There is a report in today's papers that a blind is filing a discrimination claim against Coles Supermarket because she couldn't do her online shopping anymore after some software upgrades. This woman is legally, but not completely, blind.
My say: I think some people are using the word "discrimination" indiscriminately. The woman is demanding that Coles caters to her special needs on the website. Does Coles have a sinister plan to single out this woman to discriminate against? Imagine if a lawsuit were brought up by everyone with special needs, against every website, there would be absolute chaos. I cannot imagine that any judge will take the lawsuit seriously. Very soon we may have people claiming discrimination because they don't qualify for a credit card to make online purchases. We may have obese people crying foul because the retailer does not carry extra, extra large sizes. We may have religious groups claiming discrimination because the website displays items offensive to their beliefs. The list is endless.
Click here if you want the full report: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/blind-woman-launches-court-action-against-coles-over-its-website/5869874
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
We don't need a smarter smartphone
If you follow what is being announced at the Mobile World Congress this year, they are all about smartphones with new looks and features. Notice that it is not called Smartphone World Congress; it is called Mobile World Congress for a very good reason. It is not about telephony anymore; it is about computer-in-a-pocket.
I do not see any compelling improvements in the new smartphone that make me want to replace my Galaxy S2, as far as my telephony needs are concerned. I don't need a smartphone to monitor my heart rate, as in the new Samsung S5. I don't need bigger screen or higher resolution as I'd rather carry a smaller phone. I don't need a faster processor; mine runs fast enough. I don't need more apps; (help!) I am already overloaded with them, most of which I don't use.
I do so want to replace my Galaxy S2 though, if the right phone comes along. I want one with a week-long battery life, in a small and light body. I don't need lots of features, but low price tag would be nice. I want one with reliable internet connection, both broadband and WLAN. I want built-in WhatsApp, Viber, Line, Skype and whatever good free phone or messaging systems are out there. Built-in emails like Gmail and other popular email systems would be good. The problem is, these apps seldom come as built-in apps. Instead, you get lots of unwanted bloatware.
I now carry a non-smartphone (Nokia 210), which many call a feature phone. I don't like that term because these phone are really quite featureless phones. They are good for the intended purpose of making calls and delivering SMS and not much else. My phone is cheap, small, light, and has several days of battery life. What's more, the alarm works even when the phone is switched off at night! This serves to extend the battery life and I get to sleep with being interrupted by calls and message alerts.
I do not see any compelling improvements in the new smartphone that make me want to replace my Galaxy S2, as far as my telephony needs are concerned. I don't need a smartphone to monitor my heart rate, as in the new Samsung S5. I don't need bigger screen or higher resolution as I'd rather carry a smaller phone. I don't need a faster processor; mine runs fast enough. I don't need more apps; (help!) I am already overloaded with them, most of which I don't use.
I do so want to replace my Galaxy S2 though, if the right phone comes along. I want one with a week-long battery life, in a small and light body. I don't need lots of features, but low price tag would be nice. I want one with reliable internet connection, both broadband and WLAN. I want built-in WhatsApp, Viber, Line, Skype and whatever good free phone or messaging systems are out there. Built-in emails like Gmail and other popular email systems would be good. The problem is, these apps seldom come as built-in apps. Instead, you get lots of unwanted bloatware.
I now carry a non-smartphone (Nokia 210), which many call a feature phone. I don't like that term because these phone are really quite featureless phones. They are good for the intended purpose of making calls and delivering SMS and not much else. My phone is cheap, small, light, and has several days of battery life. What's more, the alarm works even when the phone is switched off at night! This serves to extend the battery life and I get to sleep with being interrupted by calls and message alerts.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Do you consume or create
The iPad started an era of unparalleled content consumption. Prior to the iPad, computers were mainly used for work or for creative activity. Content consumption, so proudly heralded by Steve Jobs with his iPad, is in my opinion a bane to mankind and should be reckoned with.
I still like my desktop PC. When I am at my desktop, most of the time I am doing something I consider a productive use of time. I might be researching into a subject, working on my images, paying bills and filing up the paperwork, or writing a blog as I am doing now.
On my smartphone, I find I am mostly squandering away time. I might be reading snippets of news, or the-mostly unsolicited emails from companies that I once bought something from; or deleting off those email "invitations" from friends who apparently do not have the faintest idea they were sending out invitations for me to join their social group (there should be a law against this!).
What about you? Are you a content creator or are you endlessly consuming content on the internet? If you are heavily on the content consumption end of the scale, beware that content consumption works in a self-feeding vicious cycle. The more you indulged, the more you crave. Think about what better things you could be doing with your time.
I still like my desktop PC. When I am at my desktop, most of the time I am doing something I consider a productive use of time. I might be researching into a subject, working on my images, paying bills and filing up the paperwork, or writing a blog as I am doing now.
On my smartphone, I find I am mostly squandering away time. I might be reading snippets of news, or the-mostly unsolicited emails from companies that I once bought something from; or deleting off those email "invitations" from friends who apparently do not have the faintest idea they were sending out invitations for me to join their social group (there should be a law against this!).
What about you? Are you a content creator or are you endlessly consuming content on the internet? If you are heavily on the content consumption end of the scale, beware that content consumption works in a self-feeding vicious cycle. The more you indulged, the more you crave. Think about what better things you could be doing with your time.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Who needs a smartcamera, anyway
First we have the smartphone. Then we have the smartTV. Now cameras are evolving into "smartcameras" as manufacturers race to add Android and wifi and internet features to their new cameras.
I was also caught up in that hype myself. I thought that it would be nice to be able to publish or email the images as soon as they are captured, all without going through a PC. I almost bought the Nikon S800C (Android camera) when it was first released. I was totally sold on the idea... until now.
With reference to my previous blog, it is all too easy to use an Android smartphone or tablet to view images from the memory card directly. This is more sensible than building Android capability into the camera. Putting Android into a camera adds cost but little benefit to a photographer who has a smartphone or a tablet. I would rather have a conventional camera. If I am away from home, I would prefer to use a tablet to view the images after a shoot. And I can still do everything I would have been able to do with a smartcamera (i.e. edit, email, share). Yes, all on a bigger screen than that of a camera.
How about wifi-enabled camera? I think there is also limited use for this. I was also quite enthused about the idea before. However, it takes several seconds for even a small file to appear on a remote screen after the camera snaps the picture. With a tethered cable, it is a bit faster, but again it is not instantaneous enough. I would rather view the images after a shoot, and selectively download what I want to keep. The rest is trash.
I was also caught up in that hype myself. I thought that it would be nice to be able to publish or email the images as soon as they are captured, all without going through a PC. I almost bought the Nikon S800C (Android camera) when it was first released. I was totally sold on the idea... until now.
With reference to my previous blog, it is all too easy to use an Android smartphone or tablet to view images from the memory card directly. This is more sensible than building Android capability into the camera. Putting Android into a camera adds cost but little benefit to a photographer who has a smartphone or a tablet. I would rather have a conventional camera. If I am away from home, I would prefer to use a tablet to view the images after a shoot. And I can still do everything I would have been able to do with a smartcamera (i.e. edit, email, share). Yes, all on a bigger screen than that of a camera.
How about wifi-enabled camera? I think there is also limited use for this. I was also quite enthused about the idea before. However, it takes several seconds for even a small file to appear on a remote screen after the camera snaps the picture. With a tethered cable, it is a bit faster, but again it is not instantaneous enough. I would rather view the images after a shoot, and selectively download what I want to keep. The rest is trash.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
The scourge of privatization of public enterprises
When I was a young lad and at a very impressionable age, I was schooled in the thinking that privatization leads to greater efficiency. I was taught that privatization brings greater benefits at lower costs, due to the inherent superiority of capitalism at work. When the government in Malaysia started to privatize one utility after another, I failed to see at that time what this was leading to. It gradually lead to massive outflow of wealth into the hands of a few private individuals. Yes, capitalism was certainly working very hard; but only for the benefit of the exclusive few. It was more like milking the economy for what it was worth.
I see the same thing happening in Australia, a first world country. I also see it happening in all the other developed countries, except perhaps in Singapore. The impact to the population is the same; costs keep rising as a result of privatization. In my work at the post office, people come in to pay their utility bills with wads of money. It is not unusual to see a few household bills add up to hundreds of dollars. At the same time, the same people might withdraw (usually) anything from $10 to $200 for their personal use. I cannot help but feel the bondage of modern slavery playing out before my eyes when I observe the huge difference between what goes into discretionary spending and what is fed into the ever growing profit margin of the privatized companies.
The problem with privatized companies making all the profits is that wealth being transferred over to private hands no longer returns to the public in terms of other public benefits, such as building infrastructure for a growing population. Ironically, the growing wealth in private hands only serves to bolster inflation, thus further aggravating the situation. So why is the government in such a hurry to privatize whatever is left to privatize? Your guess is as good as mine.
I see the same thing happening in Australia, a first world country. I also see it happening in all the other developed countries, except perhaps in Singapore. The impact to the population is the same; costs keep rising as a result of privatization. In my work at the post office, people come in to pay their utility bills with wads of money. It is not unusual to see a few household bills add up to hundreds of dollars. At the same time, the same people might withdraw (usually) anything from $10 to $200 for their personal use. I cannot help but feel the bondage of modern slavery playing out before my eyes when I observe the huge difference between what goes into discretionary spending and what is fed into the ever growing profit margin of the privatized companies.
The problem with privatized companies making all the profits is that wealth being transferred over to private hands no longer returns to the public in terms of other public benefits, such as building infrastructure for a growing population. Ironically, the growing wealth in private hands only serves to bolster inflation, thus further aggravating the situation. So why is the government in such a hurry to privatize whatever is left to privatize? Your guess is as good as mine.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Are senior politicians a dying breed?
At least in the Australian context, mature-age politicians seem to be a dying breed (figuratively speaking, of course!). Many of our MP's have young children. Thus they are still preoccupied with raising a family while attending to the affairs of state. Finance Minister Penny Wong has just become a mother (or father?). Prime Minister Julia Gillard seems to be getting younger and younger on TV (botox or plastic surgery not discounted). She is 52. Her nemesis Tony Abbot is slightly older at 61. However, both Julia and Tony are like overgrown babies, judging by the name calling and mud slinging matches they display with gusto in Parliament.
Here is my point, seriously. Surely we have a wisdom deficit situation. From Federal Parliament to State Parliament, and down to the local councils, the average age of politicians is getting lower and lower. One (and there may be more) local councilor in my area was fresh out of university. Surely we could use people with more experience and wisdom that comes with age.
The Victorian State government recently awarded itself a 15% pay rise, while the state is travailing in growing unemployment and budget deficit. This monkey-see-monkey-do business is simply apeing what the Federal government is doing. Just three months after awarding itself a hefty pay increase, the federal MP's were awarded another 3% increase*. The justification? It could not be for a job well done, or for balancing the budget, or for building a better future for all Australians (writer's opinion). Back to my point; when you expose kids to a cookie jar, they are going to help themselves big time.
I categorically deny that older politicians will automatically make better politicians. My point is that surely we could use more wisdom in our leaders, and wisdom normally takes time to develop in a person. I, for one, would love to see that our local council is staffed with mature-age, experienced, and wise people who are more keen to promote community welfare than their own career. Likewise the State and Federal parliaments. Would you rather travel in a plane flown by a matured, experienced pilot, or by someone who is still clocking up flight time?
*see: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/anger-over-mps-pay-rise-20120704-21gfu.html
Here is my point, seriously. Surely we have a wisdom deficit situation. From Federal Parliament to State Parliament, and down to the local councils, the average age of politicians is getting lower and lower. One (and there may be more) local councilor in my area was fresh out of university. Surely we could use people with more experience and wisdom that comes with age.
The Victorian State government recently awarded itself a 15% pay rise, while the state is travailing in growing unemployment and budget deficit. This monkey-see-monkey-do business is simply apeing what the Federal government is doing. Just three months after awarding itself a hefty pay increase, the federal MP's were awarded another 3% increase*. The justification? It could not be for a job well done, or for balancing the budget, or for building a better future for all Australians (writer's opinion). Back to my point; when you expose kids to a cookie jar, they are going to help themselves big time.
I categorically deny that older politicians will automatically make better politicians. My point is that surely we could use more wisdom in our leaders, and wisdom normally takes time to develop in a person. I, for one, would love to see that our local council is staffed with mature-age, experienced, and wise people who are more keen to promote community welfare than their own career. Likewise the State and Federal parliaments. Would you rather travel in a plane flown by a matured, experienced pilot, or by someone who is still clocking up flight time?
*see: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/anger-over-mps-pay-rise-20120704-21gfu.html
Monday, May 27, 2013
My Apple Store experience
I went to the Apple Store today with my wife. She was there to see if Apple can do something about certain software faults in her iPad that only surfaced recently. As I looked around the store, I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable. Sure, there are many other customers in the shop, and all of them seemed to be promptly attended to by the almost-equal number of Apple staff. The store looks bright and the staff are friendly.
I pondered why I didn't have the same thrill as the other customers. I normally love to browse in a computer shop; but I didn't feel that way in the Apple Store. In a regular computer shop or in an electronics shop, I am surrounded by products from many different manufacturers. Every product will have more than one manufacturer vying hard for my equally hard-earned dollars. I am in control there and I decide what is best for me.
In the Apple Store, I felt like a dumb consumer. Apple decides what is best for me. I just have to utter what I want to do and Apple will do the rest to get me equipped. This is not a geek hang-out place; I felt that the only geeky-looking people are the Apple staff. Their clients are all seeming newbies in a high-tech arena. I must say I felt out of place. I wonder if the Apple staff are trained to talk to people at the client's level of competence, rather than assume everyone is a noob.
Perhaps the Apple Store is designed for the segment of the public that still feels phobic about using a computer or a handheld device. The Apple Store doesn't quite work for me. Give me a regular computer shop any time.
I pondered why I didn't have the same thrill as the other customers. I normally love to browse in a computer shop; but I didn't feel that way in the Apple Store. In a regular computer shop or in an electronics shop, I am surrounded by products from many different manufacturers. Every product will have more than one manufacturer vying hard for my equally hard-earned dollars. I am in control there and I decide what is best for me.
In the Apple Store, I felt like a dumb consumer. Apple decides what is best for me. I just have to utter what I want to do and Apple will do the rest to get me equipped. This is not a geek hang-out place; I felt that the only geeky-looking people are the Apple staff. Their clients are all seeming newbies in a high-tech arena. I must say I felt out of place. I wonder if the Apple staff are trained to talk to people at the client's level of competence, rather than assume everyone is a noob.
Perhaps the Apple Store is designed for the segment of the public that still feels phobic about using a computer or a handheld device. The Apple Store doesn't quite work for me. Give me a regular computer shop any time.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The cheapest good camera
According to a Bill of Materials report (re: IHS iSuppli Research, March 2012), the camera component of the iPad3 costs only US$12.35. On the iPad2, it costs even less; US$4.10. Of course, I am sure this only refers to the lens and sensor components. The other costs of the iPad3 : display ($87), touchscreen ($40), processor ($23), battery ($32), and so on. But my point is, it only costs $12.35 for Apple to include a really good camera in the iPad3. No doubt it also costs Samsung and others more or less the same amount to include a good camera into the tablet or smartphone.
As for the quality of the images taken by a high end smartphones (i.e. iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Sony Xperia, etc), they are now comparable to images taken by most point and shoot cameras. Image quality is no longer the differentiator. The web-publishing features and carry-anywhere convenience of a smartphone is what counterbalances the advantages of a faster turn-on time, longer battery life and the zoom lens in a P&S (point-and-shoot) camera. Even video shooting on a smartphone has caught up with the P&S world.
To underscore the coming of age of "iphoneography", the Australian Photographic Society is launching its inaugural Mobile Phone Photography Showcase in July 2013.
So if you ask me today what is the cheapest good camera to buy, I might tell you to look no further than to upgrade your smartphone or tablet. Or, if you are an Apple aficionado, your iPod, iPhone or iPad. The only caveat is, what is your image making goal?
As for the quality of the images taken by a high end smartphones (i.e. iPhone, Samsung Galaxy, Sony Xperia, etc), they are now comparable to images taken by most point and shoot cameras. Image quality is no longer the differentiator. The web-publishing features and carry-anywhere convenience of a smartphone is what counterbalances the advantages of a faster turn-on time, longer battery life and the zoom lens in a P&S (point-and-shoot) camera. Even video shooting on a smartphone has caught up with the P&S world.
To underscore the coming of age of "iphoneography", the Australian Photographic Society is launching its inaugural Mobile Phone Photography Showcase in July 2013.
So if you ask me today what is the cheapest good camera to buy, I might tell you to look no further than to upgrade your smartphone or tablet. Or, if you are an Apple aficionado, your iPod, iPhone or iPad. The only caveat is, what is your image making goal?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Do you data snack?
Not too long ago I came across the word "data snacking". What an appropriate term, I told myself. The ubiquity of smartphones has led to the emergence of a new social behavior, which I am sure you can easily identify with by now. Lots of people are always on their smartphone or tablets, fully immersed in their own little world. They may be sitting together at the dinner table or waiting in a queue. They just cannot seem to distance themselves from the little gadget that has mesmerized the entire planet.
The word data snacking doesn't seem to be in great use at the moment, but I think it soon will be. The Netlingo dictionary defines it as "to consume small snippets of information in a hurry when time permits". This seems like a good definition.
A snack means a light meal. I am always reminded that snacking on food is bad. Snacking makes you put on weight. In the same vein, data snacking fills your head with information. But is it good and useful information? Watch out for information addiction! If snacking on food is an unhealthy preoccupation, perhaps we should also be concerned if we are data snacking too frequently. I leave you to ponder.
The word data snacking doesn't seem to be in great use at the moment, but I think it soon will be. The Netlingo dictionary defines it as "to consume small snippets of information in a hurry when time permits". This seems like a good definition.
A snack means a light meal. I am always reminded that snacking on food is bad. Snacking makes you put on weight. In the same vein, data snacking fills your head with information. But is it good and useful information? Watch out for information addiction! If snacking on food is an unhealthy preoccupation, perhaps we should also be concerned if we are data snacking too frequently. I leave you to ponder.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
An alternative to the Android camera
I recently wrote about the Android cameras which have just been announced - the Samsung Galaxy Camera and the Nikon S800C. I was so smitten by the idea then that I couldn't wait to get one of them. I must say my enthusiasm has diminished by now. It is a mistake for companies to announce products without being able to sell them immediately. In my case, the longer I wait, the less likely I am to make an impulse purchase.
I ask myself why I thought I needed an Android camera. Well, it seems to be a great way to play with all the camera-related apps out there, and it is much easier to share photos on a social website. But realistically speaking, all I ever wanted was to be able to selectively upload some photos after a shoot.
So here is Panasonic's answer to the challenge of providing connectivity to the camera. The newly announced SZ5 features wifi connectivity. It costs about $200 and is designed for the casual shooter. By installing a free app called Lumix Link on your iOS or Android device, you can view, control, and shoot wirelessly with your tablet or smartphone.
I believe it is also possible to shoot first with the SZ5, and then use your mobile device to view the pictures and upload to your tablet, or your computer or straight to one of the popular social websites.I prefer this wifi feature to having a full-blown Android on my camera. Really.
I hope more camera manufactures will equip their cameras with wifi. It will be so useful. Imagine being able to immediately email off an image straight from the camera, or simply post it on Facebook. It should not add a lot of cost, and it will make the camera a more connected device. Will there still be a market for an Android camera? Maybe not, if there are more wifi cameras around.
Unfortunately for the SZ5, the reviews on its image quality are not too good, although this camera is packed with quite the latest features in low end point-and-shoot cameras. I hope to see some higher-end cameras touting this wifi.
I ask myself why I thought I needed an Android camera. Well, it seems to be a great way to play with all the camera-related apps out there, and it is much easier to share photos on a social website. But realistically speaking, all I ever wanted was to be able to selectively upload some photos after a shoot.
So here is Panasonic's answer to the challenge of providing connectivity to the camera. The newly announced SZ5 features wifi connectivity. It costs about $200 and is designed for the casual shooter. By installing a free app called Lumix Link on your iOS or Android device, you can view, control, and shoot wirelessly with your tablet or smartphone.
I believe it is also possible to shoot first with the SZ5, and then use your mobile device to view the pictures and upload to your tablet, or your computer or straight to one of the popular social websites.I prefer this wifi feature to having a full-blown Android on my camera. Really.
I hope more camera manufactures will equip their cameras with wifi. It will be so useful. Imagine being able to immediately email off an image straight from the camera, or simply post it on Facebook. It should not add a lot of cost, and it will make the camera a more connected device. Will there still be a market for an Android camera? Maybe not, if there are more wifi cameras around.
Unfortunately for the SZ5, the reviews on its image quality are not too good, although this camera is packed with quite the latest features in low end point-and-shoot cameras. I hope to see some higher-end cameras touting this wifi.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
How America can regain its dream
I have just read an article that says Mitt Romney has no plans on how to deal with the country's crisis. That set me thinking; what would I do if I were the president?
I think the answer is very simple, but to get it legislated would be impossible. Digressing a little, I believe America is no longer governed on the principle of "of the people, by the people, for the people." Instead, it is run by a group of very rich and powerful people who are more interested in protecting their wealth and their way of life, than to work for the common good.
Back to the question; what would I do if I were the president? I would cause the pendulum to swing back towards more socialism, as I think capitalism has gone too far in the US. I would use both carrots and sticks to bring manufacturing back into the country. If that fails, I would set up government-run factories to manufacture goods that all government departments will have to buy from. That itself would create a size-able internal market, as well as creating jobs.
I would expand, not reduce, the civil workforce. However, the pay scale will have to be revised downwards, especially for those in the higher rungs. Basically, I would use the same payroll budget to spread over a larger number of people. Yes, there is the economic theory that this will reduce incentive for people to work, as seen in communist countries. However, that doesn't mean it cannot be used as a short term measure to bring relief to the unemployed.
I would introduce compulsory service for new doctors and other selected professionals before they can work in the private sector. During this period, these new professionals will provide service at a much lower pay than they would get in the private sector. For example, they can be deployed to provide low-cost health care to the poor. This will also put downward pressure on fees and insurance charged by the private companies.
I believe America is still a great country and I believe it has the potentials to regain its past glory. It just needs to re-invent the government.
I think the answer is very simple, but to get it legislated would be impossible. Digressing a little, I believe America is no longer governed on the principle of "of the people, by the people, for the people." Instead, it is run by a group of very rich and powerful people who are more interested in protecting their wealth and their way of life, than to work for the common good.
Back to the question; what would I do if I were the president? I would cause the pendulum to swing back towards more socialism, as I think capitalism has gone too far in the US. I would use both carrots and sticks to bring manufacturing back into the country. If that fails, I would set up government-run factories to manufacture goods that all government departments will have to buy from. That itself would create a size-able internal market, as well as creating jobs.
I would expand, not reduce, the civil workforce. However, the pay scale will have to be revised downwards, especially for those in the higher rungs. Basically, I would use the same payroll budget to spread over a larger number of people. Yes, there is the economic theory that this will reduce incentive for people to work, as seen in communist countries. However, that doesn't mean it cannot be used as a short term measure to bring relief to the unemployed.
I would introduce compulsory service for new doctors and other selected professionals before they can work in the private sector. During this period, these new professionals will provide service at a much lower pay than they would get in the private sector. For example, they can be deployed to provide low-cost health care to the poor. This will also put downward pressure on fees and insurance charged by the private companies.
I believe America is still a great country and I believe it has the potentials to regain its past glory. It just needs to re-invent the government.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Implications of Apple's lawsuit win over Samsung
It is a sad day indeed when anyone can claim copyright over how a device or an appliance looks and operates. Take the case of Apple's lawsuit against Samsung. These are what Apple claims copyright ownership, for which Samsung has to pay US$1bil:
*(i) Apple’s bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image; (ii) Apple’s pinching and zooming scroll feature; and (iii) Apple’s tap-to-zoom feature. Regarding design, Samsung infringed: (i) Apple’s iPhone’s face, screen and speaker slot; (ii) the ornamental design and shape of the iPhone’s face, rounded corners and bezel; and (iii) the icon arrangement on the home screen.
Computerworld has a good article** on the implications of the Apple win over Samsung. I'd like to echo the same sentiments here. As a consumer, I like to see standardization. It actually promotes competition more than it stifles creativity. We are able to readily drive different cars because the brakes and pedals are all in the same place, to quote the Computerworld article. We are not locked in to any one brand of electrical appliances when they all look and work in a similar way. For Apple to claim copyright over how its iPhone looks and operates, this certainly violates our freedom to choose, and it creates a precedence when non-standardization becomes the norm.
With Apple's win in mind, when you walk into the electrical shops next time, try to spot ANY appliance that does not in one way or the other imitate one another in looks and operating mode. How dare Apple! Perhaps we should all boycott Apple products. It has finally met its match and it wants to stifle its competitor, by hook or by crook. Such a company should not be allowed to exist. Shame on you, Apple.
*http://blog.seattlepi.com/timothymccormack/2012/08/27/apple-v-samsung-patent-infringement-what-it-means-for-seattle-businesses/
**http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/434775/apple_vs_samsung_decision_game-changer/?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=taxonomyfeed#closeme
*(i) Apple’s bounce-back effect when a user tries to scroll beyond the end of a list or image; (ii) Apple’s pinching and zooming scroll feature; and (iii) Apple’s tap-to-zoom feature. Regarding design, Samsung infringed: (i) Apple’s iPhone’s face, screen and speaker slot; (ii) the ornamental design and shape of the iPhone’s face, rounded corners and bezel; and (iii) the icon arrangement on the home screen.
Computerworld has a good article** on the implications of the Apple win over Samsung. I'd like to echo the same sentiments here. As a consumer, I like to see standardization. It actually promotes competition more than it stifles creativity. We are able to readily drive different cars because the brakes and pedals are all in the same place, to quote the Computerworld article. We are not locked in to any one brand of electrical appliances when they all look and work in a similar way. For Apple to claim copyright over how its iPhone looks and operates, this certainly violates our freedom to choose, and it creates a precedence when non-standardization becomes the norm.
With Apple's win in mind, when you walk into the electrical shops next time, try to spot ANY appliance that does not in one way or the other imitate one another in looks and operating mode. How dare Apple! Perhaps we should all boycott Apple products. It has finally met its match and it wants to stifle its competitor, by hook or by crook. Such a company should not be allowed to exist. Shame on you, Apple.
*http://blog.seattlepi.com/timothymccormack/2012/08/27/apple-v-samsung-patent-infringement-what-it-means-for-seattle-businesses/
**http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/434775/apple_vs_samsung_decision_game-changer/?utm_medium=rss&utm_source=taxonomyfeed#closeme
Monday, August 6, 2012
Apple v. Samsung trial
There is an ongoing court battle with Apple suing Samsung for copying the design of Apples smartphone. Apple's lawsuit against Samsung is totally absurd. Can anyone claim copyright over the looks of an electrical or electronic product?
When I walk into an electrical shop, all the TV's look the same to me. I cannot tell a Samsung TV apart from a Sony TV unless I go near enough to look at the label, or unless I already know what subtle differences to look for.
When I go to the laptop section, again all of them look the same to me. Even Apple's laptops are not much different from others and I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if they were not displayed in a different section.
The same argument for receivers, DVD players, house phones, etc. So, how can Apple claim exclusivity in how their rectangular tablet and mobile phone looks? I used to admire Apple as a technology company, which can magically conjure up the most innovative products. But if creating a new product line means nobody else can follow (note: not copy; not pirate), then PLEASE, the world will be better off without Apple.
When I walk into an electrical shop, all the TV's look the same to me. I cannot tell a Samsung TV apart from a Sony TV unless I go near enough to look at the label, or unless I already know what subtle differences to look for.
When I go to the laptop section, again all of them look the same to me. Even Apple's laptops are not much different from others and I wouldn't be able to tell them apart if they were not displayed in a different section.
The same argument for receivers, DVD players, house phones, etc. So, how can Apple claim exclusivity in how their rectangular tablet and mobile phone looks? I used to admire Apple as a technology company, which can magically conjure up the most innovative products. But if creating a new product line means nobody else can follow (note: not copy; not pirate), then PLEASE, the world will be better off without Apple.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Is Facebook going out of control?
Facebook seems to be trying to do too many things at once. First, it acquired Instagram for an astronomical US$1bil. Till now, I do not see how Instagram has become an integrated Facebook experience for the end user. Using the same log-in account for both Facebook and Instagram, I added some pictures to Instagram and expect to see it popping up in Facebook, or at least appearing in an intuitive way. That did not happen.
Next, Facebook tried to hijack users' email account by switching them over to a Facebook-generated email account. That did not go down too well with many people. To add salt to the wound, some users reported that have lost some emails in that fiasco. Facebook has since rescinded on that track - for now.
Facebook now wants to be your online bill payment system. It is trying to get users to pay their bills and other online banking functions in an integrated manner, unlikely as it sounds (what - doing online banking while facebooking with friends?). It is planning a beta launch with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for an imminent release.
My question is, has Facebook lost the plot? Is it trying to do too many things at once? In software development, this is called scope creep. Perhaps it is trying very hard to impress the stockholders, now that it has gone public. Scope creep is seldom a good sign. Software turns into bloatware. Users' experience turns into frustration as unwanted features start taking over and dictating to the users what they do not need. In the end, the software loses its original identity and the very reason that attracted users to it in the first place. Remember Nero? Nero was the most popular CD burner software in its time. Then it tried to do everything, including video creation, image editing, music, etc. The do-it-all product was released and that was the end we have heard of it.
Next, Facebook tried to hijack users' email account by switching them over to a Facebook-generated email account. That did not go down too well with many people. To add salt to the wound, some users reported that have lost some emails in that fiasco. Facebook has since rescinded on that track - for now.
Facebook now wants to be your online bill payment system. It is trying to get users to pay their bills and other online banking functions in an integrated manner, unlikely as it sounds (what - doing online banking while facebooking with friends?). It is planning a beta launch with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for an imminent release.
My question is, has Facebook lost the plot? Is it trying to do too many things at once? In software development, this is called scope creep. Perhaps it is trying very hard to impress the stockholders, now that it has gone public. Scope creep is seldom a good sign. Software turns into bloatware. Users' experience turns into frustration as unwanted features start taking over and dictating to the users what they do not need. In the end, the software loses its original identity and the very reason that attracted users to it in the first place. Remember Nero? Nero was the most popular CD burner software in its time. Then it tried to do everything, including video creation, image editing, music, etc. The do-it-all product was released and that was the end we have heard of it.
Friday, June 22, 2012
We are the cause of it all?
I received a circulated article titled "We are the cause of it all", in reference to the sociopolitical situation in Malaysia. The following extract sums up what this article is all about:
"Our economy has been sluggish and in recession for two decades now. While times were good, we could make up for the corruption of our country. But now there is no more leeway for such activities. Our corruption must stop. And let us not just point at our politicians, although they have much to answer for. Let us not just point at our policemen, as easy as they may be to target.
"It was my silence that has brought us here. It was your silence too. It is our silence that has made this land groan under our feet. We are the cause Malaysia suffers. We are the reason our rich and poor divide widens. We are the reason we practice a civilised, governmentally endorsed racism. We are the reason our rainforests are dying and smog blankets our atmosphere. We are the reason so many of us do not return to our own country and instead hope to live in foreign lands ."
Here is what I think
I don't agree with the proposition that it was our silence that caused all the problems the writer mentioned. It is like blaming our own carelessness when our house gets broken in. Or like blaming our own stupidity when we get conned by a con artist. Or blaming ourselves for going out when we get robbed in the street.
While our silence made it easier for those who want to harm us, our silence is hardly the cause of it. Where I live (in Australia), I do not have grills on my doors and windows. Yet the probability of a break in is negligible. If the writer's line of thinking is correct, my house would have been broken in many, many times by now.
The fact that Malaysia deteriorated to its present state today is not caused by our collective silence. Start looking at the perpetrators of crime and injustice! To use the above analogy, they are the "burglars" who have broken into our once peaceful neighborhood. As we start barricading our houses, these criminals simply become more devious. As they get more and more daring, they progress into operating in broad daylight. Before long, they become a law unto themselves, openly doing what they please. Our silence did not breed these criminals.
"Our economy has been sluggish and in recession for two decades now. While times were good, we could make up for the corruption of our country. But now there is no more leeway for such activities. Our corruption must stop. And let us not just point at our politicians, although they have much to answer for. Let us not just point at our policemen, as easy as they may be to target.
"It was my silence that has brought us here. It was your silence too. It is our silence that has made this land groan under our feet. We are the cause Malaysia suffers. We are the reason our rich and poor divide widens. We are the reason we practice a civilised, governmentally endorsed racism. We are the reason our rainforests are dying and smog blankets our atmosphere. We are the reason so many of us do not return to our own country and instead hope to live in foreign lands ."
Here is what I think
I don't agree with the proposition that it was our silence that caused all the problems the writer mentioned. It is like blaming our own carelessness when our house gets broken in. Or like blaming our own stupidity when we get conned by a con artist. Or blaming ourselves for going out when we get robbed in the street.
While our silence made it easier for those who want to harm us, our silence is hardly the cause of it. Where I live (in Australia), I do not have grills on my doors and windows. Yet the probability of a break in is negligible. If the writer's line of thinking is correct, my house would have been broken in many, many times by now.
The fact that Malaysia deteriorated to its present state today is not caused by our collective silence. Start looking at the perpetrators of crime and injustice! To use the above analogy, they are the "burglars" who have broken into our once peaceful neighborhood. As we start barricading our houses, these criminals simply become more devious. As they get more and more daring, they progress into operating in broad daylight. Before long, they become a law unto themselves, openly doing what they please. Our silence did not breed these criminals.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Facebook IPO
Here is what I think of the Facebook IPO (initial public offering) on the New York Stock Exchange. Last Friday it managed to a become a US$100bil company in capitalization.
I think this is the dotcom boom all over again. All the financial experts have gone crazy. I think very soon many people will wake up to see a big drop in the share price. Here's why.
1. On the first day of offering (last Friday), the share price would have dropped from $38 down to $32, if Morgan Stanley had not stepped in the prop it up. (re PCMag)
2. At $38 per share, it is more than 100 times its profit. In comparison, Google's share is 18 times and Apple's share is 13 times (re: ABC News). If this extends to Apple, Apple's share is a steal. So where is the rule of thumb for earnings-per-share? Or has all the bonker bankers lost their thumbs when they got their fingers burnt in the last dot-com bust?
3. What is the value of Facebook's tangible assets? Surely it cannot be anything close to $100bil! Is its intellectual property worth that much? No. Has it a proven track record of profits to justify its share price? No. At $100bil it is valued at more than McDonald's. I can literally see a lot more underlying assetss in McDonald's than in Facebook.
Facebook is a fad. Fads can quickly pass away. Just like many once-popular hot software products. Some are now lost from public memory while others have been humbled and replaced by better or cheaper alternatives. Facebook uses a devious means of building up the user base. It blatantly plays on the public's emotions to create a network of "Friends" around every user. Then when you want to call it quits, it "... makes a blatant appeal to your emotions. You're not deactivating your account, you're deactivating your friendships!" (quote from PC World). I believe in time people will get fed up of this and will spend less time on Facebook. That's when advertising revenue will drop and Facebook's profitablity will drop accordingly.
I think this is the dotcom boom all over again. All the financial experts have gone crazy. I think very soon many people will wake up to see a big drop in the share price. Here's why.
1. On the first day of offering (last Friday), the share price would have dropped from $38 down to $32, if Morgan Stanley had not stepped in the prop it up. (re PCMag)
2. At $38 per share, it is more than 100 times its profit. In comparison, Google's share is 18 times and Apple's share is 13 times (re: ABC News). If this extends to Apple, Apple's share is a steal. So where is the rule of thumb for earnings-per-share? Or has all the bonker bankers lost their thumbs when they got their fingers burnt in the last dot-com bust?
3. What is the value of Facebook's tangible assets? Surely it cannot be anything close to $100bil! Is its intellectual property worth that much? No. Has it a proven track record of profits to justify its share price? No. At $100bil it is valued at more than McDonald's. I can literally see a lot more underlying assetss in McDonald's than in Facebook.
Facebook is a fad. Fads can quickly pass away. Just like many once-popular hot software products. Some are now lost from public memory while others have been humbled and replaced by better or cheaper alternatives. Facebook uses a devious means of building up the user base. It blatantly plays on the public's emotions to create a network of "Friends" around every user. Then when you want to call it quits, it "... makes a blatant appeal to your emotions. You're not deactivating your account, you're deactivating your friendships!" (quote from PC World). I believe in time people will get fed up of this and will spend less time on Facebook. That's when advertising revenue will drop and Facebook's profitablity will drop accordingly.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Facebook bares all (you, that is)
I have just found out that when you are on Facebook, any advertisement
or website that you click may be tracked and displayed to all and
sundry.
Go to your Facebook wall. Somewhere on the page you will find a section called "Recent Activity". That section displays your digital fingerprint! I don't know how long Facebook has introduced this. I am shocked that such blatant intrusion into personal privacy has gone unchallenged. Fortunately I am not a big Facebook user and I have been using Blogspot to share my thoughts, rather than have Facebook come behind my back to snoop for information about me.
As an immediate response, I went to my "Privacy Settings" and "Account Settings" and disabled as much of the personal intrusions as I could. I don't know how much that will help. The best protection is to keep personal information to a minimum when socializing on Facebook.
Go to your Facebook wall. Somewhere on the page you will find a section called "Recent Activity". That section displays your digital fingerprint! I don't know how long Facebook has introduced this. I am shocked that such blatant intrusion into personal privacy has gone unchallenged. Fortunately I am not a big Facebook user and I have been using Blogspot to share my thoughts, rather than have Facebook come behind my back to snoop for information about me.
As an immediate response, I went to my "Privacy Settings" and "Account Settings" and disabled as much of the personal intrusions as I could. I don't know how much that will help. The best protection is to keep personal information to a minimum when socializing on Facebook.
Sunday, April 29, 2012
What I think of the ipad
Until recently I have not used an iPad myself. My wife has just bought one and I am now able to get familiarized with the iPad. I am pleased with the retina display and the fast processor speed. Overall, the iPad is very well built and deserves all the accolades it has been getting.
Much as I admire the iPad, I don't think I'll want to own one. The dislikes outweigh the likes. I dislike the single (Menu) button that Apples tries so hard to maintain. It is too restrictive and counter intuitive. I mean, can one thumb do the job of five fingers? There are times when functionality rules over aesthetics. One button does not make the iPad any simpler to operate than a four-buttoned Android tablet.vIn fact it makes it rather perplexing.
I dislike the fact that I cannot close an app when I am done with it. I have to go to another control panel to close item by item. There are many apps which do not need to be assigned to the background and kept on a burner. Games, for example.
I dislike not having a convenient way to upload photos to my PC. The iPad has "Photo Stream" that allows me to automatically upload photos to the cloud. However, downloading from iCloud to my computer is another matter. iCloud is not supported on my Windows XP (but supported on Vista and Windows 7). I found a workaround to install iCloud on my XP but Photo Stream (one of the features of iCloud) is still unable to work. I stopped pursuing it and resorted to using Dropbox.
I dislike not being able to send files through Amazon to my iPad Kindle app for free. It can be done, but for a fee per file transfer. On my Kindle e-reader, I can do that easily and at no cost. (I know this has nothing to do with iPad. Just couldn't resist rubbing it in)
And yes, it is irritating not being able to open Flash files.
iPad does not come with something like the OpenOffice, which even my entry-level smartphone has.
The Apple App Store is not as user-friendly as the Android Market. On the Android Market, it is much easier to find the really popular and good apps.
Ah yes, just too many dislikes and still expecting to discover more. I'll settle for an Android tablet anytime.
Much as I admire the iPad, I don't think I'll want to own one. The dislikes outweigh the likes. I dislike the single (Menu) button that Apples tries so hard to maintain. It is too restrictive and counter intuitive. I mean, can one thumb do the job of five fingers? There are times when functionality rules over aesthetics. One button does not make the iPad any simpler to operate than a four-buttoned Android tablet.vIn fact it makes it rather perplexing.
I dislike the fact that I cannot close an app when I am done with it. I have to go to another control panel to close item by item. There are many apps which do not need to be assigned to the background and kept on a burner. Games, for example.
I dislike not having a convenient way to upload photos to my PC. The iPad has "Photo Stream" that allows me to automatically upload photos to the cloud. However, downloading from iCloud to my computer is another matter. iCloud is not supported on my Windows XP (but supported on Vista and Windows 7). I found a workaround to install iCloud on my XP but Photo Stream (one of the features of iCloud) is still unable to work. I stopped pursuing it and resorted to using Dropbox.
I dislike not being able to send files through Amazon to my iPad Kindle app for free. It can be done, but for a fee per file transfer. On my Kindle e-reader, I can do that easily and at no cost. (I know this has nothing to do with iPad. Just couldn't resist rubbing it in)
And yes, it is irritating not being able to open Flash files.
iPad does not come with something like the OpenOffice, which even my entry-level smartphone has.
The Apple App Store is not as user-friendly as the Android Market. On the Android Market, it is much easier to find the really popular and good apps.
Ah yes, just too many dislikes and still expecting to discover more. I'll settle for an Android tablet anytime.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
What is legally right
"Should the family of slain underworld boss Carl Williams be paid compensation for his prison death?", asked the Herald Sun. Willaims' family is suing the government for AUD$1mil.
In my opinion, there should be no compensation. A law graduate friend of mine says that legally Williams has been put there in the care of the government, and therefore the government is responsible for his safety. Well, who is responsible for the public's safety before Carl Williams was incarcerated? Why is a criminal's safety more important than the general public's?
I am not a lawyer, nor am I by any means an expert on the subject. But I believe that all laws are derived from God's law. The universal law is to love one another. Every law is enacted to uphold this universal law. However, laws can get perverted. People can make changes to legalize certain actions that seem to be for common good, but actually goes against the higher order of morality. To many people, what is legal is more important than what is morally right. That is why in some places it has become "legal" to practice homosexuality, it has become "legal" to exploit the poor, and it has become "legal" to abort unborn children. Man's laws, which should be answerable to God's law, has instead become answerable only to the court of justice. What has become of morality?!
In my opinion, there should be no compensation. A law graduate friend of mine says that legally Williams has been put there in the care of the government, and therefore the government is responsible for his safety. Well, who is responsible for the public's safety before Carl Williams was incarcerated? Why is a criminal's safety more important than the general public's?
I am not a lawyer, nor am I by any means an expert on the subject. But I believe that all laws are derived from God's law. The universal law is to love one another. Every law is enacted to uphold this universal law. However, laws can get perverted. People can make changes to legalize certain actions that seem to be for common good, but actually goes against the higher order of morality. To many people, what is legal is more important than what is morally right. That is why in some places it has become "legal" to practice homosexuality, it has become "legal" to exploit the poor, and it has become "legal" to abort unborn children. Man's laws, which should be answerable to God's law, has instead become answerable only to the court of justice. What has become of morality?!
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Why video calls will never become mainstream
Many people use Skype and Facetime to make video calls with family members. I doubt though if many make video calls to friends and acquaintances. It is just not very practical. I love being able to see my son when I talk to him, but I would rather have a simple voice-only conversation with anyone else outside the family.
When the phone rings, the natural reaction is to answer it without a second thought. Not so with a video call. If you happened to be in the bedroom, it is like you are bringing the caller into your bedroom. Imagine the embarrassment if you happened to be indecently dressed or your room is in a mess! Video calling is very intrusive and it will never replace the plain old voice-only calls which Alexander Graham Bell invented in 1876, more than a century ago!
When the phone rings, the natural reaction is to answer it without a second thought. Not so with a video call. If you happened to be in the bedroom, it is like you are bringing the caller into your bedroom. Imagine the embarrassment if you happened to be indecently dressed or your room is in a mess! Video calling is very intrusive and it will never replace the plain old voice-only calls which Alexander Graham Bell invented in 1876, more than a century ago!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)