What's the problem? Is it me?

I'm trying, against considerable odds, to think of words that aren't trite in the face of recent events. I want to address issues more relevant than which phone, TV, tablet to purchase/recommend, even though, and in spite of the tools in my kit, I'm now uncomfortable with all of them. A nagging conscience suggests that broader issues prevail, that I may be part the problem and not the solution.

Today's tech is powerful, some of it even useful. But whether by the unlikely Zombie apocalypse or the obvious effect of climate change, choosing a gift might also include the choice of nothing at all. Not an easy sell to kids who might cry at their relative depravation (all the other kids have one), and nerds (like me) who would express similar frustration with adult-like rationalization (all the other adults have one).

Every device, from stone wheel to large screen TV, requires manufacturing, and destructive, blind consumption of it might portend a dark, dystopian future. I understand, and am also weary of, environmental diminution discussions, because such talk is truly annoying.

Arguments of conscience might actually cause opting out of a new TV for me, iPad for a grandparent or a new vehicle even before the tires wear out. At issue is whether making and disposing of today's tech product is robbing the future to feed the present. While I do believe that we're way past an environmental tipping point, it's also possible that future technology can save us from ourselves. Game on; will an apparent race to the bottom destroy the ability to create cures at a rate that exceeds the consequences?

Like the pain of a broken arm, cognitive dissidence is never pleasant, but hiding behind indifference, or short term reward, isn't appropriate either. If I can afford an iPad, if I've worked hard (or not) and/or have a credit card, isn't said purchase my constitutional right? Don't we live in a free country? Who are these pesky environmentalists that harp endlessly about coral reefs, tainted water and drought? Why should they have a higher argumentative temperature than my own burning wallet?

Perhaps we live in a time of irreconcilable forces. The world economy, such as it is, is said to depend on growth through consumption. We're told that refrigerators, cars, computers, tablets, all manner of gadgets must be renewed, whether we need them or not, and failure to participate will cause manufacturing to stop, jobs will disappear. Sustenance is old fashioned and painful, children can't compete if not connected, twenty thousand music tracks/uploaded photos and constant, always-on communication are required minimums, social covenants, important.

Is all this connectivity really necessary? To quote Steve Martin (twitter), "This is weird, but I’ve found I can read someone’s mind just by talking to them for only an hour or two."

When I was a child we often visited the Spring Lake cabin of a family friend. He kept a station wagon that was used only for transport from the cabin door to the boat dock, about 200 feet. His generation was the Great Generation, born into the depression, then conscripted to fight the second world war. Afterwards these brave soldiers were renewed, they lived in the first robust economy of that epoch, a free market that encouraged consumption and indulgence. These Mad Men weren't consciously destructive, they were merely pursuing the American dream full stop. Even though the station wagon evaporated more gasoline that it burned, and trips to the gas station were infrequent, it was most certainly an unnecessary use of resources. Hidden behind the familiar Ford logo were oil, steel, blood, electricity and other resources necessary to support their relative luxuries.

Even though I know better, I've followed their example like a little duck. My own closet overflows with gadget excess, so it would seem that I haven't really learned a thing. The long view of it makes me cringe. I try to recycle, but it's well known that these programs have a marginal result, that significant, harmful elements of their construction can't be reclaimed by science or alchemy. Much of the gadget waste we produce will end up in third world landfills, picked over by scavenging children and/or dismembered by rain and sun into their component parts, then sent downstream.

Humans are thought to be a superior, evolved species with unmatched survival tools. Brains allow construction of the world's highest building in ninety days, single submarines that can transform the entire planet to dust, technology that records everything, from purchasing habits to heartbeats. Brains allowed an otherwise weak and inferior species (that would be us) to dominate bears, mountains, oceans, mosquitoes and apparently inferior peer civilizations.

Hands are the brain's tool, fantastic strength multipliers that fabricated arrows, steam, super computers, art, bombs, Bushmaster semiautomatic rifles, yadayada. While pocket sized gadgets or sense numbing entertainment centers would seem to be of lesser import than conquering the world or killing children, I wonder; should the dark, destructive results of gadget design be given any less consideration than fossil fuel consumption, over-the-counter assault weapon sales or uncontrollable greed? Do we live in the epoch of ballyhooed industrial revolution that yields a paradoxical result, wherein the devices that claim extraordinary promise might actually destroys us?

I hope not, I love this stuff, I do the best I can.

Or do I? Please stay tuned...

Windows 8? Disruptive Lipstick on a Stable pig...

I don't want to be a Christmas stealing Grinch, but because it’s an election year the hype-o-meter began to peg last summer and it’s stressing me out. Silly me, I worry about value, I consider whether products are the best they could be instead of what they are. The average consumer may not notice a quality deficit because of the well-known disease acronym SSF (seasonal feeding frenzy), but I hope expression of my mildly damning opinion might be useful nonetheless.

Before you purchase please consider business plans of these major players:

Per the previous blog post (Meh!), Apple is a hardware company so it must roll out new devices to maintain meteoric capitalization gains. In the past Apple's various laptop and desktop offerings weren't designed as throwaway, in fact there are many older iMacs, towers, even older Mac laptops that are regularly renewed and kept in service. But this isn’t optimal for Apple's business model so its devices are now sold with the expectation of planned obsolescence.

Google (Android/Chrome) is an advertising company, great at collaboration and data mining, but their UI (User Interface) department was originally staffed by old remote control designers (getting better but still crude). They throw stuff at walls, hope for adhesion and some of it sticks (watch the Chromebook, I think it has real potential, very inexpensive). Google's current and future business model is to make people use the web, and they've already amassed a fortune through search. They dabble in software and devices, but it’s all in service of advertising click-through.

Microsoft, is a software company. To maintain profitability (but not increased capitalization, its stock price hasn't really moved since the discovery of fire) Microsoft must sell software. And now we have the next iteration of its operating system, Windows 8.

Short term corporate guidance for consumer technology requires advertising departments concentrate on the next black Friday, while long term earnings (aka the long tail) gradually decline. Several years may seem to be quick turnover, but it’s actually epochal. The 'net, and its corresponding uptick in consumer use, spans significantly less than twenty years for most users. Therefore, an OS (operating system) life of 10 years, or even 5, is huge.

Microsoft, unlike our confused and dysfunctional congress, sort of plays for the short and long term simultaneously. With Windows 8 Microsoft chose not to make a traditional office user appeal (read mouse/keyboard). Rather they've made a major shift, analyzing today's younger users and concluding that they don't give a hoot about anyone's desktop. And why should they? Their lives can be managed, archived (visually, at least), shared and minimally annotated in only a smartphone, so why should/would they bother with a content creation thingy, collaboration, or a winning corporate strategy? Touch is the new mouse, swipe the new UI (user interface), instant, capricious sharing the new privacy. So this currently immature demographic is rightly projected to shape the long tail of business, even though mobile habits don’t upscale well (yet).

Make no mistake, under the hood, Windows 8 has some clear advantages over the current, most used OS, Windows 7. Many of those improvements are devised to mitigate Microsoft's reputation as a virus prone, complicated operating system that shouldn't be gifted to a grandmother. It also shifts user focus to the cloud.

Grammy might be a good candidate for Windows if the platform was intuitive, but it's not. Windows 7 has the best Microsoft UI ever, but has no natural parallel, it's rather an acquired taste. For instance, how might Grammy intuit whether to click twice or once and on what, right click, or drop menus to make complicated command choices (what does save as actually mean?). Credit Steve Jobs, he moved computing into the next big user interface (iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch), wherein much of how people interact with computational devices can be divined by a three year old in five minutes.

Moreover, average consumers don't really need Word and Excel, they want to listen to music, watch YouTube, use Facebook, messaging and Skype, read/comment on Twitter and old-fashioned email (decreasing). While it was once true that a classic, complicated computer was necessary to accomplish basic tasks, it's no longer necessary, so the marketplace is hatching a new species.

Many computers as we've known them are wasting away, some dying in in closets, many more retire to filthy landfills, others are renewable upgrade candidates. Most of their owners grew up with mouse moves and keyboard shortcuts so Microsoft could have continued Windows 7 until Windows 8 was fully baked. After all, Windows 7 is an excellent operating system if properly managed (it often isn’t), but sales projections for an already saturated marketplace won't support outrageous executive salaries and operating/development costs. Notwithstanding those customers looking for an inexpensive computer experience, like cash strapped parents with kids in school, ‘tis the season to be spending. Pandering to the seasonal frenzy, Microsoft forces (on new computers) an immature release, claiming it to be an improvement over 7, so customers should just get over it. Apple releases anything and blinded fanpeople fall over themselves to get in line. But Windows 8 is not causing much of a stir, except for controversy. Good riddance. Darwinian.

Windows 8 is a mobile-centric UI trying to hop the desktop barrier. If Microsoft had only released Windows 8 for mobile only (including phones, tablets, touch-enabled laptops) it might have been a reasonable hit, and if price competitive even a runaway hit. Instead Microsoft looked five(?) years ahead and decided that today's business model (woo consumers but cater to business) is running on fumes, so any move is better than no move at all (perhaps true).

Now if aforementioned Grammy (or any user) can suffer the Windows 8 learning curve on a non-touch device she'll be in less danger than with XP or even 7. Viruses have a harder time getting a grip inside this new OS, applications of questionable lineage are often rejected and any Metro application (like Weather, Calendar, People, etc.), when not on screen, is actually taken out of active memory, much like Apple's iOS handles the issue of multitasking (not multitasking really, it's just taking a snapshot of the application's state and freezing it for future reference). This all combines to make a more stable, less power hungry operating system, but I don’t think mobile 8 will unseat iPad as the runaway winner of the tablet wars this season. Windows 8 laptop/tablet hardware isn’t mature, so devices on which the MS version of intuitive(?) user interface must reside, except mobile phones, are not ready.

So I conclude that Windows 8, when used on any device without touch, is disruptive lipstick applied to a stable pig (Windows 7). When used on a hybrid tablet (touch, keyboard and mouse enabled) the experience does get better.

The RT version of Windows 8 is a pure mobile play, distributed on devices like the Surface RT. It's important to note that regular Windows applications won't work at all on RT; they must be specifically designed for that platform and developers are only nibbling at the bait. RT is designed for devices with limited horsepower but doesn't yet satisfy the needs of traditional Windows users, probably because it straddles the fence between desktop and mobile. Baring some surprising uptick in device improvement (battery life, value) I'm going to wait before purchasing a dedicated, touch-screen Windows 8 device. Hopefully Microsoft will learn the art of successful iteration, read design shift, so stay tuned for Windows Blue.

But for now, if you're purchasing a new Windows 8 computer and it doesn’t have touch, I say fugetaboutit. If you're trying to minimize the financial hit of a new computer and there is a Windows 7 option you'll find some great bargains out there, particularly in laptops. Plus, 'tis not the season for deferring purchases, the American economy seems to depend on it (pathetic). However, if you’re considering an OS upgrade to old hardware, Windows 8 is the least expensive upgrade yet. I've done it on two conventional computers, one desktop with multiple monitors (an upgrade from Windows 7, painless) and one laptop (my Macbook Air). I’m an experienced Windows user and running Windows 8 is a pain, but more like a nagging toothache than a debilitating sickness, your mileage may vary.

Next up: I don't know. Writing about technology is a dish best served quickly.