TomsTechBlog.com

It's hard to say these days

*Sigh*

clock November 30, 2009 16:19 by author Tom

So the Crunchpad is dead.  The details matter very little so I won’t quote but this really hits me where it hurts.  People think I’m being over dramatic (and maybe I am) but I’m honestly thinking of taking the rest of the day off.

(Yes I’m at work now and yes I post from work on occasion.  I work an average of 68 hours a week and I’m on salary so I only get paid for 40 so I get to update from work on occasion if I feel like it)

Let me try to explain. 

There’s a lot that can be done with a tablet.  I won’t go in to the work I’ve been doing over the past couple of years except to say it has convinced me that our computing world is constructed wrong primarily because many devices are trying to do too much.  As we rely on computing more and more the world is going to realize what I have which is that there are actually two types of devices: Input/Output and Passive view. 

In other words devices that are designed primarily for input but which can be used to view things and devices that are designed to view but can take minimal input.

Tablets are the ideal form for a “passive view” device.  They’re thin, can take very basic input (enough to find and view what you want) and can be carried around relatively easy.  More to the point they mimic an old world device that people already carry around (the paper notebook).  This is a big world that has yet to be opened up for people.  

(Microsoft Tablets don’t count because they’re trying to shove an input/output device into what should be a passive view device.  That’s why they’ve always failed)

No other device holds the promise of a passive tablet right now.  For various reasons they all are missing something (decent browser is the biggest culprit for the current crop of tablets). 

At this point every time I tell this story I get the same response: What about the Apple Tablet?

Here’s the thing.  It’s become en vogue to bash Michael Arrington.  I’ve personally come under attack just for daring to defend him on occasion.  But the reality is he’s at the top of his industry (tech blogs) and he still treats most people well.  He still links to other blogs, he still tries to be open, etc…

(Somewhere Duncan Riley is gritting his teeth and he doesn’t know why.  But I specifically said “most people” to acknowledge the alleged back channel hijinx)

That’s important.  Even if Michael Arrington is the horrible person some accuse him of being behind closed doors it doesn’t matter.  In public he tries to be open and treat people well.

Apple is just the opposite.

I’ve made the case over and over again that no business can really deal with Apple.  I love their devices as a consumer but as a responsible business person I couldn’t purchase hardware from them because I know they don’t care about me.  I know they’ll change things arbitrarily and not give a damn how much it costs me to accommodate those changes.

The Crunchpad had a simple concept which was to design a tablet completely around the web and that made it an ideal platform for realizing the dream of a passive tablet.  Because it's virtually without risk. The web is open and that gives  you certain guarantees.  Guarantees you just can’t get from Apple.  Again, you just can’t buy 100 Apple Tablets and hope Apple decides not to screw you. 

Anyway, that’s my Crunchpad story and that’s why I’m sad today.



Seriously Agitating

clock November 20, 2009 13:47 by author tom

While I was writing the last post I turned on the radio to find two…TWO…of my local radio stations have already gone all Christmas music.  I love the Christmas season but I am not ready for it yet and I don’t need the reminder.



Google Chrome (or something like it) Will Take Over…Bet On It!

clock November 20, 2009 13:45 by author Tom

 Why Chrome OS will fail – big time.  That’s the title of Randall Kennedy’s article over at Infoworld (which made it to the top of Techmeme no doubt based partially on the controversial title).  Now his first couple points aren’t bad and Google very well might pay for building their new device on a Linux foundation.  But his third point, the gist of which is quoted below, is incorrect…

And that's where I believe the Chrome OS ultimately fails. In its effort to pare the traditional OS model down to the bone, Google has thrown out the one characteristic that made Windows and, to a lesser extent, Mac OS X and full-blown Linux successful: flexibility.

Simply put, the Chrome OS is too narrow. It assumes that the world is ready to give up the traditional personal computing paradigm and live full time in the cloud. In reality, most users prefer a hybrid existence, with some of their data and applications stored locally, and others -- typically the freebies, like Gmail -- hosted online.

Perhaps the easiest way to put the Chrome OS into context is by comparing it to the OS it's designed to supplant: Microsoft Windows. Like the Chrome OS, Windows lets you boot your system, surf the Web, and manage your data. Unlike the Chrome OS, Windows also lets you run rich, local applications and services -- and do so on the hardware of your choosing.

I don’t disagree but this is just short sighted. 

It assumes everything in the future will have to fit one model which is where the world has gone wrong.  Personal Computers have their place in the world and I don’t believe that will ever go away.  These kind of “do anything” devices are what people are used to and I don’t think the public is willing to give that up (at least not for some time). 

But not everything is a PC.

That logic has to end because the world can not go on like this for much longer.  The PC’s ability to do anything has opened it up to loads of instability and because people are building other systems (Corporate PCs, Phones, Cars, etc…) like PCs they are embedding that instability into our very society.  I mean, throw away conventional wisdom and ask yourself this: Why do Corporate PCs work like Home PCs?  Or Why did Microsoft build Windows CE on a PC model? 

Why can every function of a computing device bring the whole device down in a way that keeps its owner from using it for days?

Google’s ChromeOS Security Model gets us away from this.  It says “If we can just work on making the Chrome browser stable then you don’t have to worry about the rest”.  Your computer will keep going no matter what hits it and, at worst, fixing it will require a reboot.  That’s what the world needs. 

That’s really my point.  Chrome is a long term play to take the non-PC device by storm.  So if you’re seeing this through the lenses of “Personal Computer” you’re really missing the point.  This is really about the devices that people want to "just work" not the ones they want to personalize.

That said, in order to really get that point, I think some historical context is in order.  I think it shines an important light on what’s going on here.  But if you agree with the above you can feel free to skip the rest of this post (or at least skip to the last paragraph) 

Years and years ago a nation of Finance guys decided computers from IBM were too expensive.  IBM’s almost never crashed but they cost a bundle and new software took close to a decade to come out.  Then one day these little things called Personal Computers came out.  They were no where near as reliable as the IBM devices but they got the job done and they were cheap.

Understand, these guys couldn’t conceive of a world wide network connecting all computers or the various malware, trojans, et al. that would use that network as a carrier.  These are the days when Bill Gates allegedly said no one would ever need more than 640k of memory (Gates swears he never said this but if he had very few would have thought twice about it)

All these guys wanted was to deploy their Lotus 1-2-3 to as many people as possible. 

But these are the guys who handed Microsoft its current monopoly.  They chose to put up with a few crashes a day in order to get computing power to the masses and set the world on a path where a little instability was acceptable to get the job done.  The field of computing has spent decades cleaning up that mess and, to date, the mess is still there.  My computer does lock up from time to time (as does my cell. phone, TV, etc…).  It does get attacked by viruses as well.  And so on.

Which brings me back to where I started.  This has to come to an end.  People can’t live like this.  As technology moves into more and more places something simpler and more stable has to take over and the only way to do that is to trust the cloud (because there’s no way to wipe the thing clean unless your data is safe somewhere else). 

Chrome isn’t about next year or even the year after that.  No one in their right mind would bet on netbooks as the future of humanity.  But it is about Google showing the world a new way of computing and earning the world’s trust.  If Google can make Chrome work perfectly on a netbook you can look for other device makers to start incorporating it into their systems before you know it.



Live Blogging ChromeOS

clock November 19, 2009 16:50 by author Tom

I had a fun little experiment going here where I tried to live blog the ChromeOS announcement but it’s a skill and I don’t have it.  It’s better left to the Pros.  Like those at Engadget…

http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/19/live-from-googles-chrome-os-project-announcement/

Here’s the Marketing Video…

I’ll have an opinion once I digest.



A Silver Lining For Microsoft…

clock November 18, 2009 23:00 by author Tom

Today Microsoft announced the availability of Silverlight 4.0 (BETA). Tim Heuer has the best Silverlight 4.0 post I can find on the web.

That’s right, we’ve released an early beta of the next version of Silverlight.  It’s really amazing to think what the team is accomplishing at the pace they are accomplishing it!  Silverlight 3 released just over a year ago and here we are with yet another release full of features that our community has been asking for.

Just to underline that point let me show you just how fast Microsoft is iterating on Silverlight. 

Silverlight 1.0 – Released 04/08/08

Silverlight 2.0 – Released 10/14/08

Silverlight 3.0 – Released 07/28/09

Silverlight 4.0 – Released First Half of 2010

That’s a rapid release schedule.  Hopefully this means Microsoft is finally realizing just how valuable Silverlight is. 

Wait…let me clarify that.

Microsoft already realized Silverlight was pretty valuable but hopefully they are starting to realize Silverlight could very well save their company.  The Silverlight plug-in, not Azure, is the only thing Microsoft has that could someday grow into a platform the world uses (and in doing so replace Microsoft’s Windows Monopoly).

(without going too much into my thoughts on Azure’s problems you can get an idea here)

Here’s the thing.  Almost no one is developing desktop apps anymore.  You have Office Apps, Games, a few Intuit apps and the bargain basement (Software under $20 or custom software originally written a decade or more ago).  Other than that everything is moving towards a web model.

Now HTML 5 is great and it will probably do just fine for many websites.  But complex websites and web based software is going to need an environment that doesn’t make software developers feel like the tools they’re using are from the 90s. 

Silverlight allows Microsoft to leverage Visual Studio and give all those ex-Desktop developers an alternative to HTML and Javascript.  An alternative that looks and acts like the tools they’re used to but still gets the job done.   In doing that Silverlight gives Microsoft a good shot at keeping those Windows developers “in the fold” as development moves to the web. 

Microsoft still has a way to go before Silverlight’s up to retaking the enterprise market.  But if they can keep up this pace for a little while longer I think they just might make it happen.

Addendum: I forgot to mention it above but kudos to the Developer relations folks for already having instruction videos for the new features: http://silverlight.net/learn/videos/silverlight-4-beta-videos/



Fox News Cracks Down, Everyone Misses The Point

clock November 14, 2009 17:55 by author Tom

Gawker posts an article today on Fox News banning its clips from YouTube.  Their first assumption, one that’s shared in the liberal blogging community, was to assume Fox was targeting liberal bloggers. 

Which, granted, these clips did belong to Fox, and they were well in their rights to have them taken down, as specified by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So how do we know this is a politically-motivated move by Fox to hinder the liberal blogosphere's ability to make fun of them? Because plenty of Fox News clips are still available on YouTube—only on conservative-leaning channels: GlennBeckDailyClips, for example has more than 630 clips of, well, the Glenn Beck Program. And ConservativeNation has 186 stomach-churning videos from the whole spectrum of quality Fox News programing. Also: Duh, Fox News would totally do something like this.

Well it turns out that isn’t something Fox News would totally do.  From an update to the original Gawker post…

It appears that both GlennbeckClipsDaily and ConservativeNation YouTube accounts are now "suspended". A commenter claiming to be the owner of ConservativeNation says: "it seems as though Fox is hell bent getting ALL their clips off You Tube..I don't think this is aimed specifically at liberals." That could certainly be true—but the fact that these accounts didn't go down until after this article went up still suggests a preference for targeting liberal channels. (ConservativeNewMedia—a popular conservate channel that wasn't mentioned originally in this article—remains active. Let's see it it goes down now!)

 

So it wasn’t about liberal bloggers after all (and Gawker thinks way too much of it's relative importance).  But once you know this isn't about politics the story that emerges is an even bigger one.  Try this: Combine Fox News cracking down on YouTube clips with the story from earlier this week in which Rupert Murdoch (Chairman of News Corp. which owns Fox News) said he intended to block Google from crawling News Corp’s content in “a few months”.  Now we get a story with far bigger implications.

The real story here is that Rupert Murdoch wasn't bluffing.  He's no longer content to sit on the digital media sidelines with the rest of the mainstream media. 

For years the traditional media has been trying to find a way to profit off the digital age.  Embracing digital media to a small extent and hoping it will eventually grow into something that will produce as much profit as their traditional revenue model.  But it hasn’t worked and it’s pretty clear it never will.  The New York Times has embraced the web more than any other media company and their net profits are in a free fall. 

So the traditional media has been stuck between a rock and a hard place.  The web’s takeover seems  inevitable but the traditional media operations can’t survive as web only businesses.

Which is why Rupert Murdoch is making his stand.  He’s going to fight to preserve his traditional market and take the risk of losing out on being a dominant web company.  That means blocking Google, banning YouTube clips, and so on…

When you think about it, despite all the web pundits who condemn him, the strategy isn’t a bad one.  News Corp. can’t survive as a web company anyway so embracing the web (like the New York Times has done) doesn’t get him where he wants to go. 

So why not try to preserve the market he has?  It’s unlikely it will work but if it does he’s a king and if it doesn’t he’ll just lose his money in the same way he would have had he embraced the web.  When you really think about it there’s almost no risk. 



On Not Posting...

clock November 9, 2009 01:31 by author Tom

So I haven't posted to this blog much lately.

At first I thought it was me. I've been really busy at work lately and the Holidays are coming up which presents an extra push for me (I tend to work a normal schedule during the Holidays as opposed to my normal 65 hour week so I have to work a little extra hard in preparation) But then I made a point of forcing myself to write on the next topic I found interesting.

And...nothing came along.

I don't know if it's the recession or if it's just a slow period but there just isn't a lot for me to post on. Most of what's going on in the tech blogosphere has boiled down to a few basic concepts...

  • Pre-Release products we know nothing about (Apple Tablet, Next Gen iPhone, CrunchPad and Android up until it was announced)
  • Personality Clashes with no philosophical issue at their root (see the most recent dustup with Michael Arrington and Zynga)
  • Posts that stretch out a simple point into multiple pages worth of posts (Yes, Google Wave is a little confusing but I don't think that trait justifies 4 or 5 posts)
  • Fluff Pieces (Why Facekbook will rule the Internet, 30 Predictions for Twitter's Future, etc...)

Honestly I don't know how to comment on any of those things. Which is why the blog's been dead lately. Hence this post. I'll be the first to admit this post is largely just a sign post for this blog saying "Hey look, this isn't an abandon Blog". For those who e-mailed thanks for the concern (and for reading at all which is humbling in itself)

I'll be around (hopefully more often) in the future.



About Me

Not really relevant right now. This blog is on hiatus. I really haven't decided if it is an indefinite hiatus yet

For the record if you've tried to e-mail me over the last 4 to 6 months I didn't mean to ignore you. The e-mail forwarding isn't working and I didn't realize that until months worth of e-mails had been deleted on forward. The tom@tomstechblog.com address still won't forward to the postmaster account and I don't know why because it's provided by the webhost. But if you're one of my old blog pen pals I would always welcome an e-mail from you at the postmaster@tomstechblog.com address

Contact

- E-Mail Tom

Search

Subscribe

- Subscribe to this Blog

Calendar

<<  June 2013  >>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2627282930311
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30123456

Archive

Tags

Categories


Blogroll

    Disclaimer

    The opinions expressed herein are my own personal opinions and do not represent my employer's view in anyway.

    © Copyright 2013

    Sign in