Technology gives us an amazing breadth of information, from email and Twitter to task lists on OmniFocus. Yet the sheer size of what’s out there comes at a cost; the decisions of what to tackle next can be overwhelming, stressful and, given the frequent contextual switches between programs, inefficient.
As a result I’ve lately found myself turning less and less to news sites, RSS and Twitter to catch up with what’s happening. Instead I’m increasingly relying on information sources that eschew decisions, pare down content, and make a conscious effort to slow the user down. Two iPad reading apps fit this goal perfectly: Zite and Palimpsest.
Both apps intentionally limit what’s on screen at once, emphasizing a “lean back”, more methodical browsing pace. Zite packages information from the user’s Twitter and RSS feeds in a magazine like format; each page rarely has more than five or six articles. Palimpsest takes this limitation even further, presenting only a single curated article to the user at a time. The experience is a welcome contrast to the “lean forward”, rapid scanning behavior that predominates nearly all RSS and Twitter clients.
The much hyped and praised streaming music service Spotify debuted in the U.S. last Thursday and like many others, I signed up. One week after testing Spotify Premium extensively I’m sticking with my existing service, Rdio. I find Rdio’s excellent discovery tools and social integration trump any of Spotify’s advantages. Overall though, there’s not a definitive winner in these streaming music wars; each service has their own set of strengths and weaknesses.
It’s not easy at first to pick apart those differences as both Rdio and Spotify share a lot in common. Each has a huge song selection, mobile syncing for music on the go, search capabilities and integration with social networks like Facebook and Twitter. Yet the two services diverge in their user interface and sound quality on different mediums, the focus for the remainder of this article.
We’re in a fast changing digital landscape; innovation has worked into almost every device I use regularly and with cloud syncing my content is accessible from anywhere. So why do higher end cameras, most notably digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) ones, feel absent from the picture? Big manufacturers like Canon and Nikon push out better sensors and higher end lenses year after year, but the core design remains unchanged. Contrast that progress with the rapid evolution in smaller, camera-equipped devices like the iPhone and Canon S95, both in terms of technology advances and mainstream adoption. If the trend continues the DSLR will be relegated to a niche device for professionals only.
The problem starts with perception: compared to hot new consumer tech like the Kinect and iPhone, DSLRs, at least to a mainstream audience, are run of the mill if not behind the curve. First and foremost, in a golden age of lightweight, powerful technology, DSLRs remain heavy and bulky. They also have a higher learning curve than most other tech devices: even using its simplest operation, the most basic DSLR offers a bewildering array of dial settings, zoom levels and menu adjustments.
I was relieved when Apple debuted iCloud last Monday; finally the company was addressing its subpar cloud connectivity head on. Given Apple’s penchant for great design, combined with its large install base and investment (a.k.a. its gigantic North Carolina data center) iCloud could move cloud computing to a much more mainstream level of integration and accessibility.
However, I’ve seen way too much hype from financial investors to tech pundits who are all accepting the Apple PR mantra of “it just works” as fact. Please, stop with the hyperbole. iCloud is not revolutionary. iCloud is very much a hard drive in the sky; Apple is merely obfuscating the details by burying them within their native apps.
In reality, Apple’s iCloud is less technical revolution and more philosophical shift. The company’s cloud system centers on tight vertical integration with iOS or Mac-friendly apps that have integrated Apple’s iCloud API. It’s a classic Apple move. An attempt to move an existing technology to the company?s comfort zone: its native user interfaces, hardware and software. I’d suspect iCloud will be easier, at first glance, for users heavily invested within Apple’s iOS and Mac ecosystem. A document will be saved, and given the likely heavy restrictions placed under the iCloud API, there’s only a few places it can go, namely the same file name and app on every other Apple vetted app.
In contrast, existing cloud sync systems from the likes of Google and Dropbox embrace a far more open, flexible structure that can be accessed in many ways (on any operating system, on the web, within native apps via APIs). Yet, that openness comes at a cost; more options and flexibility means a less unified, harder to understand interface, especially for the non-tech crowd.
There?s an irritating trend I?m noticing more often with new technology offered up online: It starts as the curious and technologically adept download apps, read from new publications, and sign up for services with a lot of buzz and discussion on Twitter, Facebook and blogs. Many are free but some of the most interesting, from huge music streaming services to small scale, members only audio content are not.
It’s on these payment models which give many pause. Clich?d arguments usually appear which emphasize how online models only succeed when they are free, and how many equally good free alternatives already exist. The majority move on to other options.
That’s a problem.
Free always has a cost. I?ve downloaded ?free? apps that crash, are rarely updated, or have pixelated, annoying ads that waste my time. I?ve read from ?free? blogs that carbon copy press releases with little insight or unique analysis. I?ve watched ?free? video clips that are poorly edited and produced.
This week Amazon unveiled Cloud Drive, an online storage system for Amazon users to upload their music collections for both on demand streaming and backup. It’s unquestionably huge tech news; Amazon is the first company of this size and stature to provide a cloud based service on this large of a scale. Intrigued, I’ve spent the last two days putting the service through its paces and in the process have come to several conclusions:
Mainstream users will rush to embrace cloud-based services (albeit slowly at first)
While it’s true that the tech community has heavily utilized cloud-based file services like Dropbox and Crashplan for years, Amazon’s Cloud Service is really the first to nail it for a mainstream audience: Unlike most other cloud solutions, there’s no additional drives to be mounted or cumbersome software to download. Instead, Amazon requires just a small Adobe Air app used to upload music (in a nice touch, Amazon auto scans your HD), the music player itself just a web site. Given that level of simplicity, Amazon’s solid customer service, not to mention 5GB free for anyone that has an Amazon account, a lot of households will jump onboard.
Expect this to be the first major step for mainstream users to incorporate cloud-based computing into their day. Music is a great starting point: millions already use web-based streaming clients like Pandora and Rdio so jumping over to an Amazon website to listen to their music library is a natural progression. I’d predict that competitors like Dropbox and Apple will make great efforts to make their services more enticing for a non tech audience (simpler UI, more competitive pricing plans, more devices) and in the process their respective user bases should grow exponentially.
This all takes time; it’s a big step from uploading songs from one’s music library to enterprise sharing and larger scale backup plans. Nevertheless, as the other heavyweights like Apple, Sony and others join in (post Amazon’s move, it’s inevitable), demand will spike.
I tend to be cynical when I hear journalists talk about how a new technology is a “glimpse of the future.” It’s often terminology synonymous with the overly ambitious, exotic and doomed to fail.
Real glimpses of the future for me instead come in surprisingly subtle forms, the most impressive being cloud syncing: Core bits of data are stored online in the “cloud”, in turn automatically referenced by different digital devices to keep media seamlessly in sync. Just as surprisingly? The usually innovative Apple has almost nothing to do with it.
Since the Mac App Store opened yesterday and general online hysteria ensued (seemingly around 30% of my Twitter content focused on the App Store) I, like almost every other tech guy on the planet poured over the interface and content in depth. Now that I’ve had a day to get my hands dirty, I wanted to elaborate with a few thoughts and, in a sea of 1000 plus initial applications, a few download recommendations. Continue reading…
Though Obama clearly electrified the American public back in his 2008 election run, since taking office the press have often portrayed him as a more enigmatic figure. It’s become something of a journalistic clich? to portray the “real” Obama as a cool, cerebral and inward focused president. That’s precisely why Peter Baker’s New York Times Magazine profile of Obama is especially fascinating; Baker reveals a lot of nuggets on Obama’s steps ahead (“Obama 2.0”) and little insights of Obama’s day to day (basketball trash talking, bewilderment at today’s polarized cable TV climate.) Required reading for almost anyone with even a vague interest in U.S. politics.