The age of the smartphone, making communication more complicated one day at a time

My smartphone is my lifeline.  It is the only thing that I own that is literally almost always less than 10 feet away from me.  It is a tool like nothing I have ever used, and the versatility it has is unparalleled.  It is my all-in-one communication device, and my gateway to the world.  If you want to get a hold of me, chances are that it will come through to my phone in some form.  That ability is very powerful, and something I've come to rely on, but that ability has also led to a huge problem with cell phones and how we communicate today.  Let me explain.

I said that no matter how you are trying to get in touch with me, it is likely that it will, in some form or another, come to my phone.  The problem with that is the sheer number of ways that someone can get in touch with me.  Looking at my phone right now, here are all of the communications methods on it, in no particular order: SMS, gmail, Facebook, Facebook messenger, Google +, Google + messenger, Google Talk(though this is starting to merge with messenger), Live Profile, GroupMe, Tweetdeck (and the official twitter app), foursquare, BeeJive IM, and Skype.  Oh, yea, and it is also a phone too.  If you include both twitter apps, though I only really use the official one for contact sync, that is thirteen separate ways to communicate with me on my smartphone.  Now, There are a few that I don't use often.  Groupme, for example, is one that I signed up for simply to make sure that I could get my identity. I don't actually have any contacts in it yet.  LiveProfile is similar.  I used it to talk with a couple people, but haven't opened it in a couple weeks now.  Others are used almost continuously, like SMS and Twitter.  Now, the easy answer is that I should just cut down on some of those services.  I don't really use something like LiveProfile or GroupMe, but I have them because I want to make sure that I have those services under the online identity that I use, so all of them are there for that reason at the very least.

What I think this really points to, however, is the sheer stupidity of the state of communications right now.  The simple fact that there are thirteen different ways of talking to me through my phone is kind of absurd.  As technology and communication is evolving, different services are popping up, and it's creating fragmentation that is worse than I think we've ever seen.  I hate talking on the phone.  I of course do it, a good part of my job involves talking on the phone (that may be part of the reason why I hate it, truthfully), but if there is another way of getting in contact with someone than over the phone, I will probably do it.  So in many ways, the ability to communicate in other ways is awesome, but the fact is that there are too many ways to do it now.  SMS is simple and everyone has it, but some people don't like it, Twitter is a fantastic tool for communication, but there are more people I know who don't use it than do.  Pretty much everyone uses Facebook, but I personally hate Facebook so I try not to use it unless I have to, Google+ is a growing tool that is still finding the way in this market.  It may end up thriving, it may die. No one is really sure yet.  Email is email, and all of the other IM/messagaing apps are, well, IM/messaging apps.  The problem is that each one has a purpose, and while the concept of each is roughly the same, there is actually very little overlap on how I use each service.

I really started to think about this when I looked at my phone after dinner one day and I literally had an email, text message, Twitter reply, twitter direct message, Facebook message, an IM from LiveProfile, a missed call notification and a voicemail.  With the exception of the two different twitter messages and the fact that the missed call and voicemail both use the phone dialler, each one of those required me to go into a separate app to read/reply to the message.  Now, the fact that my smartphone can aggregate all of those messages is fantastic, but it doesn't change the fact that I had to go into 6 different applications just to se them all.

WebOS, of all things, actually has tried to alleviate this issue since version 1.0 in 2009.  WebOS synergy is an effort to combine not just contacts, as Android can do now, but also how we communicate.  WebOS' messaging app included support for SMS and IM networks together.  The theory was that you could send someone a message through the messaging app, and it would go to them in whatever way it could, through IM if possible, or if not, through SMS, and you could receive messages the same way, and the messages would form one thread or conversation, with each message having an indicator as to which service it was sent/received.  The goal of Synergy was always to make it open for more services to hook in to, so everything could go through there.  It was a great idea that ended up going nowhere because Palm and later HP completely failed WebOS.  Facebook has even tried something similar with the revamping of their messaging services.  They have tried to combine so messages, chat, and email all appear in a single thread for users.  It is again a good idea in theory, but I have found Facebook's implementation less than stellar, especially with their terrible chat UI.

Now, while this is partly just the fact that the age of smartphones is still very young.  Some of these apps like LiveProfile and GroupMe probably will be gone within 18 months or so, and that's part of the process.  Some of those services will fold, others will be bought by larger companies and absorbed like the Beluga messaging service being bought by Facebook earlier this year.  I don't think we'll ever be rid of the fact that we will have 4-5 things that we will need to look at, but my hope is that some of these things merge or die off.  We need 2 or 3 dominant services after SMS, and that's it.  All I know is that the current state of messaging and communications, especially on mobile devices, is out of control and needs to be corrected.

The New BlackBerry Devices

So, RIM's new BlackBerry lineup is finally taking shape.  Aside from the next generation Curve, we now know what the next generation of BlackBerry devices looks like.  The quick response to them is that they're very good….but they're still BlackBerries. There are 3 devices that will essentially run the same hardware.  The BlackBerry Bold 9900 (9930 CDMA model), The BlackBerry Torch 9810, and the BlackBerry Torch 9850 (9860 CDMA model) will all run on 1.2GHz single core processors and 768MB of ram, with 8GB of storage on the Bold and Torch 9810, and 4GB of storage on the Torch 9850.

Now, none of these devices are revolutionary.  The Bold makes a return to the form factor of the original Bold 9000, which is still the best BlackBerry RIM ever made.  The Bold is the traditional BlackBerry form factor with a 2.8" 640x480 touchscreen.  For those who need the best possible keyboard possible, the Bold 9900 will without a doubt be your device.

The Torch 9810 is basically the Torch 2, or as many say, what the first Torch should have been.  I'm personally not a fan of the Torch form factor.  I think that they keyboard is too small and stiff in use (though they may be able to fix the latter in the 9810), the screen is too small to be used as a touchscreen only device, and my biggest complaint is that the device is inexplicably heavy.  It just felt too heavy for the size, and when the keyboard was open, it just felt way too top heavy; like it would tip over if I'm not careful.  The Torch 9810 is the exact same weight, which is not good.

The Torch 9850 is essentially the Storm 3.  I think RIM folded this device into the Torch brand and retired the Storm name since the Storm and Storm 2 were among the worst devices they've ever made.  The Torch 9850 aims to fix that, by ditching that clicking surepress screen in favour of a standard touscreen, and bumps the screen size up to 3.7".  This is the most interesting device of the bunch, because it is the closest thing to an iPhone or Android touchscreen phone that RIM has.  I don't think that the BlackBerry OS makes a good touchscreen only OS, and it really felt like it was missing something without having a physical keyboard.  BlackBerry OS 7 appears to do little to change that, but with a larger screen it may be more usable.  Only time will tell.  One other interesting thing is that the Torch 9850 is being marketed as the multimedia heavy BlackBerry, with a large vibrant screen that screams to have movies on it, has the least amount of included storage of these 3 models at 4GB.  I personally don't understand that move, at all.

Now, these devices are all going to be fast, probably the first devices capable of actually running the BlackBerry OS at full speed with no lag. That will go a long way towards addressing the issues that were had with devices like the Torch 9800.  I look forward to getting one of these devices to test, just to see how good of an experience it is.  I have no doubts that these will be the best BlackBerries ever.

But at the end of the day, these are still BlackBerries, and still run BlackBerry OS, which is at this point so far behind anything Apple Google and even HP/Palm have to offer.  Again, perhaps the speed improvements will be a huge factor and make the OS feel better, but speed cannot fix fundamental flaws in the OS.  I've personally always liked RIM's hardware, but it has been about 3 years since it felt like the device software has been anywhere close to the competition, and it has really held the devices back, especially in the Bold line.

There is also an issue of these devices probably being stillborn.  They run BlackBerry OS 7, which is actually version 6.1, a marginal improvement over last year's OS release.  RIM has stated it plans to move the company's phones over to its QNX platform, the OS that runs on the Playbook, in 2012, and that it was unlikely that BlackBerry OS devices would be able to upgrade to QNX.  Selling a phone that will be a dead end in a year or less is not an easy proposition for RIM, no matter how good those phones are.

That being said, i am due for an upgrade of my BlackBerry from the original Tour, and I will probably be getting the Bold 9900 in September.  I've always been a fan of the Bold hardware, especially that of the original Bold 9000, and I am very much looking forward to the new hardware.  I just hope that the software can keep up to it, though I'm not holding my breath.

MacBook Air Review - Mid 2011

The MacBook Air is now an interesting part of Apple's product lineup.  With the discontinuation of the White MacBook customers now have to choose between the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro.  At the low end, the MacBook Air is $999 (though I don't recommend that model), and the MacBook Pro is $1250.  Bump up to the recommended model of the MacBook Air, and you have a $1200 11" notebook against a $1250 13 notebook.  Is the Air a better choice than the Pro? Read on and I'll give you my two cents.

Hardware

The MacBook Air is an absolutely beautiful little machine.  that's the one thing that Apple didn't change.  At first glance, the 2011 Air is exactly the same as the 2010 version.  A bit more examination shows two differences: the addition of a Thunderbolt port and a backlit keyboard.  Aside from that it is pretty much identical.  Is it perfect?  No.  The webcam (sorry, I refuse to call it a FaceTime camera) is not an HD cam like what is found in the MacBook Pro and iMac.  Perhaps the machine is just too thin to stick a HD sensor in, but it's still a little sad.  Also, while this is an 11.6" screen, the large-ish bezel around it could have easily accommodated a slightly bigger, maybe 12.1", screen with no effect on the size of the machine.  It may not sound like much, but it really is a big bezel.

If you're looking for every connectivity option under the sun, stop right now because this machine is not for you.  On the 11" Air you will find power, 2 USB, Thunderbolt, and a headphone port.  that's it. No ethernet port at all.  There is a USB adapter for Ethernet, but then using that uses 50% of the USB ports on the machine.  I picked up an Ethernet adapter personally.  I won't need it often, maybe 2-3 times a year.  But for those 2-3 times, it will probably be a life saver.  Sure, the potential of port expansion through the Thunderbolt port exists, there is not a lot of options on this little guy.  There is an SDXC card slot on the 13" model, which is nice.  I'd like one on the 11", but there physically isn't room on the logic board for one, so I'll live.

Trackpad and Keyboard

The trackpad is massive for a machine this size.  that's the one advantage of the large bezel.  It allows for a bigger palm rest and trackpad.  And with all of the multi-touch gestures now in Lion, you'll need every centimetre of it.  The trackpad itself is pretty standard for apple, but slightly smaller than found on the 13" and bigger models.

The Keyboard is also fairly standard for apple, save for a few things.  The dashboard and expose function buttons have been replaced with controls for Launchpad and Mission Control.  The actual typing experience is about 90% of what I would expect from an Apple keyboard. Where I notice a difference is in the depth of each key press.  It is another necessary evil because of how thin the machine is, but the typing experience on the MacBook Pro is slightly better because of the longer travel distance on the keys.  That doesn't mean that I don't' enjoy the MacBook Air keyboard, in fact, it's a great keyboard for the size of machine.  But the keyboard on the Pro is slightly better, emphasis on slightly.  The speakers on the Air are a bit tinny. they get the job done, but if you want to do any serious music listening or movie watching, it is best to use headphones, which sound great.

The last thing I will say about the hardware itself is that the machine is remarkably solid, especially for a machine of this size.  That is a result of Apple's unibody construction, where the machine is basically made of 2 pieces of aluminum and the screen.  I'm not going to try it, but it really does feel like I could drop this machine and it would still work perfectly.  there is a little flex in the screen, which is understandable considering how thin it is.  But that is not enough to worry me.  The rest of the machine simply does not bend, which is perfect.

Software

The MacBook Air, naturally, runs OS X Lion.  The experience is a little different than installing on an existing machine.  First off, Before you even get set up, it prompts you to connect to a wifi network. Then you are required to enter in an apple ID when you first boot the machine.  If you do not have one, you will have to create one.  This is the first sign of just how important the cloud is to Lion.

Past that, it actually kind of surprised me how many settings and preferences that were kept when I upgraded my MacBook Pro to Lion.  The out of the box Lion experience was vastly different than the upgrade.  Some of the multi-touch gestures were different (the Lion defaults), and even some of the interface elements were different.  I'm still going through all the settings trying to get things the way I want them, and I've found ways to fix several things that I mentioned bugged me in my review of Lion.  I plan to use this machine for a few more weeks then make another post about life with Lion.

While i'm still a bit tepid about the Mac App store, the fact that I was able to simply log in to it, and then re-download my purchased apps was really slick.  It even remembered which free apps I had downloaded, which made getting the machine up to speed, limited only by my internet connection.  I also used the iTunes home sharing feature to bring my music over form my main computer.  The last thing I did was grab all the files I wanted to keep out of the home folder from my MacBook Pro.  I actually did this using AirDrop, which was really slick, and amazingly simple.  I was able to just drag about 5 GB worth of files into the icon for my MacBook Air in the air drop GUI, on the Air I was prompted to accept the transfer, and it just stuck everything into the downloads folder, which I was then able to move to my home folder.  Apple really need to put AirDrop into iOS. I think it would be a pretty massive feature.

Performance

Now, I'm not going to run benchmarks and give you graphs and pie charts of how the MacBook Air performs.  Others have done that, and I don't need to.  The Air I purchased was the 11.6" version with the base 1.6 GHz Core i5 processor (which is the intel low power ULV chip), 4GB of RAM, and the upgrade to a 256GB Sold State Drive.  Every MacBook Air uses the i5's integrated graphics processor, the Intel HD 3000 graphics, which uses 384 MB of system RAM for video memory.

Now, this machine is the fastest machine I've ever used in day to day use.  This is largely because of the sold state drive, which the Air is my first experience in using one.  It goes from off to the log in screen in about 7 seconds, and after I put my password in, the desktop is loaded 3 seconds after that.  It sleeps instantly, and wakes up instantly.  Applications launch blazingly fast. I've been using the Air for about a week now, and it still amazes me how fast it is.

The processor on this machine is plenty fast as well.  Would i make it a main video editing machine? No.  But it can definitely handle itself as a video editing machine for mobile users.  my desktop runs a previous generation Core i7 920, which is still faster, but the Air is fast enough for all but the heaviest tasks I can throw at it.  It is simply not in the same universe from the ULV Core 2 Duo from the previous MacBook Air, and is significantly faster than the full speed Core 2 Duo in the 2009 MacBook Pro.

Battery life seems to be roughly what Apple claims for the 11" air, 5 hours.  I haven't run any extensive tests, but I can say that I can regularly get over 4 hours doing my normal activities (browsing, IM, Twitter client polling every few minutes, and some app use like Reeder), but not more than 5.  I wish the battery life was a bit longer, but again, on a machine this small, I will trade a bit of battery life for the size.

I didn't buy the Air to be a gaming machine, and I'm obviously not going to try running a lot of high end games, but that being said I loaded up Civilization V and it was playable at the native resolution; albeit on the low settings.  Most games that are a few years old seem to run fine (Star Wars: Empire at War was my main test case), and the Air runs Angry Birds and Plants vs. Zombies like a fiend.

My only real concern is that the Air runs a little warmer under idle conditions than I would like.  While my MacBook Pro idled at about 41-44 degrees, the MacBook Air idles about 10 degrees warmer than that, and regularly gets over 65 degrees under a moderate load.  Time will tell whether that will be an issue or not.

Wrap-up

So the main question still remains. Can the MacBook Air be a users only computer.  For me, the answer is still no.  The MacBook Air is a fantastic computer, but I am still too much of a power user.  My Air has a 256GB hard drive, and I have 5.5 TB in my desktop.  I game on my desktop in ways that simply aren't possible on the Air.

That being said, I can see the Air being a perfectly acceptable computer for most users.  I absolutely do not recommend the $999 version though.  a 64GB SSD and 2GB of RAM are frankly unacceptable in 2011.  I think that the $1,200 model with 4GB of RAM and 128GB SSD should be the minimum users should consider.  For other things, like the ethernet port or optical drive, a simple question needs to be asked: When was the last time you used them on your laptop.  For me, I hadn't used the optical drive in over a year, and the ethernet port only 2-3 times in that year, which can easily be fixed with the USB adapter.  A USB DVD drive can also be bought for the few times when an optical drive is needed.

If you can live without having an ethernet port or a DVD drive every day, and understand that the $1200 model is the minimum that should be considered, the MacBook Air can absolutely be someone's only computer. Especially the 13" model, which offers higher specs and a slightly larger screen.  Even for me, where the 11" Air is going to be my secondary/couch/travel computer, I could not be happier with it, and it comes as highly recommended as I can.

You can see more pictures of the MacBook Air, including size comparisons to the Mid-2009 13" MacBook Pro here

The Big Cat - OS X Lion Reviewed

On July 20, 2011, Apple released the 8th major version of OS X, version 10.7 Lion.  I’m not going to spend time doing something that’s been done better in many other places.  Ars Technica has what is probably the comprehensive review of Lion; a massive document totaling about 27,000 words.  If you are looking for the definitive review, that is it.  What I’m going to talk about is my experience with Lion.  What I like, what I don’t like, and what’s changed compared to how I used Snow Leopard on a day to day basis.  Another thing I’m going to try to do is separate how I use OS X, and try to look a little more at how a novice OS X user would use it.  Many of the new features in OS X are designed for those users, and while I personally may not like them, they may make the experience better for a good number of users.

Begin!

After almost a week of using Lion, I can say that it’s a mix of good things, puzzling things, and things I frankly don’t like.  That’s not to say that it’s bad.  Lion’s goal seems to be improving the accessibility of a desktop OS, and making it easier for anyone, especially those who have use an iPad, to pick up and use.  In the process they have made things harder for long time users of OS X, and computers in general, by changing some of the fundamental things in a computer that users have been accustomed to for 20+ years.

Scrolling

Lion’s default scrolling is backwards.  That’s right, backwards.  The same way we’ve been scrolling documents, web pages, code, pictures, etc for 20 years has been turned backwards.  I tried it, I really did.  I used it for 2 days, and I frankly cannot stand it, and changed it back to “normal.”  The problem is that Apple set the default to be like scrolling on an touch screen device like an iPhone or iPad.  That works fine on a touch screen, when you’re actually interacting with the object you’re moving.  But when using it with a touchpad, it simply feels backwards because I’m not interacting directly with the object that I’m scrolling. And honestly it does not feel right.  Of all the new multi-touch gestures in Lion, this is the one that I cannot get used to.  But thankfully, it’s actually the only one that can be switched back to the way it was before Lion.

Trackpad gestures

Since I talked about scrolling, it is time to talk about the rest of the multi-touch gestures.  At first, I hated them, and now I can say that I’ve gotten used to them.  That doesn’t mean that I like them, but I’m not doing the wrong thing constantly anymore, which is nice.

In Snow Leopard, there was a universal gesture.  3 finger swipe back would take you back one page anywhere in the OS: finder, system preferences, Safari, Google Chrome, The App Store, you name it.  swiping back with 3 fingers would take you back one web page, back to the main system preferences window, back a page in many apps.  It worked nicely, and was the gesture I used more than any other in Snow Leopard, hands down.  And now it is gone.  I personally think that was probably the stupidest thing that has changed in Lion.  It may not feel like much, but when I had come to depend on that gesture for 2 years, it suddenly being gone is driving me crazy.  I’ve never wanted to throw my computer out a window more than I have in the last week of using Lion because of that simple gesture.  It has been replaced by a two finger swipe gesture to go backwards, but that is app specific; meaning that each app has to be written to take advantage of it.  It can be changed to 3 fingers, but it is still app specific, and doesn’t work with other apps.  Safari is, but pretty much no other app is right now, not even Apple’s own applications.  It is frustrating, and one thing that Apple really didn’t have to change.

The other one’s aren’t nearly so bad, but they are different.  App expose has been moved from a long click on the icon in the dark to a 4 finger swipe down.  Mission control is a 4 finger swipe up, and changing between spaces and full screen apps is 4 fingers to the right or left. (more on mission control and spaces later).  Those are all new, and took a few days for me to get used to.  The one that I find hilarious and terrible is the one that launches, err, launchpad.  The gesture is 3 fingers and thumb pinching together.  I’m doing it as I write this, and it makes me laugh every time.  It feels so un-natural, and odd, almost like I have to contort my thumb to make it work.  Launchpad is supposed to be a big feature of Lion, and the gesture for brining it up is easily the worst one in the OS. It is a curious choice, at best.

Versions

Versions, I think, is the best feature in Lion.  In a nutshell, if you have an app that supports it, you will never have to worry about saving a document or losing data again.  I usually use an app called Mars Edit to write on my blog, but for this post I’m using Pages, to test versioning out.  Versioning is, essentially, what Microsoft and Apple have been trying to do for years: get document auto-saving working correctly.  I could close this application right now, and my document will automatically save.  When I launch it again, the document will come back up exactly where I left it.  As I add to the document, it saves it.  If I accidentally delete a paragraph, or actually delete a large chunk of text on purpose, I can go back to a version of the document that has it, and copy it into the current working document.  It does this in an interface that looks almost exactly like Time Machine, which is elegant.  I think that it could get a bit difficult to deal with versions if you make lots of changes, add and remove stuff from different versions, but overall, this is a fantastic feature, and, as an IT pro, one that I’m crying for in the Windows world.

In the vein of never losing data again, Apple has added a version of Time Machine that works directly on the computer.  Basically, it keeps a local time machine backup of some changes, like when you create or delete a document, and will add those to your time machine disk backup when you attach it again.  It’s not really a user facing feature, but another good one that will help reduce the chance of a user losing data.

Full screen apps

Apple has decided to bring this “feature” of iOS devices to OS X.  On a tablet or phone, it makes sense, because the screen is so small it is not practical to see two things at a time.  Apps that are updated to take advantage of it, and there are many now, can be set to run full screen, which then puts them in their own space, and the 4 finger swipe lets you switch between full screen apps and the regular desktops.  Now, I like to run a lot of applications, so full screen apps rarely make sense to me, but I’m using Pages in full screen right now, mainly to write this post without distractions, and it does work in this circumstance.

Honestly, I can see it working on Mac with a smaller screen, like the 11” MacBook Air.  I can see cases where I will make use of full screen apps, and may use it on occasion, though I will still run mostly in the “normal” desktops.  One place where full screen apps make zero sense at all though, is on larger screens, like the 27” apple display.  Why would I want to run a single app on a screen that’s a higher resolution than 1080p?

Mission Control

Mission Control........I need to take a breath before I start.

Mission Control is a great adaptation of Spaces and Expose.  But it is not for me.  I was a heavy user of Spaces and expose in Leopard and Snow Leopard.  I’m still a heavy user of spaces, or Mission Control as it’s called now, but I’ve had to completely re-wire my brain.  I’ve had a number of people tell me that Mission control is so much better than Spaces, but I’m struggling with it, a lot.  I know I will probably get used to it over time, but for now, it is giving me trouble.  Spaces actually has fewer features now to make it easier to use.  It is harder to drag applications between spaces now, there is no way to re-order spaces, and it is harder to see what is in the spaces when you have more than 5, since they start to shrink in the row at the top.  Lion also re-orders spaces for you if you open an app that is set to always open in a certain space.  So on my MacBook Pro right now, the order of the spaces is 1, 5, 4, 2, 3, 6, with no way to re-order them to the way I like.  the 4 finger swipe between spaces is nice, but when I have 6 spaces and 3 full screen apps running, is not very practical.  The one thing I do like about Mission control, is that it is very easy to create a new space.  Simply drag an app to the top right of the screen in mission control, beside the last space, and it will create a new one.  I love that feature, but again, without being able to re-order the spaces, my use of it is more limited.  Full screen apps also run as their own space, which further complicates their use, as it adds more clutter to spaces.  Admittedly that is probably the best way to do it, but when I have 6 spaces and 3-4 full screen apps on my screen they become so small in mission control it’s nearly impossible to see what is in each space.

I think Mission Control has potential.  The core idea is interesting, but it needs some modifications that don’t really make it more difficult to use, but will make people who have used it in the past happy.

All My Files

This one, frankly, makes me want to cry.  The new default view in Finder is what is essentially a saved search called “All My Files.”  All My Files tries to aggregate, well, all of your documents, pictures, videos, etc into one finder window.  I don’t even know where to begin as to how stupid this is.  that view in my MacBook Pro is essentially a giant list of pictures that aren’t in iPhoto, the 25 or so versions of this review, and other random documents that I don’t want to see.  It tries to organize it into categories of “documents” “pictures” etc, but the list is so long that it’s useless, and I have to do another search within that search to find anything.  As someone who likes to keep my files organized, this view is unusable.

Now, I can see where Apple was going with this.  They wanted to aggregate all the content on people’s computers.  I know people who have 100 files on their desktop, and then just save anything to the default location, and then can’t find where that document is.  All My files is a terrible way to try to fix that.  Apple built a great tool in 2005, it’s called Spotlight, which is the search.  I don’t understand why All My Files was necessary when spotlight exists, and is a far superior solution.  Even Microsoft, who introduced Libraries in Windows 7, has this right.  Libraries aggregate folders you choose in to a buckets, and it has different buckets.  My “Pictures” library in Windows 7 has 4 folders from different locations in it, but it is all pictures, and I choose what goes there.  Microsoft has nailed this concept, and Apple would be wise to look at Libraries and then look at All My Files, and see where they went wrong.

Launchpad

I hate the Launchpad.  I hate everything it stands for.  There, I said it.  I think it’s possibly the worst new feature in Lion.  However, I also think that it’s going to be the biggest fan favorite.  Why? Because it takes the iPad interface and puts it onto Lion.  Now that I’ve looked at it and have seen how it works, and can talk about it’s functionality, I will never use it again.  But many people will.

Now, launching apps in OS X, for a lot of people, is actually surprisingly hard, mostly for those who don’t know/use spotlight.  With Spotlight, it is easy, hit command-space, type the first 2-3 letters of the app, and hit enter.  Easy.  Except that even for me sometimes, if it’s an application I don’t use all the time, I might forget the name of it.  The Applications folder in finder is ok but 100+ apps in and it’s a bit of a mess.  the Dock is good to keep the most commonly used apps all the time, but again, what about those apps that get used once a month or so? This is one area where the Start Menu in Windows is actually superior, because I think it is easier to find apps in it than in finder.  My personal solution is that I have the Applications folder pinned to the right side of the dock, and when I click on it it brings up the grid view of everything in that folder.  It works well for those few times that I know what app I need, but I just can’t remember the name of it since I haven’t opened in in 3-4 months.

Launchpad, admittedly, does make that easier for people.  Ignoring the hilariously bad gesture, once launchpad is on the screen (launchpad can also be launched from an icon on the dock or in the application folder, which is the way I recommend), it provides a simple grid of applications like you see on an iPad or iPhone.  For what it is it is elegant and simple, and works well.  The only thing, functionally, I don’t like is folders.  You can, like on an iOS device, put apps into folders on the screen.  however, that doesn’t actually correspond to anything on the system, so you can put 10 apps into a folder, but their physical location on the disk doesn’t change, nor is there a new folder on the filesystem with those 10 apps in it, not even a shortcut.  That organization exists only in the Launchpad, and I think it would do Apple well to allow people to be able to match that in the filesystem in the applications folder, or at least let people export the configuration out of launchpad.  But that likely won’t happen.

The main reason I don’t like it is because it is the most visible sign of iOS coming to OS X.  I don’t like that on principle, because I think that a desktop computer and a tablet or phone device do distinctly different things, and I don’t understand the need/obsession both Apple and Microsoft have with trying to combine those two segments.  Each segment is good at different things, lets develop software for each that takes advantage of that, instead of trying to shoehorn things in that don’t make any sense at all.

Miscellaneous

I’d be remiss if I didn’t talk briefly about things like  Scroll bars, Mail, Address Book, and iCal.  Scroll bars are gone in Lion.  That is to say, they are like they are on iOS now.  Invisible unless you are actually scrolling.  That will make the 10 people who still use the little arrow keys to scroll very unhappy, but what I have trouble with, especially on long documents or web pages, is that there is no quick visual cue as to where you are on the document.  You actually have to scroll a little bit to get the scroll bar to appear to see if you’re near the beginning, middle, or wherever.  I like the thinner transparent scroll bars scroll bars, just wish they were “always on.”

For iCal and Address book.  I don’t like the new look, mostly because they look like “real” books and calendars.  It’s a computer, and it’s 2011.  Can we please make applications that are functional, and not something that’s supposed to look like the calendar hanging on my wall?  iCal in full screen is amazingly bad, because all it does is stretch the weeks to make them bigger.  Why can’t it just display 10 weeks on the screen, instead of just the weeks in the current month?  I know that sometimes form over function is a good thing, but this has gone too far.

Mail’s overhaul is largely good.  It looks more like the iOS app, there is a proper 3 column view, there are threaded conversations, and it seems to work.  The only issue i have are the issues people with Gmail always have on dedicated clients, which is not for this article.

The End!

I like Lion.  There are some things in it that are really well done, some that are requiring me to re-learn almost 20 years of computer use, and some things that I hate.  The good outweighs the bad, and for most of the things I don’t like, I can acknowledge that they are better for the general consumer.  Lion is the most user friendly release of OS X yet, and is starting to blur the lines between the traditional computing experience and where the future computing experience is going.  That is both exciting and scary to me, but I’m at least willing to see where it goes.

The one thing I will say about Lion, is that I don’t think that the current machines that run it are what Apple really envisions for the future of desktop computing.  Lion very much feels like an operating system that wants to run on a touchscreen, except that it doesn’t, on any device.  While I don’t think that Apple wants OS X to run on a touchscreen, there is something coming in the future that will, OS 11 perhaps, and OS X Lion is the first taste of that.  That makes it awkward to use at times (seriously, the backwards scrolling is terrible), but in 2-3 years, when we see the Apple’s plan for the future of “traditional computing” I think we will be able to look back at Lion, and see that it was the first step towards that.

Shaw Launches Movie Club, badly.

Today Shaw launched a new product aimed squarely at Netflix called Movie Club.  Movie Club is very similar to Netflix in that for a flat monty fee users have access to a library of video content that they can watch.  Movie Club itself is an interesting product, but this article is going to focus more on the Shaw's launch of the product today. I'll be frank.  Shaw fumbled the ball on this one, really badly.  A lot of the good talk about Shaw since the restructuring of their Internet plans has been hurt by how this launch was handled, and it is sad to see.

Confusion started literally minutes after the launch of Movie Club.  Shaw put out a news release, and several news publications put articles up on their respective websites about the new service. Even US based Ars Technica and Tech News Today ran with the story (though Tech News Today was able to correct the story at the end, thanks to a live chat room audience).  The reason for this is that the initial reports were that Shaw was going to deliver this service both to set top boxes and through the Internet, but that the delivery though the internet would not count against data caps on user's accounts.

Let me stop and say that again.  The initial reports were that delivery of Movie Club through the Internet would not count against a data cap.

I will stop you there again, because that is not true. But I will get back to that in a second.

Needless to say, the Internet kind of blew up at this.  Net neutrality proponents slammed the move, and many people got very upset at the fact that Shaw seemed to be putting in a plan that gave them an unfair advantage over a service like Netflix.

Then, came the "clarifications."  Shaw's official twitter accounts, Shaw employees speaking on Twitter, Facebook, and Internet forums on behalf of Shaw immediately came running to the public to say "No no no no."  It was clarified to me, along with everyone else, that watching content on Movie Club on a TV through a set top box via the Video On Demand interface would not count against a user's data cap, as the content is transmitted through the traditional QAM cable TV system that VOD content moves through.  Watching content through a computer or other device via Wifi goes through the Internet, and will count against a user's cap.  Shaw employees and PR spent most of the afternoon doing damage control, and trying to get the accurate information out there.  Several news publications put out new stories with clarifications, and Ars Technica updated their story (albeit much later than I would have liked).

So what happened? How did Shaw allow such confusion to happen on this launch?  I've done a lot of reading on the various news articles, and Shaw's news release for Movie Club, and the confusion comes from two simple things.

• The CEO was quoted as saying that on your box or online, this will not have any impact on your capacity or usage.
• The news release from Shaw had no indication one way or the other whether this would affect the data cap.

Now, with a quote from the CEO saying one thing, and a news release not disputing that, journalists ran with the idea that all Movie Club content would not count against the data cap. If I were working for one of the many publications that put articles out, I would have done the exact same thing given the information available to me at the time.  Could this be a case of a CEO being mis-quoted? Possibly.  But what is likely is that he just got a fact wrong, or just misunderstood a question.  either way he made a mistake.  Those things happen from time to time.  Engadget has a feature called "C-E-Oh no he didn't" that catalogs tech company CEO's that make mistakes, and it can be quite entertaining.  This is another one of those cases, and unfortunately for Shaw, it kind of blew up in their face.

To Shaw's credit, their PR team worked very hard all day to try to get the correct information out, to clarify to angry customers what the truth was, and to work with news media to get new or updated articles posted.  Unfortunately in most cases where mistakes are made, it takes 10x the amount of effort to fix them, and that is what Shaw faced today.  The net neutrality people might no longer be mad at them, but a new group of people are mad and accusing them of lying, trying to spread mis-information, and confusing people.  It only takes a quick look on Twitter, Facebook, or even Google+ now to see the anger at Shaw over the confusion on this launch.  The Shaw PR team was put in a difficult situation in which there was no way for them to come out in a good way.  i applaud the PR team for doing what they could to try to clean up a pretty nasty mess that was left behind for them.

This confusion during the launch has really masked the actual product they are trying to get off the ground. I've written almost 900 words to this point and I haven't even talked about the actual product that is Movie Club.  That is not a good thing for Shaw, at all.  I should have spent the last 900 words talking about the product, now how they fumbled the launch, and that is unfortunate.

As a quick recap of the above, in case it was still missed in there, Shaw Movie Club will not count against the data cap if being watched through a Shaw set top box via the Video On Demand interface.  Movie club will, like all content, count against the cap if watched through any Internet connected device like a computer or mobile device.

Now, onto the actual product itself, 997 words in.

Movie Club is a subscription service, much like Netflix.  I had actually heard about this service during the Shaw customer consultation sessions earlier this year.  The Shaw representatives there told us that they did have a video subscription service in the works, and that it was being considered as something that would be more valuable than Netflix, because they could deliver it through their existing Video On Demand service and not have it count against a user's data cap.  They stressed that while they probably could not match the volume of movies and TV that Netflix offers to customers, they wanted to focus on quality and getting newer blockbuster movies onto their service before Netflix could. They seemed very excited at this project that they were working on, that has now become Movie Club, but had asked us not to talk much, if at all about it because it was a product still in development and things could change before they launch, if they ever even did launch it. Today, that project finally saw the light of day, and Movie Club was launched. Unfortunately, it simply does not compare to what Netflix has to offer.

To start, Movie Club is a $12/month service, and that is for Standard Definition content only.  Movie Club HD will be launching "later this summer" and will be an additional $5/month, for a total of $17/month to watch HD content. Netflix is $8/month for the entire service, including all HD content.  That means that Movie Club is at a huge disadvantage out of the gate being $4 or $9 more expensive than Netflix. So, if Movie Club is going to be more expensive, it had better be beating Netflix on Movie selection.  However, a quick trip to the Movie club section of vod.shaw.ca shows a total of 139 movies available for streaming.  I don't have an exact number for the Netflix library, but needless to say it is significantly more than that.

But again, Shaw's word to us months ago was that their service would aim to go for quality more than quantity.  A quick look through the 139 titles currently available include many recent titles that are not available on Netflix in Canada, like Burlesque, The Blind Side, The Tourist, and Fast & Furious.  There are also many older moves that are both available, and not available on Netflix at this time.  There are definitely movies on the service that I would like to watch, some movies that I've never seen, but for me personally, I don't think that it is worth the price.  I honestly would not sign up for a SD service at this point.  I have a 47" HDTV and the though of paying $12/month to watch SD movies on it when I can pay $8 to watch HD movies simply does not make sense to me.  Would I pay $17/month for the HD content?  Again, probably not, because I can get many more movies in HD for less than half the price.  Sure, I can't watch Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen on Netflix, but I'm fairly sure that I can find 9-10 other movies that I'm perfectly content watching for less money.  What it comes down to is that for me to want to pay more for Movie Club than I do for Netflix, Shaw has to provide me with a very high number of movies that I want to watch right now that I can't get on Netflix.  And personally for me, they aren't even close.  Shaw does say that they are committed to adding new content every month, but that does not help the fact that right now, today, there are only 139 titles to choose from. Right now Shaw does not have the quantity to match Netflix, nor do they have a high enough number of quality titles to justify the price.

Does that mean it will stay this way forever? I hope not.  I really do think that a market does exist for newer movies on streaming services.  But Shaw's problem is that Netflix is desperately trying to get there as well.  If Shaw wants Movie Club to have any chance of success they either need to get a lot of newer (under 1 year old) blockbuster movies on there very soon, or drop the price significantly.  I think that people might pay a higher price to watch movies they can't see anywhere else, especialy if Shaw can swing a deal to get some movies on to Movie Club that aren't even available on Blu-ray or DVD yet. But as it stands right now; Shaw does does not have a competitive product.

Now, for all the confusion over the actual content delivery and whether or not it counts against a data cap, the fact that users can watch content as much as they want through a set top box and not have it count against a dat cap is one of the things that I actually do think is good about the product.  It is a value-add that Netflix quite frankly cannot match, and a good one at that. Many people have pointed out to me that doing that may get Shaw a visit from the competition bureau, and I think they are right.  But I also do not think that there is a problem.  If the story had been true that Shaw was providing the internet streaming and not having it count against their data cap, then there would have been serious anti-competitive issues.  But Shaw is offering an internet based service that is exactly the same as Netflix, with a value-add of the set top box delivery.  Shaw is not trying to make Netflix worse and less valuable than their product, they are trying to make their product better and more valuable than Netflix.  That is a very important, if a bit subtle, distinction that people need to understand.  You can do anything you want to make your service better as long as it does not purposely make someone else's worse.

the last thing I want to talk about is something I touched on a bit earlier.  Shaw launched Movie Club today in SD only.  In 2011, when HDTV's are commonplace, that is simply unacceptable.  I can't even begin to say how much that move does not make sense to me.  With the promise of the (more expensive) Movie Club HD service coming "later this summer" it would have made more sense to me to wait to launch the service until the HD portion was ready.  There is quite honestly no way I will even consider getting Movie Club in SD when it's main focus is on delivering newer movies, which are filmed specifically for HD, and do not look nearly as good in SD.  If I want to watch Transformers, I will be doing it via some method that will let me watch it in HD, which Shaw does not offer today.

To say that Shaw fumbled the ball today would be an understatement.  From communication issues early in the day, to actually launching at a product that is in many ways inferior to some of it's main competition, to launching without HD; Shaw made a mess of this product launch.  Could Shaw rebound from this and make a good product?  Absolutely.  Like I said.  I do think that there is a market for a "premium" streaming service.  However Shaw needs to get there before Netflix can do it cheaper if they want any chance of success, and they need to do it quickly.  It may be a bit unfair, but we live in a world where news moves fast, and in many cases the first impression is everything.  Shaw has left a very bad first impression here, and if not fixed quickly, they risk having the product slip into irrelevance before it even gets off the ground.  The product launched poorly today but it still launched. And because of that, the clock is ticking.  Can Shaw fix it before the time runs out? We'll see.

[Read] - Shaw Movie Club Press release (PDF link)

[Read] - Original Calgary Herald Article

[Read] - Montreal Gazette article with clarification

[Read] - Ars Technica article, original with update

[Read] - Shaw Facebook discussion thread.

[Read] - Shaw info twitter account.