It doesn't matter who Michael Felger is except that he's a sportsradio talkshow guy, if you care look him up, but today he sounded off about webcasts in a way that reflects how I bet a lot of people feel. This Sunday's NFL game from London between Buffalo and Jacksonville will be broadcast only on the web. Here's the exchange between host Felger and guest Greg Bedard (sportswriter for Sports Illustrated):
quote:Felger: What's the end game of putting the London game this week just on line. Again, nine thirty window [eastern time US], glorious, glorious window, we get a football game Sunday morning, but you can't watch it on TV. You gotta turn on your computer.
Bedard: Yeah, good luck with that, Felger.
Felger: Exactly, right, which rules me out. Why? Why we doing this?
Bedard: It has nothing to do with London. It has to do with...they've been talking about perhaps selling...and some of Google and Yahoo have gotten in on this...the bidding for Sunday Ticket [lineup of all Sunday games, currently owned by DirecTV] and stuff like that. And the NFL hasn't been ready to take the leap. If this goes well, they're in the mix for the next Sunday Ticket package.
Felger: Wait. Meaning so it won't be on DirecTV anymore, it's only on your computer?
Bedard: Correct.
Felger: Oh, F-off with that!
Mazz (Felger's sidekick): They'll figure it out all over the globe.
Felger: Shut up. Screw you. Seriously. I feel like swearing. What are you doing? What? Why? Because I'm not like you people. I can't hook up my Internet to my TV. F-off with that, with your cords and your downloads and your stupid crap. I'm not hooking up my computer to my TV, my Internet to my TV. Seriously, kiss the underside of my ass with that. Seriously, I'm out, if they pull that crap. What are you doing? What are you doing? Seriously? God, that pisses me off. Take your app and shove it up your ass.
I'm with Felger. If you're willing to play around with all the crappy hardware and software that the computer and Internet moguls make us stumble around with, and all the incredibly clumsy connections between them, then have fun. You're just empowering them and making a bad thing worse. Until we start punishing the people who sell this crap by not buying it, we're just going to get more of it. I have no smart phone. I have an iPad that I don't often use it's so braindead. Computers I can put up with.
One big downside is that in this era where a smart phone is really a dumb phone, a dumb phone is a really, really dumb phone. Want to know how I have to transfer pictures from my dumb phone to my computer? I have to make a backup on my phone, download the backup to my computer (no WiFi, just a USB cable), then unpack the backup.
As soon as smart devices start doing things for me that I already do, like just helping me live a normal, everyday life (I don't care about games and apps and Facebook and Words with Friends and all that crap), when smart devices actually become smart, then I will get a smart device. How about listening to my conversation with my wife, remembering what I'm supposed to buy at the supermarket, then reminding me to stop at the supermarket before I drive by, then telling me what to buy and what aisle to find it in.
In the name of accuracy I should say a little bit more about my iPad that I earlier called braindead. It does make a pretty good Internet Radio, and a pretty good TiVo player, and a pretty good book reader as long as you're not outside. What it can do with apps and games is very amazing, but they're not anything I ever wanted to do. I did try some of them, like Angry Birds, Cat Physics, a couple others - computer games aren't my thing. So until they actually get smart and automatic and actually interconnected, I'm with Felger and you can screw your smart devices.
I think some may be misreading what I said and missing my point. I don't want to go back to the past or dump the Internet (which would make no sense since I'm a web programmer). What I want is to skip past the current crappy present as managed by the current set of crappy tech "leaders" where we're being sold a load of crap and told it's smart when it's not. A lot of people really believe this stuff is smart - it isn't.
Stile mentioned that his TV has Netflix installed, which is really neat and a step in the right direction, but I bet he also has to occasionally reboot his TV and download updates, which is just more crap.
The technology we have is amazing. What's being done with it is a giant kluge.
Concerning Netflix interfaces, clearly Netflix doesn't have a central team responsible for the interface. It's possible that each manufacturer (Samsung, Tivo, X-Box, etc.) is responsible for implementing their own Netflix interface, using a protocol provided by Netflix for communicating with software on Netflix servers. Within a company like Samsung, different product development teams would be responsible for TVs and BluRay players, and very likely different people would be responsible for the Netflix interfaces.
But the evidence I have from my TiVo argues against this. If TiVo had implemented all its interfaces to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, Pandora, YouTube, etc., then you would expect they would all have a similar look and feel, or at least that some of them would, but none of them do. They're all different. Some of them are spectacularly stupid, like Amazon's.
Maybe who does each interface and upgrade is the result of a negotiation. Now that I think about it, that makes the most sense to me. Each effort would be done by the company with the greatest competitive need at the time, and that would pretty much guarantee a patchwork of implementations and upgrades.
Remember 2400 baud modem connections to bulletin boards?
I remember connecting to mainframes with 110 baud acoustic couplers. When we got 300 baud modems in 1980 it was wonderful.
It seems they won't put anything better in the grinder as long as we buy the sausage du jour.
We have been complicit in constructing our own hell. The devices (or apps or programs) we use on an everyday basis should have the complexity of, say, a TV from 1990, not a multi-band shortwave radio from the 1950's. And they should have the same reliability.
Watching Buffalo vs. Indianapolis this Sunday morning should be as simple as turning on the TV and tuning it to the correct station. That it's not is not our fault. That we watch it anyway (and endure any necessary rigmarole) is.
I do understand and accept the argument that we're at an intermediate level of capability, better than it was and not as good as it's going to be. But the path we're taking, in my opinion, is far, far too painful.
No device that exists can listen in on your conversation and pick out the "important bits."
Oh, that would be neat, but what I had in mind was just listening in on the conversation when my wife calls me on my cell when I'm on my way home.
Devices are requiring less and less power, battery technology is improving, so "always listening" will come eventually.
That said, most of the rest is already available. Both Windows Phone and Android have the ability to set up reminders based upon your location. That's one of the big selling points of Cortana on Windows Phone: You can tell it, "Remind me to X when I'm near Y," where "Y" is something vague like "A grocery store." I think iOS can do this, too. The system monitors your GPS location and if you are near a location that fits what you specified, it will remind you to do whatever it is you said.
I usually answer claims like this by requesting a demo. Invariably it comes up short, involves a lot of touching and clicking, takes a long time, or all three. My favorite contest is, "Make a list of five items: milk, cream, eggs, cheese, yogurt." I pull out my notepad and am done in literally seconds, minutes ahead of everyone else.
But to your larger point, that's already happening. Many television shows are online only. Hulu, Netflix, Amazon, and Yahoo all have programs that aren't available on TV.
Omigod, just remembering where a show is will be a battle. And you'll need a Hulu subscription, a Netflix subscription, and an Amazon account. And depending upon whose interface to Amazon you're using, you'll likely need a computer to look up and purchase the show, and then only then do you go to your device where you'll find it's been placed on your watchlist.
TiVo has the right idea, I think. You look up a show and they tell you all the places it can be found, or at least the common places. Still need all the different subscriptions and accounts, though.
So why not the NFL? Technologies change. We had this discussion when we shifted from SD to HD signal.
Actually, I don't think we did. The transition from SD to HD is one I think they got right. Both systems worked at the same time for at least a decade.
We weren't home to watch the Bills/Jaguars from London on Yahoo this morning, it can't be recorded off the Internet, it's not available for replay, so I guess I won't be seeing this football game. Gosh, golly, more incompletely thought through and implemented modern technology, wow. I've just started watching what I'm sure will be a more than satisfying five minute game summary.
My wife and I have a football game we plan to watch later. It's being broadcast right now, but that doesn't matter because it's on regular TV and we're recording it.
quote:My favorite contest is, "Make a list of five items: milk, cream, eggs, cheese, yogurt." I pull out my notepad and am done in literally seconds, minutes ahead of everyone else.
While I see your point, you've made some unstated assumptions. What do you mean by "make a list"? That seems like a very simple question, but it really isn't.
Translation: "I want to take something simple and make it complicated."
You're being a technology apologist. Only in the minds and code and databases of implementers must lists be complicated. What's behind the scenes for lists can be incredibly complicated, but for the consumer it must remain simple.
Apple's success is because they do the least worst job of keeping human/computer interactions simple.
With Android, you can say, "OK, Google." Then you can say, "Remind me to get milk, cream, eggs, cheese, yogurt," and it will do so...so long as you then tell it when and/or where. "Make a list" isn't defined because there is no association between what "list" means and what app it's supposed to use (there is no default "list" app.)
Something that was actually smart, like say a person, would have no trouble with this, asking questions if there was any ambiguity. I'm not saying our current technology can't do amazing things, and in fact have already called it amazing in this very thread. What I'm saying is that it's not very smart. In fact, it's pretty dumb. Anyone who wants to work the word "smart" into a marketing campaign for current technology should use the phrase "smarter than they were." That's about the most that can be said that is actually true.
But, there is a reminder app. So if you say, "OK, Google. Remind me when I get to Ralph's to buy milk, cream, eggs, cheese, and yogurt," it will put it on your Reminders. And when you drive near Ralph's, it will buzz you to see your list.
Channeling Felger, "Screw your app." Just seamlessly do your job without requiring repeats, explanation's that "Ralphs is the Corner Market, no, the one of Fifth Street," and later, "No, I wasn't talking to you you stupid app, I was talking to my wife, any idiot would know that."
This is a variation of the regional problem I mentioned: Is it "list" or is it "reminder"?
A perfect example of complicating the simple. For the user it's a just a list, but the technologists will muck it all up and require the consumer to keep in mind the distinction between a "list" and "reminder", and they'll start introducing terms like "active list" or "smart list" or "dynamic list" or marketing terms like "insto-list". Technology is best when it blends into the background, but the "smart device" movement is making the idiosyncrasies of their strangely behaved devices the centerpiece.
quote:Omigod, just remembering where a show is will be a battle.
That's not a technology problem, per se, but rather a marketing problem.
Putting a different modifier on the word "problem" doesn't make it not a problem. If you tell the consumer that marketing, not technology, is the reason he can't watch Buffalo/Jacksonville, he will not be responding, "Oh, well that's okay then."
I'll say once again that I *do* think the technology is fantastic, it's just the lies being built around it I object to. Calling it marketing *is* more accurate, but now you're drawing fine distinctions not readily apparent to your average consumer. As I said earlier, most people have no idea that all the time they waste trying to make their smart devices do the things claimed for them is because of reprehensibly low software and hardware quality. Consumers often blame themselves for the problems, and help lines and such do much to encourage this, a win-win for the technology companies.
I understand the competitive forces at work causing the delivery of patchwork features that don't work together, but in the same way all radio and television companies were able to get their shows broadcast to the same radios and TVs, technology companies in the current age have to figure out the analogous thing and deliver stuff that all works together, even while it is all evolving. When they don't do this we should punish them by not buying their stuff. But we buy it anyway and blame ourselves when it doesn't really work very well. And then there are others of us who convince ourselves that it's all really fine and dandy.
Way back when when HBO was first coming around, it was its own service...etc...etc...
Yes, yes, I get the whole HBO and Sony thing and how nobody wanted to give away the set top. We all lived through the same era, and a number of us lived it while working in hi-tech. But until consumers start staying away from the bleeding edge in significant numbers they are going to continue to be the big losers.
quote:it can't be recorded off the Internet, it's not available for replay, so I guess I won't be seeing this football game. Gosh, golly, more incompletely thought through and implemented modern technology
That's not a bug. That's a feature.
A feature for who? Features are supposed to be for consumers, not vendors. It certainly wasn't a feature for me, and certainly not for everyone else who wanted to see the game but didn't.
There is advertising money to be made.
Then make me watch the advertising when I watch the replay, just like Hulu. Or charge money for the replay with no advertising. This isn't rocket science. That they didn't even have these most obvious of options available shows how poorly this was thought out. Or maybe after Yahoo paid the NFL $20 million for the rights to this game there wasn't enough left to over to get anything right.
The summary of the game I watched on Yahoo used the HD aspect ratio but low res. I watched some post game comments about the game on ComCast Sportsnet New England, and they said they had the game itself piped into the studio and that that was low res, too. Yahoo spent $20 million to broadcast a game in low res? My God, I can watch Murder She Wrote reruns in higher res than that! What were they thinking???
How could this happen? It's an all too familiar symptom of the technology companies attitude that they can throw any ill thought out technology at us, no matter how bad, and we'll buy it. Sure, some products fail or all but fail, but by and large the technology companies are making money. Because we're behaving like dupes. The population of early adopters used to be very small, but now it's like everyone's an early adopter, and the technology companies have lost the ability to discriminate between what's deserves to be released and what should continue internal development, or maybe even be cancelled. "Hey, they'll buy it, they always buy it, so ship it."
Apple's recent success is in product design - they're just beautiful things that work beautifully together.
Yes, that's much more true than what I said.
I think what I said is also true, but Apple does have plenty of examples of bad human interface. The keyboard is a marvel of inconvenience, annoyance and aggravation.
I'm only an occasional Apple user, so while I'm talking about Apple I'll ask a couple usability questions about the Page Up/Page Down keys:
When I want the Page Up/Page Down keys on my Mac I use Ctrl-Atl-Up and Ctrl-Alt-Down. Is there an easier way?
When I'm Remote Desktop'd from my Mac to my Windows machine, I cannot find any equivalent on the keyboard to the Page Up/Page Down keys. Anyone know any?
quote:Translation: "I want to take something simple and make it complicated."
Translation: "I didn't read the post."
It doesn't seem like you read mine either. Despite that I repeatedly called the technology fantastic, you concluded I was criticizing the technology. I wasn't. I was criticizing the way the technology is packaged and marketed. You seemed to be making the same criticisms, so I don't understand why you made your points as if I opposed them
Part of what I was saying was that the technology is marketed as smarter than it really is. You interpreted this as a demand for technology as smart as people, but it was actually a demand for accurate marketing of what the technology can really do. An example of inaccurate marketing is Apple's Siri commercials from a year or two ago. I wish Siri could interactively assist with my cooking, but it can't. If you want dinner to be late, cook with Siri.
Here's Peyton Manning in a Buick commercial:
If they're not *way* exaggerating how well their voice interactive feature works, then I'm stunned. Anyone out there have a Buick with this feature?
But there's a bigger downside to the technology not working as well as advertised, because it actually makes things worse. Sticking with the car example, the deepest period of driver inattention is probably right after you've given a command and are trying to figure out what your car is actually doing.
I've been using it myself: "OK, Google. Remind me to buy soap." It then asks me if I want to be reminded at a certain time or when I get to a certain place. "When I get to Ralph's." And presto, there's a reminder in my phone to "Buy soap" that automatically buzzes me when I drive to Ralphs.
I don't have a smart phone and can't test this, but for the sake of discussion let's say this really works as you describe. I consider that pretty amazing, but it's just one patch of safe ground in a mine field of stuff that doesn't work as claimed.
The people marketing the content. You did read my post before responding, yes?
Yes. That's why I countered, "Features are supposed to be for consumers, not vendors." I understand the financial motivations of the companies packaging and marketing the crap, I just think it's wrong, and calling them features is wrong, too.
When I say "crap" I'm not calling the technology crap. As I keep saying, the technology is amazing. It's the final product as provided to the consumer that is crap, for several reasons: it's low quality, it's unreliable, it's buggy, and it doesn't do what they claim it can do. That doesn't mean that no amazing technology reaches the consumer, like your "Remind me when I get to Ralph's" example, but for the most part it doesn't fulfill promise or instilled expectations in terms of capabilities, quality and reliability.
No matter much iTunes can provide music to you, it cannot give you music that is not in its catalog and if the Beatles don't want to give their music to Apple to put on iTunes, then no amount of fixing the putrescence that is iTunes is going to make them change their minds.
It been cool to dump on iTunes almost since it's inception, but I find it very useful and don't understand the strong dislike held by so many.
quote:How could this happen?
Did you read the article to find out? There appeared to be a very clear distinction in technologies that affected how it appeared. You could watch the game a minute behind reality which resulted in a cleaner picture due to a more reliable stream, or you could try to watch it as it was happening and get poor quality.
This makes sense given how the Internet works.
"That's how it works," is not an acceptable excuse, or any excuse at all. Yes, those with a Roku, Apple TV, iPad or iPhone got a better picture, but the TV studio evidently had none of those. I don't either, except for an iPad, but I never watch anything of any length on the iPad. And watching a football game on an iPhone, even a big one, doesn't seem like it would be very visually satisfying. It *is* amazing that you can watch the football game while taking a stroll in Central Park, but you're probably getting more information from the audio than the video.
And it's something that Yahoo can't solve because they aren't an ISP. They can do lots of things to make sure there is good signal on their end, but if your Internet connection is crappy, they can't solve that.
I watch a great deal of content over the Internet on my TV, none of it is ever low res, until that Yahoo game summary. I don't have a crappy Internet connection, and I don't believe the CBS affiliate in Boston (the station that piped it onto the big TV screens in their radio studio and reported that the entire game was low res) has a crappy Internet connection, either.
Why are you so determined to make excuses for Yahoo?
And if you don't want to watch the football game on Yahoo because you don't like the quality, then don't.
They'll get the message and either abandon the project or work to make it better.
That's the way it is with everything.
Well, yes, precisely. That's what I've been saying, that if people would do that then we'd get better products. But we don't, so we get crap.
quote:If they're not *way* exaggerating how well their voice interactive feature works, then I'm stunned. Anyone out there have a Buick with this feature?
I have OnStar.
Yes, it works like that.
OnStar sounds neat, useful, and not overhyped, but I'm still skeptical. To pay all the money for Peyton Manning and the production crew and the air time and then tell the exact truth, too? Well, that's a lot to absorb all at one time. From what you say the commercial *does* seem to be mostly accurate, but...
Now, the quickness has been exaggerated, yes. But it does work like that. Notice, however, that he's using a limited set of commands: "Reroute." When he says, "Call Papa Bear," that's because his phone has an entry for "Papa Bear." The "Hut Hut" doesn't mean anything. "Tune XM 60" is telling it to go to the stereo, bring up the XM band, and go to channel 60. You can't tell it anything, but you can tell it a fair amount.
So when Manning says, "Large barrel. Reroute," the "large barrel" portion is ignored. The car is not rerouting around barrels. And the command "reroute" all by itself is insufficient. There has to be more to the conversation. This is an example of misleading the consumer about what the product can do.
And what about that button he hit. Does every command have to be preceded by hitting that button? What if the passenger wants to give a command? What if the passenger is talking at the same time. What if the passenger becomes the driver - will it understand her? And can it really reroute while the car is moving? My wife's car requires it be stationary when programming the GPS, I assume as a safety feature. Its unable to detect whether the driver or the passenger is using the touchpad, so it simply disallows it.
When he says, "Call Papa Bear," that's because his phone has an entry...
Would that be a Bluetooth phone? That he must have with him in the car or the phone features of the car won't work?
quote: Sticking with the car example, the deepest period of driver inattention is probably right after you've given a command and are trying to figure out what your car is actually doing.
But the car doesn't drive itself (yet).
I didn't mean where the car is driving. I meant what it is doing. Is it dialing Frank Piazza or Frank's Pizza? Is it playing XM 60 or Extra Great Hits from the 60's. Is it turning on the air conditioning or the air defroster?
So, sure the technology isn't perfect, but it is already amazing and will continue to improve and get even more amazing.
But also...
So sure, company heads are sleazebags who will continue to rush products of low quality and reliability to market. And sure, marketing types are sleazebags, and no matter how amazing the technology is, they will continue to make claims that are untrue.
But then the updates started taking away the useful features, depriving me of the detailed view and leaving me with nothing but the big album icons that were unsorted and which you couldn't do anything with.
Yeah, I remember that change. But in case you ever use iTunes again, be aware that you can get back to the old view.
First, you probably want your menu bar back. There's a tiny icon in the upper left. Click on it and select "Show Menu Bar."
Second, you probably want your song list back. On the right hand side maybe an inch down from the top you'll see a drop down menu that says "Albums" (it must say "Albums", because you said you're looking at "big album icons'). Click on that and select "Songs".
But just what did this Felger guy say to begin with? I tried to read the opening message, but couldn't get past the first few lines. He just started talking about sports and that put me to sleep every time.
He was expressing his frustration that the NFL was broadcasting the London game only on the Internet, making it impossible for him to watch at home.
No, it works just like that. Yes, "orange barrels" means nothing, but "reroute" does: Get me off the road that I am on and find me an alternative destination.
You mean an alternate route to the same destination, right? I'm pretty sure you do, because you say it that way in your next paragraph.
But it looks like we were talking about two different things, because I *did* think Manning was talking about a new destination. My wife's car is seven years old, but it finds a new route automatically when you leave the selected route, it doesn't need to be told to find a new route. So when Manning said "reroute" I assumed he was talking about a different destination, because the only GPS I have experience with doesn't need to be told to reroute to the same destination. I see now that Manning was not instructing the car to find another destination, but only to reroute to the same destination.
With my wife's GPS nothing need be done when you leave the highway for a gas station. It just keeps telling you how to get back on the highway, which is very useful since the reentrance sometimes isn't located at the same exchange as the exit. It's an incredibly imbecilic nuisance in other ways (try taking a ferry to witness complete GPS confusion), but that's one thing it does very well.
But anyway, since we're already discussing it, we may as well get it right. Here's the exact spot in the commercial:
In the commercial Manning says to reroute before he actually leaves the selected route. That would require further dialog, right? Because there will frequently be more than one alternate route, right? And I think you actually allude to part of this issue when you say:
In fact, if you deviate from the planned route without saying that you need an update, the system will prompt you to indicate if you are just making a temporary detour (such as you stopping to get gas) or if you need the system to recalculate the route.
So Manning is avoiding being prompted by telling OnStar to reroute before he leaves the planned route, but you mentioned that it likes to know whether the detour is temporary or permanent, so still, isn't there dialog that is missing from the commercial?
About the phone service you say:
Because OnStar is satellite based, you can make phone calls without the need for a phone, but they do charge for the service (starting at $5 for 30 minutes a month). They do recommend that you keep some minutes on the account in case you are in need of assistance and are in an area where you don't have cellular service. If you have your phone, though, it will route the call through the phone first.
All of this was discoverable on their web site. Is there a reason why you didn't look it up yourself?
My history with manufacturer provided information is how poorly it aligns with experience after a purchase. Even when accurate, websites are notoriously bad at covering the fine details that I'm usually interested in. The guys who understand how to build websites are not the same guys who understand the products the website is about. Websites today emphasize sales and marketing far more than information dissemination.
And even when the information I want is on the website, it can be very difficult to find. I'm at the OnStar website now. "LEARN MORE" is not a very informative link, and they liked it so much they used it three times. I'll click on the left one. Oh, boy, they're showing me a video! Okay, let's give up on clicking on links and use the search feature and look for "satellite". Clicking on "Emergency Services," but that's not it. Clicking on "Similar Pages" brings me to a page of links that includes "Plans and Pricing", which brings me to another page that in bullet form describes the Guidance, Security and Protection plans, but there's nothing about one at $5 for 30 minutes a month. The cheapest is the Protection plan at $19.99/month. I'm giving up now. Just out of curiosity, where at the website is the part about $5 for 30 minutes a month.
Ten minutes of my life I'll never get back.
Anyway, I'm supposedly getting the straight poop from someone who owns an OnStar vehicle and will answer questions.
quote:Is it dialing Frank Piazza or Frank's Pizza?
It displays on the screen. I don't use it to make phone calls, though, so I don't rightly know if it repeats the name before it connects to let you know.
This was actually part of my point about technology making things worse, in this case by contributing to driver inattention. We don't need more contributors to driver inattention. Someone who's lost who has no GPS is at least looking out his windows. Someone whose GPS is confused probably is not.
OnStar sounds like a very nice system, and the Manning commercial seems fairly accurate. I'll find a better example of a misleading commercial about technology next time, it's not like there's any shortage. The Siri example I provided is a good one. There are tons of good examples of misleading commercials about phones and tablets, but I've already provided an example from that genre of technology with the Siri example.
™ Version 4.2
