LIVEdigitally

Category Archives: That’s Janky

Stop Trusting the Internet!

Posted on by

I’m going to summarize this entire blog post in 12 seconds for the attention-span-deprived members of my audience:

The Internet is full of tubes, not facts on 12seconds.tv

As is too-often repeated but still ever so appropriate, “with great power comes great responsibility” (it comes from Spiderman). The Internet, but more specifically user-generated content such as blogs, tweets, and vlogs, allows anyone to become a content source. The more one has followers/readers/viewers, the more ‘power’ one has. When I blogged a few months ago that Macbooks would take a 50% share of all laptops, I had a variety of comments show up here (most of which completely missed the point I was trying to make, but that’s a different story). I have a handful of readers, so this didn’t really go anywhere – but had an a-list blogger written the same story, who knows where it’d end up.

Example #1: an earthquake occurred in Los Angeles today. The news spread quickly by both “official channels” and individuals using blogs and twitter. A story went up over at VentureBeat which included a reference to a video posted on 12seconds.tv entitled “5.8 LA Earthquake Recreation 36th Floor.” I added the bolded “recreation” myself for emphasis here because many people took the video as fact. Despite it not looking very “earthquake-ish” and despite it posting 30 minutes after the quake was over. Now the VB article’s been updated, but it has since spawned a post decrying the video as “fake”.

I’m pointing this out because not only did the VB author miss the title of the video (which is understandable), but the follow-up blogger did as well, despite the fact that he was clearly trying to determine whether or not it’s a fake. The power of the original article was so strong that even the title of the video wasn’t enough to make someone researching the topic realize it was baloney.

Example #2: Urban legends. How on earth do these still circulate??? My wife is on a mailing list with thousands of mothers in the Bay Area, they recently got sent an email talking about McDonald’s play pens and hypodermic needles. A simple google search for “McDonald’s Ball Pit” reveals link after link decrying the story as fake. Yet it continues to circulate to and from intelligent people all over the place. Need a better example? How about one tweet to instantly convince 50,000 people that Jared Fogle (Subway Jared) is dead (he’s not). One word here: snopes.

Example #3: Today I saw the following headline on FriendFeed: “20% of Primetime Television Now Watched Online” with a link to this article. Now I don’t read SearchEngineWatch, so I have no idea why they’re covering such a topic, but that’s not quite the topic du jour. The person sharing the article has now propagated the story, and his followers (and the followers of whomever then reshares it) will all be wandering around on- and off-line sharing the fact that 20% of TV is being watched online. Only one problem: it’s not. I did one more google search for the firm quoted in the article (Integrated Media Measurement Inc.) and one click later found this finding: “IMMI finds more than 20 percent of panel members watch some prime time programming online” (again, emphasis for effect). While this is still an important statistics, it is a far cry different from the headline being shared (one which is, in my opinion, quite hard to believe anyway, but that’s another matter). Updated: it’s sad to say, but Reuters now has the “20%” story, and yes, they have it wrong.

I know it’s a lot of fun to be on the cutting edge of information. It’s also fun to learn a new fact and rapidly share it along to your friends and family. But whatever happened to double-checking a source? Let’s face it, the news is more about entertainment and ad revenue than it is about reporting facts and accuracy. Just because it happened online doesn’t make it real. As they say, entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

New California Headset Requirements Law is Political Baby-Kissing at its Finest

Posted on by

Disclaimer: If you think I’m advocating bad driving or increased accidents, then please finish reading the entire post before making your judgment call.

Starting July 1st, all Californian drivers who want to use a mobile phone for talking will be required to use a headset (or here, if you prefer being called dude). This is presumably for our safety, and if there was an impact on our safety, I’d be endorsing it all the way to the DMV. But it seems like this is really just politicians putting laws in place to placate constituents, rather than focus on issues which do impact public safety. This law is just plain off the mark, and here are some reasons why (along with facts from the government to really spice it up):

Issue #1: Calling requires headsets, but texting, email, and other keyboard use is still acceptable. Numerous studies have shown the distraction factor is about the content of the call, not the fact that someone is holding a phone (in fact, NHTSA studies have shown that a CD player causes more distraction than using a cell phone, and we’ve had CD players in cars for many many years – no new laws there for some reason). So just remember, if you get pulled over, insist you were texting or maybe listening to a podcast on your phone, as neither are fineable offenses.

Issue #2: No supporting statistics from existing “trials”. A headset-only law went into effect in NYC back in 2001, giving the state 7 years’ worth of data. Checking through their news and stats pages, the NY State DMV has not issued a single report showing a decrease in accidents or fatalities. I’ll talk more about lacking statistics in just a moment, but considering how quickly NY dropped stats while discussing drowsy drivers (100,000+ crashes a year), one would think there’s something they could share on the “success” of the cell phone law.

Issue #3: A $20 fine?!?! Really? Are they being serious here? The entire purpose of our criminal justice system is to create disincentives to committing a crime. For example, I would rather not be in prison, hence the lack of grand larceny I’m involved in. Pretty logical stuff. The fine for not using a headset is $20. It’s almost like they are saying “yeah, we know this is a silly law, so our method of abdicating ourselves is keeping the fine ridiculously low.” Want to make this one effective? Make it $200 per offense, and start giving out points after the first offense.

Issue #4: No other relevant statistics of any kind. I went scouring the NHTSA web site for some statistics on cell phone usage, driving, and accidents. I found lots of stats on cell phone usage while driving (PDF). I found lots of stats on accidents (PDF). I found NO stats that link the two together. Not one single piece of data which said anything like “with the ever-increasing number of cell phones being used while driving, here is the resulting increase in accidents”. In fact, I couldn’t even find a casual implication where anyone from NHTSA actually stated it just maybe might kinda sorta possibly cause accidents. Amazingly, if I found anything, its that both accident rates and injury/fatality rates are on the decline, year after year.
NHTSA injury stats

Here is the only “data point” I could find across the entire Web (aka “what I found by looking through a few pages of Google search results”), from the Public Policy Institute of California:

The findings indicate that mobile phone ownership is associated with higher traffic fatality rates in bad weather, on wet roads, and in rush-hour traffic. California’s new law should lead to some 300 fewer traffic fatalities a year.

I think that is awesome. Except, again, there’s no data to back it up, so it sounds more like “good spin” than anything else. But I could be wrong, and if on July 1, 2009, the state can in any way prove that they saved us lives, I’ll eat my (virtual) words. Of course, since accidents and fatalities are on the decline anyway, I am not exactly sure how they’ll do so, but I promise to keep an open mind.

Now for some hyperbole. It surely seems like every time I almost get sideswiped, or someone rolls through a stop sign while I’m pushing the stroller, the driver has a phone at his/her head. From all appearances, its definitely those idiots on their phones that are causing all the problems. And I, like everyone else, want fewer accidents and safer roads for all. But maybe it’s just the impression of idiocy? On the freeway yesterday I almost merged with a Ford Pickup that was in my blindspot, but I wasn’t on the phone at the time.

The bottom line, in my eyes, is bad drivers are bad drivers, and give a bad driver a distraction, and he/she will find a way to become a worse driver with the distraction. I hate the catch-all blame of technology for society’s woes. We should be requiring car manufacturers to enable voice-controlled stereos, temperature controls, and GPS systems, as all have been causally linked to accidents. The real question here is why isn’t the State (or Country) protecting its citizens by putting the power in the manufacturers’ hands? Hint: the answer is, similar to the copyright laws, its easier to push individual citizens around than it is to get big companies with big lobbyists to make change.

The NHTSA states “the task of driving requires full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving.” This seems to apply to many products beyond a cell phone, but have been in cars for much longer. It’s a shame that this law takes effect tomorrow, as it will, in my best guess, cause more work for police, not help the growing nationwide traffic problems, and fundamentally not save us from the bad drivers who just don’t pay attention regardless of the phone, donut, coffee, Blackberry, iPod, rattle, stapler, or other attention-getter they are holding in their hands. The State of New York (remember, the ones with LOTS of data) has advice, which is labeled with “use common sense“. Shouldn’t that apply to the lawmakers as well?

Netflix Chose… Poorly. UPDATED: not anymore!

Posted on by

From the Netflix blog: “we’ve decided to terminate the profiles feature on September 1.”

The stated rationale: “the motivation is solely driven by keeping our service as simple and as easy to use as possible” and “Too many members found the feature difficult to understand and cumbersome.”

As per a smart colleague of mine, I try not to second-guess motives when I blog (anymore). It’s not really fair to the “target” as it doesn’t really invite a discussion, it just puts someone/a company on the defense. So if I were to question this issue, I might wonder if they have an ulterior motive, some nefarious business reason to terminate the feature (as others have speculated), but realistically I doubt it. If the feature is costing them money, they could simply charge for it, rather than yank it away (apparently permanently). So I trust that they truly believe this is the right decision for their users.

Which really is weird. You see, to make a decision like this implies several things, which I will address specifically:

  1. A large number of users were complaining about the problem.
    I spent the past little while searching Google, their community, their support site, and GetSatisfaction, all looking for documentation regarding multiple account profiles. I found no articles. Not one.
  2. This problem is such a user interface challenge that fixing it wasn’t an option.
    Again, per the Netflix blog, the complaint is “members found the feature difficult to understand and cumbersome, having to consistently log in and out of the website.” If this is truly a daunting task to overcome, how about enlisting some external user interface experts to help out? I for one would volunteer my services free of charge for the hour-or-two it might actually take to create a “multiple profile login system”, a problem even Microsoft has done a good job with.
  3. A series of intentional decisions were made to get to this moment.
    Product managers and engineers chose not to fix it, but to eliminate it. This was presented to marketing and business decision makers who supported this decision. This was then signed off by someone at a senior enough level who also felt it was the right decision. The marketing and customer service departments were involved in the messaging plan to communicate the issue to the outside world. And it ended up on the company blog today, with an online assertion that this decision is permanent.

Wow, that’s a lot of time and energy spent on a decision which, to the outside world, appears quite a bad one. It’s been mere hours and we have (at the time of writing):

I feel bad for the product manager who had to write that blog post on Netflix’ behalf. It’s never a pleasant position to be the bearer of such incomprehensibly dumb bad spin news. I, as many I’ve linked to above, can’t help but question this move at many levels. It doesn’t sound right and it doesn’t feel right. I have historically liked the company (despite the fact they still use pop-under advertising. what is this, 1998?), but can’t help but feel cheated. I urge team Netflix to really read the feedback your customers are giving you, and reconsider this move. I have a hunch it’ll be a lot more “cumbersome” to lose customers than it will to reinstate the feature.

UPDATED: this decision was overturned by team Netflix. Huzzah.

Used CDs: Another Loophole in the Hypocrisy of Music Piracy

Posted on by

There are so many reasons the battles over copyright law are flawed, most of which, in my opinion, center around the fact that copyright holders spend millions of dollars lobbying and supporting political campaigns (now about to hit Canada too). The “voice of the people” is barely represented, so much so that the few who have tried, such as Lawrence Lessig, have found little success in their efforts. I’m personally not much of a “downloader” and over the past 12 months have found my position on the topic swing from “it’s stealing” to “I have no problem with it.” Also, to be sure I am clear on this point: I do unequivocally believe content producers and owners have the right to profit for their work.

A big problem we have right now is the use of the word “stealing” to describe “downloading pirated content”, as the two are very different actions. When I steal, I take something from someone in such a way that they are deprived from having it themselves. When I download, I am avoiding paying a royalty fee to a rights holder. Both are problems, but they are different problems. That’s an important distinction, and one which should be examined a bit closer.

The laws (such as the terrible PRO/IP act) are designed today to protect rights holders from having their content distributed without a royalty. Sounds fair, right? Here’s the problem: the acts of buying and selling used CDs are legal (as is buying/selling promo CDs, according to a recent ruling). So if I buy a used CD (which is what I personally exclusively do – haven’t bought a new CD in years), I am transferring no royalties back to the rights holder. Let me make that point absurdly clear: if I buy a used Madonna CD, neither Madonna nor her label make any money off that transaction, and… (wait for it…) it’s perfectly legal.

Theft, stealing, piracy, and other illegal acts are all bad for individuals and society at large. But worse than the individual acts themselves is our system. It is based on a cascading series of antiquated laws combined with the self-propagation of “big money” controlling the key decision-makers. I am not trying to sanction or condone the concept of depriving individuals from profiting, but I can no longer tolerate our hypocritical policies which call 61% of teenagers criminals. Nancy? Still listening?

Update: highly recommend reading Don Reisinger’s piece on CNET on a related issue

Garmin wants $70 for a… map!?

Posted on by

Let me open by saying I think my Nuvi 350 is one of my favorite devices.  While there are a few improvements I could point out, for the most part it works very intuitively and reliably.  With the exception of the one time I was trying to find a Dairy Queen (Blizzard? hells yes.) and I ended up outside of someone’s house while hearing “you have arrived.”  And the guy didn’t even have ice cream.  Fail.

Today I received the following email from Garmin:

Garmin is pleased to announce the new Map Update 2009 for North America. For the most up-to-date maps and navigation on your portable Garmin GPS unit, this is the software you want. This $69.99 update offers full coverage for the U.S, Canada and Puerto Rico – making it easy and convenient to update the detailed maps and latest points of interest into your compatible Garmin unit.

The update includes:

  • Over 8 million miles of road coverage
  • Updated, fully routable, detailed maps for the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico
  • Nearly 6 million points of interest
  • Postal code support for Canada

Purchase the Map Update 2009 today!

Now I’m sure Garmin is paying someone (Navteq?) for their maps & data, and have costs to recoup.  I have no problem with paying for an update, if the price is right.  And maybe back 10 years ago $70 was a fair price, but today it isn’t.  The Internet has effectively trashed the value of data to consumers, and price points need to reflect that changed mentality.

As I write this, the Nuvi 350 is $203 on Amazon, meaning new updates are over 1/3 the price of the hardware.  Whereas going to Google Maps is free, always.  Granted, my Nuvi is more convenient than printing maps, and I am willing to pay something.  How about $9.99?  Or maybe $19.99?  Those seem like a “fair” price to pay for a map update.

There’s simply no way in the current market to accept $69.99 as a fair market value for a map update. Especially in context of a certain new phone that’s going to cause even more issues for a slowly failing GPS market.

Lifecasting may well lead us to Crime 2.0

Posted on by

This is something that’s been bothering me for a while: with all the push toward lifecasting, should we worry that criminals are going to get a little smarter?   I saw a tweet today that really got me over the edge to write this post.

Steal this car?

I first got antsy about TMI online when I was reading Scoble’s blog.  He wrote a post a few years back divulging his home address (at the time), and I for one thought he was a bit nutso to do it (that nutso quality is probably a part of why he’s so likeable).  I see tweets from him (and others) constantly revealing two important pieces of information:

  1. The fact that they are not at home.
  2. An easy tie-in to a specific location/event they have recently attended.

Both are better bait to criminals than personal injury videos on YouTube are to drunk college kids.  They are basically open invitations for bad people to do bad things.  Break-ins.  Thievery.  Identity theft.  etc.   I totally understand the desire to lifecast private details, and I occasionally slip myself.  It’s easy, and I think the more in a rhythm you get of publicizing your information, they more you get “sucked into” doing it.

Examples:

My recommendations to anyone and everyone who tweets, pounces, jaiks, friendfeeds, blog posts,  facebook statuses, and any other form of lifecasting is to think twice before you write.  Recognize that your message is going into the public, in a permanent and very findable manner.

I believe it’s only a matter of time before we see tweets like “just got home, where the F is my plasma?!?”  It sucks to think this way, but it’s giving me a little wakeup call myself.  Guess we may all need crowdsourced home security one day.

Now signing off from an undisclosed location.  I hear there’s a car nobody’s watching at SFO…

Comcast, please support ALL your services!

Posted on by

Intro: Mike Arrington was able to get Comcast support via Twitter, I thought I’d do the same (although I am Canadian, I’m no Arrington and I’m not using Twitter).  I’m a subscriber to the NHL Center Ice package, offered via Comcast through iNDEMAND.  The regular season is over (Go Habs!), and now things got messy.

Center Ice screenshotIn the program guide, there’s no more information for the Center Ice package at all.  No listings, just baseball.  I googled, found a few scattered suggestions and possible answers.  I then proceeded to try Comcast’s support chat, the agent was polite and tried his/her best, but found nothing.  Eventually told me to call my regional office.  Which I did.

Local agent looked through a variety of things, and sooner or later started surfing the Web looking for more.  Nothing.  Found the Center Ice info page, which is missing all information about the playoffs.  Well, not all the info, just has a page showing where they would be, and nicely refers to them as the 2007 playoffs.

I called iNDEMAND.  The most help I got from them was that (a) there was a confirmed game on Versus, which I already knew, and (b) the channels to find Center Ice were numbers 461-470, which I already knew.  This information came just slightly after I managed to convince them that I was actually a paying subscriber.   Bottom line is at 4pm on Thursday I’m going to have to have my Slingbox ready so I can quickly find the right game and set it to record on my DVR.

First I blame iNDEMAND for not having the right information.  It’s not really Comcast’s fault since their vendor doesn’t have the data.  That said, Comcast shouldn’t do business with vendors who do not have the information needed to support their customers.  If Comcast made it an absolute requirement, I guarantee the iNDEMAND folks would have the answer already, but as it is, there’s little-to-no incentive for them.

As an aside, it’s like when I called Sony for support on my Vaio and they blamed Microsoft and NVIDIA.  They might be right, but nobody exactly forced Sony to use NVIDIA chips.  Then again, the laptop is on its way back from Ed Bott’s place, where he says it’s lightning fast!! Windows may just be re-entering my life (it still does have better keyboard shortcuts)…

Back to the topic at hand – customer service.  Service is as important as any marketing or promotion activity.  With the combination of blogs, Twitters, and Google, it’s impossible for a company’s bad habits to remain in the dark any longer.  Fundamentally I believe if you sell a product, you must support it to the fullest extend possible.  No passing the buck.  Setting the right standards for your organization isn’t hard to do, and in the long term can have a huge payoff.

iPods are turning everyone into zombies

Posted on by

I love that just by posting on 04/01 I have to give a disclaimer that this post is NOT an April Fool’s joke (thank you Anil). What a terrible day to be online.

I ride the bus to work every day. Everywhere I look I see the white headphones of cool iPod people. I get off the bus, walk to the office. People walk by with the whites on. On the plane. In line at Starbucks. On bicycles. In the tub. In the car. Up against the mini-bar…

It’s annoying.

Some might read this, think “it’s just like Walkmans were”, but thats definitely not the case. Walkmans were never so pervasive in our culture, they were just too darn bulky. iPods are so well designed they are close to invisible, and convenient to carry. And the clever commercials did such a good job branding the signature headphones that it’s a bit of a fashion statement to wear them (I still vote for Shures incidentally).

I’m tired of getting bumped into by people who don’t even realize it because they’re so focused on whatever it is they listen to. Here’s the thing people: YOU DON’T HAVE TO LISTEN TO YOUR IPOD ALL THE TIME. It’s true, studies have proven it. It’s okay to NOT be entertained 100% of your bus ride, walk, or other moment in life where you can just, you know, think about something or read a book.

In case I’m not clear here – I have no problems with iPods (though my Rio Karma was still the best MP3 player out there… once), nor using them when appropriate. As a wise man once said, “Life goes by pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.”

Thus endeth the ranting.

One more thing:  If you DO have to have your iPod in use in a public place, please check the volume – the rest of us don’t want to hear the tinny aftertunes.

IMDb, still Internetting like it's 1997

Posted on by

God knows I’m not a big believer in all things 2.0, in fact, I’m not much of a believer in anything 2.0. However, amidst the muck and dreck there are some winners, and more importantly, underlying all the new rounded corners fanciness it’s become clear that the future of the Web is about open platforms and data sources all able to talk to each other. Flickr is better than Kodak Photo Gallery because they made it so easy for me to get to my photos through not only their site, but on my blog, Facebook, etc etc.

Before there was 2.0, in fact, before there was really dot-com, there was IMDB, the Internet-hosted paradise for film geeks.  I won’t see a movie without checking it’s IMDB score, and upon seeing one I’ll instantly dash off to read the trivia, and give it a rating myself.  At a dinner party if a movie gets mentioned and a debate about some actor starts, the laptop comes out, and off to IMDB we go (at a friends’ house I’ll usually just kwiry the movie instead, since they seem to find it rude if I go get their laptop just to prove them wrong).  It’s been that way for a decade or more, and unfortunately, nothing much has changed.

Amazon bought IMDB some years back, integrated shopping in a not-so-bad way too.  IMDB launched “pro” but it’s really for people in the movie business.  So rather than involve the community and become the de facto source for all movie data across all Web sites, IMDB sits on their closed, controlled, protected database, and sits on the sidelines as competitors emerge.

Want to build a movie app using their data?  No problem, you can license it here (and here’s their data format, mercifully updated from CSV into XML in the past few years).  There are discussion forums, but no RSS feeds to get the conversation elsewhere.  There is a “my movies” feature, but if you want it integrated into your blog, you have to use their widget (preview it here) which allows for zero customization.  There is an unbelievable wealth of data, a literal treasure trove of it, and it’s all locked away in their proprietary site.

Part of me thinks that after Amazon bought them they reduced the technical staff down to one or two people, who spend their time making sure the site works in new browsers (see? just like 1997!).  Part of me thinks there’s some crazy person in charge who believes keeping things status quo is the way to win.  I’d like to think there’s some big plan on opening up the platform (remember: open beats closed!), enabling richer applictions to emerge, and IMDB will escape its position as film nerd haven.

But most of me thinks the whole darn thing is locked in some server farm somewhere and nobody can figure out the captcha to get back in.

Verizon's New Plans? Success. LiveChat Customer Service? Fail.

Posted on by

I saw over at Engadget today that Verizon has some new cell plans.  This is great news for Verizon customers like me who are being raked over the coals to enjoy their network.  And I’m not being (too) facetious here, it really is a great network, I only drop calls in two locations: (1) I-280 by Sand Hill Road (millions of VC dollars can’t get a good tower built???) and (2) inside the United terminal of JFK.  Otherwise, all is great.

I saw the new plans seemed quite attractive, but none quite meet my needs.  I have a “FamilyChoice” plan that my wife and I use to make calls throughout the US and Canada (where we go frequently).  It’s a little pricey, but very convenient for our needs.  The new plans are:

  • $100 – Nationwide Unlimited (voice)
  • $120 – Nationwide Select Unlimited (voice, SMS, MMS)
  • $140 – Nationwide Premium (voice, SMS, MMS, VZNav, VCAST, email)
  • $150 – Nationwide Email and Messaging (voice, SMS, MMS, and data)
  • $170 – Nationwide Global Email and Messaging (voice, SMS, MMS, and international data)
  • $200 – Family plan with two lines, $100 per additional line.

All look good, but no Canada.  After viewing the Verizon website for a while, I saw a chat window pop up, offering help.  I figured it would be easier than calling.  Here’s the transcript (verbatim, no edits made):

Antione.: Hello. Thank you for visiting our chat service.  May I help you with your order today?
You: hi
You: i am an existing customer, i have the America’s Choice FamilyPlan
You: so it’s 3000 minutes, for both USA and Canada
Antione.: How may I assist you today?
You: i heard there are new plans
You: whats the new equivalent for my plan?
Antione.: How many lines?
You: 2
Antione.: I recommend the Nationwide Family Share Basic 3000 minute plan. This plan includes unlimited nights & weekends so you can talk all you want on the nights and weekends. It also includes unlimited IN calling so you can talk free to any Verizon Wireless customer. This plan costs $149.99 per month and includes 2 lines. Will this plan work for you?
You: does it include canada?
Antione.: You can call to canada with our nationwide plans.
Antione.: How does that sound?
You: how about from canada?
You: (sorry about that delay, the window was hidden)
Antione.: Yes, you can call to canada with a nationwide plan.
You: how about calling FROM canada?
Antione.: One moment please.
Antione.: We do not have any family plans to allow you to call to canada.
You: so i shouldnt change from what i have today, right?
Antione.: You can keep your current plan if you would like.
Antione.: What features are important to you in a phone?
You: huh?
Antione.: Are you eligible for an upgrade?
You: why are you asking? does this impact my ability to make calls to/from Canada?
Antione.: I have not heard from you for a few moments.  Would you like me to keep this chat session open for you?
You: did you see my previous question?
Antione.: I was checking to see if you were eligible to upgrade your phone. Our family plans does not offer you to call to canada.
You: so the question had nothing to do with what I was asking about?
Antione.: We offer a single line that has the ability to call to canada. I am sorry about that, we do not offer any phones that will allow you to call canada with the family plan.
You: ok, thanks very much

Hmmm… I think my favorite part is the triple flip flop on whether or not Canada is supported.  It’s either that or the random shift from helping me into trying to get me to buy a new phone.  Thanks very much, Antione, for so much non-help.  I feel slightly dumber for having had that conversation.

Why are Google's SMS services unreliable?

Posted on by

When I switched to a Mac, I couldn’t find any calendaring system I liked, so I moved over to Google Calendar (or, as the guys in my office call it, GooGooCow).  Took a while to get used to, and I still don’t understand why they don’t mark full-day events as actually “busy” data, but that’s neither here nor there.  One ridiculously useful feature they introduced a few months ago was the ability to get SMS reminders.  Now my $49 Samsung phone is in synch with my calendar (and it does video, all for much less than $499).

The combo was great, as 10 minutes before any appointment I’d get a text message on my phone.  All was good in the world.

Until about 3 weeks ago.  When it started getting unreliable.

Now, I get some alerts long after events are over.  I get others just as events begin.  Some I don’t get at all.

Which means I have to go look for a new solution, because in the world of alerts/reminders, unreliability is about as bad a problem as anything I could imagine.  It’s weird too, seeing as how it’s (1) a very easy technology, and (2) Google usually scales well.  Very very annoying.  I think the only worse solution would be hiring Britney Spears as my administrative assistant.  Yes, I went there.

Apple/MS: please fix installations!

Posted on by

It’s unbelievable to me that in this day and age it’s still so ridiculously difficult to install things. Hardware, software, drivers, whatever. Is it easier with my Mac than it was with Windows? Sure. Especially relative to my Sony Vaio, which, (say it along with me people), is the most terrible laptop you can buy. (Exhale).

I write this roughly 70 minutes into the process of attempting to install a simple webcam on my dad’s computer (guiding him through it over the phone). First, it’s a Microsoft LifeCam VX-1000, which apparently strongly encourages the user to download and install Live Messenger otherwise nothing will work. Which I know is a lie, but to the unsuspecting installer, is quite a threatening note to the inexperienced user. Bad form.

Next up, the bewildering steps of determining which order hardware/software installs can go. Just plain stupid. If one requires the other, the respective systems simply should not allow the user to proceed. How hard is that? I’m not exactly a top-notch coder, but I’m pretty sure it would look something like:

if (!hardware_installed()) then install_hardware();

The above steps are definitely more Windows pains that Mac ones, but next is the process of actually putting software where it belongs. The first problem lies in a software download, which invariably ends up in a random location on the user’s computer, and probably stays there forever, long after the installation is completed. As much as OS X brings the simplicity of moving apps into the Applications folder, the fact remains that there is unnecessary room for error (and for the tech-elitists reading this who think it’s SOOOO easy, I’m amazed you got this far).

Finally, I really dislike the fact that applications are less aware of hardware than they should be. Back to my father’s case, shouldn’t Skype be “aware” of the fact that a webcam showed up? Why should he have to go into settings, video options, webcam settings, and pick the device? OK, this one isn’t Apple/Microsoft’s fault, but they certainly could provide the required infrastructure to make it work better.

By the way, for those keeping track, it took a total of about 80 minutes to get my dad’s webcam working. And it only took two system reboots, three aborted installs of MS Live Crappenger, and 5 visits to the Skype tech support forums.