Windows 8: First impressions

Windows 8 Screenshot

Hooray for Microsoft. Their view of a Windows 7 tablet world nearly had me worried. However, coming from the labs for a surprising public demo this week was a pre-release of Windows 8. Apparently, Ballmer wasn’t lying when he gave some precursory remarks about upcoming Windows releases last week.

Albeit an interesting new release, my take from the demo is nothing short of Microsoft's attempt to embrace the tablet world without forsaking the traditional, legacy operating environment and applications we’ve been used to for some twenty-five years now. Does it pull it off? Meaning, is it just regular-old Windows with a sketchy touch skin on top? And does it make more sense to combine the flexibility of the desktop into a tablet device rather than build a completely separate tablet OS altogether? We can only know when the final build is released, but for the time being, let’s explore this a little more.



Before today, we all knew that Microsoft was working to make Windows support ARM-based processors. With that only foreshadowing what was to come, it seemed that they still had not learned their lesson that desktop operating systems do not fit on small, touch-based devices. Windows, as it is today, is simply too clunky and cannot compete on a functional level with touch-based products like the iPad or any recent Android tablet.

However, it looks as if they are trying their damnedest to get the best of both worlds for future Windows products. That’s right. We can assume there will be no separate operating environment called the Windows Tab for the tablet, as Windows Phone is to the phone.

In the demos, however, Windows 8 does act like like Windows Phone—live tiles and all—but it may not necessarily be based on the same code. Instead, it seems to be a layered system, where Windows still runs underneath (hopefully with some much needed tweaking and slimming down), but in the forefront you see a “Start” screen like never before. While looking a little like Windows Media Center, tiles are scattered across the screen, just as in Windows Phone. In this UI, you can have news and social media tiles, widgets and other apps all displaying information so you don’t have to fire up each particular application to get what you want—a design feature touted heavily by Windows Phone marketing campaigns.

Again, the system does run a traditional Windows desktop underneath, but the entire OS is said to be completely redesigned for touch input. If you have used a HP TouchSmart PC with Windows 7, then you know exactly how important this is.

Other things of note is a completely new soft keyboard, which seems to work quite well, and also the ability to run touch apps right next to mouse and keyboard apps. It’s hard to tell without using the product whether or not this has any realistic use. But from a technology-advocate's standpoint, it's good to see that Microsoft isn't afraid to try something new, and I think this is a step in the right direction. Only time and money will tell if this is the answer consumers and professionals are looking for.

Radio will not survive the Internet

SModcast.com streaming Internet radio

This morning on the drive to my favorite breakfast joint, I tried something I haven't done in months. I tried to listen to the radio. Scrolling through the many stations, I looked for anything to catch my attention—music, talk radio, anything.

We all know radio sucks. Anybody I ever talk to about it all say the same thing: "All the stations play the same old crap over and over again." This was never more apparent than this morning when all I heard was the same cheesy Madonna song, "Like a Prayer," again and another station, which seems to have Miley Cyrus's "The Climb" on freaking repeat. From there, still going along the FM dial, I passed at least three spanish stations, and everything else in between was commercials.

Hoping for something better in the AM world, I switched over only to immediately get an ear-full of Glenn Beck. Typically, he doesn't really bother me that much, but for some reason, his voice was simply too irritating to me this morning, and I wasn't really in the mood to be preached to. Switching around the spectrum, I found a couple more Spanish-speaking programs and more commercials, until I found the best thing I had heard all morning: a jazz station. How bad is it when jazz, also known as elevator music, is the best choice for one's car-ride entertainment?

The jazz lasted for about 30 seconds before I gave up.

I couldn't help but be amazed at what garbage this medium is now. This is it? This is the best that radio has to offer? Seriously?

If radio has any real hope of surviving, networks need to focus on excellent content and real professional radio personalities that can drive listenership. Just take Adam Carolla, for example. Recently, he decided to keep doing his free podcast than to take a 7-figure salary to start a new radio gig in his hometown of Los Angeles. That's saying a lot. Beyond just competing with a censorship-free satellite radio, now podcasting has made it to the mainstream of broadcasting that will eventually take over as the premiere medium for listening entertainment.

Never has that been more obvious than now. Look at Pandora, a personalized music service playing only the music you like. And Stitcher, a mobile application for streaming internet radio shows and podcasts over the Internet. This is the generation of ubiquitous, on-demand content—content that listeners choose and support.

Not to mention, most traditional radio stations are broadcasting their content over the Internet now, too.

Soon after this debacle in my car, I opened up the Stitcher app on my iPhone and loaded up one of my favorite new podcasts, Jay and Silent Bob Get Jobs, from S.I.R. (SModcast Internet Radio)—a show that wouldn't exist without the Internet and is completely void of network executives telling people what they can or cannot say or do in their show.

Goodbye radio. We will never speak again.

We may someday have to explain to our grandkids about archaic things called "light switches"

Android@Home

Much like 2010, this year's Google I/O conference made quite a number of new announcements, some projects still under development, and some of which may never see the market. Though Google may seem like it is developing a lot of concept-only products, that still doesn't diminish the excitement us geeks enjoy when we hear news like this.

Google is looking to extend the Android operating system beyond the phones, tablets, and even the TVs it currently ships in. First, the Android Open Accessory platform, which is an open peripheral development protocol based entirely on USB, will allow Android devices to plug into any hardware from third party manufacturers. Second, and even more interesting, is a new project called Android@Home.

Android@Home is Google's new concept product for home automation. The only place you've ever really seen home automation is in movies, where the bad guy's underground layer can be operated with voice commands and/or from an exquisite-looking control panel. In real life, however, home automation has never seen mainstream adoption. Previously developed systems either weren't that great, or you'd had to be Donald Trump to afford anything like it.

To give you a taste of what Google is proposing, chew on this: light switches could soon be a thing of the past. Let's imagine the possibility of placing tiny radio receivers in light bulbs that respond to the electronic cues of the automation system—a system that of course can be operated by Google Voice and its advanced voice-recognition technology.

Pretty cool, right? But that begs the question: I know that technology is supposed to make our lives easier, but how hard is flipping a switch to begin with?

via [Engadget]

Adam Carolla turns down 7-figure radio deal to continue his successful free podcast

Podcasting is an interesting new media outlet. Everybody is jumping on the bandwagon—comedians, radio personalities, professionals and amateurs alike—but no one knows where the format will lead or what implications it may have on the whole of the entertainment industry. Struggling with legitimacy in the face of traditional media, podcasting has yet to be seen as a great money-maker beyond modest advertising dollars and its uses as a practical marketing tool for artists and entertainers. But that hasn't stopped comedian podcaster Adam Carolla who has found a large, devoted audience.

While podcasts are inherently 100-percent free, how does a professional entertainer capitalize on this exciting new medium? That is the question facing Carolla, the voice of the number one downloaded comedy podcast on iTunes, The Adam Carolla Show.

Recently on his show, Adam revealed a surprising revelation about turning down a radio deal that had been in the works for over a year. Soon after Adam as well as many other top radio personalities were let go from their jobs in in early 2009, Adam and a couple of his old radio buddies decided to embark on the podcasting venture. From its start, the podcast steadily gained momentum. During that time, he was approached with a possible deal for his own syndicated radio show—one that included a guaranteed three-year, seven-figure salary in a time where Adam says, "Radio jobs are gone... You may as well be in the saddle-making industry." About a year later, the plans and paperwork were finally put in motion, and the radio gig looked like it was sitting on go. Recently, however, Adam was faced with an internal struggle on what to do with his successful podcast almost two years after its inception. Would he take guaranteed money and security of radio and possibly forsake his audience and the podcast format? Or would he continue what he had started and see what the future holds?

Since starting the podcast in August 2009, the show has garnered a large and loyal audience willing to support it. Adam cites a recent business deal with Amazon.com that made a profound impression upon him about his fans and the opportunities the podcast may hold in the future. Just by clicking on an Amazon.com banner on AdamCarolla.com before they buy something, listeners have been supporting the podcast in droves.

Adam's decision to continue podcasting is step #1 in the paradigm shift from traditional media. Podcasts, in part, feed a pervasive hunger for more on-demand content, which in turn gives more power to consumers as well as producers of media and entertainment. As the podcast's sound engineer "Bald" Bryan said on the show after this revelation, "You know, years from now, this could be a watershed podcasting moment... 'A-list radio star turns his back on golden offering.'"

I agree. It's sort of a historical moment. As a fan of Adam myself, I'm proud of his decision, and I wish him all the best in the future.

In another one of his famous/infamous analogies, Adam sums his decision up in true, Ace-Man fashion: "It's like when a guy says, 'I like fat chicks.' You didn't walk past Uma Thurman to get to the fat chick. You're fat yourself, and that's about all you could pull at this party. But this is me parting the supermodels to get to you—the fat chick, the podcast listener."

The best tech podcast: This is my next Podcast

If you like technology, industry news, and like to laugh, then let me recommend a podcast. It's called This is my next Podcast. The name is odd, I know; it actually refers to an inside joke. But this is the best podcast you can find for your money (it's free). Trust me, you want to give this one a listen.

It features the gang that formerly ran the Engadget Podcast: Joshua Topolsky (seen often on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon), Paul Miller, Nilay Patel, and friends. Informative (sometimes) and entertaining (all the time), I look forward to these guys' ramblings every week. Topolsky, the head geek, is like the that quirky, yet funny friend you like to keep around because there's always something witty on the tip of his tongue. Patel always has an interesting point of view, seemingly able to make really technical stuff easy to understand and digest. And Miller, a little outspoken, attempts to be the logic of the bunch, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.

Regardless of some shortcomings, there isn't anything better. I've looked. That is until I start my own podcast...

Overall, listening to this podcast is kind of like being delivered a broken or neglected UPS package, but the delivery guy is super funny and cool. You'll look forward to each week just to see what that quirky delivery guy is going to say.

This is my next (website)
This is my next Podcast (iTunes link)

Perspective: T-Mobile can be bought for $39B, Apple has over $50B in cash.

Pending all the necessary government approvals, AT&T announced today their plans to buy US GSM competitor T-Mobile for $39 billion. Without going into all the politics as to whether or not this is overall a good idea or benefit to consumers, I felt it was worth mentioning just what $39 billion dollars can actually purchase.

Though a follower of all things tech, I have a not-so-unique fascination with Apple, that company which sells those i-Thingies. Pretty much everyone is just as fascinated as I when Apple steals headlines for each shiny new toy. And one thing that most people know as of late is just how quickly Apple's cash reserves seem to continuously build. Last reports have their cash piles weighed in at a cool $51 billion. That's a heck of a lot of money. What drives journalists even crazier than the mind-boggling number alone is that nobody knows for sure what Apple plans to do with it. There have been some guesses; however, most of us sit and wait for them to take over the world.

But let's take another look at that number: $51 billion. In pure cash. No debt. A market valuation soon to pass Exxon to be the most valuable company in the world. And unlike the animosity most have toward Exxon, Apple and Steve Jobs have been named the most admired and loved company and CEO of last decade. What does all this mean? It means that that pile will continue to grow, and all the while Apple seems to have the highest restraint not to impulse-buy any thing they like, say, a leading wireless provider...

Of course, that's not their bag, being a carrier, but it does offer some perspective as to just what they're capable of doing with that money. Maybe they could buy Microsoft?

What's the deal with this WebM stuff?

If you watch video online, then this concerns you. However, I must say, I didn't quite know what I was getting into with this. The whole WebM, H.264 debacle is confusing, to say the least. With that in mind, let's get on with it...

Google is big. They seem to have their hands into everything nowadays: search, email, numerous online services, operating systems both mobile and desktop (Android and Chrome OS), mobile phones and tablets, browsers, and home entertainment (Google TV).

Say what you will about the apparent failure of Google TV (in its current iteration), but it is certainly a step in the right direction. Internet video is the future of all broadcast content, and were slowly but surely finding our way there. The question is then, how will internet video be embedded and implemented and which of the many codecs out there will become the de facto standard (if there must be one) for a wide range of TVs and devices?

The Internet as a content vehicle
Currently, Flash and H.264 are the primary options for internet video. But Flash is specifically an Adobe product, and H.264, though having many supporters, has licensing fees associated with its use in commercial products -- or it had licensing fees. As of August 2010, the MPEG Licensing Authority claimed it will allow royalty-free internet broadcasting for an indefinite period -- keyword indefinite. That means somewhere down the line, once everyone has comfortably settled into use of H.264, they could impose fees again on its implementation. And that ain't good. So, it seems only natural that another company or group of companies would gather in support of a new codec that is completely open and has no fees. That format is called WebM.

Google subsequently has dropped native support for H.264 in its Chrome browser, just as Firefox never had it, who had even petitioned the HTML 5 board for previous versions of Ogg Theora to be the default codec for embedded HTML 5 video. That never came to fruition, and rightly fully so; other than its openness, Ogg Theora wasn't that great compared to competing technologies.

However, I look at it all as a matter of control. Who is or will eventually control the container in which we are all delivered content? And if there is an open source, license-free codec we can all use, will it be the best? We can all agree that H.264 works great -- it results in quality content, small file sizes and even allows for hardware acceleration for pumping out HD video so our devices don't break a sweat. But will WebM do any of that?

Those are my concerns, so in order to understand the situation as much as possible, let's learn together while we answer questions I had in this process and how it will affect you and I both.

What is WebM?
WebM is a media file format and container for internet content that is royalty free. It is defined as a combination of the video codec based on a technology bought from On2 by Google called VP8 and the Vorbis audio codec.

Who works on and supports the development of WebM?
Well, this one's a toughie. VP8 is a video codec open for development for anyone that wants to contribute, but currently Google is pushing for its progress and adoption more so than anyone else in the industry now.

Is it better than the codecs in use today? How efficient is it for HD content?

Here's a chart from streamingmedia.com comparing the performance:

In this head-to-head comparison, the VP8 codec is lower in terms of visual quality, though to the typical user, it isn't that noticeable. What is noticable, however, is amount of processing power it sucks from your CPU. Playing a 720p video encoded in both H.264 and WebM formats, WebM across different machines required substantially more hardware resources to play similar files.

In response to results like these, the FAQ page on the webmproject.org website says:

"WebM playback seems to use a lot of processor resources on my computer. Why is this?

WebM decoding speed and browser rendering performance have improved significantly since our first release in May, 2010. Members of the WebM community and our partners are working hard on further performance improvements."

Additionally, coming from certain veteran codec developers, the VP8 codec specifications are a mess. If you'd like to dive real deep into this issue, you might want to read this and this. Here's a summary from said individual, Jason Garrett-Glaser, the current primary x264 developer and a ffmpeg developer:

"VP8, as an encoder, is somewhere between Xvid and Microsoft’s VC-1 in terms of visual quality.  This can definitely be improved a lot.

VP8, as a decoder, decodes even slower than ffmpeg’s H.264.  This probably can’t be improved that much; VP8 as a whole is similar in complexity to H.264.

With regard to patents, VP8 copies too much from H.264 for comfort, no matter whose word is behind the claim of being patent-free.  This doesn’t mean that it’s sure to be covered by patents, but until Google can give us evidence as to why it isn’t, I would be cautious.

VP8 is definitely better compression-wise than Theora and Dirac, so if its claim to being patent-free does stand up, it’s a big upgrade with regard to patent-free video formats.

VP8 is not ready for prime-time; the spec is a pile of copy-pasted C code and the encoder’s interface is lacking in features and buggy.  They aren’t even ready to finalize the bitstream format, let alone switch the world over to VP8.

With the lack of a real spec, the VP8 software basically is the spec–and with the spec being “final”, any bugs are now set in stone.  Such bugs have already been found and Google has rejected fixes."

If it's not better than H.264, then how does the end-user benefit from this open codec, if at all?
The farthest-reaching implications I can fathom about a license-free, patent-war-free is greater availability of content. Seems like a good thing to push competing options out there. Let's just hope that Google doesn't sit this one out in trying to make VP8 and WebM better. It's not completely up to the community to fix a codec whose spec was flawed in the first place.

What devices will support WebM?
Hmm... Right now, I think only certain browsers (Chrome, Firefox, Opera) and media player software (VLC, Winamp, XBMC) on any PC. Here's an up-to-date list.

How does the future look for this new codec, and to what extent will it be adopted?
That's anybody's guess, honestly. However, there are two aspects of interest: for one, don't expect Apple to give into this technology while so invested in H.264, the technology behind the formats mp4 and m4v used in all Apple devices and content provided on the iTunes store. Because of Apple's influence in certain markets, if they don't jump on board, then you won't see WebM as widespread while we live in an iPod/iPhone dominated landscape.

However, if you take into account Google's influence over online video content via YouTube, which at some point will have all its video available in the WebM format, then you can expect to see more usage of the codec, especially if YouTube does away with H.264 support. Of course, I don't see Adobe's Flash going away any time soon, as it will most likely remain YouTube's default video container for a while to come.

So what does this all mean?

Who knows?

4G to replace cable and DSL?

4G. The next generation of wireless telecommunication. Carriers are in a mad rush to get new, faster tech radiating our airwaves, whether it means rolling out entirely new spectrum, namely LTE, or adding bolt-on tech like HSPA+ to GSM standards, which is debatable as to its branding as true 4G. Either way, in order to compete, consumers, aware of the the technology or not, want to hear "4G" next time they're due for a new phone.

However, amid the branding wars and eventual mass rollout by all carriers a version of 4G, I question it's usefulness and real impact for mobile phones, 4G's primary focus.

Let me explain.

Greater bandwidth in any case at any time is always a good thing. So, just as the competition is heating of for 4G, in the virtuous nature of capitalism, the carriers are pushing full-steam ahead here in the US for the fastest speeds they can manage. That way somebody can claim alpha-dog status and gain a bunch more customers. Hooray for all that.

The only issue I see with the whole thing is that everyone is touting 4G availablity solely as a faster network for your phone's data. I don't know about you, the amount of data I consume on my phone is but a pittance of the gigabytes upon gigabytes of data I consume on my home network.

I have an iPhone 4 and a contract with AT&T for my 3G data. But to be honest, the speeds I get with that, which can sometime get up to 3Mbps here on the outskirts in Atlanta, is entirely sufficient for any phone. That's plenty for streaming Netflix on the go, but almost everywhere else you'll use your smartphone probably has WiFi access. So, my question is, when is 4G, or later on, 5G, wireless data going to eventually replace my home broadband connection?

With WiMax, the idea is already there, except that is a data-only connection, meaning all voice calls mean VOIP, which is great, but there's no streamlined VOIP integration for cellphones quite yet. I assume because carriers make tons of money selling "minutes" and texting plans.

LTE and 4G technologies of the like should at some point be everyone's main broadband connections, both at-home and on the go, consolidating our telecom bills into one.

For the savvy tech user, maybe there are a few people that use 3G hotspots for all their data at home, but two problems exist there. For one, 3G is too slow for home use and external network devices are required, i.e. tethered cellphones, MiFi hotspots, or USB network dongles/adapters. And there lies the problem for at-home wireless access today: you have to pay for both the network modem or router for your home connection as well as the extra costs for a non-subsidized non-cellphone plan.

This may be pipe dream, but once LTE becomes widely available, I'd want a Verizon plan that allows me an iPhone 5 with 4G access along with a subsidized at-home router, effectively replacing my current setup of two bills, one for mobile 3G, the other for DSL.

Sounds good. Now let's just hope we can do all that with low latency and speeds around a consistent 5Mbps+.

Lol.

This new iPhone = universal iPhone 4 = Verizon iPhone [u]

If you've been reading any of the gadget news lately, then you've probably seen the oh-so-certain wrap-up by the tech community that Verizon is set to announce the iPhone on their networks this coming Tuesday, Jan 11.

Gotta say, I'm a believer too.

The recently discovered redesigned iPhone 4 -- the one with four different "black strip" antenna marks in the steel ban -- is not an early iPhone 5 design. It's a universal iPhone 4.

Of course, I'm saying this out of pure speculation. But too many facts have fallen in place recently that make this iPhone's purpose all too obvious.

First off, Apple started restricting vacations on its employees around Feb. 3, a move usually made around big product launch times. Then Verizon sent out invitations to a media event just after CES (consumer electronics show), curiously barring Gizmodo from the event, which because of their previous battles with Apple and the iPhone 4, have also been barred from Apple events. That could only mean one thing: Apple is involved somehow with the announcements to be made.

Then, as chance would have it, this video comes out showing some newly redesigned steel band and antenna system -- this one with an additional black strip. The YouTube video claims it to be parts to the upcoming iPhone 5, but I beg to differ.

The additional black strip? Yeah, it's a CDMA radio antenna. I mean, what else could it be? I imagine the to-be announced iPhone 4 will be a global device -- a buy one, use anywhere phone. That means it will contain both GSM and CDMA radios. Apple, being a few-device, simple-product-line company wouldn't have it any other way.

Not to mention the Wall Street Journal has recently confirmed most of these rumors, which, for some, is all the confirmation one could need.

Update: Well, it looks like I was wrong about the whole "world phone" thing. But, here we have a new iPhone for those Verizon users. I personally know many people that love the iPhone, but also love Verizon. I think dreams were made today.

Windows Phone 7 is cool, just a couple years too late

In New York this Monday, Microsoft finally held its Windows Phone 7 event, officially introducing the new operating system along with 10 different handsets that will run it. The entire time I watched the keynote, however, as excited as I was for a product that looked to be extremely tight and polished, I also couldn't help but kinda pity Microsoft for one main reason: they needed this platform and these devices two years ago.

After watching the hour-long, slow-going keynote, which, while not an Steve Jobs presentation, was at least as informative as it was entertaining, I found myself continually nodding my head. Microsoft really has something here with Windows Phone 7. And having used Windows Mobile in the past, everything I saw up on that small stage was a complete rework of a struggling mobile strategy that now has the fit and finish to slide in among the big names already in the field. If only this event was held a couple of years ago, where would the industry be now?

There's no doubt that Microsoft is late to the game. While remaining somewhat relevant among smartphones, Windows Mobile 6 just didn't have the vigor to compete against the shine of the iPhone and iOS, as well as the slew of phones coming from handset makers adopting the Android platform.

So, why has it taken Microsoft this long to get on the bandwagon, to put something on the market that actually has a chance? They are a big cat in the industry -- they make freaking Windows for heaven's sake. How can the makers of the most popular software in the world not create something on the cellphone to turn consumer heads?

You might say the Redmond-based software giant suffers from managerial issues. Hell, when the iPhone was first announced, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer laughed at the notion of the iPhone becoming popular, ignoring not only how drastically different it was, but also how the iPhone was exactly what the industry needed: a jumpstart on serious mobile computing design and applications, and a handset-to-carrier relationship that worked for the consumer. I have no idea what's really going with Microsoft's board of directors, but I imagine their meetings might look like a scene from "12 Angry Men."

From my perspective, instead of having a clear mindset of "We need to make a better product now," the ideas around the heads of Microsoft decision makers, or lack thereof, were seemingly fruitless. For too long, waiting on the market and riding on WinMo 6, they appeared to not be able to make a decision about anything. All the while, iPhone was having one hell of a party. Vision and motivation in taking an idea, even those outlandish, is what was lacking from the spirit of leaders. Numbers and figures in the face of art, business suits in the face of fashion, maybe... As Chris Ziegler of Engadget writes about Microsoft senior vice president Andy Lees, "Lees -- like most Microsoft execs -- is a no-nonsense numbers guy" (Link). Maybe they only felt comfortable playing a sure thing.

Lack of vision and leadership. Case and point: Two Windows Phones, which were doomed from their conception, somehow made it to market only to be discontinued in less than two months. The Kin One and Kin Two, called project "Pink" before they were released, apparently had the same problem with project management: too many chiefs, not enough indians. Or maybe more appropriately: too little chiefs with vision, plenty of indians. This is an excellent story by Ziegler of Engadget on the whole Kin debacle: Life and death of Microsoft Kin: the inside story.

The point is, if Windows Phone 7 was ready and released this time in 2008, the time when phone manufacturers really started to get behind and drive the market share for Android (the only other viable touchscreen smartphone platform -- sorry Blackberry Storm), I do believe that Microsoft would be next to, if not overtaking, the iPhone in terms of market share. But, alas, when Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone to the world, though the Android platform had already been conceived, most companies in technology had their thumbs up their butts wondering what to do next.

So with the worst days hopefully behind Microsoft on the mobile front, lets imagine a world without Windows. Or not.. that'll never happen. But well see just how Microsoft fares on their new offering, and if it will gain any traction. I predict by this time 2011, Microsoft will have regained a good position in terms of both mindshare and market share, but not enough to constitute overtaking the market any time soon.