Notes of a Geek

Maybe I just need to find something to do. If nobody else is doing it, maybe I should do it.

There's two popular ways to listen to music today: You can stream your music using any popular music streaming service, such as Rdio, Slacker, Sirius, or even YouTube, or you can purchase/download your music. Now there's a third option that combines the best of both worlds, and they call it the Xbox Music Pass (found at http://www.xbox.com/en-US/music/music-pass). It's the best of both worlds in that not only do you get access to millions of tracks to stream at any moment but you can also download any of those songs for later listening on almost any device. Want to listen to that catchy new single? It's a few clicks away. How about your wedding song? It only takes a few seconds. Why don't we kick back and enjoy some old-school Rock & Roll? Done. Some 80's pop music? Playing. All just a few clicks away. Not only that but Microsoft has a fairly good music recommendation engine, which can not only pull songs from your local library but also from the entire Xbox Music collection. Over 30 million songs at your disposal. This is truly the future of music playback.

I like it.

Decisions, decisions...

Non-power users will never know the difference unless they stumble upon it by accident, and power users have a new shortcut they may even be willing to use in their dock.

My favourite part is actually the video for the new MacBook Pro with Retina Display. Specifically, the asymmetric fan blades. Most people will never see the fan in their laptops, and thanks to the new design most people will never hear it. More importantly the fact that Apple decided to change the design of something, a design that most companies and OEMs simply wouldn't think of changing, shows just how much care and attention to detail Apple puts into its products. It's one of the many reasons people (myself included) buy Apple products over the competition.

The amount of information some conversations can carry in every day language are just incredible.

There's two topics I want to follow up on from my previous article, but I'll only do one today since it expands the article, and the other addresses some concerns. Today I want to focus on contextual awareness. Siri is already aware of the context of any current conversation (rather, series of commands), such that if you try to reschedule a meeting to an already occupied slot, Siri will warn you, and you can respond simply by changing the time or day you want it moved to without having to re-specify which meeting you're moving. It's a pretty neat feature, but like Siri itself, it's still only in its infancy. As any human assistant would know, there's a lot more context that needs to be taken into account. For example, you may not have any other meetings at 3 PM, but other people attending the event you're rescheduling might. A better way of rescheduling would be to grant temporary, limited access to the other parties' schedules to see if they already had a meeting scheduled at that time, or just to see when everyone else is available. The implementation would be tricky, but the idea is solid. Then we have to go deeper. Human context. Understanding human behaviour. It's not an easy thing by any stretch of the imagination, but it's going to be a giant leap forward. At present, Siri is slowly learning how to recognize users' speech. It's learning that people who taught it in a lab have great pronunciation, enunciation. The people in a lab probably tried not to slur or mumble. The people in a lab tried to speak with a generic, or no, accent for their geographical location. But people do slur. People mumble. People get drunk. People have speech impediments. People have distinct accents. Most importantly, people are emotional. People are sad, they're happy, they're angry, they're jovial. In order for Siri to make a real leap forward, it has to learn about human emotion. Siri should know that if a girl just broke up with her boyfriend and she's emotionally distraught that she usually talks to her mother in these situations, and Siri should suggest a call to mom. Siri should know that when a guy gets drunk he gets an urge to call his ex-girlfriend, and that it never ends well, so Siri should advise against the call (or any drunk-dialing, for that matter). Siri should know that if someone hit your car, you shouldn't be trying to enact revenge on the other driver but instead calling your insurance company. But Siri needs to understand humans before that can happen. It needs be contextually aware of humans. It needs to go deeper.

Anyone who's had a chance to use Siri knows that it's an amazing step forward for artificial intelligence. But it's still a baby step. Why? It's still a baby step because right now it's mostly programmed, assistive intelligence. Everything that Siri does and does not do right now is a result of what it's told. Apple's engineers told it how to respond to the question "what's the meaning of life?". Its users tell it to set appointments, play music, send messages. It doesn't really do any of that on its own. At least not yet. That's why the current incarnation of Siri is only the beginning. In order for Siri to succeed as a mainstream, true artificial intelligence that everyone uses it'll have to make some big improvements. Huge improvements. But we have to make some improvements, too. We have to learn to trust Siri. If we don't, it can't possibly make progress. It must make progress with our help. In order for a future Siri to develop, we have to learn to trust it with our location, with our contact information, with our conversations, with our habits, our nuances, our hobbies. We have to allow it to be with us at almost all times, like a real assistant. Except this one can fit in our pockets. (not like that, get your head out of the gutter) Siri will have to learn how to anticipate what we do, and the only way for Siri to know what we're likely to do in the future is to learn from what we've done in the past. If previously we've gone out bowling and then had fast food right after, Siri should be able to recommend restaurants to us as we're leaving the bowling alley, as we're pulling out our phone to ask. Siri should also know if we won the game, and should also know that we prefer sweet food when we win and salty food when we lose. Siri should listen to your conversations about home renovations and find the cheapest places for all the supplies you'll need, and let you know to pick them up next time you pass those stores. Siri should tell you that you'd prefer the Nissan over the Ford because people with a back problem similar to your own have reviewed both cars and found the Nissan to be more comfortable on their back. What we currently have is amazing, but it's only the beginning. There are still many incredible things to come one day, but that can only happen if we trust the machines and let them do the job we hire them to do.

I may not know exactly what Steve Jobs finally cracked, but I've got an idea. TV shows, movies, and other media as apps. Rather, as in-app purchases when it comes to serial media like TV shows. For example, a show like The Walking Dead would be available as a free app, with each episode being a 99¢ in-app purchase, or a "Season Pass" being $9.99, possibly with a cheaper "streaming-only" pass of some kind. As long as the apps had AirPlay support, or were available directly on the AppleTV, I'd be fine with that.

I was driving a different vehicle than my usual one a few weeks ago when it occurred to me that there's a lot of very simply fixable problems with vehicles. One of the main problems that came to mind was what it felt like to drive the vehicle. I'm not saying all vehicles should be made the exact same, but with the help of some software most vehicles could be made to feel the same when driving. Through software. Through driver profiles. Driver profiles that could be stored either within the key or, preferably, in the driver's bluetooth-enabled phone. The information stored in the profile could range from the sensitivity and amount of feedback from the pedals, the position of the seat and lumbar support adjustments for the seat, even the preferred/desired gear ratios if a user feels advanced enough and the car's owner allows it. Ideally we would only ever have to adjust the seat because the car would drive itself (thank you, Google), but that just isn't ready for prime time yet. What COULD be ready for prime time is a car that adjusts to fit YOUR needs, not the other way around. All you'd have to do is log in. But it's not just vehicles. A lot of things could benefit from having user credentials. Central air systems in hotels could adjust to a guest's preferred temperature and humidity levels. Restaurants could be alerted of a customer's food allergies. All you'd have to do is log in.

"I could easily spend three straight hours on my phone without even noticing. ... "Even when my wife was in the middle of telling me something important, I couldn’t resist peeking at that tiny screen under the table..." It sounds to me like Sam has less of a technology issue and more of a self-control issue. I'm not going to try to pitch that I'm not like him because I know I am to an extent, more with stationary computers than with mobile computers, but I know I have a similar problem. The difference is that– and I hate to start philosophizing like this, but– some people, like Sam, seem to lack the self-control needed to simply cut back. Oh, sure, getting rid of his iPhone was one way to stop it but that's an extreme measure no rational person should ever consider as a real option and only as a last resort. Getting rid of the problem isn't the same as fixing the problem, which is what he should have done.

Here's a crazy idea: At one point during Apple's lawsuit against Psystar, Apple alleged that Psystar may not have just been one company trying to make money by making unauthorized machines running Mac OS X, but could potentially be a front for a cabal of Apple competitors who were hoping to win against Apple in a lawsuit so that they could run OS X on their own machines. Essentially, Psystar would be a way for Apple's competitors to attack it. What if Apple rumours work the same way? What I mean is this: Every time Apple is getting close to releasing something, and sometimes even when they're just working on something and never end up releasing it, like the legendary xMac, there's always some kind of leak. Sometimes it's a legitimate leak, and sometimes it's just a small detail that happens to get out, but it always snowballs. Like a crazy game of Internet-Telephone. The leak could be something as simple as "there's going to be a better camera", and somehow that, by the time it hits the mainstream press (or as mainstream as that bit of news will ever get) it's been transformed into "the camera's going to be 3D, 12 megapixels with 1080p video, and a sensor that lets you focus the image after the fact (à la Lytro)". The rumours themselves aren't the problem. The problem lies in the way that this kind of news propagates. When it gets repeated enough by rumour sites, the echo and reverberation builds up enough that the noise starts to leak out of the usual Apple rumour circle and into the mainstream press, and regular consumers (as opposed to the more technologically inclined who usually pay attention to tech rumours) start to hear about the rumours and have their expectations for this supposed product raised. With the iPhone 5 rumours, it got to the point where friends and acquaintances were asking me if I knew if the next iPhone was going to have a built-in projector that mapped a keyboard onto a surface for you to type, if they were going to need a new case, since their iPhone 4 case would be unlikely to fit on it if they redesigned it. And then Apple "only" releases the iPhone 4S and people who aren't even remotely connected to the tech world have heard that "some people were disappointed by the new iPhone". The problem with these kinds of rumours is that, if they're deliberately exaggerated and repeated, they could be considered a form of libel, which could get interesting for Apple's legal team. But with Apple competitors potentially forming a company that infringes on Apple's IP in the hopes of finding a way to use it freely I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, at least to some extent.

Shortly after the iPhone 4 came out, the guys over at ElementCase.com decided they were going to make a case that matches the looks and feel of the metal antenna of the iPhone 4. They have succeeded. At first they only had the standard Vapor line of cases: CNC machined metal bumper-style cases in multiple colours. Then, as their operation expanded, they added some new products to their line, including the Extreme Metals series of cases, among which was the Limited Edition Satin Nickel case. At first it was a little hard to justify spending nearly $100 on a phone case – one made of signal-attenuating metal, no less – let alone an extra $40 for the Satin Nickel edition. It also didn't help that with all the initial demand for the cases my place in the pre-order line had gotten lost for almost 6 months, during which time I had to use a "regular" case, which wasn't nearly as nice as the ElementCase, but which let enough time pass by for the Nickel edition to become available. An unfortunate coincidence with a happy ending, I suppose. I tried a few of the then-free iPhone 4 free case program cases (nice, but too bulky for my liking), a few Otterboxes (way too bulky compared to the naked iPhone), and a handful of generic cases (none terribly good). While most of them offered the kind of drop protection a lot of people looked for, and the kind of style that appeals to 95% of the general public, I already know I'm not part of that 95%. Even Apple's bumper case, while nice, just seemed to take away from the style they had worked so hard to get out of the iPhone 4's physical design. Finally, in early February 2011, the Nickel case showed up at my door. (Metaphorically, anyway. In reality I had it shipped to my work because I was working some long shifts that week and knew I wouldn't be home. But I digress.) It was beautiful. It made the iPhone 4'a antenna, while very nice, seem somewhat... stock, plain, standard almost. The Nickel case felt like a complementary addition to the iPhone 4's dashing good looks. It added a bit of colour and richness to the phone. There was even a metal button covering the phone's own power button. I would find out later on that it so closely matched the style and looks of the 4's band that a lot of people would think that it was part of the phone (which, I assured them, it was not). It also had a bit of a richer feel to it compared to the iPhone's stainless steel band. Whereas the stainless steel had a mostly smooth feel with a hint of a machined texture, the Nickel case emphasized its metallic roots in look and feel. It took a bit of effort to get the two parts of the case to line up exactly right, but afterwards it was like a seamless band of protective style surrounding my phone. I loved it. Until I wanted to listen to music. I soon found out that the opening for the headphone jack would only fit the slimmest of headphones, such as Apple's own included earbuds or their in-ear offering, and certain Bose headphones. While I did own Apple's in-ear headphones, they weren't as comfortable as the Shure headphones I had recently acquired. I managed to use an iPod nano-turned-watch as a workaround for a while, but that's more work than listening to music and podcasts needs to be. The other problem I ran into was attenuation: without the case I'm able to get 4-5 bars at home, living a stone's throw away from the nearest tower. With the case I was down to 2-3 bars, with the occasional complete loss of signal (although that may be a problem with the towers more than anything else since I'm far from being the only one in town with that issue). While those two issues weren't deal-breakers, either separately or even together, it does leave tend to leave one wanting if you're a music enthusiast or live in an area with a weak signal. Personally, I can insider myself lucky because I have an iPod nano watch I can use as a backup playback device for my music and podcasts (although it can't run Instacast), and there's enough network coverage in my area that I hardly ever need the extra signal strength. Overall, unless either of the above two minor issues are deal-breakers for you, I would whole-heartedly recommend the limited edition Satin Nickel Vapor case, or any other edition of ElementCase. The guys over at ElementCase go above and beyond the call of an iPhone case maker and manage to make a case that successfully surrounds the phone in a protective, stylish metal band that would make even naked iPhone purists want it. Rating (from the arbitrary rating system of the day): A-

Winter approaches... (Taken with instagram)

iAds are great. Apple did a wonderful job in designing, curating, and integrating iAds. So why are iAds generally regarded as a failure? I think it’s a combination of both the creator and the consumer. Allow me to explain. The kind of, for lack of better word, aura that surrounds iAds is the same aura that surrounds the rest of Apple’s products: It’s something very well designed. It’s something of really high quality. It’s something that appeals to a lot of people. It’s something other people in the same field should aspire to create. So why did it fail? The problem isn’t that Apple did something well. The problem is that they did it in a business that doesn’t care if it’s done well. The problem is that Apple made these ads, and designed them so well, but forgot about the behavior of their target audience. As with most things Apple, they designed something that has a sort of premium quality and feel to it. The problem is that, at least on iOS, the kind of people who would appreciate well-designed ads (and there’s a lot of us) are also the kind of people who would rather pay to not have to see ads in the first place. The target audience for iAds, as I see it, is the kind of audience that would also rather pay for something up-front than have it be supported by ads. We’re the kind of audience who would rather play the $0.99 version of Angry Birds on iOS instead of the free version on any other platform because we don’t want any ads in our game. We’re the kind of audience who would rather pay $1.99 a month for a magazine app than to have ads between every article. We’re the kind of audience that, consciously or not, understands that nothing comes for free, development of apps have a cost, and that the people making our apps have to pay. We’re the kind of audience who only download the “FREE” or “Lite” version of an app if we absolutely want to try before we buy, or don’t need all the functionality offered by the full version. We’re the audience who payed $5 for Instapaper when the free version was still available. The kind of audience who would appreciate iAds is also, sadly, the kind of audience who would rather not have ads at all.

Now that most of what there was to say about the recent patent debates has been said by the bigger players (re: Nilay Patel, Katherine Noyes, et al), it’s time to throw my own hat into the ring. As some have pointed out, a lot of people argue that the patent system is broken, but nobody happens to mention *why* they think the patent system is broken. Probably because, like me, they don’t know very much about the inner workings of the system, they just know the side effects of a patent system with poor forward-compatibility. I think the patent system is not so much broken as it is too generalized. It’s too one-size-fits-all. With growing economies, growing industries, and growing waistlines, nothing is truly one-size-fits-all anymore. I think it’s time to change that. But how? I have a simple proposal. 2 extra fields on the patent application, and different patent length terms. I have a few more, smaller ideas, but I want to focus on those 3 things. The first new field will be the Applicant Type. The two options for the Applicant Type will be Individual, and Organization. The second field will be the Application Type. The two options for the Application Type will be Research and Development, and Implementation. As for the terms, I feel that those applying for implementation patents should have to request a term length for their patent at the time of application, and that the length granted should be based on the obviousness and rate of innovation in the patent’s/patent applicant’s field. I also feel that should an organization be applying for an R&D patent that they should not have exclusive rights to their patented invention any length of time, period. Now, as for legalities, I believe that no organization should be able to take legal action against an individual that the organization feels is infringing on their implementation patent, granted that the individual is not generating a sustainable amount of income by using the organization's patented invention, or a combination of patented inventions. If one organization has found a way to replicate the non-obvious patented invention of an individual or another organization, then the patent shall be deemed licensable for a fee until the patent expires. If the invention is an entire device or object, the maximum fee to license the patent shall be no more than the bill of materials for the device, based on the average market price. If the invention is only part of a device or object, the maximum fee shall be the sum of the bill of materials of the patented part, plus a portion of any profits equal to the proportion of the patented part's bill of materials relative to the bill of materials for the entire device or object. Essentially, any organization found infringing on a patent must pay twice for the patented invention, plus a proportional part of any profits. If anyone thinks they know why this wouldn't work, please leave your feedback in the comments, or email me directly. Since this is an ongoing topic, I'm always interested in learning more about it.