What do you do if you have a consumer electronics product that is universally considered to be the best in its category? It is a product that is selling exceptionally well and has some new and innovative improvements ready to be announced. Most companies, especially in these less than robust economic times, would be happy and continue to take the cash from the brisk sales to the bank. If you are Cisco, the giant computer networking products company, you discontinue the product line. That’s right; Cisco announced that the Flip video camera will no longer be manufactured.
If you are a regular follower of my column you know that from the time the Flip was released a few years ago I have been a big cheerleader for the simplicity and utility of this cigarette pack sized video camera. After reviewing the statements from the Cisco suits, I remain convinced that for the vast majority of consumers, the Flip is still the best small video camera available, albeit only for a few more months.
There have been several competitors surface in this product category, but all of them seem to fail to understand why the Flip was such a great product. Companies like Kodak, Sony, Toshiba and others retained Flip’s small size but their engineers and designers could not resist adding more features. While the Flip essentially has one button, the competitors added other features that get in the way of the point and shoot simplicity of the Flip.
Cisco, in the announcement of the cancellation of the Flip, related that it was no longer a viable product because mobile phones had added video recording capability. That may be true but a simple test proved to me that they were misinformed about the practicality of using phones to capture spur of the moment events.
I have a smart phone that has video recording capability. If I want to make a video recording I have to go through six steps, all of them embedded in on-screen menus before I am actually recording. With the Flip there are two steps. I turn it on and press the red button.
Some would accuse me of being a modern day Luddite but I am not a big supporter of the Swiss Army knife approach to all things electronic. Adding features adds complexity and often gets in the way of ease of use. In a car you should not need to look at an on- screen menu to turn on the windshield wipers or heater. The remote control for your TV should not have more buttons that the space shuttle. Guess I am showing my age.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 17, 2011
When Is a TV Not a TV?
Late last month you may have received information from Time Warner Cable about a new service being offered to area subscribers. The service allows individuals who have an Apple iPad to watch some TV programs carried on the Time Warner system. The company and other cable TV companies around the country are offering a new App that uses your iPad and home wifi to connect with your cable. Once connected, the iPad serves as a portable TV and can be used anywhere in the house without wires or other special connections.
The service was praised by many media pundits who applauded the seamless merger of the computer and the TV. This convergence has been the “holy grail” of proponents of bringing the Internet and traditional TV to a variety of screens large and small, fixed and portable. iPad users too were happy to get a free app that made watching TV more convenient.
Not everyone was so happy. Faster than it took to download the new App several program service providers were yelling foul. Several cable networks like Discovery, Fox and Viacom argued that their programming was licensed to Time Warner for distribution to TV sets not streamed to computers. They demanded that Time Warner remove their programming from the list of offerings for iPad viewing.
Welcome to the new TV landscape where ultimately the definition of a TV set will be a critical factor in your ability to watch your favorite shows. As you may expect the brouhaha centers around money. The program distributors are concerned that if viewers watch their programming on any device other than a traditional TV they will not be counted in the Nielsen surveys and as such the advertising revenue may suffer. Nielsen has been struggling to compile reliable information about TV viewing as more and more of us are using computers, smart phones and other digital devices to view TV programs. The proliferation of non traditional non real time viewing has begun to fragment audiences and the future only promises to further change viewing patterns.
TV Program producers are scrambling to keep from repeating the revolution experienced by music producers and distributors. They wish to hold on to their business as usual lucrative industry. My bet is that they are swimming against the tide and just as online music distribution has made CDs as out of date as rotary phones, the blurring of the differences between the computer screen and TV screen will make the traditional TV programming business a much different enterprise moving toward a pay per view model from the current advertising supported industry.
The service was praised by many media pundits who applauded the seamless merger of the computer and the TV. This convergence has been the “holy grail” of proponents of bringing the Internet and traditional TV to a variety of screens large and small, fixed and portable. iPad users too were happy to get a free app that made watching TV more convenient.
Not everyone was so happy. Faster than it took to download the new App several program service providers were yelling foul. Several cable networks like Discovery, Fox and Viacom argued that their programming was licensed to Time Warner for distribution to TV sets not streamed to computers. They demanded that Time Warner remove their programming from the list of offerings for iPad viewing.
Welcome to the new TV landscape where ultimately the definition of a TV set will be a critical factor in your ability to watch your favorite shows. As you may expect the brouhaha centers around money. The program distributors are concerned that if viewers watch their programming on any device other than a traditional TV they will not be counted in the Nielsen surveys and as such the advertising revenue may suffer. Nielsen has been struggling to compile reliable information about TV viewing as more and more of us are using computers, smart phones and other digital devices to view TV programs. The proliferation of non traditional non real time viewing has begun to fragment audiences and the future only promises to further change viewing patterns.
TV Program producers are scrambling to keep from repeating the revolution experienced by music producers and distributors. They wish to hold on to their business as usual lucrative industry. My bet is that they are swimming against the tide and just as online music distribution has made CDs as out of date as rotary phones, the blurring of the differences between the computer screen and TV screen will make the traditional TV programming business a much different enterprise moving toward a pay per view model from the current advertising supported industry.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Faster Not Always Better
Social networking and instantaneous and continuous news reporting have become so much a part of the landscape that even the most insignificant and trivial happenings get reported worldwide as important breaking news. Be it the police chasing a DUI driver on a Hollywood freeway or a robbery of a McDonalds in Fargo, we see it live on TV and on the Internet. For sure there are important news items that we need to know in a timely manner, but the ease of worldwide instantaneous distribution has provided proof that the old adage “Engage Brain Before Opening Mouth.” is truer now than ever before.
In the past since, there was a delay from the time a story came to light and the time it was reported on air or in print, there was most often sufficient time for getting the facts. Today because of the ravenous appetite of the 24/7 news services there is pressure to release a story as quickly as possible and fill in the details later.
Just recently there was a news report circulating on the Internet that Samsung, a major electronics manufacturer, was installing on their new line of laptop computers a software program that captured and transmitted back to Samsung all of the keystrokes made on that machine by the user. This type of software has been used by hackers to gather personal information from unsuspecting users. The nefarious software usually gets into a computer that has weak or non existent virus protection. For Samsung to have been accused of installing this software in the computers they were manufacturing and selling was really news. It was really bad news for Samsung as spying on customers could be devastating and not really conducive for increasing sales or improving a corporate image.
This report made the rounds on the Internet and was picked up by many individuals and forwarded in tweets and Facebook postings. As the saying goes, “It went viral.” All of this took only minutes to circulate. Within hours Samsung released an explanation that the company had not installed this spyware and that it was a very popular virus scanning program from GFI, a company with no affiliation with Samsung, that was indicating a “false positive” warning. GFI admitted this error in short order.
In the past this story would have never been released in the first place as the explanation would have been available before the newspaper article was printed or the TV and Radio news report produced. Not so in the Internet age.
In the past since, there was a delay from the time a story came to light and the time it was reported on air or in print, there was most often sufficient time for getting the facts. Today because of the ravenous appetite of the 24/7 news services there is pressure to release a story as quickly as possible and fill in the details later.
Just recently there was a news report circulating on the Internet that Samsung, a major electronics manufacturer, was installing on their new line of laptop computers a software program that captured and transmitted back to Samsung all of the keystrokes made on that machine by the user. This type of software has been used by hackers to gather personal information from unsuspecting users. The nefarious software usually gets into a computer that has weak or non existent virus protection. For Samsung to have been accused of installing this software in the computers they were manufacturing and selling was really news. It was really bad news for Samsung as spying on customers could be devastating and not really conducive for increasing sales or improving a corporate image.
This report made the rounds on the Internet and was picked up by many individuals and forwarded in tweets and Facebook postings. As the saying goes, “It went viral.” All of this took only minutes to circulate. Within hours Samsung released an explanation that the company had not installed this spyware and that it was a very popular virus scanning program from GFI, a company with no affiliation with Samsung, that was indicating a “false positive” warning. GFI admitted this error in short order.
In the past this story would have never been released in the first place as the explanation would have been available before the newspaper article was printed or the TV and Radio news report produced. Not so in the Internet age.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
My G is Faster Than Your G!
The battle wages on. On TV, in newspapers and magazines, and on bill boards on the interstate you can’t miss the ads touting 4G networks. If you believe all the claims by now you must feel that if you don’t have a 4G phone you are really missing out. What you are missing other than the letter at falls between “F” and “H” in our alphabet is less than clear. It might be interesting to know that the companies that tout the 4G networks really don’t know much more than you do.
Some history will help explain what all these “Gs” really mean. Back in the dark ages of mobile phones when the smallest of the available devices was briefcase-size, they used a network dubbed “1G.” The “G” stands for generation and this mobile phone network technology was the first generation. It was developed in the early 1980s and was fine for the analog devices in service at that time. It did require phones with protruding antennas.
The 1G networks were soon replaced by 2G, the first of the digital networks. With the number of mobile phone users exploding in the USA and around the world, the old analog system just could not handle the traffic. 2G systems could accommodate 50 or more simultaneous conversations on the same frequency and allowed for smaller phones with built in antennas. It was not, however, capable of efficiently handling data.
As more and more people wanted to be able to be connected while on the go, not only with voice but with email, the web, navigation services, and now social networking, the carriers like Verizon and AT&T needed a revolutionary upgrade and that resulted in the 3G network.
This brings us to the present and the 4G networks being touted by these same big carriers. The official definition of the capacities of the all the “Gs” is set by The International Telecommunication Union, the global wireless standards-setting organization. They have determined that 4G networks must be capable of download speeds of 100 megabits per second. In reality none of the carriers are achieving anything close to this speed. In most cases they provide speeds less than 50% of real 4G. For sure they have fast networks, but no cigar, no 4G.
Not to be deterred, the marketing gurus from many of carriers seem to have decided to collectively ignore the official definition and develop their own. Perhaps this is not a big issue when you are talking about bits and bytes. I do wonder what would happen if this trend carried over to BP or Shell. Could a gallon of gas be redefined by the gasoline companies as 14 ounces?
Some history will help explain what all these “Gs” really mean. Back in the dark ages of mobile phones when the smallest of the available devices was briefcase-size, they used a network dubbed “1G.” The “G” stands for generation and this mobile phone network technology was the first generation. It was developed in the early 1980s and was fine for the analog devices in service at that time. It did require phones with protruding antennas.
The 1G networks were soon replaced by 2G, the first of the digital networks. With the number of mobile phone users exploding in the USA and around the world, the old analog system just could not handle the traffic. 2G systems could accommodate 50 or more simultaneous conversations on the same frequency and allowed for smaller phones with built in antennas. It was not, however, capable of efficiently handling data.
As more and more people wanted to be able to be connected while on the go, not only with voice but with email, the web, navigation services, and now social networking, the carriers like Verizon and AT&T needed a revolutionary upgrade and that resulted in the 3G network.
This brings us to the present and the 4G networks being touted by these same big carriers. The official definition of the capacities of the all the “Gs” is set by The International Telecommunication Union, the global wireless standards-setting organization. They have determined that 4G networks must be capable of download speeds of 100 megabits per second. In reality none of the carriers are achieving anything close to this speed. In most cases they provide speeds less than 50% of real 4G. For sure they have fast networks, but no cigar, no 4G.
Not to be deterred, the marketing gurus from many of carriers seem to have decided to collectively ignore the official definition and develop their own. Perhaps this is not a big issue when you are talking about bits and bytes. I do wonder what would happen if this trend carried over to BP or Shell. Could a gallon of gas be redefined by the gasoline companies as 14 ounces?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Meet TED
Today’s digital world offers so many choices for getting news and entertainment. Not only is there is a seemingly endless number of cable and satellite TV channels, with about 80% of all US households having access to the Internet, the web provides even more options for spending our free time. There are social media sites that many of us visit more than we should. If you are Facebooked out or can’t read one more Tweet, and are looking for some outstanding content on the web, I would like to introduce you to TED. Don’t worry. I am not sending you to a weird dating service. TED is not a guy it is a web site that features videos and discussions that will challenge your brain. TED (Technology Entertainment and Design) began in 1984 as a conference sponsored by the Sapling Foundation. The foundation’s mission is to disseminate "ideas worth spreading.” The initial conference invited the very top minds in the fields of technology, entertainment and design to share ideas, discoveries and inventions. The conferences are still held but videos of the individual presentations are now made available free on the web. Today there are more than 700 videos and the subject matter has broadened. You can find presentations on religion, psychology, astronomy, education, medicine and many other subjects. The great thing about TED is that it invites very best and brightest. Right now you can watch Jane Goodall, Bill Gates, and several Nobel laureates. All you need is a computer and access to a broadband Internet connection. Point your browser to www.ted.com The presentations are very fast paced. TED asks each presenter not to exceed 18 minutes. Some make use of videos and graphics while others stay with a standard lecture format. Each presentation is translated into several languages. There are topics and opinions that will challenge you. All of them will make you think. I have watched several and each of them has been outstanding. You will find a new presentation posted about every day and all of them are archived and searchable by topic or presenter. Two of my favorites were just posted recently. One is a 5 minute presentation by volunteer firefighter Mark Bezos. He tells a story of an act of heroism that didn't go quite as expected -- but that taught him a big lesson: Don't wait to be a hero. In five short minutes he captures the essence of what it means to give back to your community. Perhaps the most jaw dropping talk was by Surgeon Anthony Atala who demonstrated an early-stage experiment that could someday solve the organ-donor problem: a 3D printer that uses living cells to output a transplantable kidney. Using similar technology, Dr. Atala’s young patient Luke Massella received an engineered bladder 10 years ago; we meet him onstage. The next time you find that the 500 channel cable universe offers little to watch or your Twitter account less than stimulating, spend some time with Ted. It will be time well spent.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Print vs. Online a Non Issue
It is good to see the Harrison Press providing more and more content on line. For sure this is where many of us will eventually look to find our news and views rather than from the traditional printed versions. If you are reading this column in the print edition of the Harrison Press you are already part of a shrinking minority of hard copy newspaper readers. It is true that the weekly or community newspapers seem to have been able to hold on to more print subscribers than their big brother daily counterparts but the trends indicate that this phenomenon will be short lived.
Some may lament the passing of the newsprint method of reporting the happenings of daily life. For many of us who grew up reading the newspaper, there certainly is a pleasant tactile response that we have while holding in our hands a newspaper or book. Whether that response is innate or learned is debatable.
Observing our younger generation can give us some hints on what the future holds not only for the printed word but for all media. Ask almost anyone under 35 if they regularly read a printed newspaper or watch TV programs in real time on the broadcast TV or on the cable/satellite channels. More often than not the answer will be no. It is not that they are not interested in current events and are unaware of what is happening around their town or the world. For sure they do enjoy entertainment. In most instances they are informed and conversant. They just get their information and entertainment in different ways.
Instead of half asleep saunter down the driveway before the first cup of morning coffee to retrieve the print edition of the newspaper, the “30 somethings” log on to a news web site or check Twitter and Facebook. Often the content on these sites are provided by the very newspapers they eschew. The Enquirer has Cincinnati.com and most premiere newspapers like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal have very popular online editions. I read both on my computer and smart phone. The Kindle and other eReaders offer electronic versions of several daily newspapers.
For breaking news a printed newspaper can’t compete with an electronic edition. It was almost 24 hours after it happened that the printed edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer was able to report on the recent devastating earthquake in Japan. By then most people had consumed hours of video reports and analysis. Much was from the web.
It is not only the newspaper industry that is undergoing change. TV, both broadcast and cable are losing viewers to video services provided on the Internet. There is an increasing amount of first run programming available on line and on demand. “Appointment” viewing, that is watching a program when it is broadcast, is becoming less and less prevalent among all age groups. Among the 25 to 35 year old demographic regular TV viewing is the exception rather than the rule.
Some worry about these trends. Others, me included, feel that we should not concentrate on how we get information and entertainment as much as the quality and reliability of the information and entertainment we get.
Some may lament the passing of the newsprint method of reporting the happenings of daily life. For many of us who grew up reading the newspaper, there certainly is a pleasant tactile response that we have while holding in our hands a newspaper or book. Whether that response is innate or learned is debatable.
Observing our younger generation can give us some hints on what the future holds not only for the printed word but for all media. Ask almost anyone under 35 if they regularly read a printed newspaper or watch TV programs in real time on the broadcast TV or on the cable/satellite channels. More often than not the answer will be no. It is not that they are not interested in current events and are unaware of what is happening around their town or the world. For sure they do enjoy entertainment. In most instances they are informed and conversant. They just get their information and entertainment in different ways.
Instead of half asleep saunter down the driveway before the first cup of morning coffee to retrieve the print edition of the newspaper, the “30 somethings” log on to a news web site or check Twitter and Facebook. Often the content on these sites are provided by the very newspapers they eschew. The Enquirer has Cincinnati.com and most premiere newspapers like the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal have very popular online editions. I read both on my computer and smart phone. The Kindle and other eReaders offer electronic versions of several daily newspapers.
For breaking news a printed newspaper can’t compete with an electronic edition. It was almost 24 hours after it happened that the printed edition of the Cincinnati Enquirer was able to report on the recent devastating earthquake in Japan. By then most people had consumed hours of video reports and analysis. Much was from the web.
It is not only the newspaper industry that is undergoing change. TV, both broadcast and cable are losing viewers to video services provided on the Internet. There is an increasing amount of first run programming available on line and on demand. “Appointment” viewing, that is watching a program when it is broadcast, is becoming less and less prevalent among all age groups. Among the 25 to 35 year old demographic regular TV viewing is the exception rather than the rule.
Some worry about these trends. Others, me included, feel that we should not concentrate on how we get information and entertainment as much as the quality and reliability of the information and entertainment we get.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Home Automation Worth Another Look
I am not sure if it is because of the heart-stopping Duke Energy bills that many of us have been recently receiving or just a desire to be more “green,” but I have had several people ask me about home automation systems. Like so many questions of this ilk, the answer requires some background.
In the simplest form, home automation systems consist of three major components: a controller, various sensors and switches. With these components most everything in the house can be controlled remotely. You can use your home computer, your computer at work or your smart phone to set the thermostat, turn on lights, turn on the oven or open the front door. These systems have been very common in office buildings and other commercial building for years as they can save a ton of energy.
For example, if you are single and travel a lot on business you might install a system that allows you to control your heat and your hot water heater. You leave on Monday for a week-long business trip. Before you leave you set the heat to 50 degrees or so and turn off the hot water heater. Before you get on the plane at LAX for your return flight you can “call” your automation system and raise the temperature to 68 degrees and turn on the hot water. Six hours later you arrive at a warm house and can immediately take a hot shower. During the week, while you were absent, you were not wasting all that energy keeping your home warm and cozy and the water ready for that hot shower.
There are all kinds of home automation systems. The simplest is the programmable thermostat that many of us already have. While most can’t be remotely accessed, they do save energy and money. A system to handle the business trip scenario is more complex and does not come cheap.
Most new systems are wireless so the controls for the lights, furnace, hot water heater etc. do not need to be hard-wired. You do need to replace electrical outlets, switches, thermostats and any other device you want to have remote control over. Plan to pay about $35 for a regular light switch and about $100 for a switch to control a stove, oven or hot water heater.
You will also need to purchase a master controller. This device is either a stand-alone special purpose computer or a peripheral device that is attached to your home computer and the Internet. The controller sends signals to all the devices you control remotely. The higher the number of devices it can access, the more expensive it will be. You should plan on a minimum of about $250 for an entry level model.
The good news is that installation can be done by most anyone who is handy and able to replace a regular light switch or wall receptacle. You may need an electrician to handle the hot water tank module since you are dealing with higher voltages.
The good news is that you can start with controlling only a few energy hungry devices and add more as your budget and needs change. And there is always the “Wow Factor”
In the simplest form, home automation systems consist of three major components: a controller, various sensors and switches. With these components most everything in the house can be controlled remotely. You can use your home computer, your computer at work or your smart phone to set the thermostat, turn on lights, turn on the oven or open the front door. These systems have been very common in office buildings and other commercial building for years as they can save a ton of energy.
For example, if you are single and travel a lot on business you might install a system that allows you to control your heat and your hot water heater. You leave on Monday for a week-long business trip. Before you leave you set the heat to 50 degrees or so and turn off the hot water heater. Before you get on the plane at LAX for your return flight you can “call” your automation system and raise the temperature to 68 degrees and turn on the hot water. Six hours later you arrive at a warm house and can immediately take a hot shower. During the week, while you were absent, you were not wasting all that energy keeping your home warm and cozy and the water ready for that hot shower.
There are all kinds of home automation systems. The simplest is the programmable thermostat that many of us already have. While most can’t be remotely accessed, they do save energy and money. A system to handle the business trip scenario is more complex and does not come cheap.
Most new systems are wireless so the controls for the lights, furnace, hot water heater etc. do not need to be hard-wired. You do need to replace electrical outlets, switches, thermostats and any other device you want to have remote control over. Plan to pay about $35 for a regular light switch and about $100 for a switch to control a stove, oven or hot water heater.
You will also need to purchase a master controller. This device is either a stand-alone special purpose computer or a peripheral device that is attached to your home computer and the Internet. The controller sends signals to all the devices you control remotely. The higher the number of devices it can access, the more expensive it will be. You should plan on a minimum of about $250 for an entry level model.
The good news is that installation can be done by most anyone who is handy and able to replace a regular light switch or wall receptacle. You may need an electrician to handle the hot water tank module since you are dealing with higher voltages.
The good news is that you can start with controlling only a few energy hungry devices and add more as your budget and needs change. And there is always the “Wow Factor”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)