Category: Media

Journalism, radio and stuff like that

  • Hyperlinks to memories

    Another .net column has made its way online. This one’s about attention and the way that gadgets can remove you from the moment you’re filming, photographing or tweeting about.

    Photos and videos are hyperlinks to memories, icons that your brain double-clicks to bring back the full experience – the sights, sounds, smells and sensations of a happy day or a crappy one.

    Increasingly, though, we’re using gadgets to record the whole experience. That makes us passive observers, not active participants.

  • Opera 10 is too good to ignore

    I thought I’d say something constructive in an op/ed for once, so I’ve written about Opera 10. It’s moved from alpha to beta, and it’s really rather good.

    Internet Explorer 6, the gurning half-wit of the browser world, has nearly 17 per cent of the market. Opera, a truly great browser, has 0.72 per cent.

    That’s lower than Netscape (0.74 per cent), which was shot and turned into glue months ago.

    To say that Opera is better than Netscape or IE6 is like saying having sex with the love of your life is better than being boiled in oil while being stabbed with knives, or living in Doncaster.

  • Hey, ISPs! Why not tell the truth?

    Should ISPs advertise broadband services that don’t – can’t – deliver what the ads promise? Of course they shouldn’t.

    If you aren’t unemployed or self-employed, BT is choking your connection at the very times you’re most likely to use it.

    On the subject of iPlayer’s bandwidth demands BT says “We believe there is a real issue that content owners like the BBC need to address.”

    Maybe there is, but there’s an issue BT needs to address right now. Its advertising specifically says you can use Option 1 for iPlayer, and you can’t.

  • Spotify: Android’s killer app – and bad news for iTunes?

    Could be…

    Have you seen the demo of Spotify on Android yet?

    If not, check it out and listen really carefully. That sound you can hear in the distance is Steve Jobs swearing.

    It looks like Android has found its killer app.

  • Bing is a terrible name for a search engine

    Isn’t it? Yes.

    This… is the same firm that decided to call its security suite Microsoft Wanker. Sure, it says OneCare when it’s written down, but go on. Read it aloud.

  • Good god. It’s sexy Linux!

    Moblin, the Intel-backed Linux for netbooks, looks pretty nifty. Which makes a change:

    With most technology, looking into it is like shopping for a new and exciting car. We’ll happily spend days scanning brochures, reading reviews and coming up with increasingly imaginative and expensive configurations.

    With Linux, though, it’s more like shopping for a new central heating boiler. You know it’s going to be worthwhile and you know it’s going to save you money, but it’s hard to summon up much enthusiasm. Oh look. It’s a boiler. Oh look. It’s another boiler. Oh look. It’s a slightly different boiler. Oh look. I’ve wasted my life.

  • More things I’ve written: Cyborgs and Chrome

    Will humans of the future have extra ears? Probably not, but cyborg technology is still fascinating.

    Sadly the “bionic arms race” owes much to a very real arms race. In 2005, the US military announced a multi-million dollar investment in prosthetic technology after a surge in the number of US soldiers losing limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Improvements in body armour technology mean that attacks that just a few years ago would be fatal are now survivable – but the armour doesn’t protect limbs.

    Inevitably the military isn’t just interested in rehabilitating injured soldiers. It’s rather keen on enhancing soldiers’ effectiveness in battle, too, which is why it’s testing exoskeletons.

    And Google Chrome 2 is out of beta. Time for another car comparison.

    Firefox is a gadget-stuffed MPV, Chrome is a stripped-down sports car and IE8 is a Honda Legend: it’s built well enough, but it’s hopelessly outgunned by smarter and more stylish rivals.

  • Google fail: it’s the new blue screen of death

    It’s that man again. And by that man, I mean me.

    We’re rushing into a world where everything depends on an internet connection, whether it’s your email, your online apps, your Xbox Live or your TV on demand.

    Most of the time, that’s absolutely fine. Great, even. But it means that we’re more vulnerable to catastrophe and cock-ups than ever before.

  • Are search engines bad for the Web? And: what’s the future of the internet anyway?

    Two of my things have hit the internet. First up, an op/ed on Google’s ever-increasing usefulness:

    There’s no doubt that search engines are getting smarter, which is generally a good thing. However, they’re guilty of something called Mission Creep: that is, they’re doing more and more work. In the good old days search engines were facilitators, dumb actors that didn’t actually know anything but knew where you could find what you needed.

    Now, they’re attempting to be oracles. Instead of showing you where to find the answer, they want to tell you the answer; instead of taking you to the right destination, they want to *be* the destination. That’s an important difference, and it’s bad news for webmasters.

    Then, a feature I did for PC Plus about where the UK internet is heading:

    …it looks rather like our creaking transport system: overloaded, prone to jams at the most inconvenient of times and under constant surveillance. Only Britain could take the idea of an information superhighway and try to turn it into the M6.

  • Journalism: can pay, won’t pay?

    Here’s a thing. If the sites you regularly visited started charging, would you stick with them?

    I’ve been mulling over some stuff Rupert Murdoch has been saying. Essentially he’s arguing that the free, ad-supported content model for online news and magazines isn’t sustainable, which I think is right – The Guardian website is brilliant, but the Guardian business is pissing money – and that the future is going to come with a price tag.

    Will it work?

    I’m trying to imagine how you’d charge for online content. Straight news, presumably, would remain free – it’s not particularly unique – and everything else would be behind some kind of pay wall. Would it work? Would you flinch if, when you went to read a Charlie Brooker column, you had to pay 1p, or if Media Guardian was completely off-limits to non-subscribers? If Techradar made all its news free but its features, reviews and columns subscribers-only, would you stump up? If Q asked for 10p for its exclusive, in-depth interview with [insert your favourite pop star here] would you stump up the cash?

    I’m not sure I would – not on a computer screen, anyway. I’ve written before about my truly terrifying newspaper and magazine bills, and I’m quite sure that I’d pay a sub for e-paper versions (provided the e-paper was good enough, like the new big Kindle for newspapers or a lighter, full colour version for mags). But I don’t think I’ve ever paid to read an article online. I tend to balk at registration, let alone payment. A bundle – pay for the print version, get free access to extra stuff online – might work, but online-only… I’m not convinced.

    What about you? Can you imagine a way in which paying for content – with the exception of stuff that businesses will put on expenses, such as Concrete Today or whatever – could actually work?