OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Useless Stuff

Entry 1055, on 2009-07-17 at 21:56:10 (Rating 2, Comments)

Old technology always tends to become more useless as time passes. I listened to two podcasts recently which got me thinking about which technologies were rapidly heading to a state of uselessness. The first was about a sound archive being created to store the sound of old machines at work. By "old machines" I mean stuff that some people might still be using but probably won't be using for much longer. The second was about how mobile phones are replacing landlines.

Here's some examples of the sounds of "old technology" they wanted for the archive: a floppy disk drive, a rotary dial phone, a fax, a video tape player. I'm not that old (although I'm not that young either) and I can remember when some of those technologies were introduced! Already they are virtually obsolete and finding the sound of them operating is difficult!

My first computer stored data on a cassette tape (that's another sound they are after) and floppy drives seemed like a great step forward when I first got one (they cost around NZ$1000 at the time). But flash drives are so much better in every way that I never want to see another floppy disk again. Flash drives store 10,000 (or more) times the data, they operate 100 times faster, they are far more reliable and they are much smaller. That's clearly a technology where a huge step forward has been achieved.

If I didn't use it for broadband I would be happy enough to eliminate my landline. There's a new paradigm now and that is that you call a cell phone to contact the owner of that phone no matter where they are. Before that you called a landline phone at a particular time to talk to one of the people who lived at that address. I know some people don't like cell phones but the next generation will wonder why you would ever use anything else.

I never used fax much and now I never will. Some people still have them but surely they are on the way out. But paper is one technology which has been remarkably resilient. Even people using electronic document technologies often only work with printed versions of their material. This will change though because more people today are so familiar with accessing content on the internet. Maybe the paperless office really will finally happen soon.

What about video cassettes? The first VCRs seemed like pretty awesome machines at the time (and were hideously expensive) but DVD and hard disk based recorders are so much better that who would ever want to go back to tape? There's no media wear, higher capacity, random access, and much better picture quality. VHS seemed OK at the time but compare it with modern video quality and it looks horrendous!

I remember when colour TV was introduced to New Zealand. My family had one of the first colour sets around: a Philips K9 with a "hack" allowing it to pick up signals it wasn't supposed to be able to receive! I'm used to watching high def TV on a 42" plasma and while I was always aware of how nice it was I didn't really appreciate that until it had to go away for repairs and I went back to a 25" analog CRT. There's just no comparison. TV technology is definitely moving ahead and the demise of analog will be no great loss.

I have often commented in this blog on the revolution in speed, reliability and flexibility in computing, and the improvements in music players so I won't belabour the point by repeating it here. Some people look back to the "good old technology" which was bigger and more robust and easier to use. I disagree. I think the nostalgia of a Sony Walkman many times the size of an iPod, with that lovely tape hiss, no random access to content, tangled tapes, and poor battery life isn't much to do with reality.

So the technology trends are clear. From big to small (except with TVs which are getting much bigger), from slow to fast, from expensive to cheap, and from analog to digital. Yes digital is taking over everywhere: digital music, digital phones and digital TV. That's what its all about and it seems like a great trend to me.

Comment 1 (2254) by NJS on 2009-07-18 at 10:33:57: (view recent only)

"I firmly believe that we'll see a paperless toilet before we see a paperless office." Wish I knew who said that.

Comment 2 (2256) by OJB on 2009-07-18 at 19:43:03:

You could be right. The idea has been around a long time and we still have senior managers at the university doing things like this: their PA receives an email and prints it for them to read. They write notes on the paper which the secretary types in to the reply and sends it. Its almost as if they want to avoid technology completely!

Comment 3 (2258) by SBFL on 2009-07-19 at 09:17:45:

"Here's some examples of the sounds of "old technology"" - 3 of your 4 examples are ancient history, but I am amused that the fax manages to hang in there. I genuinely don't understand why.

"I'm not that old (although I'm not that young either)" then "My first computer stored data on a cassette tape" ... so you are old? Why not state your YOB to avoid doubt? Hehe.

The rest I very much agree with and we can be thankful to live in an age of such advancement, thought I must admit for large documents, there´s nothing like reading it on A4. For the same reason I purchased "The Economist" print edition today at a magazine stand despite its web-home being on my Chrome start-up list of websites. Sometimes there's a case for sitting back, not in front of a computer monitor, and reading.

Comment 4 (2260) by OJB on 2009-07-19 at 19:11:58:

I know people used floppy drives up to about 5 years ago. I know people who still use VCRs. I admit rotary phones are fairly uncommon now. Fax is still fairly common. So I wouldn't really call them ancient history.

How old is old? 49 isn't really considered old any more, is it? Well is it?

I really don't read anything on paper any more, so it is possible, even for an old fart like me!

Comment 5 (2261) by SBFL on 2009-07-21 at 08:12:24:

"So I wouldn't really call them ancient history." - ahh, nor would I, hence the 3 out of 4. But my point is I can't really see why they aren't toast already. Scanners are standard on home printers now (let alone in business environment) should one want to send a hard document. Yeah the FDD is not so long obsolete, well the 3.5" anyway, but their data is easily transferable to HDD, USB sticks etc. Same can't be said for VCR´s which is why some people hang on to them. They still have their old video cassettes they want to watch (and can't easily or cheaply digitise).

Yeah, technology ages faster then people, so tape storage for computers seems a few generations ago.

Comment 6 (2262) by OJB on 2009-07-21 at 08:29:44:

I was discussing this with a colleague recently (you know, one of those geek conversations) and we were wondering if people would laugh about our plasma TVs and MP3 players in 20 years like we laugh about the ghetto blasters and huge cell phones they had 20 years ago, and if they did ridicule our current technology on what basis.

Comment 7 (2263) by SBFL on 2009-07-22 at 06:43:34:

I guess it would be naive to assume they wouldn't. No doubt the technology inside the TV would improve, and they may get bigger and cheaper (as they are day by day anyway) but they can only get so big and already flat for the living room anyway, so physical aspects may result a saturation point being met. The mini-disc never took off becuase the CD was small enough already and both digital. I would imagine that in 20 years (actually sooner) everything will be stored on HDD and purchased off the internet. It's actually there already, we just need the ADSL etc to get a bit faster and standard in every home, and the movie and music moguls to change their business models to fit. Apple has already redefined portable music players and cellphone, though obviously progress will still be made in that market.

Comment 8 (2268) by OJB on 2009-07-22 at 18:23:35:

Good quality projection so that the TV image filled a whole wall (or every wall in the room for a surround effect) might be the ultimate. Also there are systems in development which offer real 3D without having to wear polarised glasses, etc. Screen technology is moving towards LED (and OLED) and that will be the next step after plasma and LCD.

Yes, music sold on physical media is on the way out for sure. Whether music (and other media such as audiobooks and movies) will be streamed or downloaded and stored is not yet clear.

The movie moguls will be irrelevant because no matter how much they try to maintain what's really just a form of legal theft they have now the technology will just bypass them.

Comment 9 (2271) by SBFL on 2009-07-23 at 07:59:51:

The movie muguls themselves won't be irrelevant because someone still has to finance and make movies. But the current model is clearly not sustainable.

Comment 10 (2274) by OJB on 2009-07-23 at 19:27:48:

Unless the current moguls realise the model they have worked with in the past won't work any more then a new set of "moguls" will take over, but they won't be moguls in the same sense as the current ones. New digital technology is making independently produced movies far more practical.

Comment 11 (2279) by SBFL on 2009-07-25 at 04:16:12:

That wouldn't be a bad thing. The Hollywood scripts of predictability show no sign of abating. More independent studios and directors will no doubt bring in some creativity and originality that is sadly lacking these days.

Comment 12 (2280) by SBFL on 2009-07-25 at 04:23:30:

To change the topic of the thread, but head back to the original post ("Useless Stuff"), it is tempting to wind you up again and say that the days of the iPhone are numbered, having just read this:
Google's Android invasion

But I think a more fair assessment is that the Apple iPhone is now at risk of becoming a distant second just like it's PC and OS. It will maintain its market niche based on higher end quality and devoted Apple geeks. As the article mentions:
"Android phones and the iPhone might appear to be in direct competition; they are both high-spec, and similarly priced. But Al Sutton, a UK-based Android developer, thinks the situation may develop along similar lines to the home computing market: "I can see the iPhone and Android co-existing in the future in a similar way that Macs and Windows PCs do at the moment", he says. "Apple is focused on being a premium brand, whereas Android's focus is ubiquity.""

Will Apple Inc again let their baby slowly slip into the shadows....?

Comment 13 (2281) by OJB on 2009-07-25 at 09:12:21:

Its too early to say what the effect of Android will be. Its possible it might become the platform which is "good enough" for most people, like Windows, and the iPhone will be the superior but less widely used system, like Mac OS X is now. If that happens its not a problem for me. I want to use the best technology, not the most popular.

As I have said in the past, as long as Mac and iPhone have enough market share to be relevant to hardware and software developers that's fine. That share is probably around 10% to 20%. Apple are as big as Microsoft and more successful than Microsoft in many ways without needing Microsoft's monopoly market share. Why change a formula that works?

Comment 14 (2284) by SBFL on 2009-07-25 at 10:38:23:

Wow, that's a bitter pill to swallow. To go from 9x% of the new gen mobile market to 10-20%...seems you have accepted this already...lucky you aren't an Apple director.

Comment 15 (2285) by OJB on 2009-07-25 at 11:02:51:

There are business models which don't simply involve selling more. Apple have built a successful business by selling better products which people will pay a premium for. Few people realise that Apple isn't that far behind Microsoft based on most criteria, and is expanding faster. Many other companies use the same model and aren't considered failures: Mercedes, Gucci, etc. As I said, I'd rather have the best than the most popular. The two are rarely the same.

Comment 16 (2289) by OJB on 2009-07-26 at 10:38:04:

Here's some news indicating Apple, whatever its business model might be, is doing better than Microsoft.

Comment 17 (2291) by SBFL on 2009-07-27 at 02:21:58:

I wonder how the share prices compare though (and I don't actually know).

Anyway, back thinking to buy an iPod Touch. Aside from the music, there is obviously Mail, Calendar and Contacts that I can synchronise with MS Outlook. The Mail is via POP so I assume this will work in any free Wifi zone.

What I am keen on is those apps you can buy. Are there any restrictions on these like there are with music, where you can only buy if in certain countries. What website do I buy the apps from? Do the download directly to the iPod Touch, or do I first d/l to the PC and then install on the iPod Touch from there?

Cheers,
SBFL

Comment 18 (2293) by OJB on 2009-07-27 at 05:30:54:

Share price as of now: AAPL $159.99 +1.37% MSFT $23.45 -8.26%. See my point?

Sure POP mail will work but would you not be better using IMAP or Exchange (on all devices) so that everything stays in sync between the iPod and computers?

The model Apple uses (and it has both good and bad points) is that all apps must come from the Apple iTunes app store (yes, I know, monopolistic, but it does make everything simple, guarantee quality, freedom from viruses, etc). You can download to either the iPod or the computer, the apps will sync from one to the other at the next sync.

You do need to set up an iTunes account (with a credit card number even if you are only going to download free stuff) from the computer though.

Comment 19 (2297) by SBFL on 2009-07-29 at 07:03:20:

Hmmm, I replied to this the other day.

I am not so sure snapshots are a good indicator, though with Apple's resurgence in recent years, and Microsoft's stagnation is will be interesting to see how the value of each company has trended in this time.

Thanks for the Apple App/iTouch info. So there are no country restrictions then. I can just purchase from the Apple store wherever I am right?

Comment 20 (2299) by OJB on 2009-07-29 at 09:10:00:

You asked for the share prices which I gave you. Microsoft's future short term will depend on Windows 7 which is looking reasonably (but not overwhelmingly) successful at this early stage. Long term it will depend on whether cloud computing takes over or not.

Sorry I forgot to answer the question about the store. You do need to buy from the local store but just about everything is available at every store. There are also ways to bypass the restrictions but these go against Apple's TOS.

Comment 21 (2301) by SBFL on 2009-07-30 at 05:42:22:

"You asked for the share prices which I gave you" - I know. And so? I was moving on, but you like to argue..?

Re Apple apps and store - thanks.

Comment 22 (2303) by OJB on 2009-07-30 at 09:12:46:

No I think we have reached a point of more-or-less agreement here. Microsoft isn't going away any time soon and Apple isn't either. Which will be the bigger company in 10 years is totally unpredictable. The computer world changes so quickly that no company - no matter how dominant - can necessarily survive without making the right decisions. Look what happened to IBM!

Comment 23 (2310) by SBFL on 2009-07-30 at 09:59:23: I do not disagree.

Comment 24 (2312) by OJB on 2009-07-30 at 14:54:37:

OK, because I don't not agree with what you don't disagree with.

Comment 25 (2322) by OJB on 2009-08-01 at 11:04:08:

I'm not the only one who thinks Microsoft is on the way out: Microsoft's Long Slow Decline

Comment 26 (2334) by SBFL on 2009-08-02 at 07:00:22:

And yet only a fool would write Microsoft off: Taking Sides

Comment 27 (2337) by OJB on 2009-08-02 at 09:25:36:

Well I have never suggested we should exactly write them off. The future of technology is never predictable and a company the size of Microsoft can never be dismissed that easily.

On the other hand I don't see this lame cooperation with a fairly irrelevant company as being that critical. The fact that Microsoft pursue these sorts of deals instead of doing something genuinely innovative is the whole point really.

Comment 28 (2338) by SBFL on 2009-08-02 at 09:38:28:

Well in fact you did with your comment 25.

BTW, deals are business. Wake up.

Comment 29 (2339) by OJB on 2009-08-02 at 09:51:44:

Well saying they are on the way out isn't exactly writing them off. Maybe it could be construed that way but I was more suggesting they are in decline. That could change at any time of course - Apple were in decline in the mid 90s and now look how successful they are!

Sure deals are business. Its just this a lame deal and not one that is likely to make Microsoft more successful in an industry that thrives on genuine innovation.

Comment 30 (2346) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 06:18:11:

I love how you split hairs to defend yourself!

Anyway I saw this headline today and thought I would share it with you: Is Apple unassailable?
...Then I got to the 2nd paragraph, read "In the words of Reuters (not an Apple fan site, btw)", wondered if maybe this piece wasn't written by an objective industry analyst, looked to the bottom, and sure enough it was written by some obsessed fanatic from mac.nz, and then didn't read any further.

To think I was genuinely about to share this positive Apple news with you to acknowledge your personal views of the company, only to find it could have easily have been ripped from this blog!! Well it's the thought that counts, eh OJB?

Comment 31 (2349) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 09:27:24:

I don't split hairs, I point out what my real points are and where you are misrepresenting them. If its not already clear: Microsoft is currently slipping from its dominant position, that may or may not continue in the future.

I've noticed a surprising amount of pro-Apple stuff on the Herald site actually. But shouldn't you be addressing the points made instead of dismissing them because of a real or perceived bias?

Comment 32 (2354) by SBFL on 2009-08-05 at 11:29:58:

I pointed directly to your comment. Hardly a misrepresentation! Unlike the classic OJB rewording of viewpoint where 2+2 = SQR(-1)!

Why would I? Undisclosed bias taints the credibility of any article.

Comment 33 (2355) by OJB on 2009-08-05 at 13:17:53:

Whatever. Not even sure what we are discussing here any more. Let's just leave it.

Comment 34 (5191) by Good day! on 2020-01-05 at 18:56:05:

Good day! Would you mind if I share your blog with my facebook group? There's a lot of people that I think would really enjoy your content. Please let me know. Thank you.

Comment 35 (5192) by OJB on 2020-01-05 at 22:30:37:

Any person *genuinely* interested in my material is very welcome to share it. Anyone spamming the comments section will have their comment deleted fairly quickly.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.