back to the software each time I wanted to scan so that I could tell which was the current configuration.
At a resolution of 600 dpi, the ScanMate i1120 is not something you want to use for your quality photos, but it does a good job on text and day-to-day images. For a duplex scanner, it's also reasonably fast -- Kodak lists it at a speed of 20 ppm for a 200 dpi document, although for some reason, the scanner tended to pause in the middle of some of my scans for several seconds, which slowed things down a bit.
The ScanMate comes with some good software, including ScanSoft PaperPort 11 (which handles image management and editing, among other tasks) and ScanSoft OmniPage 15 OCR. Both are respected and useful applications.
As an occasional trade-show attendee, I especially liked NewSoft's Presto! BizCard 5, the most recent version of the business card scanning software (which sells separately for $69 as a download, $79 as a package). Unlike CardMinder, which came with the ScanSnap scanner, BizCard was able to convert the contents of a variety of business cards to useable text efficiently and with nary a mistake.
Like many business card apps, BizCard offers some basic contact management features, although most users will probably want to synchronize the data with other, more useful apps -- BizCard will sync with Lotus Notes, Symantec Act!, and Microsoft Outlook, along with a number of rather out-of-date PDAs. However, considering how well it handles the difficulties of business-card OCR, I'd say Presto! BizCard is a solid add-on.
The scanner is nicely compact (at 5.8 x 11.8 x 6.2 in. and 5.9 lbs, it's not quite as portable as the ScanSnap) and easy to set up. Its onboard interface is extremely simple, especially for a business device. There are only two buttons on the device itself: the first lets you select one of nine pre-programmed scan configurations (an LED clicks up one numeral every time you hit the button, and then cycles back to 0), while the other starts the scan.
This is what Kodak calls its "Smart touch" feature, and it works pretty well. You can either use the pre-set settings that come with the scanner, or tweak them to suit your own needs. For example, you can set
configuration 2 to copy both sides of a document as a color file and save it as a PDF, and set configuration 3 to save it in black-and-white and send it to a printer. The only flaw in this setup is that it's not that easy to remember which number applies to which configuration -- so I found myself going back to the software each time I wanted to scan so that I could tell which was the current configuration.
At a resolution of 600 dpi, the ScanMate i1120 is not something you want to use for your quality photos, but it does a good job on text and day-to-day images. For a duplex scanner, it's also reasonably fast -- Kodak lists it at a speed of 20 ppm for a 200 dpi document, although for some reason, the scanner tended to pause in the middle of some of my scans for several seconds, which slowed things down a bit.
The ScanMate comes with some good software, including ScanSoft PaperPort 11 (which handles image management and editing, among other tasks) and ScanSoft OmniPage 15 OCR. Both are respected and useful applications.
As an occasional trade-show attendee, I especially liked NewSoft's Presto! BizCard 5, the most recent version of the business card scanning software (which sells separately for $69 as a download, $79 as a package). Unlike CardMinder, which came with the ScanSnap scanner, BizCard was able to convert the contents of a variety of business cards to useable text efficiently and with nary a mistake.
Like many business card apps, BizCard offers some basic contact management features, although most users will probably want to synchronize the data with other, more useful apps -- BizCard will sync with Lotus Notes, Symantec Act!, and Microsoft Outlook, along with a number of rather out-of-date PDAs. However, considering how well it handles the difficulties of business-card OCR, I'd say Presto! BizCard is a solid add-on.
Old NEC tech: How the great have fallen
It is part of the human condition that, as we get older, we find that things that we once valued become no longer valuable. This was why I was a bit taken aback to find 18 flatscreen NEC Multisync CRT monitors sitting on a street corner in lower Manhattan.
My partner and I had been meeting a friend down at South Street Seaport and, having gotten there a bit early, were walking around when we suddenly stopped short. There, on the corner of Water and Beekman Streets, out on the sidewalk like a crowd of lost pigeons, were 18 Multisync CRTs, all apparently in good (and probably working) shape.
Now, you've got to understand: NEC Multisyncs were, for a long time, the crème de la crème of office computing. They offered better, brighter and more consistent images than most of the displays in their class; as a result, they were also more expensive. I remember years ago, when the display I bought from Dell turned
out to be problematic, I was thrilled when they sent me a Multisync as recompense.
So here they were: abandoned, unwanted, what was once several thousands of dollars worth of equipment dropped on a sidewalk in New York, waiting to be picked up (hopefully, by a recycling company). It was a study in the ephemeral nature of technology.
What will be sitting out on that corner in 10 -- or even 5 -- years? Will we see piles of LCDs tossed away like so many LPs? Will children one day blithely ignore garbage cans full of unwanted iPhones?
Maybe not. As we stood there contemplating the briefness of fame (and trying to figure out if there was anyone we knew who needed a display), a young woman in her early 20s stopped, pulled out her phone, and snapped a photo.
"Be nice if somebody could use those," we told her. She just smiled and walked off, tapping on her smartphone, hopefully informing her friends that there was technology out here for the taking that, if a bit long in the tooth, might still be of use.
My partner and I had been meeting a friend down at South Street Seaport and, having gotten there a bit early, were walking around when we suddenly stopped short. There, on the corner of Water and Beekman Streets, out on the sidewalk like a crowd of lost pigeons, were 18 Multisync CRTs, all apparently in good (and probably working) shape.
Now, you've got to understand: NEC Multisyncs were, for a long time, the crème de la crème of office computing. They offered better, brighter and more consistent images than most of the displays in their class; as a result, they were also more expensive. I remember years ago, when the display I bought from Dell turned
out to be problematic, I was thrilled when they sent me a Multisync as recompense.
So here they were: abandoned, unwanted, what was once several thousands of dollars worth of equipment dropped on a sidewalk in New York, waiting to be picked up (hopefully, by a recycling company). It was a study in the ephemeral nature of technology.
What will be sitting out on that corner in 10 -- or even 5 -- years? Will we see piles of LCDs tossed away like so many LPs? Will children one day blithely ignore garbage cans full of unwanted iPhones?
Maybe not. As we stood there contemplating the briefness of fame (and trying to figure out if there was anyone we knew who needed a display), a young woman in her early 20s stopped, pulled out her phone, and snapped a photo.
"Be nice if somebody could use those," we told her. She just smiled and walked off, tapping on her smartphone, hopefully informing her friends that there was technology out here for the taking that, if a bit long in the tooth, might still be of use.
First Look: Is Google's Chrome a glimpse of the future
According to a news story by Computerworld's Heather Havenstein, Google's shiny new Chrome browser isn't part of an attempt to kill off Firefox or IE. It's an attempt to kill off Windows. While I initially took that statement with enough salt to alarm my doctor, after an initial tryout of Google's new browser, I ain't so sure.
Exhibit #1: Working on the Web
Chrome's ability to launch a Web-based application in a separate "streamlined" window, devoid of distractions such as address bars and bookmarks, could very well be the advance guard in a push to make all apps Web-based. In other words, try to make the user forget that they are using a browser, at least while they're typing into Google Docs or Gmail.
A very nice idea, in my opinion, if still a bit raw. Right now, the way you create what Google calls a "Web application" is to create a short-cut to that application; it will then open in the simplified browser. Unfortunately, in apps like Google Docs, all that means is that you're opening your list of documents in the streamlined Window -- once you click on the name of one of your documents, or create a new one, you're back on your regular browser.
So it needs some work. But it's a good idea.
All that being said, there is a lot to admire here. I'm very taken with the New Tab page, which exhibits your nine most visited pages and a list of the sites you search on most. I like the new search capability, where you start typing the name of a previously used site (say, YouTube) and hit the tab; you're immediately put in search mode. I like the way you can type a word in the address bar (what Google calls the Omnibox) and get a well-formatted list of sites that you've visited in the past (or possibly should have).
And I do have to say that Chrome installed extremely smoothly. It picked up my Firefox bookmarks and cookies with no hiccups whatsoever.
The much-discussed Incognito Bar, which doesn't save either your history or your cookies? A nice idea, certainly -- it's nice in IE8 as well, where it's called InPrivate Browsing.
I like the subtle download feature, which sits out of the way in the lower left-hand corner and works quietly, quickly, and effectively.
One of the things I'm most curious about is add-ons. In the Google Chrome Help Center, a single line states, "Currently, Google Chrome doesn't support any extensions." Since I know at least one person who won't use any browser unless he can use the Google Toolbar -- even a browser from Google -- that could be an issue.
Exhibit #3: Each tab its own universe
One of the problems that Firefox has had over its past few iterations is "memory bloat" -- over the course of a working day, as tabs are opened and closed, not all the memory is returned and Firefox starts growing, until your system starts slowing at an alarming rate. It's a phenomenon not unknown to me; and while the latest version of Firefox has made things a lot better, it can still be a problem.
Google says it's fixed this in Chrome by confining each tab to its own process. (For details, you can check out Google's comic book version of Chrome's features.) As a result, as you close each tab, you will shut down that process, together with all the memory it used. For example, when I had four tabs open, there were six separate processes listed in my Windows Task Manager (and in Google Chrome's Task Manager), including the browser itself, each of the four pages, and a Flash plug-in.
Because this is a quick first look, I haven't tested the browser over the course of a full day to see if memory is completely returned as I close each tab. The strategy sounds logical, and as a Firefox fan whose somewhat under-memoried notebook has ground to a halt more than once, I would be very happy if it turned out to be true.
Computerworld's Preston Gralla is working on a full review of Chrome, which should be available tomorrow. Is Chrome something that I'd use instead of Firefox? I haven't decided yet -- certainly, while there's an awful lot to like here, I'm strongly inclined to wait until some of my favorite add-ons are available for it (assuming they will be).
Should you try it? I would -- Chrome is a fast, simple download that won't interfere with your current browser. At the very least, it will offer a new take on the browsing experience. And possibly offer a small glimpse of the future.
Exhibit #1: Working on the Web
Chrome's ability to launch a Web-based application in a separate "streamlined" window, devoid of distractions such as address bars and bookmarks, could very well be the advance guard in a push to make all apps Web-based. In other words, try to make the user forget that they are using a browser, at least while they're typing into Google Docs or Gmail. A very nice idea, in my opinion, if still a bit raw. Right now, the way you create what Google calls a "Web application" is to create a short-cut to that application; it will then open in the simplified browser. Unfortunately, in apps like Google Docs, all that means is that you're opening your list of documents in the streamlined Window -- once you click on the name of one of your documents, or create a new one, you're back on your regular browser.
So it needs some work. But it's a good idea.
Exhibit #2: Keep it simple, stupid
I have to admit, Google Chrome has one of the simplest -- and the least attractive -- UIs I've seen in a while. I didn't realize how much I rather liked the color that the icons in most toolbars lend my apps until faced with the Spartan blue tagged interface that Chrome opens with.All that being said, there is a lot to admire here. I'm very taken with the New Tab page, which exhibits your nine most visited pages and a list of the sites you search on most. I like the new search capability, where you start typing the name of a previously used site (say, YouTube) and hit the tab; you're immediately put in search mode. I like the way you can type a word in the address bar (what Google calls the Omnibox) and get a well-formatted list of sites that you've visited in the past (or possibly should have).
And I do have to say that Chrome installed extremely smoothly. It picked up my Firefox bookmarks and cookies with no hiccups whatsoever.
The much-discussed Incognito Bar, which doesn't save either your history or your cookies? A nice idea, certainly -- it's nice in IE8 as well, where it's called InPrivate Browsing.
I like the subtle download feature, which sits out of the way in the lower left-hand corner and works quietly, quickly, and effectively.
One of the things I'm most curious about is add-ons. In the Google Chrome Help Center, a single line states, "Currently, Google Chrome doesn't support any extensions." Since I know at least one person who won't use any browser unless he can use the Google Toolbar -- even a browser from Google -- that could be an issue.
Exhibit #3: Each tab its own universe
One of the problems that Firefox has had over its past few iterations is "memory bloat" -- over the course of a working day, as tabs are opened and closed, not all the memory is returned and Firefox starts growing, until your system starts slowing at an alarming rate. It's a phenomenon not unknown to me; and while the latest version of Firefox has made things a lot better, it can still be a problem.
Google says it's fixed this in Chrome by confining each tab to its own process. (For details, you can check out Google's comic book version of Chrome's features.) As a result, as you close each tab, you will shut down that process, together with all the memory it used. For example, when I had four tabs open, there were six separate processes listed in my Windows Task Manager (and in Google Chrome's Task Manager), including the browser itself, each of the four pages, and a Flash plug-in.
Because this is a quick first look, I haven't tested the browser over the course of a full day to see if memory is completely returned as I close each tab. The strategy sounds logical, and as a Firefox fan whose somewhat under-memoried notebook has ground to a halt more than once, I would be very happy if it turned out to be true.
Computerworld's Preston Gralla is working on a full review of Chrome, which should be available tomorrow. Is Chrome something that I'd use instead of Firefox? I haven't decided yet -- certainly, while there's an awful lot to like here, I'm strongly inclined to wait until some of my favorite add-ons are available for it (assuming they will be).
Should you try it? I would -- Chrome is a fast, simple download that won't interfere with your current browser. At the very least, it will offer a new take on the browsing experience. And possibly offer a small glimpse of the future.
Google: Master of the stealth intro
A friend of mine noted recently that when Microsoft wants to introduce a new product, it announces it a year in advance, spits out a variety of alphas, betas and PR releases, and then holds a big party. When Apple wants to introduce a new product, it first holds the party, creates a media furor so strong that its fans are queuing up 24 hours before the announced sale date, and then runs out of devices so there'll be even more demand. What does Google do?
Google waits until a holiday weekend, sends a comic book to a few selected journalists, and announces it will release the download the very next day. Yet somehow, without the year of preparation, without the huge party, without the lines, it has managed to create a major furor with its introduction of its Chrome Web browser.
This isn't unusual for Google. As a steady user of several of its Web-based apps -- including Gmail, Google Docs and Google Calendar -- I've discovered that I need to be alert and check the "New features!" link frequently, because it's very likely that something interesting, innovative and perhaps even useful was introduced overnight.
Take, for example, one of Google's less-touted applications, the Picasa image manager and its online version, Picasa Web Albums. On the same day that Google released Chrome, it quietly announced a new public beta of Picasa 3, and introduced some rather revolutionary new elements to Picasa Web -- including "name tags," a feature which I find simultaneously fascinating and a little frightening.
What this new feature does is go through your Picasa Web image albums, find what it identifies as faces, group those it classifies as similar, and ask you to type in their names. If a name is similar to one of those in your Gmail contact list, it finds it, and you can click directly on the name. Otherwise, you can create a new entry with name, nickname, and email address.
The result? Any of the people in your Picasa Web image gallery can now be identified by simply passing your cursor over the photo. Want to find more pictures of that person? Click on the name on the side of your gallery. And you can go to the album of anyone listed as your favorite (i.e. friend) and do the same.
I haven't fully explored this feature, or the new features included in Picasa 3 -- like many of my colleagues, I've been too caught up in Chrome fever. But the idea that you can quickly and easily identify and label people within an online photograph seems to me to have a huge amount of potential. Potential for what? Easier identification of friends and family? Easier and faster ways to violate people's privacy? I'm not yet sure.
Google waits until a holiday weekend, sends a comic book to a few selected journalists, and announces it will release the download the very next day. Yet somehow, without the year of preparation, without the huge party, without the lines, it has managed to create a major furor with its introduction of its Chrome Web browser.
This isn't unusual for Google. As a steady user of several of its Web-based apps -- including Gmail, Google Docs and Google Calendar -- I've discovered that I need to be alert and check the "New features!" link frequently, because it's very likely that something interesting, innovative and perhaps even useful was introduced overnight.
Take, for example, one of Google's less-touted applications, the Picasa image manager and its online version, Picasa Web Albums. On the same day that Google released Chrome, it quietly announced a new public beta of Picasa 3, and introduced some rather revolutionary new elements to Picasa Web -- including "name tags," a feature which I find simultaneously fascinating and a little frightening.
What this new feature does is go through your Picasa Web image albums, find what it identifies as faces, group those it classifies as similar, and ask you to type in their names. If a name is similar to one of those in your Gmail contact list, it finds it, and you can click directly on the name. Otherwise, you can create a new entry with name, nickname, and email address.
The result? Any of the people in your Picasa Web image gallery can now be identified by simply passing your cursor over the photo. Want to find more pictures of that person? Click on the name on the side of your gallery. And you can go to the album of anyone listed as your favorite (i.e. friend) and do the same.
I haven't fully explored this feature, or the new features included in Picasa 3 -- like many of my colleagues, I've been too caught up in Chrome fever. But the idea that you can quickly and easily identify and label people within an online photograph seems to me to have a huge amount of potential. Potential for what? Easier identification of friends and family? Easier and faster ways to violate people's privacy? I'm not yet sure.
Can Mail Goggles save you from yourself
Google has a habit of introducing interesting applets under the radar, but here's one that has caught the attention of party-goers around the Web: Mail Goggles, Google's solution for drunk e-mail driving.
Here's the deal: Let's assume that you have a habit of going out on Saturday nights and indulge a bit too much in your favorite intoxicant. You decide that it's time to let your boss know exactly what you think of her and grab your iPhone, with the intention of sending her an e-mail. If you're a Gmail user, then Mail Goggles first asks you to solve a few math problems to test your sobriety. Didn't make it? You won't be able to send that e-mail -- at least, not until the morning.
Mail Goggles initially assumes you're going to be partying hearty on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m., but you can reset it for any day and any times. It will give you some idea of my confidence in my math skills that when I decided to try out Mail Goggles (cold sober, and just after my morning coffee), I used a test account and initially set my difficulty level at 1.
I wrote my e-mail, hit Send, and a box popped up: "It's that time of day. Gmail aims to help you in many ways. Are you sure you want to send this? Answer some simple math problems to verify." It offered five math problems (in the range of "97 - 26" or "7 x 4") and 60 seconds to answer them.
If I answered them correctly, it simply disappeared and sent the e-mail. If I made any mistakes, I got "Water and bed for you. Or try again," and other 60 seconds with five more math problems.
Interestingly, once I answered the questions, I was free to send as many e-mails as I liked -- even 15 minutes later (which is, in my experience, quite enough time for somebody to imbibe too much alcohol). Although I did get the test back when I switched browsers.
So assuming that I am in the habit of getting wicked drunk, and sending e-mails via Gmail while I'm wicked drunk, and don't have the smarts to, say, disable Mail Goggles while I'm wicked drunk -- but am smart enough to take the warning as a hint that maybe I shouldn't send that e-mail to my boss -- I'm covered.
Want to try Mail Goggles? Go to your Settings page in Gmail, click on the Labs tab and find the Mail Goggles add-on -- I'd suggest, by the way, that you pause first to read about such other experimental applets as Random Signature (which rotates among random quotations), and Email Addict (which forces you to recognize Real Life by blocking you from e-mail and chat for 15 minutes). Enable it, click the Save Changes button at the bottom of the page, and then go to the General tab to tweak the days, times, and difficulty level.
Have fun...
Here's the deal: Let's assume that you have a habit of going out on Saturday nights and indulge a bit too much in your favorite intoxicant. You decide that it's time to let your boss know exactly what you think of her and grab your iPhone, with the intention of sending her an e-mail. If you're a Gmail user, then Mail Goggles first asks you to solve a few math problems to test your sobriety. Didn't make it? You won't be able to send that e-mail -- at least, not until the morning.
Mail Goggles initially assumes you're going to be partying hearty on Friday and Saturday nights between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m., but you can reset it for any day and any times. It will give you some idea of my confidence in my math skills that when I decided to try out Mail Goggles (cold sober, and just after my morning coffee), I used a test account and initially set my difficulty level at 1.
I wrote my e-mail, hit Send, and a box popped up: "It's that time of day. Gmail aims to help you in many ways. Are you sure you want to send this? Answer some simple math problems to verify." It offered five math problems (in the range of "97 - 26" or "7 x 4") and 60 seconds to answer them.
If I answered them correctly, it simply disappeared and sent the e-mail. If I made any mistakes, I got "Water and bed for you. Or try again," and other 60 seconds with five more math problems.
Interestingly, once I answered the questions, I was free to send as many e-mails as I liked -- even 15 minutes later (which is, in my experience, quite enough time for somebody to imbibe too much alcohol). Although I did get the test back when I switched browsers.
So assuming that I am in the habit of getting wicked drunk, and sending e-mails via Gmail while I'm wicked drunk, and don't have the smarts to, say, disable Mail Goggles while I'm wicked drunk -- but am smart enough to take the warning as a hint that maybe I shouldn't send that e-mail to my boss -- I'm covered.
Want to try Mail Goggles? Go to your Settings page in Gmail, click on the Labs tab and find the Mail Goggles add-on -- I'd suggest, by the way, that you pause first to read about such other experimental applets as Random Signature (which rotates among random quotations), and Email Addict (which forces you to recognize Real Life by blocking you from e-mail and chat for 15 minutes). Enable it, click the Save Changes button at the bottom of the page, and then go to the General tab to tweak the days, times, and difficulty level.
Have fun...
Quick look: Seagate's FreeAgent Go portable drive
These are the take-it-all-with-you days. For example, if you're going on a long business trip, you don't want to leave your videos home -- after a long day of meetings, you may need your copy of Iron Man.
The Seagate FreeAgent Go is one of a new family of portable hard drives that can alleviate that situation. It offers backup for its intended market of consumers -- and tries to make both the drive and the backup process as painless and even attractive as possible.
The current drive is an update of the FreeAgent Go that was introduced in 2007; while the previous drive had a capacity of 80GB, the current FreeAgent is available in three flavors: 250GB ($120), 320GB ($150), and 500GB ($200). Besides this impressive increase in capacity, the new version has had a fashion makeover: it now comes in blue, black, silver, and red, with a triangular pattern of lights that flash when the drive is connect.
The drive connects to your system via a single USB 2.0 connection. If you decide to kick in another $30 for the optional docking station, you'll need two USB connections -- apparently, the base plus the drive needs to pull more power.
In the initial backup, which scanned the My Documents and several other folders, I logged 1.3GB (5744 files) in about 105 minutes (using a somewhat old Sony VAIO VGN-S360 that held a 1.70GHz Intel Pentium M and 512MB of RAM -- as usual, your mileage may vary). Subsequent updates were, as expected, only a few minutes.
The backup software is simple, stable, and works nicely -- even the most technophobe consumers are unlikely to need to resort to any kind of documentation in order to work it. It also recovered nicely when, during an initial backup, I managed to accidentally disconnect the drive from a laptop.
This is not the drive to get if you want a really thorough backup -- it doesn't have the software (or the capacity) to ghost a reasonably substantial hard drive. But for a quick backup of documents and media files, and as a way to carry your data along with you, you could do a lot worse.
The Seagate FreeAgent Go is one of a new family of portable hard drives that can alleviate that situation. It offers backup for its intended market of consumers -- and tries to make both the drive and the backup process as painless and even attractive as possible.
The current drive is an update of the FreeAgent Go that was introduced in 2007; while the previous drive had a capacity of 80GB, the current FreeAgent is available in three flavors: 250GB ($120), 320GB ($150), and 500GB ($200). Besides this impressive increase in capacity, the new version has had a fashion makeover: it now comes in blue, black, silver, and red, with a triangular pattern of lights that flash when the drive is connect.
The drive connects to your system via a single USB 2.0 connection. If you decide to kick in another $30 for the optional docking station, you'll need two USB connections -- apparently, the base plus the drive needs to pull more power.
In the initial backup, which scanned the My Documents and several other folders, I logged 1.3GB (5744 files) in about 105 minutes (using a somewhat old Sony VAIO VGN-S360 that held a 1.70GHz Intel Pentium M and 512MB of RAM -- as usual, your mileage may vary). Subsequent updates were, as expected, only a few minutes.
The backup software is simple, stable, and works nicely -- even the most technophobe consumers are unlikely to need to resort to any kind of documentation in order to work it. It also recovered nicely when, during an initial backup, I managed to accidentally disconnect the drive from a laptop.
This is not the drive to get if you want a really thorough backup -- it doesn't have the software (or the capacity) to ghost a reasonably substantial hard drive. But for a quick backup of documents and media files, and as a way to carry your data along with you, you could do a lot worse.
Pocket projectors let you show your videos anywhere
Media players are small -- that is good, because they're mobile. Media players are small -- that's bad, because try to watch a video with anybody else, and you're going to run into intimacy problems.
At the the CES Unveiled@NY Showcase last night (where a number of vendors showed off new and upcoming products), there were at least two vendors who were hoping to solve that problem with portable LED projectors.
These tiny projectors are fascinating to those of us who can remember when a "small" digital projector meant something about the dimensions of a sewing machine. The idea is that folks who carry around media players might like to show off their images and videos -- but want to do it with something light enough to carry around without having to think about it.
Optoma was showing its Pico PK-101 ($400), while 3M was exhibiting the MPro110 ($359). Both of these pocketable LED projectors are lightweight (the PK-101 weighs 4 ounces while the MPro tips the scales at
half a pound) and have rechargeable batteries that should last approximately an hour, more or less. Both also have brightness levels of about 10 lumens -- which means you're not going to see much in a bright room. This proved to be a problem for both vendors, since the level of illumination in the brightly-lit showroom washed out almost anything they could show.
You're not going to hear much either -- the MPro110 doesn't have its own speaker; while the PC-101 comes with a 0.5-watt speaker, it was barely audible (admittedly, the room was noisy, but I held the unit up pretty close to my ear).
In a dark room, however, you can pull one of these devices out of your pocket, plug your iPod or other media player, plug in a pair of speakers, and have an impromptu video showing on a nearby wall -- without having to squint at a tiny screen. This could be a definite advantage.
Computerworld reviewer Brian Nadel is testing both of these products for an upcoming product roundup -- stay tuned.
At the the CES Unveiled@NY Showcase last night (where a number of vendors showed off new and upcoming products), there were at least two vendors who were hoping to solve that problem with portable LED projectors.
These tiny projectors are fascinating to those of us who can remember when a "small" digital projector meant something about the dimensions of a sewing machine. The idea is that folks who carry around media players might like to show off their images and videos -- but want to do it with something light enough to carry around without having to think about it.
Optoma was showing its Pico PK-101 ($400), while 3M was exhibiting the MPro110 ($359). Both of these pocketable LED projectors are lightweight (the PK-101 weighs 4 ounces while the MPro tips the scales at
half a pound) and have rechargeable batteries that should last approximately an hour, more or less. Both also have brightness levels of about 10 lumens -- which means you're not going to see much in a bright room. This proved to be a problem for both vendors, since the level of illumination in the brightly-lit showroom washed out almost anything they could show.
You're not going to hear much either -- the MPro110 doesn't have its own speaker; while the PC-101 comes with a 0.5-watt speaker, it was barely audible (admittedly, the room was noisy, but I held the unit up pretty close to my ear).
In a dark room, however, you can pull one of these devices out of your pocket, plug your iPod or other media player, plug in a pair of speakers, and have an impromptu video showing on a nearby wall -- without having to squint at a tiny screen. This could be a definite advantage.
Computerworld reviewer Brian Nadel is testing both of these products for an upcoming product roundup -- stay tuned.
Netbook chic -- take two
It seems that there are a lot of people out there who either own netbooks, or want to own them -- and consequently, who want something interesting and useful to carry them in. The story Netbook chic: 6 new laptop bags for ultraportables generated quite a few emails suggesting additional (and, according to the senders, better) ways to carry around your Asus Eee, Acer Aspire One, or other low-cost, low-weight notebook.
As a result, I thought it was only fair to add a few bags to the mix:
If you need something in the Really Cheap zone, you could try the Kroo ASUS Eee Glove Sleeve, which is available at various discount outlets like Amazon and Target for about $15 - $20. The neoprene sleeve comes in several colors, and includes an external pocket (a necessity if you're in a hurry and need to grab your device without leaving the power cord behind). And if you don't care about the pocket, but would like some variety in your daily grind, there's the Kroo Reversible Laptop Sleeve for Net books.
Mobile Edge carries a line of sleeves for 8.9-inch and 10-inch ultraportables called the Mobile Edge SlipSuits. The sleek padded neoprene bags include a zippered external front pocket. The SlipSuits come in black, pink, and red trim, and list for $25.
Golla has also come out with a new line of $25 cases it's calling Mini Sleeves (not yet available on its Web site) for notebooks from 7 to 9 inches. These brightly patterned cases feature internal mesh pockets and an adjustable "wall" to make sure your device is snugly held.
Finally, Solo is offering a checkpoint-friendly bag called the Netbook Mini Instant-Messenger which handles netbooks up to 11 inches, comes with a front organizer and two extra compartments, and will (hopefully) speed you though airport security checkpoints without having to pull out your device. The bag lists for $50, and was available at Amazon.com for $40.
As a result, I thought it was only fair to add a few bags to the mix:
If you need something in the Really Cheap zone, you could try the Kroo ASUS Eee Glove Sleeve, which is available at various discount outlets like Amazon and Target for about $15 - $20. The neoprene sleeve comes in several colors, and includes an external pocket (a necessity if you're in a hurry and need to grab your device without leaving the power cord behind). And if you don't care about the pocket, but would like some variety in your daily grind, there's the Kroo Reversible Laptop Sleeve for Net books.
Mobile Edge carries a line of sleeves for 8.9-inch and 10-inch ultraportables called the Mobile Edge SlipSuits. The sleek padded neoprene bags include a zippered external front pocket. The SlipSuits come in black, pink, and red trim, and list for $25.
Golla has also come out with a new line of $25 cases it's calling Mini Sleeves (not yet available on its Web site) for notebooks from 7 to 9 inches. These brightly patterned cases feature internal mesh pockets and an adjustable "wall" to make sure your device is snugly held.
Finally, Solo is offering a checkpoint-friendly bag called the Netbook Mini Instant-Messenger which handles netbooks up to 11 inches, comes with a front organizer and two extra compartments, and will (hopefully) speed you though airport security checkpoints without having to pull out your device. The bag lists for $50, and was available at Amazon.com for $40.
CES: Iosafe starts the show with fireworks -- or, at least, a fire
IoSafe is a company that, up until now, has provided enterprise-level disaster-safe storage. It is now entering the consumer market with its ioSafe Solo, a 3.5-inch external SATA hard drive that, according to the company, can withstand both flood and fire.
The Solo consists of a Seagate or Western Digital hard drive surrounded by an enclosure that has been built to be able to survive temperatures of up to 1,550 degrees F for 30 minutes, or up to three days in 10 feet of water (with or without salt). In order to prove it, I watched on Tuesday as CEO Robb Moore lowered the drive into a Las Vegas swimming pool and then fried it in a fire-box.
It was certainly an effective demonstration. After several minutes of intense heat, the enclosure was glowing hot; once it was carefully unscrewed, and the additional wrapping surrounding the drive was cut away, the
drive appeared to be completely unharmed -- which was proved when it was hooked into a computer and still had all its files intact. An unprotected hard drive that had been placed on top of the Solo had been reduced to a pile of burnt metal.
Whether or not the Solo will make it as a consumer product depends somewhat on how practical your everyday buyer is. The device is much larger and heavier than other external hard drives -- quite frankly, it won't win any beauty contests. But for consumers who are concerned about losing their data in a disaster, looks might not be as important as safety.
The ioSafe Solo is priced at $149 for 500GB, $199 for 1TB, and $299 for 1.5TB.
The Solo consists of a Seagate or Western Digital hard drive surrounded by an enclosure that has been built to be able to survive temperatures of up to 1,550 degrees F for 30 minutes, or up to three days in 10 feet of water (with or without salt). In order to prove it, I watched on Tuesday as CEO Robb Moore lowered the drive into a Las Vegas swimming pool and then fried it in a fire-box.
It was certainly an effective demonstration. After several minutes of intense heat, the enclosure was glowing hot; once it was carefully unscrewed, and the additional wrapping surrounding the drive was cut away, the
drive appeared to be completely unharmed -- which was proved when it was hooked into a computer and still had all its files intact. An unprotected hard drive that had been placed on top of the Solo had been reduced to a pile of burnt metal.
Whether or not the Solo will make it as a consumer product depends somewhat on how practical your everyday buyer is. The device is much larger and heavier than other external hard drives -- quite frankly, it won't win any beauty contests. But for consumers who are concerned about losing their data in a disaster, looks might not be as important as safety.
The ioSafe Solo is priced at $149 for 500GB, $199 for 1TB, and $299 for 1.5TB.
CES: Netgear talks about entertainment with panache - and NAS
Consumer needs for storage are steadily growing -- and the announcements at CES indicate that this trend isn't going to stop. But when you start using terms like NAS storage, are home users going to be able to cope?
For example, at Netgear's press conference at CES today, one of the new products featured was the Netgear Digital Entertainer Elite, a wireless HD-quality digital media receiver aimed "for serious media enthusiasts." Directly pointed at competition with the AppleTV (the guy presenting the product took a conspicuous bite of an Apple before proceeding), the Entertainer Elite will bring video and P3 from a PC or Mac to an HDTV. It will stream from Internet sources such as YouTube and Flickr (NetFlix, which has at least one media receiver already on the market, was not mentioned), and comes with a 500 GB hard drive.
It will also work directly with an NAS device -- which could be critical for media fans who like to collect a lot of videos. The Netgear rep suggested that an enthusiast might want to consider Netgear's 6-bay ReadyNAS Pro -- and I wondered whether today's home users have incorporated terms such as NAS into their current technological vocabulary.
Well, if they haven't, they're going to have to start -- as product such as the Entertainer Elite come onto the
market, it's going to be as important to non-techies to learn the lingo as it is for non-mechanics to learn how to put air in their tires.
Netgear's Digital Entertainer Elite will cost $399 and is expected to ship in February.
Related News and Blogs:
For example, at Netgear's press conference at CES today, one of the new products featured was the Netgear Digital Entertainer Elite, a wireless HD-quality digital media receiver aimed "for serious media enthusiasts." Directly pointed at competition with the AppleTV (the guy presenting the product took a conspicuous bite of an Apple before proceeding), the Entertainer Elite will bring video and P3 from a PC or Mac to an HDTV. It will stream from Internet sources such as YouTube and Flickr (NetFlix, which has at least one media receiver already on the market, was not mentioned), and comes with a 500 GB hard drive.
It will also work directly with an NAS device -- which could be critical for media fans who like to collect a lot of videos. The Netgear rep suggested that an enthusiast might want to consider Netgear's 6-bay ReadyNAS Pro -- and I wondered whether today's home users have incorporated terms such as NAS into their current technological vocabulary.
Well, if they haven't, they're going to have to start -- as product such as the Entertainer Elite come onto the
market, it's going to be as important to non-techies to learn the lingo as it is for non-mechanics to learn how to put air in their tires.
Netgear's Digital Entertainer Elite will cost $399 and is expected to ship in February.
Related News and Blogs:
- Barbara Krasnoff: CES: Iosafe starts the show with fireworks -- or, at least, a fire
- Dan Tynan: CES preview: The wireless revolution is finally here
- Motorola to offer phone made from recycled plastic bottles
- HP says new netbook can run for up to 8 hours between charges
- Lenovo, touting thin PCs, takes second stab at consumer market
- Preston Gralla: Five things Ballmer should say at CES
- IT Blogwatch: Palm and Nova CES launch rumors
- Mike Elgan: How laptop screens will steal the show at CES
- Computerworld Blogs: All CES coverage
CES: Casio's new Dynamic Photo adds blue-screen to home videos
Back in the 1920s, before sound and Mickey Mouse, Walt Disney produced a cartoon that combined real action with cartoons. The Alice series featured a real little girl who wandered around a cartoon Wonderland -- for its time, it was a revolutionary use of visual technology. Now, Casio is making it possible for families to do the same using their home cameras.
Called the Dynamic Photo function, the feature basically allows people to "blue-screen" a moving object by taking a video of the object and then photographing the background without the object. You can then then place the moving object against a different background. At today's CES press conference, Casio President and CEO Kazuo Kashio offered several demonstrations of how a person could be dropped into a drawing or another photo -- including a little girl who seemed to greet one of the Apollo 11 astronauts on the moon.
Blue-screen special effects have become a staple of movie making, and now could become a staple of home
photography. For those of us who have researched the history of motion pictures, the ability for anyone to quickly and easily create a composite moving image is something of a wonder.Information on which cameras will include the Dynamic Photo function was not immediately available.
CES: Dell's Adamo offers luxury computing in hard times
Back in the first Great Depression (oh, we're only in a recesssion? Sorry, I missed that class), some of the most popular forms of entertainment were movies featuring the trials and tribulations of the very rich. Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, and their peers danced across luxurious apartments and expensive nightclubs wearing beautifully tailored clothing. Audiences ate it up -- if they had to worry about finding a job and putting off the landlord, at least they could disappear in this fantasy land for an hour or so.
Dell seems to have adopted this philosophy. This morning, Dell's Michael Tatelman, VP of consumer sales & marketing, officially announced the company's much-rumored-about Adamo line of luxury notebooks (the name apparently refers neither to Michael Dell's brother Adam nor the captain of Battlestar Galactica, but to the Italian phrase "I love you"). A very pre-production model was held up by an elegantly slinky model for the news cameras, and the words "precision craftsmanship" were used frequently.
No details, specs, or prices were given (except that its design includes anodized aluminum and glass), but don't expect this one to be on Walmart's shelves any time soon, despite rumors that it is supposed to be a price-friendly competitor for Apple's Air.
Of course, there's nothing wrong with trying to sell a luxury item, no matter what the economy is like -- and as Tatelman said, Dell certainly offers machines for the price-conscious as well. And perhaps the upcoming Adamo is a sign of the times -- if most of us can't afford to buy a luxury laptop, we can enjoy reading about it.
Interesting stuff from CES: XLink cell phone system
As might be expected, one of the things that vendors were emphasizing at CES was cost: Unless the product was considered so hot that it was worth whatever you paid for it, there was usually talk about how the device would either cost less than its peers, or at least save you more money.
One product sitting square in the latter category is Xtreme Technology Corp.'s XLink, which the company describes as "the world's first multiple cell phone Bluetooth gateway." Verbiage aside, the idea is an interesting one: That many consumers are reluctant to abandon their landlines, but are coming to the conclusion that they can no longer afford to pay for two separate phone services.
The XLink BT allows reluctant switchers to receive calls from their mobiles through their landline phones -- you hook the XLink up to your existing phone cabling, and it connects wirelessly to your cell phones via Bluetooth. When someone calls your cell, you can answer via any of your landline phones (or, of course, the originating cell). Each XLink unit recognizes up to three different cell phone numbers; you can arrange a different ringtone for each.
Some folks -- especially those in areas that tend to have blackouts -- are reluctant to give up their landline service completely. The XLink BTTN connects to both cell services and an existing landline, which allows you to downgrade your landline service (and the expense involved) to the most basic available.
Of course, those who have grown up with mobile phones and are completely comfortable with using them as the primary and/or sole phone service may not understand why this type of product should be necessary at all. However, if you're over a certain age, or have parents over a certain age, the $70 XLink BT or $100 BTTN device may be worth the investment.
One product sitting square in the latter category is Xtreme Technology Corp.'s XLink, which the company describes as "the world's first multiple cell phone Bluetooth gateway." Verbiage aside, the idea is an interesting one: That many consumers are reluctant to abandon their landlines, but are coming to the conclusion that they can no longer afford to pay for two separate phone services.
The XLink BT allows reluctant switchers to receive calls from their mobiles through their landline phones -- you hook the XLink up to your existing phone cabling, and it connects wirelessly to your cell phones via Bluetooth. When someone calls your cell, you can answer via any of your landline phones (or, of course, the originating cell). Each XLink unit recognizes up to three different cell phone numbers; you can arrange a different ringtone for each.Some folks -- especially those in areas that tend to have blackouts -- are reluctant to give up their landline service completely. The XLink BTTN connects to both cell services and an existing landline, which allows you to downgrade your landline service (and the expense involved) to the most basic available.
Of course, those who have grown up with mobile phones and are completely comfortable with using them as the primary and/or sole phone service may not understand why this type of product should be necessary at all. However, if you're over a certain age, or have parents over a certain age, the $70 XLink BT or $100 BTTN device may be worth the investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
