Information Overdose

About This Site

I am Some Random Nerd. I work in "Digital Media", and this is where I play with it. Call it a personal home page, blog, realtime lifestream or whatever the buzzword of the moment is. It just is what it is, so please enjoy your visit.

Thoughts and theories are my own (other than where quoted) and are personal rather than professional.

>>In search of tablet computers' sweet spot: screen size and battery life

Posted Thu 2 Sep 2010

Interesting analysis of the iPad competitors from Charles Arthur.

I guess the key point for me is whether you think of a tablet as a small and portable alternative to a laptop/netbook, or a large and powerful alternative to a smartphone.

Given the power of the iPhone 4 (which has just blown me away with the Epic Citadel app- a demonstration of the Unreal 3D engine), I'm just not sure how much demand/need there is for a bigger smartphone. Especially if you're talking about something that's going to be carried around in a bag anyway.

Link to original article

>>Tilt shift photography video

Posted Thu 2 Sep 2010

Tilt shift photography is a neat effect that changes the perspective and focus of the shot and makes it somehow look like close ups of miniatures. (There's a way you can fake it in Photoshop that is almost as good, if the composition of the shot is right.)

Anyway, this is a really neat video that uses the technique, combined with animated sequences, to make a really neat effect.

Helpless from Keith Loutit on Vimeo.

(via @yushkalia)

Link to original article

>>Why Only Mac Users Can Watch Apple's Event Tomorrow

Posted Wed 1 Sep 2010

ReadWriteWeb note that for the first time for one of their big press conferences, video from Apple's event today will be streamed live online— but only to Apple devices, as the QuickTime technology hasn't yet been ported to Windows.

Is this another clue about an "Apple TV" announcement? Or just another element in the Apple/Adobe argument about the future of Flash?

Link to original article

How Apple could shape the future of TV

Posted Tue 31 Aug 2010

TV is huge. According to the latest Ofcom Communications Market Report, we watch an average of 3.8 hours of TV a day in the UK (I gather it's about 4.5 hours in the US.) 92% of us have switched over from analogue to Digital TV, and 31% of adults had watched catch-up TV online in Q1 2010. It is an £11 billion industry in the UK alone, with about a quarter of that revenue coming from public funds, another 28% coming from advertising, and 41% coming from subscription costs. (Add another $70 billion in advertising and an equal amount in cable and satellite fees if you want to look at the US.) It's also quite unique, in the way that such a huge amount of the time we spend watching TV is doing it as a shared experience.

But "TV" has an interesting problem. It has developed from a 'first generation' of analogue signals to a 'second generation' of digital transmissions. We now have more choice (over 400 channels in the UK), more functionality (EPG and PVR), and increasing availability of TV content elsewhere (online catch-up services on PC and mobile devices.)

With Google TV and Project Canvas expected to see consumer releases in the next 6 months or so, and Sky and Virgin Media making moves in the VOD space, the 'next generation' of TV seems to be on the horizon. There are also a few rumours going round at the moment about Apple relaunching their Apple TV product, and with a press event scheduled for next week there is some speculation that something might be announced very soon.

So I thought it was a good time to put down how I see "TV" developing as it deals with the new opportunities and problems that it's facing, and why Apple look like the company that is best equipped to lead it into the next generation. The rumours about Apple TV are essentially that Apple TV will be relaunched/refreshed as a $99, iOS-based device, and renamed iTV. Personally, I would be surprised if iTV were the name that they went with - because of what ITV in the UK is. Although it's interesting to think about what Apple could do with their $40 billion in cash reserves when dealing with a company with a market cap of just over £2 billion, it just doesn't seem realistic to me that the name would be worth the hassle for Apple.

But the idea of a $99, iOS based device is certainly interesting. Especially when you consider what "iOS-based" could mean.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

Wave washes out.

Posted Thu 5 Aug 2010

About a year after a big announcement, a lot of hype, and … well, not really much else after that, Google have announced that they aren't going to be supporting Wave any more.

As I'm quite firmly in the technology-loving geek camp, I was one of those who were excited to hear about Wave when Google announced it, got excited when I got my beta invitation, excitedly told other people about what it was and why they should be interested, and then disappointed to see it get roundly ignored.

I still think it's a shame that it hasn't taken off — but I think it's a bigger shame that Google have abandoned it. It's clearly a long way off from realising its potential, but I don't think that means that it doesn't still have potential. Wave was the first online "thing" that I can think of that really moved past the idea of "how do we make X work in a digital version" (where "X" is a newspaper, TV station, record — whatever the pre-digital object of interest was) and instead asked "what can we do with "digital" that we couldn't do without it?" Marshall McLuhan talked about the way we look at new technologies 'through the lens of the past'— Wave was an idea of what the internet looks like without those glasses on.

But it's now officially a failure. Google are set to abandon it at the end of the year.

So here's what I think went wrong, and where Google look set to be heading next with the technology.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

>>Why teens are moving on from Facebook

Posted Wed 14 Jul 2010

I've got no idea if there is really any sort of Facebook exodus going on (I haven't noticed one amongst my friends, but then again I don't use it very often myself.) But with the fuss that has been made in the tech press/blogging world, you would think that Facebook's changes and privacy would be on the top of everyone's mind.

Which just goes to show how disconnected the tech world and the real world can be.

Way down there (just above "did not like the people I met on Facebook") are "Do not like the changes Facebook has implemented" and "Uncomfortable with people seeing my personal stuff." It really isn't something that these people care about.

(Worth noting that there's no indication of how the people surveyed were recruited, so no idea if there is any bias to the sample size — or even how big the sample is. Presumably, given the involvement of a fashion website, it's the audience of a teen fashion website that has been asked the question. So probably not representative — but I think still quite indicative of "non-techies" attitudes.)

Link to original article

iPhone 4. It's the little things.

Posted Fri 9 Jul 2010

Well, I bit the bullet and upgraded to the iPhone 4. With the "recycling" deal that O2 and Carphone Warehouse are doing with old iPhones, it cost cost me virtually nothing, other than a renewed 24 month contract (by which time I expect the iPhone 6 will have me drooling for 4G networking, a 3D screen and a built in projector or something.) The whole aerial issue (which I'll probably talk about in a seperate post) didn't really bother me, as I figured that as I live in London and am not left-handed, it probably won't affect me much. (And, stupid as the advice is from a PR perspective, if i'm in a low signal area and lose reception if I'm holding it in a certain way, then I just won't hold it that way.)

In fact, the only reason I upgraded now rather than waiting for the fuss to die down was that the iOS4 upgrade for my old 3G model slowed it down to an utter crawl- applications were crashing when I tried to launch them (including Apple's own, like the iPod and Mail), and Safari was locking up for 20 seconds at a time on a very regular basis. Basically, the iPhone 3G clearly doesn't have enough RAM to run iOS4, despite most of the cool features being removed (multitasking, fast app switching — even customisable wallpaper is removed.) So, unless you have an uncontrollable desire to edit more than one playlist at a time, don't install the upgrade on a 3G. (3Gs, from what I hear, is fine though.)

So, having had about 2 days now to play around and test it, my overall impressions… well, my expectations were pretty low. I expected the same sort of thing as my old iPhone, but faster (or at least, without the painful lock-ups.) And a better camera — that is, better than the one I occasionally used on the 3G model.

But my first impressions? I love it.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

>>Dan Moren’s iOS 4 Review

Posted Wed 30 Jun 2010

Apparently iOS4 feels faster on an iPhone 3GS than the previous 3.1.3. I'm interested to hear whether iPhone 3G owners find the same thing- it seems noticably slower to me, and I seem to be getting quite a few apps crashing (including Safari, and the iPod app when playing videos.)

Link to original article

>>Geeks and Nerds

Posted Wed 9 Jun 2010

Too true.

Apparently the British and American definitions are traditionally slightly different, but the homogenisation of online culture means the American definition seems to be taking precedence. (It's a subject I've naturally been quite interested in over the last few years…)

Link to original article

>>iPhone Letdown? 8 Things Apple Didn't Announce

Posted Wed 9 Jun 2010

Interesting that apart from 4G (which means nothing to the majority of people who don't have 4G network coverage), all of these "missing features" are software features which could be switched on at any time. (And its a safe bet that at least some of them will be coming soon.)

Link to original article

iPad first thoughts

Posted Mon 10 May 2010

I was lucky enough to get my hands on an iPad last week, and after a few days playing with it, I thought it was worth quickly writing up my first impressions.

I have another post in the works about the wider implications of what's currently happening with Apple, Adobe and the mobile internet— this post is just about the actual device, and how I think it's going to be used. (Given that Apple have only just announced the price for iPad in the UK, I thought it was worth getting this out sooner rather than later, as people might now be thinking about putting in their pre-orders.)

The short version—

  • It's a good, secondary, luxury device.
  • It isn't going to be a substitution or replacement your smartphone.
  • It isn't going to replace your current computer. But it might replace your next one.
  • Don't think of where you'll use it instead of a laptop. Think about where you are when you read a magazine or book— that's probably where you'll be when you use an iPad.
  • It isn't going to bring about an instant revolution in personal computing— but in 5 years or so, I think we will be looking back at the iPad in the same sort of way that we look back at the first iPods; how much they've grown, and— for those of us with one— wondering what we'd do without them.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

0 people like SomeRandomNerd

Posted Wed 28 Apr 2010

Just playing around with Facebook's new tools... Turns out that some of the plugins aren't quite as straightforward as they might seem. I couldn't get the "Like" button to work- whether that's due to my own ignorance, a conflict with some other piece of script or security setting or something to do with Facebook, I just don't know.

But for now, you can 'like' somerandomnerd.com with just the click of a button. Provided that you have a Facebook account. And you're already signed in to Facebook, of course. And you actually like my site. And you want to share that nerdy interest with your Facebook friends...

I'm in two minds about the whole Open Graph thing though. The amount of power that a site could be handing over to Facebook seems pretty big. The fact is, if you are logged in to Facebook, then because the "like" button above is served by them, then they can see that you have visited this site- even if you haven't "liked" it. Across billions of web pages, that creates a whole additional layer of information that Facebook are gathering.

(At least, I assume that they are gathering it- even if they aren't reporting it to anyone. It would be pretty stupid not to store and organise the information that their server logs are collecting. and once it's stored, it would be pretty stupid not to look into ways of exploiting it.)

Facebook was actually one of the reasons I started this website, because it meant I could be in control of what I'm putting up and sharing. As it's turned out, I use "SomeRandomNerd" as a different kind of identity to the "me" on Facebook, which is a separation I quite like (for the same reason that I like having different sets of contacts on LinkedIn, Twitter, Flickr etc.) It still bothers me how people seem to not understand the privacy implications of activity on Facebook, and what kind of information you share when you add an application, or join a group. Perhaps it's because I don't really know if it's that they don't understand, or just don't care about what they are opening up...

Anyway, for now, I've set up a SomeRandomNerd page on Facebook, which currently feeds updates from the site. (Or at least it should do.) You don't even have to declare yourself a "fan" anymore- you can just casually "like" it if you're interested… I'd like to do something more interesting with it than just use it as an RSS feed, but whether I'll find the time to maintain a second Facebook profile alongside my own (alongside the fully non-automated Twitter account) is anybody's guess right now. If people are interested though, then it's certainly something I'll explore in more depth.

I just hope I don't get sucked in...

This is a snippet- read the full post.

>>Digital Economy Act: This means war | Cory Doctorow

Posted Mon 26 Apr 2010

I've been in two minds about the Digital Economy Act. One of the key points of the Digital Britain report was about the balance between encouraging new business models that the internet was enabling, and protecting old business models that the new businesses were competing with— whether the legitimate or illegal kinds.

If there's one thing that we've seen clearly illustrated, first by the music industry, and now by the 'news' industry, it's that some industries will be hit hard by the Digitisation of their business.

For music, it's not just that piracy is easier and better (in the sense that it's easier to find and share pirated music, and digital copies are perfect— as opposed to the degrading sound quality of the taped CDs that we were sharing in the playgrounds 20 years ago.) It's also the fact that you can't get away with selling an entire album off the back of a couple of good songs; people can just buy the good songs, or cherry-pick the ones they want without having to buy the whole package. People can either get more for their money, or get what they want and spend less.

For newspapers, there's a similar problem; I might want the "main" news from one particular publisher, but ignore their travel, finance or lifestyle sections— the parts that are much more lucrative for selling advertising, which effectively subsidised the "news" elements of their papers. Again— the package gets broken apart, and the business suffers. (And again, ignoring the accompanying but unrelated issue that people are 'stealing' content online.)

So, while I'm keen to see moves to put Britain at the forefront of the 'new digital world', I'm not sure that it really works out if it means throwing out all the old businesses and the accompanying revenues. (Read: Taxes.)

But this one line from Cory Doctorow sums up what's wrong with sitting on the fence and trying to strike a balance between the old and new.

My whole life revolves around the digital economy: running entrepreneurial businesses that thrive on copying and that exploit the net's powerful efficiencies to realise a better return on investment.
Parliament has just given two fingers to me (and every other small/medium digital enterprise) by agreeing to cripple Britain's internet in order to give higher profits to the analogue economy represented by the labels and studios.

You can't do both. Either you throw yourself whole-heartedly into the promises of the future, or you hang onto the proven businesses of the past. Some of them will prosper in a new digital shape, like the people who built the roads that had to be resurfaced for bigger, heavier and faster cars. Some of them will see the same kind of future as the people who used to change the gas in oil powered streetlights, or sell the horsewhips that cart owners used to drive their carriages.

We need to either admit that we're hanging onto the old, or come clean and throw ourselves into the new. Because I don't believe that you can do what we seem to be trying to do right now, and try to have both.

Link to original article

Multitasking doesn't matter

Posted Sat 24 Apr 2010

One of the great things about my job is that I get to spend a lot of time talking to different people about technology. Specifically, media technology.

Some of those people are experts, who tell me things I didn't know. But some of them aren't, and I'm supposed to be the one telling them about things they don't know. Which is actually when I really get to learn about the kind of things that really matter.

If I'm telling someone about some revolutionary new technology that they don't understand, then that tells me that either I'm not doing a good job of explaining it, or it isn't going to be all that revolutionary in the near future. And if I'm telling them about the problems with some revolutionary technology and they don't understand the problem, then that tells me that these problems aren't really a big deal either.

That's pretty much what I've learnt about multitasking on the iPhone and iPad. It doesn't matter that it doesn't do it. If you're a nerd like me, then you want your machine to be doing all sorts of things at once. You want your email, music, twitter client, a couple of presentations, a spreadsheet or two, some sort of organiser or to-do list, a notepad, and a few other bits and pieces running in the background that you can flip between.

This is a snippet- read the full post.

User login