Tech Quotient

iPod - Evolve or die

2006-08-29T04:36:00.000-07:00

Since its launch, the iPod has become one of Apple’s major products and sources of income. It has, arguably, been one of Steve Jobs’s biggest successes after his return to Apple.

At the Macworld Expo keynote speech on January 10, 2006, Steve Jobs reported sales of over 42 million iPods in all, and 14 million in the first quarter of 2006. The iPod’s market share accounts for about 75% of the mp3 player market. Calling it a runaway success wouldn’t be too far from the truth.

All this may soon change, as the iPod is bound to take a hit in sales, unless it evolves with the changing needs of consumers.

The day consumers saw the entry of mobile phones with inbuilt mp3 players, all standalone mp3 players were issued a warning of things to come in the future. However, they still faced no real threat as these mobile-phone-cum-mp3 players just couldn’t match the capability of a standard mp3 player. Sound quality wasn’t as good, storage space was limited, and they were too expensive to realistically affect the mp3 player market.

But now, with hard-disk based phone-cum-mp3-players invading world markets, they may ring a death knell for iPods and the like. Soon, within the next year, if not today.

These so-called convergence devices not only have mp3 players, they also come equipped with digital cameras of fairly decent merit, some PDA functionality, 3G/EDGE, WiFi, etc. making these packages increasingly attractive to consumers.

Although these devices are right now rather expensive, costing about $600-$800 a piece for a (unlocked) 4GB hard-disk based version, they also have a slew of features missing in standalone mp3 players like the iPod. Most come equipped with integrated digital cameras (>2.0 megapixels in most cases), PIM facilities and 3G/EDGE (service provider dependent), and of course mp3 players running off of a hard disk. With dipping technology prices, these devices will become increasingly more affordable to consumers throughout the world, hence eating into the iPods pie, particularly damaging the Nano’s marketshare.

Another advantage that these devices have over standalone devices is their single-package form factor, which enables users to carry a combination of 3 devices while populating just 1 pocket. And you only need to charge one devices instead of hooking up 3 devices to the power supply. Neat. All this makes it much more convenient for users to effectively utilize the vast range of functions present in these devices.

How often have you thought that you’d like to click a pic, but couldn’t merely because you weren’t carrying a camera? Haven’t you found yourself wanting to listen to a particular song, but, once again, couldn’t because you weren’t carrying your mp3 player? All these problems will be things of the past with these convergence phones: this problem will vaporize as these phones are bound to be in your pocket at nearly all times (after all, how many of us would leave our homes without a mobile phone?). What this means is that you have all your coolest devices built into one, with you, at nearly all times, allowing you to use all these features whenever you want, wherever you want. Neat, once again.

Phones like the upcoming Sony-Ericsson W950 and the Nokia N91 are examples of such devices.

The Nokia N91 comes equipped with a 4GB HDD, 2MP camera, Symbian OS 9.1 and a slew of PIM features. It can be purchased for about $650 (unlocked). It’s (and other similar devices’) main advantage over the iPod is its vast range of functions, as well as the previously mentioned single-package form factor.

The moment devices like the N91 are available between $400-$450, they’re bound to eat in to the market of standalone mp3 players, in particular the iPod Nano. At present, the 4GB iPod nano costs a cool $250. A lot of people wouldn’t mind paying an additional 150 dollars to get these convergence devices, with a whole range of other features.

I’m not saying that the iPod will die – I’m saying it’s going to be hit hard by such devices, some time next year – but it will eventually die unless it evolves (the concept of survival of the fittest). These new convergence phones just make much more sense than standalone mp3 players.

But, as seen in the past, Apple is a particularly robust and sound company, with strong fundamentals. It might quite easily be able to steer the iPod clear of any danger by releasing such a device of its own - that would be a coup of its own.

However, partnerships like the Motorola-Apple partnership yielded nothing, and had a minimal impact on the music player industry. Apple has to take this up more seriously, and, hopefully, independently. Maybe the Apple-Softbank collaboration will yield better results in making a proper mp3-player-phone.

And I’m also not saying that the iPod alone will be hit. All standalone mp3 players await the same fate. That of a shrinking market.

In any case, the iPod either needs to evolve, incorporating other features like a camera/phone, or face a shrinking market for stand-alone mp3 players and eventually die. Only the fittest will survive in this world of cut-throat competition. It remains to be seen whether the iPod is fit enough.

Quines

2006-07-25T10:23:00.000-07:00

Quines, named after Willard Van Orman Quine, are self-reproducing programs. In other words, quines are programs that display their own source code. Some people believe it’s extremely easy to do so, but that’s because they haven’t understood the concept of a quine. And then there are others who believe it is impossible to write a quine, but they’re wrong. A quine can be implemented in nearly every Turing complete language, and doing so can be an interesting challenge for most programmers.

Writely

2006-06-25T10:21:00.000-07:00

Writely is a web-based word processor which shot to instant fame following its acquisition by search giant Google. It’s a great example of a Web 2.0 site, featuring the ubiquitous “beta” tag and an AJAX driven interface. It’s still in Limited beta, so you can use it only if you’re lucky enough to have an invite.

Writely, like other Web 2.0 sites, loads quickly on fast internet connections, and once loaded, has the look and feel of a desktop application like Word or OpenOffice.org, with a slight comic-book look to it.

All the usual formatting options expected in a word processor, albeit a basic one, are present. Tables, lists, hyperlinks, images, etc. can be inserted with ease. In addition to these, writely has some nice features. For instance, the ability to save and store files online in RTF, PDF, HTML, DOC and ODF is a very useful feature which makes writely even more versatile and portable.

The ability to “collaborate” is a feature which we also find in Google Spreadsheet. It basically allows multiple people to login from different locations to simultaneously work on the same document. Combined with the fact that the files created using writely are stored on Google’s servers ensures that they are accessible from anywhere in the world.

Two other features worth noting are the “Blog”, which lets the user directly post to a blog, and the “Revisions” feature, which enables a user to see a history of the revisions made to the document.

All-in-all, Writely is another good “beta” offering from Google (although not developed by it), without being revolutionary/path-breaking in any way. It does not, in any way, endanger MS Word or OpenOffice.org nor does it offer a viable alternative. As for it’s being online, products like ajaxWrite, Zoho Writer and ThinkFree Office are also online, and available.

Google Spreadsheets

2006-06-07T01:04:00.000-07:00

Google Spreadsheets is out and, I must say, it's a pleasure to use. I just got my invite, and I've been fiddling with it for a while.
Go to spreadsheet.google.com and sign-in (if you've been invited to the Limited Beta). It loads extremely quickly, in my case taking only 5 seconds to load. Once loaded, you can barely tell whether you're using a desktop application or something through the internet.
The interface is clean and simlple; it's also quite similar to Excel, just as you would expect in any spreadsheet program. All in all, the interface looks like a Googlified version of Excel. Quite pleasing to the eye.
Google Spreadsheet incorporates all basic features that you'd expect in a spreadsheet program. You can even use formulas and sorting. Files can be downloaded in .xls and .cvs format, and can also be uploaded from ones computer. Cells can be merged, basic formatting can be applied, etc.
Nothing revolutionary so far? That's because I've left the best for the end. Here it comes: You can allow multiple people to view/edit files created in Google Spreadsheets. Files created in it are accessible through the internet, from any location. All changes made are saved in real-time, so you needn't worry about losing your data in case you accidentally close the window, or your browser crashes.
The part that I like best about Google Spreadsheet is that files created in it can be accessed from anywhere, by as many people as required. Basically, if I'm in Ohio when I create a file, and I go to New York, I can still access my file through the internet. No need for burning discs or carrying flash drives. Simply amazing.
Although this marks Google's foray into Microsoft's core business, Google Spreadsheet is unlikely to pose much of a threat to Microsoft Excel, as most features which make Excel so popular are missing in Spreadsheet. For instance, the much-used and loved (or hated) macros and graphs are not available in Spreadsheet.
Given this, and the fact that Spreadsheet is free (and cool), the two are likely to co-exist rather than interfere with each other.

Clash of the titans: Google vs Microsoft

2006-06-05T05:01:00.000-07:00

Google's core business is search. Microsoft's core business is the desktop. However, in recent times, the two have found their interests coming in direct conflict with each other.
Everyone knows Microsoft has a new, potent rival in Google. Has Microsoft met it's match? Read ahead to see how the two companies have fared against each other so far.

Gmail vs Hotmail
Gmail rocked the market the day it was launches, and has never looked back. Initially launched with 1GB, great search features, without graphic ads and a quick AJAX-driven mailbox, gmail was simply miles ahead of Hotmail, which offered a pathetic 2MB of space at the time, accompanied with irritating ads.
Although both Gmail and Hotmail have come a long way since then, Hotmail has failed to catch up to Gmail. In fact, it hasn't even been able to match the features that gmail offered at the time of its launch, whereas Gmail has moved forward, incorporating a lightning quick chat facility into it's inbox, taking it lightyears ahead of Microsoft. Working in conjunction with Chat, Maps and a calendar, Gmail offers a slew of attractive and useful features totally missing from Hotmail.
Microsoft has poured barrels of money into Hotmail, to try and bring Hotmail at par with Google, but its efforts have been in vain.
Victor: Google

Google vs MSN Search
In search, Google was the pioneer, while MSN search was a newcomer with huge corporate backing. Microsoft, once again, put its weight (and money) behind MSN search to try and trounce the reigning Google. After considerable improvements to its engine and index, MSN Search has risen to great heights, and has become a very popular search engine indeed. Results are now quite accurate and useful, eliminating the need to search twice/thrice. MSN Search is catching up to Google, but it still has a considerable distance to travel.
Google, on the other hand, is still the leader, in terms of both accuracy and volumes. However, Google had become increasingly easy to "game" in recent times, leading to inaccurate results, but these issues have been resolved after a recent update. The recent "Bigdaddy", although widely criticised by webmasters, has cleansed Google's result pages of spammy and irrelevant websites.
Victor: Google

Blogger vs MSN Spaces
Blogger has been around for a while, and has steadily grown in popularity. After it was bought over by Google, some amazing new features have been added to Blogger, like the ability to upload pictures directly to a blog. Blogger even became ad-free, allowing users to sign-up for Google Adsense and earn money from their blogs, if they so desired.
MSN Spaces came late to the party. When blogging has already become a crazy, Microsoft decided to unleash it's own blogging service, which was just not good enough to compete with Blogger. MSN Spaces isn't as customizable, doesn't have seamless integration with a money earning programme, and has ugly URLs, unlike blogger which gives away subdomains.
Victor: Google

Google Talk vs MSN Messenger
This decision dpends greatly on the outcome of Gmail vs Hotmail. If you use Gmail, you're likely to use Google Talk, and if you use Hotmail, you're likely to use MSN Messenger. Google Talk is as good as MSN Messenger, despite the fact that MSN Messenger has been around for quite a while now. Google, however, manages to inch forward with the help of it's VOIP functionality, integrated seamlessly into Google Talk, which makes it an absolute breeze to use. MSN has no equivalent VOIP feature to offer, and thus once again lags behind Google, but continues to be relevant due to a huge user base.
Victor: Undecided

Google Desktop Search vs Microsoft Desktop Search
Microsoft makes Windows, so it should be able to search the desktop better than Google, right? WRONG!! Google Desktop Search is quicker, and more relevant than Microsoft's Desktop Search. It's surprising how efficient and useful, GDS is in comparison with Microsoft's Search Utility. It's one of those things that just should've been part of Windows. Google clearly wins again.
Victor: Google

Google Maps vs Windows Live Local
Finally we get to see something that Microsoft has got right. Windows Live Local and Google Maps are both really good, almost at par with each other, but WIndows Live Local has some features that make it great to use. For instance, scrolling with arrow keys and the mouse-scroller is really easy to use, as well as intuitive. Google needs to put in some work here to edge ahead of Microsoft.
Victor: Microsoft

Google Adwords vs Microsoft adCenter
Microsoft has come out with adCenter to try and take a chunk out of Google's pie. Google's only major source of income is Adwords, and will continue to be so. Microsoft is new, so we have to wait for it to develop into a competitor for Google. As things stand right now, Microsoft doesn't have the volumes to match Google, which places advertisers ads on its search pages and on the pages of partner sites in it's network. Microsoft has a long, long way to go before it can dethrone the king of internet marketting.
Victor: Google

A quick glance at the results of this intense rivalry between Google and Microsoft will show you that, as of now, Google seems to be getting the better of Microsoft. In some cases, Google has just been twistin Microsoft at will, giving it a very very hard time indeed. We, as consumers, can only gain from such competition. We can also sit back and enjoy a great fight. And that's exactly what we're going to do now.
There are numerous scenarios where Microsoft and Google have locked horns, and I'll cover these in times to come.

Google SketchUp

2006-05-30T11:00:00.000-07:00

Finally, I’ve written a review of Google SketchUp Beta (Yes, my friends, this is always another beta application from Google). First, lets get some history.

SketchUp is an extremely easy-to-use, in fact the easiest-to-use, 3D modeling tool available in the market. Recently, it was acquired by Google, giving it instant reach and popularity. It was also immediately rebranded Google SketchUp.

The stated aim of Google SketchUp is to take 3D modeling to the masses. SketchUp provides the 3D part, while Google takes it to the masses. A very useful partnership for both, allowing Google to pursue its foray into the desktop and allowing SketchUp to reach a large number of users, via the extensive reach and influence of Google.

Now, as for the application itself, I must say that it is extremely easy to use. Previously, I had only heard about it, but now I’ve used it, and I’m mighty pleased.

The interface is intuitive and easy to use, and pretty quick, once you get used to it. You can quickly create 3D models of objects like your home, office, room, car, etc. The tutorial can get you started in this direction by teaching you how to use each feature provided in the package. The tutorial, for a change, is very useful and will certainly get you started on 3D modeling.

Once you’ve started making 3D models, you can either export them to Google Earth, save them as .skp files or export it as a 2D graphic. If you choose to export your model as a 2D graphic, you can choose between .png, .bmp, .tif and .jpg file extensions.

Although this is very easy to use, Google SketchUp is not for pros and not for users who want to do advanced 3D modeling. This is a statuary warning, because you’re going to be disappointed if you’re expecting the power and control of Maya in SketchUp. That’s not what it’s intended to be. It lives up to its own expectations of being the common man’s 3D modeler quite well.

Verdict: 8/10

All in all, SketchUp is a nifty little 3D modeler that your grandmother could use without trouble, and have quite a lot of fun in the process. Not for pros, however. An interesting product from the Google lineup.

Learning Curve: 30 minutes (The tutorial provided with SketchUp is simply awesome).

Boot Linux from a USB drive

2006-05-29T23:55:00.000-07:00

After going through a few articles on making Live CDs for various Linux distros, I found a rather interesting article on booting Damn Small Linux from a USB drive and tried it out.

Damn Small Linux, as the name implies, is damn small. It takes about 50 megs and is, obviously, totally free. The UI isnt great and might remind you of older versions of windows (like 3.0 and 3.1), but its size more than makes up for this. Plus, its extremely stable and has all features that any other linux distro would.
Click here.
Use the link above to follow the tutorial that I used - its extremely easy to follow - and boot linux from a USB drive. It's uber-geeky, having Linux in your pocket.
And the best part - as its like a live CD, it can run without any partitions/uninstallation.

They Laughed When I Sat Down at the Key Board

2006-05-21T20:19:00.000-07:00

Funny Microsoft/Atari ad for Basic II. Click on the title to check out the ad.

Windows System Requirements over the ages

2006-05-21T10:04:00.000-07:00

Check out Gregg Keizer's (of TechWeb.com) list of Windows sys reqs starting from Windows 3.0 upto Vista
Click Here
Talk about bloatware!

Windows Replacement Shells

2006-05-19T02:45:00.000-07:00

If you're currently using Windows, you probably envy users who get to use KDE, GNOME or even people who use Macs, and you arent too sure about Vista's Aero. Windows just can't keep up with them in terms of style and looks. You can change all that by getting yourself a replacement shell.
It's possible to easily change the way windows looks by replacing the default shell explorer.exe with something better-looking. The benefits are not just cosmetic, even the functionality and stability are improved.
Some users crave a better UI than windows has to offer, while some want a watered-down UI which consumes lesser memory. Both types of users can benefit by replacing their shells.

Most replacement shells are pretty customizable as well, and allow the user to utilize his creative instincts to the fullest.
Shells vs. Skins
Shells and Skins have a fundamental difference: while skins run on top of explorer.exe, shells replace explorer.exe and perform its task (in the same or different way).

Shells can change quite abit about the functionality as well, while skins can’t do anything at all to the functionality.

Skins can’t radically change the UI as they have to work within the limitations of the Windows Explorer framework. For example, skins can’t remove the Start Bar or Desktop icons. Shells, on the other hand, have much more scope and fewer limitations, and can thus totally change the UI as well. Shells can even place a dock in place of the start bar, or totally remove both and adopt a KDE-like menu system.

Skins tend to use up even more RAM as they run on top of the standard windows shell.

Applications like DesktopX and HoverDesktop are not shells, as they rely on explorer.exe

Limitations of Shell Replacement

A lot of shell replacement problems don’t behave as well as Explorer, and hence don’t install/run all programs perfectly.

Some windows replacement shells

The following are a list of relatively common and popular shells that can be used in place of explorer.exe:-

All of the above, except Talisman and AstonShell, come under the category of Freeware.
AstonShell can be obtained for $28, while Talisman costs $25.

AstonShell
AstonShell is a pretty-looking shell that can be used in place of explorer.exe. It's easy to customize and it also supports skins. Gladiators Software (the creators) also claims that it is extremely stable (which it truly is) and has a small memory footprint and low CPU usage. It can be configured through a GUI. Although it costs $28, AstonShell is one of the best shells avalaible in the market. Check out the screenshots on the AstonShell website.

Emerge Desktop
Emerge Desktop is an open source shell replacement utility for Windows 2000 and XP. The interesting this about Emerge Desktop is that it allows you to access the start menu by right-clicking anywhere on the screen. However, its main advantage over, say, AstonShell is that Emerge Desktop is free and Open Source. Check out the screenshots, which give an idea of how Emerge Desktop looks.

GeoShell
GeoShell is another good replacement shell. GeoShell is different from the other shells as it has a rather nifty feature, GeoBars. And GeoShell also claims to use less system resources that explorer.exe in its standard installation. Once again, a very good looking shell. See the screenshots

LiteStep
LiteStep is free. LiteStep is stable and good-looking. No wonder its also the most popular replacement shell for windows. Get LiteStep

SharpE
SharpE is also free and the code is available in parts under the LGPL license. The aim of the SharpE project was to create a "fast, stable and very graphical" shell which is easy to configure and highly customizable. These features seem to have been implemented quite well in SharpE. Check out the screenshots

Talisman
Although I haven't tried Talisman myself, I've heard good reviews and the description and screenshots featured on the website are quite impressive. Unfortunately, Talisman is free to try for 30 days, but costs $25 for proper usage.
This is what the Talisman website has to say:

"Talisman Desktop" (Talisman) is a desktop alternative and shell-replacement for Windows 9x/ME and NT/2000/XP, capable of transforming your desktop into an interface organized as you like. The program's basic purpose: Launch other applications in a new interface, instead of the standard Windows desktop. But the opportunities presented by "Talisman" are much broader. The program does not limit your computer fantasies - draw anything you like and arrange it as your imagination tells you to. When you get tired of looking at the same screen - change it all over again. If you are in a good mood - throw flowers and favorite photos on the screen. If you're not feeling so bright - leave the black screen with lonely Norton Commander or winking Bill Gates. Create invisible buttons - they will open those places and the pictures, known only to you. Construct galleries of the best pictures and photos. Simply create your own little world, created by and for you, instead of staring at the same lines of icons on your desktop, year after year.

With the help of "Talisman" you can create your own interface or use one of the hundreds ready themes that are available in our collections and in the internet. Interface (theme) is a set of screens, forms, "rooms" and objects. All these objects are interactive and respond to movements or clicks of the mouse.

Check out the site

Conclusion
Replacing the standard windows shell can be a very rewarding and fulfilling experience. You can quite easily get a good looking user interface, or better stability and speed, or reliability, or all of these and more. It's certainly worth trying, especially if you're not a big windows fan. And its eay to do as well, and is free in most cases, so you've got nothing to lose! So go ahead, take the plunge, and refresh your desktop!

Check out Shell-shocked magazine for more interesting stuff on shell replacement.

2006-05-18T05:57:00.000-07:00

Google Facts

The name "Google" is a play on the word "googol," which refers to the number represented by 1 followed by one hundred zeros.
Google announced its Chinese name 谷歌 (pinyin: gǔ gē), which literally means "Song of the Crop"
As a further play on Google's name, its headquarters, located in California, are referred to as "the Googleplex" — a googolplex being 1 followed by a googol of zeros, and the HQ being a complex of buildings
Google’s ranking system was originally nicknamed, "BackRub," because the system checked backlinks to estimate a site's importance.
Originally the search engine used the Stanford University website with the domain google.stanford.edu. The domain google.com was registered on September 15, 1997, and the company was incorporated as Google Inc. on September 7, 1998 at a friend's garage in Menlo Park, California.
After quickly outgrowing two other sites, the company settled into their current home in a complex of buildings in Mountain View at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, in 2003. Silicon Graphics leased these buildings to Google.
U.S. Patent 6,285,999 describing Google's ranking mechanism (PageRank) was granted on September 4, 2001. The patent was officially assigned to Stanford University and lists Lawrence Page as the inventor.
On September 28, 2005, Google announced a long-term research partnership with NASA which would involve Google building a 1-million square foot R&D center at NASA's Ames Research Center.
Time Warner's AOL unit and Google unveiled an expanded partnership on December 21, 2005, including an enhanced global advertising partnership and a $1 Billion investment by Google for a 5% stake in AOL.
Additionally, Google has also recently formed a partnership with Sun Microsystems to help share and distribute each other's technologies. As part of the partnership Google will hire employees to help in the open source office program OpenOffice.org.
In July 2004, Google acquired Picasa from Idealab and began offering Picasa for free download.
On January 17, 2006, Google announced that it had purchased the radio advertising company dMarc, which provides an automated system that allows companies to advertise on the radio.
On October 19, 2005, the United Kingdom version of Gmail was converted to Google Mail, because "Gmail" is trademarked by another company in the UK.
The Google logo was designed by Ruth Kedar, and is set in the Catull typeface.
Google Search is available in invented languages such as Klingon. Links to Google in the following mock languages appear on the Language Tools page.