LIVEdigitally

Monthly Archives: October 2007

Want to write @LD? New reviewer needed.

Posted on by

I write this blog mostly out of a personal passion for consumer technology products.  I have decided not to try to monetize it, as I feel the cost/benefit of advertising just isn’t worth it to me.  Instead I have a place where I can write about tech and review the occasional gadget.

The problem is, I have two primary conflicts:

  1. Clients.   As my clients are in the same domain, I often find entire categories of technology I can’t really blog about comfortably.  Further, even when I am comfortable with the separation, I’m concerned about a possible perception of bias.
  2. Time. Writing good reviews is time-consuming.  It’s easy to phone them in and write up simple little gloss-overs, but anything in-depth that’s actually useful takes a long time.  And I don’t have it.

So here’s the deal:  I get offered tons of gadgets and technologies for review, and turn down most of them.  If you are interested in writing reviews, and can commit some time to it on a reliable basis, please get in touch.  There’s no fortune, and not much fame, but it can be a lot of fun!

Why isn't AppleTV an actual TV?

Posted on by

It seems fairly apparent that AppleTV is nowhere near the runaway success the company’s enjoyed recently.  It’s been called a “hobby” by some, and that’s about as flattering as it gets.  It might actually be the best examples of why…

  • Convergence products suck – they are too hard to explain to consumers, too hard to get working properly (yes, you need a computer running iTunes to get content into it, but no, it doesn’t have to be on all the time.  gah!), and they can’t satisfy even their own users all the time due to incompatible networks, formats, codecs, etc.  Sneakernet is a better solution for getting digital media off a computer, as the standalone products violate my “4-boxes in the living room, and no more” rule (which I have not yet written, but will do soon).
  • Good UI isn’t enough – it doesn’t matter how nice it looks if there isn’t enough substance to support the product.  Yes, the AppleTV has a better UI than the NETGEAR Digital Entertainer HD and probably any other streaming media device in the past, but it’s still a convergence product (see above).
  • Walled gardens are clearly annoying customers – let’s face it, there are just too many content options available today to try to trap consumers into a limited set.  The only reason the iPod was more successful at this game is that it’s main value proposition when it came out was about the ease of ripping and synchronizing, not the iTunes store.

So now let’s take a step back.  Apple makes a beautiful (yet pricey) 30″ LCD monitor – it’s more expensive than the 46″ Samsung LCD I’m considering.  One of the reasons it’s so expensive is the resolution is so high.  They could easily drop it down to 1080p, up the sizes to 36, 42, and 46 inches, and pow, it’s a TV.  Next, they could throw the guts of an AppleTV inside, and you’ve got a great-looking display with built-in media streaming capabilities, and they could probably hit a pretty affordable price point.  My hunch is it would sell better as a $1999 TV set than the $299 box does today.

While they are at it, I’d love to see them apply some Apple-goodness to the EPG, and throw a DVR into it. There’ve been rumors that they’d buy TiVo for years, I hope they don’t.  They can out-TiVo TiVo in my opinion.  Better yet, they should throw in the ability to synch it back to an iPod, or to your .Mac account online (for an additional fee).

That’s a winning convergence product in my eyes.

Verizon customers who care about privacy, read this.

Posted on by

I’ve been a Verizon customer since they were GE Wireless in the late 90s. They have the best service and network as far as I can tell. I wish there were better CDMA phones out there, and I think they price gouge out the wazoo (sp?). But my plan allows my wife and I to make calls into Canada as well as make/receive calls while there with no additional fees. Also, a lot of my friends are VZ customers, so all our calls to each other are free. Fits my lifestyle just dandy, and frankly I’m not really trying to sell ya on them.

Every now and then a brand you know/trust/like does something that one might call… hmm, what’s the word for it… appalling?

Verizon is in the midst of launching a new program that basically lets them illegally sell ads on your mobile phone. Yes, one more time, it’s illegal (well, kinda, but doesn’t that just jump out at you when I put it that way?), and it’s on your phone. Now you might think this would be part of some new service that you have to sign up for or something. It’s not. And worse, you opt-in by default, and have to call them (1-800-333-9956) to opt-out. If you are a Verizon customer, take a pause and make the call – it’s all automated and takes about 45 seconds.

To call this vexing is a bit of an understatement. I recommend reading more here on how you can contact the FCC to complain yourself. Also (thanks to gethuman.com) here’s their customer service number: 1-800-922-0204.

The Digital Camera is the most important gadget in my life

Posted on by

This is a post I’ve been meaning to write for quite some time.  The birth of my son massively influenced my perspective on gadgetry, and a recent loss in my family has cemented this opinion.  The digital camera is the single product I own that is creating long term value in my life, one which cannot be measured by any known metric.

Without going into too many details because I try to avoid such things here (I’ll even skip ranting about a certain Vaio and how much you shouldn’t buy one), my 94-year-old grandmother passed away this weekend.  She’d fallen in July, and never recovered.  Thanks in advance for the sympathy, but that’s definitely not the focal point of my post.

My wife and I managed to hop on a plane a few day later, and we took dozens of photos and videos of her holding my then-three-month-old boy.  It’s barely two months later, and those pictures are already some of the most valuable in my collection.  I look forward to the day when I’ll sit my son down at the computer (or hopefully some very cool holographic virtual device that’s the size of a cell phone.  it should also have a lasergun in it, but I digress), and get to show him the time he met his great-grandmother.

Cell phones are very practical and probably are in the #2 slot for me (and I’m not counting cell phones with cameras built-in yet, not until they hit 5MP or higher resolution).  The computer doesn’t count as a gadget in my world.  MP3 players aren’t even close.

As I was once told, and very much like to repeat: the value of a photograph is zero the moment you take it, and gains infinitely over time.  What a good investment!

Beautiful Katamari: an addict in 20 minutes

Posted on by

I first saw the Katamari game when a TechTV reporter put it “head to head” versus the Slingbox a few years ago. I didn’t quite understand the comparison, but the game looked silly, yet interesting.

Using the awesomeness that is Xbox360 Live with free game demos, I downloaded a preview of Beautiful Katamari two weeks ago. Despite the 3 minute time cap to the demo, I played it quite a few times, and my wife tried it too. She described it as “the stupidest game she’s ever seen. but a lot of fun!”

I bought it yesterday at Best Buy, and didn’t get a chance to play it until late at night. I was exhausted and ready for bed, but couldn’t possibly let my brand new game go unopened! So bleary-eyed I put it in, and played through a couple of levels and some online multiplayer games.

Awesome awesome awesome.

The multiplayer was especially fun, although we had some frequent bandwidth problems. I’d like to see a bit more detail on the bandwidth issues so I could understand exactly what the problem is (me or someone else). That is my single flaw with the game.

It’s fun. It’s silly. It’s family-safe, yet not too stupid that adults won’t enjoy. The Engrish is great (I have no idea if it’s intentional or not, but either way). The graphics are nice, not outstanding, but the gameplay is so superb it’s irrelevant.

The best part about the online multiplayer? Instead of losing to 12 year old kids who shoot me in the head while I’m still figuring out how to aim, I can lose to 5 year olds who can roll the ball real good.

8 reasons why most gadgets suck

Posted on by

I was testing out a few new devices this weekend, and found myself just immensely frustrated with them. At first I chalked it off to the pitiful, yet unbelievably tolerated excuse of “that’s technology”. But that’s really a pathetic answer. Gadgets should not suck as much as they do. So here’s my little list of Why Gadgets Suck:

  1. IMG_2775 alcohol tester mp3 playerThey are ill-conceived. I think the picture of the MP3 player slash breathalyzer I took at CES is the best example here. Too many people sitting in board rooms thinking up crazy ideas that apply to nobody. Also, convergence for the sake of convergence is a terrible idea. If you think consumers want keyboards in their living rooms, or more remote controls, or to carry around something that doesn’t fit in a pocket OR a backpack, you have the wrong consumer experts on your team.
  2. Too much jargon. If the average Joe can’t figure out how to add contacts using a Moto RAZR, forget putting in a network setup screen that asks them which type of wireless network security their SSID uses. If you can’t figure out how to make a setup screen have regular old English, then you’ve made your product too hard to figure out by regular people.  Think of it this way: the average person out there is uncomfortable with the concepts of “inputs and outputs” on their stereos – so if you are even minorly more sophisticated than that, you are confusing people.
  3. Unusable interfaces. A product should be usable without an instruction manual. Sending an SMS, synching MP3s or podcasts, and creating Season Passes should be as easy as making instant popcorn in the microwave. Granted there’s always room for “power user features” but the power users should be the 20%, not the 80%, of people who buy your product. If your “usability designer” (who probably has a Ph. D) shows you something and you don’t instantly understand it without explanation, it’s not good enough.
  4. Usability designers. I’m sure there are plenty of these folks who have built great products in reality. Unfortunately it sure seems like most of them just do it on paper. My biggest tip here is that a really good usability person (a) doesn’t need a degree in it and (b) can point out not just flaws, but ways to improve most products they use, be it a coffee maker or a cell phone.
  5. Lack of visionaries. Remember the old “a camel is a horse designed by a committee” phrase? In the devices world, this applies doubly. Visionaries keep products focused, whereas teams build according to “specs”. Three products built by visionaries: iPod, Slingbox, TiVo. Three products built by the rest: the Nomad Jukebox, Sony LocationFree TV, Comcast’s DVR. Need I say more?
  6. Poor timing. With a domestic market of over 50% of Internet-connected households having broadband, today would be an acceptable time to attempt to ship “Internet devices”. But when 3Com tried to ship the Audrey in the late 90s, that was poor timing. I recently played with two different gadgets that both used dialup networking to get online. ONLY. Not even a broadband option. Really?
  7. The buttons don’t match the screens. My Syntax Olevia 32″ LCD (which, by the way, is having issues and their tech support department has been excessively slow in responding to) has a very simple menuing system that’s extremely easy to navigate. However, the buttons on the remote were not laid out in a way to match the on-screen menus, and literally 1/2 the time I make a setting the button I push is the one that cancels the setting! You can certainly call this user error, but if someone as comfortable with devices as I am has a recurring issue like this, there’s probably a way the product could be made better.
  8. Shoddy workmanship. I’m really talking about poor product testing here, but I just like that phrase so much. It amazes me when I try out a product with a basic feature set, such as a media extender or a digital picture frame, and run into an actual bug within minutes of use. One product I tried had the on-screen fonts render at double their normal size during video playback and when I asked their engineers about it, they hadn’t seen it before. I was using a standard file format and wasn’t even trying to trip it up. Always review your test cases to make sure they line up with real-world scenarios, not the ones in the labs.

I could probably double this list up with other common annoyances out there, but this seems like a good spot to take a pause.

My turn: Web 3.0 will NEVER happen

Posted on by

In a move that’s being heavily questioned by folks like Mathew Ingram, Brad Feld, and Fred Wilson, Jason Calacanis went out on a limb (well, more like “walked kinda near the edge, but not too close”) and “defined” Web 3.0 last night:

Web 3.0 is defined as the creation of high-quality content and services produced by gifted individuals using Web 2.0 technology as an enabling platform.

I say:

Web 3.0 is a label that will never see the light of day. Caveat: except for people who attempt to define it.   My prediction for what comes next can be found by scrolling to the bottom of this post.

Now I’ll back it up a bit. Web 2.0 is a term used by few. I’d personally put the number between 500K and 2MM people.  I made that up, but base it on TechCrunch readership and a small multiplier effect, and I can’t see it much higher.  And yes, my Valley-based brethren, we really do live in a bit of an echo-chamber.  Even if I’m wrong by 100%, it’s still a few million people at best.

Part of the problem is the ongoing debate of what Web 2.0 means.  Per Brad’s comment, it’s one of those techie labels for things that don’t truly have a definition.  It seems to be “Web companies that were launched in 2004 or later, and heavily leverage open APIs, RSS, AJAX, or something to do with Google.”

Some people are using terms like “semantic Web” (I like Brian’s post on this, although I disagree with him too), which I also think will not get mainstream.  First, most people don’t know what the word “semantic” means (I think it has something to do with Yom Kippur and bagels, but I may be wrong).  Second, like Jason’s Web 3.0 definition, it’s just not BIG enough.

The Internets are used by lots of people, including the U.S. Americans, the South Africans, and the people who don’t have maps.  Most of these people are playing games, downloading music, lingering on MySpace, and doing other massively popular activities.  By comparison, Facebook doesn’t even cause a dimple in the stats of overall international Internet use.

So let’s get all these points together:

  1. We have a nebulous term for the current state of the Web, and the “sequel” term is even more nebulous.
  2. We have technology that is far above the awareness and comprehension of the typical Web user.
  3. The Internet works good.  Seriously – things are pretty sweet.  They were sweet before Twitter, Yelp, and the current wave of lifecasting, social networking, and other “frills” showed up.

Relative to this, the so-called Web 3.0 or semantic Web movements will be minor, if they exist at all.  The catalysts for explosive growth aren’t there.  The Internet, dialup, and Web browsers fueled the dot-com explosion (forget the collapse right now).  Broadband Internet reaching over 50% of US households is fueling Web 2.0 growth (forget the impending bubble deflation right now).The next wave to bank on is Everywhere Internet.  Truly pervasive access will cause the next batch of entrepreneurs to create amazing new services.  I don’t know which technology platform will win, nor will I predict the timing, but I wouldn’t assume any “big waves” occurring without Everywhere Internet.

The Xbox 360 is a dandy alternative to AppleTV

Posted on by

Don Reisinger wrote a good article on NewTeeVee the other day, outlining 5 alternatives to AppleTV, one of which being the Xbox 360.  I took fault with part of his argument against the 360..  He wrote:

Is it as simple to use as the Apple TV? Yes. But unfortunately, the barriers to entry (mainly cost) are a bit too high for those on a budget. You can have the Xbox 360 at most major electronics retailers for $279.99 (core system) to $449.99 (Elite).

To which I commented:

Uh, let me see if I got this logic right… AppleTV is $299. Xbox 360 is $279 (and up). And yet “But unfortunately, the barriers to entry (mainly cost) are a bit too high for those on a budget.”

So you can have one for $20 less AND it plays video games, but it’s too expensive an option for those on a budget?

And as a final “nail in the head” on this argument – is there some huge market segment of people with lots of digital media files that they want to stream to their plasma yet are constrained by a budget of under $400 to do so?

Now I shouldn’t have taken the derisive tone, I apologize for that.  But I believe my point as merit. Don did write a followup comment:

If you don’t have a MCE (or Connect360), the costs are much higher than an Apple TV — computer and console?. To make matters worse, would you actually use the core bundle to do what I’m suggesting in this post? I certainly wouldn’t.

Also, I do think people are constrained to $400. I’m happy for you if you’re not, but not all people are so lucky. Some save up for quite some time to get a plasma and buy digital media files when possible.

First, you don’t need MCE or Connect360.  All you need is Windows Media Player 10 or 11, which runs on about 97% of computers.  So, again, where are the extra costs?  YES, if you are Mac-based, this is a pain, no question about it, but that wasn’t the premise of the argument.Also, you can get the NON-core for $349, it’s the Elite that’s priced at $449.

Lastly I don’t agree with Don’s point that consumers “save up” only to splurge on a plasma.  They may buy it on credit card and pay it off (likely due to the debt that most Americans seem happy to incur – especially the U.S. Americans), but at $1500+ it’s hardly the purchase being made by those on a budget.  Having spent the better part of the past few years actually marketing consumer electronics devices to consumers, I don’t really know where the $400 as a magic price point (in my opinion, the ‘budget-conscious’ customer isn’t spending more than $99 for a streaming media player anyway).  The $400 seems pretty arbitrary, and I’d love to see the basis for it.  Either way, the Xbox is in range.

Personally, I’m using the Xbox 360 with my Maxtor NAS running Twonkyvision.   It’s a bit of a kludge, but it works extremely reliably.  In fact, the only problem now is my MacBook doesn’t do a great job generating WMV files from iMovie – one of my only issues since I stopped using the Sony Vaio VGN-SZ460N (aka the VGN-SZ470N) laptop.  I stopped using it because it’s not even a very good paperweight.  Don’t buy it.   But you can safely buy a 360!

Kudos to Mr. Ballmer

Posted on by

While I am still extremely annoyed at everything that is Vista (especially the worst laptop on the market, Sony’s Vaio VGN-SZ460N or VGN-SZ470N, neither of which should you even consider buying), I am impressed at his taking a stand against outrageous executive pay.  From the Times Online:

Mr Ellison, worth an estimated $26 billion, earned about $74 million from Oracle last year.

Mr Ballmer was not awarded stock options and his pay and bonus totalled $980,000

I really don’t understand how executive pay has gotten so ridiculously out of hand, but if people follow no examples from Redmond other than this one, it’s well worth it.   You certainly can argue capitalism and this is all fair, but I think that’s simply fighting common sense.  But since when has that prevailed?