Dave Overton

Interesting predicament that Motorola finds themselves in, as the once heavyweight in the mobile phone market tries to reinvent themselves. I agree with most of this statement in this report via bloomberg:

“This is the computer that I carry with me at all times,” Sanjay Jha (Motorola CEO) said in an interview, brandishing an Atrix. “If there is one bet we’re making going forward, that’s the core of it.”

Step one is the Atrix 4G. Jha says mobile phones, rather than complementing a laptop or desktop, will displace them as the primary computing device for most people. He says the phone will trump tablets too, whether Apple’s iPad or his own Xoom.

I agree that mobile technology is going to be the wave of the future, however I think that tablets and phones both have their role in the future. While the functions are similar, I see the market and demand for each as separate and unique for the moment. I haven't seem technology that could in essence bridge the gap in modern production. The "webtop" feature of the Atrix is trying to bridge the gap by allowing this mobile device to imitate a desktop computer, which is more of a replication of past computing experience and not moving into the future. It is nice to see mobile technology given permission to function in this role though. 

The bigger issue that I see for Motorola (and for other companies choosing to use Google's Android) is distinguishing themselves while using someone else's work as the basis:

Jha’s challenge is to distinguish Motorola from companies such as Samsung and HTC that also use Android, available for free from Google. Yet Motorola’s strategy risks alienating Google. As Jha strives to make devices stand out, the variations threaten to splinter the platform, said Jonathan Yarmis, an independent technology consultant.

Motorola may begin making phones with other operating systems, in addition to Android. The company is considering Baidu and software called Wophone from China Unicom (Hong Kong) Ltd., said Jha.

Tough challenge indeed, especially considering that Google's Open model continues to Be Open?

I sincerely hope that Motorola is able to succeed in this strategy, as competition is good. They have made some considerable steps in the past few years, namely the Droid and the Xoom. Considering the Xoom is one of the few iPad competitors to actually be available in the market, it is quite the success at the moment.

 

The Emergency Alert System is the predecessor to the Emergency
Broadcast System, which most of us probably still recall from the
tests that would run occasionally on TV: "This is a test of the
Emergency Broadcast System. This is only a test."

These systems have been in place for over 40 years, typically the
alerts have been weather related alerts, such as Tornado warnings in
parts of the United States. While I concur that Radio and TV were
certainly the best forms of communication to the general public when
the EBS was started in 1963 and even when the EAS superseded the EBS
in 1997, and continue to serve a vast majority of the population. I
think today and in light of the recent tragedy in Japan, it is time we
reconsider the means of communication that these systems utilize. I
think Radio and TV should certainly be maintained within the system,
however I think we should also consider adding a form of technological
notification: email, SMS (text message), Twitter messages, push
notifications or other similar means.

In the Philippines, where I live, an estimated 80% of the population
as of early 2009 is a cellphone subscriber. I imagine that since 2009
this has only grown to a stronger market penetration. Television,
which is counted by households rather than individuals, has a 71%
market penetration in regards to Philippine Households. Facebook has a
much smaller total market penetration, due to limited access to
devices and connectivity to participate, however it is growing
rapidly. It is currently 22.67% of the total population.

In the United states, cellphone penetration as of 2010 is 93%.
Households with television are estimated at 115.9 million households,
which is to say that 99% of American households have a Television.
Facebook is growing but still estimated at only 49% of the population.

As I have stated, I am not saying that we should stop broadcasting via
existing means. Clearly Television is still very widely adopted in the
United States. However, the moments leading up to, or immediately
after an emergency or natural disaster are crucial and can literally
be the difference in life or death for many. Television and Radio are
great medians, however a user in essence needs to pull that
information by ensuring that the TV or RADIO is turned on and they are
watching/listening. SMS and other Push notifications are just that:
Pushy. Push technology is typically initiated by the publisher of the
message or the server. While EAS is partially push, it still requires
that you be actively watching or listening to the communication
median. SMS messages or other push notifications would mean that you
might be in the middle of a meeting and the notification will still
come through to your device. Most cellular or wireless carriers have
the ability to do this within their system, and I think we need to
ensure that Emergency Alert Systems can harness this same technology.

In my opinion, it is the inherent pushiness of this technology that
makes it ideal for Emergency warnings, as that quick, early and pushed
notification could very well save lives. The capability of an
Emergency Alert System to send warning messages in a unified Push
notification manner across multiple channels of communication
literally has the capability to save thousands of lives. I think we
need to revisit the technology that we are using in these systems, and
learn from these recent devastating events.

Sounds & looks like something straight out of a classic Bond film.

 

"Skylon" may only be at the concept stage but it could usher in a new era of space exploration and discovery, says its UK-based designers, Reaction Engines Ltd.

Key to the Skylon proposal is a hydrogen fuel-powered rocket engine called SABRE (Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine) designed by the company's managing director Bond, Alan Bond.

 

(emphasis mine.)

/via cnn.

 

Interesting Read from the OpenDNS Report. Highlights: Facebook is the #1 blacklisted website within their service. Facebook is the #2 whitelisted website within their service. Facebook is the #1 blacklisted website by business users - 23% Full Report

Top Ten Blacklisted Websites Blacklists are typically used when there is no desire to block an entire category in principle, but there is a focus on preventing traffic to specific websites based on a combination of their popularity and content. This top ten list suggests a concern with the use of bandwidth by streaming sites and with privacy concerns from advertising networks. Percentages indicate the proportion of networks using blacklisting that reference a given site. 1. Facebook.com —14.2% 2. MySpace.com — 9.9% 3. YouTube.com — 8.1% 4. Doubleclick.net — 6.4% 5. Twitter.com — 2.3% 6. Ad.yieldmanager.com — 1.9% 7. Redtube.com —1.4% 8. Limewire.com — 1.3% 9. Pornhub.com —1.2% 10. Playboy.com — 1.2%

Top Ten Whitelisted Websites Whitelists are typically used when there is a desire to block entire categories, but access to selected websites is granted on an exception basis. These sites represent the most trusted sites in their category. The fact that many of the same sites that appear on the Top Ten Blacklisted Websites list appear on the list below may indicate the diverse perspectives people have regarding many of these sites. Percentages indicate the proportion of networks using whitelisting that reference a given site. 1. YouTube.com — 12.7% 2. Facebook.com — 12.6% 3. Gmail.com — 9.2% 4. Google.com — 9% 5. Translate.Google.com — 6.3% 6. LinkedIn.com — 6% 7. MySpace.com — 4.7% 8. Skype.com — 4.6% 9. Deviantart.com — 4.3% 10. Yahoo.com — 3.9%

Facebook 'should mimic Apple app security restrictions'

The App Review process of Apple's App Store has been hounded for years, now security company Sophos recommends mimicking it. /via the BBC

Today marks the 6th day that my phone line and DSL line have been down. The main line leading into my area was cut and presumably the mission portion sold on the black market. I do a lot of work from home, so needless to say this has made things complicated. It did make me think about a time when an Internet connection was not always on. I recall even after having my own email account, that I would connect to check email then disconnect when finished. It is only more recently that when the connectivity is gone, you look at your computer and think "Well what do I do now?". Connectivity really has changed our world and continues to do so. However, in many parts of the world connectivity is not available to everyone...yet. It certainly is becoming more readily available and I believe that is a good thing. The people in the group who have yet to receive connectivity will in essence leap frog over an entire technological step (DSL/Broadband), as they will go from no connectivity directly to mobile internet connectivity. They will have no memory of the sounds of a dialup modem, a tech support agent asking you "Well, how many lights on your modem are on?", or the invention of broadband over Cable (TV). Honestly I don't think that's a bad thing!

A great piece by Douglas Rushkoff, who correctly unveiled the reality behind the AOL - Time Warner merger not too long ago with his: Signs of the Times piece, and now is posting a similar opinion on Facebook.

These companies are being valued as if they will be our permanent means for identifying ourselves.

Very true. The valuation of these companies is a shot in the dark at best. We have a very limited view of the actual business: revenues, operating expenses and most importantly accounting principles that are being followed.

So it's not that MySpace lost and Facebook won. It's that MySpace won first, and Facebook won next. They'll go down in the same order.

I do not think that Facebook is too big to fail, however it has grown at an astounding rate and depending on the definition of failure interpretations might vary. MySpace does appear to be in trouble. Whether the growth that Facebook has shown is sustainable, or will they begin to see users start to trickle away is the primary information that we are basing their success on. I feel this trickle will certainly occur, it depends on how big of a dip it is on their overall user base. Is user growth and the other limited information that we have provide enough information to accurately judge their success? I don't think so.

Yet social media is itself as temporary as any social gathering, nightclub or party. It's the people that matter, not the venue.

I do feel that social media is representative of a shift in our culture, but it often is over-hyped. However, I think that what many do not realize is that social media is in a lot of ways just another venue/market/stream. If we look at advertising expenditure, we can clearly see that the print sector has lost considerable revenue to online advertising. The questions we should be asking should focus on new business generation, new or increased advertising budgets and other factors such as an improved accessibility to advertising platforms and audiences for small and medium enterprises. If we have only seen a shift in advertising models, without an increase in expenditure, we have a stagnant market. I will leave you with his closing statement to contemplate:

The longer the company can maintain the illusion of great profits without alienating its user base, the longer they can delay the inevitable decline. But given that Facebook has already begun cashing in its chips, that moment has quite likely arrived.

Read the Full Article.

Now that Apple has officially launched the Mac App Store, I have been speculating about what is next. My speculation is not on the next product or OS feature per se, but further speculation about the possibilities that the Mac App Store have in that regard. The Store itself passed 1,000,000 downloads in the first day, and I concur with Shawn Blanc's post about the Simplicity that Apple is bringing to the OS. As I showed via the raw numbers in my previous post: Apple's Historical 1st Days. Apple has a history of using technology to create easy-to-use markets/platforms. In regards to this post, and probably to Apple in general, the terms Usability and Simplicity can be interchanged. Apple brought simplicity to the MP3 player. - You cannot deny the simplicity and success of the iPod & iTunes combination. Apple brought simplicity to the music purchasing arena. - Just think about this: Prior to the iTunes Music Store, how could you possibly purchase only a single song from an album that was not released as a single? Apple brought simplicity to the Phone & Mobile Software. - This is not about if Apple was first or if Apple is Best. Apple made it Simple. It is that simplicity that has given them a large market share. My mom uses an iPhone, and I am sure you have non-technical friends and relatives who do so as well. The iOS App Store has put a lot of amazing apps into the hands of both the technical and non-technical alike, with a simplicity that is astounding when you really consider what is going on behind the scenes. Apple now appears to be bringing that Simplicity to Mac OS X. As Shawn states:

It used to be that buying and installing an app was a chore. But now, with the Mac App Store, it’s as simple as finding an app you want and clicking a button. Just like buying a song or renting a movie in iTunes. The whole experience is familiar, easy, and even a little bit fun.

I completely agree. What if Apple does not just stop there? What if they bring the simplicity of the Mac App Store to updating your OS between major releases? (i.e. 10.6 -> 10.7) What if OS X 10.7 could be purchased and downloaded via the Mac App Store? Consider these items:

• Applications that are available in the iOS Store and now the Mac App Store can easily be downloaded, installed, & updated across multiple computers.
• Your iOS device's OS can be updated with relative ease and simplicity, even for major iOS releases.
• Apple recently released the Software Reinstall Drive with the MacBook Air. Further moving away from Optical Disc Technology, which is still the primary platform for OS distribution.

The primary drawback is an argument similar to other cloud computing services: if your Mac crashed, you had no backup or Software Reinstall Drive/Disc or Internet Access what do you do? Since your OS is now in the cloud waiting to be downloaded via the Mac App Store, it could be complicated. Presumably this is a marginal risk, but as opposed to just Applications, this is the core OS. Further, I feel that the Software Reinstall Drive will continue to be prioritized over Optical Discs, and hope that these drives will also be used for standard distribution of major OS releases, if the Mac App Store is not. Overall I think that providing Major OS X Updates via the Mac App Store does bring simplicity for the everyday Mac user who appears to be the primary target audience of the Mac App Store. I hope to see 10.7 launched via the Mac App Store.

iTunes Music Store - April 28, 2003 First 18 Hours - 275,000 Tracks Sold iPhone App Store - July 11, 2008 First 72 Hours - 10,000,000 Downloads Mac App Store - January 6, 2011 First 24 Hours - 1,000,000 Downloads (sources: Wikipedia, Apple PR, Apple PR)

One of the great products that came out in 2010 has to be Google Font Directory/API. One of the most difficult parts of working in Web Design & Development has been the gap between fonts that are websafe and fonts that designers or worse, clients, want to use. For years, the solution has been to use images, flash or other workarounds to display the font. Since fonts are based on the user's installed fonts, just relying on installation base is not a good idea. While these past workarounds might achieve the desired look, the disadvantage to this approach is web usability and standards. For example if you have to design links/buttons in an image editor every time you want to change something on the site, it becomes a multi-step process, as opposed to just adjusting the text. There have been solutions to this issue recently, including a promising offering from Typekit. The technology and availability of these solutions is simply amazing, and it allows higher levels of web usability within the proven framework of web standards. However, now that Google has stepped into the room, you can freely use any of the listed fonts that they have licensed freely. What does this mean? It means that we have come a long way from the old multi-step process to use styled fonts simple on websites. For a sample, check out http://sym.ph.