TECHGEEK.com.au - Saving the future of 3D

Be sure to check out my opinion article on TECHGEEK.com.au with my views on the flailing 3D technology and how to save it from imminent demise. 

"The whole 3D dilemma is very much a Catch-22 situation – content producers aren’t willing to bet big on 3D production because the potential consumer demographic simply isn’t large enough to deem it highly profitable. Conversely, one of the primary reasons why the consumer base for 3D is relatively small is because there’s not enough available 3D content to justify an upgrade or the price hike....."

Categorising Samsung's Galaxy Note

No doubt, one of the most talked about unveilings at IFA is the Galaxy Note. A 5.3 inch Android 'device'. Categorising this device into smartphone or tablet is becoming an interesting dilemma - too big to be a mainstream smartphone, too small to be a tablet, and too advanced to fit into the PDA crowd. Hear me out as I provide my insights into what Samsung's Galaxy Note really is and what it means to us.

This year, I believe that the world of consumer technology has created and embraced what I see as the three musketeers of our computing lifestyles - PC, tablet and smartphone. All these devices augment the experiences of each other, and thus far none are capable of fully replacing one another. I couldn't possibly replace my phone with a tablet, and my tablet is simply not powerful enough nor practical enough to replace this laptop I'm typing on at this very moment. I think that one of the main things that holds back any of these devices from convergence or replacement of each other, is something that by its very nature simply cannot be fixed - its size. If people could comfortably fit an iPad, or even a Blackberry Playbook into their pockets and hold it to their ears during a phone call, people would very well do away with phones.

Unless you're the highly materialistic type like I who simply loves to bathe in collections of electronic devices, the lesser the number of devices that you have to deal with and manage is better. Hence the popularity of smartphones because they take on the purpose of a multitude of devices. All of this makes the unveiling of Samsung's potentially category pioneering Galaxy Note at IFA in Berlin all the more interesting. Cutting back from the trivial matters of detailed specifications, the Galaxy Note is a 5.3 inch 'device' with an incredible high resolution Super AMOLED display. As you can probably see from the image above of DJ Lee holding the Galaxy Note, the device is larger than Samsung's already large Galaxy S II smartphone but without looking entirely out of proportion. It's hard to believe that what is in his hands is a 5.3 inch display, which is certainly workable for a pocketable mobile workspace.

So, can this Galaxy Note succeed in converging tablet and smartphone for those who want to be burdened by less? It's certainly a compromise. Personally, the pockets of my jeans will only just hold a device of this size with a convincing shove. And then, it's not the greatest feeling (or look) walking around feeling a huge rectangle in my pocket pressing against my leg. On the other end of the spectrum, its size can also be considered to be too small. Even the Blackberry Playbook was criticised by many as being an inch or two below adequacy for a great web experience. Sure, the Note is great for the people who are willing to make the compromise to streamline their own device portfolio, but for the users looking for the best end to end experience, it's not going to happen here.

We can't look at the Galaxy Note and attempt to categorise the product simply based on its size. It comes with a stylus, which has been shunned by Apple but in actuality has some really useful practicalities. We've already seen such a stylus implementation in HTC's 7-inch Flyer tablet. The stylus was used to draw at a level of accuracy that fingers alone do not permit and also to highlight, circle and make notes on the screen at any time. The concept was great because it emulated the way we like to manipulate content in the traditional way of pen and paper and how we often highlight and underline things. The stylus of the Galaxy Note takes this idea and integrates the stylus deeper into the product as such allowing us to use the stylus to navigate the device as well instead of just drawing. From use cases demonstrated in the official promotional video we can really get a sense of the wide-ranging possibilities of the underrated technology of touch-pen input.

Perhaps, Samsung isn't looking at the convergence of the devices, but rather creating something...semi-new. It could be called a tabphone? Meh. Or perhaps a smartlet - that's cute. The point I'm trying to make is that I personally don't see this as a really really big smartphone for really really big people.

As the name suggests, the Galaxy Note is perfect for such use cases like note-taking which is something that is actually abominably hard on touch keyboards. It's funny how we often don't notice these little things that we want until someone shoves it into our faces. That's what Samsung have done here; taking notes on any touch screen keyboard of any size isn't a situation we dream of being in, let alone having to take such notes in speed. The stylus merges the benefits of both traditional handwriting and the digital capabilities of mobile devices - given the Galaxy Note is able to handle accuracy and speed simultaneously, we could have a really capable 'jotting down' PDA-like contraption with unprecedented versatility. The problem with pen and paper is that once you finish writing things down, that's really all you can do with it. For it to be digitised, the convoluted process of scanning must be endured, and even then the simple image file that it becomes is limited in its capabilities. The Galaxy Note can change this simply through its digital nature.

I know you're thinking that a stylus isn't a huge innovation, in fact it's really not an innovation at all as styli are considered by many as previous generation technology for when we didn't have effective capacitive touch displays with big meaty buttons for our big meaty fingers. But the stylus isn't dead and it was never dead, it's just that everyone is simply so engrossed in the smartphone spec war to embrace true innovation and forward thinking.

The Galaxy Note is certainly not for everyone, but for those who are blessed with large hands and don't often wear skinny jeans will probably love the practicalities that this 'little' contraption provides. Living with a tablet for a month (Blackberry Playbook), I can't imagine my life without one, it is honestly the most liberating feeling being able to take almost the whole quota of my digital lifestyle with me everywhere without being weighed down. With Galaxy Note, if one embraces what this device offers I'm sure it will eventually morph into an essential in much the same way.

So is the Samsung Galaxy Note the start of a new trend? The return of the PDA? To be frank, it's niche factor is too large for it to be embraced by other manufacturers. I still stand by my digital trio of smartphone, tablet and PC. The Galaxy Note probably won't be purchased on its merits as a note-taking device or a PDA if you like, but for anyone that has pockets capable of housing 5.3 inches of Super AMOLED goodness and is looking for a smartphone - meet 'smartlet'.

iQuit - An Apple with Steve Jobs and an Apple without him

There aren't many times when we can look back at a CEO and say honestly that they changed the world. Sure, there are many CEOs who have changed their companies, improved operations and maybe even lead to some pretty successful product launches, but Steve Jobs I believe is the manifestation of true success. Not only did he revitalise Apple, but he managed to influence and even create several markets, when most leaders struggle to even touch one. 

Regretfully, due to poor health Steve Jobs has made the hard decision to resign as CEO of Apple. This very event has sparked a mass amount of praise and respect for Steve Jobs from people of all shapes and sizes, even from those who do not spend all their time reading technology blogs and playing with their Apple products. Strangely, it has even opened the hearts of some of the infamous Apple haters. But it has also sparked massive debates between pundits, analysts and the like regarding Apple's future. Is Apple capable of maintaining its success without Steve Jobs and sustaining the growth that it has experienced in the last decade? Can Apple still excite people and remain, well you know...cool? Or on the flip side, will Apple fall in the same fatal path subsequent to Jobs' initial departure?

Well, let me just say that the Apple that we see today will by and large be the same shining red Apple that we'll be seeing for at least the next 5 years. With products and strategies most likely laid out for the coming years, it's hard to imagine any plateauing in growth or anything that we wouldn't expect of the Steve Jobs Apple that we're well and truly accustomed to today. Tim Cook has assumed the role of CEO in the past during the events of Steve Jobs' health bouts, so it's safe to say that he's already well-versed in the operations and procedures of the captain's seat. Steve Jobs' resignation was simply reiterating in ink what was already written in pencil for Tim Cook. 

However, when the day comes that Steve Jobs actually isn't there, we definitely won't be speaking of Apple with this same assurance. It's not a bad time to start forecasting an Apple without Steve Jobs.

Allow me to just answer one budding question that has been foolishly debated - can Apple be the same without Steve Jobs? No. It is foolish to believe that Apple can remain the same without Steve, thus why the need for Steve? If his vision, his achievements, and his capabilities can and could have all been entirely replicated by someone else, Steve would have been a useless leader. Steve Jobs' became CEO of Apple because he had capabilities that no one else in the company had, thus his absence will leave a hole in the company's core. Steve Jobs leaves behind some enormous shoes that even a person of Tim Cook's calibre will have feet too small.

To me, Tim Cook has always felt like an emergency as opposed to a permanent solution. He would come in and keep the big boat afloat while Steve Jobs was away, and then Steve would come back and really propel the cruiser forward. The perceived permanence of this week's decision tells us that Steve probably won't be coming back to the helm, which only leaves me with an uneasy feeling regarding Apple's future under Tim Cook. There's just this little something that tells me that Cook is more of a numbers guy, a negotiator, or an operational guy as opposed to a creative and idea driven guy. Steve Jobs managed to create an unprecedented culture of innovation within his company, and if Cook is driven by entirely different motives it will only destroy the morale within Apple that has taken it to such peaks of success.

So how will Apple change? It's a big question with a big many answers. Perhaps it is only fitting to look back at the things that add up to what simply can't put any better than unprecedented genius.

This is quite a cliché statement but I'm going to repeat it because I believe it's one of the most monumental things that Steve Jobs will be taking away with him - his vision. I've always gone by one of my own sayings that vision is what separates those that make a profit from those that make an impact, and I can't think of a better illustration of this very idea than Steve Jobs. Sure, we can all be like Samsung and make multitudes of phones without thought and make a truck-load of money and earn market share, but will we look back on the age of smartphones and say that Samsung made a difference? I'll be damned. Steve Jobs didn't just sell his products, he sold his vision and that has made all the difference. 

Jobs has the uncanny ability to think ahead of the times and almost design the future like an architect, and then be willing to bet big on it. I'm sure we can all remember the semi-transparent iMac without the floppy drive which was insane at the time. In spite of that, this omission propelled Apple into the future of compact discs. More recently, the iPhone without a keyboard was laughed off by Steve Ballmer as being unsuitable for businessmen, it has proven a revelation. And the download-only Mac OS X Lion is only the very start of a rising era.  

Having said this, there's probably no greater exemplification of Steve Jobs' incredible forward thinking than the originality of the iPad. There are few people in this world who can look at people, live their lives and find the holes in which ideas and potential products could fit in. Whilst everyone else endlessly filled the vacancies with compromises, Jobs saw through this and without an inkling of market research he dreamt the iPad purely through the roots of his own creativity. Competitors are having a hard time fighting against the iPad because they're pursuing a vision that is not their own, but that of Steve Jobs, which is one they're not entirely sure of. If we look back in time at the most innovative and inspirational leaders and entrepreneurs, most did not believe in the 'effectiveness' of market research. Akio Morita, the co-founder of Sony Corp. famously said 'Carefully watch how people live, get an intuitive sense of what they might want and then go with it. Don't do market research.' The man created the Walkman which revolutionised our lifestyles and the music industry purely through intuition. Market research only tells us what people are buying, but not necessarily what they want, and Steve Jobs knew this. 

Oh yeah - did someone say Apple keynote without Steve? Not sure, because I can't imagine one. I simply can't imagine a keynote without Jobs up on stage in his trademark black turtleneck and junners with such subtle child-like excitement, love, and admiration for his own products. Who's going to be up there to say 'it's magical' or 'it's just fantastic' or 'one more thing'. Jobs' is a natural salesman. I could probably write a couple of thousand words on Steve Jobs' capabilities as a salesman, someone more intelligent could probably write a thesis, heck people have written books on how to be insanely great at speaking and persuading like Steve Jobs. Jobs' keynotes weren't him telling us features and specs that we could read ourselves, it wasn't him playing the commonplace PR game, nor was it him attempting to excite us over dreams he may or may not deliver. He spoke of the things that mattered to us at the most primal level - the magic of a product, how it changes 'everything' and he spoke about how things were beautiful and amazing without sounding like he fell out of a rainbow. We can only wait and see whether Tim Cook has charisma enough to get people waiting overnight in lines to get their hands on the next iPhone or the next iPad, or even the next Mac. 

So now what? What will happen to Apple? From where I stand, I have no doubt that Apple will continue to be successful for the next coming years, or even a few years after Steve Jobs takes the last step away from the company. But I hate to say that there will come a time when without a visionary like Steve Jobs at the helm or in the higher ranks, the company will stagnate when it comes that time for a revolutionary idea to keep the company in the limelight. That doesn't mean that the company will stop being successful, it simply means that the company will cease to become highly influential. 

Do all good things come to an end? Maybe. Unfortunately for Apple it seems that they've reached peaks so high that the only way for them to go is down. It's hard to imagine a visionary beyond Steve Jobs' calibre. With the culture that Apple have established within their company they're sure to find and attract talent but I doubt, I highly doubt we will find someone so talented in so many ways as Steve Jobs. Let me tell you now, Tim Cook is probably not going to cut it. It will be interesting to watch Apple's Steve-less evolution churn out. What's important for the people at Apple isn't to keep thinking 'what would Steve do?' Following a vision that is not your own is always, always second to following your own. In spite of everything I have confidence that Apple will be able to find someone who isn't quite Steve Jobs, but is just like him in a completely different way. 

HP's webOS riddles

Less than two years ago when HP acquired the fledgling Palm company, I was a half-hearted with the notion. HP, being a relatively professional and straight-edged company didn't quite seem to fit the Palm profile of curved and cute devices with a...well curved and cute OS. I expected, and in retrospect would have preferred the likes of Nokia or Sony to have acquired the innovative Palm. However my dreams were left unrealised and Nokia is now committed fully to Windows Phone and Sony are heading towards a deep investment in the Android ecosystem, its amazing how times change. Join me as I recount HP's problem leading up to the discontinuation of first party webOS devices.

The outcome of webOS under HP's tenure has been disappointing, even looking on the bright side it has drastically fallen below the excitement and hype that the initial announcement of the Touchpad and Pre 3 had warranted. When HP unveiled the Touchpad at their Think Beyond event in February, the prospects and the possibilities were incredible and seemingly prosperous. The Touchpad wasn't perfect though, page turning when reading eBooks was choppy and the user experience as a whole wasn't up to scratch. It didn't feel like a finished product. But we were all excited because we figured heck, the problems should all be ironed out prior to the launch in 7 months time, and perhaps the hardware upgraded to keep in close quarters with the fast progression of consumer technology. But it wasn't. Looking back at the bug-riddled launch of the Touchpad I simply can't help but wonder what the hell went on in that lengthy 7 months. 7 months is plenty of time to perfect bugs and polish a product that was definitely already in the later phases of semi-completion. Believe it or not, I even expected HP to launch the device early and surprise us.

It's odd, because this whole time I believed that the acquisition of Palm by HP was what would be instrumental in preventing a late and sorry launch. Palm, prior to HP simply didn't have the resources to go about it on their own, they didn't have the manufacturing scale that HP possessed, nor the cash to effectively market their products. More importantly they didn't have the human resources they needed to quicken general operations. HP had this, but taking 7 months to launch an imperfect product disappointingly shows that it did not translate for webOS. 

Looking from the outside, HP's webOS failure could be attributed partially to a lack of focus, a fatally distracted vision for webOS. By no means does a distracted vision necessarily have to be a poor vision, and this was exactly the case with HP webOS. HP were hoping to expand the platform across all their devices, including printers to share a common ecosystem amongst the products we use most. I'm not going to lie, it's a brilliant idea, but fantasising over unrealised dreams while delivering an incomplete foundation in the company's smartphones and tablets only spells trouble. Dreams are like anything, you have to keep feeding them to stay alive, and feeding them lackluster products with insufficient marketing doesn't assist in building a large enough consumer base to springboard other projects. We all know what happens if you start building the top of a skyscraper before the foundation is complete - it collapses. 

Which brings us to this morning's bombshell of an announcement, HP is stopping production of its webOS hardware altogether. You read right, it's just the hardware, which is not surprising given how out of touch the Touchpad's hardware is in comparison to the competition and the times. Despite only cancelling the hardware and almost certainly going ahead with the idea of licensing the OS, the whole ideal has just been one huge PR tragedy. Announcing the cancellation of hardware production for an operating system that only has one hardware vendor is the right way to give everybody a wrong impression. HP now run the risk of not being able to find a licensing partner within the timeline that they have set to officially cancel webOS device production. If this does end up being the case which lets face it, is entirely plausible, then it would be correct by definition to officially call webOS dead, after all, nobody's making any webOS devices. 

Let's get real, is there anyone who really wants to invest in webOS? Samsung and HTC are the two most likely vendors, doing anything and everything to expand their portfolios. Both are already heavily invested and clear leaders in the Android ecosystem, however with offerings in Windows Phone which will most likely be undermined by the looming release of the Nokia Windows Phones. So, webOS wouldn't be a terrible idea but then we must ask the question, why? Why would they bother supporting a dying ecosystem when they're already high and mighty in a thriving one? Sony Ericsson, LG and several others are also possible candidates, but I doubt that any of these companies have the resources to risk in investing in an ecosystem that has failed...twice - once under Palm and now under HP. 

Its sad, but ultimately true that HP have dug their own grave. Palm had built an image of freshness and innovation behind the Palm name, being one of the most advanced touch-screen smartphones of its time, whilst maintaining a highly approachable and friendly industrial design. I know friends who wanted a Palm prior to the HP days simply because of the curved design, and the invitingly simple look and feel of the OS. By ridding and replacing the Palm name with HP subsequent to the acquisition, HP threw away the oh so precious image and value of the Palm brand. Strategically, this move made sense in order to bring webOS both physically and symbolically closer to the HP family. However HP didn't have the confidence nor the skill to turn webOS into a game-changing product, and are now trying to license the operating system in a much less valuable incarnation than what they initially purchased it for. 

So can webOS be resurrected? I used to think so but in a connected world where growth grows upon growth, webOS is really struggling to just make the inaugural step. On the other end of the spectrum, Android and iOS are making exponential strides. In spite of this, there's a little bit inside all of us that knows webOS can still make it, and then there's a big part in all of us that really wants webOS to make it. The world doesn't need anymore Android slabs, but we could sure as hell do with a sweet OS like webOS. I think its clear that webOS's square peg doesn't belong in the circle of HP. So here's hoping that HP sells it off to a company that can treat it with the respect it deserves. Any takers?

Willy-nilly Walkman

A fortnight ago, Sony unveiled a selection of new Walkman MP3 players namely a new 'A series' touch screen Walkman, 'S series' compact Walkman, and 'E series' basic video Walkman. Walkman unveilings are always interesting particularly in analysing how Sony responds to not only the grave challenge of Apple's iPod and cheaper MP3 players, but also their attempt to maintain consumer relevance in the gradually dying market of dedicated music players. Sony's recent Walkmans have been ultimately a let down, hence the most recent one that evoked any hype was the X series in 2009 which is currently either dead or dormant. My loyal readers will know that I'm a Walkman fanboy at heart, forking out the same sum of money of an iPod Touch on an infinitely less capable Walkman X. Yet I stand by my Walkman devotion, because nothing beats out of the box noise cancellation and the raw beauty of Walkman sound quality.

From where I stand, there are many things that hamper the potential success of these current Walkmans. But ironically it has nothing to do with strong competition coming from Apple's ubiquitous iPod, Sony is shooting themselves in the foot. Purely from Sony's vantage, the Walkman works because the brand has been able to carve a niche for itself throughout its last decade in the digital MP3 market. Where the iPod has struggled to gain respect, the Walkman has been embraced with open arms. I'm referring to the audiophile community, the people who still carry around a dedicated music player because it provides marginally better audio fidelity than their phones, and the folks who will fork out more on headphones than on the actual player. This is the consumer demographic that appreciates Walkman for what it is, and this is what Sony's target market should be. 

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that Sony are fully catering to this market, and half wasting their time on the long lost game of the average consumer market. The new Walkmans, save for the E and W series all come equipped with Bluetooth technology. I understand that Bluetooth has many practicalities beyond unwired headphones, but unwired headphones, judging by marketing is Sony's primary offering with Bluetooth technology. Despite the general subjectivity on the scale in which Bluetooth degrades sound quality, it's simply not debatable that Bluetooth does pale in comparison to a direct 3.5mm stereo jack connection. Long story cut short, the Bluetooth transfer requires compression which by its very nature reduces sound quality. So why would an audiophile want this, when what an audiophile really wants is the best their money can buy? Sure, average consumers would enjoy the convenience, but average consumers would enjoy an iPod too. 

And then there's the larger problem at hand, and that's by and large the Walkman's inability to enjoy any consistency in its brand and lineup and its inability to integrate with similar Sony products and services. Like I said, the Walkman's relationship with audiophiles won't be going anywhere even in the face of major strategic blunders, because let's face it, the Walkman will always sound great. What concerns me is the inconsistency and dilution of Sony's use cases for the Walkman name. Currently, the Walkman monicker is present on Sony Ericsson Walkman phones and obviously Walkman MP3s. Yeah, it's only a couple I know but both these devices are acutely different, they are in two completely different universes, heck they're not even made by the same company. Sound quality on Sony Ericsson Walkmans fall tremendously short in comparison to the dedicated players. That doesn't help the brand in any way, a brand that sells itself on its sound quality. 

The Walkman will never shine with its old luster, but the least Sony could do is to try and leverage what they do have with the Walkman to boost other aspects of their business, or just as usefully, use current aspects of their business to boost the Walkman. What naturally pops into my mind first is Qriocity, the media streaming service by Sony that has gotten quite a bit of stick from journos regarding the hacking matter from months ago. Nevertheless, Qriocity is satanically not available on any Walkman. The matter is a loop-hole free no-brainer - a music streaming service for a music player. 3G is the issue here, but Sony need to find a way to get Qriocity onto Walkman devices because if there's one thing for certain it's that it's sure going to open more doors than it closes. Not only would this work to create a really solid offering that matches up against the times, but Qriocity users would then find it practical to use Qriocity on other supported devices to gain value for money thus indirectly forcing consumers to buy further into Sony's ecosystem. The Walkman as it stands is a lonely product.

My sentiments regarding the Walkman are iffy, I'll always be a Walkman consumer but not everyone will be and the path they're taking isn't going to take them to a handy destination. The Walkman brand could be likened to a headless chicken, alive simply for the continuity of an iconic brand, but with ultimately no foreseeable vision or trajectory ahead.

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.