Newsweek Drinks the Kool-Aid
Technology bloggers and their tech media compatriots are infamous for proclaiming things revolutionary at seemingly random intervals. It seems that every new product or startup company signals the end of computing or networking or technology as we know it. These proclamations are based on nothing more than hype or taking one possible outcome way out past its logical conclusion.
For the most part, this desire to anoint everything as the next big thing is harmless since most readers of such technology focused writers and websites are techies themselves who have their own very established beliefs about the future direction of various technologies.
This time, one of the writers over at Newsweek decided to get in on the action. He proclaims that the personal computer is dead and that the obvious, nay inevitable, future is mobile devices. Specifically, the future is a two-way battle over mobile technology with Google on one side and Apple on the other.
The author does generously offer that the personal computer will not disapear overnight, which is probably a good thing since the iPad can’t do anything for business yet, and iPhones require you to use an inferior wireless carrier in order to buy one.
This is all based on…well, that’s where everything falls apart.
In the article itself, the author cites a bizarre string of “evidence” that things are changing.
First, he points out that Apple sells way more iPhones and iPads and so on than it does computers. This is very true. However, that says more about Apple’s ability to sell computers than it says about the future of computing.
Second, he cites some very big sales numbers as further proof about how mobile computing is growing faster than traditional computing. Again, this is true. However, what people keep forgetting is that computers have been around for a very long time and are fully implemented in almost every business and household in the country. Put another way, 20% growth in personal computing is larger than 50% growth in mobile computing devices.
On the other hand, there are TONS of people who do not own smartphones or other mobile computing devices. That makes growth a lot easier. While a computer maker has to wait for a customer who already has a computer decide that they need to buy a new one, the mobile computing computing can count on both sales from current users who are upgrading as well as new consumers who have never owned that type of device before.
Most laughable of all is the way the author proclaims that one day we will all use very powerful mobile computing devices instead of paying big bucks for a computer with tons of storage space.
Just what existing device is he referring to?
Certainly not the iPad which costs as much as a mid-tier computer. He can’t seriously mean the new iPhone which only costs less than a computer if the purchase is subsidized by AT&T in exchange for locking into a contract.
Where is this low-priced powerful computing device, then?
It doesn’t exist! Of course, mobile computing devices will get cheaper and more powerful in the future, which could be a pretty good argument if the same thing were not true about more traditional computers as well.
Not that it really matters, because even if one concedes that these cheap mobile devices will let everyone, “…manage photos and videos and music that will be stored online, somewhere out on the Internet cloud,” how can that possibily spell a revolutionary transformation?
Is that really all the author thinks that computers do?
While I agree that it is super neat-o that you can update your Twitter status and send cat videos to your friends on your iPad, out here in the real world, people use computers for other things like processing data, contact management, product design, engineering, and so on. Will those functions be taken over by inexpensive mobile appliances?
Devices like the iPad and iPhone are not radical departures from how computers are used. What they really represent is the next step in the world of personal entertainment electronics.
Let’s see if I can make this clear enough for the article writer to follow.
Start with the Sony Walkman which makes personal entertainment (music) portable.
Now, implement the standard improvements that eventually come to virtually all technology:
- Make it smaller or bigger (depending upon device).
- Make it more powerful.
- Make it cheaper.
- Add new feature.
- Improve that feature.
- Make it cheaper.
- Add new feature.
- Make it cheaper.
- Repeat
In this case:
The Sony Walkman made smaller and more powerful (digital with bigger storage) = iPod.
iPods get cheaper.
Add color screen.
Cheaper.
Add video to iPods (and more storage) = 5th generation iPods.
Add networking connectivity = iPod Touch.
Add phone functionality = iPhone.
Add bigger screen = iPad.
Where is the revolution again?
iPad For Business – It Can’t Do Anything, But Maybe It Will Someday
As I read the release coverage from the technology community about the new Apple iPad I kept thinking, what could you actually do with it that would make it work buying one for $500? Sure, it can surf the web and read emails, but so can a lot of much cheaper devices. I began to wonder if it wasn’t just a myth that Apple gets a pass on all of its technology the way other companies, especially Microsoft, do not.
It is starting to become clearer that technology pundits, website bloggers, and other technology writers are too eager to like whatever Apple sends their way, regardless of how well the device actually performs.
Remember the problem with the iPhone antenna that everyone knew about, but Apple refused to admit even existed? A fix was silently rolled out and everyone went about their business. If a Microsoft device, Palm gadget, or BlackBerry had the same issue, it would have been pilloried in technology circles as having been not ready for prime time or something of the sort, but since it was an Apple product, it was just a little glitch that got fixed.
So far, I haven’t heard of any hardware troubles with the iPad, but it does seem an awful lot like certain techie folks are trying too hard to like the iPad.
Consider this blog post at Network World from a technology blogger using the iPad for business. The point of the column is that it is "still lacking," but the reasoning is absolutely comical.
First, there is an issue with using LinkedIn. There is no LinkedIn app for the iPad yet, so it doesn’t look very good. Um…isn’t LinkedIn a website?
Isn’t the core function of the iPad the ability to use the Internet and websites? If it has to have a native iPad app for websites to look and function well, then isn’t this a big failure of the iPad?
Shouldn’t the iPad be able to work as an online device without having to download a special application for every website you use?
Then there is the issue of not being able to open certain types of non-Apple files, particularly .ics calendar files. Ironically, ics files are from iCalendar which is an Apple application. If Windows Mobile refused to open calendar files from Outlook would it get a two liner in a blog post about how that is disappointing, or would there be calls for a mass boycott and anti-trust investigations?
Equally laughable is the lament about how few applications are ready for the iPad. Would a review for Palm, Microsoft, or other device mention that as a little nagging thing? Aren’t Microsoft releases of everything judged by whether or not they have a killer application?
So, in short, the iPad isn’t really a good gadget to be used for business purposes and if anyone else had released it, technology bloggers and media types would be giving away their demo units, but with this guy and many others, the course of action is to insist that the iPad will be great someday once there are more apps, once it works better, once it is less closed and proprietary.
The Bigger Fool
But the thing that made me pull my eyeball muscles from rolling them so hard was the writer’s complaint about the price of iPad accessories. He notes that it is outrageous that Apple charges $50 for a cover for the iPad. Wait, that isn’t entirely correct. The writer notes that it is outrageous that HE PAID $50 for an iPad cover. What is actually outrageous is how many people willingly overpay for Apple accessories.
I guess it isn’t so outrageous after all. When you know that people will pay anything you ask for whatever you are selling, why charge less? Wouldn’t that make Apple the sucker instead of — well, we won’t say it.
In all fairness, this particular blogger is a networking guy and writes for the publication because of his experience with Cisco et.al, which is why I read his stuff in the first place.
Keep reading this guy’s posts and you’ll find where he declares that AT&T should fire everyone who came up with limited data plans and how businesses will be pulling 3G cards in from the field because of it. I guess no one at Apple should be fired for any of its product’s shortcomings.
Ironically, you won’t find one mention about how Apple’s decision to lock its customers into a single carrier are the root cause of this issue. AT&T knows that, just like this guy will shell out $50 for a $15 case, they will also pay every month for a capped data plan because some people will do anything to like the iPad. That is what impartial, cool, in-the-know technology bloggers and hipsters do. If people could move with their iPads to another carrier, AT&T wouldn’t be able to change data plans to be more limited, but that would be something bad about Apple, and we never ever want to write that.
Biggest Windows Flaw Also Most Annoying Windows Problem
There have been many bugs, issues, and design flaws in Microsoft Windows over the years. Many of them have been chased out of the operating system. Others did not exist in earlier versions only to pop up later, typically as a new "feature" that nobody wanted. However, the most annoying Windows flaw still exists in Windows 7.
Autoruns 10 Utility Shows All Startup Locations
Nothing exposes a big computer programming flaw like a software utility created to fix that bug. Autoruns is a Windows based utility that does just one simple thing. Autoruns shows you all of the programs and services set to run at startup on a Windows computer system. Only, it is NOT a simple thing.
Originally, the only programs that started running automatically at boot up were those that were required by the operating system in order to make the computer work. However, programs added to the folder labeled "Startup" on Windows computers would also run at startup.
It turns out that people don’t necessarily want a bunch of programs automatically running every time that they start up their computer. In fact, most people would rather start programs when, and only when, they needed to use them. So, savvy computer users began deleting programs out of the Startup menu and the race between crappy, bloated, software and computer system users was on.
Thank You Rewards Network by Citibank Credit Cards
Software developers can’t wean themselves off the crutch of starting their software automatically or pre-loading some or all of a computer program at boot time. Microsoft kicked this trend off by putting a Microsoft Office toolbar that nobody wanted – especially when they found out how much system power it wasted to run – in the startup folder. Other software developers followed cramming toolbars and other useless items into the various start at boot locations available on Windows operating system computers.
Bloated Adobe Acrobat Reader
Adobe became the poster child for system resource abuse when it began pre-loading a hefty chunk of its overweight Acrobat Reader at boot time.
As PDF files became a more commonly used format, the glaring bloat and inefficiency of Adobe software became more apparent to even non-expert computer users. When users were browsing a website with their Internet browser and clicked on a link that was to a PDF file, nothing happened.
Actually, that isn’t really true. What was true, was that nothing SEEMED to happen. What was actually happening, was that Adobe Acrobat Reader was struggling to load its enormous self in order to display the PDF link. It took literally 10 seconds on some well configured computers for a PDF page to load the first time. It got so bad that people stopped clicking on PDF links because they knew that meant a long weight for even a one-page document. In addition, savvy computer users turned to Acrobat Reader alternatives written by other developers.
In response, instead of re-coding and streamlining it Heifer of a PDF viewer, Adobe chose instead to penalize every computer in the world with Adobe Reader installed by pre-loading part of its software at startup and leave it running the whole time the computer was in use just so that its reader would appear to start faster. Of course, if you are going to abuse people’s system resources, you need to hide it and make sure that they don’t just delete a shortcut or something to end pre-loading the bloated software.
Good clipboard manager stores multiple entries.
As it turns out there are literally hundreds, or maybe even thousands, of ways that a software developer can force their applications or utilities to run at start up time on a Windows computer. Unfortunately, there are far fewer ways that users can view and manage all of these vampire processes that suck the performance blood out of computer systems.
Using MSCONFIG to configure which programs run at startup is a joke. Not only can programs easily re-add themselves to startup whenever you do end up running them, MSCONFIG only shows a tiny fraction of the ways that software can be installed to run at bootup. Autoruns 10 was recently released by the folks at Sysinternals (which was acquired by Microsoft, at least in part, no doubt, to stem the tide of data that made Microsoft Windows look bloated, badly configured, and deeply flawed).
Autoruns 10 claim to fame is that it is the most comprehensive startup manager utility in existence because it scans hundreds more potentially hidden startup locations than other startup configuration manager software does.
Computer screen causing eye problems?
Does anyone else see the painful irony here?
In order for the user to be able to make their computer do what they want it to do, they need a special extra tool to sniff out and find all the tricks software development companies use to get the computer to do what the software company wants regardless of what the user wants.
Considering the slow boot time was one of the top reasons people hate Vista so much, you would think that Microsoft would want to put an end to this practice. After all, part of the reason Vista boots so slow and one of the things that can drag the bootup time for Windows XP and the startup time for Windows 7 is all of these auto-starting programs. It doesn’t make the poor quality software that these companies sell look bad, it makes Windows look bad. A quick load would be one way to make people love Windows 7.
Unfortunately, Microsoft depends on these tricks as much as other computer companies, so until they can get their own house in order, users only defense against rogue programs wasting resources is vigilant use of programs like Sysinternals AutoRuns to keep programs from adding themselves to one of the numerous hidden startup locations. Of course, in order to really watch your computer’s resources, you’ll need another third-party utility by, you guessed it, Sysinternals.
Process Explorer is what Task Manager should be, except Task Manager allows software companies to hide what programs and processes they are actually running from Task Manager so, once again, they can look like their software runs better than it really does.
Get Autoruns 10. There isn’t anything else you can do.
Facebook Murders – Killer Uses Information From Victim’s Online Profile
Have you heard about the Facebook murders?
No, you haven’t. That’s because it hasn’t happened, yet.
The latest dustup over Facebook’s privacy changes has played out around the web, in the print media, and even in Washington D.C. as the company decided to put dollars above users by changing it’s privacy settings and policies. If you missed it, here is a quick overview.
Facebook recently implemented some new features and policies that come on the heels of last fall’s set of privacy "updates" in which every single Facebook user had all of their privacy settings changed to allow EVERYONE to view EVERYTHING, unless the user stopped to read and comprehend a pop-up screen that basically required users to decide whether to keep their old privacy settings or to use Facebook’s "recommended" settings. You can about imagine what most users that were just wanting to pop onto Facebook for a minute and see if there were any new pictures or updates from their friends chose.
Now, Facebook has implemented something it is calling F8, which basically allows other websites to use that newly private data for various purposes. As you can imagine, some people are up in arms about this.
Facebook Changes Privacy Settings Following Murder of Local Student
The problem with the Facebook privacy debate is that it is being conducted by technical bloggers, covered by technical journalists, and used for publicity by politicians. What gets left out of this debate is that of the almost 500 million Facebook users out there, most of them are NOT technically savvy. In fact, the whole reason Facebook’s growth has been so phenomenal is because it was able to tap into "regular" people.
If Facebook continues on its present course, the privacy debate being engaged in today will come crashing down someday soon. Since Facebook used to take care of its users and inspired a certain sense of trust among them, many non-technical users don’t even realize that there is any debate going on about Facebook privacy. They don’t read blogs, or click on LIKE buttons all over the web. They don’t have Twitter accounts, they don’t know what Digg is, they use Internet Explorer because it came with their computer. The most technical thing that they know about the Internet is that you can search for stuff with Google. Most importantly, they have never revisited their privacy settings.
If you are thinking, "Cry me a river," about embarrassing pictures, then you are either not thinking it through, or you are a simpleton. Either way, let me paint you a picture.
Anytown, USA – Some Day in the Near Future
Police today announced an arrest in the kidnapping and murder of local high school student, Jane Doe. Police reports suggest that the suspected killer, John Smith, used information found in Doe’s Facebook profile to carry out the kidnapping and murder.
Smith, a parking lot attendant, noticed Doe when she visited a friend at the community college. A high school parking permit sticker affixed to Doe’s window told Smith that Doe was currently enrolled at Lincoln High School. Smith apparently sent several friend requests to other students at Lincoln including fellow student Bob Jones. Jones said he accepted Smith’s friend request because he needed more "friends" for his "mafia" in a Facebook game called Mafia Wars.
Jones was already a friend of Doe’s, so being Jones’ "friend" gave Smith access to a wide array of information about Doe. Recent changes in the default Facebook privacy settings made much of Doe’s information available to "everyone," and even more data available to "friends of friends."
On the day of the kidnapping, Doe responded to a status update made by Jones about attending the school’s bonfire ceremony, indicating that she would, "see him there." Smith knew what kind of car Doe drove thanks to some pictures posted to her and Jones’ Facebook pages. A quick glance at the High School webpage or Facebook page told him the time and location of the bonfire. Using the address in her profile, Smith waited for Doe to leave the house and followed here. Then, he sent a text message to her cellphone indicating that "they were meeting on the west side of the parking lot". Smith had found Doe’s number via another friend’s Facebook profile from an update made months ago.
Jones grabbed Doe and forced her into his van at gunpoint. Then, using the victim’s cellphone he posted a "mobile status update" to the Facebook website indicating that she had car troubles and would not be attending. Later, he sent another update saying that she was "Chilin’ late at Taco Bell." Friends were therefore unconcerned when she didn’t arrive…
Think it’s far fetched?
Click on the links of some of the people who are friends of your friends. See how much information you can view about them. Sure, some of those accounts are locked down, but many are not.
Next, pick a sorority and do a little searching around on Facebook for it. How many co-eds can you find personal information about?
It isn’t about pranks and antics, it’s about real world privacy.
