Second nature technologies for first class experiences.

By many, and notoriously for senior citizens, gadgets and tech has always been an area where years of experience and accumulated knowledge can sum up to practically zilch. What seems so obvious and almost natural for us late 80s to 90s generation sends senior heads whirling. How do I zoom in on this 'page'? What's this little scroll ball on the 'mouse'? And how do I get anything done? Basically, it's just a demoralising blankness once confronted by the display of a device. However to what will be the relief of many, technology is adapting in a way that is arguably more monumental than any other previous transformation, yet one we're hardly noticing.

What is it that makes a well designed tablet with a refined operating system an absolute joy to use? Of course it's portable and just, you know...fun, for want of a better word. But when we think about it, the pleasure of a tablet goes so much further than the initial novelty of a large touch screen. It's one of those things that affects us in the deepest but most subtle of manners. Put simply, tablets appeal to an instinctual need to connect and communicate directly with a device. When we touch or swipe, the effect of the action is instant and it feels natural. A PC plays second fiddle when compared to a touchy feely tab because it requires the mouse or keyboard as a middleman between us and our content. Example? When we zoom in on a PC we go Ctrl +, but when we zoom on a tablet, we physically touch our content and pinch our fingers and stretch, just like we would with items in the real world.

So essentially, the pleasure of a tablet lies in the simple fact that it's a product with a dangerously shallow learning curve. Why? How? It's all a simulation of the natural world we live in which we've all adapted to - swiping to scroll is a simulation of, well, the physics of nature and pinch to zoom does the same. Technologies like this don't require extensive manuals because heck, the skills required to use the product have been with us since the day we were born, they are the roots of our instincts. By allowing direct interaction, tablets bring us closer to our technology and content and thus breaking down the limiting technological wall. No wonder granny can use your iPad.

This 'instinct' factor is having applications all over the spectrum of technology, from computer OS's to social media. I was one of the first million to download Mac OS Lion on its day of launch, and by experiencing the simplicity of multi-touch gestures at first all I could muster was 'this is awesome!' Simon Sinek pointed out in his presentation regarding his Golden Circle model that our emotions and feelings are controlled by a completely different section of our brain than the one that controls rationality and language. That was the feeling I got when using Lion - it felt great, but aside from the joy of the swift motions of the multi-touch gestures I couldn't quite lay a finger on why, and all I could muster was 'this is awesome'. By appealing to natural humanly desires instead of the superficial elements of features and spec, Apple created a deeply pleasing experience, with what seemed like very little effort. 

In social media, Google+ has succeeded in creating a social networking service that emulates your real social life. The circles concept builds upon how our social life operates in our minds - we unwittingly create categories in which we organise certain friends and their importance to us. But only we're allowed to know. Google+ allows us to place these thoughts and inadvertent categorisations in a tangible form, thus realistically porting not only our friends, but the inner sanctum of our social lives onto the net. And in front page news on The Huffington Post, Randi Zuckerberg (marketing director, Facebook) stated 'anonymity on the internet has to go away'. Despite the context of her statement being in limiting cyber-bullying, anonymity online lends nothing to the growing trend of the 'instinct' factor. Nobody walks around behind closed doors, it's impossible to go out in public as an unidentifiable block of pixels, so why should it be on the internet? Google+ doesn't allow anonymity, not even fake profiles. 

I think we are at a certain cutting point in history, where we can demarcate the disparate separation between antiquated and somewhat complicated technologies and the current 'direct interaction' type of technology. We, currently, are the ones who have witnessed this change where traditionally buying a program or device means going through a lengthy set up process before 'excitedly' jumping onto the manual, up to now, where the status quo is quickly becoming installing a program through an efficient and hassle-free download process and learning the program or device through quick experimentation and prodding. Ironically, as it happens, the rate at which technology has progressed and become increasingly more complex on the inside has made technology easier on the outside. In five years time perhaps we will look at the tower desktop PC, or even a sleek all in one and award it the ignominy of the piece of gadgetry that a newbie can't just pick up and use. 

Doesn't it simply feel right when we can use technologies that are physically realistic, that respond the way we expect, behave the way expect and also act the way we act? I sure think so, and it's where the world is heading, definitely for the better. By creating technologies that are simply second nature, that understand, how we, as humans are programmed to behave not only makes technology more accessible to a wider range of differing user demographics but also creates a 'magical' first class user experience. 

Facebook - Stop changing, start improving

For most of us, using Facebook and logging onto Facebook whenever, wherever we go is almost second nature. In essence, Facebook is a second life. Everyone has a different use case for Facebook, but I think I can safely say that Facebook's core appeal lies in the ability to share sentiments, have group discussions and contact friends. Having said that, a certain frustration with Facebook has grown on me in the past month that I haven't quite been able to pinpoint. But the launch of Google+ has helped to bring light to the cause: Facebook stopped innovating and started changing.

I'm the kind of guy that embraces change. I believe it's safe for me to say that I'm an early adopter of new technology, I love the excitement. What Facebook is doing isn't change for the better, but change for the sake of it, and nobody likes alterations in things they're accustomed to when it doesn't bring anything of notable value to the table. The first time that a so called improvement really bugged me was when Facebook decided to combine arbitrary matters like my friends 'likes' with the all-important status updates and wallposts in the news feeds. The term 'news feeds' immediately became redundant because it was no longer a stream of my friends connections but a water slide of spam and junk. Scavenging for the social  networking aspects amidst all of the 'likes' was parallel to finding a needle in a haystack. Little did I know, this very event augured a landslide of alterations and tweakings in Facebook of use to bloody no one. Suddenly, a glance at the Facebook interface doesn't quite give you a clear picture as to what the service is. Underneath all of the scum, 'social' seems to have become an afterthought. 

The simple fact is nobody really cares what pages someone likes, and I don't personally care who changes their profile pictures or who becomes friends with who. I admit, some of the like pages are pretty funny, but there's the burning question of why. Why do we have these like pages? We get a brief laugh, and then when we realise that we can relate them to our life we give them a like, and then someone else sees that we liked it and then they like it. It's a cyclical process with no higher destination. The only person that wins is the page owner who gets the satisfaction of seeing his stats fly. Personally, I don't like these 'like' pages anymore because I know that the only cause I'll be serving is spamming someone else's news feeds, and nobody wants that. Sure, I can hit 'top news' and filter my news feeds to a collection of popular statuses and wall posts, but it doesn't provide me with recent content, just popular content. Why won't Facebook just give us a function that allows us to filter out the spam? Why won't Facebook fulfil the desires of people like me, who want to use Facebook for what it was meant to be - sharing with friends instead of inadvertently sharing junk. 

This Facebook rant wouldn't be complete without the glaring topic of the dislike button. The haunting dream of every single user, that Facebook simply refuses to acknowledge. Why? Because they don't have to. There could be issues of cyber-bullying revolving around disliking, but really, what has this world turned to? Expressing disapproval for a topic, thought or event is not hurtful or harrassing, and if you think it is, then you shouldn't be on Facebook because swear words which run rampant in 'like' pages and comments are far worse than simply saying no. By not providing users with a dislike button, Facebook are breeding a culture where its expected to simply say yes and accept, and they're closing the door on another means of expressing ourselves which is the central point of what a social network is meant to be. 

Facebook's behaviour seems like a public but subtle display of arrogance. Facebook knows that we are trapped in their service because in social we can only go where our friends go. I get the feeling that we, the users are nothing more than just subjects for experimentation, Facebook makes a change and they observe how we react. But we're ultimately powerless. The users want a new feature, but Facebook doesn't deliver because heck, they don't have to. We have no viable alternatives to shift to, and if there were alternatives it would take monumental leadership to move a whole friendship community to an entirely new service. 

Even Gizmodo knows that the new chat is a complete abomination

To throw oxygen into the Facebook conflagration, the new excuse for 'chat' is an absolute nightmare. There's an old saying that you've undoubtedly heard that goes by the way of 'don't fix it if it ain't broke'. This generally ideology is against progression, so in most cases I vehemently dismiss it but Facebook could learn a thing or two. For those of you lucky enough to not have been downgraded to the new chat, I envy you, but for those of you who have, we share our hatred. The new chat sidebar, is a sidebar that remains on the right of your screen permanently, unless you care to make the extra two clicks to make it go away. It's not like the old chat, where you click to bring it up, and clicking away minimises it once again. The remaining presence of the new chat is obnoxious, and gives the whole interface a disturbingly asymmetrical feel. Not only that, but the list is no longer scrollable. Meaning that it only has the ability to show a finite number of online friends which is ultimately decided by the pixel density of your display. For anyone else you want to talk to that doesn't fit on the list, you must search them. What an absolute affront! Does Facebook really believe that we go into Facebook with intention? When I log onto Facebook, I just log on. I don't list intentions and goals beforehand - hmm, today I'm going to log onto Facebook so I can talk to blah-blah and message blah-blah and tag blah-blah in a photo. No, nobody does that. I use the chat box to see who's online and decide who I want to chat with based on who I see online. It's a matter of spontaneity, and by forcing us to methodically search potential chat companions is a gross removal of the whole impromptu factor of social altogether, which is an integral element.

Finally, there are the little tweaks too, that aren't necessarily game-changingly bad but vitiate needlessly the experience and familiarity users have with the interface. The more salient of such offences was when Facebook decided to make the font of the whole interface just a hair smaller. I thought there was some issue with my display resolution or the zoom of the webpage but it was just Facebook, being, well, Facebook. We've all adapted to the font size now but the change was never necessary in the first place and hasn't added anything to the service. It's a perfect example of the restless engineer bored of seeing stats fly.

If Google+ is here to prove anything, then it's the fact that Facebook is doing it all wrong. They're spamming our news feeds, annoying the users and just not being social enough. Let's hope that Google+ will act as an impetus for improvement for Facebook, because these last two years have just been one major digression, changing this and changing that to create the illusion of progress and improvement where we're really not moving anywhere. All I'm requesting of Facebook isn't anything new, more importantly, it's back to the old. 

webOS vs Blackberry - The Pony opinion

The tablet war has largely been seen thus far as a battle between two giants, iOS and Android. Respectively the number 1 and 2 tablet OS's currently. However a new battle is brooding, between the two newcomers HP and RIM who have come out and introduced the world to two very exciting tablet operating systems. It's an intriguing battle of the underdogs, and who are you rooting for? With this article, I'll be giving you a in-depth view of my insights on who I believe will emerge the most successful of the two, and whether any of these have a chance at toppling the big two: Apple and Google.

The early days of these two operating systems have been mired by a number of issues which they share, incomplete software at launch and a measly app selection. HP's Touchpad has copped a bit of a beating for inferior hardware. Nevertheless, we all have to start somewhere and from where I stand, both of these platforms have enormous potential for both consumers and enterprise. Everybody loves an underdog and both these operating systems are symbolic of what people admire so much with underdogs. They're creative, new and aren't afraid of stepping out of the traditional framework set out by the big two. RIM borrowed a lot from webOS for the design of their QNX basked Blackberry Tablet OS and I'm certainly not complaining, the UI on both these operating systems is stellar and a huge step up for tablets. The multi-tasking 'cards' if you like are handy, it's the kind of thing that you don't even know you want until you use it and have it. iOS's multi-tasking is primitive in comparison, and Android's doesn't feel as intuitive and dynamic.

Both webOS and BB Tablet OS both adopt a very gesture driven interface and from my experience with the Playbook it's a joy to use. I haven't used the HP Touchpad yet so it's hard for me to comment. However, on the Playbook the gesture interface isn't implemented in such a way that it feels like its there purely for differentiation but it actually brings very intuitive navigation of the tablet which is a pleasure to use. Swipe down from the top to reveal settings or options in an application, swipe from the top up to reveal the home screen, swipe from either side of the display to switch easily between running applications. It just works. With that, I say RIM and HP have a genuine shot at stealing significant market share.

Now, RIM have one big advantage that can't be underrated, and that is a well-established user base. There's no hiding a rapidly, and we mean, rapidly declining market share but at third place, RIM still have a considerable market share they can leverage to kick-start their voyage into the tablet world. HP doesn't have this, webOS has a drastically small market share and HP are hoping to kick-start their mobile endeavours with a tablet, which is an odd reverse of the conventional. Without a large existing user base behind their smartphone effort HP doesn't have the advantage of locking in existing consumers. Additionally competitors who do have a large user base for their smartphones, which is true for RIM, can attempt to woo consumers into buying their tablets by providing synergy between the devices.

When HP CEO Mark Hurd stated 'we didn't buy Palm to be in the smartphone business' I naturally found the very notion absurd. However, what he meant was HP's intentions with webOS go far beyond the smartphone business. HP have something that RIM could only ever dream of having, and that is an extensive lineup of hardware. RIM are focused on handsets and tablets, but HP builds phones, tablets, PC's, printers and all sorts of hardware. When we think of the ecosystem, we think of interconnected applications and services on our phones, tablets and PCs but we too often leave out more detached hardware like printers, set-top boxes and Blu-ray players. With a much more extensive hardware offering, HP have the ability to expand webOS to all of these devices, and create a uniform interface that connects all of these devices together, and thus connects us in even more places in our lives.

HP's biggest problem though is to get started. Without any credible smartphone market share to use as a trampoline, a measly app selection for the Touchpad and below par hardware for the Touchpad, well it's going to have to wait for Touchpad 2. Perhaps the Pre 3 will give HP a start, which to be frank looks awesome. However it's hard to imagine anyone aside from an existing webOS diehard purchasing it. A lot of people buy what their friends have, and webOS's market share is only about 2% in the US currently. Additionally, a relatively weak app store offers little succour for an already dire situation. For HP, it's a race against time. HP risk taking too long to gain enough market share before the competition catch up on HP's vision of 'a web-connected environment where now you can get a common look and feel and a common set of services laid against that (HP) environment' (quote from HP CEO, Mark Hurd). 

The Verdict
So who is it? Who do I think is going to be the winner between these two 'start-ups'? HP is extremely vulnerable right now, you get the feeling that there's no second chances, if they screw up big time, then, yeah, they screw up big time. Having said that, webOS like I said at the beginning is innovative and joyful but it needs time. RIM still has a strong market share, and the QNX-based Blackberry Tablet OS is an absolute winner. And with the promise of QNX arriving to Blackberry smartphones in the near future, I just can't place my bets on webOS. So Blackberry it is. 

Breaking down LG's smartphone troubles

A few days LG announced that it would be cutting their 2011 smartphone sales targets by 6 million and reducing their overall handset shipments from 150 million to 114 million. The news isn't quite as serious as RIM's struggles in a similar market but its worth commenting on. LG has certainly been struggling in the new smartphone market. With budget phones and super phones spilling endlessly into the smartphone pit, LG is struggling to find its own.

There are hundreds of Android phones on the market right now, and no reasonable person would question why. After all, who wouldn't take a smartphone platform connected with services by the most important internet company in the world, surrounded by an immense ecosystem of apps if it was handed to them for free? LG's one of these 'people' who have chosen to adopt Android to launch themselves into the smartphone world. However the adoption of Android has seen LG fall victim to what I like to call: Androiditis. The issue of Androiditis is a simple one, you have a really good platform on your phone, with great services, plenty of apps, but everyone else is just as good as you. It's like being prime minister in a room full of presidents. All of LG's competitors who have joined the Android party have access to the same apps and to the same services. Essentially, if you have exactly the same software as your competitors then you're not really competing in that respect anymore are you?

Which brings LG down to its biggest issue, LG's inability to produce decent hardware. I'm yet to see an LG smartphone that has legitimately impressed me. When I walk into a phone shop and have a play around with an LG, nothing strikes me as being awesome or worth noting. Their phones have been receiving lackluster reviews not because they're bad phones per se, but because they're simply not better than their competitors and have nothing of value to distinguish themselves in an Android crowd chock-a-block with 'me toos' and 'pick me's'. There's also something to say about LG's apparently low standards in regards to hardware design. There was a billboard at a bus stop in Melbourne I saw that showed an attractive model holding an LG Optimus 2X in typical ad-like fashion with a tag line boasting the device's svelte hardware design. But, in contrast we see the Samsung Galaxy S II with its absolutely astonishingly, timeless and in my opinion, better hardware design which isn't even being advertised as a fashionable phone as such.

Design is a topic that's subjective, many people will say that LG's current smartphones are relatively pleasing to the eye. I'm not going to counter that, but I think it's right to say that LG has certainly lost some of its design flares from back in the days of the Chocolate and the Prada. To say the least, LG phones had a design that was not only attractive, but unique. Heck, the Chocolate BL40 (main image) still remains in my opinion the most attractive cellphone ever made. Full stop. It was beautiful, and unique. And I think that word is the key representation of where LG has lost touch.

LG needs something unique to separate themselves from the shadow of generic Android manufacturers. Samsung and HTC are undoubtedly the two most successful Android manufacturers because that's exactly what they have, something unique. It feels weird to be saying this since due to my own personal idiosyncrasies I hate Samsung, but Samsung have amongst the best smartphone hardware around. It's not just the design of their devices, but the succulent quality of their displays, particularly the Super AMOLED ones. HTC likewise have set themselves apart with their distinctive Sense UI, which is a hybrid of beauty and brains. Many manufacturers skin their Android handsets with the hope of giving them a distinctive look and feel, but none are more effective than Sense UI. When you use Sense, you just know that you're holding an HTC. Sometimes it's just that simple...you just know.

The Sony Ericsson Xperia buttons. Courtesy Jon Choo

Despite having a design that it quite uniform across LG's smartphones, it's not unmistakeably LG in the same way that slim, blocky, rectangular designs are unmistakeably Samsung, and the distinctly shaped silver navigation buttons below Sony Ericsson phones just scream Sony Ericsson.

LG simply needs to find out where they belong, and create products that cater for their vision. Right now, bland hardware design and non-unique software aren't giving LG any legs to run away from the congested Android crowd. For a well-established brand like LG they need to do better than simply being another option for consumers. How about being the option? Everything aside, LG isn't in big trouble, no matter how far their sales fall they're still essentially on the same playing field as their Android competitors, they're sharing an ecosystem that others are assisting to maintain. They don't have an ecosystem to defend. That's the advantage of Android, LG need to capitalise by creating beautiful and unique hardware that I know they're capable of. It's time to make Life Good again.