The Joy of Android Tablets Made by Polaroid

Autumn is a special time of the year, especially around Halloween. On a foggy Saturday, I ventured out to the local Big Lots discount store to acquire some items for the spooky evening to come. I was prepared for many things--ghouls, ghosts, goblins--but I was not prepared for this .

Folks, I don't have monstrous Hulk hands. That is a device with a 4.3" screen that Polaroid is trying to pass off as a "tablet". This puppy can be had for the low, low price of $55. What, pray tell, does a person get for their money?

This tablet apparently comes loaded with Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich), a fact that it proudly proclaims. Granted, this version of Android is two years old, but what else can you expect for such a low price?

It comes with a camera, specifically a front-facing camera. Funny enough, this little tablet could arguably use a rear-facing camera. I've seen many people using their iPads as cameras, which always looks ridiculous. In contrast, this Polaroid tablet is closer in size to a smartphone and wouldn't look out of place snapping a pic. Of course, we can only imagine what the quality of the images taken by this tablet's camera would be. (Probably as terrible as one of those Hello Kitty cameras that are sold at drug stores.)

The RAM is a bit scant, especially considering that the Android wasn't particularly snappy in versions prior to Google's Project Butter initiative. Users will have to make sure that they don't use too many apps at once, apparently.

Speaking of apps, the meager 4 GB of storage afforded by this device won't allow for users to have many of those installed. On the plus side, the storage is apparently expandable to 32 GB via a card sold separately.

Folks, this is a terrible device. It's laughable to call this a tablet. I'm saddened by the thought of some poor soul out there having this as their first tablet experience. Now that is a scary thought.

More Hullabaloo About Nike's Lack of an Android App for the FuelBand

From a recent article by Roger Cheng over at CNet:

Nike is only shooting itself in the foot with its stubborn reluctance to work with Android. The athletic apparel company on Tuesday introduced its second-generation fitness tracker, the FuelBand SE, which worked beautifully on Apple's iOS devices and computers. Missing from the presentation, however, was any mention of Android.

Earlier this year, I wrote about the possible reasons why Nike's FuelBand won't have an Android app. Funny enough, those reasons that I analyzed are still as true today as they were eight months ago.

By the way, John Gruber (of Daring Fireball fame) wrote a short but excellent post on why Cheng's premise is flawed.

Microsoft is Somewhat Less Terrible at Branding and Marketing Than It Used to Be

Microsoft is a company that doesn't seem to understand how to handle the branding and marketing of its products. Poor branding has been part of its corporate culture for a long time now. This might be somewhat understandable for the enterprise side of the house since IT managers aren't typically interested in how cool a product name sounds, but even the consumer side of Microsoft has fallen victim to misguided branding. Recently, the folks in Redmond admitted "...that there was some confusion in the market last year on the difference between Surface RT and Surface Pro". Microsoft certainly didn't help matters by releasing terrible commercials for the Surface product lines.

However, it appears as though Microsoft has learned a lesson or two from its disastrous year for the Surface. This year, the Windows RT-based tablet will be dubbed the 'Surface 2' while the Windows 8.1-based tablet will be dubbed the 'Surface Pro 2'. This naming scheme doesn't really help reduce consumer confusion surrounding the incompatibilities between Windows RT and Windows 8.1, but at least it does a better job of helping consumers figure out which tablet is meant for their needs. As a bonus, this new naming scheme does away with the 'RT' moniker that was meaningless to consumers.

The new branding is highlighted in a series of new commercials. Unlike the previous terrible commercials, these new commercials do a good job of of describing what the Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2 can do and why I should care as a consumer.

Surface 2 commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSCpOvTHmtU

Surface Pro 2 commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lr1WbNz7g0

Folks, Microsoft might finally have figured out that it needs to be better at branding and marketing its products if it wants to compete with the likes of Apple, Google, and Amazon.

The Creator of "Leisure Suit Larry" Spoke at IGDA Seattle

I recently had the pleasure of joining the folks of IGDA Seattle (the local chapter of the International Game Developers Association) to listen to Al Lowe, creator of the hit game Leisure Suit Larry , talk about his experiences and thoughts on the industry.

Lowe is an interesting character. He is quite well known in the video game industry, and yet you wouldn't know it by listening to him speak. He is sagely and eminently approachable with a touch of humility and a dash of mischief. Listening to him talk about his experience working for Sierra and developing his games was akin to sitting by the fireplace and listening to one of my uncles describing some past youthful hijinks. The comfortable environment for the session (in this case, the lounge at Amazon's Van Vorst building) helped reinforce this feeling with its casual couches and bookshelves.

A good portion of the evening was spent as Q&A, with Lowe answering questions that covered the gamut from his early days as a game developer/designer to the recent successful Kickstarter project to do a remake of the original Leisure Suit Larry game. The Kickstarter project, according to Lowe, required much more planning and logistics than he had anticipated in order to handle all the variations of rewards for the project's backers.

I asked Lowe about his thoughts on freemium and its impact on modern games (a topic that is near and dear to my heart). To summarize and paraphrase his thoughts...he doesn't really like it. In fact, he prefers to pay upfront for games. He particularly doesn't like the 'spaminess' of some games that continually ask for money. While he does play some freemium games, he often will stop playing a game after getting hit with too many requests (or sometimes, the first request) for additional payment.

Interesting bit of trivia: some of the Sierra employees became the intellectual property of Sierra as a result of appearing as characters within the games. (Presumably, this only extends to the in-game likeness of the employees!)

Folks, this was a great opportunity to interact with an industry legend. If you happen to see Al Lowe around town, thank him for his contributions and buy him a cup of coffee.

Selling Copies of Windows and Office is not Microsoft's Future

Tim Culpan, Dina Bass, & Peter Burrows over at Bloomberg:

Terry Myerson, head of Microsoft’s operating systems unit, asked HTC last month to load Windows Phone as a second option on handsets with Google Inc. (GOOG)’s rival software, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. Myerson discussed cutting or eliminating the license fee to make the idea more attractive, the people said. The talks are preliminary and no decision has been made, two people said.

This would be a bold move for Microsoft. Over much of its life, Microsoft has been accustomed to having people (or companies) pay for licensed copies of its Windows operating system and the Office suite. That, however, is Microsoft's past. Microsoft isn't a software company; it is a devices and services company.

It is fitting that Microsoft has finally gotten around to releasing Office for the iPad (after previously releasing Office for the iPhone). The timing couldn't be better, especially if the news about eliminating or reducing license fees for Windows Phone is true.

The old Microsoft could not have made the decision to eliminate or reduce license fees for one of its operating systems. Granted, Windows Phone is not the crown jewel that is Windows (desktop), but the OS has been a source of revenue for Microsoft. The new Microsoft, perhaps, has realized that the future for the company is not selling licensed copies of Windows and Office, but instead earning revenue from its cloud-based services.

Folks, Windows and Office were the past. Azure and its offspring are the future of Microsoft.

The Chromecast is Great and Terrible

The Google Chromecast is an interesting beast. It isn't quite a Roku and it isn't quite an Apple TV. Instead, it is something more. And something less.

The Chromecast is a nifty little device. It is roughly the size of a key fob for a rental car and fits snugly into an HDMI port (and if your TV supports USB power then you don't have to worry about using the power adapter). The unboxing experience is elegant. The setup experience, however, was not.

Hypothetically, you should just be able to plug in the Chromecast, switch the TV input, and configure the device using your laptop/tablet/phone. Unfortunately, that didn't work quite so well for me. I was ready to start configuring my Chromecast, but the Chromecast was unable to see my Wi-Fi network.

Silly me, I thought to myself, I forgot to add the Chromecast to the router's access list. No problem, I'll just add the MAC address to the list and retry the setup.

Nope, that didn't work.

Okay, I thought, maybe I'll look up some common problems with my router and the Chromecast. Nothing unusual listed. Might as well reboot the router in case it was stuck in some finicky state.

Okay, I'll try the setup again. Maybe I just got unlucky and there was some sort of interference.

Nope, that didn't work.

This time, the Chromecast gave me an error message that suggested that perhaps I had Access Point Isolation turned on for my router. A quick check of the router's settings verified that this was not the case.

At this point, I was red with fury. Why wouldn't this stupid thing work?!?!

Then, I had a moment of clarity: what if the Chromecast wasn't able to handle connecting to a Wi-Fi network that did not broadcast its name? With my last ounce of patience, I configured my router to broadcast its SSID.

Bingo. Major Tom to Ground Control; I'm feeling much better now, thank you.

Well then. Let's get started streaming. The Chromecast doesn't really do screen sharing the way that Apple's AirPlay lets users share content from their iPhone or iPad. It also doesn't have the 'plop down on the couch with a remote' simplicity that the Roku offers. No, the Chromecast offers less in order to offer more.

The Chromecast has a companion app available for the Chrome browser. With it, users can display any content on their TV that they can display in a Chrome browser tab. For my trials, I used YouTube and Hulu to see how the Chromecast would perform. Those sites are the main reason I decided to get the Chromecast, in order to fill the TV viewing gap that I was missing with having just the Roku.

In general, the streaming worked okay. There was a noticeable lag between the time I tapped on the video controls in my browser tab and when those controls made the same changes on the TV. The video quality was just about what I would expect with this kind of solution...okay, not great.

What do I think of the Chromecast? It fits my needs just fine. It is not as seamless an experience as the Roku or Apple TV, but it is far more flexible than those devices. It only costs $35. Can't beat that price.

I should also mention that I encountered some problems with interference when using a microwave oven at the same time I was streaming video. Get your popcorn ready, indeed. Just do it before you sit down to watch something, apparently.

Why Samsung Cheats at Benchmarks (Allegedly)

Ron Amadeo, over at Ars Technica:

The smoking gun here is CPU idle speeds, which can be viewed with a system monitor app while using the phone. The above picture shows how differently the CPU treats a benchmarking app from a normal app. Normally, while the Note 3 is idling, three of the four cores shut off to conserve power; the remaining core drops down to a low-power 300MHz mode. However, if you load up just about any popular CPU benchmarking app, the Note 3 CPU locks into 2.3GHz mode, the fastest speed possible, and none of the cores ever shut off. Stopping the CPU from idling shouldn't in and of itself affect the benchmark scores a whole lot, so this was our first sign that something was wrong. Benchmarks exist to measure the performance of a phone during normal usage, and a device should never treat a benchmark app differently than a normal app.

As mentioned in the article, this isn't the first time that Samsung has been caught with its hand in the benchmark cookie jar. Months ago, it was determined that the Galaxy S4 was guilty of the same sort of shenanigans. To be fair, almost every Android manufacturer does this too. My focus, though, is on Samsung since they were the ones most recently caught 'juicing' their benchmark results. Why does Samsung (allegedly) cheat at benchmarks?

The answer is quite simple: because cheating has very many positive benefits and very few negative effects.

Consider the benefits of hypothetical headlines that proclaim Samsung Releases Most Powerful Phone or Galaxy Note 3 is Fast. Those kind of headlines help Samsung cultivate a particular brand image, specifically that their phones are better than their competitors' phones. Certainly, all the tech enthusiasts would have seen such a headline, and with any luck the story would be picked up by the traditional media outlets. Some tech sites are obsessed with benchmarks, so anything that can be done to boost those benchmarks helps Samsung's cause.

Samsung, by the way, is fully aware of the fact that news story retractions are never as impactful as the original story. Once a particular impression has been made (e.g. that Samsung makes fast phones), it is difficult for that impression to be changed in consumers' minds.

Look at Ars Technica's headline. Note 3’s benchmarking “adjustments” inflate scores by up to 20%. That certainly doesn't have as much oomph as Galaxy Note 3 is Fast . It simply isn't catchy enough. In fact, the headline loses impact by stating the facts indirectly. They could have written a different headline such as Galaxy Note 3 Cheats at Benchmark Tests which would have been just as true. If they were worried about potential legal implications, then they could have written a headline such as Galaxy Note 3 Artificially Inflates Benchmark Scores . The positive headlines are much easier to remember and much more likely to be propagated among the general public. The negative headlines are much more likely to stay out of the public consciousness.

Folks, manufacturers shouldn't be rewarded for their deception. Consumers should demand honesty (and reward honesty).

Using Your Smartphone While In-Flight is a Privilege, Not a Right

Jad Mouawad and Nick Bilton, writing for The New York Times:

For many passengers, the ban has been a source of frustration. John Shahidi, a technology entrepreneur, ignored the order to turn off his cellphone late last year, but this time a flight attendant caught him sneaking a look at his iPhone, he said — and instead of a gentle scolding, she opted for a public shaming. She stood there, he said, staring at him, and announced that the plane would not take off until he had powered down the phone.

On the one hand, it is good that the FAA is going to review its rules for passengers' use of T-PEDs (Transmitting Portable Electronic Devices) during all flight phases. Having a policy that is based on research and empirical evidence is a good thing. On the other hand, the amount of vitriol being spewed by passengers is absurd.

The fact of the matter is that there is a non-zero risk to airplane systems due to passengers' devices. Honeywell, for example, is embroiled in discussions with the FAA regarding its cockpit panels' susceptibility to interference from Wi-Fi signals. The most critical and dangerous flight phases are when the airplane is taking off or landing. As you might imagine, instrument disruption during those phases is more dangerous than when the plane is at cruising altitude. With that said, 'non-zero risk' is not the same as 'imminent danger' and this policy review is a positive step for the FAA (which is entrusted with making the skies safe).

However, the fact that the FAA's existing policy may become obsolete does not warrant the childish responses exhibited by passengers such as Mr. Shahidi. In-flight entertainment is not a human right. It is a privilege.

I am not suggesting that the FAA's existing policy is above reproach. Rather, I am suggesting that disagreement with the policy should be based on rational thought and discourse instead of being based on an emotional response to a minor inconvenience.

Folks, I am hopeful that the FAA will relax its restrictions on using electronic devices. However, until the proper authorities have weighed the risks and presented their evidence, I will follow the rules and turn my devices off when requested (and so should you).

The True Cost of Losing Employees

There are always costs associated with employees leaving a company. Every company, assuming it is around for long enough, inevitably has to deal with this issue. Final payouts, recruiter fees, and a loss of domain knowledge are the most obvious costs associated with losing employees. However, there are hidden costs involved related to time, morale, and opportunity.

Time is an underrated cost when losing an employee. It takes time to find, interview, and train a replacement. That is time which would have otherwise been spent on implementing a killer new feature, paying down technical debt, or designing the next iteration of the product. Instead, the team has to spend time learning how to integrate a new individual and find a new tempo of operations.

Team morale is one of the trickier things to gauge. It can't be quantified, yet a good leader knows when there is something lacking in the team. Any time a company loses an employee, there is an impact on the remaining team members. Depending on how the team felt about the particular employee that is leaving, this impact can be relatively minor or it can be catastrophic. In the worst possible case, the departure of a key employee could result in an avalanche of departures. At the very least, the remaining team members may have a lack of focus for a while as they adjust to the shock.

Opportunity is, in a way, the culmination of the previously mentioned costs as well as perhaps the most deadly. Companies must continue to produce time and time again if they want to survive in an increasingly competitive world. When an employee leaves, there is a danger that the company will miss out on opportunities that it might have otherwise had. Whether that is because 'knowledge walked out the door' or the team is distracted/unfocused, the end result is the same: missed opportunities to become more competitive or increase business.

Folks, the best way to avoid losing employees is to keep them happy. You can do this by making sure that you treat your employees well, give them challenging and satisfying work, and ensuring that compensation is never a problem. An excellent team is, of course, an essential part of a successful business. Lose your team, lose your business.

When Laptops Kill Productivity

If you've ever been to a meeting in your career, then you know that meetings can be great occasions to get a team coordinated, share knowledge, or they can be colossal wastes of time. In particular, I want to focus on a single particular productivity-sapping scourge: laptops .

Please, don't misunderstand. I'm not talking about laptops in the context of sharing information (e.g. as a presenter) or laptops as data retrieval tools to enhance a discussion. Those are ways in which laptops can be used to enhance meeting productivity.

Instead, I'm talking about laptops when they are used in the interests of 'multi-tasking' during a meeting. Please stop doing this. It is rare that a person can truly be effective as a meeting participant when they are trying to also focus on a separate task. Sure, you might think that you are the rare unicorn that can contribute meaningfully to a discussion while hammering out code that would make Donald Knuth weep with joy. You are incredibly unlikely to be such a rarity.

Much more likely is that you will at best waste your own time in the meeting and at worst you will waste everyone else's time in the meeting. I have been in meetings where the purpose of the meeting was to review and approve API changes that would impact the workload for two teams, yet it became clear that the meeting was a waste of time due to key members being distracted by their laptops and missing important information. I have also been in meetings where a key member was--unintentionally--drastically slowing down the meeting's progression due to not hearing information when it was presented and requiring that information to be repeated before the meeting could continue.

Folks, meetings should be thought of as an investment with an expected return on that investment. As such, it is important to treat that investment with care. Close the laptop lid, focus on the topic at hand, and your meetings will be far more effective.