The Doppler Effect » internet

Is Google the new Microsoft?

B. Tan — Tue, 25 May 2010 01:13:19 +0000

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

Google Wave: First Impression

B. Tan — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:22:25 +0000

I finally got an invitation to create my Google Wave account; the extremely hyped and highly anticipated communication platform. For those who are still unclear what wave really is, the premise is this:

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

On a completely non-wave related issue, I was on the site for Google Latitude and came across something very creepy. The screenshots the site featured showed a map of my home town, Troy, MI. I wouldn’t think Troy is important enough to be a screenshot for one of Google’s services. After asking some friends, they did not see the same image. Just more evidence that Google knows your every move and end up turning into Skynet. Or at the very least something like this:

The Power of the Web

B. Tan — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 03:22:23 +0000

The internet is a pretty remarkable resource. One of my favorite websites, Xplane put out a new video that puts the internet into perspective.

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.

AT&T Wi-Fi Part II

B. Tan — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 02:02:14 +0000

The session window for AT&T Wi-Fi

For those of you who frequent Starbucks, you surely know about the free 2 hours of Wi-Fi access you get as a Rewards member. I was always dubious about the 2-hour limit; the access was provided by an AT&T account you sign up for and thus it didn’t appear as though Starbucks had any sort of control over the network. The account you sign up for doesn’t come with any sort of identifier as being associated with Starbucks Rewards either.

Today I spent a good chunk of time there working on various projects and had the opportunity to test what would happen to my Wi-Fi access after two hours. Apparently nothing. Awesome .

AT&T Wi-Fi

B. Tan — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 19:51:26 +0000

A while back I wrote about Starbucks’ Rewards program. Any registered member of the program receives “up to two hours of free AT&T Wi-Fi service, everyday.” I was previously under the impression that this meant you needed to purchase something to get wi-fi access, however it appears (upon closer inspection of the terms and in real-world trials) that no purchase is necessary.

This makes things more convenient for road warriors. I would suspect that this trick works at any AT&T Hotspot. Of course anyone with an iPhone or other qualifying AT&T plan automatically gets hot-spot access and you can even enable automatic login with iPhone OS 3.0:

Anyways, if anyone has confirmed that with Starbucks Rewards, you can use AT&T Wi-Fi at any AT&T hotspot, be sure to share in the comments.

Check out more about Starbucks Rewards at http://starbucks.com/cardrewards.

Explanations “In plain English”

B. Tan — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 00:11:53 +0000

In light of Cornell’s launching of Google Apps for Education, dubbed CMail, there has undoubtedly a slew of questions about how it works. For many people, the concept of “cloud computing” is pretty novel. Trying to explain this to a tech-newbie can sometimes be difficult.

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.

Did You Know?

B. Tan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:57:36 +0000

I stumbled upon this upon while at the library today. It’s a bit old, but still cool nonetheless.

Facebook Haters

B. Tan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 22:54:45 +0000

So Facebook finally went live with it’s latest design and as expected, the backlash began right away. Search Facebook Groups for “new Facebook” and you’ll see results such as “I HATE THE NEW FACEBOOK (STALKER) Layout” or “The New Facebook Sucks!” or “I Hate the New Facebook”. Looking at most of these groups, it is clear that these people are misunderstanding what Facebook is meant to be.

The most common complaint is that Facebook has become more “stalker”-like. I find this claim invalid because Facebook is foremost a “social networking” website. Facebook in it’s About page says:

Facebook is a social utility that connects people with friends and others who work, study and live around them. People use Facebook to keep up with friends, upload an unlimited number of photos, share links and videos, and learn more about the people they meet.

Facebook provides the means to do exactly what it describes. Furthermore, all the information displayed on Facebook is completely voluntary. You even have complete control over who gets to see what information by tweaking the privacy settings. Beyond this, however, the concept of social media isn’t fully understood by everyone it seems. To that, Common Craft has put together a nice video that helps explain it:

So my point is, Facebook is a site meant to foster interaction, hence the Twitter-like newsfeed and wall. Another complaint I’ve seen is that people were familiar with the old layout and claim the new one leaves them lost. To this notion, people need to realize that change is always occurring. The new layout is better suited to it’s social fuctions. Even so, Facebook gives users the option to filter the new Facebook wall to show only newsfeed items or wall posts or even revert back to the older layout. Personally, I think that the new layout is much better suited to widescreen displays (which are becoming increasingly prevalent) and also, the tabbed profile pages means I don’t have to scroll through endless applications to find a friend’s wall; the user interface is much more consistent now.

All that being said, I know the Hateorade will continue to be poured. What I’m really interested in knowing is how Facebook will fare as the most of the current college students (Facebook’s primary demographic) age I’m nearly 20 and I still find myself on Facebook quite often so we’ll see what happens when I’m 25 or 30. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on Facebook?

Web Apps Galore

B. Tan — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:11:17 +0000

It seems nowadays, there is a web application for everything. In a few short years, we’ve seen explosive growth in a movement called Web 2.0. This has resulted in a shift towards spending more and more time in our browsers, and less time in standard desktop applications. With so many new web applications popping up left and right, you will invariably see clones and companies trying to best each other. It can definitely be overwhelming trying to keep track of them all. The following are the web apps that make the cut for me. Those who know me well, know that I am extremely particular about the technology I use so I hope you will find these sites as useful as I have.

I’ll start off with a name everyone recognizes. Google. Aside from Google search, Google provides a number of staggering number of services ranging from Picasa and YouTube, to Google Docs, and Grand Central. However, Google’s shining star (aside from their search of course) is Gmail. In the free webmail arena, Gmail is the clear cut winner, scoring major points for innovative features and UI and also keeping everything free (you have to pay Yahoo for anything “advanced”). Another strength of Gmail is that you can port it for use on your own domain name. Anyone who’s used the webmail interface provided by their web host can appreciate Google Apps. I’m assuming most people have already experienced for themselves the power of Gmail; and since I have enough to say about Gmail to merit its own post, those who are unfamiliar can read up about Gmail at Lifehacker.

Mint Logo

Right in line with the usefulness of Google’s apps, lies a website known as Mint. Mint is a financial tool that allows you to consolidate all your financial information presents it in an easy to understand format. It lists all your transactions across all your credit and debit cards and generates graphs of your spending trends (so you can see your financial mistakes in pie chart form ). Also, Mint keeps track of your interest rates on your credit cards, and bank accounts and suggests offers from other banks to help you save. There are also notifications (via email or SMS) that you can setup for your accounts (ex. have Mint txt you about a low account balance). Mint also recently added a feature for tracking investment portfolios, student loans and mortgages. Naturally, having all this sensitive information in one place is a reason to be wary. However, Mint does not store your personal data and uses bank-grade encryption. If you’re still skeptical, Mint has been featured in the likes of The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Time, BusinessWeek, CNN Money, The NY Times…the list goes on and on (read: Mint is pretty legit). In the future, Mint plans add feature such as bill pay making it an even more powerful tool. Like every good web app, they have demo video which you should definitely check out.

The next app, Dropbox (still in private beta but I have a few invitations available…) is one of those tools that you’ll wonder how you lived without. In my quest for a free iDisk alternative, I found this nifty app that seems to be much better implemented than services such as Box.net and free unlike SugarSync. Another plus is that the developers seem extremely in tune with the user community, in terms of addressing concerns, feature requests and being active on the Dropbox forum. It’s sort of hard to explain exactly how Dropbox operates, so I’ll just let you watch yet another screencast (I promise it’s worth it).

While those are the web apps I use on a daily basis, there are still many helpful apps out there I haven’t mentioned:

http://epassportphoto.com/ – Essentially free and instant passport photos
Pandora – Must have if you like music (who doesn’t?)
Hulu – Free, fast and legal web TV.

As you can tell, I basically live on the internet; computers do everything for me. But hey, what’s wrong with that? I hope you find these web apps useful, or if you know of any better ones I’d love to hear suggestions. Do you have any favorites I missed?

Google’s Knol: The Monetizable Wikipedia

B. Tan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 04:20:29 +0000

Via Digg (via TechCrunch)

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.