Pages

Friday, July 28, 2017

Google's Biggest Fails

For a long time, Google has been known for starting a bunch of different projects, testing out new products and then seeing what ultimately worked. This strategy has changed recently, as Android PIT Germany editor Hans-George stated recently. Because of this risk-taking, Google’s history also includes many projects which failed miserably. Sometimes the public simply wasn’t interested, and occasionally an idea was doomed to fail at its inception. It’s time to take a look into the past and ruminate on Google’s failed projects.
Google+ and other social experiments
Some may cry out at this headline and refuse to accept that Google+ was a failure. But, as a fan of this network for many years, I believe I’m allowed to make such a statement.
I was euphoric when the network was introduced in 2011. Other Google fans desperately wanted an invitation to this new and initially closed social network. It was supposed to be an alternative to Facebook and many wanted to test the concept of circles as an alternative to friends. But is the network now where it wanted to be? Until recently, Google had frantically tried to run all of its services via Google+, and even YouTube was affected. Active users of Google+ thought this was great, but everybody else cursed the idea. Even after all these years, I still have the feeling that the system was a space for tech enthusiasts only and that hardly a single company devoted itself to the network. This can of course be spun into a positive light, but for the masses, Google+ was anything but a success. Incidentally, Google+ wasn’t the company’s first stride into social networking. Remember Google Buzz and Google Orkut? Both were officially abandoned by Google, and I have the unfortunate feeling that Google+ will suffer the same fate.
Google Orkut may have escaped your attention. It functioned as a network to find old and new friends. Google Orkut would recommend new contacts for you based on the interests that you indicated. However, the network only found success in Brazil and was ended in 2014. Google Buzz met a similar end. With this network, you could leave notes on Google Maps for all users to see. But often, people only used this function to post the inane comment ‘First!!’.
To end this section with my favorite quote: the question isn’t if Google+ will be terminated, but when.
Google Glass 
To portray Google Glass as a completely failed project would be somewhat unfair. It was clearly an experimental project from the outset and Google surely didn’t expect to achieve wide commercial success with it. And in any case, we need certain projects to advance technology. The Google Glass project was officially announced in June 2012 and received a lot of attention in the tech world. We hadn’t seen such a product before and were naturally excited, or at least curious.
Google Glass never achieved success and only a few developer-edition models were ultimately sold. For one, the glasses were simply too big. As someone who doesn’t wear glasses, I would never wear such a product on my face only to use a few limited functions.
Consumers are extremely cautious with data protection, which is another problem with Glass. In this regard, Google Glass raised many concerns. How do I know that I’m not being filmed? Or that the microphone isn’t running without my knowledge?
On top of this was the price. The beta version, called the Explorer Edition, was intended for developers and came with a hefty $1,500 price tag. It was available from February 2013. What the glasses would have cost in the shop remains a secret, as it never got this far. Google made several announcements about an official launch, but the program was abandoned in January 2015.
As mentioned at the start, Google likes to try all the possibilities. But success is ultimately determined by us, the consumers. Google Glass was likely ahead of its time, and that it was unsuccessful is not a huge surprise. Companies like Google or Microsoft certainly haven’t given up on augmented reality glasses. Recently with the HoloLens, another manufacturer went a completely different direction. We’re excited for the next consumer products to find their way to us.
Google Latitude
Always want to know where your family members or friends are? Google Latitude offered this feature, which is still available through Google Maps today. So why include this in our article? Google wasn’t clear on where to go with this. Initially offered as a standalone option within Google Maps, it was later exported to Google+ only to be reintegrated into Google Maps recently. This was frustrating for all users who needed to adjust to changing features, and also re-accept the terms and conditions.
Still, there was a lot of benefit from this feature at the beginning. The widget was very convenient, but this changed with its integration into Google+. We may be guilty here of whining about first world problems, but such a service should be easy to both install and operate. I’m not even an Apple fan, but I have to admit that ‘Find my Friends’ on iOS is somewhat more practical. Google has the advantage that Google Maps can be run on both iOS and Android and thus reach more people. But the general population is likely unaware that such an option exists, and that anyone with a current version of Google Maps can use it.
Hangouts and co
The story of Google’s messengers is almost more confusing than Latitude. Not only did the location of the service often change, but also the type of implementation.
So it all began with Google Talk, which was integrated into Gmail. This messenger used the open XMPP protocol. As a result, you could message users of any other service using this protocol, not just Google Talk users. A relative of mine was always impressed because he had his own server at home and could nevertheless communicate comfortably with me. A downside was that group chats didn’t function well and you’d receive notifications on all devices.
Naturally, Google wanted to move everyone to its own social network, and so arrived the Google+ messenger. This only worked on devices with Google+ and didn’t run on PC browsers. With it, it became more comfortable to start group chats and notifications also felt slightly better.
But Google didn’t stop there and created Hangouts in 2013. This messenger app combined messenger with video chat, and even had the functionality to make phone calls in the US. This was a perfect solution for me. Thanks to online storage, I no longer needed to worry about data security when I switched smartphones. Also, the service was compatible across platforms, and worked on my smartphone, tablet and computer. But instead of developing the messenger further and implementing user feedback, Google instead threw another messenger app onto the market in 2016.
Allo works using a telephone number. This should make it more suitable for the masses than the previous messengers which worked via an email address. Allo also appears much more colorful and doesn’t save chats online. These are saved onto the device and are lost when you change phones as there’s no backup function. Otherwise Allo is very colorful and should impress with its text formatting options, stickers and Google Assistant. It’s an exciting concept in itself, but the lack of development and insecurity behind Google messengers repels many people from the service. The wide distribution of WhatsApp also likely plays a role. A messenger with less functionality will not entice many people to switch.
Don’t hold your breath for Google to update its old messengers. Instead, look forward to new ones.
Google Reader 
For a long time, the Google Reader was one of the services I used most. It was long my favorite source for all types of news, from politics to technology to daily gossip.
Google had brought the feed reader to life way back in 2005. Nevertheless, I wasn’t especially happy with the interface which Google provided, and I wasn’t alone in this. Few services have attracted so many third parties as Google Reader. Primarily, in the last few years there have been countless alternative interfaces. And then came Feedly, which offered one of the most beautiful user interfaces.
But on July 1, 2013, this was over for good. Google abandoned the reader. The primary reason was that Google Reader wasn’t being used by a lot of people. The app was getting old, and many various news applications had found their way into the list of top apps. An antiquated feed reader which you needed to set up yourself was simply too old-fashioned.
The disappearance of Google Reader broke my world apart. Find another reliable source for my news? No thank you, Reader worked wonderfully. Feedly luckily saw its chance and took over the role of the reader. To this day I still use this service daily. The best part of switching was how easy it was. Ultimately, the developers of Feedly handled the entire changeover, meaning that I only needed to log in to my Google Account as normal.
This works to this very day and I’ve never needed to reassign feeds or anything like that. Of course there are other companies whose services may offer similar features to the feed reader. But with this reader it was incredibly easy to try out new UIs. The hurdle in switching is much higher when you need to reselect all your active feeds or set up the app again. I still miss the Google Reader for the simple reason that I like to try out new services. Feedly is nevertheless a satisfactory replacement.
Google Wave 
Google Wave was Google’s first foray into the field of collaborative working. The idea behind this was pretty genius. In May 2009, Google introduced a product at Google I/O which allowed colleagues to work simultaneously on one document. You could create ‘Waves’ and invite multiple colleagues to collaborate. This had the effect of looking like a thread in a forum, or a group chat in today’s messenger apps.
With Wave we have a product which we can’t strictly describe as ‘failed’. The idea behind it was really good and many of its functions are found today in Google’s office suite with Docs, Sheets and Slides. These programs are underpinned by the idea that several users can work together on the same document. And this functions better today than ever before.
The service was ultimately ended in April 2012 and its servers deactivated. The service likely never reached the user count which Google had aimed for. But as said before, although the program is dead, the idea behind it certainly isn’t. While collaboration is at the core of Google Docs, Sheets and Slides, direct communication in the form of a chat has been sidelined.
Of course, Google has made other products which ultimately failed, but we wanted to concentrate on the bigger projects here.(special props to Arewatech1 of nairaland.com for the writeup)…...read more

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Turn Your Webcam Into A Spy Camera with These Free Apps


Worried about your home’s security after a string of break-ins in your neighborhood? Maybe you want to keep an eye on your domestic help or nanny. What you need is a security camera. But setting up a home surveillance system might be quite costly. If you are looking for a cheap way to make sure someone does not intrude at your home or office, there are free apps that can turn your PC’s webcam into a spy camera.
To set up a cost-effective security camera, you will need at least one webcam, or several IP cameras if your home is large. Free software can capture motion by an intruder, and alert you by emailing you a live feed or high-resolution photos. Some programs will also let you view activity remotely from another computer or your mobile phone.
Below is a list of applications that will turn your laptop into a surveillance device. All are free and easy to configure.
1. iSpy
A free, open-source application, iSpy lets you monitor your workplace or home remotely. The software program provides several ways to notify you if it detects an intruder, including an alarm system, a recording system, and sending screengrabs to your PC or mobile phone.
iSpy can connect to multiple IP cameras and microphones. It automatically starts recording whenever it captures motion. However, to enable live remote viewing from any PC, you will need to spend between $7 and $49 per month to unlock this feature.
Setting up iSpy is easy. All you need is a PC webcam and a long USB cable. The software program connects with your camera and records any motion the camera captures. You can set specific areas to monitor, and configure motion capture settings for automatic recording. Have an extra webcam? Connect it to iSpy and set up a mini home security system right away!

2. Yaw Cam
A free software program, Yaw Cam lets you set up a mini home surveillance system through your laptop’s web camera. The software is very easy to set up, and has a lot of features for a free application.
You can configure Yaw Cam so that it tracks and captures motion, either within a specified area of your home or workplace, or in the entire area within the webcam’s field of view.
The app notifies you of any intrusion by sending hi-resolution photos of the motion capture via email or a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site. You can set your photo notifications with your Yahoo or Gmail email address and get instant live alerts on your mobile phone or computer.
Before installing this software, make sure you install Java Virtual Machine.
3. Yoics
This remote desktop application can easily turn your webcam into a spy camera. All you need to do is connect your webcam to the app and set up a connection with your Gmail, YouTube or Twitter account, for instant text, photo, or video notifications of any intrusion. This free software program supports motion capture. However, the lengthy setup may not appeal to the average user.
In addition to monitoring your webcam, the application lets you view your desktop remotely and access your computer's folders. You can view and download any folder on your PC right from your mobile phone or web browser.
4. Vitamin D
Vitamin D is another ideal remote monitoring software program for home and office. Once connected to your webcam, the app detects motion. Its state-of-the-art capabilities easily distinguish moving people from moving objects. It tracks and captures motion, streams it live for remote viewing, and records it for future review. You can filter out a long video capture to show only important moments. A detailed guide can be found in the official site’s “support” section.
The app is easy to configure and won’t take too much time to set up so that you can receive real-time alerts from your webcam. The free version supports only one webcam; you will need to spend money to get multi-cam support. Still, even the free version has some amazing features....read more

Friday, March 17, 2017

Mobile Website vs. Mobile App: Which is Best for?

For Broad Marketing Outreach, A Mobile Website is the Place to Start.
If you're planning to establish a mobile presence for your business or organization one of the first considerations that will likely come to mind is whether you want to create a mobile application for users to download (app) or a mobile website, or perhaps both. Mobile websites and apps can look very similar at first-glance, and determining which is most suited to your needs will depend upon a number of factors, including target audiences, available budget, intended purpose and required features.

What’s the Difference Between a Mobile Website and an App (Application)?
Before you can evaluate the benefits of a mobile website vs. an app it’s important to understand the key differences between the two. Both apps and mobile websites are accessed on a handheld devices such as smartphones (e.g. iPhone, Android and Blackberry) and tablets.

A mobile website is similar to any other website in that it consists of browser-based HTML pages that are linked together and accessed over the Internet (for mobile typically WiFi or 3G or 4G networks). The obvious characteristic that distinguishes a mobile website from a standard website is the fact that it is designed for the smaller handheld display and touch-screen interface. Increasingly, responsive web design is becoming the new standard for websites that are not only mobile-friendly, but that can scale to any sized device - from desktop down to tablet and handheld smartphones.

Like any website, mobile websites/responsive sites can display text content, data, images and video. They can also access mobile-specific features such as click-to-call (to dial a phone number) or location-based mapping.

Apps are actual applications that are downloaded and installed on your mobile device, rather than being rendered within a browser. Users visit device-specific portals such as  Apple’s App Store, Android Market, or Blackberry App World in order to find and download apps for a given operating system. The app may pull content and data from the Internet, in similar fashion to a website, or it may download the content so that it can be accessed without an Internet connection.

Which is Better – an App or a Mobile (Responsive) Website?
When it comes to deciding whether to build a native app or a mobile website, the most appropriate choice really depends on your end goals. If you are developing an interactive game an app is probably going to be your best option. But if your goal is to offer mobile-friendly content to the widest possible audience then a mobile website is probably the way to go. In some cases you may decide you need both a mobile website and a mobile app, but it’s pretty safe to say that it rarely makes sense to build an app without already having a mobile website in place.

Generally speaking, a mobile website should be considered your first step in developing a mobile web presence, whereas an app is useful for developing an application for a very specific purpose that cannot be effectively accomplished via a web browser.

Advantages of a Mobile Website vs. Native Apps
If your goals are primarily related to marketing or public communications, a mobile/responsive website is almost always going to make sense as a practical first step in your mobile outreach strategy. This is because a mobile website has a number of inherent advantages over apps, including broader accessibility, compatibility and cost-effectiveness.

Immediacy – Mobile Websites Are Instantly Available 

A mobile website is instantly accessible to users via a browser across a range of devices (iPhone, Android, BlackBerry, etc).  Apps on the other hand require the user to first download and install the app from an app marketplace before the content or application can be viewed - a significant barrier between initial engagement and action/conversion.

Compatibility – Mobile Websites are Compatible Across Devices
A single mobile website can reach users across many different types of mobile devices, whereas native apps require a separate version to be developed for each type of device. Furthermore, mobile website URLs are easily integrated within other mobile technologies such as SMS, QR Codes and near field communication (NFC).

Upgradability – Mobile Websites Can Be Updated Instantly
A mobile website is much more dynamic than an app in terms of pure flexibility to update content. If you want to change the design or content of a mobile website you simply publish the edit once and the changes are immediately visible; updating an app on the other hand requires the updates to be pushed to users, which then must be downloaded in order to update the app on each type of device.

Findability – Mobile Websites Can be Found Easily
Mobile websites are much easier for users to find because their pages can be displayed in search results and listed in industry-specific directories, making it easy for qualified visitors to find you. Most importantly, visitors to your regular website can be automatically sent to your mobile site when they are on a handheld (using device-detection).  In contrast, the visibility of apps are largely restricted to manufacturer app stores.

Shareability – Mobile Websites Can be Shared Easily by Publishers, and Between Users
Mobile website URLs are easily shared between users via a simple link (e.g. within an email or text message, Facebook or Twitter post). Publishers can easily direct users to a mobile website from a blog or website, or even in print. An app simply cannot be shared in this fashion.

Reach – Mobile Websites Have Broader Reach
Because a mobile website is accessible across platforms and can be easily shared among users, as well as search engines, it has far greater reach capability than a native app.

Life Cycle – Mobile Websites Can’t be Deleted
The average shelf-life of an app is pretty short, less than 30 days according to some research, so unless your app is something truly unique and/or useful (ideally, both), it’s questionable how long it will last on a user’s device. Mobile websites on the other hand are always available for users to return to them.

A Mobile Website Can be an App!
Just like a standard website, mobile websites can be developed as database-driven web applications that act very much like native apps. A mobile web application can be a practical alternative to native app development.

Time and Cost - Mobile Websites are Easier and Less Expensive
Last but certainly not least, mobile website development is considerably more time and cost-effective than development of a native app, especially if you need to have a presence on different platforms (requiring development of multiple apps).

Support and Maintenance
The investment considerations of app vs website don’t end with the initial launch; properly supporting and maintaining an app (upgrades, testing, compatibility issues and ongoing development) is more much more expensive and involved than supporting a website over time.

When Does an App Make Sense
Despite the many inherent benefits of the mobile web, apps are still very popular, and there are a number of specific use scenarios where an app will be your best choice.  Generally speaking, if you need one of the following, an app makes sense:

Interactivity/Gaming – for interactive games (think Angry Birds) an app is almost always going to be your best choice, at least for the foreseeable future.

Regular Usage/Personalization – If your target users are going to be using your app in a personalized fashion on a regular basis (think EverNote) then an app provides a great way to do that.

Complex Calculations or Reporting – If you need something that will take data and allow you to manipulate it with complex calculations, charts or reports (think banking or investment) an app will help you do that very effectively.

Native Functionality or Processing Required - mobile web browsers are getting increasingly good at accessing certain mobile-specific functions such as click-to-call, SMS and GPS. However, if you need to access a user's camera or processing power an app will still do that much more effectivley.
No connection Required – If you need to provide offline access to content or perform functions without a network/wireless connection then an app makes sense.
As with any project, when developing an app you want to ensure that your are getting an optimal return on your investment. What you want to avoid at all costs is the needless and expensive exercise of building an app to do something basic that can be achieved with a mobile website.

In Conclusion
As mobile use continues to grow worldwide, the “app vs web” question will remain a very real consideration for organizations seeking to establish a mobile presence. If your mobile goals are primarily marketing-driven, or if your aim is to deliver content and establish a broad mobile presence that can be easily maintained, shared between users, and found on search engines, then the a mobile-friendly responsive website is the logical choice.

On the other hand, if your goal is to provide a user experience that feels more like a gaming interface or a computer program than a website, or if you need access to a user's phone storage and native functions, then an app is probably going to be required.

It's also important to remember that a mobile/responsive website and a native app are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Plenty of organizations have both a mobile-friendly public website for their general web presence, as well as a downloadable native app to accommodate more specific requirements. In the end, it's all about choosing the right tool for the job......read more

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Driverless Cars: The Current Big Players

An autonomous car (also known as a driverless car, auto, self-driving car, robotic car) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its environment and navigating without human input. Many such vehicles are being developed, but as of February 2017 automated cars permitted on public roads are not yet fully autonomous. Below are the current big players already testing for commercial rollout.


Google

The internet giant announced that it was developing driverless cars in 2009 and began testing them on California’s roads in 2012. In February 2016, Google said it bore “some responsibility” after one of its self-driving cars struck a bus in a minor crash. Before that, its vehicles had driven more than one million miles without an incident that was the car’s fault, according to the company.
Google has said it plans to make its cars available to the public in 2020

Daimler

Believed by many industry experts to be the closest to bringing a fully autonomous car to market. The manufacturer, which owns Mercedes, has spent years developing self-driving features for its high-end models.
“Time and space will become the luxury goods of the future ,” lead engineer Ralf Herrtwich told Robotics & Automation News in April 2016

Ford

The American motor giant is keen to show it is at the forefront of developing new car technology and says its cars have equalled Google in reaching “level 4” autonomy. Ford has been rumoured to be in discussions with Google about a tie-up on driverless tech

Tesla

An icon of the electric car movement, Tesla has also been rapidly adding semi-autonomous technology to its high-end vehicles. This includes autopilot, which allows cars to navigate by themselves in many scenarios, as well as Summon, which allows Tesla owners to order cars to their door via a smartphone. In October 2016, Tesla said self-driving technology would be in all cars

Uber

The future of Uber’s ride-hailing app could be cars that get you between points without needing a driver, a scenario that could dramatically bring down prices. The company has hired driverless car experts from Carnegie Mellon University for a special unit, and is now testing cars in Pittsburgh

Volvo

Volvo is trialling self-driving technology in Sweden and plans to do so in London in 2018, before the technology becomes mainstream in the next decade. It has committed to nobody being killed or seriously injured in any Volvo sold from 2020

Apple

Apple is believed to have been secretly developing electric car technology for some time, and to have considered investments in several car companies. Recently, however, its plans appeared to have stalled and it is now working on developing software for other manufacturers.......read more