It's hard not be skeptical about these 'me-too' iPads.
Do they even get that the hardware is just the beginning of the relationship with a consumer? Or a developer.
I guess they have their own app store too? Another app store that doesn't include all the music, books and video on iTunes... for a device that is fundamentally a media browser.
All these, as yet unreleased, tablets look like Microsoft's music player to me. What was it called? The Zune? And this one's called the Xoom?
Ha ha ha ha...
Monday, January 10, 2011
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Australia's National Broadband Network
The National Broadband Network has been attacked since its announcement. "Do we really need it?", "What would we do with all that extra speed?", "I am sick of Facebook anyway.", etc.
OK, let's forget that we have been paying through the nose for the Internet (we'd be getting 8 times the speed for the same money in the states) and that less than 25% of Australians subscribe to a broadband (no wonder): "Akamai Technologies has revealed that Australia’s broadband is the 48th fastest in the world. " That sucks!
The reason we need to go faster should be obvious by now. Music has lead the way, TV is going to follow inevitably, kicking and screaming, and, with Web 2, we want to do more and more online. HTML5, the next web standard, will provide incredible power in the web browser, on computer, phone, gaming device or tablet. Video will be all pervasive. Film makers will find themselves making niche content for well informed, highly focused international audiences.
The Web will be able to deliver applications that only desktop software could do. Photoshop level editing of a photo you took with your phone ON your phone before you upload it to your site, the company, the in-laws, etc. iMovie on the iPhone to shoot, edit and publish your video on YouTube, using only your phone, in a few minutes. Files will live online, accessible from any device, from anywhere, and shared with anyone - a click and they're published. Your applications available to you on any of your devices.
Speed will become more and more important. So if I was going to start building a national broadband network today I'd aim for faster than 1Gps. The game is 'leap frog' not 'catch up' (or you never will).
Korea's 100Mbps broadband service has supported the country's development as the new leader in MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online games) and the gaming industries. They will have 1Gbps by 2012 and are in the process of multiplying their wireless broadband from 1Mbps to 10. They reckon it will cost $24.6 billion and will create 120,000 jobs. The network will pay itself off quickly and will cement the country in an industry with a very good looking future. An industry that's only resource is human brains. An industry we are letting die on the vine here.
And we're stuck down here, thousands of miles from anyone. (What was that Paul Keating?) If we don't need a decent Internet connection then who does? Perhaps we can start making money from our ideas rather than just shipping dirt to China and buying it back as cars, fridges, bikes, etc? (The 'smart country'?)
BEFORE the NBN is finished we need to start work on the NWN (National Wireless Network). If it's not already completely obvious where we are heading then I'd like to point out that it is no longer just content WHEN you want it but also content WHERE you want it.
If you're not sure what I am talking about here then think on this. For $50 a month you can carry around a very, very fast computer that knows where it is, which direction it's facing and what's around it. It can display video, 3D, maps and images, while playing high quality stereo sound. It can also record video, images, sound and attach your location to the recording. It's also a phone and a browser and a million other things but we've seen a mere fraction of what it could do. People are combining the features into new ways to work and have fun. And it has a profitable and popular distribution/retail system for everyone who wants to help it do more. Thanks Apple. And Google are hot on their heels.
So if we have portable super computers in our pockets then there's a few things that are obvious.
First; wireless is the future and luckily the CSIRO have some brilliant technologies in development - I hope we don't lose them OS yet again.
Second; location is going to be the new context and a platform for content. People will create location specific content, for example the people at the back of the concert could see what the people in the first few rows are filming as they film it. The new astronomy app for the iPad is a perfect example of location based content.
Third: we'll need to start building the next NBN not long after we finish the first.
OK, let's forget that we have been paying through the nose for the Internet (we'd be getting 8 times the speed for the same money in the states) and that less than 25% of Australians subscribe to a broadband (no wonder): "Akamai Technologies has revealed that Australia’s broadband is the 48th fastest in the world. " That sucks!
The reason we need to go faster should be obvious by now. Music has lead the way, TV is going to follow inevitably, kicking and screaming, and, with Web 2, we want to do more and more online. HTML5, the next web standard, will provide incredible power in the web browser, on computer, phone, gaming device or tablet. Video will be all pervasive. Film makers will find themselves making niche content for well informed, highly focused international audiences.
The Web will be able to deliver applications that only desktop software could do. Photoshop level editing of a photo you took with your phone ON your phone before you upload it to your site, the company, the in-laws, etc. iMovie on the iPhone to shoot, edit and publish your video on YouTube, using only your phone, in a few minutes. Files will live online, accessible from any device, from anywhere, and shared with anyone - a click and they're published. Your applications available to you on any of your devices.
Speed will become more and more important. So if I was going to start building a national broadband network today I'd aim for faster than 1Gps. The game is 'leap frog' not 'catch up' (or you never will).
Korea's 100Mbps broadband service has supported the country's development as the new leader in MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online games) and the gaming industries. They will have 1Gbps by 2012 and are in the process of multiplying their wireless broadband from 1Mbps to 10. They reckon it will cost $24.6 billion and will create 120,000 jobs. The network will pay itself off quickly and will cement the country in an industry with a very good looking future. An industry that's only resource is human brains. An industry we are letting die on the vine here.
And we're stuck down here, thousands of miles from anyone. (What was that Paul Keating?) If we don't need a decent Internet connection then who does? Perhaps we can start making money from our ideas rather than just shipping dirt to China and buying it back as cars, fridges, bikes, etc? (The 'smart country'?)
BEFORE the NBN is finished we need to start work on the NWN (National Wireless Network). If it's not already completely obvious where we are heading then I'd like to point out that it is no longer just content WHEN you want it but also content WHERE you want it.
If you're not sure what I am talking about here then think on this. For $50 a month you can carry around a very, very fast computer that knows where it is, which direction it's facing and what's around it. It can display video, 3D, maps and images, while playing high quality stereo sound. It can also record video, images, sound and attach your location to the recording. It's also a phone and a browser and a million other things but we've seen a mere fraction of what it could do. People are combining the features into new ways to work and have fun. And it has a profitable and popular distribution/retail system for everyone who wants to help it do more. Thanks Apple. And Google are hot on their heels.
So if we have portable super computers in our pockets then there's a few things that are obvious.
First; wireless is the future and luckily the CSIRO have some brilliant technologies in development - I hope we don't lose them OS yet again.
Second; location is going to be the new context and a platform for content. People will create location specific content, for example the people at the back of the concert could see what the people in the first few rows are filming as they film it. The new astronomy app for the iPad is a perfect example of location based content.
Third: we'll need to start building the next NBN not long after we finish the first.
Monday, June 21, 2010
iTunes didn't destroy the album!
I am a musician, songwriter and technologist and I don't agree with the theory that "iTunes has destroyed the album". I think it is a matter of not understanding the culture of playing recorded music (technology has a culture).
Radio provides/provided a soundtrack to our lives. Radio programmers organized music and DJs to fit with the different periods in our daily lives. We like Pop to sing along to on the way to work (to help us face the soul-crushing grind) and we don't want Thrash before bed time (well not most of us). Radio rarely played albums. In fact there were only a few special shows that did that.
When portable music devices arrived people dumped radio and the ads that destroy the mood, and created personalized soundtracks to suit their lives and tastes. If that meant paying a dollar for every track it was a small price.
So if the culture of the portable player is more like radio than your home stereo then it is only logical that it will be filled with play-lists of single tracks categorized according to mood, like traveling, work, reading, relaxing, partying. This is not a fault of iTunes or the technology. It is the culture of the devices. (This is also the reason why people don't mind audio compression - radio was compressed!)
Also, contemporary albums are rarely anything more than a collection of songs, the most commercial released as singles. Gone are the glory days of the concept album, which is a shame, but it is not the fault of the portable music device. They just aren't a good fit for an album - the culture is wrong. What is a better fit is the DVD, because the home system has been replaced by the surround sound system. Hence the rise of live music DVDs and, to some extent, their replacement of the traditional album played on the traditional home hifi.
So why expect people to buy an album which is a couple of good tracks and filler when the culture of the device they listen to music on, suits songs grouped by activity/mood? If you want people to buy and listen to albums then make them for DVD delivery and/or make every track a great part of a greater whole.
And sell albums at your live gigs. Or better still, sell DVDs and t-shirts.
Radio provides/provided a soundtrack to our lives. Radio programmers organized music and DJs to fit with the different periods in our daily lives. We like Pop to sing along to on the way to work (to help us face the soul-crushing grind) and we don't want Thrash before bed time (well not most of us). Radio rarely played albums. In fact there were only a few special shows that did that.
When portable music devices arrived people dumped radio and the ads that destroy the mood, and created personalized soundtracks to suit their lives and tastes. If that meant paying a dollar for every track it was a small price.
So if the culture of the portable player is more like radio than your home stereo then it is only logical that it will be filled with play-lists of single tracks categorized according to mood, like traveling, work, reading, relaxing, partying. This is not a fault of iTunes or the technology. It is the culture of the devices. (This is also the reason why people don't mind audio compression - radio was compressed!)
Also, contemporary albums are rarely anything more than a collection of songs, the most commercial released as singles. Gone are the glory days of the concept album, which is a shame, but it is not the fault of the portable music device. They just aren't a good fit for an album - the culture is wrong. What is a better fit is the DVD, because the home system has been replaced by the surround sound system. Hence the rise of live music DVDs and, to some extent, their replacement of the traditional album played on the traditional home hifi.
So why expect people to buy an album which is a couple of good tracks and filler when the culture of the device they listen to music on, suits songs grouped by activity/mood? If you want people to buy and listen to albums then make them for DVD delivery and/or make every track a great part of a greater whole.
And sell albums at your live gigs. Or better still, sell DVDs and t-shirts.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Fender/MusicMan amp tubes - 6L6 & 12AX7
From my research:
6L6s:
JAN-Philips 6L6GCs - the 'sweetest' tone
Sovtek's KT66 6L6 - killer tone
Tung Sol's 5881 6L6s - crystal clean with fat break up at volume
JJs are said to be slightly better than EHs which are not quite as thick
JJs have great attack, warmer with higher bias but some detail loss
The TAD 7025-S looks like the best 12AX7 on the market for microphonics, noise/hiss, detail and dynamics. The JAN-Philips 5751 and Tung Sol 12AX7 are close seconds.
6L6s:
JAN-Philips 6L6GCs - the 'sweetest' tone
Sovtek's KT66 6L6 - killer tone
Tung Sol's 5881 6L6s - crystal clean with fat break up at volume
JJs are said to be slightly better than EHs which are not quite as thick
JJs have great attack, warmer with higher bias but some detail loss
The TAD 7025-S looks like the best 12AX7 on the market for microphonics, noise/hiss, detail and dynamics. The JAN-Philips 5751 and Tung Sol 12AX7 are close seconds.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Flash In The Pan - Apple vs Adobe
Here's a the most recent reply I have made to one of the many silly 'reports' that criticize Apple's decision to block Flash and non Apple tool created apps.
First - Apple's mobile device sales will not be hurt by a lack of Flash. As long as the apps, maps and phone work on my iPhone who cares about Flash? (OK so no Streetview.) Why run mobile unfriendly games when there's tons of free fun on the app store? And as far as watching video on the iPhone - who can afford THAT plan? Nothing on YouTube is that urgent.
So Apple mobile products without Flash? Who cares? Sales will not even flinch.
Flash developers might be peeved and fair enough. It'd be great to have a familiar interface to Apple's red hot new devices. But you can go back through the history of computing with that argument; should we be trying to build apps in FORTRAN?
And then there's the key problems with Flash that Jobs points out that are typically ignored (because they can't argue with them I guess).
Adobe's Flash is an all purpose tool for making interactive multimedia content on a large variety of platforms. To do that it can't be platform specific, so it can't use device hardware. There's a number of problems with that direction.
With Flash everything must be done by the CPU, so Flash hogs CPU and it chews through battery life (CPUs are power hungry).
And Flash must impose a lowest common denominator feature decapitator - one app fits all - that's their selling point. It can't take advantage of the unique features of a device like a motion sensor, a compass, a WiFi network, a multi-point touch screen, etc. So all of the great unique features of Apple mobile devices are lost.
It's reasonable for Apple to be unhappy with making their red hot devices perform and behave like all the other mobile devices. And that alone is a good enough reason for Apple to drop Flash. How can you charge top dollar for something that behaves like bargain basement? What's the motivation for developing red hot devices if developers don't use tools that exploit their unique features. The unique features SELL the things!
Flash is not accessible, and it's not mobile or web friendly (try to bookmark content in a Flash site, try to make a Flash game fit your iPhone screen).
Adobe charge a fortune for minor updates and then it's still years behind the latest platforms.
Apple's tools are free and up to date. AND, thanks to HTML 5, you can code these devices with JavaScript! So there's a few million chunks of free code to get the ball rolling with - a developer friendly open source platform with FREE tools.
Apple release showcase apps with the tools that made them when they launch their new products. There was a reason they used to launch products at the Mac developers conference. While they don't do that anymore (out grown) no one can deny that they LOVE their developers (except maybe Adobe).
Finally ads - apparently because Apple are so 'greedy'. LOL - let's ignore the fab and unique deal they offer apps developers shall we?
Flash will let anyone link almost anything into their SWFs including advertising. While that sounds reasonable you have to remember the reason that Apple can sell you music and films from major studios and labels is because they have iron clad licensing agreements specific to every region. And the reason parents are happy to buy Apple devices for their kids is they know they won't be getting dodgy sold dating services and porn on the back of some free Flash game.
So if they don't control what is fed into their apps they could see their lovely devices turned nasty and bite them very hard.
The fact is that it's perfectly alright for a device manufacturer to decide the development restraints of their devices.
And the really major fact is, and this one keeps getting forgotten or ignored: Apple make money for developers. Adobe take money from developers. That's reasonable, one makes devices one makes software, but why are the 'champions of developers' telling us 'the sky is falling?'
So stop complaining, download the FREE tools from Apple, and make some money out of your great app ideas instead of blowing it on CommercialSoftware5/6/ad infinitum. I am sick of having Adobe's hand in my wallet. (I only got CS4 because CS3 sucked and blew.)
First - Apple's mobile device sales will not be hurt by a lack of Flash. As long as the apps, maps and phone work on my iPhone who cares about Flash? (OK so no Streetview.) Why run mobile unfriendly games when there's tons of free fun on the app store? And as far as watching video on the iPhone - who can afford THAT plan? Nothing on YouTube is that urgent.
So Apple mobile products without Flash? Who cares? Sales will not even flinch.
Flash developers might be peeved and fair enough. It'd be great to have a familiar interface to Apple's red hot new devices. But you can go back through the history of computing with that argument; should we be trying to build apps in FORTRAN?
And then there's the key problems with Flash that Jobs points out that are typically ignored (because they can't argue with them I guess).
Adobe's Flash is an all purpose tool for making interactive multimedia content on a large variety of platforms. To do that it can't be platform specific, so it can't use device hardware. There's a number of problems with that direction.
With Flash everything must be done by the CPU, so Flash hogs CPU and it chews through battery life (CPUs are power hungry).
And Flash must impose a lowest common denominator feature decapitator - one app fits all - that's their selling point. It can't take advantage of the unique features of a device like a motion sensor, a compass, a WiFi network, a multi-point touch screen, etc. So all of the great unique features of Apple mobile devices are lost.
It's reasonable for Apple to be unhappy with making their red hot devices perform and behave like all the other mobile devices. And that alone is a good enough reason for Apple to drop Flash. How can you charge top dollar for something that behaves like bargain basement? What's the motivation for developing red hot devices if developers don't use tools that exploit their unique features. The unique features SELL the things!
Flash is not accessible, and it's not mobile or web friendly (try to bookmark content in a Flash site, try to make a Flash game fit your iPhone screen).
Adobe charge a fortune for minor updates and then it's still years behind the latest platforms.
Apple's tools are free and up to date. AND, thanks to HTML 5, you can code these devices with JavaScript! So there's a few million chunks of free code to get the ball rolling with - a developer friendly open source platform with FREE tools.
Apple release showcase apps with the tools that made them when they launch their new products. There was a reason they used to launch products at the Mac developers conference. While they don't do that anymore (out grown) no one can deny that they LOVE their developers (except maybe Adobe).
Finally ads - apparently because Apple are so 'greedy'. LOL - let's ignore the fab and unique deal they offer apps developers shall we?
Flash will let anyone link almost anything into their SWFs including advertising. While that sounds reasonable you have to remember the reason that Apple can sell you music and films from major studios and labels is because they have iron clad licensing agreements specific to every region. And the reason parents are happy to buy Apple devices for their kids is they know they won't be getting dodgy sold dating services and porn on the back of some free Flash game.
So if they don't control what is fed into their apps they could see their lovely devices turned nasty and bite them very hard.
The fact is that it's perfectly alright for a device manufacturer to decide the development restraints of their devices.
And the really major fact is, and this one keeps getting forgotten or ignored: Apple make money for developers. Adobe take money from developers. That's reasonable, one makes devices one makes software, but why are the 'champions of developers' telling us 'the sky is falling?'
So stop complaining, download the FREE tools from Apple, and make some money out of your great app ideas instead of blowing it on CommercialSoftware5/6/ad infinitum. I am sick of having Adobe's hand in my wallet. (I only got CS4 because CS3 sucked and blew.)
Monday, September 7, 2009
Safari, CSS and background-image
Is Safari not showing your CSS background image?
Try putting the CSS code in a duplicated object description.
EG:
body {
color: #000;
font:Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size: 12pt
}
body {
background: #000 top center no-repeat;
background-image: url('images/BG.jpg');
margin: 0 auto; /* auto centers content!!!!! */
padding: 0;
}
NOTE: keep margins and padding with the background image code or it'll muck things up in Safari
Try putting the CSS code in a duplicated object description.
EG:
body {
color: #000;
font:Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", Times, serif;
font-size: 12pt
}
body {
background: #000 top center no-repeat;
background-image: url('images/BG.jpg');
margin: 0 auto; /* auto centers content!!!!! */
padding: 0;
}
NOTE: keep margins and padding with the background image code or it'll muck things up in Safari
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Australia's ISPs suck
I had to put an Australian perspective on this NY Times article
.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Wednesday released its latest data on broadband access.
The NYTimes article is about the US but Australia is on these charts too.
Just average uptake. Hmmm... seems a bit pathetic, I wonder why?
Bang for buck? 3rd worse, just above Mexico (who have the lowest per capita uptake) and the Slovak Republic who had "the strongest per-capita subscriber growth over the year " (2007). Read: Australia will be second last soon and we'll be among nations whose Telcos include donkeys in their stock take.
It doesn't seem like we're paying too much more, average almost $11 more than a yank and we're spread around a very big island, until you look at the services. The US is 50% cable - we're 75% DSL. That's just sad. By itself it's sad. What's worse is, compared to the US, we're paying 20% more for this sadness.
I remember using DSL over a decade ago. That 75% of Australian Internet users still have it, even though the Internet has supposedly been a revolution, can only be attributed to one thing. The Australian public have perceived what the OECD have quantified. The telcos are screwing us.
.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on Wednesday released its latest data on broadband access.
The NYTimes article is about the US but Australia is on these charts too.
Just average uptake. Hmmm... seems a bit pathetic, I wonder why?
Bang for buck? 3rd worse, just above Mexico (who have the lowest per capita uptake) and the Slovak Republic who had "the strongest per-capita subscriber growth over the year " (2007). Read: Australia will be second last soon and we'll be among nations whose Telcos include donkeys in their stock take.
BurroNet is coming!
"Yippeee!"
"Yippeee!"
It doesn't seem like we're paying too much more, average almost $11 more than a yank and we're spread around a very big island, until you look at the services. The US is 50% cable - we're 75% DSL. That's just sad. By itself it's sad. What's worse is, compared to the US, we're paying 20% more for this sadness.
I remember using DSL over a decade ago. That 75% of Australian Internet users still have it, even though the Internet has supposedly been a revolution, can only be attributed to one thing. The Australian public have perceived what the OECD have quantified. The telcos are screwing us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
