In a move that will affect some 300 million users worldwide (October 2012 numbers from Comscore for Hotmail users), Microsoft plans to transition all users accounts from it's current email service, Hotmail.com (aka Windows Live Mail), over to its new email service, Outlook.com, by the Summer. All accounts will be kept intact, including passwords and addresses. For many years, Hotmail was the largest email provider in the world, and still remains the largest or second-largest (depending on who you ask) as it competes with Google's GMail. The transition automatically makes Outlook.com one of the largest email providers int he world, despite just coming out of the closed beta. Overall, I feel that this is indicative of a movement at Microsoft towards brand awareness and cohesion.
This Hotmail move, combined with the already announced move of Messenger users over to Skype, as well as the convergence of operating systems in the Windows 8/RT platform, present on current Windows PCs, tablets, and the planned "X-Box 720," shows that, like Apple and Google, Microsoft is trying to create a cohesive, heavily-marketed and branded computing environment to provide users with platform-independent experiences. This is a continuation of a trend that began at Microsoft with Windows and Windows CE, and later, Windows Mobile. It was Apple who took the reins and created the cohesive "Apple experience" with OSX and iOS, and Google that trailed behind with Android and Chrome OS. However, unlike Google, Microsoft was a player in the PC operating system game, and is still the largest in the world.
The current high-end technology market is no longer selling individual devices, but overall experiences, where a device will tie into other devices and peripherals, allowing for more flexibility and utility. Microsoft, in its complacency, fell behind the development curve and fragmented their products into poorly branded, poorly marketed individual pieces. Now, it seems that Microsoft aims to directly compete with Apple on every level, including providing an "experience," by consolidating all their services under the single banner, and using acquired IP with high consumer awareness (like Skype) to push their platform. With this move, as well as the others listed above, Microsoft seems to be positioning themselves to continue this trend and push themselves into the market at every level (PCs, laptops, tablets, smartphones, gaming devices, media hubs) to provide a Windows experience to consumers in a way that Apple can't do currently with their limited device lineup. If this strategy works for Microsoft, it could end up taking a large part of the mobile market share from Apple and Google, the PC market share from Apple, and the console market share from Nintendo and Sony.
As a Hotmail user for nearly 10 years, I find the move particularly interesting out of all the news this week, but also confusing (at first). I did not understand why Microsoft would essentially just be switching the names around. However, thinking back, it seems obvious why this moved had to happen. Hotmail has been around a long time, but consumers failed to ever make the connection to Microsoft. It had always seemed like Hotmail was its own entity. With the relatively recent change of names from Hotmail to Windows Live Mail, Microsoft was trying to push Hotmail into the Windows domain, but it still failed. I never once saw Windows Live Mail used in reference to anything but XBox accounts. Most people still referred to it as Hotmail, and even Microsoft still called it Hotmail, as evidenced by their current webpage for it. To incorporate email into their platform, Microsoft had to kill the Hotmail brand, and push a new, yet familiar one. Enter Outlook, a brand familiar to most who have used a Windows machine, since it is part of the very familiar Microsoft Office suite. Combined with the push towards integrating Skype and other services, as well as integrating all platforms under one general operating system, it became clear what Microsoft was doing.
As for next weeks' topic, I can't help but wonder what the future holds for DRM and piracy, as well as the evolution of the iTunes platform, and its competitors, like Amazon. I'm also interested in the viability of services like Netflix, Amazon Video, and Hulu to be TV replacements as their popularity grows and consumers leave cable behind.
Links:
Tech Radar: Outlook to Hotmail
Email Marketing Reports: Email Statistics
Monday, February 25, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Browser Homogeneity
Earlier today, Opera Software, the developers of the Opera web browser for desktop and mobile platforms, announced a switch from their in-house Presto engine to the open source WebKit. This switch will result in the layoff of approximately 90 employees currently employed in the web engine development team. Opera now joins Apple and Google in using WebKit to power their browsers.
This switch could mark the beginnings of a homogenous browser culture. Chrome, the world's leading desktop web browser, is based on WebKit, as are the native browsers of both Android and iOS, the two dominant mobile platforms. Apple's Safari browser is also based on WebKit. With the move, WebKit will now be used on approximately 54.5% (48.4% Chrome, 4.2% Safari, 1.9% Opera) of all desktop machines, based on the WC3's latest browser market share numbers from January 2013. And with Android and iOS accounting for approximately 89% (53.7% Android, 35% iOS) of the mobile market share, that means all those devices will have WebKit too.
While most users wouldn't care either way what rendered their web browser uses, it's possible that eventually having a single web engine power all web browsers could result in developmental stagnation, similar to what happened with IE5 and IE6 in the early and mid-2000s when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the dominant browser. Without the competition that Mozilla's Firefox provided, beginning in 2004, it's possible that web browser development could have stalled for many years. The growth of Firefox forced Microsoft to push development of Internet Explorer, which eventually resulted in a vastly improved IE8. No matter what you think of Firefox today, it was the competition between Mozilla's Gecko-engine-powered Firefox and Microsoft's Trident-engine-powered Internet Explorer in the mid-2000s that pushed web browser development for many years. A move to all WebKit-engine based browsers could result in slower development. Companies can still push out minor features that differentiate their products from each other, but the underlying engine remains the same, and the compliance to web standards (or lack thereof) remain the same under the hood.
I found this to be particularly intriguing due to the fact that this move could affect how the web looks to everyone, for better or for worse. If Firefox and Internet Explorer continue to lose market share, and the market becomes dominated by WebKit, the web will look the same for everyone, for better or for worse. Having dabbled in web development, I know what a pain it can be to have to code the same thing for multiple web browsers with slightly different standards support and can understand how an industry move to WebKit would simplify the web development process, but at the same time, as a user, I might prefer the look of one web page over another when it is rendered in two different engines. Text looks different; spacing is different; borders are different; and having the personal choice of using the best looking browser is a choice I don't want to have to give up. That choice is tied in directly with competition in what is essentially a free market for web browsers. Having no choice means having no say in what direction the industry takes.
As for next week's topic, I'm currently taking CS61C. Big data is, for the lack of a better word, a big focus of the course when it comes to warehouse scale computing. I know that a large part of the future of big data is going to be efficiency. With larger data centers serving larger amounts of data, electrical usage and overhead becomes a big concern for companies. I'd be interested in know what potential technologies are over the horizon that might help with efficiency.
Links:
CNET - Opera Cuts Staff
Tech Crunch - Pros and Cons of WebKit Monoculture
WC3 - Browser Stats Jan 2013
Comscore - Mobile Market Share Nov 2012
This switch could mark the beginnings of a homogenous browser culture. Chrome, the world's leading desktop web browser, is based on WebKit, as are the native browsers of both Android and iOS, the two dominant mobile platforms. Apple's Safari browser is also based on WebKit. With the move, WebKit will now be used on approximately 54.5% (48.4% Chrome, 4.2% Safari, 1.9% Opera) of all desktop machines, based on the WC3's latest browser market share numbers from January 2013. And with Android and iOS accounting for approximately 89% (53.7% Android, 35% iOS) of the mobile market share, that means all those devices will have WebKit too.
While most users wouldn't care either way what rendered their web browser uses, it's possible that eventually having a single web engine power all web browsers could result in developmental stagnation, similar to what happened with IE5 and IE6 in the early and mid-2000s when Microsoft's Internet Explorer was the dominant browser. Without the competition that Mozilla's Firefox provided, beginning in 2004, it's possible that web browser development could have stalled for many years. The growth of Firefox forced Microsoft to push development of Internet Explorer, which eventually resulted in a vastly improved IE8. No matter what you think of Firefox today, it was the competition between Mozilla's Gecko-engine-powered Firefox and Microsoft's Trident-engine-powered Internet Explorer in the mid-2000s that pushed web browser development for many years. A move to all WebKit-engine based browsers could result in slower development. Companies can still push out minor features that differentiate their products from each other, but the underlying engine remains the same, and the compliance to web standards (or lack thereof) remain the same under the hood.
I found this to be particularly intriguing due to the fact that this move could affect how the web looks to everyone, for better or for worse. If Firefox and Internet Explorer continue to lose market share, and the market becomes dominated by WebKit, the web will look the same for everyone, for better or for worse. Having dabbled in web development, I know what a pain it can be to have to code the same thing for multiple web browsers with slightly different standards support and can understand how an industry move to WebKit would simplify the web development process, but at the same time, as a user, I might prefer the look of one web page over another when it is rendered in two different engines. Text looks different; spacing is different; borders are different; and having the personal choice of using the best looking browser is a choice I don't want to have to give up. That choice is tied in directly with competition in what is essentially a free market for web browsers. Having no choice means having no say in what direction the industry takes.
As for next week's topic, I'm currently taking CS61C. Big data is, for the lack of a better word, a big focus of the course when it comes to warehouse scale computing. I know that a large part of the future of big data is going to be efficiency. With larger data centers serving larger amounts of data, electrical usage and overhead becomes a big concern for companies. I'd be interested in know what potential technologies are over the horizon that might help with efficiency.
Links:
CNET - Opera Cuts Staff
Tech Crunch - Pros and Cons of WebKit Monoculture
WC3 - Browser Stats Jan 2013
Comscore - Mobile Market Share Nov 2012
Monday, February 11, 2013
Super WiFi And The Collapse Of Cellular Data
Over the next few years, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the government body charged with regulating national radio, television, wire, satellite and cable communications, has plans of buying back spectrum from TV broadcasters and AM radio. In freeing up this spectrum, they hope to be able to auction some of it to cellular data providers to further expand the coverage of high-speed mobile data, also known as "4G." However, the bigger news seems to be that the FCC plans on reserving some of this spectrum in an effort to spur the construction of a nation-wide WiFi network, dubbed "Super WiFi." While the networks would be built privately, they would operate on free public spectrum, and this new Super WiFI network service would be sold to the public for an inexpensive price. The hope is that this spectrum (and the Super WiFi network that runs on it) would spur industry innovation, much like the 2.4GHz band being freed prompted the cordless phone, garage door opener, and our current IEEE 2.4GHz 802.11 WiFi standard. While it has been reported as a free WiFi network (as seen in the Washington Post this week), the network would not in fact be free, but would run on freed spectrum. However, without spectrum licensing costs or purchases required, it is possible that the infrastructure could be put in place with existing technology at a low cost, meaning less money that needs to be recouped, and a larger coverage area (and thus a larger potential market and customer base) could drive prices down even further.
Critics of the plan, including Intel, Qualcomm, AT&T, and T-Mobile, have argued that the FCC would make more money auctioning off all the spectrum, and point to the 2008 auction of cellular spectrum that resulted in a $20 billion profit. However, because the spectrum being targeted this time is in such a narrow band, it is expected to sell for significantly less if auctioned off. For their part, Intel and Qualcomm manufacture many of the signal processing chips that go into mobile data networks, meaning an inexpensive, national WiFi network would greatly cut into their bottom line, as it would for AT&T and T-Mobile, two of the nation's four largest cellular providers.
Google and Microsoft, among others, have come out in support of the plan, claiming that the industry innovation would lead to greater revenue and economic growth for both the companies involved and for the government. They also claim that a robust, national WiFi network is necessary for a coming "internet of things," where regular household and mobile devices will all connect to each other and be able to share information, and your environment can collect information and send information to you. For their part, Google and Microsoft essentially control the global personal computing market, with Windows and Android controlling the PC and mobile spaces, respectively. A national WiFi network would potentially mean a constant data connection for all their devices, resulting in more flexibility and enhanced user experience.
While the auction isn't until 2014, and the technology is still years away (and still has to get by the telecomm lobby), it could potentially change they way that the average American uses the internet. No longer would the internet be an expensive tool that needs to be accessed via some portal (be it a smartphone, PC, or tablet), but it would be a cheap network of information constantly collecting and sending information, with or without your prompt from a user. Cellular companies could potentially see their entire business crumble, since the WiFi (WLAN) offers better latency and speeds than cellular data can. An inexpensive, national WiFi network could also greatly impact K-12 education, especially in economically-challenged and urban areas. The ability to access the internet is still out of reach for many people, including students. While some of us may view it as a right, for many, the internet is a luxury due to the inflated prices charged by monopolistic telecomm companies. The reality is that the trend for the last two decades has been for information to go digital, and this network (along with the unbridled access it provides) could be the final push needed for complete information digitization.
As a side note, it is ironic that Intel is against this technology, when it is their technology that might make it possible. Intel's "Moore's Law Radio" has been in development for over 10 years, and is essentially an entirely digital radio. Up until now, all radio signals, including those for cell phones, TV, and WiFi, have been transmitted as analog and converted to digital signals inside the devices. Analog is limited by current technology in that miniaturization would result in signal degradation beyond recovery. Thus, radio chips had to stay (relatively) large and power-hungry. By creating an all digital radio, Intel will be able to miniaturize the chips and reduce power consumption, leading to inexpensive radio chips that can be placed inside of anything and run off small batteries or even be self-powered.
As a fan of science fiction, I find this topic to be particularly interesting out of the other news this week because this could eventually be the catalyst for a wave of new, futuristic technology. Smart houses, roads, cars, and buildings would no longer be out of the realm of possibility. Impromptu social networks could be formed on the spot anywhere, anytime. Security could be greatly increased. Stolen devices will always be connected, able to report their location. It could also revolutionize the commerce. Imagine stores knowing ahead of time what you want to buy from your browsing history, preparing your personalized order as soon as you step into the store, and charging you wirelessly as soon as you step out with any items you want. Or perhaps a smart car that can communicate with your smart house, meaning doors and windows always lock when you leave; lights turn on and off automatically depending on your presence; heaters and air conditioners turn on and off automatically when you leave or approach your house from blocks away; and work you did in your self-driving car while on your tablet, laptop, or smartphone syncs and shows up on your home device as soon as you get home, ready to be worked on some more. The possibilities are endless.
As for next week's topic, I don't know much, if anything, about information analysis. As for productivity tools, I take it to mean tools like online storage, like GitHub or Google Drive (Docs), that allow for synchronization and collaboration, reducing the amount of time backtracking between multiple copies of a file. I would want to know how enterprise level cloud storage fits into this overall picture of productivity tools, and whether the trend for companies to move to cloud storage will continue and what problems it might present.
Links:
Business Insider - FCC Govt WiFi
Tech Radar - FFC Exploring Super WiFi
Washington Post
Digital Trends - Intel's Moore's Law Radio
Critics of the plan, including Intel, Qualcomm, AT&T, and T-Mobile, have argued that the FCC would make more money auctioning off all the spectrum, and point to the 2008 auction of cellular spectrum that resulted in a $20 billion profit. However, because the spectrum being targeted this time is in such a narrow band, it is expected to sell for significantly less if auctioned off. For their part, Intel and Qualcomm manufacture many of the signal processing chips that go into mobile data networks, meaning an inexpensive, national WiFi network would greatly cut into their bottom line, as it would for AT&T and T-Mobile, two of the nation's four largest cellular providers.
Google and Microsoft, among others, have come out in support of the plan, claiming that the industry innovation would lead to greater revenue and economic growth for both the companies involved and for the government. They also claim that a robust, national WiFi network is necessary for a coming "internet of things," where regular household and mobile devices will all connect to each other and be able to share information, and your environment can collect information and send information to you. For their part, Google and Microsoft essentially control the global personal computing market, with Windows and Android controlling the PC and mobile spaces, respectively. A national WiFi network would potentially mean a constant data connection for all their devices, resulting in more flexibility and enhanced user experience.
While the auction isn't until 2014, and the technology is still years away (and still has to get by the telecomm lobby), it could potentially change they way that the average American uses the internet. No longer would the internet be an expensive tool that needs to be accessed via some portal (be it a smartphone, PC, or tablet), but it would be a cheap network of information constantly collecting and sending information, with or without your prompt from a user. Cellular companies could potentially see their entire business crumble, since the WiFi (WLAN) offers better latency and speeds than cellular data can. An inexpensive, national WiFi network could also greatly impact K-12 education, especially in economically-challenged and urban areas. The ability to access the internet is still out of reach for many people, including students. While some of us may view it as a right, for many, the internet is a luxury due to the inflated prices charged by monopolistic telecomm companies. The reality is that the trend for the last two decades has been for information to go digital, and this network (along with the unbridled access it provides) could be the final push needed for complete information digitization.
As a side note, it is ironic that Intel is against this technology, when it is their technology that might make it possible. Intel's "Moore's Law Radio" has been in development for over 10 years, and is essentially an entirely digital radio. Up until now, all radio signals, including those for cell phones, TV, and WiFi, have been transmitted as analog and converted to digital signals inside the devices. Analog is limited by current technology in that miniaturization would result in signal degradation beyond recovery. Thus, radio chips had to stay (relatively) large and power-hungry. By creating an all digital radio, Intel will be able to miniaturize the chips and reduce power consumption, leading to inexpensive radio chips that can be placed inside of anything and run off small batteries or even be self-powered.
As a fan of science fiction, I find this topic to be particularly interesting out of the other news this week because this could eventually be the catalyst for a wave of new, futuristic technology. Smart houses, roads, cars, and buildings would no longer be out of the realm of possibility. Impromptu social networks could be formed on the spot anywhere, anytime. Security could be greatly increased. Stolen devices will always be connected, able to report their location. It could also revolutionize the commerce. Imagine stores knowing ahead of time what you want to buy from your browsing history, preparing your personalized order as soon as you step into the store, and charging you wirelessly as soon as you step out with any items you want. Or perhaps a smart car that can communicate with your smart house, meaning doors and windows always lock when you leave; lights turn on and off automatically depending on your presence; heaters and air conditioners turn on and off automatically when you leave or approach your house from blocks away; and work you did in your self-driving car while on your tablet, laptop, or smartphone syncs and shows up on your home device as soon as you get home, ready to be worked on some more. The possibilities are endless.
As for next week's topic, I don't know much, if anything, about information analysis. As for productivity tools, I take it to mean tools like online storage, like GitHub or Google Drive (Docs), that allow for synchronization and collaboration, reducing the amount of time backtracking between multiple copies of a file. I would want to know how enterprise level cloud storage fits into this overall picture of productivity tools, and whether the trend for companies to move to cloud storage will continue and what problems it might present.
Links:
Business Insider - FCC Govt WiFi
Tech Radar - FFC Exploring Super WiFi
Washington Post
Digital Trends - Intel's Moore's Law Radio
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)