Is It Time for a Google Watch?

Less than a month ago, I wrote a piece about why I'm more excited about the rumoured iWatch that Google Glass. Today, +Mike Elgan, a globe trotting technology blogger, wrote an article for cultofandroid.com (link) that came to similar conclusions, but focused heavily on what a Google watch might be like, and what specifications it might have.

Although I agree with his sentiment that a watch and Glass are just two parts of the unfolding next era in mobile (wearable) computing, I disagree with his idea that a wearable computer has to do everything that the computers that came before it have to do.

When we moved from desktop to mobile, the biggest problem for developers, publishers and advertisers was the impossibility of a big screen with lots of space for information. But even though our phones had less on them, we still expected a lot from them. That's because we live in a time where devices are still expensive, and we demand complete experiences from them. We've moved considerably far down this road, and many of us now have a powerful computer in their mobile device. I can't imagine spending another €400-600 on a device like Glass, or even €100-200 on a device like Elgan's watch, when my phone already serves these essential purposes.

For one thing, a watch does not need a camera. Can you imagine how weird you would feel taking a picture with your wrist, when your phone (or even your Glass) will definitely be more (or just as) convenient and higher quality? What the watch does need to do, is keep things really simple, and just tell me the really important things happening in my cloud.

• Message or call notifications, with haptic feedback
• Navigation, using the GPS from my phone
• Google Now, using the data from my phone through bluetooth (I don't believe in any need for WiFi or cellular here)
• Some app functionality - Spotify can tell me what song is playing, with few buttons; Facebook can tell me if I'm tagged in something; no apps should try and mimic the mobile features my phone can do. I don't want to post things, I don't watch to record things, I don't want to "like" or "download" or read anything for longer than 3 - 5 seconds. 99% of the time, things on my watch should be 'see and dismiss'.

If a Google watch takes voice commands I'd be truly disappointed. Voice is great for Glass, and I get why it's there. But on a watch where we have a touchscreen and a free hand of fingers, Google need to think about making very little to interact with. What would Jobs do? Remember how he said a device is a collection of decisions about which features you want and which you don't? I think voice control is best left on the phone, or on Glass, if you're lucky enough to own one.

Elgan is thinking too much about a smartwatch bringing another computing leap with it, with tonnes of features and functionality, and all the gizmos and flashing lights. I think the watch should be simple, with minimal UI, minimal functions, and minimal tech. It should market cheap, as a neat accessory to your phone. As long as it does a great job of delivering my cloud services, we'll have something that I can buy into.

Life update - India

After a summer of tech news, I'm somewhat blown away and exhausted for tech/internet things I want to blog about. WWDC, E3 and I/O have come and gone, but I failed to write about these properly because my focus was on the next item on my personal list of life: travelling to India.

Our journey includes around 15 hours of flying/airport-waiting from Dublin to Dubai to Hyderabad. Not my longest stint by a long shot; the time will fly on Emirates. I don't generally have problems with long haul flights, although when I think back to times before there were TVs in each seat, I shudder. This is either because as I've grown older, I've grown more patient, or as inflight entertainment technology has become awesome, travelling has become a breeze. Yeah, probably the latter. I might be a teeny tiny bit excited about seeing what new features and movies await us inflight.

From Hyderabad's cosmopolitan buzz, we're flying down south to the town where I was born, Madurai. A smaller, less overpopulated area, Madurai is home to the Meenakshi Amman Temple. After  a short day, we'll be making our way to Bodinayakanur, the town where my dad's side are from. My cousin's wedding, the main event of the trip, will be a week long ceremony, where we'll visit relatives, play cards, walk in the sun, and possibly do a lot of errand running.

Words can only get me so far. It's been a long time since I've been to India, and this time I'm more excited than ever. I don't know if it's because: I'm older, and have new found appreciations for the exclusive luxuries I'm afforded, so rarely available to most people living close to or within their country of origin; or if it's because this is the first time I will be traveling with a friend from home, notably a girlfriend, which will bring it's own interesting stories; or if it's because since weekly hangouts with my family, I feel more in touch, and more eager to meet with them again; or if it's because since moving out of home, I'm eating less spicy, delicious Indian food. I'm not sure what it is, but I'm really excited about India this year, and that's a good thing.

For Mac Beginners: 3 Really Simple Things

Getting used to such a completely different operating system can feel weird. After buying your first Mac or Macbook, you might feel like the small fortune you just spent wasn't all that worth it after all, and you begin wondering what exactly is so much better here than on Windows. There are many things, but these are my favourite, because they are the features that converted me. They are simple and powerful things that really make me feel at home on Mac, and completely lost without on Windows.

1. Command + Space

Get used to hitting ⌘ + Space. It might just be the best thing about Mac OS. The Spotlight search bar, as it is known, let's you not only find files and applications, but it can also return dictionary results and do simple sums. It's completely system wide, and (importantly) really fast, meaning wherever you are, a dictionary and calculator, as well as all your files, folders and apps are just a moment away. Mac OS X let's you worry much less about where you stored files by making searching your computer miraculously easy compared to Windows. There's more to Spotlight, and you'll see as you use it. Try searching for all sorts, and it just might work. For instance, you can go straight to the settings for a particular thing (your mouse, for example) without having to visit System Preferences first. Just search "mouse", and hit enter.

2. "Preview" Movies and Photos

Mac OS X has this highly underrated feature for previewing video files. Basically, you click a button and it plays the video. In it's entirety. Immediately. What if I told you, you didn't need to load up a movie player application ever again to watch a movie on your drive? Well next time, try clicking the Quick Look icon when you've selected your movie file. It's the one that looks like an eye.

Just a word to the wise: in the preview you can pause, mute, full screen and skip ahead, but if you want anything fancy like subtitle menus and aspect ratios, you'll have to open up your application of choice.

3. Need Space? Add a Desktop.

Using the key below, you can get to something called Mission Control. I've saved my favourite feature till last... 

Source: support.apple.com

Working on a few different things at once? Work stuff here, personal stuff there, and windows for music, IM and PDFs all over the background. This is an organizational nightmare, and what you need is several different computers. With Mission Control you can create them. Well, the illusion of several computers.

Enter Mission Control by hitting the key pictured above (usually F3), and move your mouse over to the top right of your screen. See how a picture of your Desktop slides out from the side? Click it, and you've got a whole new, clean desktop space to play on!

If you have a trackpad (either on a MacBook, or a Magic Trackpad on your Mac) you can use a three finger swipe gestures to pass between different desktops too. This is probably the easiest way to get around, rather than hitting F3 every time.

Photos, Communities and Circles - The Holy Trinity of Google+

After months it happened. Not long ago, I reached a point where I honestly felt content to stop trying to have my friends join Google+. Since that point, we've had the redesign, the relaunch of Hangouts and the amazing improvements in Photos, and Google+ is ever more of a pleasure to use. The icing on the cake is feeling no pressure for my "IRL" friends to be constantly present there. I'm going to try and help give a guide on how to crack open Google+, without touting too much about it's superiority to Facebook, Twitter or the like. I'm going to just explain why you might enjoy it, additionally to everything else.

Store Your Photos There

For a moment, forget the social network you use, and think about your pictures. They say a thousand words, and they keep our memories safe. I use Google+ to organize my photos. Now a lot of pictures of me are still on Facebook, where I'm tagged, and me and my friends can enjoy them. If I want to share something with my friends, I'll still upload to Facebook and enjoy the likes. But my photos and memories get organised first and foremost on Google+. This is because Google+ nails the services side of photo management. Even in the early days, Google introduced auto-backup, where your photos are synced to the cloud in private storage until you choose to share them. Facebook has since adopted this, but it still lags behind on the second part of this wizardry. While in the auto-backup space, Google enhances all your photos with common adjustments, where needed, perfecting each one. Then, where it can, it will even create a simple animated GIF. I have seen the delight this creates with my friends and family, and for my favourite pictures and moments, there's simply no other place, Facebook or even my hard drive, where I'm better off keeping these moments than on Google+.

Just a short point worth adding is privacy. Google is great at making photo management and editing easy, but it makes managing your privacy super easy too. Every share and post you decide the exact scope of that post, and this matter most to me with Photos. Knowing each and every time exactly who can see my albums and pictures is reassuring, and a constant frustration for me when using Facebook. 

http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/photos/

Discuss Hobbies and Interests You Don't Share With Friends

No I'm not talking about "adult" interests, or the like... get your head out of the gutter! I mean things you are into and care about. Take fishing. You might have a handful of friends that go fishing with you, who will give perhaps a like or two when you post a picture of your new rod. But Google+ (and Reddit too I should add) are networks of people built for people to talk about their interests. Communities in Google+ are effectively forums brought up to the modern age, and adjusted for the wider public. Simple interfaces and real names make for a really pleasant place to share and discuss things you are into, in more depth than with your real world friends. Don't expect it to be as engaging as Facebook - afterall these people aren't your friends. But you can expect to have some interesting conversations, and get some useful tips and ideas. My current obsession is scouring the Android Themes community for tips and ideas for theming my phone. No one I know in real life is willing to waste as much of their time as I am theming their phone, but on Google+ I can share this interest with the 14,885 members of this community.

http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/communities/

Get Your Content Delivered

I'll finish with my first use case of Google+. When I first started getting into it, Communities didn't exist and Photos were good, but not as great as today. When I started, I found Google+'s key use to be the stream that just focused on stories I wanted to find. Find stuff you want to read online, and circle away. Pro-tip: Create circles not just of friends, but of Pages and people that follow a theme. For instance, I have a circle named "Bloggers", where I can keep up with all the blogs I follow. Next to it I keep "Tech News" and "News", appropriately adding the relevant Page to each. Having these circles display at the top of my home page, I can quickly switch to different streams of content as I please. So don't look at Google+ and think "Where are all my friends? This is empty." Rather, find some Pages to follow, and see what they post. Comment on their threads and reply to people who are also into that story.

http://www.google.com/+/learnmore/circles/

The Internet Is Not a Zero Sum Game

Mark Zuckerberg stated this point at last year's AllThingsD conference, D10. Using Google+, don't just look for your friends. In fact, recently I started getting prompts to wish people a happy birthday (as more people I know join it, I guess this has started popping up more), and I almost wish I could turn this off. I have Facebook for that! Google+ is about social on the internet - the big internet. Look beyond your real world friends. And store your photos there - you'll save loads of time, and your photos will look better and come to life.

Why iWatch Excites Me More Than Glass

Since last year, tech enthusiasts have gleamed at every drop of news on Google Glass. Heck, I was among them myself. But over the last few weeks, I've thought a lot about what having Glass would be like, and thought too about the rumoured smart watch that Apple could be working on. Maybe it's the exciting leading up to WWDC. Maybe it's hearing Tim Cook at D11 last week. Or, maybe its just that Glass is not as exciting as we all think, and watches could actually do the same thing better.

Credit: Huffington Post

The biggest problem for Glass to succeed in the market is going to be it's intrusiveness. As sleek and as lightweight as it may be, that device is still an intrusion on your face. I only had the opportunity to wear Glass for the brief period of less that 1 minute, and in that time I didn't notice anything uncomfortable or intrusive about it. However, the more I observe pictures of Glass Explorers and various Googlers wearing the device, the more I think it's kind of silly. I think it was on the Engadget podcast from several weeks back, where a presenter noted that Glass is a good idea, but will only be cool when it is directly implanted into your thoughts. Until all the tech is completely hidden in the power of your brain, this idea isn't good enough.

It also sounds like there are some real problems with the device. We've heard that when video recording, the device gets hot. Battery is a particular weak point too. From what early users are saying, it's becoming clear that the video Google released in April last year is not really possible at all. In this video (see below), the user would need to use GPS, Hangouts, a good bit of either Wi-Fi or mobile data, and he takes Glass out with him all day. By the time he's playing the tune to his special friend at the end, we can bet his battery is on it's nervous edges, along with his phone battery from all the tethering. The title of this video then still rings true today: One day we will have a device this good, but it's not today, or even this year.

Ok, no more lamenting about Glass. Let's talk about watches.

Watches already have an established place in mind of the mainstream consumer. They've been around with us for centuries, and like phones, have a central function that all the smart features can revolve around. And like few mobile phones serve mainly as a phone, I'm fairly confident that in a few years, few watches will primarily function as a watch.

Watches have more advantages over Glass. They are off the face, so have no problems when it comes to the intrusive look or the fashion statement they might send. Okay, they might have some fashion implication, but it's probable that with enough function behind a smart watch, and with the design focus Apple brought to the iPhone and iPod, we could see the fashion implication become smaller over time. Watches are also easy to access, like Glass. They are easier than using your phone, for instance, to check messages, missed calls, directions etc. I think a big misconception with Glass is that it will offer some sort of augmented reality, and that having it right in front of your eye is critical for this. This is not true; Glass doesn't do this. It's just a screen, placed next to your eye for convenience. I'd argue that a watch face on your wrist is just as convenient. It's going to be far easier to ignore when you want to, and it will appear less rude to someone you're talking to when you check your watch, than if you flick your eyes up every 6 or 7 seconds. This comes back to watches already having an established place in our world.

I don't know if Apple is working on a watch, we've only heard rumours. If any company is going to open up this category of devices though, it should be them. It potentially suffers the same pitfalls of Glass when it comes to battery, but we've seen Apple execute the incredibly small iPod nano (previous generation), so it would seem possible. Since they don't have to cater for the photo/video requirements that Glass is currently trying to live up to, a good battery life is completely feasible.

Glass is exciting, but I don't think it's ready yet. We are several iterations away from seeing a truly magical experience with Glass, but the smart watch space is ripe for the taking. The technology is feasible, real use cases exist, and the fans are just waiting for Apple to do something awesome again.

What Will WWDC Bring in 2013?

With WWDC just round the corner, I wanted to post about some of the changes I'd like to see from Apple this year. It's been turbulent for the company in the last couple of years, with many people suggesting that the magic has gone. Analysts have eyed the declining stock price closely. Customers had a poor experience with Apple Maps. Some tech writers even believe that the iPhone is no longer the best built phone, touting the HTC One instead. What can, and what should Apple do to fix this situation?

iPhone/iPad/iOS

The iPad mini seems to have been a well executed product, but unfortunately behind the competition in it's launch. Apple needs to step it up again with innovation, and move the market forward with some bold new changes in iOS. We know iOS 7 will arrive, but we don't know just yet what it will bring. We have heard inklings that Jony Ive has been key to the design, and that it is potentially going to open up a little, but we don't know if Apple can still lead in design or manage a more open system.

iOS 7 needs to allow developers to access many more parts of the iOS platform. I would love to see the option to develop keyboard apps, widgets, and have some more control over the lockscreen. These are elements of Android that delight users, that there is no real reason for Apple to completely barricade against. As Tim Cook noted at D11 last week, they can open up a little and still maintain a solid user experience.

Mac/Macbook

I'm completely uninterested in the desktop Macs, and I'm actually expecting nothing from Apple on this range. However, a MacBook Air update needs to come. Apple have rolled Retina Display out to the rest of their MacBook line, and the Air is the only one missing. It's seems impossible that they wouldn't announce a Retina Air with some boosted specs. This is arguably the most important product for WWDC - laptops are still the most important device for many, many people, and the Air range attracts a big fanbase by defining the thin laptop category, and Apple advancing faster than the competition consistently. We can probably expect to see an update to OSX too, but where Apple will go with this I'm not sure. They want to focus on services like FaceTime and Messages, and talk about how Apple devices form a really cohesive experience, and one that can't be matched without Apple products. This isn't true today, so Apple's got some work to do there.

Wearables/iWatch

We are least likely to hear about the rumoured iWatch, but it's high time (see what I did) Apple took a real stab at creating a new category. We know that watches are of interest to them, and personally I find the concept of an iWatch very compelling - perhaps more so than Google Glass. Watches are less intrusive that glasses, they are comfortable and lightweight, and already have some establishment in the form of iPod-nano-watch thingy-ma-bobbies. The only thing Apple has left to do here if provide an interesting UI with easy of use and clear benefits. They are good at this, and I would love for this to be the big announcement of WWDC.

TV

The TV space is a complete mess, and I doubt Apple can fix it just yet. They need to bring together their great hardware with a bunch of difficult content partnerships. TV has a long way to go, and maybe Apple will show one or two things that might demonstrate some movement, but nothing game changing is going to come this year.

Who Should Fix TV?

TV sucks. It's an expensive, anti-competitive, non-innovative medium, where technology has stagnated and stank for years. Box sets are clunky, user interfaces are slow and subscription services are a rip off. I myself don't own a TV for these reasons, and because I believe alternates are available that make for adequate entertainment. However I do think TV is a problem we need to solve, and one that can be solved. The big screen is the best way to experience great films, family TV shows, perhaps even the Internet (in some ways).

The question then arises around who should fix this. For a long time, eyes have glared at Cupertino, while Steve Jobs continually explained how TV's problem is getting to the market. The market is riddled with boring bureaucrats who maintain their oligopolistic strangle on the consumer. So it seems that even though Apple can deliver a tidy, sharp looking box like the Apple TV, with leading online services like YouTube and Netflix, the lack of premium content holds back any real sense of success. But the iTunes library could be reckoned with. Apple has worked hard in years past to built an impressive catalog of premium content, and the premium relationships that must exist in the offices to uphold it. Developing a more consumer friendly way to deliver these services to customers is not impossible, and Apple might have the right people to do it. My biggest concern for Apple's delivery will be their insistence that the hardware is also their own - it will be a cold day in Hell when Apple offers iTunes through the Xbox One.

I think out best bet is Google, and YouTube. TV is an ads business; it has been for years. Not only have ads funded TV for years, but ads have also delighted viewers and built huge brands in the process. Today's TV landscape is trembling under a serious lack of good ads. The problem was cable and satellite, and the arrival of the quadrillion channel service. Channels narrowed out audiences, and ads no longer appeal to the masses in an engaging way. They do sometimes, but often-times it's better to just scream and shout, so there's some slight trinket of a chance your voice is heard before your recipient inevitably switched focus to another channel in his or her saved list of favourites.

Google is a powerhouse of ad delivery expertise though. They innovate, like YouTube's skippable ads for example. With this product, Google gave a win-win to advertisers and viewers. An advertiser never pays if an ad is skipped before 30s, which means bad ads can get out of your way and doesn't hurt the advertiser's marketing budget. It creates a powerful incentive for the advertiser to use YouTube over other channels. Because Google will lose revenue if you don't watch the ad, it also creates an incentive for them to make sure the person viewing the ad will like it.

Since your TV experience also demands high quality, premium content, YouTube recently introduced an option for paid subscription channels. While these are few and far between, the options are laid out for a big content producer to take a chance on building an online audience here. And the audience is here - YouTube has engagement rates comparable to, if not higher than TV. But this will be a waiting game. The pieces are laid out, but TV production companies seem to have their hearts set on drawing out a stalemate as long as possible. They will neither make the risky bets to try and win market share, nor will they provide competitive online services on their own turf. I hope that just a few key industry players choose to test the waters, and offer show based paid channels, and we will see a big slide in the TV landscape. However I think it is far more likely we will wait for months, while the production value of online entertainment seeps up slowly.

Alongside Google, Netflix and now recently Amazon are also eyeing up their own slice of the pie. I for one am a frequent Netflix user. It mainly suits my needs by being cross platform, avoiding ads all together and providing reasonably quality content, although the offering in Ireland fares poorly to the US. Amazon seems to be building too similar a strategy, and I wonder how sustainable their goals of developing such high production value shows is. I feel that both of these companies fight an uphill struggle to continually build partnerships that we mentioned earlier that Apple had built. They may be better placed making some move similar to Google's, where content producers get the opportunity to deliver content on the platform under their own terms.

I've talked enough now, and I'm tiring at the weight of problems that face all these players. Hardware is something we've not yet touched on much; gaming, sports and movies are others that each bring their own challenges along with them. I'm sure we'll find a more sustainable TV solution, with great on demand services, premium content, and high quality relevant ads that are skippable. This seems almost certain to me. The only question that remains in my mind is whether we'll see a generation of cord cutters rise up before this problem is solved, a large body of users like myself who will find the entry costs too high to ever rejoin the market, and stick to enjoying their entertainment via simpler means, on a laptop in the comfort of my bed.