Technology Through My Eyes

Ajax Project

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:00:00 +0000

Google Health

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

The American medical system is a mess. If you ignore the inconsistent and expensive nature for a moment, there is still the nightmare that are medical records. Unless you go to the same doctor for the entirety of your life, you're bound to have fragmented pieces of your history spread across countless practices, specialties and even states. There exists no unified system and because of this, most doctors use proprietary software to manage their patients' information. The end result in rehashing your entire medical history every time you visit a new doctor and in extreme cases, injury or death result from a conflict due to an incomplete picture. As someone who isn't afraid to visit as a specialist when it's necessary, I know I loathe the idea of having to fill out pages upon pages about my health.

Google wants to change this with Google Health. Not yet realized as the one stop record shop they hope it will be, they're encouraging people to use it for various medical directives as a start. I suspect the tool doesn't get a ton of usage and they're promoting it in hopes more people will buy into it.

The question is, do we trust Google? People tend to be very sensitive about their medical histories so is hosting that information "in the cloud" something we're ready for? Is our information secure both from internal and external threats? Will an increased dependency on a hosted solution leave us in the dark in a time of peril? As the company aggregates more and more of our lives (email, calendars, docs, voice mail), are we in danger of one day waking up with a Google hangover?

Google Chrome OS

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Google recently announced their plans to release Chrome OS, an operating system that is built around the idea of running the Chrome web browser as the primary applications platform. No one has seen nary a peep of the software and yet it already has everyone talking about what it means to the likes of Microsoft. Touted as a new way to think about the OS, Google believes it will change how we think about netbooks and the things we use them for.

It's probably no great secret that I don't find the news at all surprising. I'd previously written that the Chrome web browser was more application engine than actual browser and the progression of the Chrome OS seems like the natural next step. In the purest sense, Google's vision of the future has us running all the programs we used to on our desktops via web applications hosted and delivered via the cloud (although that term is grossly overused). They built a browser to run the programs faster and now they're building an OS for that browser to run on. No bloat, no messy installations and everyone is using all those fancy web apps that Google has been spending all their time designing. Hmm.

Give it another 5 years and we'll all be talking about Google like we talk about Microsoft now. They really are changing the way we use our computers and like any great behemoth, we'll eventually cry monopoly all while begrudgingly using their products to become more efficient and effective at whatever it is we do. I, for one, welcome our new overlords.

Death of Broadcast TV

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Blockbuster recently announced a deal with Samsung to distribute their movies digitally via various methods. It's an effort to complete with Netflix's "Watch Now" feature, which in conjunction with the mailed DVDs, has consistently chipped away larger and larger chunks of the rental market. Netflix offers a similar feature through several partners and while the offerings are not extensive, people do use it.

The reason this news really matters it because it serves as additional evidence that eventually, all of our media delivery will be via streaming/on-demand using the Internet. Not everyone rents movies and an even fewer number are watching movies from the Internet, but that's changing faster than most people realize. As the technology becomes easier to use and distribution methods become more comprehensive, we spend less and less time watching broadcast television.

Ask anyone under 25 how much TV they watch. Then ask those same people how often they catch up on TV shows on Hulu, network websites or even YouTube. In my early 30s, I routinely use Netflix's Watch Now streamed through my XBox 360. Even though I tend to be an early adopter, more and more people are embracing technology like I do. Granted, my parents probably aren't watching everything on their laptops, but I do know my dad downloaded episodes of 24 because he missed them on live broadcast. He'll be 60 this October.

Bing + Twitter = ?

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

It seems that Microsoft, in an effort to become more relevant, has started adding Twitter posts to Bing search results. The results are not comprehensive, but rather based on those people who are considered to be "influential" because of their number of followers, etc. This is a deviation from other search engines and while I have to commend MS for doing something different, I'm not really sure if it's going to prove valuable or not.

The naysayers are likely to suggest that Twitter is another Internet fad that will eventually run its course. It's hard to argue that a large portion of what happens there is not banal and relatively useless to the the majority of the population. If Bing was indexing and returning everything Twitter had to offer, I cannot see much value add in it.

I think where they may be able to differentiate themselves is in the breaking news and real-time information space. Things like Twitter and Facebook updates have repeatedly proven themselves as a viable source to learn about the latest happenings in various parts of the world. While there is a certain level of media hype in recent stories, I can attest that the first place I heard about recent celebrity deaths was on Facebook. Now I don't necessarily think everyone needs to be up to the second on celebrity news, but the application could likely be transitioned to any subject. If Bing is able to get the algorithm right, they could end up as the de facto aggregation source of socialized news and that could end up being a very profitable business model.

Google Voice

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

It was recently announced that Google has snagged up 1 million phone numbers in an effort to prepare for the opening of Google Voice to additional customers. Google Voice, a product that has not gotten much press since Google acquired GrandCentral and changed the name, allows users to have a single phone number ring any combination of phone numbers they own. It's currently not open to the public but it's my belief you're going to be hearing about a lot more in the near future. Before we talk about the why, let's look at some of the benefits.

Get a call on your cell phone through GV you don't want to take it? Send it to voicemail and the message is available in your browser whenever you're ready. Talking on your work phone and need to leave to pick up the kids from daycare? Push a few buttons and transfer the call to your cell phone with having to call anyone back. Want your boss to be able to reach you on your cell phone but not when you're on vacation? Create a "Work" group and disable forwarding to your cell phone for some peace. There are plenty more, but you get the point.

The reason you're going to eventually care about GV, or at least the technology it uses, is that it's another step in the direction of blurring the line between our daily lives and the Internet. Yes, it's very convenient to give everyone one number and have that ring your work or cell phone when you deem appropriate, but the real meat of it comes from a fairly seamless blending of dumb technology like your house phone and VOIP. In essence, it uses the Internet to connect devices that were never meant to be connected to the web, let alone each other. Whether you're ready or not, this is more proof all electronic devices will be interconnected and feeding off the same massive hive that is the Internet.

As a Google Voice user, I welcome you to the collective.

The Right to Technology

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0000

In the wake of recent elections, reports are emerging that mobile phone networks and access to various websites are being restricted in Iran. If you trust the reports, the government rigged the re-election of the president, including blocking many of the oppositions means of communication, and has shut down many venues that young people are using to foster their protests.

This raises an interesting question with respect to the rights one has to use various pieces of technology and methods of transfer of information. As a general rule, Americans have carte blanche when it comes to the Internet and it's something we probably take for granted. We do have laws that prevent certain uses (e.g. gambling, child pornography) but as far as my worker bee knowledge is concerned, we're not really blocked from anything. We expect to be able to do what we want, when we want and our nation's president even used it to help get elected.

The citizens of some other countries do not share the same freedoms. There are countless stories about China, Saudia Arabia and others blocking sites with various content; it's something I find difficult to imagine. Do we, as humans, have a right to technology or do governments know what they're doing by keeping us from harming ourselves? Karl Marx would probably argue that as long as we're busy tweeting we won't realize it as a method of distracting us from the real problems in our society. I am likely to argue that as long as it's not a public safety or national security risk, more is better... but I'm guessing those are the reasons given by the governments of these countries.

Mobile OS Wars

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:00:00 +0000

There is a lot of buzz surrounding the upcoming release of the Palm Pre smartphone. It is being touted as the next in a long list of iPhone killers, only people say this one might actually best the device from Apple. Who's to say which is really the best, I'm sure everyone will argue about it ad nauseum. It seems the smartphone choice is a very personal one and if you asked 5 people for their opinions, you're likely to get 7 different answers.

The increasing discussion about smartphone preference among friends and colleagues has me wondering what really impacts people's choices. I think we can all agree that marketing and branding play a pivotal role, but the real meat of what makes people happy with their phone is usability. Aside from the ergonomics aspect, like screen and keyboard, people care about what they can do with their phone. What's the thing that fosters all those fancy applications and functions? It's the OS, of course.

For a phone to work well, the OS has to offer a good platform. The article linked above compares several of the mobile versions that are floating around the market but it probably deserves a much larger discussion. Unlike computers, which has one OS dominating most of the market, mobile devices seems to be diversifying at a blistering pace. Even if you're not a techno-geek, PalmOS, Blackberry OS, iPhone OS, Windows Mobile, Android and webOS are all things you've probably heard talked about. Most people really don't think about what OS their phone is running, but if you want your Internet Life in your pocket, it really is the make or break component. If you need any evidence that it matters, consider that Google is very closely tied to the existence of Android. Google rarely gets involves in things that aren't going to be a part of our daily life in a few years (if they aren't now) so... yeah.

Information Delivery

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:00:00 +0000

An interesting thing happened yesterday; I got a friend request from my grandmother, who is fairly sick and in the hospital. After a bit of investigation, I found out that my aunt, who is an avid Facebook user, created the account as a way to update family members on her status. It certainly is an interesting interpretation of the "status update" and one I had never really considered.

On my personal blog, I'd previously written about the virtues of Facebook as I see them. As part of that post, I wrote about the benefits of pushing information en masse to a particular audience and how our lives could be enriched by it. I'm not naive enough to think people actually need it, but in a world where extended familes are separated by socioeconomic status and state lines, it certainly helps bridge the communication gap. Some may argue that a family member's health is worthy of a phone call, but as part of a family that numbers in the dozens I can't say I'd want to take part in that logistical nightmare. E-mail is probably the only truly practical way to share the same information with a large number of people, but I really don't understand how that's any different than a private Fb update.

Unfortunately, the account was deleted this morning because some objected to the methodology. I guess I can understand their perspective... actually, no I can't. I suppose I can concede that it's okay to not let Facebook take such a pivotal role in sharing this information, but I think those attitudes are outdated and are dying off as fast as the Baby Boomers are. I submit this as evidence that while I live a lot of my life and consume most of my information on the internet, we as a society are not really ready to fully embrace it. I think the day the newspaper dies is the day we can officially say we're there.

Google Chrome 2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Sat, 30 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Google recently released the 2.0 version of their browser, Chrome. Like the 1.0 version, the new version has received luke warm reviews. Like the linked article, most critics concede that Chrome is the fastest browser out there but is severely lacking in the features and usability that make other browsers more preferable. It is my belief that the problem with this sort of comparison is because people are assessing Chrome purely as a browser and not what it's really to be. While other browsers tend to be more geared at consuming information on the internet, Chrome seems to be more designed to allow for the consumption of rich internet applications (RIAs).

At some point in the (near?) future, web applications will match and replace desktop functionally. For them to reliably do so, they need to start offering operating system-like functionality. Users want the same experience and access to all the same data, regardless of machine or method used to access it. Google, in a weblog post about Chrome’s initial release, cites this very reason as to why they created Chrome in the first place. Sundar Pichai, Google’s VP of Product Management, is quoted as saying “We realized that the web had evolved from mainly simple text pages to rich, interactive applications and that we needed to completely rethink the browser. What we really needed was not just a browser, but also a modern platform for web pages and applications, and that's what we set out to build.”

Google understood they spent a majority of their time working inside a browser and having professed to the use of one to search, communicate, collaborate and spend their free time, wanted to optimize both current user experience and drive future innovation. In a discussion about the future of web applications, Sergey Brin, President of Technology at Google, says there are an abundant number of things that are difficult to do on the web today but that he believes there will be “more and more web apps, of greater sophistication.” Brin believes there is key functionality, like image styling currently offered by PhotoShop and similar programs, that users will want to remove from the desktop space and still get the same functionality within a browser.

So yeah, as a web browser Chrome doesn't really measure up. When using the yard stick Google intended, however, it is the first real step towards an internet application engine. At some point, we may look back and realize Google's path was the right one.

FBI & Social Networking

noreply@blogger.com (Chris) — Fri, 22 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

In what may be proof that social networking is a becoming an even more avoidable part of everyone's life, TechCrunch reports that the FBI has set up shop on Facebook, Twitter and several other sites you may have heard a lot about recently. One can assume that the FBI already works relatively closely with the likes of these sites so I can't really help but wonder what their goal is in having a public presence. Are they attempting to attract new recruits? Are they trying to be as "in touch" as Barack Obama? Are they trying to scare away predators by being more obvious? Chances are the answer is a combination of all these things and several others I can't even dream up.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the article comes as a quite from Jonathan Cox at the FBI: "We have a widget that works on MySpace, but nothing formal yet. Its a long vetting process and I have so many government rules to follow it would make your head spin. This is just the beginning though. I’ll keep you posted as things progress. Thanks.”

I'm lucky (and I guess that's debateable depending on who you ask) to work for a company that is not only in the private sector, but is also an internet/technology business. Not only am I fully ingrained in the latest and greatest sites out there, I feel like knowing it is necessary to do my job most effectively. I know a lot of people don't use the internet and its various technologies as much as I do, but I can't help but wonder who at the FBI is responsible for maintaining their sites/profiles. What sort of "government rules" do they have to follow and how much would they make me cringe and/or laugh? I'm guessing a lot of them weren't written for the likes of creating and maintaing profiles on Facebook.