Everybody's talking about Google Wave these days. What is it? Who the fuck knows; the beta is private, and the only people with invites are New Media Douchebags. It's their marketing strategy. If they just had a press conference and announced it's availability and what it did, it would hold the popular interest for exactly twelve minutes. But they make it a big, unattainable big ball of mystery, then people stay up nights thinking about it. You know your Gmail account? Remember when it was closed off and you had to get an invite? It was a hard time for me. I was in Virginia and people thought a wifi router was the thing that guys over thirty-five had to bend over in front of the doctor for.
Anyway, what do you need to know? Robert Scoble thinks it's pointless and will flop, so it's probably solid platinum.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
The New Magazine?
Seems there's a rumor going around that Steve Jobs has been going around to big magazine publishers with a proposal to make something called a "Vook," which is like a new digital online version of a periodical, designed specifically for the mystery Apple Tablet that the blogosphere has been yammering about for 12 years. The publishers are responding by trying to come up with an alternative, loosely termed "The Hulu for Magazines," which reminds me of those "Facebook of Sex" ads you get on torrent sites. Neither will work, because there's already a great program for online magazines; it's called HTML. Seriously, what could you put in an online magazine that couldn't already run on a browser? It's all about payment and subscriptions, and you can do that over the web, too. iTunes is the only growth in the music industry, the independent software developer industry, and they want magazines, too. I just hope they come up with a better name before it launches, lest my computer asking me if I want to sync my vooks, because that sounds dirty. And Scandinavian.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
For Hana and Luke
Two of my friends are (independently) due to receive brand new, tiny netbooks in the mail Friday. Since I've been in all over these things since people had to mail order them from Taiwan, I thought I'd put together a little list of essential netbook software. Since the little guys are smaller, don't have a lot of resources to spare, you don't want a lot of useless gunk slowing down your computer and hogging hard drive space. I've tried just about everything out, and this is one of the (few) times I really know what I'm talking about. So listen to the geek, and learn.
1. Browser
These days, people spend most of their time on computers in front of the web browser, so it's the most important program running on your computer. Internet explorer, however sucks. The new version (IE8) is better, but still the slowest browser you can buy. Replacing it with anything is an improvement. I say go for Google Chrome or Firefox. Chrome is still a little bit faster, but I like Firefox because it's still compatible with the most sites, the most customizable, and full featured.
2. Word Processing
I think most netbooks loaded with Windows XP come with Microsoft Works, which is kind of anemic, and your first impulse is to go to the store or fire up BitTorrent and bootleg the latest Microsoft Office. But it's big and bloaty and slow on a netbook, and needlessly expensive. Get OpenOffice instead. It's a little bit slimmer, and still compatible with just about every Office document, from Word files to spreadsheets. It's also completely free and open source, and supports some pretty cool plugins (like this, which syncs with Google Docs).
3. Syncing
Now you guys have multiple computers. You have smartphones and stuff. There's nothing more frustrating than having data on one device when you need it on another. There's a couple of ways to keep your data synchronized without having to think about it. One of my favorite programs is Evernote. It's like a little extra brain that sits on your desktop. You can write notes on it, drag pictures into it, take screenshots, or if you have Firefox, you can clip web pages into it. All of your notes are synced to the server, so you can access them on any computer that runs Evernote, or you can get to your notes through the Evernote website. There's even an iPhone/iPod app, so you can take your notes everywhere. It's free for an account, but you have a monthly allowance for notes unless you buy it. But it's probably the only webservice I think is worth paying for. For syncing files, check out Dropbox. It's super simple--once it's installed on your computer, you have a new folder called Dropbox. Once you drop something into it, it will sync with every computer you have Dropbox installed to, and then you can access your data from anywhere. The free account is limited to 2g, but that's a lot of documents or whatever. Both of these programs are available for Mac and PC.
4. Appearance
I like Windows XP. It's a solid, fast operating system. But it looks old and stupid. Lifehacker has a cool article on how to change your desktop theme. It's a hack, but it's one of the easiest hacks there are. Another cool little program I use is Rocketdock. It replicates the Macintosh dock on Windows. It's tiny and customizable, and you know, aweseome.
Hope this helps you guys with your new computers, and have fun!
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Digital Rights Mean Nothing Without Rights
There's a largish number of people who are upset with Amazon this week over their policy (or lack thereof) of consumer rights on the Kindle. Apparently, a company that didn't own the publishing rights to 1984 by George Orwell self-published the work for use on the E-book reader. After they realized the mistake (and a bunch of people purchased and downloaded the book), they removed the book from E-circulation. Fine. Except that Amazon (who maintains a constant wireless connection with all activated Kindles) pulled the book in question not only from the servers, but from the devices of people who had bought the book. They gave instant refunds as well, but suffered a staggering loss of credibility. Not only did they redefine the E-book, they redefined the concept of purchase as well.
While this case is extreme (and ironic), it's part of a much larger problem. What does a purchase mean? In iTunes, it means that you can download a music file exactly once, and it can be played on no more than three (3) computers. For the Xbox, you can download it as many times as you want, but you can only play it on YOUR Xbox. The MPAA works feverishly to keep you from backing up your DVDs, even from companies that put another layer of DRM to keep you from pirating them. So I ask you: does the term purchase carry any weight at all? When we purchase digital media, we don't own the physical data, since it's against either the rules of purchase or copyright law to copy things as we wish, and we obviously don't own rights to the media either, since there's always byzantine restrictions on how we can consume it. So what's the solution?
Universal Streaming Rights. The technology is setting in place for this. Imagine a world where you don't buy the song, you buy the streaming rights. When a movie comes out, you shell out the cash to stream it from anywhere. Your TV, your computer, your phone, your car, anywhere you have access. Same with music. Same with books. Sure, it costs plenty in server capacity to stream content, but there are companies like Pandora and Netflix that are making a killing at it. People are already consuming the media this way. The only difference would be the consumers rights. And yes, some people would find a way to copy media, just like everything else. But I argue if you give the customer an ounce of dignity instead of searching a way to criminalize your consumer, you would have a following like no other.
While this case is extreme (and ironic), it's part of a much larger problem. What does a purchase mean? In iTunes, it means that you can download a music file exactly once, and it can be played on no more than three (3) computers. For the Xbox, you can download it as many times as you want, but you can only play it on YOUR Xbox. The MPAA works feverishly to keep you from backing up your DVDs, even from companies that put another layer of DRM to keep you from pirating them. So I ask you: does the term purchase carry any weight at all? When we purchase digital media, we don't own the physical data, since it's against either the rules of purchase or copyright law to copy things as we wish, and we obviously don't own rights to the media either, since there's always byzantine restrictions on how we can consume it. So what's the solution?
Universal Streaming Rights. The technology is setting in place for this. Imagine a world where you don't buy the song, you buy the streaming rights. When a movie comes out, you shell out the cash to stream it from anywhere. Your TV, your computer, your phone, your car, anywhere you have access. Same with music. Same with books. Sure, it costs plenty in server capacity to stream content, but there are companies like Pandora and Netflix that are making a killing at it. People are already consuming the media this way. The only difference would be the consumers rights. And yes, some people would find a way to copy media, just like everything else. But I argue if you give the customer an ounce of dignity instead of searching a way to criminalize your consumer, you would have a following like no other.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Mifi's Dirty Little Secret
I caught David Pogue's writeup of the Mifi, a little 3g modem with a wireless router built in. And then I got angry. I got angry because David Pogue and Verizon want to convince you that you need this device, when you most likely already have, in your pocket, something that duplicates almost all of the functionality.
Tethering
Quite a while ago, folks realized that computers could use the data connection on their cellphones as a modem. They called it 'tethering' because you had to connect the two with a data cable. It was a great idea, until the carriers realized what was going on.
Wireless providers love to sell unlimited data plans. But, they want us to use as little data as possible. And since they can tell if you're tethering (your computer has a different MAC address than your phone. they charged you for it. One important thing to note here: They did not provide any additional service--they simply created an artificial barrier. Verizon (the carrier offering the MiFi) charges $15-$60 a month for tethering, depending on your handset and data plan. If you haven't seen a tethering plan before, it's because most carriers don't advertise them, and even hide them on other sites-- they'd rather sell a modem card for your computer with another monthly charge and 2 year contract.
Pros and Cons
But still, people tether. The most obvious pro is that you might already have all of the necessary equipment. If you have a BlackBerry, a Windows or Symbian smart phone, or quite a lot of 3g capable phones you can tether. The software and hardware has advanced, and often, the capability is built into the phone without having to rely on third party software. In addition, the 'tether' is usually gone these days: most phones have bluetooth, and some phones with wifi can be used as wifi routers.
It's not perfect, though. All that data transfer takes a toll on your phone. I've said before that it's needlessly expensive. And while 3g is way faster than it used to be, it's still not broadband fast. Past checking websites and email, you will have limits. Video will be choppy, and Ajax heavy sites like Google Docs will crawl.
Why Mifi?
Which brings us back to the Mifi. It's going to use the same 3g network, so it's going to be slow. It packs four hours of battery life, which is great, to be sure, but it's also another piece of gear that has to be charged and maintained. It costs $100 plus a two year contract, which comes to about $1540. And, in a day where you have iPhone, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry apps that bring a quick, beautiful and portable internet experience with you where ever you go, It's money you just don't need to spend.
Tethering
Quite a while ago, folks realized that computers could use the data connection on their cellphones as a modem. They called it 'tethering' because you had to connect the two with a data cable. It was a great idea, until the carriers realized what was going on.
Wireless providers love to sell unlimited data plans. But, they want us to use as little data as possible. And since they can tell if you're tethering (your computer has a different MAC address than your phone. they charged you for it. One important thing to note here: They did not provide any additional service--they simply created an artificial barrier. Verizon (the carrier offering the MiFi) charges $15-$60 a month for tethering, depending on your handset and data plan. If you haven't seen a tethering plan before, it's because most carriers don't advertise them, and even hide them on other sites-- they'd rather sell a modem card for your computer with another monthly charge and 2 year contract.
Pros and Cons
But still, people tether. The most obvious pro is that you might already have all of the necessary equipment. If you have a BlackBerry, a Windows or Symbian smart phone, or quite a lot of 3g capable phones you can tether. The software and hardware has advanced, and often, the capability is built into the phone without having to rely on third party software. In addition, the 'tether' is usually gone these days: most phones have bluetooth, and some phones with wifi can be used as wifi routers.
It's not perfect, though. All that data transfer takes a toll on your phone. I've said before that it's needlessly expensive. And while 3g is way faster than it used to be, it's still not broadband fast. Past checking websites and email, you will have limits. Video will be choppy, and Ajax heavy sites like Google Docs will crawl.
Why Mifi?
Which brings us back to the Mifi. It's going to use the same 3g network, so it's going to be slow. It packs four hours of battery life, which is great, to be sure, but it's also another piece of gear that has to be charged and maintained. It costs $100 plus a two year contract, which comes to about $1540. And, in a day where you have iPhone, Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry apps that bring a quick, beautiful and portable internet experience with you where ever you go, It's money you just don't need to spend.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Arrington vs. Arrington
Uh oh. Mike Arrington's at it again. Today in his blog, TechCrunch, he announced that he would divest his startup investment portfolio, claiming to avoid conflict of interest. Before the typical bashing of some of his competition, he paused to reaffirm his commitment to journalism ethics. From the post, The Rules Apply To Everyone:
"Conflicts of interest and ethical reporting are something that we are very careful about at TechCrunch. We write principally about new startups, and these companies are usually very nervous about early reviews of their products. We’ve been offered significant cash payments to write about some companies, which have always been rudely declined. We’ve always been extremely careful to disclose any conflicts of interest in our stories (which is usually that I’ve invested in a competitor). These conflicts are very rare. Despite that, some people have spread rumors that we’re dishonest in our coverage (from what we can tell, these usually start with an entrepreneur at a startup we’ve refused to cover, or gave a negative review to). All of these claims are false."
Noble words.
There are a lot of people, however, who would have issue with his claims. Sure, I could quote Dave Winer, or Allen Stern, or I'm sure Richard Jones of Last.fm has something to say, but forget those guys. Let's hear what Michael Arrington has to say. Here's a fun old chestnut from his CrunchNotes site:
"TechCrunch is different. TechCrunch is all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends. I genuinely like these people and want them to succeed, and they know it and therefore trust me more than they trust traditional press.
"Conflicts of interest and ethical reporting are something that we are very careful about at TechCrunch. We write principally about new startups, and these companies are usually very nervous about early reviews of their products. We’ve been offered significant cash payments to write about some companies, which have always been rudely declined. We’ve always been extremely careful to disclose any conflicts of interest in our stories (which is usually that I’ve invested in a competitor). These conflicts are very rare. Despite that, some people have spread rumors that we’re dishonest in our coverage (from what we can tell, these usually start with an entrepreneur at a startup we’ve refused to cover, or gave a negative review to). All of these claims are false."
Noble words.
There are a lot of people, however, who would have issue with his claims. Sure, I could quote Dave Winer, or Allen Stern, or I'm sure Richard Jones of Last.fm has something to say, but forget those guys. Let's hear what Michael Arrington has to say. Here's a fun old chestnut from his CrunchNotes site:
"TechCrunch is different. TechCrunch is all about insider information and conflicts of interest. The only way I get access to the information I do is because these entrepreneurs and venture capitalists are my friends. I genuinely like these people and want them to succeed, and they know it and therefore trust me more than they trust traditional press.
I am an active investor, board member and advisory board member with a number of startups. That isn’t going to change. I also write about startups. That isn’t going to change, either. Obviously people like what we write on TechCrunch or they wouldn’t come back. But no one should think TechCrunch is objective or conflict-free. We aren’t. We never have been. We never will be."
So, which Michael do you believe? The one who talks about ethics and journalistic integrity, or the one who makes truckloads of cash writing up his rich Valley buddies?
Friday, March 13, 2009
Twice the Hayter
Just came across this post from Hardcore Nerdity today. David Hayter, the screenwriter for the recently released motion picture Watchmen, has an urgent request. There's something he wants everyone who saw Watchmen last weekend to do--watch it again this weekend:
"Please go see the movie again next weekend.
You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again."
He's calling on his hardcore fan base to see this movie not once, but twice in a week's time. Here's what he's really saying:
"Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again. This film is important! A film about superheroes! With emotional conflicts! A film that I screenwrote! The adaptation was so strict to the graphic novel that I didn't really do that much! For the love of all that is good and holy, there's a giant penis in it! Give me 14 more dollars!"
This coming on the heels of Eliza Dushku pleading with viewers to stick with Joss Whedon's widely panned Dollhouse for six poorly scripted episodes before the series "took off." Gee whiz, guys, I've got an idea: why don't you make shows and then we'll tell you if they're worth watching (twice).
"Please go see the movie again next weekend.
You have to understand, everyone is watching to see how the film will do in its second week. If you care about movies that have a brain, or balls, (and this film's got both, literally), or true adaptations -- And if you're thinking of seeing it again anyway, please go back this weekend, Friday or Saturday night. Demonstrate the power of the fans, because it'll help let the people who pay for these movies know what we'd like to see. Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again."
He's calling on his hardcore fan base to see this movie not once, but twice in a week's time. Here's what he's really saying:
"Because if it drops off the radar after the first weekend, they will never allow a film like this to be made again. This film is important! A film about superheroes! With emotional conflicts! A film that I screenwrote! The adaptation was so strict to the graphic novel that I didn't really do that much! For the love of all that is good and holy, there's a giant penis in it! Give me 14 more dollars!"
This coming on the heels of Eliza Dushku pleading with viewers to stick with Joss Whedon's widely panned Dollhouse for six poorly scripted episodes before the series "took off." Gee whiz, guys, I've got an idea: why don't you make shows and then we'll tell you if they're worth watching (twice).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
