Online Health

I've seen a heck of a lot of bad press for the NHS and its IT overhauling - mostly in IT trade magazines which I pretend never to read as it's bad for my street cred.

But as an end user, I have to say, the simplicity of the online 'Choose and Book' scheme is fantastic.

If you need to see a consultant at a hospital, your GP can sign you up for 'Choose and Book.' What this means is that you can check online for all the hospitals in your area offering the care you need. Here you can see the average wait time for each hospital, so you can make an informed decision about where to go for your care based on wait time and location.

OK - so when I went to choose and book there was no difference in wait time for each hospital, but I actually felt in control of the process. It may sound silly, but this sense of control as opposed to the feeling of waiting for 'them' to write you with your appointment, not being sure where you'll have to go etc etc, makes a huge difference to how a patient feels and their experience of the care system.

It means a lot to people to feel in control of their own destiny...in so far as they can be when it comes to health.

Powerful and Stylish

I've made my bugbears about power cables quite clear in the past, so you can imagine my excitement at this prototype space saving number. Sleek, stylish, and it even looks like it's easy to change the fuse.

Sadly it seems there are no plans as yet to go into production, which is a shame; as the video says, product designers work so hard to get the devices themselves sleek and stylish and the poor old power cable is left sticking out of the box, or lurking, 3 pins up, ready for a misplaced step...owch.

You can please some of the people...

Whilst perusing the forums of one of my clients I came across this post:

-----------------------
I'd love to see a contest

I have seen so many interesting books in the blurb bookstore that I could spend thousands of dollars in one mad afternoon buying books. But I can’t afford that.

So what I think would be great is if blurb would run a contest with the prize being blurb bookstore credits. Lots of credits. Lots and lots.

I don’t care what the subject of the contest is. Just as long as it’s something I have a chance of winning :-) I don’t want it to be a "my book is better than your book" sort of thing. Perhaps a scavanger hunt for specific images found in books in the bookstore? Something that would not turn into a competition about what book is better, and which would encourage people to investigate the richness of what’s on offer in the bookstore.

But any idea would do. But, as I said, it has to be something that I could possibly win.

--------------------------------

Now - Blurb is running a competition, Photography.Book.Now. And so one of the Blurb guys responds and points that out. To which the original poster replies:

"I’d like a contest that 1) I have a chance of winning and 2) Doesn’t cost US$35 to enter."

You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time...

Jesus.

Why women won't play with Natal

The big news in games this week (coming out of E3) is Microsoft's Project Natal. This pretty nifty gaming interface lets you kick, punch, throw, headbutt - basically use any part of your body in the game - with no need for a controller; real Minority Report stuff.

By negating the need for fiddly button controls that give your thumbs RSI and with the introduction of games designed to improve fitness via its clever Wii system, Nintendo has done a lot to get the fairer sex interested in 'gaming.' Personally I got hooked by Sony with Rocky on Playstation 2 - the undefeated champion weighing in at 140lbs *ahem - give or take* Singstar was also a favourite - although that novelty soon wore off.

But Project Natal feels like it can push the boundaries even further - if it's easy to use, with no need to set up, learn how to use controls or indeed even have controls to store when not in use, suddenly we have something that slips seamlessly into the living room and I can start playing with easily.

That said...reading one of the articles coming out of E3 by the chaps at CNET has set off a couple of alarm bells.

Natal works using 'magic' to recognise peoples skeletal structure and how we move. It's so smart, it recognised that one of the journalists getting up to have a play was a woman and so displayed an avatar to reflect her feminine form.

So why won't I play with Natal? Because every woman suffers from body dismorphia, even in its mildest form, and will dread the possibility that Natal will represent her with a big, butch, manly avatar.

Oh the shame!

Paranormal Pics

Everyone loves a gimmick, so why hasn't a camera manufacturer launched a SLR specifically designed to help the amateur photographer capture the spirit world. It could feature Derek Acorah in the ads - I'd buy it.

We all love a good ghost story, and the news is full of tales of inexplicable images; the BBC recently ran with this one about the image of a man who could either be kneeling by a bed nursing a sick child or an executioner holding the severed head of one of his victims....easily confused.

iCan't buy from iTunes

I needed to buy an iTunes voucher, but I needed it pronto, thank the Lord for the online world.

So...first step, I had to install iTunes. Then I had to set up my own account with my card details. But oddly enough, when I tried to buy it said that my account wasn't valid to buy gift certificates.

So I called the Apple store support, who walked me through the online FAQ (I couldn't have done it without you boys) and suggested that the problem was because I was using a debit card not a credit card. So I changed the card. And still couldn't buy.

Everyone loves Apple right?

Switching off

Addendum:

Just figured out how to stop my Blackberry winking it me with its hungover red-eye every time I get an email.

Personal Time as we know it is about to get better...WOO HOO

Mental Health Ravaged by Technology

I watched ITV's Tonight programme last week which featured an experiment where year 10s (that's 14 year olds to you and I) we're required to give up their luxuries, everything from their TVs, ipods and mobile phones right through to make-up.

I was expecting to see a bunch of spoilt teens moaning about how miserable life was, but instead I found myself wondering how we got here; at what point did childhood slip away?

The stress the young girls felt about not wearing make-up is an angst I remembered having during my acne riddled early twenties - but I had an excuse right?

The focus of the show was about helping boost self confidence, getting the youngsters (boys and girls) to worry less about image and enjoy living life.

They all struggled with losing their phones, and one lad really struggled with what to do in his spare time with no laptop. Of course what they found was that they became more social, with family and friends, and opened themselves up to new experiences. One girl even did her homework whilst killing time before a party because she couldn't preen herself in the same way.

This weekend our servers changed over meaning email was down and my Blackberry didn't work. Whilst I make every effort NOT to check my work email in my spare time, this weekend was one of the best weekends I've had in a long time. Having the access to those emails taken away from me relived that pressure valve and I actually found that I switched off.

So maybe all these gadgets and gizmos are bad for us, adding to our stress levels whether it's because you're anxious that you can't afford the coolest, or you're always on at work.

I then watched another programme, The Incredible Human Journey, and pondered about how the people of Siberia managed to organise the annual reindeer festival when they live such nomadic lifestyles...

Technology - can't live with it, can't live without it.

P.S. Looks like a similar social experiment of bling binning went on in the US

Outraged, From Barnes

I love theme parks, so last week when I took a trip to Thorpe Park I was so excited that I didn't care it was raining and had to pee the moment we arrived.

Because it was a week day, queues were not too bad, but I asked what it had been like at the weekend: "120 minutes for SAW."

SAW is the latest addition to the roller coaster thrills of Thorpe Park. Based on the "popular blood, gore and suspense horror film series 'Saw' this ride has been advertised to death, with suspense filled radio ads filtering into my ears as I ate my cornflakes.

I'm a huge horror film fan and I was impressed with the first SAW movie. The concept was the most gruesome aspect and helped the film stand out from most of the other gore-filled scream-fests vomited up by Hollywood.

But as the sequels drew on - part 2, 3, 4 and then 5 - it quickly became gore for gore's sake. Now I ain't no horror prude; my movie collection features some of the best (and worst) zombie horrors, surely one of the most gore-filled of film genres? But the SAW films contain a very different kind of violence, human on human, and pushes the boundaries of how much torture one person can inflict on another.

So when I heard the ads for the new SAW themed ride on breakfast radio I commented to my work colleagues that I thought it was a bit inappropriate to advertise something so closely aligned with such a film outside the watershed.

Most people dismissed me as having Daily Mail Syndrome and being overly sensitive, but my point is that children are not stupid, and the concern we used to have over their access to video nasties seems to have been long forgotten.

That said, I didn't disapprove so much as to boycott Thorpe Park, and of course when I was there, have a go on the ride myself.

And I loved it! It was great fun. But it is utterly inappropriate for a family theme park. Riders queue in a fenced area topped with mock barbed wire whilst all along the queue are rusty 'torture' machines helping to set the scene and create the atmosphere.

All reasonably inoffensive so far as imagery for children as it's not that obvious, so nothing to really get my knickers in a twist over. But then you go inside where you see a man with a naked torso suspended from the ceiling, tangled-up in razor wire which is cutting into his flesh and making it bulge like a bloodied brie being sliced in two.

There are height restrictions on the ride, you have to be over 1.4 metres to ride, meaning really young children will never see that disturbing mannequin. But 1.4 metres is the average height of a 10 year old.

Am I just a prude, or am I the only person left (who doesn't read the Daily Mail) that thinks children should not be exposed to this sort of imagery, and that theme parks, and indeed any company working on a co-branding project with a horror film, need to be more responsible in how they execute it?

Amazon Fail

I am so late to the party...I know, I know.

What makes it worse is that over the Easter weekend I actually watched the whole Amazon Fail debacle unfold on Twitter. For anyone who needs to catch up - this is where Amazon decided to remove some books from search results because of what they felt was Adult Content - basically de-ranking the books without really thinking about the context of the content.

For an author - this is seriously bad news, but for a consumer - I don't want Amazon censoring my searches. I like the recommended books - I like generic searches to bring up stuff I might be interested in.

Is it really anything to do with child safety? How many kids are shopping for books on Amazon - or have a missed a trick with these digital natives?

I have less of a problem with talk of monitoring all Internet use than I do with retail sites censoring their searches. They don't sensor your search in Waterstones...I'm just saying - is this the rise of the high street again?

I'm tired of the Mac Love-in

I'm back - did you miss me? Whilst I've been away I've been stewing about Apple. It's certainly no holiday - it's been a pet stew of mine for the past 9 years. That's a long time to hold a grudge.

You could say it's because I've never owned anything made by Apple - in which case I'd gruffly mutter about wannabe's and how it's not all about looks.

But what's got my goat today is the CNet comparison of the iPhone vs the netbook - their 'extreme writing test' driving in a rally car to see which is more accurate on the text input under such conditions.

The iPhone won.

FIX.

The whole typing mechanism is so totally different - the thumb predictive text of the iPhone vs a laptop, key pad, two handed input. What the hell kind of comparison is that?

Flippin' Macophiles.

Electric Easter

At first glance, it seems so pointless - an electronic Easter egg that bleeps. But visually impaired children in Arizona State have been joining in the Easter egg hunting fun thanks to these seemingly pointless blue eggs.

It's one of those things you take for granted (Easter egg hunting that is...I do it all the time). But this simple concept has warmed my cockles on Good Friday.

Although I recon being in a field full of these squeaking eggs might be like a form of KGB interrogation rather than fun...

"Dear Sirs..."

I'm clearly a fan of companies doing right by their customers and the public. But I don't just complain for complaining's sake; I don't watch the television well into the night waiting to get offended and more often than not in stores I scurry out and moan in the privacy of my own home.

In fact I get really annoyed by the Daily Mail reading Great British Complainers, who clearly derive no joy from life.

Latest victim: Google Street View.

Some describe it as an "invitation to criminals" and an "invasion of privacy" while Google thinks it's only coming under fire because it's so successful.

I feel like I'm the only one who went straight to my house and zoomed in with the hope that I could see myself in there. Is that weird? And what are people doing in their homes that they're so worried about being caught on camera for anyway?

In my view, Google Street View is yet another source of great online entertainment - it's like the next generation of You've Been Framed (Sunday night tea-time-TV that I always thought was popular with the mainstream, Great British Complainer). I expect we'll see a lot more of these amusing screen shots posted over the coming weeks - like all the naked people there were on Google Earth. *gasp*

I saw this and thought of you

It can be embarrassing if you have to retract your customer complaint:

"oh no - I thought it was like an artists impression, not instructions..."

Demanding Content

According to a new study, more of the Great British youf watch music videos on YouTube than traditional channels like MTV (57% of 15-24 year olds watched music on YouTube, compared to 56% watching them on TV). But poor ol' YouTube has had to take a load of music videos down after a row broke out about licensing fees.

Working in tech PR I've been listening to companies talk about content on demand for donkey's. And back when I first started in tech PR, I was rather taken with the first incarnation of Napster (is it illegal to admit that?).

I'll also admit another taboo...I find it hard to part with cash for digital content.

I don't get anything tangible in my hands. I pay my license fee because it's like a utility bill, I have a Lovefilm subscription because they post me things (DVDs to be precise, I don't have a special agreement with them). But when it comes of video on demand, if I want to see something, by hook or by crook I will make it happen.

But that doesn't mean I won't pay for it, it's just that option is more often than not unavailable, making it physically impossible to part with cash.

So why isn't it legally available - I said I'd pay for it, why can't I? Usually it's because the series/movie/whatever is only out in the States, not the UK, and as such I am expected to wait. Me? Wait? Outrageous.

But this is a problem for content owners - I am a problem. Piracy funds terrorism, we all know that right? Mickey Mouse working for the Taliban is an image conjured by many a political comedian ove rthe years. But the VOD services out there are simply not good enough. I want more than content on demand, I am demanding content.

Take last night as a case in point. Lovefilm sent me Disk 1 of Apparitions, a BBC series from last year that I'd never seen but had wanted to. I loved it, and after watching all 3 episodes over the course of the weekend, and being left on a cliffhanger edge for part 4, I realised that I needed that next episode. I'll have to wait a couple of days to get it from LoveFilm, and BBC iPlayer doesn't keep stuff from back in November. I was screwed, and found myself trawling the web for somewhere I could download it.

Now...would I have paid for that download? Yes. If I'd found it, I wanted to watch it so badly that I would have happily paid a couple of quid for it. But so too would I have broken the law and watched an illegal copy, because I wanted to see it - correction, I needed to see it.

The whole experience of watching and listening to things is so utterly different from owning a gadget or a gizmo that us mere mortals find it hard to check our morals when the desperation to find out what happens next takes over. It's like reading a book, you stay up late to get to the end, forgoing sleep and rocking up to work the next day broken and tired with a crick in your neck simply because you could not put the darned thing down.

So there's the rub. Traditional broadcasters have no choice but to change their business models because we're all 5 steps ahead of content on demand, we're demanding what we want, when we want it. These people have been talking about VOD for so long now, it's time to shape up or continue to lose money on stolen/pirated copy.

See what I did there? It's not my fault if I view pirated video, it's because I didn't have any other choice.

Epilogue:
I never managed to find Apparitions online, and so have ordered disk 2 from Lovefilm - it's the only one in my rental list on high priority so hopefully it's next to arrive this week.

For the Legal Eagles:
This blog does not condone the distribution or consumption of illegally obtained content.

Converging or Colliding?

We're always hearing about convergence and we all own converged devices, one of the most common being the lowly camera phone. But now there seems to be a new battle for the most converged devices in the home, and who will be in control of them.

Currently my living room is like one of those old stackable home audio systems, featuring a plethora of boxes under the TV; my freeview, DVD, VHS (yes...I still have tapes I wanna watch), a CambridgeSoundworks Wave Radio, my SlingCatcher...and so the list goes on.

None of these are converged, none of them could be at the time of purchase and even if a one-size-fits-all product were to emerge I doubt I'd rush out and buy it because I have a snazzy TV unit bought as a wedding gift from John Lewis that houses all of these things beautifully and tidily. It'd look sparse if I only had one device.

But if the future pictures being painted by the gadget Gods are anything to go by, we'll all have phones implanted in our teeth and a central 'hub' in the home ordering milk for us.

The O2 Joggler is one of the first in what I'm sure will be a long line of devices trying to be this central hub. We've already seen the router manufacturers giving is easy to use network management software, and this is kind of like that, but a physical onscreen interface that lets you manage the network of your family - I don't mean their online set-up, but their calendar.

A nice idea, but standalone it has a cat in hell's change of ever being the defacto device. There are too may device manufacturers and service providers all making a play for that central role, and if they don't start really working well together we'll never get any closer to having a truly converged home, and my John Lewis TV unit will always be needed.

Besides, in those films set in the future where the home has a central hub ("lights on"), something always goes wrong and the home computer takes over, trapping everyone inside until a burly man rescues them. That kind of lifestyle is just unsustainable.

Pink Stinks

I have been told that my blog is quite girly in its design* because it's pink. Pink is the universal Girl Colour. When a man wears a pink shirt he is seen as brave, stupid or gay. So clearly, it isn't just a colour. Pink says too much to be just a colour. Which is why I avoid, like the plague, the various gimmicky pink gadgets out there.

Designed to attract women, these dodgy facias really get on my wick. Not because I'm feminist - far from it. I rue the day feminism began to get some traction. Thanks to feminism I have to go out to work, think about politics and open my own door. I could have been so happy at home baking all day. *sigh*

Feminism aside, my point is simple. Do women only wear pink, all day every day? Or do we like to think of ourselves as having quite a unique look, individual to us. We wear the eye make-up that accentuates our iris, the lipstick that plumps our lips, we wear this seasons green only to toss it aside for next seasons green. We're fickle with fashion, but we like to have the choice.

A piece of technology is usually something we tend to be less fickle about. It may be an impulse purchase, but we intend to keep it longer than the high-fashion mini** we bought for the summer months.

I'm most attracted to colour and design when there is a lot of variety...like the Flip video, or the Olympus µ-mini (where I did actually chose pink), or the array of coloured Dell Studio Hybrids.

These products are sleek, stylish, work well and offer choice - giving that sense of being individual, even if it is mass produced (much like that high-fashion mini).

So what is it with these tacky-one-size-fits-all-garish-pink-Kappa-trouser-wearing gadgets? It appeals to a certain demographic - but it's not as broad as 'women' so please do not position it as such.


* at the time of writing it had pink boarders...I am fickle, so it's possible this may change soon
** skirt - not car

Changing Facebooks

Checking Facebook on my mobile over the weekend I couldn't help but notice a common theme in status updates, along the lines of "what happened to Facebook?" and "why can't they just leave it alone?"

The funny thing about social networking* is that the users, the people behind the profile pictures, think they own it - because they've made it what it is. So any change to that service drives 'em mad! But rightly so, I can't make head nor tail of my home page now.

Most of us knew this change was coming. Twitter has been grabbing so many headlines of late, and now everyone who is anyone is on there telling us they're about to make a cup of tea. But all this attention seems to have put the willies up Facebooks' arsebook, with reports saying Facebook was going to revamp to look more like Twitter, which seems to have just wound people up. Last time they revamped was summer '08, and the people were livid! And so taking on board that feedback, they've done it again!

What's interesting is this desire to be more like Twitter. But the two are very different beasts, with users looking to get very different things from each.

I very rarely trawl through the archives of Twitter to find out what inane comments have been made by the people I follow, however I will take time to peruse Facebook, catch up on photos of parties that I couldn't go to, fast forward through holiday snaps and see who's broken up with who (mainly gloating at ex-boyfriends' misery...). It's a catch up tool, a place to reconnect with old friends (without paying the fiver Friends Reunited once extorted out of me to email back someone I didn't even like in the first place), but Twitter is an immediate micro-blog feed, some useful tidbits some drivel. I don't get the same interaction through Twitter, and I'm also more exposed.

So why compete? Because you're jealous that your day in the sun seems to be over and Twitter is getting all the headlines?

Companies remain successful when they listen to what the customer wants, learn from how the customer uses their product or service and then adapt around that. Text messaging is a fine example of something that turned out to be a huge boost for mobile operators who originally thought "no-one will want to send a message of only 160 characters, but we can do it...f*ck it, stick it on the phone and see what happens."

Listening to feedback is even more more important when you rely on the interaction of your customers. So like crossing the road, look right, look left, look right again**, then when you're sure it's safe, make your move.

*I really hate this phrase, all networking is social, both online and off, but I guess in terms of the computer world the geeks might think it's the top trumps site for Ethernet cables...

**If you're in a country that drives on the right hand side, look left, look right, look left again...and if you're in India, you're safer not crossing.

Are we really all Eco-Warriors?

Apparently, 62% of us let environmental concerns influence our purchasing decisions. We're not just talking recycled loo paper here, for tech goods, some 20% of us care about the environmental reputation of a company too.

I think I may be about to call out a taboo, but I'm not sure I do care. In the same way I still buy disposable fashion from Primark, I really don't think the 'green' thing enters my mind when I buy technology. I buy it because I want it, and my choice is influenced by what it does, how well it does it, what it looks like and how much it costs.

The research is by the Carbon Trust Standard, so I guess it didn't look at what else influences our purchasing decisions, or what our order of influence is. I bet I'm not far off the average consumer where brand might enter into it too, but environmental concerns are way down the list.

I mean really, my solar powered calculator was only bought because I could save money on batteries...

Charged in a flash

I had a debate the other day about whether it's better to have a device that takes standard batteries, or whether it's better to have a device that is rechargeable. Apparently the fact that the Flip video takes normal batteries is a good thing.

However, I prefer rechargeable. I don't like spending money on batteries. Yes, I could buy rechargeable AA/AAA batteries if I wanted to, but I still have to buy them, actually part with my cash. And then I also have to buy the charger.

Sure - I pay for the electricity used to recharge my devices' lithium-ion battery, but that never feels like real money.

The only time it's annoying for me is if I've forgotten to do it. Like Saturday night, heading out for a party and I'd not charged the battery on my camera. I plugged it in to squeeze in as much power as I could before it was time to leave and fortunately it was just enough.

So the news that boffins at MIT are working on a way to manufacture lithium-ion batteries so that they can be charged in a flash is music to my ears.

Even my Zen has been lying dormant in my handbag for four days now - if I could just give it a quick blast and be up and running again I'm sure life would taste that little bit sweeter.

Wow us consumers are impatient! I want it faster, better, quicker, and I want it to cost less, look better, double up as a calculator/music player/camera/phone/TV/car. Make it so.

Until death us do part

Something every consumer facing company strives to achieve is a brand loyalty until death us do part.

I tend to have very little brand loyalty, but I am still stuck with Vodafone. Why? Because the sheer effort of moving is too much. So I keep my shitty little handset, pay my £20 a month and leave the phone at the bottom of my handbag until it runs out of battery, ashamed to show it to the world for fear of ridicule.

I have another phone, primarily for work, although it's much better, hence I use it more. It's better in every way, from including things which may well be down to the operator, like signal strength and call quality. But I don't want to get stuck into a contract, and won't buy another handset - handsets are free right? So I hide my shitty little phone with shame. If anyone sees it I quip about how retro cool it is. But because it's rubbish, I don't use it. I really should do something about it. But the effort is too great, so I put it off for another week. OMG. Do you see a pattern emerging?

I do find the whole mobile handset/mobile operator loyalty thing an interesting one though. Are people loyal to the network or the handset manufacturer?

It's got to be the device right? I'd upgrade to a cooler phone, that's what my peers will see after all. But operators need the subscribers right? So they must want to create brand loyalty? It would seem not in the case of Charli Rogers who last time she renewed her mobile contract with Orange was awarded a £15 a month loyalty discount, but this year that discount will only be £5. She's been with them over 10 years, so surely she's a keeper?

A mobile operator seems to create brand loyalty by making the sheer effort of moving seem too great. Reminds me of a couple so used to being married that the sheer effort of divorce or separation seems too much, even though they're unhappy together, but they stay that way because it's easier. But that couple are wasting their lives and I'm wasting my money.

According to Charli's Twitter feed, she ended up staying with Orange, but only because Carphone Warehouse were able to offer her a better deal.

So buying through a 3rd party is cheaper*. Again...another oddity.

Buying stuff shouldn't be this hard, but always look around for the best deal, even if the effort seems to great, especially when you're signing up to a long term contract. I'm a fine one to talk though with my shitty little phone.


*I am NOT suggesting you buy a new spouse through a third party to get a better deal, although you may fix it through a third party, like a counsellor, so the analogy still stands - W00T!

I'm obsessed with Kindle 2

I can't leave it alone. Maybe I want one afterall?

Loved this on The Onion.

The business of getting what you paid for

If it weren't a shameless way to make money off the back of other people's misfortune, I swear it would be possible to get rich having a full time job where all you do is call companies to complain about a service or product that either wasn't delivered as agreed, is broken, or just doesn't do what it's supposed to do.

I love the Consumerist, and I always feel quite proud of people who plod on until they actually get what they paid for. Like James, who bought a MacBook Pro and also wanted to get CS4 (some graphics software).

According to James, "they didn't have enough copies for people seeking student discounts, so they said that they'd send me CS3 so that I could go to class, and that they would automatically send me CS4 as soon as possible."

Unfortunately for James, this was agreed over the phone, and not in writing. So in good faith, James pays up, trusting that he will be sent his CS4 Adobe software. None arrives. And James has learnt a hard lesson; never trust a salesman.

We all get bitten by it in one guise or other, and it is such a shame that we can't trust people to do what they say they'll do or deliver what they say they'll deliver. But before you pay for anything or sign anything always get an agreement in writing, especially if anything is out of the ordinary. Hopefully you'll never need to refer back to it, but if you do, it can save a lot of time and effort down the line later.

In the end, James got what he wanted. But as he said himself, even his persistence was waning, "...I almost took the deal, too. Glad I didn't give up!"

AP: Artificial Performance

Bringing a snazzy new gadget to market that does all sorts of whizzy bang things isn't that easy, not least because of all the other people who need to stick their oar in.

Like the Kindle 2. Now I'm not an auto-fan of this new gadget, but I do appreciate what it's trying to do. It may not float my boat, but if I were to get one, I'd want it to do all the whizzy bang things you'd expect of a new gadget.

Which is why it gets my goat when 3rd parties get precious and find a reason to block a gadgets functionality.

Like when the N95 came out and Vodafone and Orange started getting all uppity about the WiFi, the Authors Guild is getting uppity about the text-to-speech functionality of the Kindle 2. Ideal for those with impaired vision, text-to-speech isn't new; it's when the computerised voice reads what's on the screen to you. And the Author's Guild thinks that's taking revenues from audio-book rights (which are usually bought separately, and worth a fair whack). Now, the Kindle 2 is good. It's text-to-speech is pretty good. But come on...comparable with an audio book?

Artificial intelligence must be coming on in leaps and bounds. Apparently computers are now trained actors, able to give the performance of their lives and keep an audience rapt for hours.

Get off your high horse Authors Guild, let me have fun with my new toy and let those who need that feature benefit from it.

IQ testing for Facebook users

So maybe Social Networking really is bad for kids brains? The latest person to lose her job after posting comments about her place of work on Facebook is 16 year old Kimberley Swan who commented on the social networking site that she was bored at work.

Poor, poor Kimberley, learning the hard way that you can't always say what you're thinking openly.

Heck, we all do stupid things, but really, what happened to common sense? There was a PR incident recently with some chap heading over to his clients office to give a media training session about social media, dos and donts etc and so forth. Shortly afterwards he found himself in trouble for slagging off the town where his clients HQ was on Twitter. Oops.

Let it be a lesson to us all, that in the same way that you wouldn't announce in a room full of people that your best friend (standing next to you) looks like she's gained a few too many pounds, don't then think it's OK to pop that on this here interweb thingymajig, open to all, even those outside the room. D'oh.

I can't type or flush

Well this is nice - recognition by the techies of the need for things to just work. Normobs, normal mobile users, can at last get the benefits of a smartphone with something that has a user interface simple enough to do it all for them...like choosing between connectivity options; 3G or WiFi? I don't care, I just want it to work.

Of course I'm talking about the iPhone with it's out of the box experience. And as much as it pains me to say it, that user interface is simplicity at its best. Anything that just works gets my vote.

But why won't I ever own an iPhone? Apart from this odd thing I do where I don't want to own the obvious choice, it comes down to fingernails.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have big talons, but my nails do grow very quickly, and they're very tough. I'm a real stereotype from a Boots advert, I love make-up, especially nail varnish. Heck, as mama used to say, if you've got it flaunt it.

But those wretched touchscreens won't respond to the touch of a finger nail, and in the effort of getting the pad of my finger on the screen I'm typing gibberish! I'm a teeny tiny keyboard kinda gal, but I need the buttons, or a touchscreen that responds to nail lacquer.

Mind you, I also have problems with those button toilet flushes, so maybe it's just me?

More back slapping please

My buddy over at MobileIP just intellectualized my rant about Femtocells in his post which talks about the hype at Mobile World Congress - the largest telecoms love-in that happened last week in Barcelona - vs the reality (i.e. not just what Jim in marketing and Jean in accounts think, but what average Joe thinks and wants).

He's cleverer than me, so I must be right! *W00T*

Does anyone fix broken gadgets anymore?

My mum's TV has broken. It's about a 10 year old CRT, and it's served her well. But then something went kaput. She lives in west Wales, where they still have handy men who fix things for a fiver (this guy once fixed the broken play button on my cassette player when I was 15 - my hero). So she took it to him, who said "leave it with me, I'll get it fixed."

But can he can't get the part. No one has a part that would fit. So he can't fix the TV. So she has to buy a new one - spending £300.

Suddenly I feel nostalgic for the days when we used to fix stuff. Who has £300 floating around to buy a new TV? She could get one for less, if she used binoculars to view it.

Don't get me wrong - I love buying new shiny toys, but only when I chose to. And hell...a television is a necessity. She has no choice - she has to buy one. With the rate at which consumer technology is progressing, it won't be long before we can consider a product that is two years old obsolete, resigned to the recycling pile because you can't get the components to fix it anymore. I hope not. I want to chose to buy, not be forced into it.

More living room clutter

Here's my plea: stop making yet more boxes that clutter up my living room.

In the days of carbon neutrality and sustainability goals, why are companies finding yet more boxes to manufacture that merely serve to gather dust in the corner of my living room?

I'm talking specifically about Femtocells, but this plea is applicable to lots of one-trick gadgets out there. I don't get it. My WiFi router can do the same thing, all the operator needs to do is put a bit of magic in the mobile network and the handset then me, the lowly little consumer, gets the improved indoor coverage as promised by a Femtocell, but doesn't have to add to the clutter of the living room.

I've always thought this - it's just another piece of pricey equipment for operators to subsidize in order to solve a network issue they caused because they didn't think things through in the first place. But most people who have a 3G phone contract have a wireless network at home. Dunno about you, but I'm seeing a pattern here.

Yet while equipment manufacturers are still touting Femtocells the lowly consumer is never asked what would actually fit best with their lives. It's a common problem where that focus group of one thinks it knows what average Joe wants; when people so caught up in their own industries really think they understand the general consumer. Please, ask us first what we'd prefer before cluttering our lives with these one trick pony gadgets.

Social networking sites cause cancer

Dr Aric Sigman isn't getting enough air time anymore so has resorted to telling us that by reducing the levels of face to face contact we're having, social networking sites cause cancer.

Well hold the front page of the Daily Mail and cancel my Facebook account! Oh hang on...not sure I can delete my Facebook profile anymore! Damn those privacy rules, they're giving me cancer!

After a lot of drivel about Dr Sigman's scientific* claims, we're then told that research suggests that the number of hours people spent interacting face-to-face had fallen dramatically since 1987 as electronic media use had increased.

Riiiiiight. So since Facebook is 5 years old, that all adds up. It has nothing to do with working longer hours, commuting longer distances, living further away from loved ones, the growth of mobile telephony and text messaging? To name but a few things that have increased since 1987 and might effect the amount of time you spend meeting people face-to-face.

I probably ought to take this blog down before I get a tumour.

*scientifically proven to grab headlines

A powerful dream

Clearly I have a bug bear about power cables and how they tend to be 'per device' even within the same brand. How often do I hear the office cry:

"Does anyone have a Nokia charger?"
"Is it the big one or small one?"

Invariably the only one to hand is not compatible.

So to my delight I see news this week that the world's biggest mobile phone makers and network operators are backing plans for a universal phone recharger.

One of the companies backing this scheme is quoted in the BBC's report as saying: "By supporting this industry initiative on common charging solutions, and enabling consumers to choose if they need a charger with every new device or can re-use existing ones, we can contribute further in improving the industry's environmental footprint."

Bollocks to that!

What it means is that I can use my husbands phone charger at home, and keep mine in the office. I can use my mums when I go and visit her - the flexibility is endless.

I have a dream, a dream of a universal-recharger utopia, where all hotels can have chargers in rooms, so you never have to fill a separate suitcase with the endless plugs and adaptors you need for a short weekend break away.

Bliss.

Stuck for a gift this Valentine's Day?

Just call me Long Distance Clara, because I love driving! But I hate bickering with my husband about how I drive. He's learnt to back off a bit and let me speed if I so choose.

Then we got a SatNav, which meant I argued with that rather than my hubby when it came to route disagreements (because I know best).

Now herald the Eco SatNav from Vexia. Much like my other half, it'll moan when I abuse the accelerator and flashes an onscreen warning that I need to change gear (well... Mr. IsThisThingSwitchedOn doesn't flash an onscreen warning - but you catch my drift).

I have a feeling that would grate after a while. I get annoyed enough with English Daniel on my Garmin NuVi telling me forcefully to "turn left on Broadway" when there's no left to be seen. I think my road rage would get out of control if he started giving me other driving tips.

But at least the other half and I don't fight anymore, it's poor English Daniel who gets it in the neck instead.

SatNavs - probably the best Valentine's gift.

Don't judge an eReader by its cover

Because if it looks like Amazon's new Kindle 2, you'll be begging for it to launch over here.

Sleek and stylish with text to speech and MP3 capabilities, it's a gadget-lover's dream. But will it replace books?

The amount of times I've dropped my book in the bath/splurged suncream all over it/trodden on it because I slung it on the floor next to my bed before going to sleep means the reality of owning an eReader will be a short lived investment of a product I am destined to break.

There seem to be endless headlines about the death of the book, and so much debate about the future of reading and whether eReaders will replace books as we know them. Maybe I've been drinking too much of the Blurb coolaid, but I just don't see the book dying. Publishing models will change, that seems a certainty. But will the book die? No.

Apart from all my reasons above, we're human and we have this odd thing we do where we collect and hoard stuff. I'm a film fan. I have a massive movie collection, half of which is on VHS. I can digitise it, but I also want to keep the originals.

It's the same with music. I will always buy the CD of the band or album I really love, because I want to own the original.

We're funny creatures, we want the latest and greatest but also get very sentimental about 'things'. The members of Bookcrossing can't just give a book to a secondhand shop, they have to track its journey.

So we'll buy the new Kindle, it'll be fun for a while, but the battery will run out 2 hours before my plane lands just as I get to a crucial part in the story. And I won't be able to bend the cover over backwards and read it with suncream soaked hands whilst dangling my feet in the pool. So I'll lose interest, and it will be resigned to the man drawer of the house.

Did you hear the one about Sony's new "stupid box thing"?

Ever watched The Onion?

Check out this video about Sony's new "stupid piece of shit that doesn't do the goddamn thing its f*!king supposed to."

Viewers may be offended, but this is a joke...so get a sense of humour or switch off and get over it.














Enjoy.

Fancy a Gamble?

The Luminox Lxdfi4030 Digital Photo Scanner, described by one unhappy customer as "not a scanner, more of a webcam in a box." (see the review at the bottom of that link to its Amazon page.)

When products break, you get them fixed. But what happens when they're just useless? Isn't there some sort of trade description act? Or do we just write it off as wasted money? In most cases I do the latter, because in most cases it does do what it says it would do, it just does it badly.

You can do as much background research as you like with the information available about that product, but without that independent third party - whether that's from a friend or a product review - you can never really be sure of what you're buying. You can even be reasonably sure that a sales assistant in a reputable store won't sell you a heap of crap - sure, they may not sell you the best product for your needs, but it's unlikely to be a total dud.

In this Amazon review, the guy states "a good hint of if a product is good is that you'll have press reviews. I see none."

He's right. I've spoken to enough review editors to know that they will rarely even include a total dud product in a round-up. So if a product even has a review, it got past the first hurdle. Of course there is also an element of PR people pulling in favours, but we can't turn water into wine and a reviewer won't lie - for starters, just think of the complaint letters from readers.

So the Luminox does copy an image: "it is like a webcam in a shell that has a window at the far end of the box, this allows light in. You then put your photo in the frame and 'scan' it in." It just also happens to be "unreliable and probably the poorest image type product on the market today."

So that's £80 down the drain.

At least he remains undefeated, and has found a use for his Luminox, deciding to "convert it into a litter tray for small cats."

Let that be a lesson to us all - never buy a new toy without reading a review first.

As for how these products ever make it to market...well that's a post for another time.