Telegraph Stupidity

I read this on the Guardian site today:

The Daily Telegraph is to delay the publication of print articles on its website until later in the day in a bid to encourage more internet users to buy the newspaper.

Admittedly, the Guardian might just be taking a potshot at its rival, but given the article quotes Telegraph sources, my suspicion is that the article is indeed valid.

In which case, it has to be one of the most brain-dead decisions taken by this newspaper and indeed any media organisation. The printed version is not really competing with its online version for readership. It (and the online version) is however competing against other sources of news from Guardian/Times/Independent through to BBC and other international news sources. This message basically tells your online readership (average age 38 compared with print version 56) to go and get their news elsewhere!

I know I may be unusual in that I've not bought a printed newspaper for perhaps approaching 2 years (and enjoy never having to recycle mountains of printed material), but I'm not unusual in that I expect the most up-to-date news to come from the internet. To subvert a key advantage of the internet to maintain your old model is just foolish.

RapidWeaver and ScreenCastOnline - Cool AND British

I've been doing some further research into website creation/maintenance on behalf of a few people recently and have unearthed a couple of gems that I wanted to share with you. I'm particularly pleased to report that both are British in origin, and both are very Mac oriented.

First up is RapidWeaver - a website creation tool from RealMac Software in Brighton. When you first take a look at this application you think it's just another iWeb. But this is a MUCH more powerful application than iWeb, with a considerably more open architecture. It's on version 3.5 now, and so quite mature. If you've used iWeb but understand and are frustrated by some of it's limitations, then this may be the package you've waited for. There are also plug-ins and other themes available from 3rd parties which add even more functionality. As a blogging tool it surpasses what iWeb can offer today as well. It doesn't however yet offer an ability to insert blog entries by mail or other methods though. And sure, it's not Dreamweaver, but, it looks to me like a great tool for those who want more than iWeb can offer but aren't pro website creators for their day jobs. And, best of all, it's a bargain at $39.95 or around £22. But, if you hang around here, I'll let you into a secret of how to get it for 15% less while being really prepared to use it right out of the box! Great work Realmac!

Next up is Don McAllister's ScreenCastOnline a great idea which brings online video tutorials in frequently used software (and also some general software skills such as RSS and podcasting). Don, I would hazard a guess, is a fellow scouser (from Liverpool for those outside of the UK!). He has a nice relaxed style and gets through in about 20 minutes the key techniques needed for the application he is showing you. Admittedly I'd already worked out much of Rapidweaver's interface by the time I watched these, but I still learned some things from the 3 editions for this application. All of these are available in different resolutions for screen and even iPod (I quite like the iPod idea as you can watch the application itself more easily while doing this). They can be downloaded from the site or via iTunes where screencastonline has become a popular podcast. Screencastonline has also many other tutorials including Pages, Keynote, Garageband, DevonAgent, and many Mac basics. You can get the lower resolution versions for FREE! With a small subscription Screencastonline offers additional tutorials, higher res (HD and ED) versions, a free DVD sent anywhere with many of the key tutorials on, and lots of other benefits.

If Don has done a screencast on an application I'm about to start using, I wouldn't consider doing it until I've watched the screencast first - it would massively speed up my learning the application. For beginners, the benefits would be immense. I'm sure Don has put a lot of effort into these, and I hope its a real success.

Now the tip I mentioned above. If you're interested in RapidWeaver, then do yourself a favour: watch the 3 ScreenCastOnline tutorials (and perhaps even the extra one on the Plugin). At the end you will see a code that is valid for a 15% discount on RapidWeaver. Make sure you watch the 3rd edition as the code changed. But I found that code still valid on 7th June. I think Don may get a little benefit from it, and I'm sure the RealMac guys would appreciate a user that will get more out of the software straight away even if they do lose a few pounds from the sale.

Google Excels

Today's news is that Google is introducing a web-based spreadsheet. While there are lots of comments about this around, I liked Paul Kedrosky's slightly irreverent take on it:

You know, this sort of thing from Google is beginning to bug me. Google reminds of an over-eager puppy: Just happily waving its tail around, and then sh***-ing in markets. It did it with Google Analytics, and now it's doing it with Google Spreadsheet. Where Microsoft used to ruin markets by taking all the revenues to itself, Google takes a nuclear winter approach wherein it ruins markets by freezing them and then cutting revenues to zero.

But how seriously are real users supposed to take this stuff? Google could cut off any of these playtoys anytime, doubly so if they ever whiff on a quarter and investors force them to focus on things that generate revenue. Damned if you commit to one of these services, and damned if you don't.

Tags: Google, Microsoft

Why Intel needs Apple too

I have posted before how Apple's relationship with Intel is a win-win. Not just did Apple need Intel, Intel needed Apple. I've no doubt that Intel has been more successful with the Core processors than had Apple not made such a splash with them. That seems poised to continue with the announcement expected today of the Core 2 range - Conroe (desktop), Woodcrest (Server) and Merom (mobile).

As one example of how Intel benefits, this post at Ars Technica is a good one. The post is about a variant of the Intel Conroe processor. Yet the article mentions Apple 3 times in a 4 paragraph piece, with no other computer manufacturer mentioned. In the discussions following the article, reader Blue02 writes:

"I love how, nowadays, whenever sites have info on a new Intel chip we automatically link it to new Apple products. What happened to Dell et al?"

And I think this neatly encapsulates one of the key values to Intel of the relationship. What Apple does is generally more newsworthy, and for the most part any news is good news in this regard for Intel. But I think it does go deeper than just the newsworthiness.

Imagination of what an Intel chip can do is postulated around the web. Result: Intel gets associated (quite rightly) with innovation. When did that happen in recent memory? Innovation has typically been seen only coming from the hardware and the operating system. If the hardware has been commoditised, then where does that leave the chip inside it? Intel was never in the consumer's eye. If it did innovate, it needed the cooperation of the hardware manufacturers and Microsoft - usually on their terms and their agenda. With Apple, Intel really does see a partner that can help it drive it's own innovation through being closer to the user. So, the relationship with Apple has both a PR value (which was desperately needed) and a longer-term R&D feedback value.

I drafted this post yesterday, and today I noticed in Infoworld this quote from Anand Chandrasekher, senior vice president and general manager of Intel's sales and marketing group on the same subject:

"They push us to think about things that we may not always think about...We were hoping for that to happen and that certainly happened....Apple's view of how the computer market will evolve has influenced Intel's product roadmap. That impact will be felt over the long term, rather than showing up soon."

It is early days yet of course (and the honeymoon period of sweetness and light is still clearly going on strong), with just the first generation of Apple-Intel products. The proof of this will start to become evident in the next rounds of product introductions - with new form factors and new functionality. How much, for instance, will Apple work with Intel on Viiv? How much will Intel contribute to the design of new Apple products? Can these products be unique in terms of offering something that Intel has done that is not available on a Microsoft-based platform? Anand's comments certainly indicate we have much to look forward to.

The Sony Disaster Unfolds

I've no doubt that Sony will sell out of every PS3 it can manufacture prior to its release later on this year (theoretically). But after that, I think the future looks poor. I have said before here that I'm not a gaming person, but I think the importance of consoles in the grab for the living room cannot be underestimated. Nintendo had looked like the one least likely to succeed last year - it was surely going to be trounced by the mammoth Microsoft and Sony machines which worked by buying marketshare with subsidised boxes.

But I have to say, everything I read about the Nintendo sounds positive, and even makes me think I should investigate one. That kind of reaction may be what Nintendo wants - bring the whole family and other non-gamers into gaming with something fund and relatively affordable (the Nintendo is rumoured to be priced around the US$250 in the US - so perhaps around £160 in the UK inc VAT?). The PS3 however will be priced in the UK at least around the £400 level. It sounds to me that Nintendo know their market really well and are very focussed on achieving it. But what is Sony trying to do?

I'm sure that Sony is paying a lot of attention to what's written on the internet - and it is in reviewing the discussions following various articles after the recent E3 exhibition (the major gaming exhibition) that I came to the conclusion that Nintendo had it about right, Microsoft has been smart with timing, and Sony has got it all wrong. This article at Ars Technica gives a good idea of what Sony could do (could have done) to fix their potential problem with the PS3.

Ken Fisher's hypothesis is that Sony should have skipped the Blu-ray player as a mandatory component of the PS3. It is this that drives the cost so significantly for each device and means that Sony will still be losing money at the £400 price point.

I find it difficult to argue with Ken's views. So, what is going wrong at Sony? I believe that Sony executives have fallen into several traps.

Trap 1 is believing that Blu-ray in PS3 is the equivalent of DVD in the PS2. It was arguably the inclusion of this feature that allowed a PS2 purchase to be almost a no-brainer. The DVD format was now very settled and common and the device could be almost justified alone as a DVD player purchase. But Blu-ray is nothing like as established as DVD was when the PS2 came out. Sony knows that of course, but it is hoping the PS3 will make the standard. I think that is backwards thinking - especially at the price point.

Trap 2 is the "design by committee" problem. With PS2, I can imagine the inventors wondering what killer features they could add to make the gaming console great. Someone thought about the DVD player, and bingo. With PS3, I can imagine the Sony board sitting round discussing how to make Blu-ray a success and thinking they could add it to all the new Playstations. Whether the gaming experts really believed that it would help make the best console I'm not so sure (well, best, maybe, but not best value). It is this same thinking in Sony that has so destroyed it as a company. The MP3 player market was lost not just because Sony doesn't really get software, but also because the content side of the business was so important. Sony's boardroom debates and product debates are presumably about how to maximise each product in terms of what it does for the other parts of the business. Instead, each business should just be innovating the best it can for its customers. We wouldn't have rootkit fiascos, We wouldn't have Sony ATRAC/Connect etc. If Apple had kept the iPod as a Mac-only tool, how much would it have caught on? How many more Macs would they have sold? It may not have happened this way at first, but I'm pretty sure Steve Jobs will have told the two Apple divisions (and they are now separate - Mac and iPod) that they survive on their own. They can do something with the other for mutual benefit, but they can't force their own agenda on the other group. Similarly, Nintendo had a clear goal - the best value exciting next generation gaming console.

It is the trap 2 problem that seems to be affecting Sony across most of its product areas.

Jupiter Research analyst David Card had this to say on his blog after reading an interview (New Yorker magazine only) with Howard Stringer:

Our sad takeaway: according to this story, Sony is in deep water/doomed and Stringer knows it, but he's practically helpless to do anything about it. One hopes Stringer was just holding back his cards.

David has some theories too which I would on the whole agree with. I just can't find a lot to like in what Sony is doing these days. I was certainly a fan and a customer. Now, I think they've really lost their way and don't seem to understand why, how, or what to do.

Adobe and Microsoft: Who's right?

There was an interesting story doing the rounds late last week about Adobe and Microsoft having a bit of a fight ostensibly about Office 2007's ability to create PDF documents directly. Ars Technica's summary is a good starting point, though I found it a bit lacking in digging under the covers on this particular story.

There is no question that Microsoft's customers will have been telling it that direct export to PDF would be a nice feature. I have found the ability in Mac OS X to print ANY document as a PDF to be a great feature which I use all the time for keeping online statements/receipts and for ensuring documents I exchange with other people are 100% clean and compatible (Word and Excel documents can contain viruses and IMHO are not ideal for mass distribution).

I don't know whether Apple pays any license fee to Adobe for this ability to produce PDFs that is built into the OS (or for the ability of free applications like Preview to display PDFs). I suspect not. As far as I know, the PDF specification is also openly available, and indeed is surely a reason why it has become such a popular format. Sure, some Mac users are less likely to need Adobe Acrobat to produce more feature rich PDF's (I for instance have never found a need for it), so Adobe loses some revenues, but it surely gains far more when PDF's are as dominant a file format as the Office formats are.

Why shouldn't Microsoft add this feature that many of its customers want so desperately? And why should it have to charge for it (apparently this is part of the dispute), if it doesn't want to and none of it's competitors has to? Surely we should side with Microsoft here, and against Adobe?

But there are a few deeper elements to this case, some of which have either gone unreported or at best just glossed over. The most obvious issue is that Microsoft is also developing a portable document format of it's own - Metro - which is to be part of Vista, but will also be available on older Windows platforms and, supposedly, open-licensed. So, it is going head-to-head with Adobe. While there are differences, if you read this interview with a key player in Metro's development, you will probably, like me, view the differences as being somewhat small.

Metro is a brazen attempt by Microsoft to muscle in on that space. It is more important than it might have been as Microsoft's own file format barriers (primarily Office formats) are opened up. This has been happening due to both legal and business threats ranging from the State of Massachusetts, some European government organisations and OpenOffice. It was the proprietary nature of these formats that has given Microsoft such a lock-in on the Office application market for years. While Metro is not a proprietary format (it would have been panned if it had been), I'm sure Microsoft would rather be the dominant controlling authority on a format than not.

But even if Microsoft's attempts are brazen, is that any reason why it's wrong? Not necessarily. But from Adobe's point of view, perhaps their actions are if anything pre-emptive. A look back at history would show that Microsoft has often embraced other technologies and then used it's dominance to subtly change those technologies to its own ends. It's work with HTML and Internet Explorer is a classic example which has been essentially anti-consumer by forcing many users into a browser lock or by not having proper access to a site because their own browser couldn't display non-standard HTML. I'm sure Adobe is also considering what happened to Sun Microsystems with Java. Microsoft embedded Java into some of it's applications and OS but created extensions and changes which were not opened up. The .NET environment is the prime vehicle in which Microsoft did this work. Microsoft advertised such products as "Java compatible". Microsoft eventually settled with Sun in 2004, again paying substantial damages. By then the damage was done (for Sun, and to some extent for Java).

With Microsoft adding support for PDF AND Metro into Office2007, it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to see that they could subtly change/add feature(s) so that users are eventually tricked/forced/coerced into using Metro formats rather than PDF. Even just changing the default format would have a major effect.

Of course, Adobe is perhaps also being opportunistic. Perhaps it fancies a piece of the multi-billion dollar cash hoard that Microsoft hands out to other companies that sue it, rather than its shareholders? Real Networks $761m settlement last year was certainly mouth-watering I'm sure. It is interesting that it seems to be pushing the battle in Europe which is where there is currently a greater propensity to investigate Microsoft.

I'm pretty sure that those of us who would rather not use Microsoft's OS and those that don't really want to use MS Office would be losers if Microsoft establishes Metro as a replacement for PDF. But just as ALL Internet Explorer users have been "punished" by having an insecure, outdated browser by Microsoft's dominance there, I would guess that in a similar way Metro dominance would be a bad thing for everyone at some point in the future.

Adobe's PDF is certainly good enough for what I do. It's on just about every device I need (including my Nokia phone). Yes, I'd like it to evolve, and yes I'd like it to be more open, but I really don't believe the world needs two standards in this area, and I would certainly trust a "standard" controlled by Adobe more than one controlled by Microsoft. So, ideally this will be resolved in a way which actually benefits all users of both companies' products and doesn't benefit lawyers or the shareholders of Adobe via a massive blood-money payoff. That means a quick and positive resolution. In that regard, perhaps Adobe's pre-emptiveness is a good thing.

Footnote to this story: Whatever else the merits of this issue, it is yet another demonstration of the mountain that Microsoft has to climb to get Vista out the door. I have mentioned some of these problems in
this post about IE7 and Google
and here about Microsoft's real competitors

Symantec (previously another Microsoft partner) has also taken them to court over Vista features. What these stories show (Adobe, Google, Symantec) is that every little Microsoft feature must be debated by lawyers as well as software engineers. This obviously holds back progress and causes delays, and even then may just end up in a protracted court case. Whether you believe Microsoft is capable of innovation (and I would happily give them credit to do this), the fact is that they are not able to release it. A break-up is what should have happened several years ago. Microsoft's customers would benefit from this, their shareholders, and probably their employees.

Atlas Maior 1665 - The Ultimate Atlas?

The minute I saw this book late last year, I knew I would have to get a copy, and this morning my copy from Amazon arrived with even the DHL man struggling with the weight!

I love maps and could stare at them all day long. What is fascinating for me about this book is that it brings together maps produced for every part of the globe from a particular time in history into one place. There are 593 maps. For the U.K., there are many maps covering most of the counties, and it is nice to see my village on the Herefordshire map!

The detail and colour is amazing, but I suppose I am most in awe of the mapmakers of the time - the skill to put such detail together so (comparatively) accurately. The U.K. map certainly looks very close to the U.K. map today - not some distorted version. How did they do it?

And then, (author) Joan Blaeu’s achievement in assembling these maps into one atlas is even more astonishing. I’m sure there’s a great film to be made of the rivalry between the mapmakers of the time - Johannes Janssonius - for example as they pushed each other for ever greater coverage, accuracy and beauty.

I have barely touched this book yet, but already know I’ll spend a lot more time with it. Any map lovers would undoubtedly immediately want this on their coffee table! If you happen to be in a bookstore, search it out. And right now, I would say it’s a huge bargain - just £66 on Amazon.co.uk (ISBN: 3822831255) including getting the DHL delivery man to carry it up the stairs!