LIVEdigitally

Monthly Archives: March 2010

Robert Scoble CEO of Chatroulette? GoDaddy Acquiring Foursquare? Get ready for the kinda-funny, but not really, April Fool's Day tech headlines…

Posted on by

Tomorrow morning you’re going to see a lot of headlines across your favorite tech blogs that will sound a little… extra-ordinary.  Small companies seemingly acquiring big companies.  Well-known individuals joining startups or other odd-fit engagements.  They will be, for the most part, well written.  And to a few dozen people (specifically: the writer, the writer’s best friends, and the named individuals in the blog post), fairly funny.  To everyone else? Smirk-worthy, at best.  Why?  April Fool’s – a fun day to pull pranks.  That is, if you are either extremely clever and funny, or you are an 8-year-old.  And I hate to say it (not really), but this basically rules out just about the entire techie blogosphere.

That’s pretty much it for my thoughts on the subject.  You’ve been warned.

JT the Curmudgeon, out.

ps – in order to provide anything entertaining or somewhat related, here’s Wired’s Top 10 April Fools’ Pranks for Nerds. enjoy.

Why I'm excited about the iPad

Posted on by

(I didn't have time to photoshop another clever image)

Just saw the iPad has started shipping.  Feeling a little tingly.  Truth be told, I’ve been looking forward to getting mine (in-store pickup; kids would go nuts sitting around all morning while I wait for the UPS guy) for the past week or so.  Which is fairly unusual for me.  While I know most of my friends and colleagues (and family especially) think I always have all the latest everything, the truth is I’m an atypical “gadget guy” and not commonly an early adopter of technology.  I’ve done a little “self-review” of me + new tech, here’s the results:

Last gadget I’ve pre-ordered?

  • N/A

Number of products (any kind) I’ve pre-ordered, past 5 years?

  • One. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2

Gadgets of which I’ve owned the first-generation versions AND been an early adopter of (specifically: owned prior to virtually anybody I knew)?

  • TiVo (Philips 14-hour unit)
  • Rio PMP300 (16MB version)
  • OLPC (charitable donation, didn’t really care about the computer)
  • Slingbox (doesn’t really count since I didn’t buy it)

Apple iPod/touch/phone products I’ve owned:

  • N/A

Gadgets of which I’ve owned the second-generation versions OR late adopted:

  • PalmPilot 500 (and Palm V and others)
  • TiVo (again)
  • Harmony remote
  • Android phone
  • Rio Karma (was awesome)
  • Sonos
  • Jawbone
  • iMac / MacBook

I definitely love new technology (more specifically: gadgets) and while I am usually ahead of the “mass adoption” phase, it’s rare for me to have something hot off the presses.  Also, I almost always buy things that have clear, tangible, lifestyle benefits for me – I am not a “buy it just to have it” kind of person (not that there’s anything wrong with that).  So why on Earth am I pre-ordering a brand-new gadget in a category I’ve previously disdained?

I’m not sure.

Yup, that’s the truth.  I have no specific use-case for it.  I don’t see exactly where it fits into my world.  I don’t even know how well the darn thing works!

But I have a feeling.

I’m pretty sure it’s going to work well.  I’m pretty sure it’ll fit into my world, whether it’s for fun at home, informative on the bus, or productive at the office.

Not just the kool-aid.

I also believe there’ll be some quirks I won’t like.  I doubt it’ll solve all my worldly needs. I am sure I’ll find some frustrations and it won’t do some things I want it to do.  I’m pretty sure I’ll end up paying the “early adopter tax.” I’m good with all that.

So what’s so exciting?

I think the iPad is likely a first glimpse into the real post-computer-as-computing era.  The phone (smart or not) simply doesn’t cut it, as a potential computer replacement, in fact it probably exacerbates the need for a laptop/device.  I believe the netbook as category has specifically emerged due to this issue, and think a device like the iPad does have huge opportunity in both the business and personal realms.  Oh, and I can’t stand netbooks. Small keys. Smell like cabbage.

Still not exciting there, Toeman.

Yeah, I know.  At the end of the day it’s a gut check.  And mine’s excited.

Usability Request: Make My Browser Tabs Smart

Posted on by

It’s safe to say I’m not the only Web surfer who has lots of tabs open at any given time.  It’s also safe to say I’m not the only one who all of a sudden thought he was hearing voices, only to realize it was actually some Web site that automatically plays audio (or a video with audio).  Funny at best, annoying on average, embarrassing / disruptive at worst.  Especially if your desktop looks like this:

What if it looked something more like this:

I’m obviously not the best at Photoshop (and thanks to Jing for the easy markup tool), but there are so many ways to think about how to help users out a bit more.  Tabs could also show:

  • Download status
  • Buffer status
  • Flash/script problems
  • Incomplete forms
  • Loading issues/status
  • and so much more…

We’ve been online and using “the Web” for about 15 years now (some of us, at least), and despite the amazing advances in the capabilities of a Web browser, I find in many ways things aren’t much “better”.  Web sites still can’t seem to load much faster than they did a year, five years, or ten years ago. I understand you can “do more” in a Web page than ever before.  But is “more features” better than “load faster” in our fast-paced lifestyle?  I’m not quite sure…

Thinking about Googling my TV

Posted on by

Google, Intel, and Sony have apparently teamed up (and Logitech too) to develop an Android-based platform for interactive television. Let me start my post with some important background points and disclosure:

  • I was a cofounder of Mediabolic, a startup who built a platform for connected devices.  While there I designed about a dozen “convergence” products (one won a best-of-CES award), and the company eventually got acquired by Macrovision.
  • I was an early employee at Sling Media, where I was responsible for developing the Slingbox (another best-of-CES award).
  • I once interviewed at Google for a position in a “google TV” role, but didn’t feel it was a really great fit for me personally (not to mention the commute).
  • I am currently involved with Boxee.TV, a startup in a highly-related field. There is some amount of overlap here, though that is in no way related to this blog post.
  • I’ve also worked with VUDU, Clicker.com, DivX, and others on “future of TV” systems, services, and products.
  • I was on the original working group committees for UPnP (AV) as well as DLNA (even before it was called that).

Through the above experiences, I have seen a lot of failure and some success in the “connected TV” space.  But mostly failure.

It’s a space where techies dream, entrepreneurs try, and companies fail. The list of failed convergence companies is notably longer than the list of successes. It’s a field where even Apple, the current king of the world when it comes to entertainment technology, can’t get a reasonable foothold in the home.

Most of the failure is due to deeply entrenched systems heavily controlled by huge corporations with little interest or need to innovate.  While we can yell and scream about how bad a job the Cable/Satellite companies are doing at future planning, the blunt reality is it’s hard to argue that it’s necessitated.  These megacorporations can drag their feet, and deploy mediocre DVRs and HD services, and consumers (for the most part) are satisfied with their experiences.  Further, due to their current business structures, the concept of opening up the market to third-party devices, content, services, or applications is not just daunting, but likely unprofitable.

When I consider the opportunity in the digital home, I am convinced it cannot come about by directly competing with traditional broadcast models. Broadcast TV, and all the services with it, are generally easy to use, convenient to pay for, and effectively “good enough” for most people – making “better than current TV” offerings a significant challenge to bring to market.  Historically, the only thing to attract the attention of consumers beyond their existing entertainment solutions are:

  • Transformative content playback experiences. From VCR to DVD was one example, and from standard definition to HDTV is another.  The key word here is transformative – it can’t just be “better quality”, as evidenced by virtually all other introduced formats and technologies based around content.
  • Notably difference content offerings. Again, moving up to HDTV-enabled set-top boxes was a natural flow, game consoles are the other shining example of a successful category.  Boxes that simply deliver “more of the same” or “stuff you can get elsewhere, now get it here (e.g. digital pictures)” are typically not big hits.  Consumers have to see some kind of service that’s worth the extra money.

Everything else has failed to make a dent.  Most “Internet Set Top Boxes” have been, and will be failures.  The typical logic that brings these products to market goes something like “consumers are about to cut the cables for their Internet content, and really hate watching it on their computers.”  The evidence behind this claim?  It’s in the same folder with the WMD evidence the government started a war for (zing!).

I’m very curious as to the potential from Google, Intel, and Sony.  Intel has wanted in on the “connected TV” for a long time (disclosure: they were an investor in Mediabolic), and has never really executed very well.  It’s not to say they can’t, but it’s safe to say the space is far far away from their core DNA.  Sony too has stumbled frequently in this space (here’s their version of a convergence device). Logitech? See Sony. And then there’s Google.

Part of me thinks Google believes that all devices are effectively the same, and their (limited) success in the phone market implies opportunity in the TV market.  Another part of me thinks Google is just so big they take on any sector they see opportunity in.  But most of me thinks Google wants to get firmly entrenched in the biggest advertising market there is – television.  And as hard as doing phones might be, doing TV boxes is much much harder.  Here’s why:

  • Phones play highly restricted media types.  Converged TV devices are expected to play all media types.  This topic alone is probably worthy of a blog post, but trust me when I say – it’s hard.
  • Consumers buy new phones on a recurring basis (multiple times a year in some countries). Consumers replace TVs infrequently, and buy TV “accessory” devices only a couple of times per decade. While the market is huge, it’s hard to get new devices into the home.
  • Carriers are motivated to push new devices and services into the hands of their customers, it’s part of their business model.  TV service providers are not motivated to do so (as discussed above).
  • As much as phones are “closed systems”, a manufacturer is able to purchase equipment and get a device certified and get it on the network without too much involvement by a carrier.  While the path is actually similar (CableCard Tru2Way certification), the realities for both the manufacturer and, more importantly, consumer are much much worse.
  • Again, as stated above, consumers are generally dissatisfied with their phones (a problem unlikely to go away) and are excited about new ones.  Consumers literally dread changing equipment in their living room – even us geeky dads with cool quadrophonic sound.

Now with all that said, I’m truly excited about the future of converged entertainment in (and out) of the home. I remain mostly cynical about seeing any real change anytime soon.  I think there are a few companies who have built the right foundation to make some inroads, but I’m hoping everyone involved is prepared to win their “realist” and “slow and steady wins the race”  badges over the next few years-to-decade (or longer).  Can Google be the catalyst of change, or will they just be the next in the long list of companies who tried and missed the mark?

11 Things You Should Never Do Online

Posted on by

Did you know you could lose insurance benefits from putting photos online?  Or that a Tweet can put you in jail?  Or that the FBI might be friending you on Facebook?  Or that even brand-new service Chatroulette isn’t truly anonymous? I’ve blogged recently on my concerns about privacy trends, and it’s quite the hotly debated topic these days.

I see two primary reasons why you shouldn’t do something online:

  • Personal Harm/Loss
  • Future Regret

So without further adieu, here’s 11 Things You Should Never Do Online!

  1. Show your goods. One would think this would be obvious. One would imagine that an individual would not normally choose to show their private parts to the entire world, presuming they are not in the adult entertainment industry. It took me less than a minute on Chatroulettemap to find a picture of a naked guy, and his hometown (pictured here, safely edited by me). Here are some NSFW pictures found on Facebook. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about “decency” or “self-respect”? I wouldn’t even call it prudish to say there is a reason for the phrase “private parts” and some things are simply best left out of the public eye. Leave it to the pro’s, people.  Nobody’s going to be walking around when they are 80 years old saying to themselves “I sure regret not showing my penis to the entire world.”  Unless they have some kind of exceptional penis, that is.
  2. Meet a random stranger in a non-public location. As a child I was taught not to get into cars with strangers.  Of course I was also using public transportation as of age 8, but I don’t think that’s too contradictory.  We’ve heard numerous stories of people meeting strangers via sites like Craigslist, then bad things happen.  I have no problem with online dating services, but use some common sense people.  How about having 2-3 dates in public before you decide to even reveal your home address (assuming you haven’t done so already online – see more below)?  Why shouldn’t you do this? Pretty much goes without saying – and while there will always be creeps and they will always find methods of doing terrible things, but how about not enabling them to occur so easily?
  3. Publicize travel plans. Be it foursquare, brightkite, gowalla, plancast, tripit, dopplr or anything else, the concept that an individual would specifically tell anybody in public that they aren’t at home is something I personally find mind-boggling.  Whether it’s a simple burglary (or much much worse), there’s no greater bait I can think of for a wrong-doer. And to think that all criminals are simply too stupid to figure this out is somewhere between ignorant and elitist. Heck, teenagers in the UK find empty swimming pools with Google Earth, and thieves last year used it to find and steal koi fish from backyards.  Why shouldn’t you do this? It doesn’t take extreme paranoia or a DVD collection of Law and Order to come to the simple conclusion that these activities are asking for trouble.  Combine public records with services like plancast and twitter, and you have the equivalent of a “how-to rob me” service that you are proactively choosing to use – it’s gonna happen.
  4. Share identity-revealing data. Over 9 million Americans have identity theft issues every year. Why on Earth would you make it easier for them?  Further, one of the easiest methods of gaining access to an identity is through simple human error and naivete.  If you put personal information, like say your credit card activities, proactively into the public eye, you are asking for problems.  And unlike physical thieves (per the above point), phishers currently use technology to steal information.  You want to put your phone number in public? Fine! Get a Google Voice account, set up a redirect, and use that.  But don’t put the same number you have to authenticate important personal records! Why shouldn’t you do this? Actually this should be the opposite question – why oh why would you put private data out in public? If I can’t get you to stop buffoonery, fine, but at least be on the watch for things that can impact your finances and credit score!
  5. Ignore privacy requests/needs of others. It’s perfectly legal to take pictures of people in public. It’s also perfectly legal to put those pictures in the public spectrum (so long as you aren’t profiteering from their likeness).  But that doesn’t mean you have to.  Some people prefer to keep their lives completely out of the public eye, and they have the right to do so (despite what many social media bloggers would like to say).  Just because you choose to publicize your life doesn’t mean everyone else has to as well.  Furthermore, and more specifically, parents should rethink what pictures they put online in public or semi-public locations.  Maybe your kids won’t want those pictures to be accessible one day when they are older – and I can guarantee they’ll have a tough time taking them down.  The oh-so-cute moments in the bath might be funny to reveal at a wedding or bar mitzvah (both private events, mind you), but how about during their sophomore year in high school, to the whole class? Not so much. Why shouldn’t you do this? It’s inconsiderate – and that’s enough of a reason.
  6. Reveal vices. My healthcare company is raising our rates 35% this year – despite no claims or major changes of status.  Their business, in a nutshell, is to profit as greatly as possible, which they accomplish by (1) raising rates, and (2) giving out minimal claims/benefits.  I will say the following unbiased and bluntly: it is in their interest to find evidence of you smoking, drinking, and otherwise acting recklessly because it lets them profit more. If I were you, I’d make sure there were no tweets, status updates, or anything else containing “So drunk I almost fell down the stairs” or “Onto my 2nd pack today. Boy these Marlboros are smooth” etc.  Why shouldn’t you do this? If you don’t think insurance companies, healthcare providers, or other “big brother-like” organizations will use social technologies to raise rates or otherwise increase profits, you are just fooling yourself.  Drink, smoke, be merry – and just enjoy it with the people you are actually spending the time with (they’ll probably appreciate it too).
  7. Mock those you may do business with. A famous PR exec once tweeted disparagingly about a magazine his firm had to pitch.  The editor in chief saw the tweet.  An ad agency salesman on his way to pitch a client openly mocked the city in which that client lived. The client saw the tweet.   Disparaging a potential (or existing) client is generally speaking, not the way one gets more business from said client.  The whole concept of doing things in public means anyone might just see them – including the people you are trying to get to spend money on you. Why shouldn’t you do this? How about… “livelihood”?
  8. Sound like a schmuck. Per the above point, you never know who is going to see the words you write. Your “witty banter” with an old high school friend on Facebook might not sound so clever to a potential employer.  I’ll be the first to admit that I am a cynic and an outspoken one, and I am certain this colors peoples’ opinions of me. But I also do my best to sound objective and educated about whatever topics I’m talking about.  While I’m sure I’ve tweeted things I shouldn’t have, or left comments on blogs that could be misconstrued, I generally make a concerted effort to consider my commentary and how it would be interpreted by a complete stranger (though I could still use improvement myself).Why shouldn’t you do this? Your words will come back to haunt you – how about just not saying them in the first place?
  9. Publicize your partying or let your friends put up embarrassing photos/videos of you. The most famous example I’ve found so far involves a swimmer and an arbitrarily-banned substance. Whoever took that picture is, in a word, a jerk. Not as big of a jerk as whomever made this happen, but a pretty big jerk nonetheless. But when you compare it to the amazing amount of inappropriate stuff you can easily find with simple Google searches, you really start to wonder if the entire concept of self-respect has gone out the window.Why shouldn’t you do this? A future employer? A future spouse? Your kids one day? Your grandkids? How about anyone you want to not massively unimpress one day.
  10. Be inconsistent with your real life claims. If you call in sick, stay offline! Let’s face it, lying consistently can be challenging – it’s something you really have to work hard at. So if you are going to call in sick, you probably shouldn’t update your Facebook status or tweet or do anything else that conflicts with your claim. I recall the classic “which tire?” tale from university lore, only dramatically more impactful with public timelines and social presences.  You should also know that when you take pictures and upload them to sites like Picasa or Flickr, the actual day/time is logged in that photo somewhere as well. Why shouldn’t you do this? Hopefully you don’t need me to tell you not to lie or otherwise make false claims in the office space or personal life.  But if you are going to, try to tow the line with your online presence as well.
  11. Assume you are not being recorded. We decided at the office to try playing Chatroulette last month. Every time we used it, we recorded our session (using freely available screen capture tools), just in case something funny/outrageous happened (and it did, and no, I won’t be sharing with the group).  Your web history is recorded by Google (if you are logged in).  Facebook knows everything you’ve done.  Most Web sites store your IP address along with the comment you leave.  The Internet Archive stores copies of just about everything. Your cookies have privacy flaws. When you do something on the Internet, it is there to stay. Don’t forget it!

The funny thing (if there is one) on the above list is if you were to ask your grandparents if you should do any of those things, they’d give you one of those “what’s wrong with you boy?” looks.  But instead here you are reading my blog because it’s actually a topic.  Them kids today…

If tablets suck, why did I order an iPad?

Posted on by

Last summer I wrote a blog post in which I claimed that tablets, for lack of a better word, suck.  Yet I actually woke up early today to confirm that I’d be able to get an iPad the day it came out. I wanted to take a moment to explain why I am actually excited about the iPad (image source = Scobleizer + my wannabe Photoshop skills).

First, my anti-tablet arguments, and how they do/don’t apply:

  • Tablets suck at handwriting recognition.
    Still true, hence Apple implementing an on-screen keyboard and building a physical keyboard to go along with it. I don’t consider this a particularly great solution, I’d actually prefer a “Palm Graffiti-like” option (yeah, not elegant, but once you knew it, you were fast).
  • Tablets suck to carry around.
    Still true, actually one of my biggest concerns about my personal use of the iPad.
  • Tablets make you tired.
    From using my Droid Eris I’ve already noticed slightly different types of strains on the muscles in my forearms, not sure if its from the typing or the swiping (or the general frustrations with Android).  Curious to see how this plays out with the iPad.
  • Tablets can’t share nicely with others.
    In typical Apple fashion, rather than try to make all Office apps work they’ve created a new ecosystem for productivity apps.  I feel this is an okay approach, but still not what I want.  I am concerned that I’m going to want to sketch notes and markup docs and have no way to effectively do it – but I can’t really tell if this’ll work or not yet.
  • Tablets suck at hiding smudges.
    Any carrying case worth buying will have a little pouch to keep glass cleaner.  It’s going to be smudgeriffic for sure.
  • Tablets are bad Web browsers.
    I think this is one area I’ll have to eat my words a bit – mobile browsing is better than it used to be, and it really seems that Apple has focused specifically on the Web experience.
  • Tablets are priced poorly.
    Well, it’s not cheap, but it’s not crazy either.  For an early adopter product, I’d say its priced appropriately, though will need to eventually come down.  Unless it’s actually a viable personal laptop replacement (more below), in which case the price point is awesome.
  • Tablets suck at everything else.
    Still true – unless the entire ecosystem is built off a custom app platform and instead of trying to run traditional computing applications (ahem, Windows), it’s running all new stuff… But it still might suck.

So what happened here? Am I just a rampant hypocrite? Have I been drinking too much Apple Kool-Aid?  Do I just want to be the first kid on the block with some shiny new object (unlikely)? Or is it something different?

For the “haters” (basically all the crazy tablet fanatics who got offended that I don’t love their products as much as they do and am apparently not supposed to state said opinion), this will sound bizarre, but in a nutshell I don’t really consider the iPad a tablet.  Yes, it’s a slate form factor. Yes, it has a touch screen. Yes, there are a ton of similarities to the tablet category. But it’s not a tablet.

I consider the iPad much closer to a “big iPod Touch” than any other category of product.  While it has some aspects of productivity tools, the reality is the product is optimized for other types of usage.  Let’s face it, that virtual keyboard is probably going to get annoying pretty fast.  Further, with no USB there’s very few options for extensibility.  Which means you can’t think of it like a “computer”, since it’s actually much less versatile than one.  But as a product, it’s just as versatile as it needs to be.

From one perspective I guess I do drink a bit of the Kool-Aid, as I do believe the company has effectively built the “not a phone, not a laptop” product.  I also think they’ve built something with tons of versatility and practical use.  As we continue to march down the post-computing era of gadgets, I think the iPad will start transforming a lot of peoples’ mindsets on what exactly can be done with innovative technology.

And as I said in the original tablets suck post, “But if you do figure it out, I’m buying!”

Does TiVo make Products or Patents?

Posted on by

For all intents and purposes, TiVo “invented” the DVR. Actually, they didn’t, but it’s a fair statement that they first successfully commercialized it and brought the concept to the massess.  Further, they did it with competition (ReplayTV), which is often the exact thing that stalls new consumer technology adoption.  The company’s product was loved by those who used it (I had the original 14-hour Philips version), and switching from TiVo to another DVR was a painful process for those of us who had to go through it (for whatever reason).  But switch we did, as the company slowly got pushed out of dominance by failing to keep a healthy relationship with DirecTV (and Philips, Sharp, and others), and all other cable/sat co’s offered their own (mediocre at best) versions of the DVR.  And when a consumer is given the choice of an effectively “free” DVR (an additional $5/mo = free in a purchase decision-making process when already spending $50-$100 on a bill) versus buying one with an upfront fee and a monthly tally, it’s a no brainer.

Over the past few years, the company has slowly settled from being the leader in both installed base and most evolved product into a bit of obscurity with the mainstream (other than potentially owning the brand-category, which doesn’t do much good for running a business).  Their Series 3 and other launches in the late ’00s didn’t bring in a new rush of users, and last week’s launch of the Series 4 (aka TiVo Premiere) is at best a late entry in a crowded market, and at worst a product that massively missed the mark with modern day expectations. On the date of the launch, the company’s stock moved a little bit upwards.  Not too shabby, but also not too interesting.

The next day, however, proved much more interesting, with a 61% increase in value:

What happened? In a nutshell, federal courts found TiVo’s patents held up against a Echostar/DISH claim.

I’m not a lawyer, nor do I generally support the present-day patent system, but that’s not really the point here. What is more relevant is that TiVo appears to have drifted from being a pioneer in the digital home to being a patent player. Instead of betting on the strength of their product team, innovation, and marketing, they are now betting on their lawyers.  And I think that’s a sad state of affairs.

The digital home is a noisy, confusing place, fraught with terrible products. Further, most of the products I’ve seen on the radar or know are shipping soon are also now extremely impressive.  In other words, there’s tons of opportunity today and in the future to build (and monetize) exciting products.

I’d love to see TiVo make a change in direction here.  It’s time for the company to act like a startup again, and show real innovation like they once did.  Truth be told I know the TiVo Premiere is unquestionably a better product than my Comcast DVR (a truly awful product).  But as has been said many times before, and is unbelievably relevant in the convergence space, Good Enough is the biggest enemy of Great products. It’s going to take a heck of a lot more than “slightly better than the last version” for TiVo to regain a leadership position.  The company needs to rebuild it’s team with new innovators who can build on the legacy, and stop investing in “me-too” minor touches, “dongles”, and other things that won’t move the needles. CableCard? Still? Come on.

If companies like Apple, Palm, and so many others can attempt to reinvent themselves, I think TiVo can too.  Please try.