Comments (0)

By benjaminchristopher, March 2, 2010 3:47 pm

Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank both worked for a Southern California home-improvement chain called “Handy Dan” in the 1970’s.

While there, they experimented with heavily discounting products in one of Handy Dan’s locations. The experiment was a success in every sense of the word, and it was their intention to expand it to more stores. But they never got the chance.

Sanford Sigoloff, a “turn-around artist,” took over Daylin Inc., the parent company of Handy Dan. Sigoloff had a reputation for gutting the upper-level management of companies he took over, and Handy Dan was no exception. Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank got the boot, and their days in home improvement stores came to an end. Or so it seemed.

Fortunately, Marcus and Blank weren’t quite ready to throw the towel in altogether. In fact, quite the opposite- their little “discount experiment” had inspired them. They wanted to create a new, nationwide chain of home-improvement stores that would sell a wide array of home-improvement and construction goods for as cheap as possible. Moreover, they wanted to provide the best customer service in the industry. Their employees would all be thoroughly trained, ready to give customers the kind of specialized information they needed at the drop of a hat.

To enact their vision, Marcus and Blank used money from a New York City investment firm to prep and stock their first stores. There were over 18,000 products on their shelves, ranging from painting products to building and plumbing supplies, their prices marked down as low as they could be. To fill even more space, empty boxes were piled to the ceilings, creating the illusion of an even larger inventory.

The inventory was in place, the sales staff was trained and ready, and their name was picked out. So, in 1979, the first two Home Depots opened their doors.

As a promotional stunt, Marcus and Blank had their children hand out $1 bills at the door to shoppers. They assumed the money wouldn’t last to lunch. But come sunset, the kids were still out there, now in the parking lot trying to wave down potential customers, offering them money to come into the store. Blank recalls the moment as “a crushing disappointment.”

Of course, anyone familiar with the Home Depot–which is probably everyone reading this–knows that Marcus and Blank’s crushing disappointment was unfounded.

Word of mouth quickly spread about this new low-cost, customer-friendly, home-improvement chain. Furthermore, Marcus and Blank were determined not to let their customer base stop at professionals. To attract more “inexperienced” homeowners and the like, the Home Depot began offering classes to their customers–similar to the training Home Depot’s employees went through– to teach them all the “handy” skills they would need to fix their own plumbing, do their own carpentry, and tackle all of the home improvement needs that people usually passed along to trained professionals. In so doing, Marcus and Blank hoped to create a whole new set of customers for their growing chain.

Within several years, Home Depot had expanded to the Miami market. In 1981, the company went public. Sales, originally projected at $9 million, were coming in well over $17 million. Growth seemed inevitable for the Home Depot. And grow it did. Within a decade, there were 118 locations in the US. Sales were at almost $3 billion. Things were looking good, and they were only going to get better.

To put the amount of money that Home Depot makes a year–and it’s an awful lot–into perspective: I recently spoke about the chain with a friend of mine who buys, fixes, and sells realty properties for a living. He does much of the handiwork himself, and frequents Home Depot probably more than he’d like to. He recently totaled his receipts from a year’s worth of expenses and determined that he annually spends about $100,000 at Home Depot alone, to say nothing of the other hardware and supply stores he goes to.

So think about all the people like my friend Matt, people who utilize one or more of Home Depots 2000 US locations on a weekly basis. Then think about all the average folks who go to Home Depot, just to pick up a new door knob, or a can of paint, or a house plant. All those patrons, all those dollars, and all those door knobs add up. They add up quite a bit. Despite the recession, Home Depot’s recent sales exceeded $71 billion dollars.

So there you have it. A low-cost home-improvement chain, across North America, made to fit the needs of specialists and laypeople alike. Now why didn’t I think of that?

Comments (1)

By benjaminchristopher, February 17, 2010 12:40 pm

A radio station that learns from your preferences, and only plays music you like.

Now why didn’t I think of that?

Ten years ago, such an idea would have sounded like science fiction to most people, but not to Tim Westergren, the founder of Pandora.com.

Westergren was a musician. He went in and out of bands that saw varying degrees of success. At one point, he took a job composing scores for films. Making music for movies, Westegren found, was a lot different than just jamming out with band mates. It was more direct, more calculating. He found that different directors liked different styles of musical composition. Westergren began to wonder if he could “codify” the tastes of the directors he was working for, to somehow break them down into something predictable, formulaic even.

This new, analytical way of looking at music became more than just a curiosity for Westergren. It led him to start a company that focused on decoding music, what he called the Music Genome, in order to bring people more of the sort of music they liked.

“We tried to build a business on different ways of using the Music Genome,” Westergren says. One of the ways they envisioned utilizing it was to integrate the technology into listening kiosks in music stores. This business plan quickly evolved, and with the help of some venture capital, the “Music Genome Project” was born in 2000.

The Music Genome Project is the backbone of Pandora Internet Radio. The goal of the project is to take music and boil it down to quantifiable data. Well, sort of quantifiable. Every song in the Genome’s library (there are over 700,000 with roughly 10,000 new songs being added each month) is analyzed by a “musicologist.” These musicologists are usually musicians themselves with strong backgrounds in music theory. They break down and rate over 400 attributes of every song, from the “soulfulness” of the vocals to the rhythmic and key changes in a given song.

Within four years of starting the Music Genome Project, Westergren was ready to launch Pandora.com.

Pandora is a free “Internet Radio” service. You start by picking a song or artist that you like. Pandora then creates a music station based on your selection. The station streams music that’s similar to the band or song you chose.

Maybe the coolest thing about Pandora is that it learns from your preferences. If you don’t like a song, you say so, and Pandora will refine the station with its newfound “knowledge” of your preferences.

Note: If you haven't listened to it yet, check out the Why Didn't I Think of That? story on Pandora.

It will also tell you why each song is appearing on your station.

For instance: I create a radio station based on the band The Small Faces. Then the song “In a Foreign Land” by the Kinks comes on. “Based on what you’ve told us so far, we’re playing this track because it features electric rock instrumentation, a subtle use of vocal harmony, mild rhythmic syncopation, major key tonality and electric rhythm guitars.”

You know, I spent a lifetime refining my musical tastes. It’s almost insulting to have them broken down and reduced to their parts so calculatingly. Almost. Truth is, Pandora has turned me onto more good music than most of my hipster friends have.

And Pandora works with all kind of genres, including rap. When Raekwon comes on my Ghostface Killah station, Pandora’s reasoning for the song’s inclusion is: “because it features east coast rap roots, gangsta rap attitude, R&B influences, funk influences and danceable beats.” You can see why Bob and Greg refer to the categorizing system as “pseudo-scientific” in their WDITOT audio story. I can’t think of many things more subjective than “gangsta-attitude” and “danceable beats.” These aren’t quantifiable attributes we’re dealing with here.

It has the human touch you could say.

As great of an idea as Pandora is, it hasn’t been particularly smooth sailing. Westergren and some of his colleagues went for long stretches without getting paid, just to keep the startup afloat.

Thankfully, Pandora has been growing in popularity. Today it bosts over 35 million listeners. The release of the Pandora iPhone app helped seal the deal. The potential to stream Pandora straight to users’ phones was too much for music lovers to ignore, and the Pandora app quickly outsold the SiriusXM Radio iPhone App.

Though a 2007 ruling threatened to bury Pandora in soaring royalty prices, the matter was finally resolved last summer. “The revised royalties are quite high – higher in fact than any other form of radio,” Westeren wrote on Pandora’s blog. “The system as it stands today remains fundamentally unfair both to Internet radio services like Pandora, which pay higher royalties than other forms of radio, and to musical artists, who receive no compensation at all when their music is played on AM/FM radio.”

Even so, after a large lobbying efforts on the part of Pandora and other Internet radio stations, the royalties were reduced by several hundreths of a cent per song. It may not sound like much, but with thousands upon thousands of songs streamed every day (Pandora claims they get more than 65,000 new users alone in a 24-hour period) all those little fractions of pennies add up.

With recent annual revenues are around $20 million, the folks at Pandora are expecting to finally turn a profit this year.

No one said being a pioneer was easy. And with more and more competitors everyday, like Last.fm and the like, it looks like Internet radio might be the future of listening to music. Who knows? It may not be long before Pandora is streaming into your car stereo.

So if you haven’t done so already, check out Pandora for a few days. Let me know what you think. The way we listen to and consume music has already changed so much in the last 20 years, it’s possible that the change has just begun.

RESOURCES

“The Song Decoders” — NY Times Magazine

“Pandora” WDITOT Audio Piece

“Pandora” — How Stuff Works

“Important Update on Royalties” — Pandora Blog

“Q&A: Tim Westergren”  — Electronic Musician

“Interview with Tim Westergren” — nPost

Comments (1)

By benjaminchristopher, February 1, 2010 12:27 pm

I guess you could say I was taking a gamble by banking on an unreleased, unannounced product as being the Number 1 Most Important Screen of 2010.

I guess you could also say that I lost the gamble.

Last Wednesday, Steve Jobs and company released Apple’s newest, long-rumored product: a tablet-computer called the iPad.

It's called the iPad? Unfortunately. One of the other speculated names Apple was considering, and a far better choice in my opinion, was iSlate. But some feared "Slate" would sound too ancient and heavy for such a modern, lightweight device.

So what is it?

Well… It’s a giant iPhone.

More accurately, it’s a cross between an iPhone and a laptop. If you really don’t know anything about the product, I’ll let Apple sell it to you themselves. Head over to the iPad site for details, videos, and demonstrations. In the mean time, I’m going to try and keep this as brief as possible.

The iPad is certainly a slick little device. And it’s almost affordable. The bare bones version, with no 3G and only 16 GB of memory goes for $499. Another way of saying this is: It’s over 800 dollars if you want 3G Wireless, and 64 GB of memory. As a point of reference- my iPod Classic, which is at least a year old and was not even the biggest model when i got it, has 120 GB of memory.

The revolutionary Apple iPad is… not revolutionary. The iPhone was revolutionary. And it was my thinking, along with a lot of other bloggers, consumers, and tech-enthusiasts, that Apple was going to be presenting something really groundbreaking here, something that would make the iPad not just a neat gadget, but a state-of-the-art must have.

It’s got some cool features, and I’m sure some of the new apps that people will develop will be truly revolutionary. Will it work as an e-reader? Sure I can hold it in my hands, but it’s not going to be any easier on my eyes than a computer screen would be. It doesn’t have the easy-looking effect that the Kindle does.

And I’m not crazy about the fact that the the only Apps you can run are through Apple’s App store. That made sense with the iPhone. After all, it was a phone. This is a computer. And make no mistake, the third-party software’s availability is controlled entirely by Apple. Anyone familiar with Apple turning down the free, game-changing Google Voice App for the iPhone can see the danger here. Any App, no matter who developed it or what it does, can be rejected by Apple for any reason, or for no reason.

So what do I do, here? I’m excited by the iPad, but at the same time, I am quite underwhelmed. I would have been happy to give the iPad almost any spot on my silly little Top 5 Most Important Screens of 2010 list.

Except the number one spot.

Might the iPad signify a shift in computing? Yes. Tablet computing very well could be the way of the future. It makes perfect sense to me. And if any existing product is going to kick-start the tablet-computing craze, the iPad would be it.

But what is the iPad really going to do for you and your business that a laptop couldn’t do? The iPhone introduced a slew of features that the mobile phone world had never known. The iPad does not provide anything comparable.

It is cool. Really cool, even. But not much else. So…

Sorry, Apple. Maybe next time.

Until further notice, this countdown will remain in limbo. As I said, if I had started knowing what I know now, I would have happily gave the iPad a spot on the Top 5. And it still might earn a number one spot. I’d love to see how people wind up using the iPad, and what sort of Apps are developed for it that can truly make a difference in the computing world.

In the mean time, let’s get back to some stories that really scream, “Why Didn’t I Think of That?” Because hey, that’s what we’re about here.

Thanks for reading. Feel free to yell at me in the comments.

apple.com/ipad

Comments (0)

By benjaminchristopher, January 26, 2010 11:50 am

The number two “most important screen” of the new year isn’t really a screen at all.

Or more accurately, it’s every screen.

If you haven’t heard the term “Cloud Computing” before, that’s okay. It seems at first glance to be little more than a buzzword. And it is a buzzword. But to many,  it’s also the future of computing. It will change the way businesses and consumers alike use their devices and access their information.

What is Cloud Computing?

According to this article from Infoworld, the problem with Cloud Computing, much like “Web 2.0,” is that everyone uses the term, and nobody means the same thing.

So what do I mean when I talk about Cloud Computing?

Well, if something is “in the cloud,” it’s online. The internet is the cloud, basically. When you listen to streaming music on Pandora, when you watch streaming TV on Hulu, when you watch an instant movie on Netflix, you’re accessing media that’s in the cloud.

In fact, as I type out the first draft of this story, I’m using Google Docs. There’s no word application installed on my computer. The document doesn’t exist anywhere on my hard-drive. It’s on some unknown server out there.

It’s in the cloud.

Years from now, it will likely seem ridiculous that people carried around “their own” computers and “their own” data everywhere they went. In the future computers will be little more than faceless portals to the cloud- a place where all our data is, where all our media is, where all the information is. We’ll have access to everything, all the time, wherever we go.

Online Applications. (Software as a Service)

We started to see this aspect of cloud computing rise in popularity during 2009. Google Docs, which has been around for several years, along with Microsoft Office Live and other such services are asking us–or letting us, depending on how you look at it–move our basic applications and documents onto the internet.

Why would we do that, you ask?

Well there are a number of reasons. The main one is so that you’re not tied down. Ever. Work can be done from any computer, anywhere in the world. All you need is internet access.

Businesses won’t need servers. They may not even need IT departments.

Juggling different devices will become arbitrary. It won’t matter what device you have with you. Going from your phone to your laptop will be seamless. There will be no transfer of data, because there will be no physical data to transfer. It all stays put, in the cloud, and you just tap into it whenever you’d like.

Google, Apple, Microsoft– Everyone’s betting money on Cloud Computing. Bloggers and magazines are lauding it as the immediate future of technology. And yet, sales are not booming. This is a fascinating article on the disparity between what people and businesses say in polls about cloud computing, and what they say with their pocketbooks.

And yet, I believe this will be the year when we’ll truly start to see a paradigm shift. The rise in popularity of netbooks, online applications, and mobile computing are all signs pointing the way to a future that’s more all-pervading than it is portable, where your data follows you, whether you like it or not.

There are so many resources available on the topic, if you’re interested. Below are just a few.

Resources

Cloud Computing Wikipedia Entry

What Cloud Computing Really Means

Protect Open Cloud Computing

Cloud Computing Sales Slow

Comments (0)

By benjaminchristopher, January 19, 2010 7:00 am

For the Number Three Most Important Screen of 2010, I’ve nominated the 3D Television Set.

And, since I’m the only one voting here, my nomination wins.

Some of you may be groaning. Do I really think that there’s a market for 3D TVs in this economy? For now, I’ll just say that my opinion on the issue is ever-shifting. But I do believe that 3D TV sales, or the lack thereof, will definitely say a lot about the technology market we’re facing in the next couple years.

But before all that, let’s take a look at the products themselves.

If you haven’t gone to see one of the new 3D movies, like Pixar’s “Up” or James Cameron’s “Avatar,” your idea of 3D might be a little outmoded. You know those goofy paper glasses with a red and blue screen over each eye? That’s called anaglyphic 3D, and it’s a thing of the past.

New 3D movies utilize polarization. How this works is a bit complicated, but it’s not unlike anaglyphic, where one of the colored lenses blocks a certain color from reaching your eye. Only instead of colors, it’s light waves. Basically, two images are projected onto the screen, each polarized in a different direction. You wear polarized glasses–like big, unfashionable sunglasses–which only allow one of the projected images into each eye. With each eye getting a slightly different perspective, this creates an illusion of depth, hence the 3D effect.

And the movies look pretty fantastic, I must say. There are a lot of people lauding 3D as the future of theatrical cinema. But what of 3D in your home? Would you pop on a pair of glasses and keep them on for 3+ hours, just to watch, say, the Super Bowl in 3D? Television manufacturers are betting that you will.

At last year’s Consumer Electronics Show, 3D TV sets were already cropping up. But at this year’s event in Las Vegas, which ended a little over a week ago, it was clear that a lot of TV manufacturers are banking on this technology, or more accurately, consumers’ desire for it, as being very real in 2010. Samsung, Sony, LG, and Panasonic were all showing off their new 3D TV sets at this year’s event.

But it turns out there’s a problem when you try to apply polarized 3D technology to the home-theater.

In fact, 3D TV poses a lot of problems.

One of the many 3D TVs on display at the 2010 Consumer Electronics Show

Mainly, to use polarized 3D, you need to project two images. To use polarized High Definition 3D, you need to project two high-def images. That’s more than your average TV (and 3D TV) can handle. And it requires double the bandwidth if you’re watching a 3D broadcast.

So here’s the solution they’ve come up with. Show one image at a time, in rapid succession. Left eye, than right eye. The viewer wears battery-powered 3D glasses. The glasses communicate with the TV via bluetooth and block out the right eye, then the left eye, in sync with the images on the TV.

This would all be happening much faster than the human eye can perceive. But the human eye can certainly perceive the 75-100 dollar price tag that would come with each pair of 3D glasses.

Only manufacturer JVC is looking to use polarized 3D TVs. And, while the glasses cost almost nothing, it sounds like you’ll end up paying in viewing quality.

Other problems? Well, you’ll need to buy a new Blu-Ray player. Today’s players won’t play 3D Blu-Ray discs. Although, it’s important to note that the ever-impressive Sony Playstation 3 will be able to play them, Sony says, with the download of a simple software update.

Maybe you plan on watching actual television in 3D. In that case, your options are limited, but there are options.

Discovery and ESPN are both planning 3D TV networks to launch by summer.

The 2004 Super Bowl was shot in 3D. Six years later, ESPN prepares to launch a 3D TV network.

While prices haven’t been set for the latest 3D TV sets, manufacturers claim they won’t be much more than your average non-3D TVs.

And the Porn industry has been taking to 3D as well. Three-dimensional porn films are already being produced. This may seem like little more than a footnote, but there is a school of thought that porn has been a deciding factor in various format wars– from VHS vs. Beta to HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray.

Of course, the only real question is whether consumers are ready to buy a brand new television set. But that’s not the question TV manufacturers want consumers to be asking themselves. Samsung poses this provocative question on its Facebook page:

What kind of consumer are you? Do you need to have the latest technology or would you prefer to wait and buy your 3D TV when Hollywood catches up?

This is manipulative writing at its best. “Would you prefer to wait and buy your 3D TV when Hollywood catches up?” Say nothing of the presumption that you will buy a 3D TV, or the complete lack of an “I don’t want a 3D TV at all,” option. What’s really great is the “when Hollywood catches up.”

I know, I know. I’ve been in Los Angeles for only a week and I’m already defending Hollywood.

But the problem isn’t that Hollywood hasn’t caught up with 3D. Without Hollywood, there would have been no 3D revival. The only people who haven’t caught up are consumers. Remember the whole high-definition thing? The most dramatic upheaval and revamping of television technology since color TV?

Consumers were constantly told that they needed a high definition TV. Eventually, they bought into it. They got rid of their old sets, and picked up newer, better televisions. Then the old airwaves went dead. People without high-def TVs had to upgrade, or buy a pricey box just to keep watching regular, free TV. Let’s not forget Blu-Ray. People had to replace their entire movie collections. I won’t even get started on the early adopters of the doomed HD-DVD format. But yes, the people on that sinking ship had to replace their movies yet again.

That’s a lot of changes in a short period of time. Technology isn’t slowing down, that’s for sure. I just got my Kindle, and within a couple months, Amazon will be releasing a newer, better, color version. But is technology moving too fast for the economy? The last time I checked, recession was still quite a buzzword. Businesses and consumers everywhere are struggling.  I’m all for new technology, and I’m all for 3D. But there’s a certain audacity in the electronics manufacturers that is somewhat frustrating, infuriating even.

I’m cringing at the thought of the inevitable ad campaigns, convincing consumers that they need a 3D TV set to “truly experience” movies in a way that regular “old” high definition simply can’t provide, echoing the relentless campaigns for high-definition TVs from just a few years ago. How long before consumers lose their trust of these advertisers? How long before they rebel at the constant obsolescence of their brand new devices?

There’s little doubt that 3D televisions aren’t going to become mainstream for some time. But what if they flop entirely?

Personally, I’m happy to sit back and watch it all unfold. But if 3D TV fails, I’d venture to say it won’t be because people don’t like wearing 3D glasses while they watch TV. It will be the timing. The terrible, terrible timing. Not only with the economy’s current situation, but also because of a general technological fatigue that may–or may not–be brewing among American consumers. There will always be people who want the latest and the greatest, and those are great people to be friends with. But then there’s the rest of us, who just don’t have the time, patience, or money to keep up with it all.

Resources:

CNET’s 3D TV FAQ

Want It or Not, TV Goes 3D

Comments (4)

By benjaminchristopher, January 11, 2010 9:00 am

As you read this, I am on a train traversing across the American landscape. I’ve got my laptop, a box of granola bars, and a one-way ticket.

And, of course, my Kindle.

Today, I’m moving from Chicago to Los Angeles. I’ve spent the last few months paring down my possessions, finding a temporary home for my cat, and getting rid of 83 percent of my books (to be exact). So for me, Christmas didn’t have the usual thrill of accumulating new possessions. In fact, I initially asked for “absolutely nothing.”

After thinking about it, I realized that my books were the one replaceable thing I was begrudgingly parting with. So what I asked for this Christmas, and what I got, was an Amazon Kindle 2.

For those of you who live under stones of varying sizes, the Kindle is an e-reader. A portable, electronic library. It’s the size of a paperback, as thin as a pencil, lighter than a can of coke, and can hold hundreds of books. The screen utilizes so-called “e-ink” technology. And it looks beautiful. It’s black and white, but easy on the eyes. It looks pretty dang close to paper, and I’ve read it for hours on end without the ache that comes from staring at my laptop. Keep in mind though, the lack of a back-light means you need some available light to read. Sort of like… What are those things called? Oh yeah, books.

The Kindle 2 has been out since early 2009. So why, you might be asking, is it on my list of the Top 5 Screens of 2010? Two reasons: One- I’d be willing to bet that most people who own a Kindle just got it over the holidays. Amazon reported that the Kindle was the “most gifted item ever” in Amazon’s history. And, on Christmas day, after all those new Kindles were unwrapped, Amazon sold more Kindle books than it did physical books. Sure, they probably don’t sell that many physical books on Christmas day as it is, but still.

And two- along with competing e-readers–notably the Sony Reader and the Nook, from Barnes and Noble–the Kindle is looking to revolutionize the way we read. Book sales have been steadily decreasing for some time, and newspapers have been complaining about declining readership ever since Yahoo was king of the internet.

People are still reading, yet publishers online and offline are losing money. Something has to be done. Rupert Murdoch, and those following his lead, think that “micro-payments” are the solution (paying a small amount of money every time you read a Wall Street Journal article online, for instance). But Amazon, Sony, and others like them, are convinced that what the readers of the world need is the perfect cross between a book and a computer. And while “perfect” is not a word I would associate with the Kindle, I’d venture to say that their efforts have been highly successful.

So we’ve gone over what the Kindle is, and why it is. Here are the two questions remaining: 1) What else can it do? and 2) Do you really need one?

Technology for technology’s sake is great and all, but there’s a reason that most businesses are still using Windows XP. If a product can’t help your business’s efficiency, it’s not worth it.

So here’s what the Kindle has: Free internet access virtually anywhere in the country. Now you can’t go around watching YouTube videos and playing Flash games on this thing. But you can check your email and access most mobile-sites (websites designed for PDA’s and smartphones). Buying books off Amazon is probably the easiest thing to do. It’ll cost you 10 bucks for a New York Times best seller, or 2 bucks for the entire collection of Mark Twain’s writings. The purchase is as easy as clicking a button and the book is wirelessly downloaded, instantly and automatically. PDFs and other e-books can be converted to the Kindle format free of charged.

The Kindle can read to you. Though some books have the feature disabled (it’s up to the publisher) the Kindle has a built-in text-to-speech feature that will read your text aloud to you. For those Radiohead fans who are imagining the mechanical, computerized droning in “Fitter Happier,”  think again. This is pretty sophisticated voice simulation (I know that AT&T has been experimenting with this kind of technology for some time). There’s also a headphone jack so those around you won’t be subjected to it. The headphones are also useful if you plan on using the Kindle as an MP3 player.

Not sure what a word means? Scroll to any word on the page and the definition will pop up from the built in New Oxford American Dictionary. Like a particular passage? Highlight it, and then using the thumb-pad keyboard, make a note about it. Want to know more about something? Search Wikipedia at any moment with minimal effort.

Every morning when I wake up, the New York Times has automatically been downloaded to my Kindle and is there waiting for me. There are over a hundred books and magazines available for the Kindle, including the Wall Street Journal.

Did I mention that it fits perfectly into the pocket of my winter coat? Well it did, before I defiantly threw my coat from the speeding train somewhere in New Mexico (Goodbye Winter!).

But the Kindle’s biggest flaw, in my opinion Continue reading 'Top 5 Screens of 2010: #4 – The Amazon Kindle (A Review)'»

Comments (2)

By benjaminchristopher, January 7, 2010 1:56 pm

I’ve decided to make The Top 5 Screens of 2010 a true count down. Over the next week or so, I’ll be taking you on a tour of what I consider the top five most important screens–those square things you look at constantly–of the new year.

We begin with number 5:  The Google Nexus One.

Don’t be confused by all those commercials on TV. The Motorola “Droid” is not a Google phone. It’s just one of many phones utilizing the Google Android operating system.

Google doesn’t actually make phones. Well, they didn’t until two days ago, that is. On January 5th, Google announced the availability of the Google Nexus One, the first cellular phone developed, created by, and distributed by Google.

It is of course, just a phone. But Google is billing it as the first “Superphone.” Manufactured (to Google’s specifications, of course) by HTC, the Nexus One certainly has some impressive specs going for it.

The phone has 512 MB of RAM (compared with the Iphone’s 256 MB) as well as a 4GB MicroSD memory chip. The nice thing about removable memory is that it can be expanded, up to 32 GB in this case. There’s a camera, of course, with a whopping 5 Megapixels (impressive, though standard on the latest high-end phones) and video capabilities. It’s got all the features you’d expect, including WiFi and Bluetooth capabilities. It also touts some substantial battery life, up to 10 hours of talk time, or 250 hours if the phone’s idle.

The Nexus One is a touch screen phone, featuring two microphones- one that you talk into, and one that monitors the ambient noise around you to provide “noise cancellation.” If you don’t have any experience with noise cancellation, it’s a pretty nifty feature. What it does, essentially, is takes the sound of your voice, then takes the sound of everything going on around you, and using an “interference pattern”–the discrepancy between the two sounds–it cancels out all the superfluous noise. So, hypothetically, if you answer your phone in a noisy bar, the person on the other end of the line will hear only your voice, and not all the ruckus around you.

Like all Google products, the Nexus One was built with other Google products in mind. They make it so easy to use services like G-Mail and Google Voice that you’ll probably be tempted to start using them, if you don’t already.

Also, texting-while-driving just got slightly less incredibly-dangerous, thanks to the Nexus One’s voice-to-text feature. You can tell the phone what to do or type, and it will do it for you.

The phone will also talk to you, with the highly useful “spoken driving directions.”  That’s right, combining Google Maps with the phone’s built-in GPS, you have a free navigational system included. It will not only tell you where you are, where you’re going, and how to get there, but it will show you the traffic conditions on the roads ahead. With most GPS systems running for at least $100, that’s no small thing. Watch the short demo video below to get a better idea of the Nexus One’s integrated Google Maps capabilities.

As with any new feature-rich gadget, I could go on and on about all the things the Nexus One can do. But to me, the most revolutionary thing about it is that Google is selling the Nexus One unlocked. That means you can buy it directly from Google and use it on any service provider you choose. Usually, new state-of-the-art phones are tied down with an exclusive wireless carrier for an extended period of time. For instance, the Motorola RAZR–the first cellular phone that really generated a lot of buzz amongst consumers–was only available through Cingular (now AT&T).  The new Motorola Droid is available only through Verizon, and the iPhone is still exclusive to AT&T, though that’s likely to change in the coming year, as their exclusivity agreement is said to expire some time in 2010.

One of the benefits of buying a phone with a specific service provider is that, by signing a contract with the carrier, you almost never have to pay full price.  If you do buy the Nexus One unlocked–and for now, your only other option is a 350 dollar discount that comes with a two-year service contract with T-Mobile–you’ll be paying a pretty hefty premium. The Nexus One retails for $529.00.

As I said, it is, in the end, just a phone. It’s not as revolutionary as the iPhone was. And, frankly, until the phone and the personal computer truly become one, I doubt we’ll see a phone quite as radical as the iPhone seemed three years ago. The real importance of the Nexus One doesn’t lie in the product itself, but in the implications. Google has gone from being an internet search-engine to a mobile phone provider. By making this move, Google is telling the world that they see where the future of computing and the internet lies– and it’s in our pockets.

For some people, a phone is still just a phone. But it won’t be long before the phone is our lifeline to everything electronic. The number of gadgets we’re expected to be carrying around is ever-increasing, and at the same time, the functionality of these gadgets is expanding. Ten years from now, are we going to be carrying around fifteen different screens at all times, or only one? The mouse is already on its way out, but what of the keyboard? The times are a-changing. Where we’re headed is up for debate. But one thing is certain– wherever we wind up, Google wants to be there.

Resources

Google Nexus One Official Site

Google Nexus One Announcement

Nexus One YouTube Channel

Wikipedia: Nexus One

Wikipedia: Android Operating System

TechCrunch Review:  Nexus One

PC World Review: Nexus One First Impressions

NEXT: Top 5 Screens – #4 The Amazon Kindle (Review)

Comments (1)

By benjaminchristopher, January 6, 2010 10:26 am

Welcome to 2010, readers. It’s officially the future.

While this isn’t a technology blog, I am something of a techno-junkie, and I’m all too eager to sneak the occasional technology story in whenever possible. The next few posts will be no exception. Last year, I explored some of the more drastic technological changes that we might expect from 2010. Well, if the first week of January is any indication, it’s going to be an interesting year.

Sure the economy is still in a state of uncertainty, but the powers-that-be are still pushing forward, pushing the envelope, and pushing their goods onto the consumers of America. Google launched its new phone yesterday, television networks like Discovery and ESPN are getting ready to launch 3D networks–under the assumption that viewers are willing to not only fork over a couple grand for new 3D TV sets, but that they’re willing to wear polarized glasses to watch TV–and the blogosphere is ablaze with speculation about Apple’s still unconfirmed tablet device, the “iSlate.”

So are we in the midst of a technological revolution? And if we are, can the economy handle in influx of new, flashy, pricey gadgets? Are people ready to read books on a screen? Is there really a demand to make Skype calls from your television? Is everyone losing their minds? These are just a few of the questions I hope to explore in the coming days. But more importantly, I want to look at the technology itself. What’s new, what’s useful, and what it can do for business people and consumers alike.

In the coming week, we’ll look at Google’s new phone, the “Nexus One,” as well as the long-rumored “iSlate.” We’ll also talk about the future of the television, and the so-called “Avatar effect.” Not to mention I’ll be giving you my official review of the Amazon Kindle.

The internet revolutionized the way small businesses work. Frankly, it revolutionized the way everyone works. But a lot of people seem to think that the internet is about to undergo another massive change. Are  people really ready to completely move their computing experience to ever-smaller screens? Is so-called “cloud-computing” really the future? Do you even know what “cloud-computing” is?

The debate begins, and so does the countdown. Tune in tomorrow.

NEXT: Top Five Screens   #5- The Google Nexus One Phone

Comments (0)

By benjaminchristopher, December 18, 2009 9:03 am

What drives someone to invent something? More often than not, it’s a problem they’re having. They can’t find a solution, so they make one up.

Maybe it’s an ailing sports team. Maybe it’s a problem with bartenders stealing money from the drawer. In Marc Newburger’s case, the problem was a dropped call. Literally.

Drop Stop inventors Marc Newburger and Jeffrey Simon

If you haven’t heard of the Drop Stop before, it’s a pretty simple idea: The Drop Stop is a wedge that fits into your car, between the seat and the center console. Its goal is to prevent dropped objects–phones, keys, anything really–from falling into the abyss below your seat.

The story goes like this:

Three years ago, Marc Newburger was driving down Sunset Blvd, waiting for a very important call. “A call that would only come once.” His phone was laid on the center console of his car. When the phone did finally rang, it vibrated. The vibrations sent it rolling of the console, where it “shot down the gap between the seat and center console.”  There was no time to waste. Marc began digging for the phone. He took his eyes off the road, only for a second, but it was long enough for him to accidentally jerk the wheel to the right.

In a flash, his “car hopped up onto the sidewalk where a pedestrian had to jump out of the way,” and headed straight for a telephone pole. Impact was imminent. Newburger slammed on the breaks, covered his face and screamed.

But there was no impact. He looked up. The pole was mere inches from his car.

At this point, Marc began screaming something to the effect of: “Why doesn’t someone come up with something to block that crack?!” Add in a few profanities, and you get the idea.

Recently, Marc Newburger, one of the co-inventors of the Drop Stop, was kind enough to answer a few of my questions, via email. So, without further ado, here is the Think of That Blog’s exclusive interview with Mr. Newburger.

Continue reading 'Drop Stop: A Chat with Marc Newburger'»

Comments (6)

By benjaminchristopher, December 17, 2009 9:17 am

Did you know that 1 million people suffer from bedsores annually?

Sounds painful, doesn’t it? Fortunately, 73-year-old David Jurus claims he’s found a way to prevent them completely.

While volunteering at a hospital, he watched on in horror as a patient suffered from excruciating bedsores. But Jurus wasn’t going to just sit back idly to watch someone suffer. That’s because Jurus is an inventor.

Technically, he’s a home-remodeler. But his passion is invention.

He went to work in his garage, tinkering for months, and finally came up with the AutoMedic Pressure Relief Bed.

The objective of the AutoMedic Pressure Relief Bed, according to Jurus, is “to take the pressure off the small capillaries, the tiny blood vessels, that get blocked and create the sores.”

It doesn’t look anything like a typical hospital bed. According to Phil Kadner’s profile on Jurus, the bed “resembles a xylophone, with 72 sponge-foam pads that look like slats spread across it. The slats move vertically in groups of 18 each, alternating going up and down by about 2.5 inches. All of the pads, operated electronically, change position every two minutes.”

The bed, Jurus says, can be built for half the cost of an orthopedic bed. But he’s still in need of funding, in order to study the effects and advantages of such a bed in a medical setting. “I know this thing will work” Jurus says. “But I need a grant, some research, to prove that my theory will work. Actually, I know it will work. I just need some financial help.”

The problem is common, and a bit sad.  Anyone can come up with an idea. In fact, a lot of people just like Jurus do. But the funding to implement a plan, to bring an invention to life, is far more elusive. It might be why competitions for inventors, like the one Jeff Burns won in yesterday’s story, have become so popular. It’s a chance for your idea to be examined by experts, a chance for your invention to rise above the fray.

(NOTE: If you are an inventor looking for some funding, I found this article that provides some great tips.)

Continue reading 'Inventors and the People that Hate Them'»