Although Google Buzz might have been dominating the headlines for the past few days, one little tidbit of news doesn’t seem to have had the attention it deserves. On Thursday, it was announced that for $50 million, Google had bought Aardvark, a service that attempts to find the most relevant answers to questions you ask in minutes.
Some questions have arisen over the intentions behind the acquisition, as Aardvark was started by two former Google employees, though in my mind, Google just couldn’t let this one slip through. It’s just too valuable to them, as Aardvark does many things really well that Google haven’t quite managed yet.
There are many reasons why I personally won’t be buying Apple’s latest ‘revolutionary’ product, though one thing really worries me: Teens just aren’t going to buy it. Aside from being another unnecessary product to add to the portfolio, here’s the three reasons why I’d bet the iPad will be a flop with the under-20s.
1. It just doesn’t look right
We can normally count on Apple to turn out another visually stunning product each year, and each one is normally an order of magnitude better-looking than the previous. This is the first year when Apple have released a product that’s noticeably ugly. Remember those rumours of what it would look like? When they all just looked like a badly stretched iPhone? Well it turns out Apple had similar ideas. We’ve ended up with an oversized iPhone body, with a ha-yuge border, and a slightly updated version of iPhone OS 3.0. So, for creating the most visually unappealing product in quite some time, top marks for creativity.
2. The Flash point
While this has been repeated almost too many times to bear, it’s just so crucial it has to be said again. Now the absence of Flash may not be Apple’s fault, but surely they must have been able to come up with some way of negotiating this one. Without Flash, forget video sites like Vimeo, blip.tv, and streaming video too. This really is a deal-breaker, in a device designed with a main purpose of browsing the web, disruptions to the flow of the web just can’t help matters, especially with an audience of users who expect the web at their fingertips. The whole web.
3. Not even a camera
This one may sound negligible, but not having a camera really lowers the value of the iPad. Though no-one in there right frame of mind would expect to use this as a camera for their holiday snapshots, a forward facing camera could have been awesome. We could have had video-calling (of sorts), Photo Booth, and even used sites like DailyBooth or Ustream (if it wasn’t for point 2). But sadly it wasn’t to be; Apple have decided that all we wanted was a giant iPod Touch.
Although the concept could have been phenomenal, a tablet perfect for casual use, glazed with the perfectionist approach that we’ve come to know and love as Apple, but I feel we’ve been let down here. Instead of carefully considering the things that could have made this the be-all and end-all of lightweight computing, a seemingly rushed attempt has left us with a device that lacks the key components that could have created its success. And what’s perhaps even more disappointing, is that even though teens don’t need it, I don’t think we’ll want it either.
Chrome OS, the highly-anticipated netbook operating system, recently tumbled into the spotlight, ready to start its attempt to become a serious player in the market. Though a stable public release isn’t scheduled for availability until the second half of 2010, the project is already starting to generate some excitement. The thought’s been lingering for years, do we really need a fully-fledged operating system any more? Of course, there will always be cases when a traditional OS is necessary (development, for example), at least in the near future. A machine that boots straight to the browser in 7 seconds sounds like a godsend, we’ll finally be able to escape the lengthy startup times and obsolete bulk of the standard OS. In concept, Chrome OS is what we’ve all been looking for for years, but one thing still bothers me: will it be a commercial success?
The introduction of a low-cost, super-friendly alternative to the current market leader, Windows, should come as welcome news to most. However, it’s going to take some serious force to start to break the association of PC = Windows that the majority of people have. If Google aims its latest brainchild at netbooks, simple and small PCs for inexperienced users, the power required to surpass the expectation to run Windows is immense. Hopefully, as the Chrome’s reputation grows, users should become more comfortable using a non-Microsoft system, but encouraging people to learn how to use a new OS, and to consciously switch to an alternative, irrespective of the benefits, presents the primary challenge for Chrome OS.
However, it’s important to note that while a large proportion of the audience may be first-time buyers and non-experts, the OS holds a great appeal with the power-users. A quick and easy way to get online as simply as possible has internet-addicts frothing at the mouth. Hopefully this support will be enough to give Chrome OS the traction that it needs to get off the ground.
Another possible source of confusion lies in the blurred boundaries between Android and Chrome OS, both Linux-based, stripped-down operating systems designed for the mobile platform. Although Android presently is known for its use in smartphones, It’s beginning to seep into the realms of the netbook. If both Chrome OS and Android are being applied to netbooks, both are open-source and backed by Google, and both are focused on ease-of-use and simplicity, this seems like a likely source of confusion for customers, especially those new to the netbook market.
In the end, time will tell. I’ll be interested to see just how far Chrome OS can go, but I’m looking forward to a public release. A netbook with the speed of a gazelle, and with access to applications that we expect and use every day, holds great attraction for me, and should do for quite a few others. If Google can overcome the mental block that so many people have when considering alternatives to Windows, and start to chip away at the base of the mighty Microsoft empire, and provide a low-cost and viable option in operating system choices. Along with the support of the power-users and the internet obsessives, and hopefully some clarification on the differences between Chrome and its bigger brother Android, a decent commercial entry to the netbook market can finally emerge.
Do people really think that a meaningless collection of cool really change the world? It’s been over a month since I started using the Messiah of the net, that hot piece of app, Google Wave. Now don’t get me wrong, I love a good dose of shiny, but Wave is a little lost on me – what does it actually do? An agglomeration of mediocre features from other Google services does not a killer product make, though it does create a lot of buzz.
The entire ideas seem convoluted, a commendable attempt to roll email, IM, collaboration and widgets together into one gargantuan mess. And just for a bit of crowd-pleasing, they’ve thrown in live-typing too – possibly one of the most counter-productive ideas of all time. Though the initial concept seems lost, the idea of not having to forward anything ever again, and the chance to finally break out of the message-based paradigm certainly has its appeal. But there’s one little problem: everything Wave is useful for has already been done better by other applications – the majority of them Google products themselves. The over-complicated all-in-one approach can only lead to confusion, and even though it’s still in private testing, that’s all fine and well, but it’s the slowest service I have ever used. Haven’t we come to expect just that little bit more from Google?
It’s a daunting question. Why has university become the de-facto choice for anyone with even half a brain? As nearly 170,000 A-level students are rejected by their chosen universities, more consideration should be given to the real benefits of university education, and their relevance today. As a young entrepreneur in the tech industry, I’m faced with a dilemma: The traditional value of higher education is to boost career prospects, though if you aim to forge your own path, what good will an abstract qualification do? Many businesses in the industry would prefer people with real experience, who know what they’re doing, not someone who’s spent three years boozing and sitting exams.
As many young people in the tech industry have picked up their skills on their own, with the aid of books, friends and of CTRL+C, CTRL+V, would these people be better off perfecting their art for another three years, other than learning irrelevant (and often outdated) material. I often find myself imagining how far I could go in three uninterrupted years to achieve my goals, so the value of university diminishes; essentially becoming a sink-hole to pour hours into, hours that could be better spent scraping your way to your first million. This, of course, is most evident in the tech sector. Fall behind on the constant barrage of new information and the opportunities start to slip away. Even simple little things – being cut off from a phone while in a lecture, for example – could have a profound effect.As of September, the rate of unemployment for 16 to 24 year olds is four times higher than that of those aged 25 to retirement. Maybe we should all spend our time gaining valuable experience, practical skills and most of all, a reputation. It’s important that university no longer be considered the be-all and end-all for all people, perhaps it’s time (for we entrepreneurs, at least) it was viewed as a backup, a solution for when things don’t quite go the way we all hope. That said, fresher’s week does look awesome.
