Archive for February, 2006

A lost world is found

Friday, February 10th, 2006

So it’s not exactly like in the Steven Spielberg movie, but still, this is incredible news (a few days old).

Some pictures of this discovery can be found here (And they are a lot cuter than this wasp and its methods, although it does work for them).

Even as we as human species pride ourselves of knowing so much about our world, scientific discoveries prove that we have still much to learn and to discover. Makes you wonder what could still be found in those remote parts of South American rain forrests.

Mobile disturbances

Tuesday, February 7th, 2006

This is going to be a little bit of a rant (little nod to Tim here who loves to do a bit of ranting himself). Having a mobile phone myself, I can understand that you like to be available to people, both on a business and professional level. But do people have to be able to reach you ALL THE TIME!?!?!?!? (Teens seem to suffer from insomnia because of this)

If you’re not a doctor or otherwise involved in saving lives or fighting the impending destruction of the world or other doomly events, I can’t believe that you can’t turn off your mobile for a couple of hours. Hell. Even half an hour. And it’s not that just the fact that those ringtones (that Crazy Frog thing just has to go) are plain annoying. It seems that whenever someone picks up a mobile, the volume of their voice multiplies. Just like they want to be louder than any other sound in the world. But if the words comming out of your mouth are not “Keep that heart nice and cold; I’ll be there for the transplantation in no time” or any of the same kind, I don’t want to hear it. Trust me: I don’t have to know that this or that woman or man is a slut or a bastard. That your boyfriend/girlfriend/wife/husband is a piece of crap means nothing to me. That your toe nail has grown in further or whatever it is you’re shouting on about is information you don’t need to share with me. I simply don’t care. Neither do those other people who stare at you while you chatter this information to whomever it is you’re talking to (Yes, I’m not alone in this). We just wanna enjoy our movie. Our lunch or diner. A nice conversation. We don’t want to be interrupted by some nitwit shouting useless information.

Then there’s the people who do the multi-tasking thing. Or at least, that’s what they think they’re doing. Picture this. Standing in check out line in the grocery store, the person who’s just about to pay for their purchases picks up their phone and starts a conversation, seemingly becoming oblivious to whatever it is they’re doing. Forget paying (you have your wallet in hand while calling, so why not go ahead), the call “Yes mom, I’ll be comming over for dinner” is more important than keeping things moving.

And there are more examples.

But with mobile sales going up all the time, it’s not that the end is in sight. Nothing of the kind. At the end of the year, mobiles can even be used in planes (although reception might suck, so there is hope). That’ll be nice; sitting in a plane for several hours, maybe trying to get some sleep or reading a book, but someone besides you keeps on blabbing away on their mobile (even louder then ever because of the noise of the engines). Or what about being woken up by a Crazy Frog ringtone.

I cringe at the thought of more mobile disturbances.

Redesigning Google and Ebay

Sunday, February 5th, 2006

Google and Ebay are some of the most popular and visited sites in the world. Despite that it could be argued that the design of their respective websites leaves something to be desired. At least that’s what Andy Rutledge thought. He did a redesign for both the Google and Ebay frontpage. In just a little bit of time (the Ebay design took him about 40 minutes) he created some attractive looking pages (although there’s no accounting for taste) which, when implemented, could improve user experience as well.

The people at Motivo Media seemed to agree and took it even a step further. They decided to code the Google redesign into a working page.

Google OS: Why?

Thursday, February 2nd, 2006

The Google Operating System has been talked about, faked and discussed for years. But like always it’s denounced by Google. Same as they do every time there’s talk of a Google PC. And although the rumor mill on this keeps interest in Google high, you can’t help but wonder: why would Google publicly distribute an OS?

It’s easy to understand people want an OS from Google. Google has made some great, innovative products (although lately they have been somewhat under fire for recent additions) who just, well, work. And that’s something products of the competition (read: Apple and Microsoft) not always seem to do. And where Microsoft is perceived as the big, evil giant, Google is seen as the renegade, a kind of Robin Hood within the technology industry (although people seem to forget that Google is a multi billion company as well). It’s like fighting “the Man” to have an Open Source OS (the Google OS would be a Linux distribution) at your disposal. So the “Cool”-factor is on their side.

But you still have to wonder what Google would have to gain with this. The OS market is largely dominated by Microsoft. Windows is being used by about 90+ % of computer users and that has been the case for a number of years now. And although a Google OS would spark interest and certainly would have people switching to it, it may not be a really huge success. This can have numerous reasons.

Ease of use is just one of those. Think only about the many games (although truth be told some are ported to Linux) which probably can’t be played on the OS. And although there’s a Linux equivalent for every Windows production application (Open Office for Microsoft Office, Gimp for Photoshop just to name a few) and Google will probably incorporate their own software, Windows applications are easier to attain. Just walk into your local computer shop and there’s an abundance of Windows compliant software. Some you can even get in your local supermarket. Also Linux has a long way to go before it has the easy installation procedure of windows. Installing programs in Linux takes more than the double clicking of the .exe file (if necessary; most programs installed from a CD/DVD start by themselves) in Windows. And it’s ease of use most people are looking for.

Then there’s the way of distribution and the implications that will have. Google could go the way of Apple and control the hardware on which their OS is being installed, thus creating an OS that’s specially made for that particular pc or device. But if they take the route of distributing the software for downloading (like they have done with all their previous products), it could be installed on any kind of hardware. All those different hardware components need specific drivers, so driver support from the major hardware manufacturers (Intel, Asus, Nvidia to name a few), should be part of the process. Because when an OS comes from Google, people will expect it to work on whatever it is they are installing it on. If it doesn’t there will be backlash. That comes with the expectations people have of Google products.

And there are numerous other implications that need to be considdered. Google is still on a high right now (well, maybe a little less now). Brand recognition is high and most people have a very positive view of Google and its products. In order to keep that image, it wouldn’t help to bring out faulty products. And when distributing an OS, there are numerous things that can go wrong. Think just about that patching that both Microsoft and Apple have to do to fix faults. Google has more people with Phd’s working for them than any other company and it shows in the ingenuity of their products. So if anybody could do it, they would be the company. But Google would still be an innovative company, even if it didn’t bring out an OS. People will still be excited about a Google Office Suite, browser or any other program that makes their computer experience better. But when Google will release an OS, they will be taking a huge risk and will have more to lose than to gain.