In the last couple of years, some technology advancement have quietly entered mainstream coverage and even when their short term applications are obvious, their long term impact is still to be unveiled. They have the potential to change the technology industry landscape and create a new industrial revolution.
3D printing is the technology to create 3d objects by depositing droplets of plastic layer by layer, much like a conventional ink injection printer prints a picture. This kind of printers (or fabs) have been used in the industry to create prototypes for long time, but now are becoming accessible to mass markets, with even open source projects like fab@home pretending to put a fab on every desktop. As I have already commented, the potential impact of this technology in the consumer electronics market is enormous. Just imagine that you could download and "print" a replacement for a plastic piece, a new ceramics design or even a jewelry design.
Printable electronics are digital circuits created by laying out conductor materials over a polymer surface using a traditional printing technology. To date its biggest issue is the relatively slow clock speeds that they can use. However, recent discoveries may change that. Diverse printed electronic devices like non-volatile RAM, RFID tags and TFT displays were recently showcased in the Printable Electronics conference what seams to indicate that the technology is ready for simple devices like sensors and "smart" materials.
Printable batteries follow the same principles of printable electronics, but with the objective of store and later provide electric power. One example of this technology is Power Paper which provides 1.5 volts batteries. And interestingly, such batteries could be combines with printable solar cells to obtain self-powered devices that don't require chargers.
When considered together, these technologies will give us the license to print our own gadgets. This will surely boost the innovation in devices, as designers won't have to go through long and expensive design-prototype-production cycles, nor will they need to reach critical mass to be cost/effective.
Obviously, having a high quality fab at home capable of printing complex electronics probably won't be affordable in a decade or more, but the deman for such custom made electronics will boost a market of electronics print shops, where you can go and print your designs.
Big consumer electronics producers like Sony and Samsung will need to reconsider its role and become designers - instead of manufactures - of certain product categories (I'm not talking about printing the next Play Station at home) .
This will be begining of the much aticipated era of massive pesonalization, but without intermediaries.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Saturday, 21 March 2009
The "poor man's" semantic web
From its very beginning, the quest for smart queries over that vasts amount of unstructured data we call the the Web has been a very elusive endeavor, yet one of the greatest importance.
The problem is that the Web has developed mostly as a medium of unstructured documents for people rather than of information that can be manipulated automatically.
The very creator of the web as we know, Tim Berners-Lee, has largely discussed this limitation and has also proposed a solution: the Semantic Web. The main idea is augmenting Web pages with hyperlinks to definitions of key terms and rules for reasoning about them logically. This meta data is targeted at computers and the resulting infrastructure will allow complex knowledge intensive tasks such as highly functional personal agents.
But this idea has not yet taken off. The main reason is that adding such metadata results cumbersome to the persons who creates the pages. It is not natural in the context of the content creation, at least not beyond the simple tagging or categorization of pages.
But more importantly, do we really need such intelligent web?
Let's consider how Google works. its tremendous success of Google comes, to a great extend, to simple yet powerful idea: use the implicit knowledge that exists in the web. Google search algorithm not only use the content of a page but also consider the key words used in the hyperlinks that point to that page. This is basically a sort of poor man's semantic annotation, well if you can call Google poor.
Now, if you have, as Google does, access to billions of pages and hundreds of thousands of processors to mine it, can't you arrive to the same "intelligent" answers to questions as with a answer engine? I guess that the result would be difficult to differentiate. To start with, if a question worth to be asked (and very likely, even if not), surely someone already put the answer in a web page. Consider this question from Wolfram's web page "What is the 307th digit of Pi?". A quick search on Google retrieves as the first this page on which you can search for any digit of pi.
Paraphrasing what Gary Kasparov famously said after been defeated by Deep Blue: "quantity can become quality", meaning that a brute force approach, given enough resources can actually achieve results that are indistinguishable for actual intelligence.
Update: It is clear that the guys at Google Research share this view: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data.
Update: Tim O'Reilly on the difference between Semantinc web and pattern recognition approaches
The problem is that the Web has developed mostly as a medium of unstructured documents for people rather than of information that can be manipulated automatically.
The very creator of the web as we know, Tim Berners-Lee, has largely discussed this limitation and has also proposed a solution: the Semantic Web. The main idea is augmenting Web pages with hyperlinks to definitions of key terms and rules for reasoning about them logically. This meta data is targeted at computers and the resulting infrastructure will allow complex knowledge intensive tasks such as highly functional personal agents.
But this idea has not yet taken off. The main reason is that adding such metadata results cumbersome to the persons who creates the pages. It is not natural in the context of the content creation, at least not beyond the simple tagging or categorization of pages.
More recently, another even more radical approach has emerged: the answer engines. In this case the goal is not only to enrich the content with semantic, but to produce pure knowledge content like complex conceptual maps, basic facts and inference rules to allow answering question by computing results instead of just searching for already existing documents that contain the desired information. Two example of this approach are True Knowledge and Wolfram.
But more importantly, do we really need such intelligent web?
Let's consider how Google works. its tremendous success of Google comes, to a great extend, to simple yet powerful idea: use the implicit knowledge that exists in the web. Google search algorithm not only use the content of a page but also consider the key words used in the hyperlinks that point to that page. This is basically a sort of poor man's semantic annotation, well if you can call Google poor.
Now, if you have, as Google does, access to billions of pages and hundreds of thousands of processors to mine it, can't you arrive to the same "intelligent" answers to questions as with a answer engine? I guess that the result would be difficult to differentiate. To start with, if a question worth to be asked (and very likely, even if not), surely someone already put the answer in a web page. Consider this question from Wolfram's web page "What is the 307th digit of Pi?". A quick search on Google retrieves as the first this page on which you can search for any digit of pi.
Paraphrasing what Gary Kasparov famously said after been defeated by Deep Blue: "quantity can become quality", meaning that a brute force approach, given enough resources can actually achieve results that are indistinguishable for actual intelligence.
Update: It is clear that the guys at Google Research share this view: The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data.
Update: Tim O'Reilly on the difference between Semantinc web and pattern recognition approaches
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Can Erlang become the next Java?
Erlang is a functional programming language that has been steadily gaining attention in the industry. Some even advocate it as "the next java", but can this actually happen? Can a single language attract enough support to become a de facto standard?
In face of the current fragmentation of the programming languages landscape (Ruby, Python, F#, Scala, and a long etcetera) this seams very unlikely at first. However, the very existence of such fragmentation is indicative of the search for new programming paradigms to tackle the needs of now day's applications.
Java success in the early web days was due, mostly because it offered two key features that where essential for the nascent web applications: dynamic code loading from the network and platform independence. From this point its acceptance grew dramatically in both desktop and server applications, despite the criticisms for its poor performance.
Similarly, Erlang offers several key characteristics for the next generation of distributed applications:
If recent history with Java is indicative, Erlang has all the credits to take off as a main stream (if not dominant) programming language for next generation web applications.
In face of the current fragmentation of the programming languages landscape (Ruby, Python, F#, Scala, and a long etcetera) this seams very unlikely at first. However, the very existence of such fragmentation is indicative of the search for new programming paradigms to tackle the needs of now day's applications.
Java success in the early web days was due, mostly because it offered two key features that where essential for the nascent web applications: dynamic code loading from the network and platform independence. From this point its acceptance grew dramatically in both desktop and server applications, despite the criticisms for its poor performance.
Similarly, Erlang offers several key characteristics for the next generation of distributed applications:
- Its adequacy to parallel and distributed programming thanks to its simple message based concurrency model.
- It allows the hot swap of code (code of running process can be change while they are still running!)
- It has also the reputation of being rock solid, running on Ericsson's ATM Switches with a reliability of 99.9999999% (that is some 30 seconds of downtime a year!).
If recent history with Java is indicative, Erlang has all the credits to take off as a main stream (if not dominant) programming language for next generation web applications.
Wednesday, 4 March 2009
Why Google should be worried about twitter?
It is rather uncommon to see a Google's officer to attack competitors, but this is exactly what Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO did. An he did in a rather surprising way: calling twitter it "a poor man's email system" because it lacks all the basic capabilities of a full flagged email like gmail. It is unconceivable that he mistakes Twitter with an email. What he did was just spread some FUD about Twitter. But why Google, with above the 100 million email accounts even bothers to acknowledge the existence of Twitter, with its modest 5 millions users?
In this declining economy inversion in advertising is decreasing and advertisers are looking for better channels. Twitter has demonstrated that it can be used in very innovative ways for marketing. For viral campaigns, for personalized advertising, for brand creation, to receive user feed back. And at least by know, the price is quite low: free!
Also, Twitter users seams to handle commercial messages rather well, maybe because they are easily integrated in the message flow and also conveniently filtered, searched, aggregated, etc. More over, advertisers use Twitter as a truly bidirectional channel not only to advertisers,but also to gather feedback.
It is expected that if Twitter wants to continue in business, it must start charging for commercial usage. It is not clear how, but there are already some interesting ideas.
Twitter has still a long path to follow before threaten Google's dominance. This wouldn't be the first time this happens. One comes easily to mind: when Google came from nowhere and displaced Yahoo. And you know, history has some tendency to repeat itself.
Tuesday, 3 March 2009
What does Twitter change?
The tremendous success of first the Internet and later the web, is mainly due to their main design principle: build a basic, unsophisticated, yet flexible infrastructure and let the applications on the edges put the intelligence (the so called end to end principle).
More over, the Internet/Web infrastructure is based on open standards, like TCP/IP, HTTP and HTML prevents provider lock-ins and lowering the entrance barriers to newcomers.
Such infrastructure allows an open-ended innovation, supporting application architectures and utilization patterns no one had considered when it was designed. For example, who could ever dreamed about Ajax back in the early 90' ?
Twitter follows the same principle and has therefore the same potential of the technologies it is build upon. It offers a basic infrastructure for a publish subscribe communication of short text messages, offering an open API that allows others to develop sophisticated applications like searching, aggregation (Tweetdeck) and trend analysis (hashtags.org, Twist, TweetStats).
One obvious difference is that Twitter is neither an open infrastructure nor is based on open standards -- However, neither is Google Maps and that has not prevented it to become a "de facto" standard. More over, there are other technologies like the venerable IRC and more recently XMPP that have similar capabilities for instant communication and are based on open standards, but haven't had the same impact than the web. Why should then Twitter be different?
What makes Twitter so powerful and gives its tremendous potential is how it is actually used. Users, post anything they found relevant, interesting, funny. They post about themselves, friends, hobbies, work. They expose preferences and dislikes. In other words, Twitter opens people's thoughts and feelings and make them available to others instantaneously, creating a continuous conversation on which you can enter and leave. Participate. Watch.
This is the closest we will ever be to telepathy. And that surely will change the way we communicate.
More over, the Internet/Web infrastructure is based on open standards, like TCP/IP, HTTP and HTML prevents provider lock-ins and lowering the entrance barriers to newcomers.
Such infrastructure allows an open-ended innovation, supporting application architectures and utilization patterns no one had considered when it was designed. For example, who could ever dreamed about Ajax back in the early 90' ?
Twitter follows the same principle and has therefore the same potential of the technologies it is build upon. It offers a basic infrastructure for a publish subscribe communication of short text messages, offering an open API that allows others to develop sophisticated applications like searching, aggregation (Tweetdeck) and trend analysis (hashtags.org, Twist, TweetStats).
One obvious difference is that Twitter is neither an open infrastructure nor is based on open standards -- However, neither is Google Maps and that has not prevented it to become a "de facto" standard. More over, there are other technologies like the venerable IRC and more recently XMPP that have similar capabilities for instant communication and are based on open standards, but haven't had the same impact than the web. Why should then Twitter be different?
What makes Twitter so powerful and gives its tremendous potential is how it is actually used. Users, post anything they found relevant, interesting, funny. They post about themselves, friends, hobbies, work. They expose preferences and dislikes. In other words, Twitter opens people's thoughts and feelings and make them available to others instantaneously, creating a continuous conversation on which you can enter and leave. Participate. Watch.
This is the closest we will ever be to telepathy. And that surely will change the way we communicate.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
Burning Chrome (William Gibson dixit)
Google has surprised more than one, me included, releasing today its own browser Chrome. This may well be the beginning of a dramatic change of the web as we know it and nobody noticed it until the tsunami hit the web.
From what I could see in the comics style introduction of the browser's motivations and features, it seams that Google has decided to turn the browsers game inside out. They have broken almost any written rule about how to build a browser, yet it seams they were able to come with very usable and stunningly fast browser.
It is good to see that someone in the open source community finally remembers what innovation is all about and doesn't just aspire to catch someone else.
And God knows we needed such revolution badly because, let's face it, Firefox lost its mojo long ago and started to fade as a innovative browser.
If current trends continue, they will beat Firefox 2.0 launch success, even when it is currently only available for Windows (annoying, isn't it?). I just can't wait until the Linux version kicks out the door.
From what I could see in the comics style introduction of the browser's motivations and features, it seams that Google has decided to turn the browsers game inside out. They have broken almost any written rule about how to build a browser, yet it seams they were able to come with very usable and stunningly fast browser.
It is good to see that someone in the open source community finally remembers what innovation is all about and doesn't just aspire to catch someone else.
And God knows we needed such revolution badly because, let's face it, Firefox lost its mojo long ago and started to fade as a innovative browser.
If current trends continue, they will beat Firefox 2.0 launch success, even when it is currently only available for Windows (annoying, isn't it?). I just can't wait until the Linux version kicks out the door.
Wednesday, 6 August 2008
Shaping the future
3d printing is the technology to create 3d objects by depositing droplets of plastic layer by layer, much like a conventional ink injection printer prints a picture. Such kind of printers or fabs have been used in the industry to create prototypes of new designs.
Some time ago, the Fab@home project started to offer an open source specification of a 3d printer, which according to the project's web page, will democratize innovation allowing anyone to create and manufacture his own designs. However, the target price was still well on the thousands dollars, making this technology affordable for small shops or independent professionals, but hardly for casual users.
Now, Shapeways, a spinout of Phillips is offering the service to allow user to "submit digital designs of products that are then printed, using 3-D printers, and shipped back", "delivering the tangible object within 10 days of ordering, with prices typically between $50 and $150". This service really opens the word of 3d printing to anyone.
I can image action figure hobbyist making they own character designs and getting them printed as real objects, which then could be painted at home. Also, it will open a new opportunity for skilled designers to sell their designs of home accessories which users can print at home.
In the long term, this new technology will lead to the ultimate customization of products. For example, by allowing each one to create its own mobile phone covers: I will finally get my start trek themed phone!
And you, what will you print?
Some time ago, the Fab@home project started to offer an open source specification of a 3d printer, which according to the project's web page, will democratize innovation allowing anyone to create and manufacture his own designs. However, the target price was still well on the thousands dollars, making this technology affordable for small shops or independent professionals, but hardly for casual users.
Now, Shapeways, a spinout of Phillips is offering the service to allow user to "submit digital designs of products that are then printed, using 3-D printers, and shipped back", "delivering the tangible object within 10 days of ordering, with prices typically between $50 and $150". This service really opens the word of 3d printing to anyone.
I can image action figure hobbyist making they own character designs and getting them printed as real objects, which then could be painted at home. Also, it will open a new opportunity for skilled designers to sell their designs of home accessories which users can print at home.
In the long term, this new technology will lead to the ultimate customization of products. For example, by allowing each one to create its own mobile phone covers: I will finally get my start trek themed phone!
And you, what will you print?
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
Social voyeurism
The importance of social networks in shaping the future of Internet was recognized by the Times magazine when declared it the "person of the year" in 2006.
Until now, I've been reluctant to "join the crowd" and found such sites a little bit childish and definitely a source of "ambient noise" and information saturation.
However, the idea of meeting people I have lost the contact with many year ago finally seduced me and I decided to join Facebook. Since then, I have contacted people who I haven't know about for 25+ years! it is just amazing.
However, what have captivated me is another feature: the status update. I found just fascinating to follow my friend's emotional states and small day to day events by means of this short messages.
This interest lead me to another social network site, Twitter, which allows sending small status updates (tweets) and follow other people's status. I also integrated it with facebook, such that my last tweet becomes my facebook's status.
Next step is to integrate twitter with my chat application to send a tweet without entering twitter's web page, as I find the need to open the browser and login into a site a big barrier for a fluid social experience.
Until now, I've been reluctant to "join the crowd" and found such sites a little bit childish and definitely a source of "ambient noise" and information saturation.
However, the idea of meeting people I have lost the contact with many year ago finally seduced me and I decided to join Facebook. Since then, I have contacted people who I haven't know about for 25+ years! it is just amazing.
However, what have captivated me is another feature: the status update. I found just fascinating to follow my friend's emotional states and small day to day events by means of this short messages.
This interest lead me to another social network site, Twitter, which allows sending small status updates (tweets) and follow other people's status. I also integrated it with facebook, such that my last tweet becomes my facebook's status.
Next step is to integrate twitter with my chat application to send a tweet without entering twitter's web page, as I find the need to open the browser and login into a site a big barrier for a fluid social experience.
Thursday, 12 June 2008
Poor man's Itelligence Amplification
The concept of Intelligence Amplification (AI) has been receiving some media attention lately thanks to the growing hype of the Technological Singularity .
The main idea is to enhance human intelligence by tight coupling with computer devices for augmented memory, enhanced senses, computer-brain interfaces, direct connection with ambient sensors and with the internet for immediate information access.
However, while we wait all this technological wonders to come a reality (or in some cases, to be widely available), I've found that some pretty simple tools can be used to boost our day-to-day productivity some orders of magnitude just by helping us to keep track of all the information we generate and consume. Actually, the key concept is to allows us to generate even more information (mostly in the form of short notes) and the allows us to access it in a smart way.
Here is a short list of tools I've just started to use:
The main idea is to enhance human intelligence by tight coupling with computer devices for augmented memory, enhanced senses, computer-brain interfaces, direct connection with ambient sensors and with the internet for immediate information access.
However, while we wait all this technological wonders to come a reality (or in some cases, to be widely available), I've found that some pretty simple tools can be used to boost our day-to-day productivity some orders of magnitude just by helping us to keep track of all the information we generate and consume. Actually, the key concept is to allows us to generate even more information (mostly in the form of short notes) and the allows us to access it in a smart way.
Here is a short list of tools I've just started to use:
- Tomboy: a note taking desktop application. Allows to create notes and put links to web pages, emails and other information sources and to other notes. It can be then used to annotate information. Has some interesting plugins to export notes to diverse formals and also to show links among notes.
- View Your Mind: is a tool for creating mind maps. Interestingly, there is Tomboy pluging to export notes to VYM.
- Gnome-do: is an intelligent application launcher that use search technologies to find items like files and applications and allows you to execute actions on them (e.g. open, run). Also comes with many plugins for common applications like music players, google applications and this one to interact with Tomboy.
Saturday, 19 January 2008
When less is more and simple is beautiful
Recently, there has been a great shift towards cheap subnotebook portables like Asus' eeePC, Everex's CloudBook and E-lead's NoahPad. These portables, which might result under powered and far from the "state or the art", have been received with enthusiasm by potential tech savvy customers and have even made its way into the general audience (to the extend that general media have started to cover them)
I personally found these cheap portables, targeted to a specific function, more attractive that those over priced "high end" portables which are neither a good desktop replacement, not portable enough. Actually, I'm just waiting impatiently to put my hands on a NoahPad.
One interesting conclusion from the general reaction is the discovery of a new category of users, for whom a simple, affordable and ultra portable device to surf the web is a real gain. But these devices are also appealing for the millions of home uses that only want to read email, print some photos and little more.
But even more important, such portables seams to be the killer devices for the final Linux take over of the desktop.
I personally found these cheap portables, targeted to a specific function, more attractive that those over priced "high end" portables which are neither a good desktop replacement, not portable enough. Actually, I'm just waiting impatiently to put my hands on a NoahPad.
One interesting conclusion from the general reaction is the discovery of a new category of users, for whom a simple, affordable and ultra portable device to surf the web is a real gain. But these devices are also appealing for the millions of home uses that only want to read email, print some photos and little more.
But even more important, such portables seams to be the killer devices for the final Linux take over of the desktop.
Tuesday, 7 August 2007
Open source appliance
I've been struggling since one month ago to decide on a device for "mobile digital entrainment" (sorry, I've been unable to find a better name for this). What I basically need is a rich web experience (including web 2.0 sites, video, Internet radio) and access digital content (music, video) stored locally in the device or other storage devices.
My first candidates are the Nokia Internet Tablet N800 and the Archos 605. Other option I briefly considered were the Sony PSP and the PapperPad 3. I ruled out the PSP because its web experience is istill far behind of my needs. The PaperPad,in the other hand, seams to be a good product but its form factor makes it less attractive fro mobile usage.
Both candidates has "similar" capabilities, like integrated wifi access, full flagged web browsers and rich multimedia applications. However, they differ in one significant aspect: the Nokia N800 is, in this moment, more an open source device, very appealing to developers and savvy users, while the Archos is more an appliance, close but fully functional and usable by any user.
What I would like to have is the best of both worlds: an open source appliance. An open device for developers and hackers, but ready to day to day usage. Why is this so difficult? I believe that in this question resides the key for the success of open source outside the niche it is now (a big niche, sure, but a niche after all).
Dr. Ari Jaaksi, Nokia's director of open source has an interesting document about "Building consumer products with open source" and here we found a key "The open source culture is very much for trials, hacking, innovation and other creative aspects of software development. Meeting deadlines, dropping your latest crazy idea, and making compromises to gain stability are not what many open source communities or developers naturally do. In addition to us, the Linux project, Debian, and others seem to have difficulties making a final good quality release on time".
However, I must admit that I found more appealing the N800 because the open nature of the device is attracting a lot of interest and just recently I've seen a couple of developments that improves its usability a lot: both an iPhone like on screen keyboard and a kinetic scroll. By the way, both improvement ideas come from iPhone . . .
So, at this point the question is: will these two open source projects change focus from hacking to usability, from innovation to stability or is here where they will fail, as many other such projects.
My first candidates are the Nokia Internet Tablet N800 and the Archos 605. Other option I briefly considered were the Sony PSP and the PapperPad 3. I ruled out the PSP because its web experience is istill far behind of my needs. The PaperPad,in the other hand, seams to be a good product but its form factor makes it less attractive fro mobile usage.
Both candidates has "similar" capabilities, like integrated wifi access, full flagged web browsers and rich multimedia applications. However, they differ in one significant aspect: the Nokia N800 is, in this moment, more an open source device, very appealing to developers and savvy users, while the Archos is more an appliance, close but fully functional and usable by any user.
What I would like to have is the best of both worlds: an open source appliance. An open device for developers and hackers, but ready to day to day usage. Why is this so difficult? I believe that in this question resides the key for the success of open source outside the niche it is now (a big niche, sure, but a niche after all).
Dr. Ari Jaaksi, Nokia's director of open source has an interesting document about "Building consumer products with open source" and here we found a key "The open source culture is very much for trials, hacking, innovation and other creative aspects of software development. Meeting deadlines, dropping your latest crazy idea, and making compromises to gain stability are not what many open source communities or developers naturally do. In addition to us, the Linux project, Debian, and others seem to have difficulties making a final good quality release on time".
However, I must admit that I found more appealing the N800 because the open nature of the device is attracting a lot of interest and just recently I've seen a couple of developments that improves its usability a lot: both an iPhone like on screen keyboard and a kinetic scroll. By the way, both improvement ideas come from iPhone . . .
So, at this point the question is: will these two open source projects change focus from hacking to usability, from innovation to stability or is here where they will fail, as many other such projects.
Thursday, 21 June 2007
The computer desktop . . . finally
After some 20 years dealing with the unintuitive concept of pc desktops from mac, windows and more recently Linux, we have finally got the REAL desktop . . . or table top. It is the Microsoft Surface. Before anyone jump on saying that MS didn't invented most of the technology behind it, and that they are as always stealing ideas, the reality is that they bundle all the required items and came with the product and this is what matters. And by the first time in the last decade, they came with it the first-
Let me say this stright: It has been a long, long time since any news in the computer industry excited me just a little bit, but I think that the Surface is going to be the next big thing in the computer market. Really big. It actually will define an entire new market. Or more than one market, maybe.
To start with, they will be real home PC. Forget about media centers (ah, I see, you've already forgotten them. Me too) and home servers. Ordinary people don't want them. Even most of the geeks out there (including me) don't want them because it is too much a hassle for too little benefits. The Surface, on the other hand, brings the usability to a new, higher levels.
Secondly, at the office, I foresee a no so distant time when knowledge related workers (managers, programmers, designers, researchers, physicians, and the like) will use this kind of work surface as its main desktop. Even more, I'm pretty sure that the surface will replace the conference room tables very, very soon. The possibilities for collaborative working are endless.
Enter the future desktop.
Let me say this stright: It has been a long, long time since any news in the computer industry excited me just a little bit, but I think that the Surface is going to be the next big thing in the computer market. Really big. It actually will define an entire new market. Or more than one market, maybe.
To start with, they will be real home PC. Forget about media centers (ah, I see, you've already forgotten them. Me too) and home servers. Ordinary people don't want them. Even most of the geeks out there (including me) don't want them because it is too much a hassle for too little benefits. The Surface, on the other hand, brings the usability to a new, higher levels.
Secondly, at the office, I foresee a no so distant time when knowledge related workers (managers, programmers, designers, researchers, physicians, and the like) will use this kind of work surface as its main desktop. Even more, I'm pretty sure that the surface will replace the conference room tables very, very soon. The possibilities for collaborative working are endless.
Enter the future desktop.
Wednesday, 9 May 2007
Web sites to take
I have just came across Raccoon, a mobile web server that can be used to expose to the web the functionalities of a Symbian S60 based mobile device (like my Nokia N70).
Putting a web server into my phone sounded at first glance as either the more stupid or the geekiest think to do with a phone.
But as Just a Traveler said on onee one of his interesting blog entries: "you can now create Apache modules to access all the phone’s resources, use mod_python along with Python for S60 to create dynamic web pages ... and the possibilities are endless!". (thanks Just a Traveler for pointing me into this direction).
I could then create a nice web based user interface to make appointments or enter contacts directly to the phone from my desktop using a browser. Man, I just can't wait to start working on this. I can fell the geekness becoming stronger in me!
I could also publish the latest photos I just took one minute ago with my phone without uploading them to my Yahoo Photos site, provided that I have enought bandwith from my phone to the internet.
Raccoon's web site has an interesting reflection about the consequences of this technology:
We believe that being able to run a globally accessible personal
website on your mobile phone has the potential of changing the
Internet landscape. If every mobile phone or even every smart phone
initially, is equipped with a web server then very quickly most
websites will reside on mobile phones. That is bound to have some
impact not only on how mobile phones are perceived but also on how
the web evolves."
Suppose now that instead of just putting some web pages to access the phone I put web services in there? Then, I could make any other web service capable device to talk to my phone. Ans hey, my phone can also make this trick and talk to other devices using web services. I could make them cooperate and create a sort of personal area grid!
"possibilities are endless!" Sure they are.
Putting a web server into my phone sounded at first glance as either the more stupid or the geekiest think to do with a phone.
But as Just a Traveler said on onee one of his interesting blog entries: "you can now create Apache modules to access all the phone’s resources, use mod_python along with Python for S60 to create dynamic web pages ... and the possibilities are endless!". (thanks Just a Traveler for pointing me into this direction).
I could then create a nice web based user interface to make appointments or enter contacts directly to the phone from my desktop using a browser. Man, I just can't wait to start working on this. I can fell the geekness becoming stronger in me!
I could also publish the latest photos I just took one minute ago with my phone without uploading them to my Yahoo Photos site, provided that I have enought bandwith from my phone to the internet.
Raccoon's web site has an interesting reflection about the consequences of this technology:
We believe that being able to run a globally accessible personal
website on your mobile phone has the potential of changing the
Internet landscape. If every mobile phone or even every smart phone
initially, is equipped with a web server then very quickly most
websites will reside on mobile phones. That is bound to have some
impact not only on how mobile phones are perceived but also on how
the web evolves."
Suppose now that instead of just putting some web pages to access the phone I put web services in there? Then, I could make any other web service capable device to talk to my phone. Ans hey, my phone can also make this trick and talk to other devices using web services. I could make them cooperate and create a sort of personal area grid!
"possibilities are endless!" Sure they are.
Saturday, 5 May 2007
it is the usability, stupid
I have just bought a Nokia N70 mobile phone, but on the contrary of what can be expected after having a new gadget, I'm far from been happy. Actually, I'm pretty much upset. Why? because this is probably the more annoying device I've ever seen in my life. Man, if this phone is smart, I don't want to see the dumb one!
I'll give an example: to block the keyboard, you need to keep pressed a tinny button at the top of the phone(which happens to be the power on/off button) until a menu pops up, on which you must then choose the second option using the cursor! But be careful because if you keep the button pressed, the phone will be turned off without further confirmation. Just imagine how many times I have turned the phone off by accident.
Besides this, the phone is just plainly slow performing almost any action: it takes almost 30 seconds to boot (after you have accidentally turned off!).
Remember that feeling of anxiety when we accessed the Internet using a 28Kbps connections and we called it the "World Wide Wait"? Well, this is even more frustrating because a phone is basically an appliance, a device that you expect to do something and do it quickly and flawlessly. Imagine if you have to wait 30 seconds for your microwave oven to "boot" before you can defrost your dinner?
The true be said, this phone has a lot of functionality. But its user interface couldn't be more complex and unintuitive, rendering it almost unusable by anyone but a truegeek "technology enthusiast".
Therefore, I find the discussion about the features the iPhone lacks almost irrelevant: it is more important what you will actually be able to do, than what the phone could potentially do . . . if it were just smart enough to make it for you.
update 10-May-2007
After some extensive research in different blogs and forums, I've found that the phone is actually quite nicely customizable. For instance, I discovered that in some cases (but not always) the keyboard protection can be activated using a sinple combination of keys, without using the power on/off button.
Here is a list of blogs you might be interested to take a look at:
Optimizing Shortcuts in S60 Phones
Making the most out of Nokia N70 - Part 3
S60 Navigation - Tips and Tricks
I'll give an example: to block the keyboard, you need to keep pressed a tinny button at the top of the phone(which happens to be the power on/off button) until a menu pops up, on which you must then choose the second option using the cursor! But be careful because if you keep the button pressed, the phone will be turned off without further confirmation. Just imagine how many times I have turned the phone off by accident.
Besides this, the phone is just plainly slow performing almost any action: it takes almost 30 seconds to boot (after you have accidentally turned off!).
Remember that feeling of anxiety when we accessed the Internet using a 28Kbps connections and we called it the "World Wide Wait"? Well, this is even more frustrating because a phone is basically an appliance, a device that you expect to do something and do it quickly and flawlessly. Imagine if you have to wait 30 seconds for your microwave oven to "boot" before you can defrost your dinner?
The true be said, this phone has a lot of functionality. But its user interface couldn't be more complex and unintuitive, rendering it almost unusable by anyone but a true
Therefore, I find the discussion about the features the iPhone lacks almost irrelevant: it is more important what you will actually be able to do, than what the phone could potentially do . . . if it were just smart enough to make it for you.
update 10-May-2007
After some extensive research in different blogs and forums, I've found that the phone is actually quite nicely customizable. For instance, I discovered that in some cases (but not always) the keyboard protection can be activated using a sinple combination of keys, without using the power on/off button.
Here is a list of blogs you might be interested to take a look at:
Optimizing Shortcuts in S60 Phones
Making the most out of Nokia N70 - Part 3
S60 Navigation - Tips and Tricks
Sunday, 29 April 2007
The disappearing Internet
I recently read the excellent novel from Cory Doctorow, "Down and up in the Magic Kingdom", which is available for free download under the Creative Commons License. Besides the interesting main story, a depth reflexion about the human nature, the identity and the pursue of a destiny, I found particularly interesting that the characters in the novel had a brain implant to access the Internet directly. They can access the Internet transparently at any moment and they certantly do it.
I was struck by such idea. I wondered how such an interface will definitely change how we interact with information and will remove any distinction between what happen "on-line" and "off-line", as we do now. We will be on-line all the time. We could make a post to our blog while we are witnessing an event, or start a chat with our wife to decide to buy that home appliance, or read that important email in the middle of a meeting just in time to avoid a unthinkable error. . . options are endless and the impact impossible to foresee.
But having ubiquitous, seamless, access to Internet could change more dramatically our lives and even our society, as the author portraits in one brief but nevertheless disturbing passage in the novel:
"thinking about it, the old-fashioned way". What a powerful image: People who is so used to go to the Internet at any moment during a conversation to find information, that doesn't think about things anymore.
My first reaction was to consider that such reliance on an "external" source will lead to mindless people. But, latter I realized I was considering just a part of the picture and missing a very important one: that information taken from Internet would very probably come from a social network, "a la web 2.0". Therefore, will be more that just raw information, but the result of a social process, full of interactions, discussions, refinement.
But this is even more disturbing: we will then end-up replacing our personal, immediate (and non mediate) thoughts about a situation by the corresponding "social thoughts". Will we then lose any change of dissension on the commonly accepted criteria? Will we be transformed in mere ants is a connected society?
I was struck by such idea. I wondered how such an interface will definitely change how we interact with information and will remove any distinction between what happen "on-line" and "off-line", as we do now. We will be on-line all the time. We could make a post to our blog while we are witnessing an event, or start a chat with our wife to decide to buy that home appliance, or read that important email in the middle of a meeting just in time to avoid a unthinkable error. . . options are endless and the impact impossible to foresee.
But having ubiquitous, seamless, access to Internet could change more dramatically our lives and even our society, as the author portraits in one brief but nevertheless disturbing passage in the novel:
He cocked his head again, and gave it some thought. If it had been any of the other grad students, I'd have assumed he was grepping for some bolstering factoids to support his next sally. But with him, I just knew he was thinking about it, their old-fashioned way.
"thinking about it, the old-fashioned way". What a powerful image: People who is so used to go to the Internet at any moment during a conversation to find information, that doesn't think about things anymore.
My first reaction was to consider that such reliance on an "external" source will lead to mindless people. But, latter I realized I was considering just a part of the picture and missing a very important one: that information taken from Internet would very probably come from a social network, "a la web 2.0". Therefore, will be more that just raw information, but the result of a social process, full of interactions, discussions, refinement.
But this is even more disturbing: we will then end-up replacing our personal, immediate (and non mediate) thoughts about a situation by the corresponding "social thoughts". Will we then lose any change of dissension on the commonly accepted criteria? Will we be transformed in mere ants is a connected society?
Thursday, 29 March 2007
The google generation
Rising a child is a fascinating, mind blowing experience. For me, one of the biggest sources of wonders with children is to see how they discover and interact with technology while they rise in a highly technified environment. Contrary to us, who "discovered" technology in a later stage of life and had to incorporate it into our perception of the world, for them technology is a integral part of the world. For them, technology is undifferentiated from nature or culture.
For instance, my four year old son has risen surfing the web with me looking for such valuable items as Peter Pan's pictures or videos of trains. A couple of days ago, he saw me opening the browser and as soon as he identified google's main page, he told me "daddy, type 'videos of trains' in there . . . I want to see some train videos". For him, this is how things work: you type what you want in the google's search page and you get it. No wonder, no mystery. Is the way it has always been for him and the rest of the Google generation. This is the world he will live in.
For instance, my four year old son has risen surfing the web with me looking for such valuable items as Peter Pan's pictures or videos of trains. A couple of days ago, he saw me opening the browser and as soon as he identified google's main page, he told me "daddy, type 'videos of trains' in there . . . I want to see some train videos". For him, this is how things work: you type what you want in the google's search page and you get it. No wonder, no mystery. Is the way it has always been for him and the rest of the Google generation. This is the world he will live in.
Saturday, 24 March 2007
Brand new (virtual) world
One thing is to understand a technology or even to use it, and other very different to realize the consequences of this technology have in your life. Today, I realized the full power or virtualization technologies and had a brief insight on how it will change the day to day experience for most computer users.
I recently got a new laptop, a a Toshiba Satellite M100-184 which came with Windows Xp home edition in Spanish pre-installed. I have the costum to have all my machines installed in English, to make my life easier. So, my first frustration came when I tried to install Windows XP Professional in english and even when I found most of the required drivers, I was just unable to get most of the hardware to work. Very annoying, indeed.
Then, I got and even bigger frustration: I expend most of my spare time during a couple of weeks trying to get openSuse installed, driving through numerous user forums and fighting with increasingly complex how-to's. As I use Linux as my primary development platform, this was more than a mere annoyance, it was a serious limitation. Had I known this before and I hadn't bought this particular machine.
Then, yesterday, I came to a better solution: create a virtual machine on top of Windows XP and get Linux installed there. It sounded easy and it was. I did a quick research on available open source tools, on which I basically considered Qemu and VirtualBox. This brief comparison and a short test of both tools made me decide for VirtualBox, mostly due to its usability and the quality of the documentation. Now, while I write this, I had suse installed in a virtual machine and ready to work, thanks to the "plain vanilla" virtual hardware that Virtualbox emulates.
This is a tremendous change for end users: no more hardware related complexities. Obviously, this has a price: not all hardware features can be exploit, but this less than a problem for more users, who will not use them anyway. Even more, you can port your working environment from one physical machine to another (for instance, between home and work). Also, you can have more than one virtual machine configured for special purposes. For example, my wife will love to have her old and familiar windows 95!
I foresee that soon hardware manufacturers will sale their machines with a small, simple, robust, efficient virtualization layer that offers a set of "standard" virtual machine configurations on which you can install the operating system of your choice. A kind of high level Bios. And yes, this virtualization layer will most likely be based on Linux. A trimmed down version, probably, but Linux after all.
So in the long run, we will get a Linux on each desktop, even if the user doesn't know.
I recently got a new laptop, a a Toshiba Satellite M100-184 which came with Windows Xp home edition in Spanish pre-installed. I have the costum to have all my machines installed in English, to make my life easier. So, my first frustration came when I tried to install Windows XP Professional in english and even when I found most of the required drivers, I was just unable to get most of the hardware to work. Very annoying, indeed.
Then, I got and even bigger frustration: I expend most of my spare time during a couple of weeks trying to get openSuse installed, driving through numerous user forums and fighting with increasingly complex how-to's. As I use Linux as my primary development platform, this was more than a mere annoyance, it was a serious limitation. Had I known this before and I hadn't bought this particular machine.
Then, yesterday, I came to a better solution: create a virtual machine on top of Windows XP and get Linux installed there. It sounded easy and it was. I did a quick research on available open source tools, on which I basically considered Qemu and VirtualBox. This brief comparison and a short test of both tools made me decide for VirtualBox, mostly due to its usability and the quality of the documentation. Now, while I write this, I had suse installed in a virtual machine and ready to work, thanks to the "plain vanilla" virtual hardware that Virtualbox emulates.
This is a tremendous change for end users: no more hardware related complexities. Obviously, this has a price: not all hardware features can be exploit, but this less than a problem for more users, who will not use them anyway. Even more, you can port your working environment from one physical machine to another (for instance, between home and work). Also, you can have more than one virtual machine configured for special purposes. For example, my wife will love to have her old and familiar windows 95!
I foresee that soon hardware manufacturers will sale their machines with a small, simple, robust, efficient virtualization layer that offers a set of "standard" virtual machine configurations on which you can install the operating system of your choice. A kind of high level Bios. And yes, this virtualization layer will most likely be based on Linux. A trimmed down version, probably, but Linux after all.
So in the long run, we will get a Linux on each desktop, even if the user doesn't know.
Saturday, 17 February 2007
Linus Torvalds revisited
I have never had a good impression about Linus, mostly after reading about his debate with professor Tannenbaun, on which he demonstrated not only his ignorance about modern operating systems design (even when this might sound as anathema to Linux fans), but also his arrogance and lack of self-criticism (let's face it, Linux is NOT innovative at all and share the same conceptual and architectural deficits than Unix)
However, some recent facts are changing my overall impression about Linus. Firs, he impressed me for the way he managed an aparently endless discussion about design decisions among kernel developers. This short except is a gem: "get on with your lives. Realize that there is no 'perfect' value for HZ". I've been myself several times in such discussions and therefore can appreciate both the need and the efficacy of his comments.
Second, he has recently confronted the developers of GNOME to tell them the awful true: user interfaces in Linux sucks and they are not able to fix them because they think end users are stupid and don¡t deserve to be considered. Will them listen? Hardly.
Finally, I read Linus' responses to a proposal to include new functionality into the kernel called syslets. His arguments are really clear and shown a deep understanding of the complexities of designing good programming interfaces, which he summarizes as " think simplicity of use along with transparency, is so important . . . It's just that I think complex interfaces that people largely won't even use is a big mistake. We should concentrate on usability first, and some excessive cleverness really isn't a big advantage."
However, some recent facts are changing my overall impression about Linus. Firs, he impressed me for the way he managed an aparently endless discussion about design decisions among kernel developers. This short except is a gem: "get on with your lives. Realize that there is no 'perfect' value for HZ". I've been myself several times in such discussions and therefore can appreciate both the need and the efficacy of his comments.
Second, he has recently confronted the developers of GNOME to tell them the awful true: user interfaces in Linux sucks and they are not able to fix them because they think end users are stupid and don¡t deserve to be considered. Will them listen? Hardly.
Finally, I read Linus' responses to a proposal to include new functionality into the kernel called syslets. His arguments are really clear and shown a deep understanding of the complexities of designing good programming interfaces, which he summarizes as " think simplicity of use along with transparency, is so important . . . It's just that I think complex interfaces that people largely won't even use is a big mistake. We should concentrate on usability first, and some excessive cleverness really isn't a big advantage."
Monday, 5 February 2007
The quest for a winner open source project
Today I came across this interesting article at Information Week about the keys for a successful open source project: "How tell the open source winners from the loosers". Among other things, they offers a series of criteria to spot a successful open source project:
This article put me to consider, again, if my the project I've been developing with my colleges at the UPC, the Grid Market Middleware, has any future at all as an open source project.
Applying Information Week's test, it seams that we meet what is in my opinion the single more important criteria: Disruptive goals. Our long term goal is to offer a platform for the research of economic based grids, opening the possibility to trade computational resources among communities of users, either for profit or as a form of community collaboration. We believe this will lead to a web 2.0 like grid environment. And I think that we are in a perfect timing, as Amazon is now making grid something popular, so we could expect a grow in the demand for grid solutions.
We also have a benevolent dictator: or at least I think that, ahem, I qualify for the job.
The lack of a thriving community or commercial support is not yet a problem, as we are still building the foundations of the gmm.
What seams critical now is to improve the documentation as most of the design is still in my mind. Also we need urgently at least a full time developer to implement the core on which others could start contributing.
I hope we could tackle this resource bottleneck before we pass to enlarge the statistics of "dead on arrival" open source projects.
- A thriving community
- Disruptive goals
- A benevolent dictator
- Transparency
- Civility
- Documentation
- Employed developers
- A clear license
- Commercial support
This article put me to consider, again, if my the project I've been developing with my colleges at the UPC, the Grid Market Middleware, has any future at all as an open source project.
Applying Information Week's test, it seams that we meet what is in my opinion the single more important criteria: Disruptive goals. Our long term goal is to offer a platform for the research of economic based grids, opening the possibility to trade computational resources among communities of users, either for profit or as a form of community collaboration. We believe this will lead to a web 2.0 like grid environment. And I think that we are in a perfect timing, as Amazon is now making grid something popular, so we could expect a grow in the demand for grid solutions.
We also have a benevolent dictator: or at least I think that, ahem, I qualify for the job.
The lack of a thriving community or commercial support is not yet a problem, as we are still building the foundations of the gmm.
What seams critical now is to improve the documentation as most of the design is still in my mind. Also we need urgently at least a full time developer to implement the core on which others could start contributing.
I hope we could tackle this resource bottleneck before we pass to enlarge the statistics of "dead on arrival" open source projects.
Sunday, 21 January 2007
1 way the iPhone is better than the Nokia N800 (and than anything else out there)
I just came across the article "10 ways the Nokia N800 is better than Apple's iPhone" and I'm surprised with the ingeniuty of the author. He just completely misses the point. Don't get me wrong, I like the Nokia N800 and is very likely I will buy one very soon. But there is just a single way iPhone is better than the N800 and anything else out there: usability.
just consider this excerpt from a review of the iPhone "You could call iPhone perfect":
"The touch-interface works flawlessly, in terms of both technical function and user interface design. Whatever you want to do -- select an album to play, make or take a call, compose and send an e-mail -- your first impulse is almost always the correct one. It is the simpler phone ever. And there are no lags, no pauses, no waiting for the slickly animated UI to catch up with you, even when you're scrolling through a stack of album art that's flopping past your finger in 3D: It's liquid." (bolds are mine)
This is simpler device ever, indeed. That is. No matter the open/close software discussion. No matter pricing. It is . . . just elegant, functional, simple. You WANT to use it. Even non geeks and technology illiterates want to use it.
You can call it perfect.
just consider this excerpt from a review of the iPhone "You could call iPhone perfect":
"The touch-interface works flawlessly, in terms of both technical function and user interface design. Whatever you want to do -- select an album to play, make or take a call, compose and send an e-mail -- your first impulse is almost always the correct one. It is the simpler phone ever. And there are no lags, no pauses, no waiting for the slickly animated UI to catch up with you, even when you're scrolling through a stack of album art that's flopping past your finger in 3D: It's liquid." (bolds are mine)
This is simpler device ever, indeed. That is. No matter the open/close software discussion. No matter pricing. It is . . . just elegant, functional, simple. You WANT to use it. Even non geeks and technology illiterates want to use it.
You can call it perfect.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
