Microsoft—in a nutshell—is a company that had one successful product that we are all beholden to—that then used that capital to buy other people’s products and ruin them. They are not bad people, but they do stab their friends in the back. Also, they are a bunch of nerds, which is probably why they have never managed to produce a decent interface.

Google—in a nutshell—is a company that had one successful product that we are all beholden to—that then used that capital to buy other people’s products and ruin them. They are not bad people, but they do stab their friends in the back. Also, they are a bunch of nerds, which is probably why they have never managed to produce a decent interface.

Apple is a company that produces amazing, human-usable products. I love them for the same reason I love any such company, and I forgive them their eccentricities because their products are so amazing. They make decisions that I’m told are bad for me, yet I don’t see that reflected in their products as I use them.

-via motherfucker

Email and instant messaging were invented over 30 years ago when computers and networking technology were in their infancy. Email and IM both mirrored traditional communication channels: snail mail and face-to-face conversations. In many circumstances, this paradigm breaks down. Google Wave assumes today’s technologies (Wikis, cloud data, stronger search algorithms etc.) as the basis for a communication platform.

It is important to note that Google Wave is not designed to be just another Google product but rather it is an entirely new protocol. Anyone could setup their own wave server if they choose to. On that note, it is also important to note that the wave protocol is still under development and is a long way from becoming an email replacement (if it ever does).

The main screen

After signing into Google Wave, you are greeted by three-column interface similar to Microsoft Outlook 2003/2007. Anyone who’s used an email client shouldn’t have too much difficultly figuring this out. I’d say the UI is a bit more intuitive than Gmail’s. The real conceptual difference people need to get used to is the idea that conversations are hosted in one location. Gone are the days of sending emails out to multiple people which usually ends up in a mess of reply chains. Once a wave is started, people can be added as participants who can make changes to any part of the ongoing discussion. In a way, this style of communicating is reminiscent of a discussion forum, however it is much richer thanks to “gadgets.” Gadgets are mini-applications for polls or maps you can put right in the conversation. Ultimately, wave works much better than email for groups of people. The fewer participants a wave has however, the less obvious wave’s benefits are. Also, the built-in chat function behaves in the same way a full wave does. It’s not enough like chat nor is it differentiated enough from a regular wave to really make much sense.

At this point, wave is really just a toy. Many of the features (such as contact management) are still very basic. Also, if wave wants to stand any chance of being adopted, it needs to have some backward compatibility with email.

Aditional Reading:
Google Wave and the Dawn of Passive Aggressive Communication
WSJ: The end of the Email Era

Stalker screenshot

Being tech savvy means I’m usually the one my friends and family come to when they can’t figure something technology-related out. It looks as if maybe one day, the rate of innovation might leave even me in the dust. Scary.

Enter Common Craft. Common Craft is a company that specializes in explanations. They’ve produced plenty of videos that make sense of products or services that aren’t quite so obvious. Two of my favorites are Twitter in Plain English and Google Docs in Plain English.

Other topics include blogs, phishing scams, online video sharing and many more.

The iPhone isn’t the only contender to be my most desired smartphone. While the Google G1 and the Android platform looked promising, it’s first iteration didn’t really live up to it’s full potential or hype in my opinion. The second generation Android phone doesn’t change much. With my general dislike of BlackBerry or Windows Mobile based devices, I was thrilled with what the Palm Pre has to offer. Reading about it really doesn’t do it justice; you need to watch the demo of the new WebOS to really get a sense of why it’s so cool and how Palm has positioned itself to be the most legitimate iPhone competitor.

This brings me back to my original point. The Pre is being released exclusively on Sprint. Sprint (like Verizon) uses CDMA technology, one of the main reasons for my general Verizon-bashing. Why is CDMA so bad, you ask? Gizmodo summed it up, saying:

Sprint and Verizon’s Secret Shame: CDMA

To the end user, CDMA and GSM don’t seem very different—Sprint, a CDMA carrier, offers the same services as AT&T, a GSM carrier—except when it comes to how they handle phones.

GSM phones are identified by the SIM card that they carry, which can be moved between phones at the user’s will. Not so with America’s other wireless standard. Effectively, a CDMA phone is like a GSM phone with the SIM card welded to its socket. Your CDMA phone is permanently locked to your carrier, and your mobile connection is permanently bound to your handset—unless your carrier is kind enough to authorize a transfer to another phone.

The presumably intentional effect is that there’s no market for 3rd party hardware in CDMA, which is fine for carriers, shitty for customers. Worst of all, there’s no good reason for this. CDMA SIM cards exist. They’re called R-UIM cards, but US carriers are in no rush to implement them.

Furthermore, CDMA severely limits my options for using my phone abroad. I realize that the cell phone companies would rather me use my plan and rack up ridiculous international charges instead of simply replacing my SIM card with one from a local provider but Verizon’s poor selection of phones (each with the same terrible UI) and their general Mac-unfriendliness don’t help their case either.

Ultimately, do any of these networks really offer such better service than the other that compels me to use one over the other. I’ve heard all the arguments for Verizon’s network being “better.” I’m much more skeptical of these claims. Even in upstate New York, I never had a problem with AT&T really. I think Verizon’s reputation of network availability is somewhat exaggerated and doesn’t come near to outweighing better pricing schemes, the flexibility of GSM, or my satisfaction with a phone I actually like. I think will only continue to see increasing parity in terms of quality of cell coverage from the major players (AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon).

What are your expierences with any of the phones or networks? Is the coolness of the Pre worth going with Sprint’s CDMA? Anyways, I have six months to wait and see.

Today Google has launched Knol, its Wikipedia alternative that holds authors accountable for the articles they write. Each article is created by a team of authors, who receive attribution, and are allowed to take part in a rev-share for AdSense ads on their page.

I’m not entirely convinced that Knol will become that popular. This day in age, being first has a lot to do with a product’s success. While Knol address the one main criticism of Wikipedia, article integrity, that alone doesn’t look like enough to chip away at Wikipedia’s popularity and sheer volume of information. That being said, I do believe that the open editing of Wikipedia has held up better than most would expect. I’ll be interested to see how the perception of Wikipedia changes (particularly in academia) over the next several years.

read more | digg story

read more | digg story