E-Readers on Airplanes April 28, 2011
Posted by Peter Varhol in Software platforms.1 comment so far
I’ve noticed that at least one search a day ends up on my blog seeking information about using e-readers on airplanes, so I thought I’d write a post with just the facts. E-readers are treated like any other electronic device on a commercial airliner, as long as you turn off the transmitter (wi-fi and/or 3G). That means you have to turn it off completely when the flight attendants announce that electronic gear must be turned off.
From a practical standpoint, the flight crew won’t enforce the rule until the boarding door is closed and cell phones are required to be turned off.
Electronic gear can be used again once the airplane crosses 10,000 feet, as long as it doesn’t transmit or receive, so you can start up your e-reader again at this time. It has to be shut down upon descending through 10,000 feet, and an announcement will be made in the cabin to turn off electronic devices.
If you read a lot like me, you might still bring a paper book with you for taxi, takeoff, and touchdown, as the total time the e-reader isn’t permitted can easily be an hour or more.
If your e-reader has wi-fi, some aircraft (including just about all mainline aircraft in the Delta fleet) offer the service for a fee, and you can turn it back on during level flight. However, 3G is never allowed during flight. I don’t really recommend using the aircraft wi-fi on an e-reader if all you are doing is downloading books, but it might make sense if you use your e-reader more like a tablet computer.
Some mainline aircraft have power connectors on the floor in first class and the front of coach, but the typical charge on an e-reader can last for days, so power shouldn’t be a consideration.
While this is correct for US carriers, foreign carriers may have different rules while operating outside of the US, so your mileage may vary.
Will We Ever Avoid Ads? April 12, 2011
Posted by Peter Varhol in Publishing, Software platforms, Strategy.2 comments
While there is no question that the Internet and Web has transformed our lives in many ways, there is one area in particular that gives me bitter disappointment in the nature of the experience. My beef is that far too many companies think that the answer to building revenue is through advertising. Facebook, Twitter, FourSquare, and a host of others that are innovating like hell to bring people together in new and different ways believe that their primary business model is boring, old-fashioned advertising.
This situation has been brought to the forefront (again) with the announcement earlier this week that Amazon will sell you a Kindle for $25 less than its usual price if you accept advertising, on the home page and on the screen saver.
I have to admire the idea in the abstract; when we’re reading periodicals, on paper or on the Web, we’re used to looking at ads. And they don’t sound like they are going to be particularly invasive.
But I loathe the concept in principle, primarily because it doesn’t reflect any sort of innovation in business models. And I abhor the idea that I pay for the reader up front (albeit slightly less with ads), then support the vendor, in this case Amazon, with an ongoing stream of ad revenue.
But my biggest issue is that the Web changed so much about how we live; can’t we find a more modern way of making money? Why do so many Web businesses have such old-fashioned business models? With an entirely new platform, the brightest kids in the room, and the latest technologies at their disposal, you would think they should be so much more than ad vehicles.
In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ll also say that I own a Nook rather than a Kindle. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Nook follows suit.
The coupon websites also gives me the creeps. These businesses are about nothing more than translating a long-established advertising and consumer incentive model online. What on earth is so original and valuable about Groupon, LivingSocial, and their ilk?
As the technology succeeds more and more, and makes us more knowledgeable, better informed, and more efficient, you would think they could think of more innovative ways to make money. No, this is a dismal failure of the business side of the Web.
But It’s Not a Commodore 64 April 11, 2011
Posted by Peter Varhol in Architectures, Software platforms.1 comment so far
As a young adult, I was intrigued by computers, but didn’t have that focus to actually learn more about them. A part of the problem was that computers were largely inaccessible to individuals at the time, and I lacked the ability to purchase one early in life.
So I largely missed out on the Commodore 64 revolution. Sure, I had friends with them, but we mostly played games; I first encountered Zork on a Commodore 64. I used timesharing systems in undergraduate and graduate school, but my first computer was an original 128KB Apple Mac (which I still have, and which still boots). Commodore remained in business until the 1990s with the popular though niche Amiga, eventually folding for good.
Now it seems that the Commodore 64 is rising from the dead. It looks like a Commodore 64, with only a keyboard in a small form-fitting console. The original Commodore 64 had an eight-bit processor, 64 kilobits of memory, and required external units for display and storage.
This unit, manufactured by a licensee of the name called Commodore USA, is basically providing a low-end Intel machine in the Commodore 64 form factor. It includes an Intel Atom processor, Nvidia graphics, an HDMI port, and optional Wi-Fi and Blu-ray drive. A new and potentially interesting distro of Linux is promised, but not yet available, so the company may initially ship Ubuntu Linux. Alternatively, once you get one, you can load Windows on it, but it doesn’t come with a Windows license.
The announced price is $595, the same as the original Commodore 64. The linked article above describes how the most difficult part of the process was replicating the exact color of the case, and the enormous cost in doing so.
It’s potentially an interesting concept if it had a functional niche. As it is, it’s a PC; Linux, it’s true, but a PC nonetheless. The niche seems to be simply nostalgia for my generation, to remind us that we were young once, when the world was simple and we played computer games. Commodore USA thinks they can sell a lot of them, simply with the name and an exact replica of the system case.
I’m not nostalgic. I know there are people who will buy into this, but it simply doesn’t make any sense to me. A computer is a tool, not an icon (well, you know what I mean). It doesn’t get style points (unless it’s from Apple). I imagine that some will be sold, but the attraction will wear off as the technology ages still further. Um, just like its buyers.
Cutting Edge Computing 