My thoughts on eReaders

Amazon Kindle (eInk), Chapters Kobo Touch (eInk), and Nexus S (LCD ... which is actually turned on) in direct sunlight.

Have you ever considered getting an eReader, but weren't sure what was the best choice for you?  There are lots of choices out there, so the decision can be overwhelming.  You like the idea of not having shelves and shelves of books taking up space, or maybe you like the idea of borrowing books from the library without leaving your home?  Maybe you just want to cut down on the weight of your carry on luggage for your next flight?


I have spend a lot of time with several different eReaders over the last few weeks and have noted the benefits and drawbacks of each one.  it is important to understand that there is no single eReader that is perfect for everyone.  The purpose of this article is to help you decide if an eReader is right for you, and if so which one to spend your money on.


The first thing to consider when looking for an eReader is the type of display that best suits your needs.  There are two completely different screens that are very different under the hood.  These screens are the traditional LCD displays, and the less traditional eInk displays.  I will get to the differences between these two screens, but to better understand why they are different, let’s first discuss the difference between the color spaces they use.

Color Spaces –

Have you ever wondered why the primary colors in a TV or computer monitor are different than the primary colors we all learned in grade school art class?  Maybe you didn't even know that!  Well the answer is simple really.  They use two completely different color spaces!

In a subtractive color space, like paint or a pen and paper, we start with a base of white.  In other words, we start with all light being reflected.  And then to adjust the color, we add a light absorbing substance (i.e. paint) until the the colors we don't want are absorbed, eventually resulting in black.  This color space relies on an external light source like artificial light or the sun so that it has something to reflect.  The primary colors in this color space, as we all learned in school, are red yellow and blue.

In an additive color space however, like an LCD screen, the complete opposite is true.  We start with black (think about a TV when it is turned off), and we begin emitting light, until all colors have been introduced and we get white.  Devices that use this color space typically require an internal light source such as a florescent light or a series of LEDs.  The primary colors in an additive color space are red, GREEN, and blue.

LCD Displays –

LCD displays use an additive color space, which means that they require an internal light source. This additional light means that it uses a great deal of power, and has a battery life of only a number of hours. It also means that using a display like this in direct sunlight is nearly impossible, since the light emitted by the device needs to be bright enough to overpower the ambient light that is hitting it (in this case the sun). Also, the glossy screen often causes glare that makes the display even that much more difficult to read. Take a look at the picture above, the LCD screen in the picture is actually turned on, yet it looks black.


The advantages of LCD Displays though, is their bright vibrant colors, ability to redraw the page (typically 60 times per second) so animation is possible, and they are also easily readable in low light. These displays are great for reading magazines indoors.

eInk Displays –

eInk uses a subtractive color space, which means that they rely on an external light source (just like a paperback does). The lack of an internal light means that the battery life for these devices is measured in weeks, not hours. It also means that, since the screen simply reflects or absorbs light, they work as well in direct sunlight as a regular paper book or newspaper. These displays are great for reading novels or newspapers both indoors or outdoors, and are generally easier on your eyes than a back-lit LCD display


However, although color eInk screens exist, they are not good enough for most manufacturers to use in their flagship devices. Therefore, as of the time of this article, all good eInk displays are grey-tone. Also, if you plan to read in low light, just like a regular book, you will need a lamp to light up the page.

Color eReaders –

That said, if color is important to you, multi-day battery life is not a concern, and you do not plan on using it outdoors, you have choices.  If money is a concern, your best choice currently is the Barnes & Noble Nook Color.  For $250, you get a color tablet with a stripped down version of Google's Android operating system, and gives you full access to the Barnes & Noble book store.  The advantages of the B&N Nook Color is it has a vibrant color LCD screen which makes it great for reading magazines, allows animation which is great for some children's books and newspapers, and even lets you play many of the same games you would expect to see on smartphones.  Plus, it is very easy to root the device and install a full version of Android, making it the cheapest Android powered tablet you can buy, which would then include the Amazon, Kobo, and other book store apps as well (not just Barnes & Noble).  Or, if you wanted to spend more, any modern tablet will have the ability to be used as a great color eReader, but most are double the price of the Nook Color.

eInk eReaders –

If the majority of what you want to use the device for is for reading novels and newspapers, you don’t want to worry about your battery life, you have problems with eye strain reading off of a computer screen, or you often read outdoors, then an eInk screen is likely your best choice.

There are a number of choices in this category, including the Amazon Kindle, the Chapters Kobo Touch, the Barnes & Noble Nook (eInk version, not the color version), and the Sony Reader.  The new Nook has been given excellent reviews, but unfortunately the Barnes & Noble's store does not have a very strong selection of eBooks available to Canadian customers due to copyright restrictions, making it difficult to recommend it north of the border.  And the Sony Reader is very expensive and does not provide enough value.  

From this point on in this article, I will only be comparing the Kindle 3 and the Kobo Touch.

Amazon Kindle vs. Chapters Kobo Touch –

So if you've decided that eInk is best for your purposes.  Now, how do you know which device you should buy?  At the time of this article, the Kindle 3 is the current model, although the Kindle 4 has been announced and should be out by the end of this year.  Since it isn't yet available, I will only be discussing the currently available model.

The Amazon Kindle has long been the leader for eReaders.  Amazon's store is very well established, and offers a large selection of books, newspapers, and some magazines.  The refresh rate on the Kindle is very good, and the contrast is excellent.  Amazon also offers a feature that no other company offers ... free 3G!  This comes in handy when you are traveling, and you want to keep receiving your magazine and newspaper subscriptions.  No matter where you are, you can enjoy your morning coffee with a fresh copy of your local newspaper waiting for you at no additional cost!  This is a huge bonus for the Kindle, especially if you are often in locations without reliable access to free access to WiFi.

The biggest, and really the only complaint I have about the Kindle is that it lacks ePub support.  Kindle uses Amazon's proprietary format called MOBI.  They have not yet opened up the device to other formats because they want to keep all Kindle owners buying their books from Amazon.  The concept is much the same as game consoles like the Xbox or the PlayStation.  The manufacturers will subsidize the cost of the device, often selling it for less than it costs to make, so that they can make money off of the games.  Amazon sells the Kindle for a very good price, expecting that they will make their money back from book sales.  However, most other eBooks from stores like Chapters, or most libraries that lend out eBooks, use a format called ePub.  Kindle's lack of ePub support is disappointing.

Up until now, the Kobo has been a terrible device.  Chapters is still selling the old Kobo eReader ... do not buy it!  However, the new Kobo Touch is a completely different device.  The 6" screen is virtually identical to the Kindle's screen, and it's speed and battery life have been greatly improved.  A bonus is that the Kobo allows you to reduce the number of complete page refreshes.  This means that, if configured, instead of flushing the entire page before redrawing the new page, it will only flush out the lines that need to be cleared.  The entire page will only be flushed every 6 pages (to make sure no ghost text is left behind), further improving battery life.

The biggest noticeable change with the Kobo is the infrared touchscreen.  Since everything uses a touchscreen interface, there is no need for any physical buttons and therefore it is much smaller.  This can be both good and bad. The smaller size means that it is more portable and looks much more elegant, but some people will find it harder to hold with one hand.  The extra real estate on the Kindle from the keyboard may be more comfortable after reading for a long period, especially if you hold it over your head while laying down.  It is also worth noting that the touchscreen makes the Kobo much more intuitive to use in this world of gesture based user interfaces.

Also, some people may complain about the page turns on the Kobo.  The touchscreen sometimes doesn't pick up gestures as cleanly as some other touchscreen gadgets like smartphones, and sometimes changes two pages at once.  This is a minor inconvenience, but depending on what you prefer, the physical buttons on the Kindle seem more solid.  So, if you like touchscreen interfaces, the Kobo Touch is great, but if you prefer physical buttons, the Kindle may still be a better choice.  This is something that really needs to be experienced first hand before you can decide.

Initial Setup, Navigation, and Additional Features - 

There was a big difference between getting the Kobo and the Kindle set up after taking them out of the box.  The Kindle is shipped to you already tied to your Amazon account.  This means that, if you get the 3G version, the Kindle is ready to use the first time you turn it on.  If you get the WiFi-only version, then the only setup required is to connect to your personal WiFi network.  No computer is required, which makes this task very easy.

The Kobo on the other hand was not as straight forward. Before it could be used, you have to download Kobo management software onto your computer, install it, plug in the Kobo, and configure it to your account.  If you already have a chapters account, this really is only a 5-10 minute process, but it is an additional non-intuitive step that might discourage some less-technical customers.

However, once the devices are setup, then the Kobo is far more user friendly.  The touchscreen make the device very simple to browse through the online store, find books within your library, and make changes to the appearance of the text (i.e. font, size, line spacing, margins, etc.).  The Kindle can do all of this, but you are forced to browse through a list of options using a 5-way joystick.

Both devices have a web browser (WiFi only), but neither are anything special.  The touchscreen makes the Kobo's web browser much easier to use, but this would really only be used in a pinch.

Also, both devices have built-in dictionaries, which is surprisingly useful.

However,  the Kindle has one big feature that the Kobo is missing.  Audio with text-to-speech.  On a Kindle, you can listen to Audible books, which is a nice touch for those of you who like listening to books being read to you while you are working or in a car.  The Kindle also has text-to-speech, which means it will take a standard eBook and literally read it to you (in a very dull monotone voice).  This is a nice feature.

Access to Books - 

Book access is a big consideration.   You want to be sure that the books you want to read will be available on the device you buy.  Generally, as discussed earlier, you can only buy books for the Kindle from the Amazon store, although the Kindle will also support non-DRM (un-copywrited) PDFs as well.  It does not support books borrowed from the library because library books use the ePub format and Adobe's ADEPT DRM licensing encryption.

The Kobo supports Adobe's DRM ePub format, so borrowing books from libraries is completely supported.  Plus, you are free to purchase books from the Chapters Kobo Store as well.

Although both Amazon and Chapters have very good selections, there are titles that are available from one store, but not the other, so unless you want to jump through hoops, it is worth looking through each store to see which has the higher percentage of books that you would likely want to read.  As publishers become more open to eBooks, selections will become much stronger.  In fact, there are already cases where books are being published electronically and are never printed.

That said, there are workarounds.  I hate being in a situation where I am invested in a single brand.  What happens if I buy a library of books from Amazon, and want to switch to a different device?  I also ran into a situation where there was a book I wanted that was only available on the Kobo store, but I wanted to read it on my Kindle.  In addition, I wanted to borrow books from the library and read them on my Kindle.  This sparked some experimentation.  I will not go into details on how it is done in this article, but I will simply say that yes, if you are a tech savvy user, it is in fact possible to convert an ePub book from the Kobo store or your local library to a MOBI format for use on the Kindle, and it is also possible to make a Kindle book and convert it for use on the Kobo.  

Conclusion - 

So what should you buy?  Here is a brief summary:

If you don't read outdoors, you like color screens, and battery life isn't a concern, buy a color eReader like the Barnes & Noble Nook Color.

If you like touchscreen interfaces, and feel that borrowing books from the library is an important feature, buy a Kobo Touch from Chapters.

If you like physical buttons for turning pages, and do a lot of traveling where you may not have access to free WiFi, get an Amazon Kindle.

Phone scams... Don't be the next victim!

Last week, our phone rang.  Our son was asleep, so my wife answered it very quickly.  From another room I heard her say "It's 10:00 here, it's a little late for you to be calling."  She then walks into the living room where I am sitting, and hands me the phone.  The man on the line seemed a bit thrown off by the new voice that greeted him, so he started his pitch from the beginning.

"Hello, I am calling from the Windows Support Center, we are partners of Microsoft.  We are calling you about your Windows computer..."

The man was speaking very quickly, in a manner that would likely be very effective in confusing people who are not necessarily IT professionals.  He quickly explained that my computer was infected and that every time I connected to the internet I was downloading viruses to my hard drive.  I quickly began cutting him off and asking him basic questions that, if this were a legitimate call, he should know the answer to; things that would have explained how they were able to identify my router as being the source of the problems he was explaining, or that I even had a Windows machine in my house.  He blew off every question I asked with a simple "we don't have your personal information" and continued on with his obviously rehearsed speech.  I even asked him how he got my contact information, and told me he got it from the Global Internet Foundation, or some other fictitious organization.  He wasn't even able to name the virus he was calling about.

After (not so) politely telling him to sit on an acorn, I searched online to see how big of a scam this was.  I was not so surprised to learn that this is a global problem.  Apparently, the calls are initiated from a call center in India.  After convincing the victim that their computer is infected, he will then walk the victim through the steps to grant remote access to the computer so that he can help remove the virus from the victim's computer.

The victim's computer is now completely comprimized giving the attacker the ability to do whatever he wants.

I've also heard of some situations where the victim has given away his credit card information so that the service of removing the virus can be paid for.


Things to remember:

1. There is no such thing as the "Windows Support Center."  And while we're at it, there is no such thing as the "Global Internet Foundation."
2. No one cares if you have an infected computer.  Your computer could be so infested with malicious software that it is unusable, and no one outside of your local network would care.
3. If you get any information that seems suspicious, Google it.  If the first page is full of results suggesting it's a scam, then chances are it's a scam.  Do this before you believe anyone that phones you for no apparent reason, or click on any links you don't recognize.
4. If someone randomly phones you and starts telling you that you have a problem, at the very least get a second opinion before giving up any personal information or money.  Ask for a number to call them back if necessary.  Chances are, they won't give you one.

I know of at least one person in my area who fell victim to this scam, and ended up giving away remote access to their computer.  Don't be the next victim!

- Mark Bass

Dot Com bubble repeating itself?

(Originally written and posted on June 14 2011)

Was the year 2000 really that many technological generations ago that we’ve forgotten how volatile the tech markets are? Is history really going to repeat itself so soon despite how many of us got burned such a short period ago? If there was any doubt left in anyone’s mind about whether or not we were in another tech bubble, these past few weeks have easily squashed misguided thoughts.

For those of you who are not familiar with what a tech bubble is, Investopedia describes it as a pronounced and unsustainable market rise attributed to increased speculation in technology stocks. (http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tech_bubble.asp) Most notably, was the big dot com boom of the period stretching from 1995 through to 2000. When the bubble burst, several very successful companies at the time went bankrupt. For example, GeoCities was sold to Yahoo for $3.57 Billion in 1999, and was later shut down. Another example, InfoSpace’s stock value reached $1,305 per share in March 2000, only to fall to $21 per share one year later. Does anyone remember America Online?

The last few weeks have shown very distinct signs that history is repeating itself, only one decade later.

On May 19th, LinkedIn, the successful business-oriented social networking site, went public with an initial offering of $45 per share. In their first day, the stock value rallied up as high as $122 per share, finally settling at just below $80 per share. This put the value of LinkedIn at $7.5 Billion. In 2010, they only posted a net income of $15.4 Million. How is it possible that a company this young and experimental, with net income of only $15 Million, could possibly be worth $7.5 Billion?

With the success of LinkedIn’s public launch, other dot com businesses are coming up to bat. Groupon, the controversial “deal of the day” coupon website, has filed for approval on their IPO set at $750 Million dollars. This, considering that they are losing $117 Million per quarter! Even though they posted a total revenue of $644 Million, they are bleeding $117 Million every quarter! Think about this... It costs them $1.43 for every $1 they make, and they believe they are worth $750 Million on the market?

And then today, Facebook announced that they were preparing their IPO worth $100 Billion dollars. $100 Billion. This value is completely fictitious; it’s a value that someone pulled out of a dream comparing their own user base to other sites such as LinkedIn and their initial offering success. In 2010, Facebook’s revenue was less than $2 Billion, and their net income was roughly $200 Million. They are definitely profitable, but they are not profitable enough to make them worth $100 Billion. At this rate, it would take 500 years for them to save up that much money. Facebook would be lucky to survive 10 years. Now it could be argued that they are simply testing the waters, because Facebook is very good at throwing things into the public and planning their next moves based on the public’s reaction (usually the reaction is negative). We also know that Mark Zuckerberg likely would never want to take the company public because, based on his social skills, he would quickly be pushed out of the CEO position once it did become a publicly traded company. However, they likely know themselves that we are in a tech bubble, and by liquidating several billions of dollars worth of their company, when the bubble does bursts that money will remain in their control. So although Zuckerberg likely does not want to take his company public, he also likely knows that he needs to cash in his chips before the cards turn sour.

Tech stocks are always volatile. Any company can lose their value over night if another company emerges with a better product. This happens daily. But to value a single company with this kind of revenue at such fictitious numbers is absolutely ridiculous.

These are simply three examples. There are other Dot Com companies that are following down the same path, for example Spotify, that are grossly overvalued without a balance sheet to back them up. If history has taught us anything, the tech industry need to maintain a sustainable growth to ensure that we don't run into another tech market crash like what was experienced in 2000-2002.

- Mark Bass

Are you backing up your data? Are you sure?

(Originally written and posted on June 5 2011)

This past week, I was reminded of the importance of having redundant backups of all of your data. Data redundancy should never be an after though, and as our industries become more and more reliant on digital media, this is becoming even more important. In the event of data loss from events such as a fire, flood, theft, or even a simply media failure such as a hard drive crash, an entire practice could crumble. The recovery efforts can be very expensive, and often not be successful.

A professional in her field, of whom I have done periodic IT work for over the years, phones me in a panic. Her database, which contained all client and other imperative data used in her day-to-day operations became corrupted. The database file size was reading 0 bytes , and none of her backups were working. Before phoning me, she spoke with the tech support of the company who develops the CRM software her company was using to get their assistance in recovering the data. All their tech support was able to tell her was “you must have done something wrong...” Also before phoning me, they dropped off the backup disks at a local IT shop in an attempt to recover the backups.

Now, although this company has their front end computers networked so that they assist more than one client at a time, these machines, including the database, are completely disconnected from the internet. This means that backups must be physically removed from the building at the end of the day to ensure that they are kept safe. They were diligently taking nightly backups, and taking turns taking these backups home, so that over the course of a week, there were 5 backups scattered across 5 different locations. However, the media they were using to store this data, and the method they were using to handle the media, was somewhat concerning.

You see, this particular location was using CD-RWs to hold their backups. They had a box full of CD-RWs stored on a shelf under their computer storing the database. However ... none of these CD-RWs had cases. It was simply a box full of random rewritable disks without cases. Their process at the end of the day was to reach into this box and grab a random disk, burn the latest data file to the disk, put the disk into their purse (still without a case), and take it home with them. A week later, they would put the disk back in their purse, and bring the disk back to drop back into the box. Over the years, these disks have gotten so scratched that they were virtually unusable. In addition to using disks that were scratched, these backups were obviously never being verified.

Now this particular company has two offices in two different communities. A few years ago, a similar problem occurred, where their database had been lost. We were able to recover the data to a point where very little data was lost. At that time, I reworked their backup strategies and suggested new practices that best suited the technical ability of the people who would be doing the work, and the technical limitations of their restrictive architecture. This new system was a replacement for the CD-RWs that they were using, so I was surprised to learn that they were still using these disks. When I asked why they were still using the old media for their backups, they informed me that they only adopted the new strategies at one of their locations. The other location, where she was calling me from, never changed.

This is a horrible situation to be in. Any time data is lost, especially data that is vital to your day-to-day business, it can cost your business a great deal of money and lost income. However, there are things that can be done to mitigate the risk and impact of data being lost. These include:

1. Backup, backup, backup. If the data doesn’t exist in at least three places, it might as well not exist at all. 
2. Store at least one of your backups off-site. This will help prevent the chances of data being lost to fire, flood, theft, and natural disasters. 
3. If possible, consider using cloud storage for your backups. This has a number of advantages such as having a low-cost professional team responsible for protecting your data, as well as having the data stored in another city, further reducing the chance of loss from natural disasters. 
4. Test your backups frequently. Make sure that you can recover if an emergency arises. Don’t just assume what you are doing will work tomorrow. 
5. Don’t use damaged media to store your backups!!! 

In this particular situation, after nearly an entire day of wasted labour, expense, and stress, they managed to find a backup from 3 days earlier that was readable. So they lost 3 days worth of data. But this is worlds better than what could have happened. The IT shop they delivered their most recent damaged CD to was unsuccessful in recovering any data.

I suggest that each of you revisit your data backup strategies, test them, and make sure that they are actually effective. Do this now, and do this regularly. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before disaster strikes.

- Mark Bass

Why I am not a fan of Apple

(Originally written and posted on May 24 2011)

Visualize this: You’re sitting in a restaurant, browsing over the wine list. You can’t decide between the Merlot and the Shiraz. The couple in the booth behind you are talking. You aren’t actively listening in on their conversation, but you catch the man at the booth assertively say the word “Apple” to his girlfriend. What is the first thing that flashes through your mind? Is he talking about a piece of fruit? Or is he talking about the multibillion dollar tech company? As you can imagine, the typical answer to this question varies depending on the demographic, but I would expect that most people reading this article would have answered the latter.

Many of you are already well aware that I am not a big fan of Apple. I have owned an iPod and an iPhone 3G (2nd generation iPhone), and I admit there was a time when the iPhone was the best phone for my needs. But in the tech world, things change faster than our underwear, and for me the iPhone is no longer even a consideration as my next phone. The purpose of this article is to explore the reasons that I am not a fan of what Apple has become, and explain why I cannot bring myself to recommend a current generation Apple product to the majority of the people who ask for my advice. I know there are strong beliefs on either side of this debate, so before getting started I must declare that, all things equal I am brand insensitive. I will buy any brand electronic if the facts show that it is the best choice for my needs at that time. And yes, if Apple released a new product that is superior to other offerings on the market, I would not be reluctant to buy from them again.

Apple, or more specifically Steve Jobs, is a brilliant marketer. Probably the most brilliant marketing genius to walk the face of the earth. You turn on your TV, and everyone on your favourite show is using an iPhone, or a Macbook, or an iPod. Restaurants and other businesses are starting to hand their customers iPads, which hold menus and other services designed to help streamline the ordering experience. They have selected to use iPads not because they are the superior device, but because of the perceived passion they bring with them. People who have an iPhone refer to it as an “iPhone”, whereas people with Blackberries, Samsungs, Nokias, HTCs, Motorolas, or any other type of phone simply call theirs a “phone”. Why is an Apple phone referred to as an “iPhone”, whereas every other phone on the planet is simply called a “phone”? I cannot think of any other example that even comes close to what Steve Jobs has accomplished.

Here’s a bit of Apple history. Steve Jobs is the only reason Apple exists today. Literally. In the late 70’s and early 80’s, Jobs was responsible, at least in part, for the launch of the Apple I, Apple II, (Apple III but we won’t talk about that), and the Macintosh. However, as the result of a power struggle, Jobs was fired from Apple in 1985. He did not return to Apple until 1997. The 12 years Jobs was absent was the darkest period in Apple’s past. In fact, they nearly went bankrupt in 1996. They say that Apple was within hours of accepting an offer from Sun Microsystems to buy them out, which they rejected at the last moment. If this had happened, there would have been no iPod. There would have been no iPhone, there would have been no iPad. None of this would have existed. And arguably, Blackberry would still be the dominant Smartphone company. Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, eventually becoming their permanent CEO, and beginning their long recovery from bankruptcy. Also in 1997, Apple announced that they were entering into a partnership with Microsoft. At the Macworld Expo in 1997, Bill Gates said that he was very excited to help Apple return to success. That’s right, we’ve all seen the “I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC” commercials, yet Microsoft is among the reasons that Mac exists today.

In 2001, Apple started opening retail stores. This was around the same time that other Computer companies like Gateway were closing their failed retail stores, yet Apple felt they could succeed where others failed. But what did they sell? Palm Pilots. Other company’s MP3 players. Pretty much everything that Apple has now pushed out of business, they used to sell in their own stores. Apple, and Steve Jobs, then went on to release the hugely successful iPod, then later the iPhone and iPad.

So let’s recap. Apple I, Apple II, Macintosh, iPod, iPhone, iPad. Steve Jobs has, hands down, been responsible for the launch of the six most influential technology related products in history. History has also shown that without him, Apple would not exist.

Enough of this history lesson. Despite these huge successes, why do I not like Apple products?

First off, the cult following. A study sponsored and released by the BBC this past week showed that neuroscientists performed an MRI on “Apple Fanboys” and compared the results to similar MRIs performed on people who were very religious. The results showed that the same parts of the brain in the Apple cult specimens were stimulated by the thought of Apple products, as were stimulated in the religious group by the thought of that person’s deity. (Citation: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43126515/ns/business-consumer_news/t/dont-call-them-fanboys-now-call-them-acolytes/) Think about this for a minute. A tech company has the same overall impact on a person as a religion. “Trade in your inadequate iPad 1 for the new and improved iPad 2 and our soul will be saved!” I won’t discuss this point any further to avoid crossing a line, but before moving on I’d like to offer my personal thanks for those of you who traded in your iPad 1 for the new and improved iPad 2. You are likely the reason that we were able to prevent the rapture from occurring this past weekend.

Second, the restrictions. Apple’s iOS is the most locked down mainstream operating system to date. For example, you can’t run Flash. Jobs claims that they don’t want to support Adobe Flash simply because it is a “poorly developed program responsible for crashing Apple computers.” Really? Flash runs fine on my Android phone, Flash runs fine on my laptop ... why does it crash Apple products? Regardless of whether or not Flash is poorly written (of which I will not share opinions in this article), if it causes the Apple product to crash, then couldn’t it possibly be a problem with the Apple product and not Flash? A well written operating system should be able to detect and manage issues leading to a crash. If the user wants to view a website written in Flash, let them. If there is a problem with the content delivery, it is the content provider’s responsibility to ensure the optimal usability of their site; it is not Apple’s place to prevent a user from viewing the content on that site.

Third, the developer experience in the Apple “App Store”. The App Store is the most convoluted dictatorship I have ever seen. I know of one app that was put on the App Store by a photographer named Lisa Bettany that was wildly successful, selling half a million dollars worth in its first month. However, Apple pulled the app from the App Store. After looking into it, she discovered that it was pulled because she used the volume buttons on the side of the phone to act as the shutter release. Now I understand that there is some need for consistency in UI interaction, but there are extremes. What is the problem with using the volume buttons as a shutter release while in an app? It does not take away from the user experience, and it does not interfere with the usability or functionality of the phone. And it was obviously profitable, including for Apple.

I also disagree with the details of how Apple forces pricing in their app store to be no more the same content from any other source. For example, magazine subscriptions must be less than or equal to any other source for magazine subscriptions. The problem here is that 30% of the profit goes to Apple, only 70% goes to the publisher. So any sales that are made in the App Store, when the buyer could just have easily gone to the publisher’s website to get the same content, causes the publisher to immediately lose 30%, without any way of recovering those costs, or “suggesting” to the buyer that they should go to their website, instead of buying the subscription in the App Store, where the publisher could get their entire commission. In other app stores, the store itself does not take a cut of the profits.

Fourth, the hardware and lack of innovation. Let’s talk about the iPhone. The iPhone is released once per year. Apple orders the parts needed to build the phones months in advance for reasons explained by simple economics. So by the time the new iPhone is ready for market, it is already about 6 months behind the curve. By the time the next version is available, the current version is already about 18 months behind the curve. Whereas most other phones are cutting edge when they are released. Granted, Canada sometimes needs to wait a few extra months before the new phones are available to us, but the competition between non-Apple manufacturers is still fierce. We already have dual core processors in phones (iPhone is NOT one of them), we have video chat that is available over a cellular network (iPhone only allows video chat over WiFi), and we have ridiculously bright and vibrant super AMOLED screens (arguably superior to the iPhone’s Retina display). The iPhone 4 is inferior to several Android and Windows Phone 7 handsets that are on the market now, they just don’t have the same level of marketing that the iPhone has.

Now let’s talk about the iPad. The iPad is not innovative. Tablets have existed for a decade. In fact, tablets with the same general specs (on paper at least) have existed for nearly a decade as well. Apple is a company that largely waits until another company has proven a technology, and then takes that same technology, gives it their own special sugar, and suddenly it turns to gold. There are definitely things about the iPad that are appealing, but I don’t have a place for it in my quiver of gadgets. There is at least one Android tablet that, for my purposes, is far more appealing than the iPad is, is more powerful, is nowhere near as restricted, fully supports Flash, and doesn’t have the same price tag that the iPad has.

Fifth, the increasing arrogance within the company. At the iPad 2 announcement back in March, there were several lies/inaccuracies that were told. For example:
They said that the iPad 2 was the first tablet to ship with dual cores. This was not correct. At the time, both the Motorola Xoom and the Dell Streak were shipping with dual cores.
They misquoted Samsung’s vice president, saying that Samsung declared their sales to be “quite small” and that they were upgrading their “inadequate” hardware to compete with Apple’s iPad. However, this is not what the vice president said. The correct quote from the Japanese vice president, who was fighting with his poor English, was “our sales are quite smooth” and that they believed their tablets were selling “quite well.” This was a direct shot at Samsung, something that up to now I did not expect Apple to do at such a public event.

There were other incorrect statements made during the announcement, but these are simply a couple of examples. The arrogance that is building within apple is disappointing.

And sixth, the inability for the average consumer to see through the marketing and the hype, and see that there are other devices for less money, that are often superior in virtually every way. Much like choosing that glass of wine, I want to look past all the marketing and the hype, and choose the right device for me. Apple does not provide the best products for my purposes, nor do they make the best products for many of the people who think Apple is the golden egg and refuse to look at anything else. We have been brainwashed.

Am I just making a stand by not recommending Apple to all but a select group of people who ask me what is the best gadget for them to buy? Is this a protest? Possibly. But I predict that within the next 3 years, Apple will no longer be the powerhouse it is today. For all you Apple fanboys reading this article, mark your calendars. June 2014. You may have prevented the rapture from occurring with your iPad 2 purchases, but be warned ... “appture” will be upon us.

- Mark Bass

My thoughts on the marriage of home security and home automation

(Originally written and posted May 10 2011)

Security is important. In fact, it is vital. It is how we protect our families, it is how we protect our possessions, it is how we protect our identities. Security is something that we need to take seriously, especially in the world of online banking and social networking. Most of us are aware that nothing we do online should be considered private, but does home security fall into a hackable domain? Have we come to the point where our new LED or plasma TVs can be ripped off our wall by a cyber attack initiated from another city?

Unfortunately, this may be the case. This past weekend, a salesman came by trying to sell us a home security and home automation system. I won’t discuss his mannerisms in this article since it doesn’t contribute to my main point, but after our first couple encounters, he probably shouldn’t have returned the third time. I also won’t bother naming the company he represented. His system included (not limited to) items such as a two-way speaker with a cellular connection, a key fob that allows the door to be unlocked and the system disarmed without a key, video cameras which allows both you and the security company to look in on various rooms in the house from a remote location, and a Smartphone app that allows you to unlock your doors and disarm your security system remotely (for example if you are at work and want to let someone into your house).

Don’t get me wrong, I think the progression of technology is great. I love gadgets, and I’ve often thought about putting in a home automation system that I would likely plan and develop myself if I ever got around to it. But there are situations where being an early adopter of a technology, even though it might offer an appealing luxury, can actually have the complete opposite result than what was intended.

This salesman was talking about how great it would be to be able to look in on your home while on the road, using the cameras, just to be sure that everything is okay. Sure, this would be great! I would love to be able to look in on my house using cameras that I have configured and secured myself, but I would not want to have anyone else, including the security company, to have this ability.

He assured me that they (the company) were not able to use the cameras, or listen in on what was happening in the house, unless the alarm was triggered. However, when I asked him if their inability to do so was due to a company policy, or an actual systematically imposed restriction, he wasn’t able to give an answer. I then asked him if he was familiar with the privacy lawsuit that Aaron’s, the rent-to-own chain, was facing right now. He wasn’t. So I explained to him that Aaron’s was installing spyware on laptops that were going out their doors, which allowed them to disable the machines if their clients failed to pay for them. This in itself isn’t a bad thing, but this software also included a key logger, as well as the ability to control the computer’s built-in webcam. This all came to light after a manager showed up at one of the customer’s home (who apparently paid off the computer, but Aaron’s incorrectly processed the final payment, sending it to the repo department) with a picture of the owner using the laptop, taken from the built-in webcam. The owner rightfully pressed charges, claiming that his daughter uses the computer to check her grades in the morning before having a shower, and that their son often runs through the room after getting out of the bath, and there was a chance those moments were caught as well. This lawsuit will likely go class action. After explaining this situation to the salesman, all he said was “well ... that’s illegal.” Of course it is. So is speeding. So is parking your car on the sidewalk, and I’m pretty sure that’s your car on the sidewalk across the street. And of course, if no one did anything illegal, I wouldn’t need a security system in my house...

He then went on to talk about how he had an iPhone app that allows you to unlock your doors for someone when you are away from home. He was obviously very excited about it and asked if I had a Smartphone. I said I did, and after explaining to him that Android actually does have an app store outside of Amazon, I told him that having a Smartphone app that allows a security system to be disabled and doors unlocked remotely changes "home security" into "home insecurity".

At this point he got defensive, and picked up that I likely knew something about online security.

“I assure you we have people like yourself working for us...” he started to say.

To which I replied, “there are people just like us working for Sony as well.”

There was no rebuttal.

Now I know that Sony was an extreme case. Sony’s Playstation and Qriocity online services have been down for nearly 3 weeks now, as they struggle to rebuild their security from scratch after one of the largest security breaches in history. In their situation, they were running an unpatched instance of Apache server, which had known security holes, and they were not running a much needed firewall. This made the access of their network by a hacker very easy. Once their network was penetrated, it was discovered that there was very little encryption on Sony’s users’ personal data. And even data that was encrypted, now that the hackers potentially have this information stored locally, they can easily run their own unthrottled script that can work until they find the keys necessary to decrypt all of that information back into plain text.

Again, the Sony situation is an extreme. However, this is how it relates: Taking a home security system and putting it on the internet for no reason is exactly the same as taking a server with loads of confidential information and putting it on the internet for no reason. Offline, you have to physically walk up to the box to break into it. Online, you can potentially break into it from anywhere in the world. In the case of the house, you could sit in a car down the street and work. Once you have the system compromised, and the doors unlocked, you can then get out of your car and casually walk right into the house. Why would anyone who actually cared about security want to put themselves at risk of something like this? It adds another unnecessary point of failure.

The salesman then, as a last resort, made an analogy about his system being "Windows 7", and all other security systems being "Windows 95". I told him that this was actually a good analogy, because once again, people who were concerned about security in a Windows environment would NOT be using Windows 7, but instead would likely still be using Windows XP. Windows 7, being a new system, is far more exploitable. Windows XP has had 10 years to mature to the point where it is now very solid, tested, and proven.

If security is your main concern, it is very rare that being an early adopter of a technology will pay off.

The salesman also tried to connect with me by telling me about all of my neighbours that I probably have coffee with, including their names, who were getting this system installed. I stopped short of telling him that he was spreading around a shopping list to a tech savvy thief that may be living in this area. I stopped short because, you know, “that’s illegal.”

What do you guys think? If a system like this was presented to you, would you be willing to compromise your security to get the latest gadgets? Or are you like me and believe that home security and home automation systems should be isolated from each other?

- Mark Bass