I try to say a lot while saying very little. Get used to it.
staying.interested
notes: buzzing around
Feb 17th
Posted by SEV in staying.interested
Google’s latest experiment – Buzz – has been launched to the world recently, with varying degrees of appreciation, hate, irritation and all the reactions that every new social idea is greeted with. Personally, it is a social media outlet/inlet that I can get on board with – seeing as how it integrates nicely into my existing Gmail/Google experience. It has its caveats though.. features/glitches/annoyances that I wish they had ironed out before getting it out the door:
- Google Reader posts can be easily imported to Buzz – and comments on Buzz are back-ported to Reader. However, liking and reading of Reader imports in Buzz are not back-ported into Reader. Irritating in some cases, when there’s nothing much to see. Good in other cases, as I may miss something/want to re-buzz something.
- Privacy settings from Reader are correctly applied for such posts (unsurprising, as the dashboard for Reader privacy is still through Reader) – so if I can’t comment on your shared item in Reader, I can’t in Buzz either. However, the status of those settings is not correctly shown in Buzz. Everything imported from Reader appears as ‘Public’, when in reality, only the item is public – the discussion ability is anything but for the ‘Public’.
- Google seems confused as to what they want to make Buzz. A single life-stream source that you check for all your social updates? Or just another interface to their social services – to popularize them more? I would have thought the former.
- Setting privacy settings in a particular way is not easy. Needs a lot of thought, as each Google service still makes use of its own privacy settings. For example, I didn’t want to see a particular person’s Reader shared items in Buzz. Unfollowing them has a global effect – I unfollow them on Reader too in the process. I ended up unfollowing them and adding the RSS feed of their shared items in Reader separately. Crude, but effective. Similar ideas have been suggested for re-buzzing.
- A cool idea is posting via email to Buzz, but the functionality is more of a status update than a post — more like short updates posted to Twitter. The power of length offered by Buzz is not exploited as the body text is ignored for such a Buzz update. Sad really, as would have been such a simple yet refreshing re-buzz idea.
- ‘@’ replies are nigh-impossible when you do not know the person’s Gmail ID that is associated with the Google profile.
- Muting is golden.
Feature requests I have galore: lists/groups support, ordering/collapsing messages, re-buzzing, additional import options into Buzz, selective streaming for my Buzz feed etc etc.
I’ve discovered whole hosts of new people (who have also discovered me) and have already had some interesting conversations using it. Most privacy complaints and issues I’ve read with are minor or non-existent: I firmly see BIG things in Buzz’s future.
If only it would get here faster.
(to be added to if I think of more)
Update (26 Feb 2010): Via Reader found a series of comments I had missed on a Reader-Buzz export. Searching through my Buzzes in Gmail showed me I muted this post. However, opening it up there does not show me any comments on it at ALL. According to this post muting a Buzz apparently mutes me from ALL future comments on that post in Buzz, to the extent that the related Buzz in my Gmail does not show the new comments after I muted it i.e. muting completely silences the Buzz conversation for me from that point on. Even if I’m ‘@’ mentioned in it. Need to use it more sparingly.
notes: what should be the real plan for the chrome os?
Nov 21st
Posted by SEV in staying.interested
The world has been talking about the Google Chrome OS. We have people saying ‘next big huge thing‘, and obviously, ‘next big huge steaming pile of crap‘.
Me, personally? I haven’t, and still don’t like the idea of Google having a browser on the market – it reeks too much of a company trying to ensure that they take over every part of the Internet (their proposing SPDY, which will best work in Chrome does not help matters). There have been a series of posts recently dealing with different facets of this particular takeover: the oncoming war, google’s war-winning strategy (+counter-point). The Chrome OS spells the onset of Google really taking the war to the big guys – M$, Apple, – and trying to ensure they have control at the level of OS.
Can it really succeed?
Dicey. Google has shown that even a relatively small move like releasing their own GPS (GPS software is just one step away from hardware, given phones today) really stuck it to the competition, as innumerable charts of stock prices have shown. On the flip side, that is a very specific market. Besides how much can an OS that is specific to one particular hardware set, has no storage except on the cloud, and no real UI really do? I do believe in cloud computing in a big way. As a backup. I doubt users really trust the cloud today. Even the generation that is growing up with Gmail and Google Docs being a reality from Day One (as opposed to us/me, the generation that saw the Internet take off 
), still does not live online. There is an offline component because the world is not online 24×7. Though the proliferation of smart-phones is changing that drastically, the world cannot do everything online just yet. I don’t think that can happen for a long long time to come. We still need our computers/laptops/notebooks – the thin client is a loooong way away - and in that sense, Google’s OS is doomed to failure in today’s world, even though it is visionary in heralding a pure cloud-based era.
), still does not live online. There is an offline component because the world is not online 24×7. Though the proliferation of smart-phones is changing that drastically, the world cannot do everything online just yet. I don’t think that can happen for a long long time to come. We still need our computers/laptops/notebooks – the thin client is a loooong way away - and in that sense, Google’s OS is doomed to failure in today’s world, even though it is visionary in heralding a pure cloud-based era.
What can the Chrome OS really achieve then? As Scoble pointed out, there is the “dumb device” market that need not do much more than access recipes (even if his estimate of $1000 is a bit off as a good price). Which can also be occupied by E-Readers like the Kindle, Nook and what have you. The Nook runs Android, meaning Chrome OS will then fight a losing battle against another Google product (anyone else smell monopoly?). Android is far far more extensible than Chrome can ever be, so that battle is lost before it begins.
There is one other market that struck me today as being perfect for the Chrome OS. The flash-based quickstart (or the pre-boot) OS. We have such things existing today in every single laptop, where at the press of a button you have a media center/web browser accessible within 7-10 seconds. As opposed to resume/start-up times of >30 seconds fore Windows 7 and Mac OS X [cat's name]. Its a tiny tiny margin that people don’t really care about – and so we don’t bother ever pressing that button. 2 reasons. OS media centers along with OS functionality is something people don’t mind waiting for – rather than have quick access to something crippled. Plus whatever browser/media player they offer is way way below par of anything usable. (Seriously. Have you tried any of them?).
What are the Chrome OS specs? Start-up time of 7-10 seconds. Browser available with Internet connectivity at the end of that. Easy access to Gmail, Docs, Lala, Hulu – essentially all the web apps. Basic media player functionality probably there in some manner (web-based or actual app unknown). No storage. Every single one of which fulfills all the requirements of a pre-boot OS. If we really are to hit that quickstart button on a laptop, most of us want to do one of 2 things properly: (1) quick access to personal e-mail, (2) media playback. Yes, in that order. Work cannot be something I do in a pre-boot. Chrome is a pretty decent browser, steadily gaining in features and speed (while ballooning in memory – just like Fx used to be). Infinitely better than the trash in pre-boots. And there are enough open-source media players out there to integrate into Chrome OS too. It all comes together perfectly.
Give up on the damn specific notebooks specifically pre-configured for Chrome OS and nothing else, Google. You have tie-ups with Dell, HP, Acer and so on to pre-install Chrome, Google Desktop etcetera. Tie-up for the pre-boot as well. Will users press that button? You have the hype already, work on that. There are definitely some curiosity presses of the quickstart button that will happen. It is near impossible to make an actual OS start up in the time-frame you are pushing for. Too many things to load up. There lies the killer move of this strategy: do NOT make Chrome able to do every single tiny thing. Read USB, Internet access, media. Thassit. That’s the basic stuff that you want people to use you for. Nothing more. You’re never going to be able to replace M$ or Apple. Ever. Plus you’re fighting with them on every other front anyway. But you can undercut them perfectly. And it’s a market they are not going to touch for a long time to come. Think of it this way: even if people use Chrome OS once or twice a week, that’s still a level of access that you don’t have today.
But is that enough?
Update: As Raghu pointed out below, there is a chance that the Chrome OS will merge with Android, in which case above strategy might still help them get a foothold in a market that they have no standing in. Additionally, a very in-depth look at the Chrome OS by Thurrott, a guy who is a big proponent of the cloud, and is actually already using it via Amazon.
notes: is the zune HD not awesome at all?
Sep 28th
Posted by SEV in staying.interested
[opinion due to : Betanews - Zune HD: The best portable media player you may never buy ]
Like many other reviews have done before him, the author demonstrates real love for the Zune HD. He also stresses limitations – both artificial and real – which apparently translate to it being the device that nobody will ever find utility for. This is a tack that a lot of people have taken when it comes to this device. I completely disagree.
The usual comparison is to the iPod Touch – which I think the HD was never a competitor for. The Touch focuses on gaming, apps, browsing – basically every single thing other than portable media playback. Speaking of which, most reviews are not terribly positive of the Touch’s media capabilities anyway. So if a player is launched with none of the above features, but with brilliant media capabilities – does it really become useless? So I can’t browse YT, I can’t perfectly sync my XBox with my HD, I can’t play a million-plus games. But wait, how far away are getting such features really? Mere firmware updates? Mere downloads? More importantly: are they really necessary for a PMP to be good at what it does? How often am I going to check email/sites on a PMP (which has only WiFi access – just like the Touch)? It is a misconception that if a player is sleek, big and touch-enabled it must be perfectly usable for browsing/internet. That is just wrong. That’s what smartphones/tablets/laptops are for. The Zune HD represents the true evolution of what media players are going to become – done well. Even considering Apple – why else would tech-blogs call for the retirement of the iPod classic, and an increase in storage for the iPod Touch?
I think when it comes to the Zune HD, M$ has just targeted a different market. To my knowledge the author is one of the few people who actually uses a Nokia N-series in the US – meaning he is actually conversant with the term: “true device integration”. For those who have simple phones and don’t know about integration (yes, lots of such people still exist, and especially so in the States) – the Zune HD offers a pretty awesome option. It is affordable, looks/feels beautiful, and has a very viable ecosystem which I am now convinced is a much better alternative to Apple’s. The large global market that M$ is not offering the Zune in currently – these are also places where the majority of the users have moved to device integration. I am not sure if a limited release is a bad thing necessarily; by the time it goes global it has a lot of chinks ironed out, lots of positive karma, more integration with M$ products etc. Even in device integrated markets, the Zune HD will then have an edge.
And remember M$ is in the process of opening stores. How long do you think people are going to go without knowing all about the HD? Before M$ makes it even easier for you to do everything in your home completely integrated with M$ products?
Not long at all.
Now if only some reviews would turn up that tell me more about the media capabilities of the player – audio quality, video fidelity etc. Funny how reviews of this PMP have not talked about that all.
notes: copyrights and comics
Sep 23rd
Posted by SEV in staying.interested
[Thoughts due to: io9: Who Created Spider-Man? ]
It is a deal-breaking case that has been filed against Marvel Comics, probably fueled by the recent success of Siegel vs DC for the Superman copyright (and the acquisition of Marvel by Disney too?). My own WTF was fueled by whether Spidey even belongs to this dispute (he probably doesn’t). The Superman case in itself is not completely without wtf-ness given the way the rights to Superman have been split up [link]:
…the Siegels have recaptured the rights to the first two weeks of the daily Superman newspaper strips, and portions of Action Comics and Superman comics. They apparently now control all depictions of Superman’s origin story, which means they now own Krypton, its fiery destruction, Jor-El and Lora, and Kal El. In 2008, the Siegels recaptured the rights to the Superman character (which includes his costume and his alter-ego of Clark Kent), Lois Lane, the Daily Planet, its gruff editor, and their love triangle. DC still owns Jimmy Olson, his ability to fly, Lex Luthor, kryptonite, and Superman’s expanded powers and origins.
Plus ALL rights revert to Siegel/Shuster (?) come 2013. Keep in mind this ruling is in spite of multiple previous rulings that the DC owned the rights to the character, and the fact that the creators had actually legally signed away the rights for $130 in 1938 “forever and all time”. Plus multiple previous not-so-small settlements by DC to the creators due to legal disputes. Admittedly I’m taking a simplified view of things, there are deep implications to the settlement.
The Kirby case, on the other hand, is a lot more wide-ranging for Marvel. Kirby worked on almost ALL Marvel’s characters (unlike the above case which is just about Superman). The dispute is over the copyrights and not trademarks, so the movies may remain unaffected (meaning the large majority won’t really care), but the comics may be significantly hit. One interesting point is that the original Kirby dispute was to do with his artwork – he never did get back all his original artwork from Marvel. Very little is said about who owns the character work he did (unlike Siegel who definitely signed his away).
Another thing that jumped out at me was that Kirby did not want to battle it out in court over copyrights. And now, suddenly, cases are being filed all over the place. I’m not really sure what the justification is when the original creator had no wish to do so. Would Kirby’s work be worth anything if Marvel did not publish/market it? Remember that Kirby has been paid for his work, has creator credit in most cases, and all this copyright business was nowhere even a year ago – when Marvel’s properties were just hitting the market. The timing for the case is impeccable given the Marvel movie roster and the acquisition.
Filing cases against the biggest players in the business is a routine matter now – maximum damage is guaranteed. For e.g. M$ has had issues with integrated browser and desktop search – even though Apple/Linux installs have the exact same strategy today! I agree that Marvel/DC may have shortchanged creators, but they must also be given credit for making their characters successful in multiple arenas. Worse of all, targeting their copyrights will first affect the fan-base that makes the movies possible – us comic book geeks. Why? We won’t get the characters we have supported any more. Is that really what their creators would like to see of their legacy?
My new series of posts via Reader. As promised. You’ve been warned.
