Sporadic Thoughts

Observations through the lens of a technology journalist

September 25, 2000

Will India become a Microsoft nation?

Whether you're a Linux fanatic or just another Windows user, you cannot ignore the fact that Bill Gates has made a significant contribution to the way we lead our lives today.

In recognition of this fact, Gates received a hero's welcome when he landed in New Delhi for a 36 hour visit last week. During his last visit in 1997, he was received in a manner befitting a Head of State. This time Gates missed that because the incumbent PM, A B Vajpayee, happened to be on an official tour of the USA.

However, the attention that Gates got was by no means subdued. The Times of India put Gates' visit to India above Vajpayee's visit to USA. Chief Ministers from several States sought appointments with Gates, and offered everything from tax rebates to hectares of land (there's a lot of it in India, you know) to set up development centres.

What I find disturbing is that the opportunities that Microsoft Corp. is given in India is due to the charisma of one man, rather than a people's choice for Microsoft products. Microsoft is Bill Gates, and vice versa. The same cannot be said about, say, Linus Torvalds and Linux. The issue at hand is not technological; it's political.

Questions:

• Will India become a Microsoft nation?


• How will that tilt the balance against the Open Source movement, which is supposed to be a Good Thing?


• Is the Open Source movement losing out in India because it has no one representative or recognised evangelists?

September 14, 2000

Genetics engineering cannot outpace information technology

There is vast untapped potential in genetic engineering. Advances in that field are what hold the key to embedding essential information devices into our bodies (see September 1, 2000).

However, Kiran "Jace" Jonnalagadda, senior technologist at ZDNet India, believes that the genetic engineering industry will not pick up. In a very well-thought posting on a certain discussion list, he cites his reasons:

I think the genetic industry is not going to take off because:

1. Participation is not open to all. You need to be a genetic engineer,
   which everyone isn't/can't.


2. Society hasn't accepted it as ethical yet. Anyone in this field will
   have a tough time making themselves look respectable.


3. It takes a lifetime to make any difference to humans.

For any industry to outpace the dotcom industry, it would have to:

1. Have a vast untapped potential.


2. Lower the entry barrier even further. The software industry let any
   kid with programming abilities participate. The dotcom industry did
   better by letting anyone with an idea participate. This new industry
   will have to make it even easier.


3. The time taken from inception to finish should be low. Long term
   projects require heavy backing, which everyone doesn't have.

As far as I can see, genetics only qualifies for point 1 -- there are
plenty of genes to tweak around for all.

I'm not aware of any upcoming industry that promises all these, but then, if I knew, I'd be working on getting my headstart, not dreaming about ideal conditions.

That's right, Jace. It will be a long time before I can send you a mental instant message or synchronise my body clock with an atomic clock.

But over the years technology has made technology cheaper. It has brought down the cost of transportation, publishing, computing, etc. The cost of genetic engineering too will come down.

Secondly, we don't really need a mass movement. Most of the people working on genetic engineering at this very moment are experts. Thank goodness for that. Compare this to the number of people setting up websites on their own without any understanding of usability and accessibility, and ruining the Web in the process. (Of course, they're having fun, and that matters too.)

September 2, 2000

When information is free

"What we need is not the end to war, but the end to the beginning of all wars" - Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Web is fascinating in that it has made it possible for diverse cultures to meet on common ground and share knowledge. More people can now become publishers. Their ideas can be published (whether it is worth reading or not is another issue). Spearheading this movement in online self-expression are services like Blogger and Live Journal.

I am currently working on a project to set up a blog whose content will be created jointly by about ten people, each from a very differnt cultural background. It will be very interesting to see how our thoughts will be influenced by each other. It will definitely promote better cross-cultural understanding.

Perhaps that is the end of the beginning of all wars?

Whilst I was surfing the Web in search of similar projects, I found Shmuel Mikel ("Sha-Meal Mee-Kel") and (his) PopGeek.com. PopGeek and Sporadic Thoughts have a common goal: to discuss the "social implications of technology".

Here is the transcript of the chat between Shmuel and myself after I approached him to say that we could combine our efforts.

shmuelmikel: What are you thinking when you say, "Combine efforts."

techrose2000: Let me explain why I write Sporadic Thoughts.

shmuelmikel: Ok, that's a good start.

techrose2000: But how much time do you have?

shmuelmikel: Plenty. I am in no hurry at all. It's night here and I am just sitting at my house.

techrose2000: I used to work as a writer for www.ciol.com where I've learned all the technology I know. Then I moved to ZDNet India you do know ZDNet, I'm sure.

shmuelmikel: Yes, I have heard of this site - which is pretty impressive because I don't here of much outside of the us. I have heard of both CIOL and of course ZDNet.

techrose2000: But over here, I've been more into channel production and planning and less of writing. So to free the writer in me, I write Sporadic Thoughts. I write, and I'd like to be read. That's it.

shmuelmikel: Let me explain a little of why I do Popgeek. I believe very strongly in the Open Source movement and also a upcoming movement--The Open Content movement. There is a saying that has become cliche, "the information wants to be free". Well, I'm not sure blieve that but I do believe that when information is free it can make more of a social impact. I do Popgeek because I want to make a difference with the knowlegde I have. I feel it is in some ways my social responcibility to the community. That I am a part of (the internet community) That is why I do it.

Working with Shmuel just goes to show that the Internet makes it possible to carry out a knowledge transaction between people separate by a couple of oceans. Also, we are united by that unending quest to figure out where technology is taking is.

September 1, 2000

Why we use information devices

We interact with several information devices every day--watches, ATMs, telephones, television, and of course, the PC and its software. These info-transactions (the act of giving and taking information) may be performed for one of two reasons:

1. They can convey some information that is of some value to us ("What's the time?", "How much money do I have in my bank account?")
2. To transfer information to a client that either stores or processes it. That's what happens when you use a keyboard or speak into a phone.

Devices as a barrier to info-transaction

It is the basic nature of human beings to always try to influence others (albeit the degree of force varies from person to person). It is also an observed fact that the most influential people are artists--prolific writers and passionate painters, i.e. those who are very good at interfacing with a medium.

The very devices that we depend on for our info-transactions can often act as physical barriers. Our best ideas get corrupted in the process of converting them into a form that can be transacted. Consider these situations:

• In the process of converting a ground-breaking theory into words, a person who is not too fluent in English may fail to deliver the deserved impact while keying his ideas into the word processor. Haven't you ever felt that you'd rather call up a person to convey a message rather than send an email?
• So that brings us to an ongoing development in human-machine interface--voice recognition. Will people who stammer or are completely dumb be left behind? Accessibility is an issue to which we haven't given due importance.
• Cases of personal injury due to unergonomically designed computer equipment ("RSI") are on the rise.

Information "devices" will become redundant

As stated earlier, one of the purposes of conducting an info-transaction is to get an idea from brain to brain. The roadmap of technology is clearly heading towards minimising our interaction with physical devices for that purpose.

Wearable computing is already doing that. It is an answer to the realisation that in some situations, one cannot push buttons to get a computer to do work. (more info)

One day, technology will put biological computers into our bodies (read up on this). These computers will be triggered by the mere thought of an action. It may sound ominous at first, but when the technology matures, one can probably talk to a person in another part of the world without "picking up the phone".

August 21, 2000

Programmers from Mars, Designers from Venus

For as long as programmers think like programmers, they will design poor user interfaces. It's based on the logic that Curt Cloninger uses in A List Apart (but I'm turning it around a bit).

Programming is about structure and rigidity; working within severe constraints; get the bloody job done come what may; drive that left side of that brain. Mars.

To design user interfaces, one must be a romantic. Peace must reign in the heart and mind. The designer must have ample time and mental space to work out the best bridge between human and machine. It is an application of the right half of the brain. Venus.

Coming back to earth, very plainly put, bad interfaces can be very frustrating. I just had the misfortune of watching a very dear colleague wasting hours to do minutes' work.

Bad interfaces are like Ferraris with square wheels. Or a pair of scissors without holes to stick your fingers in. The core function of the tool is shrouded by a bad interface, which makes it hard for a person to use it. It's that thin line between benefiting from technology and giving up on it.

August 15, 2000

Information packaging - a necessary evil?

We buy a lot of information these days - music, books, paintings, software, etc. The information is intellectual property, and has some intangible value attached to it. That information is delivered through a medium or in a package, which may be a cardboard box, paper, magnetic tape, or CD-ROM. Unfortunately, the cost of information is tagged to the economics of the real world.

• Our favourite music albums just get more and more expensive, owing to the rising cost of materials.
• Magazines that distribute "free" software in CD-ROMs are priced much higher than those without CD-ROMs.
• A hard bound novel costs more than a paperback, which would be significantly more than what we would be paying the author if he or she agreed to email a copy to us directly. (ignoring issues on publishing rights for now)

We're paying for both, the valuable information and the dead cost of packaging. Would information consumption drop or would that information be any less valuable/attractive if we didn't package it fancily? Can we really move to a completely electronic delivery model?

August 11, 2000

When it's not personal any more

I just read an article on why personalisation failed. The author has a point. Why introduce a new level of complexity to the already-complex Web?

Personalisation makes it hard to maintain the website, and also harder to use. Some site allow users to "customise" a Website, i.e. decide what part of the deep content one wants to see first. These settings may be made accordign to a user's interests at a given moment.

However, what happens when those interests change? Will users go back and change their settings? Unlikely.

Then the website will keep serving the "wrong" content. Purpose defeated.

August 4, 2000

Dotcom rush crippling creativity?

Repackaged content. That's all I've been seeing in the money-money world around me ever since I read Shvetank's column in Chip. Shvetank was observing how "repackaging" is the name of the game everywhere from Bangkok to Bombay: take something "created in a different time, different value system," wrap it with a new cover, add "value", and make money off it.

I bought a few oldies at Planet M, and realised that I'd just been a victim of repackaged content--It's not their music! I sipped tea at the delectable Tea Centre, and saw repackaged content--tea for Rs. 5 and ambience for Rs. 45.

Dotcom publications are only too familiar with this canker: take content from one place and try pushing it to someone else. Indianise it; rewrite it; co-brand it, and exploit technology if you can, if you must. My question: is this pressure to make money while the dotcom rush is on inhibiting our ability to be creative? Is it killing writers who want to do a Wired (highly creative print magazine with an online presence)? Will I ever be able to write a well-researched, creatively juicy article in the capacity of a channel producer who spends four hours everyday uploading repackaged content?

August 1, 2000

The Web is a Red Giant

In Are we being over WAPped?, I merely pointed to Nielson's observation on closed services. But now I see the end of the Web looming large.

The Web is reaching its peak in terms of size and usefulness. It is a bloating Red Giant enabled by technology, but driven by commerce. It can take no more. Dotcom lobbies are well aware of what awaits their fragile bubble, and are beginning to form strategic circles. Or, they're just buying their nearest competitor.

The idea is to reduce the number of choices that users have. Assuming that this is a good thing (this is a healthy assumption, unless you enjoy predicting the end of the world everytime you don't agree with a trend), we can envision a win-win situation: consumers have fewer choices (but they still have choices) that they can easily manage. Producers have optimum working space within which they can conduct business.

So, let's just watch the Web dwindle into a White Dwarf. It's probably good for us. (Am I really saying this?)

July 27, 2000

Superstitions in the Information Age

A couple of months before Jan 1, 2000, when the Y2K fever was peaking, many business persons (including prominent ones I knew) cancelled their engagements abroad. If planes were to crash, they didn't want to be part of the action. However, December and January were notable as months when no planes crashed (although IC714 was hijacked for 10 days, but that's another story).

Even in daily life, we see "lay users" doing stupid things only because they are ill-informed, or too lazy to find out--the way millions of idiots around the world unthinkingly forward "virus warnings" is a perfect case in point. These technology-related misconceptions and false beliefs are adding to the "traditional" superstitions such as those associated with eclipses (snake eats moon; pregnant ladies get an abortion). We don't need any of them.

July 11, 2000

Are we being over-WAPped?

ZDNet India has officially tied up with Orange to provide exclusive WML content. Ironically, this coincides with Jakob Nielson's latest Alertbox on WAP Backlash, in which he says that the "walled garden" approach to Internet services go against Metcalf's Law.

If you've been regularly peering into this weblog to see what brilliant thoughts have been crossing my mind, you'd notice that it hasn't been updated for the past one month. I was away on vacation, and I told myself I wouldn't think of anything that has a technological bend to it. Q.E.D.

June 11, 2000

Music to my ears

Why am I paying Rs. 125 for a music cassette and in excess of Rs 500 for a CD when I want only two songs in an album? If the music industry really wanted to, it could work out a scheme where songs are sold online (or even offline) on pay-per-song basis. This could pave the way for online "album generators" - select the songs you want, and an album will be generated instantly. You could either download the MP3s or have the CD shipped to you. That will mean lower cost of enjoying music and (therefore) higher sales.

May 31, 2000

When in doubt...

There's a thumb-rule that comes from print journalism - When in doubt, leave it out. When it comes to online journalism, though, it's quite different. What with all terabyte-wide Internet to supplement you with facts, the new thumb-rule becomes When in doubt, go find out!

May 26, 2000

O-pinion.com: enabling single-click feedback

In Pat the author's back..., I had mooted a system that enables one to "vote" for a page to show approval of its content and/or design, and get on. The simpler the feedback mechanism, the more feedback you'll get. I found just that in www.o-pinion.com!

Changing the way you look at banner ads

Advertisements on websites and in email newsletters can be quite an eyesore. Yet, it is a necessary evil as most of the Web makes ends meet on a banner ad model. But is anybody clicking? Perhaps a new approach to banner ads can change that. Here a few thoughts: 1) Change the position of the ad (how about having it at the bottom?); 2) Don't make a newsletter ad look any different from the rest of the text; 3) (I fill in when I remember)

May 25, 2000

Show 'em your logs

Unlike the ABC audits for the print medium, dotcoms do not have a neutral body to evaluate and certify "page views", the ulimate metrics that determines superiority on the Web. Both, users and advertisers, have to swallow the management's interpretation of their carefully concealed server logs. Now, what if one major player in a category, say IndiaInfo.com, were to throw open their logs to the public? All other sites in the same category, e.g. Rediff.com will have to do the same or face a moral defeat. The trend will force itself onto every other dotcom, and cyberspace would be a more transparent medium.

May 20, 2000

The power to be better informed

I've been bitten, not by the frighfully malicious Love bug, but by the delightfully delicious digital shutter bug. I'll be getting a digital camera soon - probably Casio's QV800SX. With so many manufactures, models, and factors to consider, it wasn't an easy decision. However, in the week that just went by, I've discovered the rich bank of digital camera resources that's there on the Internet. Amazing! I'm now able to take a more more informed decision.

May 17, 2000

Do what you do best... and outsource the rest

David Peterschmidt (CEO and president, Inktomi) was caught saying this today: "The new Internet companies are figuring out what their core [competency] is and, because the rate of adoption [of new technology] is so fast, they are outsourcing everything else ... I'm here to tell you -- this is rocket science." Exactly, my point. To setup an online enterprise today, you just have to go shopping on the Web for components. Search engines, email management, content management -- somebody's already done it before and it's there for sale. Yet, do Internet startups go for completely outsourced components? I think not, as in India, there are startups, big and small, that hire cheap writers for costly prices and (mis)manage their own content team when they are not competant to do so. Why can't they just go in for electronic content syndication?

May 16, 2000

Pat the author's back and get on with it

When you read an article on the Net that is particularily well-written, what do you do? I frantically search for the feedback form or mailto link. However, sometimes, I don't have anything to say, but I still want to contribute something to... umm... back the author. Some sites like TechRepublic have a "Vote for this article" button. Whenever that's clicked, it indicates support for that article and author. But I don't use this because of a certain usability problem - I don't like leaving the page for something as simple as that. Can we develop a more inobtrusive mechanism to achieve the same result?

S/he who writes technology, understands technology

I'm watching ZDNet India make the same mistakes that CIOL did a year ago. The development team is made of enthusiasm and inexperience. They're trying to create another ZDNet from scratch. They're constantly under pressure because they find that everytime they take three steps forward, they slip back by two. We just employed another person to assist the developers, which prompted the COO to make an interesting observation: "The development team is larger than the content team!" Here is ground for an article I've been wanting to write. My statement: in a knowledge-driven organization, technology journalists are all you need to run the show.

May 15, 2000

Can you consume information as fast as it is created?

For a knowledge worker whose profession depends on staying informed, the greatest challenge lies in ensuring that one is never caught short of information. This means excelling in two things: 1) searching the Web and 2) keeping track of events and trends. These skills are of paramount importance as the Web continues to grow explosively. Searching the Web is tricky business. One has to use a combination of search engines, directories, and online publications. To "be informed", I depend on email newsletters and a ticker tape called WorldFlash.

[ Archives ]