Image by lamont_cranston via Flickr

There is a Anti-Virus phone scam doing the rounds in Bendigo/Australia, and it is kind of a good one.  I got a call yesterday so I thought I should post the details to provide lolz to those who know and info to those who wouldn’t.

I was home working on stuff for class, when I received a call from a software security company, with an instantly forgettable name, but a Indian accented operator.  I was told that they had detected that my computer had some malicious software on it.  I looked around at the 4 computers that I was working with and asked which one.(Side Note: I have 6 running in the house that I use, with Win XP, Win 7, Snow Leopard, Ubuntu 10,04, and FreeNas.  Not to mention my Server 2008 test servers.)

This stumped her for a second but then the operator asked me to go to a Window machine.  Again I quizzed “which one?”, but it seemed that any one would do.  You might think that I should be hanging up at this point, but I had time and curiosity was getting the better of me.  She was my first Scam call, and I was going to play along to the end.

I was pretty confident that my systems were clean, so what was the harm...  Once I was at the keyboard I was asked to hit “Ctrl” and “R” buttons which brings up the Run box, and then type in “prefetch”.  This brought up a win explorer window showing the contents of the prefetch folder.  Once I had done this and let the operator know that I was looking at lots of files, I was told that they were all malware and viruses.

I LOL’ed, the operator hung up.  I think to keep the call going I should have gasped in horror, and begged her to fix it.  Then she would have offered me a deal on some anti-virus/anti-malware software for the over the phone credit card payment of “insert reasonable sum here”.

It is a good scam.  Show any user the contents of a system folder on a computer, and call the files malicious and you will be pulling the files out of the trash in no time.  People are scared of what they don’t know and in the IT world there is a lot we don’t know.  The same would happen if you opened the bonnet on a car and said “there’s your problem, too many wires”.

With all the hype over cyber attacks, viruses, teenagers, and spy-ware it is no wonder that this kind of social engineering attack would work.  The only real way to not be caught by the scam is to know about it, or be a IT professional.  I’m sure that if they had chosen to pick on the washing machine or that thing you cook things in, the scam may have been effective.  But you have to wonder if they rang 50 numbers for the day and spoke with 30 people, fooled 6 (1 in 5 Sales principle) and charged $49 or $79 sale, that's a nice profit, especially if you have a call centre at your disposal.

This is not a new scam if you do some searching, there are a number of posts going back a few years.  So maybe it’s starting the rounds again, so please get your own tech person that you trust and use them.

Jason Remnant

...if it isn’t Broken, just run “prefetch”.

Image by Francis Storr via Flickr

Like many of you, I spend a portion of each day pouring over RSS feeds, blogs and pod casts to get my daily tech and news fix.  Tech is a passion for me, and there is always something new and interesting to read and learn.  And I guess it is always cool to be the only guy in the room that knows about the latest Apple product, or the sales figures on the popular Apps stores, right?

OK, yes it does sound a little pathetic if you put it that way, that is why most of us have blogs, twitter accounts, and other ways to express geeky ways without too much ridicule.  If only this stuff was more interesting to the general public.  The problem is that it is not.  Despite the end user being more technologically savvy, that has not translated into them being interested in the technology they use.  I guess the good thing is that those of us in the service industry will always have a place, but the issue here is that the users will now be the driving force behind the future of technology, and if we can't pack the user base out with the savvy geeks, then the future is going to be heading in the direction of Facebook, Apple and Nintendo.

You may be under the misapprehension that the users have been coming to technology and the Internet because it is the future, and that it is just an evolution of man to use the best communication and socialisation tools around.  I think this is the wrong view.  The users are moving to technology and the Internet because these technologies and services have become easier to use and use the right psychological hooks to keep you coming back.

Shiny things

Think of the iPhone/iPod as a technological case study.  Apple created devices that made the Mp3 player and the smart phone both usable and desirable.  There had been many Mp3 players and smart phones up to that point, but the interfaces and the ecosystem that Apple provided with iTunes fixed the usability problems that were holding most of the potential users back.  Of course there is the other part to this equation and that is the cool factor that Apple was able to create.  Despite the bevy of better technology, and truckloads of more experienced manufacturers, Apple in a few short years was able to become a power house, and market changer, all because they made a product cool, and usable/understandable by the everyday user.

Us geeks may have been excited about the iPhone when it came out, but were over Apple's arrogance in leaving out what we thought were key features (multitasking, and cut & paste) but the new user didn't care because the device worked, looked cool, and was an accessible smart phone just like all the geeks had.  In time, all us geeks got the iPhone for similar reasons.  It was nice to have a true developing platform that worked and didn't needed to be restarted every couple of hours.

So what we have here is a success story which wasn't due to the geeks, or in some ways the technology, but purely the users.  Apple tapped into the broader market and it paid off for them, for the geeks, though, we are kind of stuck with a bloated App store and a uncertain future of the platform, as now Apple knows where their customer base lies and it isn't in the bosom of the geek.

Keeping up with Friends

This sort of pattern has also followed us onto the secret geek place, the Internet, with all the activity surrounding the rise and rise of the super social network Facebook.  Once membership to the Internet was almost as hard to get into and understand as one of the fabled boys clubs on American universities.  But then, just as you were setting up your profile, you find your mum and people you went to school with actively Farmvilling away.  It makes sense that people would use something like Facebook, but come on, some of these user don't even have PC's!

Facebook is a great example of how things are moving out of the reach of the geeks.  We should be aware of the privacy concerns surrounding Facebook.  Many high profile geek, tech pundits, and commentators have outed Facebook for what, to us, seem to be some big privacy issues. But Facebook continues on.  Why?  Because the majority of the user base are not geeks.  The majority of the user base doesn't really take this whole Internet thing seriously, and many have a "leave it to the government to sort out" approach to things they don't understand.

If you are not familiar with the "Government" defence to ignorance, it goes like this.  You have your own little world and everything outside of family, job, hobbies and your understanding is the Governments problem.  "That is what they are there for, and that is why I pay my taxes" is the reasoning.  It is a great way to relieve stress.  The issue is that you tend not to think past that reasoning.  If there is a fault with a car then we know that there is process in place to recall and sort it out.  If there are privacy concerns at a bank or medical facility, then we know there are government agencies and law enforcement in place to deal with that.  Just look at TV, no naughty things on during the day to bother the kiddies, the Government fixed that for us.  So it stands to reason that Internet has the same type of control, doesn't it?

So while we geeks blog, rant and start groups over the privacy issues in Facebook, the rest of the four plus million users are happy posting pics, commenting and "liking" their way around the Internet without a care in the world.  And in most cases, they probably don't have a care.  They will just hang out with their ten/twenty friends and family, and share lives and never be affected.

The other issue is that the geeks have more to lose, this may be why we care so much about our online privacy.  Most of our lives are lived on the Internet, it is where we work, shop, and get entertained.  But for the users, it doesn't have the same level of importance, and if there was a problem, the government will fix it.  Unfortunately we know that isn't the case, darn this knowing stuff.

What this means is that change is going to happen along the pathways of least resistance and so when Facebook says that the majority of their users are OK with the changes they are not talking about us.  So Facebook will keep to their course of eroding the privacy of its users to the point that they can sell to your door, and as long as they can maintain most of said 4 million users, they won't miss the noisy geeks.  And ironically, because we fought so hard to stop government regulation of the Internet in the early days, there isn't even the government to fix it.

First the Money then...

The gulf between the geek and user has more to do with the money than the ideology.  The geeks are the creative minds, the fixers, tinkers, and hackers are the ones with the interest and drive to care about technology and how it is used.  As we began to play with this new technology, this open playground called the Internet we found ways to get stuff for free, to access information that got us stuff for free, and of course, create free stuff.  We also learnt that the knowledge we gained around the technology of the Internet was worth something.  So we set out to make money off those who didn't know, and this has always been the craftsman's way.

The problem is that some of us started companies and started to make some of those technologies.  Others started services around those technologies and making a lot more money. Gone was the ideology of the hacker, in came the MBA's and the lawyers.  There was money to be made in them thar digital hills and all it took was the right time and a product that could bring in the unsophisticated users.

The upshot of all this is that the playing field is changing, and we need to start recognising this. We have to start shaping the Internet back into the way we want it by doing things, rather than just complaining about it.  The Facebook and Apple case may be out of our hands due the momentum that their user base gives them.  So let's work on the systems and services that we want and re-start the open Internet revolution again.  If we build it and it works, is cool, and can offer the openness that the others don't, then as the non-geek users begin to chafe under the closed systems that introduced them to the Internet, then the alternative will be available..

But if we just troll and flame, we'll just become assimilated into the "closed net".  So it might be time for us all to bone up on our open source, and step away from those nice sleek white devices.  Just as the industry starts to make some good desirable devices/services they go and close the ideological door on those that put them where they are.  The crazy thing in all this is that it sounds like such a good movie.

Jason Remnant

...if it isn't Broken, there isn't enough money in it.

Image via CrunchBase

I'm one of those people who like to sit back and look at interesting tech industry drama's from a distance, preferably from a comfy chair with a cold drink, and look at the bigger picture.  Normally due to the speed of the tech industry, I don't really get much of a chance, but over the last couple of months the rise of the Flash v HTML5 question has given me plenty of comfy chair time.

With a rare moment of scripted openness, Apple's Steve Jobs posts his "Thoughts on Flash" wherein he steps out the reasons for Apple's move away from the format.  Worth a read regardless of which side of the fence you're on.  I wonder if, when the decision not to support Flash was made, if Apple thought it would cause such a stir?  Well, to add to Adobe's woes, Microsoft have uncharacteristically drawn an early line in the sand announcing HTML5 as the future of the web and support for HTML5 video steaming in IE9.

I have already posted about my thoughts regarding the demise of Flash, but I would like to step back a bit to ask the questions - was Flash on its way out before Apple made its stand? Does Apple have the power to force these decisions upon the industry with just a couple of devices/services? Or was Apple just ballsy enough to say and do what the industry was thinking, but couldn't work up the courage to do?

The question about the future of Flash could be summed up with the old "Well, everything dies eventually" argument.  But the Internet is kind of reinventing that a little.  Due to the size of the user based web technologies, if they can keep up, you could in theory live forever if they catch on well in the beginning.  And Flash was going to be the poster child for the theory if they had been able to keep up, or had read the play better.

Here's the alternate future.  Though HTML5 looks to be the winner, there are still a lot of things to work out, for example, the standard video codec.  There is just a huge can of worms when you look to de-throne a king.  If Flash had continued to develop and moved earlier to lower power platforms and driven the field, rather than just being the default, they could be have been seen as the future rather than the roadblock.  They could have lived on driving the video streaming and content creation market.  If Flash ran well on mobile devices, and for that matter on the computers in general, do you think Apple would have bothered keeping it out of the iPhone/iPad?  Flash had the opportunity and botched it, pure and simple. 

So back to the other questions, is Apple the game changer or was this going to happen anyway?  Flash had the opportunity, but held on too long before doing anything about it.  So as we can see, with the rush to HTML5 by the industry, and the public support from Microsoft and Apple, that in this case, Apple was just the first high profile company to draw the line.  You might say that only Apple would ever draw the line, but Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 isn't launching with Flash either.

I would go so far as to say that Apple devices have sped up the adoption.  You drop a million Internet devices into the market in 28 days that don't support Flash, then you get a lot of web developers buying "Learn HTML5 in 24hrs".  The funny thing is that, when the iPad launched, Flash developers, in an effort to dis the device and Apple's stance on Flash, publicly outed sites that weren't going to work on the iPad, I wonder how many still don't?

To be successful and innovative in tech, whether in manufacturing or the web, you have to be able to predict the future and also pick which of the possible future's may come true with enough support and users.  In the old days, that had a lot to do with features and listening to the customers.  But now we are working with generations that have been professionally advertised to.  So it seems that you need to be different, you need to be Facebook different, or maybe Google different, or as in this case, Apple different.  Flash wasn't different enough.

Jason Remnant

...if it isn't Broken, just rewrite the rules, the rest will argue the rules while you kick the goals.  It's a business thing.

Image by Robert Scoble via Flickr

I’m working my way through Jeff Javis’s Audio-book “What would Google Do?” at the moment.  It is one of the best studies on Google and their current, and future influence on online and business worlds.  The book looks at the business models that Google champions and shows how they are destined to fit into our online and offline lives.

Jeff reasonably points out that Google’s example is the future of business on the Internet.  Googles' example of free products, services and exchange of ideas is successful for them, and is shaping the way modern businesses on and off the Internet are needing to work to be successful in the modern business landscape.

I like the information and there is a lot of really good ideas about how we need to really focus away from old business models and start to think about “What Would Google Do?”.  But I would really like Jeff to write the book “What would Apple Do?”.  

To their credit, Google has changed the current business landscape, and are helping to destroy the old established business models.  Then to Apple's credit, the success of redefining the old business models, and almost reinventing them for the online world.  I would not go as far to say that Apple is the anti-Google, but more so that Apple is the model for the transition time between the old business (mainly media) and the Internet.

If Google were successful because they gave everything away, then Apple is successful for locking everything down.  If Google are successful for changing the old business models, then Apple is successful for adapting the old business models to work, but then being able to change when the time is right.

Which is better? Well I have written before about how the old business models are dying, and even though we see newspapers and TV trying pay-walls and other ways to try and postpone the inevitable, that is really all they seem to be doing.  They still don't seem to understand the new online world, and as the population continues to adopt the online world, they will need a company like Apple to help with the transition.

While I was thinking about “what would Google do” I kept wondering about how the transition from old media to new media would happen for those who are not or can’t be plugged into the new media.  And at the end of the day, it is all about the consumers way of thinking. And Apple seem to be on that wave length. 

For example, iTunes worked with DRM in the early days because those new to the digital space expected restrictions and to pay for their content.  They expected that to have the convenience of digital media, that they would have some inconvenience in other areas.  The geeks always expect freedom over inconvenience, because to us the tech world is supposed to offer freedom and convenience and cost savings.

Then once Apple was successful, they removed (most of) the DRM and freedom won out.  The old business model was changed and the transition was reasonably painless.  Yet we still complain about Apple's involvement in other areas like TV, movies, and now books.  Could Apple's goal here be to reinvent the E-book market - not by opening it up, but just by the sheer momentum of the uber successful device and delivery method?

I'm really interested in why it is that Apple are successful by being so different to Google, is it just that there are Google people and Apple people?  

Please Jeff, look into this as I think that by only focusing on one side of the coin we may be missing out on understanding the online future.  My fear is that Google is so in-tune with the Geeks and techs, that as the unwashed masses venture online, our Utopian systems will be supplanted by the closed systems that the masses understand.  And that Apple's systems are going to be the ones they look to.

So What Would Apple Do? It is a good question, and worth a few dollars.

Jason Remnant

...if it isn't Broken, WWAD?

Image by Thomas Hawk via Flickr

With the announcement of the coming OS 4.0 for the iPhone we seem to be finally getting Multi-tasking.  There was a collective sigh of relief from the geeks, and a hurried re-organising from the hater's who saw the lack of multi-tasking as the iPhone's great sin against tech-kind.  Now the only issue Apple has left is the Adobe question, and Mr Jobs is happy to give a "No" as the answer.  So at least the hater's have something to focus on.

As a long time Win-Mo/HTC user, I'm disappointed that Apple has caved in to the pressure, and are poised to drop one of the best features of the iPhone platform, the lack of Multi-tasking.  Stopping third party Apps from multi-tasking is one of the key features that has made iPhone the first stable smart-phone, and allowed the smart-phone to reach beyond business and into the consciousness of the mass user base.

Now, yes, the iPhone has always been able to multi-task, that is why you can listen to the iPod App while you Tweet, web surf, or check-in with Foursquare.  It has just been restricted to the core function Apps of the device.  What this gave us was something that other smart-phones dreamed about, or took lots of micro-memory management to achieve, a stable device that could make and receive phone calls and the odd email.  Not to mention lasting a days usage, and I could go on and on (and often do).

With all the things that the iPhone does right, I really believe that the "no multi-tasking" is the reason the whole platform is successful.  This is one of those cases where stability and function win out over features. I mean, regardless of the hype, the iPhone was successful without features like cut and paste, which was standard on smart-phones before the iPhone.  So the platforms success was more about the things it didn't do and how that impacted on the stability of the core functions, than how it pandered to the Geek few.  Really, that is what Android is for.

So where are we at now? Maybe Apple have worked out the great smart-phone problem, and we are about get our cake and be able to eat it at the same time.  Gizmodo.com.au has a great post "How Multi-tasking works in iPhone OS 4.0" which explains nicely how Apple looks like they're going to run multi-tasking on the iPhone.  I'm still worried that this could break the useability of the core functions of the phone, or that many Apps will need to be updated to work properly with multi-tasking, due the fact that they had never needed to worry about memory management before.

In the end I guess I shouldn't be too concerned, this is Apple after all.  We will all love the result, regardless of the outcome.  And really, what are the other choices?

Jason Remnant

...if it isn't Broken, listen to the Geeks, they know how to mess it up.

Image via Wikipedia

Over the last couple of months I have been working hard on organising the-broken-link.com into a better experience for my readers.  There have been some changes in layout and themes so as to cut the clutter.  Content has been moved into different pages.  This means that the Linux readers don't need to wade through all my posts on Cloud Technology, and those who enjoy the Broken Tech links don't need to sift through the opinion posts.

Each blog has its own RSS feed so please subscribe so you don't need to check back so often.  If you are on Twitter, I always twitter any new posts on @thebrokenlink and if you would like to follow me, check out @corran57.  I'm working on a Facebook page so you can get a better look at TBL's inner workings, and trying organise better ways to capture conversations.

Here is a quick roundup of the month of February here on The Broken Link.

The Broken Blog

This month TBL weighed into the Flash debate with "The Fall of Flash: Adobe Flash" picking up on the iPad launch and the high profile blog fighting around its lack of Flash.  Since this post there has been a lot of good comparisons between Flash in its new rival HTML5.  It will be worth keeping an eye on this debate as the web will need to change to whoever is the winner.

Next was the look at Google's Buzz product which had been launched a couple of weeks earlier in the post "Google's Anti-Buzz".

Broken Technology

We have a look at the problem with the iPhone and 64-bit Windows 7 in the posts "iPhone and 64-bit Windows - A Hate Story".  Then we keep with the Apple/Microsoft theme by linking to a How-To on cross platform file sharing in "Peace and File-Sharing: Between Mac and Windows 7", very interesting as the Mac continues to gain market share.

Broken Cloud

Just the one post this month, even though cloud computing is one of my favorite subjects -  "UbuntuOne V's Dropbox".  Here we take a look at the UbuntuOne service and the news that they are planing to make it cross platform, like Dropbox.  Not that there aren't a number of these types of services starting to appear, but the importance of the move is more in what this will mean in the show of support for cloud storage and computing.

Broken Penguin

February saw the launch of the Broken Penguin blog which is to be the home for most of my posts dealing with Linux platforms.  Here I'm hoping to have reviews and commentary on Linux distributions and software.  Also How-To's, fixes and general notes on the Linux scene.

This month started with a look at Video Editing software with "Video Editing on Linux", which has always been a bit of a weak point for Linux.  Then there is a post on how many mobile devices, even from the likes of Nokia, are coming with a Linux OS in an effort to compete with the iPhone.  "To Beat iPhone we Need to go the Linux...Really?" asks the question - are mobile and smart-phone makers missing the point?  Also am I the worst headline writer in the world?

I hope you are enjoying the content here on TBL, I'm enjoying making it.  I want to provide an Australian point of view to a highly Americanised industry.  I hope that the information found here is useful, and somewhat entertaining.  Please comment and join the conversation, as I prefer to talk with my readers than at them.....

Jason Remnant

...if it's not Broken, please just wait till the next post :)

Image by dpstyles™ via Flickr

If you're wondering why I haven't chimed in on Google Buzz, it would be because I'm not really sure what to make of it.  Like many, I started to play with it when it was available, but even a week or so on, I'm still not sure where Buzz sits in the social landscape.

It aims to do a couple of things right, like aggregate your friends/contacts/social feeds.  But then it does a couple of functional things wrong, like making it a part of Gmail, and not having an easy way to view your followers Buzz feed outside of your Gmail page.  Of course there is also all the privacy issues, but if the product doesn't work or isn't functional, then no one will be using it, and the privacy issues will go away.

Buzz thinks that we want to follow the activities of those in your address book.  The problem with that is that my address book is full of clients and family and such.  Or to put it more clearly, full of people in which I have absolutely no interest in their online activities.  The few that I am actually interested in, I follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

Is it just me or is Buzz a copy of Friendfeed, albeit a bad copy? I'm not the only one asking that question, and I would be interested to know if Friendfeed has been getting more interest as a result.  I know that I have taken another look, as Friendfeed still has the best functionality when it comes to "the conversation" and getting involved in it.

Regardless of this, it looks like Google has a failure on its hands, despite them having an almost instant audience.  The big lesson here is that there needed to be a Beta logo on it, until you have the mind share.  This makes me wonder what Google have waiting in the wings that made them try and force Buzz.  

Jason Remnant

...if it's not Broken, then where is the button to turn it off???

Image via CrunchBase

The modern story of the fall of a platform is being lived out by the once great Flash.  In a world where it was becoming the most important feature of the web, Adobe's Flash has somehow squandered it all and looks to be on the verge of being displaced by HTML5, which isn't really out of the gate yet.

The nail in the coffin seems to be the continued issues Adobe is having with Apple, and its mobile products.  Apple has made a concerted effort to avoid the technical issues which surround Flash.  And that is to avoid Flash all together.  Many complain about this stance, but if you look at what is happening in hardware and the web, Apple is really just getting ready for the future, a less buggy future.

Steve Jobs comment at a recent Apple Town Hall meeting summed up the point:

"Apple does not support Flash because it is so buggy. Whenever a Mac crashes more often than not it's because of Flash. No one will be using Flash. The world is moving to HTML5."

The main issue that Apple would have had is that Flash is heavy on systems with few resources to spare.  And with the push to Net-books and mobile devices, the future is not heading to more power as much as it is heading towards more portable power.  This sort of move just doesn't have a place for Flash, unless of course Adobe can come up with a better, leaner and faster version.

Will the lack of Flash effect the iPad?

Since the launch, the main problems people have been talking about is the name, and the lack of Flash.  But is the lack of Flash going to hurt the iPad, or for that matter Apple?

Theflashblog.com made an attempt to rally the troops, but really just put the reality out there that no Flash could mean no porn.  The use of a porn site as one of the examples of sites that will no longer work, was a little too real for Jeff, who commented: 

"I know it’s true and all…

… but is the porn screen shot really necessary? What I mean is… is it really in Adobe’s best interest to play up a “Flash = porn” angle?

Just sayin’…."

In response to the above, Daringfireball.net made the important point that this is the Internet age and content providers will go where the users are:

"Ends up a bunch of them, including the porno site, already have iPhone-optimized versions with no blue boxes, and video that plays just fine as straight-up H.264. iPhone visitors to these sites have no idea they’re missing anything because, well, they’re not missing anything. For a few other of the sites Brimelow cited, like Disney and Spongebob Squarepants, there are dedicated native iPhone apps."

In this post, "Who Can Do Something About Those Blue Boxes?" John Gruber points out that the iPhone generation haven't been missing out on content because the creators, even the porn sites, have been supporting them.  So why is it going to be any different for the iPad? And once HTML5 rolls out, then we are all back on a level playing field again.

I do feel for all those developers out there who have been making a good living, but it will be nice not to have to curse them because of a browser crash.  

If you feel differently, comment and be noticed.

Jason Remnant

...if it ain't Broken, play the porn card and hope no one notices.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Waking up this morning I finally got to re-live that feeling you get when you're a kid, when the presents, or the family vacation was about to begin.  As a geek, the launch of a new Apple product can be just like <insert generic religious holiday here>, so today was always going to be fun with the promise of a new device revolution.

There are a lot of negatives when it comes to the launch of new hardware products and living in Australia.  The main one is that we only seem to ever get access to a small percentage, and it's normally months after the North American launch.  I guess you could look at that and say that means that we only get the successful devices. 

Having the time to analyse and access the real world use of a new device/platform is a plus that in some instances can make up for the delays in access.  But when it comes to Apple products I have to admit to a pang of jealousy after a launch.

Three am this morning, Apple and Steve Jobs launched the iPad, dispelling all the rumours and innuendo of the last few months, if not last three years.  Gdgt.com describes it as:

"The iPad is a tablet computer announced by Apple on January 27, 2010. It is 0.5-inches thick, weighs 1.5 pounds, and features a 9.7-inch IPS capacitive multitouch display. It is powered by a proprietary 1GHz processor, 802.11n WiFi, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR, and is available in 16, 32, or 64GB flash storage capacities. Additional specs include an accelerometer, compass, speaker, mic, 30-pin Apple dock connector, and 10-hour built-in battery."

Apple doesn't so much describe the iPad, as describe the missing link in personal, and mobile computing. "Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price."

But being in Oz means that we are a little way out of the "Reality distortion field", so lets take a look at the details and what they will mean in the real world.

Is this a tablet computer?

The new Apple product was supposed to be a tablet computer.  So much so was the hype that the rest of the industry was racing to get their tablet computers out first.  Microsoft was pushing Windows 7 tablet power at CES at the start of the month, probably in the hope of remaining relevant with whatever Apple was going to do.

But is this a tablet computer? Or is it a bigger iPod Touch? Or is this a new platform altogether? These are the important question that will be debated for some time to come.

I don't think that this is a tablet in the way we have been used to a tablet.  Much in the same way as the iPhone was not a smartphone as we had previously known them..  Here, with the iPad platform, we are going to have a device that will offer the tablet experience in a new way.  Just like the way the iPhone gave a new experience to the smartphone.

So yes, we can say this is just a rinse, repeat of the iPhone model, but if Apple can fix the tablet the way they fixed the smartphone, I'll be first in line.  Not that I think I have any need for this style of computing.

Is there a need for the iPad or tablet style computing?

When I think of the tablet style of computing, I think of fail.  As I guess most in the hands-on IT community do.  The Windows based tablet PC's seemed to be always a Windows PC with hardware tacked on, or vice-versa.  The touchscreen feature in laptops was really just a feature like a built-in web cam.  Nice if you had a use for it, but for most it is just a feature that is there "just in case".

The true tablet PC's with no keyboard were a real problem because the Windows OS is designed to work with a keyboard and mouse, enough said I think.  Of course I haven't played with any of the new offerings pre-empting the iPad release, but from a far, the philosophies don't seemed to have changed.

The iPad seems to be pitched at a number of emerging markets.  The launch showed how the iPad could be a Ebook reader, a News reader, a web surfing device, a portable gaming device, a music and video device, a email device, and a GPS device.  There was also the iWork Apple office suite, and of course, the Apps store.

So more than a tablet, the iPad is set to be a personal computing device, a personal media and information device, with a interface that is possibly going to change the face of the computing industry. 

Not that I'm going to go into it much here, but just think what the uses and importance of a working, secure, reliable and easy to use tablet will do for other industries.  We may be thinking about photos and twitter, but think about the iPad uses in medicine, manufacturing, government, and ordering at McDonald's when the registers are full.

What is interesting about the spec's?

I'm normally not a huge fan of specifications of devices, when it comes to Apple, mainly because they upgrade and change so often.  Also because Apple tend to support a long way out (take the iPhone OS example).  As I noted before, it looks as though the iPad will follow the iPhone model, so we will probably see OLED models, bigger memory models, and maybe a camera over the next couple of years.  So I'm more concerned with the software, but then again Apple have redefined the way of adding value to their software as well.

Should we be all that concerned about the spec's at this stage?  I'm very interested in the processor that is powering the iPad.  Apple have put a 1GHz Apple A4, their own custom chip. At this stage there is little known about this, but if the 10 hours of battery life can be believed, the A4 could be an important piece of tech going forward.

There has been rumours for some time about Apple buying up and working with chip manufacturers, and I guess this shows us why.  It shows that Apples vision for the iPad, and possibly computing, is strong.  They feel that they have the pulse of the market, or can obtain the pulse, and that their ecosystem is big enough to keep the market. This may sound like a bad thing, but hey, if everything works, is straightforward and easy to use, what more do you need?

Why not OSX?

In many discussions I have had on or around the coming of the iPad, remembering that I don't really want a tablet, all revolved around the need for the device to have a full OS.  A OSX (Apple desktop OS) rather than the iPhone OS.  I kind of felt that the tablet should replace the netbook/laptop in the scheme of things.  I didn't really see much of a point to a larger iPod Touch, mainly because of how locked down the system is.

I thought, and until I get to play with a iPad still do think, that for a tablet to work it would need to have the depth and flexibility of a laptop.  I love my iPhone but I don't need my phone to have depth or flexibility, I need my phone to work and have a interface that makes that happen. The fact that the iPhone does offer a lot of that depth and flexibility is a bonus.

Apple made the case for the platform chosen in the launch, with the slide pointing out that "Over 75 million people know how to use iPad" with a picture of the iPod Touch and the iPhone.  If you have had the experience of introducing the iPhone to friends or family and had them lock-on to the interface and start doing things on the device almost instantly, then you know why Apple probably went this way with the iPad.  My 3 year old daughter loves picking it up and showing everyone photos and videos, and she isn't using a mouse yet.

My problem will be with how files work on the device.  Can you just move files around like documents so that working on them isn't a problem? Will I be able to use Google Docs? Will there be syncing with other services like Dropbox, and then the ability to work on those files?  Where is iLife?

Do I get an App Store with that?

I write a bit about the importance of the ecosystem in the modern technology landscape, and really, Apple are the masters of the ecosystem.  Probably another reason to run with the iPhone OS on the iPad was the existing App store and the ecosystem of user and developers.  Add to that the new iBookstore for the iPad, Apple is going to create a space where the content creators can all play nice and make some money.

The model is a win-win for the content creators as they can have access to a locked down market place, with users ready to pay for their content.  The users will start to get the access and convenience they have been wanting, and I'm sure the price will be reasonable.

If you look at iTunes now with music, movies, and TV if you're a iPod or iPhone user, there is little reason to go anywhere else.  For goodness sake, they have "Yes Minister" and "Miami Vice" ready to download.

The Australian angle

So what does the iPad mean to Aussies?  If you're a fanboy/girl there will be rejoicing.  Apple are sticking with a formula that has worked, and thus one that will work here.  Even though, as of this writing, there is no release dates for Australia, the fact that there is a WiFi only version means that there is no problems with carriers to be worked out.  The fact that there is a 3G version coming means that it is compatible with the major carriers here, so there won't be any reason we can't have one.

The WiFi only model will be fine if you're not looking to take it far from home or work, but outside of that, we Aussies may be in trouble.  Although some of the major metro areas are a little better, WiFi coverage is still not good enough to make the WiFi only version a useful cloud computing device.  So we may be waiting for the already cautious Telco's here in Australia to come up with some reasonable data plans for the 3G version.

As for the ecosystem, we already have most of it in iTunes, and Apple just needs to roll it out in software updates.  But here is where things can come to a screeching halt, the book and newspaper content.  Publishers really suck at getting things worked out when it comes to access to content and different countries.  If you use services like Audible.com you may have come across not being able to access a book because the service doesn't have the rights to sell it in your country.

My fear is that Apple, being the perfectionists they are, will delay the roll-out to other countries until they have all the local publishers on-board. 

Am I getting one?

I am in the market for a netbook/laptop, and have been eyeing off the 13 inch MacBook.  So at this stage in the game, who can say, many of the folk at the launch like the device and say that once you play with it, you see the point of it.  Over the last couple of days my wife has been talking about the rumours, and how she could see a use for a decent eBook reader.  So I guess that once we can get our hands on one it might be a yes.

I could see us having one for the house for newspapers and browsing and books.  But until we can get it, and see the local pricing will be, the jury is still out.

Jason Remnant

...if it ain't Broken, pick a silly name and change the playing field again.

Image via CrunchBase

Google have dropped/inspired another in a line of new innovative Hardware products, and with the Chrome OS and the series of Net-books being worked on, you might find yourself thinking that Google is trying to make a play for the hardware device market.

With the drop of Nexus One, Google appears to have pulled out all marketing stops.  Using services like YouTube to create Apple-like buzz around their new product.  Not to mention the Twitter buzz and Yahoo Buzz.  And the rumours dropped a few weeks ago by Techcrunch to start the hype was very Apple-ish.  It looks as though Google are quite serious about a move into the hardware device market.

Are we missing the point with Google?  We keep saying that their business is online search advertising and not hardware, but we seem to forget what Advertising really is.  Online advertising is one of the best ways to sell hardware.  Especially if that hardware happens to be pitched at the tech community.

The Open-Source Ecosystem

Apple's success in the mobile marketplace has been due to the ecosystem they have created around the iPhone with iTunes and the Apps store.  The ecosystem (and I guess a good product) is what has engaged consumers and is taking the smartphone market by storm.

Google started their Open-Source ecosystem some time ago with the Android smartphone OS, but we all brushed it off as just a company with a few bucks trying something different.  Even months after the Android launch and gaining a cult following, the Apple App Store with all its approval failings was still better stocked and growing.  Whereas the Android platform looked like it was fading away.

But regardless of Androids success, Google was really just building a ecosystem to support the great products that they were going to bring out.  Many in the industry were saying that 2009 was going to be the year for Android, with so many manufacturers tipped to support the platform.  But when only a couple phones came out, it looked like Google had dropped the ball, as on so many other occasions.  But maybe Google's timeline was just a little more patient than ours, and they prefer to do things their way rather than the Apple iPhone approach.

The Marketing Ecosystem

If you take a step back and look at Google as a whole, you see that they have being working on another ecosystem which may have snuck up on us a little bit.  That is the collection of trusted marketing tools that give them a edge in the tech market, and the mobile computing market.

First they have the name.  I have mentioned this before when commenting on Chrome OS, many would put Google up there with Microsoft and Apple.

Second is the knowledge.  If I am looking for the best way to sell and market online, I would love to get access to the information on the Google servers.

Third is the tools.  Many have seen, and used, the marketing potential of YouTube and other Google services but I don't think everyone understands what can happen when you have full control of this potential, as Google does.

In the End

I'm not saying that Google will begin a campaign of rigging their services to promote the new Google products, but they do have a marketing machine at their disposal that perfectly suits the audience they're pitching too.  Who but Google knows the real "influences", and probably has ad space on their blogs?  If only they owned a major retail outlet, the future would be assured.

If you do some searches, especially on Twitter, you'll find all the big names discussing Nexus One.  All the blogs are doing the compares, and interviews.  And there is one of the best looking (maybe Apple-like) YouTube pages I have seen.  Not to mention all the user generated content out there, and on it's way.

If Google can put the same marketing hype behind Chrome OS, Net-books, and other Android phones, then I can see a real power shift in the mobile device market.  Google already controls a fair chunk of the Internet and the things we use the Internet for.  Apple's tablet better be good, for a flood of cheap, easy to use and net-compatible devices may be on their way.

It may sound as though I'm a little anti-Google, but I am not.  I use as many, if not more of my fair share of Google services.  And we might be getting Nexus One in the future, so it is not that.  It just hit me as I was fed a stream of marketing info on Nexus One through most of my information sources all day, that Google had wrapped-up the marketing quickly and simply.  Then when @ginatrapani tweeted "best part about Google's Webstore? Not standing in line with a bunch of nerds for 2 days to buy a phone", the above started to make sense.

What do you think?

Jason Remnant

...if it ain't Broken, just wait a little while (we're just watching everyone else).