Well for me, this event is where I expected to be introduced to the new version of Android and the cool stuff that the new build will feature. Unfortunately, this didn’t happen. Some people were disappointed but I was happy: as we all know, the main reason why Apple fans bash Android is the OS fragmentation issue. This time around, new features were added with no need to even update the OS, Google will proceed with updating the needed stuff automatically. This will allow OEMs to catch their breath and update their current line-up; the older phones with Gingerbread now have two options, either to get obsolete or be updated (if the HW can handle).

In my opinion, the Jelly Bean features and build are pretty stable now, and with the features introduced in I/O 2013,  things are only going to get prettier. The new GCM feature will add a lot of benefit for the long awaited push notification, and hey, Google will handle the hassle of the servers. so developers, the ball is in your side of the pitch; DO IT.

On the other hand, the so-called cross messaging app was a bit of confusing for the people that I had the chance to chat with during the event, many did ask for Talk to come back. We obviously need to adapt to this change: we are talking here about a platform that will put iMessage and many other messaging platform in the closet, especially with SMS support coming this June (based on the permissions when installing and based on posts from Googlers on their G+ pages).

Hangouts will be the key for many platforms to abide by the openness that Larry Page talked about. The talk of Page hinted on many things, one of them being the Microsoft clash, after the YouTube WP8 app, and a somewhat hidden message (IMHO) to Apple. What would be good about keeping the technology for yourself?

Personally, I hate the “Samsung way” of bashing the iPhone, simply because this won’t benefit us in any way. Let us all benefit from your technology and we’ll be more than happy bragging about the design, be it Flat, Holo or the rumored Skeuomorphism change; it’s a matter of choice and man how people are differentiated through different tastes.

Now back to I/O 2013; what surprised me the most was the “Google Edition” of the Samsung Galaxy S4, and from here the speculations that started about having a Nexus device for every Android manufacturer -which is cool but, what about the Nexus line up? Are we supposed to forget about it? What about the Google X line up? Is it the end of the Motorola dream acquisition by Google?

Those were mainly my thoughts about the event, what do you think? Hit us in the comments section.

The article "Some Google I/O 2013 Aftermath Thoughts", written by Zaher Hallab appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Well, it probably should. At least, parents definitely should.

I still remember the days when our parents wouldn’t allow us to spend too much time in front of the TV set. The reasons are pretty obvious: limit exposure to things that can induce decreased daytime focus, control exposure to potentially harmful content, and limit the joyful time in an implementation of a risk/reward system.

Coming to think of it again now, if our parents wouldn’t allow us to sit in front of the television for that long without sticking their head around the door to vet what we’re watching, why are they more inclined nowadays to allow unlimited and non-monitored exposure to Tech gadgets especially that kids tend to hole up in their bedrooms?

Times have changed, of course. What was a curious novelty some twenty years ago, perceived as a total distraction is now considered a mind-wakening tool, parents being positively amazed by their kids being so “Tech-savvy” so early in their lives.

Middle-class parents who wouldn’t allow in any way a television in their child’s bedroom have no qualms about a state-of-the-art PC, even though their child could watch TV on it or surf for porn (bypassing parental controls is not as difficult as you would think).

The truth is that there’s something about this that bothers me. And God knows the degree of my “Tech geekyness” for that matter. That “Tech addiction” among children as young as three or four struck an uncomfortable chord with me.

I’ve recently heard stories about children becoming “distressed and inconsolable” when their device was taken away. Of course, some might say that is a pure natural reaction as to deprivation. According to the experts, young people’s obsession with smartphones and tablets goes deeper. So unless parents wake up to the fact that our responsibility for our children extends to the virtual world, we are doing them a grave disservice. Parents are definitely guilty of treating Mummy’s smartphone as a babysitter, Daddy’s tablet as a godsend on a rainy day, while the toddler can be kept amused on a potty with an iPad.

The article "Should Our Kids Be That Exposed to Technology?", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Everything tends to become digital.

What about Tech stores? Do we still need these to remain physical? We aggregated the arguments of the two opinions: the one that says we still need physical Tech stores, and the other one, claiming that the physical presence of these stores is definitely doomed.

Physical Tech Retail Stores Can’t and Will Not Die

If we can’t hold gadgets in our hands and try out user interfaces, our Tech-buying lives will be irrevocably damaged. But of course, these stores need to re-create themselves, trying to mix shopping with entertainment. Apple retail stores seem to have caught the right formula. The Apple example may be unique because of the company’s innovative and leading profile, but their example show that people want real shops of they’re done the right way.

Digital won’t over kill the physical: music was indeed hit by the digital revolution, but this will never kill the true music live scene.

What is needed are more specialized Tech shops, with a true identity, some really geeky, some less, but always maintaining a specific image and business target to attract and please the right people. Akihabara district in Tokyo is a true example of this concept: a Tech Mecca with easily identifiable stores identities, with particularly special treats you won’t ever get elsewhere.

Physical Tech Stores: It’s All Going Digital

Well, it’s true that Apple Stores are a big success, but this is mainly due to Apple’s peculiar business model and extremely powerful brand recognition worldwide, that of quality and ultimate minimalistic design. Even Google is extremely hesitant about launching physical retail branded stores. It’s funny that people pleading in favor of physical Tech stores tend to forget that most of the gear selling in those shops can be found in the supermarket (or department store) next door. Thinking about that makes us wonder how these shops still exist!

Now, taking back the music example given above, it is all a natural reaction that the live music scene is witnessing a definite boom: the collapse of music sales drove that particular boom, and performing live is one of the few ways artists can still make money nowadays.

Beside all of this, shopping online means time gains, less hassle. With delivery timing becoming truly bleeding-edge (same-day delivery starting to become a mass target for all online retail platforms). It also means less running costs, more efficiency, and less stocking space needed.

A Few Remarks Now…

Our own opinion on the matter is that physical Tech stores are not exactly extinct, and that they still have a big chance of survival, in spite of everything. However, some things are to be amended: these particular stores need to be run better, with constantly increased interactivity with their potential customer base, be it through better service in-store (more specialized staff), or through online social presence, building better relationships with clients, trying to make of them “fans” rather than mere clientele.

These stores definitely need to evolve and mutate into “experience zones”, providing an adequate environment where customers can effectively test-drive the products, all packed in a creative ambiance, with people sharing experiences, rating products in-store, leaving recommendations for other potential buyers.

Never forgetting that the main use of the physical presence of Tech stores is the social factor. Interacting with other passionate and knowledgeable people is key, be it staff or other buyers.

Your opinion now: do you really feel physical Tech stores are still necessary? Drop us a note in the comments section below.

The article "Do We Still Need Physical Tech Retail Stores?", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Simply creating a website for a business can increase scope for growth no end. Not only is the brand name getting out there, but there’s the option to create an online shop and sell services in a more accessible manner.

Choosing a domain can be a little daunting. Here’s what you need to know.

The Jargon

Server – in order for any website to stay live, it needs to be stored on a physical server which is to be kept switched on at all times.

Domain – this is the space which a website is taking up on the internet.

Bandwidth – a certain amount of bandwidth is required to keep up with site visits. In the case of bandwidth being used up, the server cannot cope with the additional visits. This is why big companies often have their own dedicated server.

Types of Hosting

There are three main types of hosting to consider, and all have their pros and cons.

• Shared hosting – This refers to sharing a server with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of other clients. This is perfectly adequate for very small businesses which do not expect spikes in traffic, so it is often used for those which only provide local services.

These spaces often provide very basic services, simply because there is not the space for anything bigger. There’s not much in the way of upgrades, updates and software; and in the case of a spike of page visits, the entire server can become overloaded. It’s a basic option.

• Virtual Private servers – These are more scalable and less expensive forms of hosting that dedicated servers. A VPS is usually the hosting type of choice for small businesses, as the very nature of the service has the potential to grow should it be required.

To make things easier, many domain providers such as daily.co.uk offer easy setups and eradicate the need for a private web developer. This certainly helps cut costs.

• Dedicated servers – On the whole, these are only recommended for large businesses, or small businesses which are set to grow greatly. Accommodating high bandwidths, they can easily cope with spikes in traffic and offer full customisation of the space.

However, if there’s no team of web developers at your disposal, it’s going to be a long and hard slog.

The Agony of Choice

For small businesses, the best choice is certainly a virtual private server. However, if your business offers local custom or does not need much detail and interactivity, the shared server option is the cheapest. Sites like daily.co.uk mention on their blog how, whatever package you choose, you should make good use of all the tools you have available.

The article "Choosing Hosting Plans for Your Small Business", written by John I. appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

This forms a major impact on mobile operators, as SMS services constituted a major chunk of their income. According to separate estimates by research firm Ovum, more than $23bn of SMS revenue was lost in 2012 due to popularity of chat apps.

The change in this trend is due to the low cost along with the simplicity and spread of cross-platform applications that has been witnessed in the past couple of years, with the number of compatible phones increasing exponentially. The trend will continue further, as Informa predicts that by 2014, nearly 50bn IM messages will be sent every day compared to around 21bn SMS to be sent daily in the same period.

However, Informa still sees a role for SMS, if only in developing markets where smartphone penetration is less advanced. For those with low-cost devices that lack either stable data connections or any app support whatsoever (as in the case of people who do not own smartphones), traditional text messages may still present the best approach for non-voice communication.

Source: Informa, BBC News

The article "Chat Apps Surpass SMS for the First Time", written by Azmi Sayadi appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Most of the figures provide an international perception of how things are happening and the impact of each of these OS on the overall market, but how about where each one of these stand in the Arab region in specific?

Frootapps, the mobile application developers, managed to gather some data on the shares of the major mobile OS in the Arab world in a very nice infographic (did I mention before that we love those?), which shows that Android also dominates the smartphone market, as 40% of smartphone users own an Android device. Yet iOS is close on its heels, accounting for 35% of the market with Blackberry at a distant third (15%) and Windows behind that (10%).

As the below infographic, the region’s consumers have 22 million smartphones and growing (12 million in the Gulf, 6 million in North Africa, 4 Million in the Levant), and Google edges out Apple in each market.

As highlighted by Wamda, “startups are benefitting from Apple’s close lead, as Apple allows developers to monetize their apps, while Google doesn’t. Thanks to a lack of viable Google merchant accounts, Google doesn’t offer developers the ability to create a premium paid apps in any Arab country. Should that policy change, it could revolutionize developers’ revenue streams. But for now, mobile app developers often develop first and foremost for iOS.”

Anyway, we will leave you with the infographic now, which provides even more information and details on the overall market segregation.

Source: Frootapps, Wamda, Techcrunch

The article "Which Mobile OS Dominates the Arab Mobile Market?", written by Azmi Sayadi appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

New 100 Dollar Bill: So, What’s New?

The Federal Reserve apparently embedded new features rendering the bill even more difficult to replicate. Of course, this is something we’ve already seen in the past; the talk about making Dollar bills hard to replicate is an evergreen discourse. But the truth is that these bills are really getting harder to copy with each new release.

What is new, this time around? Pretty advanced Tech, we’d have to say.

• A new blue security ribbon runs down the front,  filled with the number “100″ and tiny bells. When the bill is tilted, these markings rotate. Moreover, the ribbon is woven onto the paper. It’s composed of thousands of lenses that magnify the marks and make them appear to move in different directions.

• To the right of Ben Franklin is an ink well with a bell inside, and both the well and bell look copper-colored until someone turns the bill, which changes the bell to green. The “100″ printed in the bottom right changes color the same way.
• A sketch of Benjamin Franklin watermark that appears when the bill is back-lit.
• The bill isn’t completely uniform, with patterns of rough and smooth all around certain spots on the bill.
• There are also tiny hidden words in the picture. On Franklin’s collar you can just barely make out a finely detailed “THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,” while “USA 100″ is printed in the top right and “ONE HUNDRED USA” is on the quill.

Take the new 100 US Dollar bill for a test drive here, and let us know what you think.

The article "Meet the New 100 US Dollar Bill", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

IMAX (an abbreviation for Image Maximum) is a motion picture film format and a set of cinema projection standards created by the Canadian company IMAX Corporation. IMAX has the capacity to record and display images of far greater size and resolution than conventional film systems. 

IMAX: Historical Background

Actually, IMAX is the most widely used system for special-venue film presentations. As of December 2012, there are no less than 700 IMAX theatres in more than 52 countries. 

In 1929, Fox introduced Fox Grandeur, the first 70 mm film format; In the 1950s CinemaScope (1953) and VistaVision (1954) widened the image from 35 mm film, following multi-projector systems such as Cinerama (1952), which was difficult to install. The IMAX system was developed by Graeme Ferguson, Roman Kroitor, Robert Kerr, and William C. Shaw: The single-projector/single-camera system they eventually settled upon was designed and built by Shaw. When it became clear that a single, large-screen image had far more impact than multiple smaller ones, Multiscreen changed its name to IMAX.

First IMAX film: Tiger Child was demonstrated at Expo ’70 in Osaka, Japan. 

First permanent IMAX installation: built at the Cinesphere theatre at Ontario Place in Toronto. It debuted in May 1971, showing the film North of Superior. During Expo ’74 in Spokane, Washington, an IMAX screen that measured 90 ft × 65 ft (27 m × 20 m) was featured in the US Pavilion (the largest structure in the expo). About five million visitors viewed the screen, which covered the viewer’s total vision field when looking directly forward. This created a sensation of motion in most viewers, and motion sickness in some.

First permanent IMAX Dome installation: the Eugene Heikoff and Marilyn Jacobs Heikoff Dome Theatre at the Reuben H. Fleet Science Center, opened in San Diego’s Balboa Park in 1973. It doubles as a planetarium. 

First permanent IMAX 3D theatre: built in Vancouver, British Columbia for Transitions at Expo ’86, and was in use until September 30, 2009.

The IMAX format has traditionally been employed for specialty applications. The majority tend to be documentaries that are suited for institutional venues such as museums and science centers. IMAX cameras have orbited the earth, climbed Mount Everest, explored the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, and visited the Antarctic. An IMAX documentary about the success of the Mars Exploration Rovers was released in 2006, titled Roving Mars and used exclusive data from the Rovers.

IMAX and Real 3D: What’s the Difference?

3D movies are quite common these days, with many of the latest animated films, action-packed blockbusters and horror flicks being presented with a third-dimension. The passive polarizing technology used to display 3D in most movie theaters is also similar to those found in passive 3D TVs.

RealD 3D and IMAX Digital 3D both utilize passive 3D technology, which makes use of relatively lightweight eyewear. These passive 3D glasses use polarizing filters to allow each eye to see a slightly different image. Disambiguation: glasses at IMAX theaters are larger, to compensate for the larger field-of-view at those auditoriums.

Now, both these technologies are also digital, which means that you’ll get a clean image. The prevalent technology in 3D cinemas worldwide comes from RealD, an American company founded in 2003. The RealD 3D format is natively digital. This means that movies have to be produced in a digital 3D format for projection on film-less digital projectors. RealD cinemas also use a passive circular polarizing technique to achieve 3D which allows viewers a clear image even when turning or tilting their heads. The first RealD 3D movie screened was Chicken Little in 2005.

IMAX cinema auditoriums are well known for their massive, curved screens which fill a larger portion of your field-of-vision (FOV). Imax Digital 3D is an evolutionary improvement of the analog Imax 3D theaters that have been around since 1986. Its long history is evident even in the much newer Imax Digital 3D theaters since they still utilize the linear polarizing technology of its analog predecessors. Unlike RealD, Imax 3D movies are less tolerant of head movements. Viewers have to avoid tilting their heads, though some turning–probably unavoidable due to the massive Imax screen format–is possible. Also, Imax screens are curved to fill an audience member’s FOV, which enhances immersion while giving those sitting at the sides a better view of the action. Imax Digital auditoriums also use two 2K projectors for 3D shows, which leads to a visibly brighter image through the glasses.

Practical Figures

IMAX Digital 3D tickets typically cost more than their RealD 3D counterparts. Reasons? The generally larger screen (that’s at a closer proximity to the audience) as well as a brighter image from the dual-projectors.

More technical: Aside from the larger screen size, there are other notable differences between Imax Digital 3D and RealD 3D. RealD 3D projectors like Sony’s 4K Digital Cinema models use a special lens to project 3D visuals which can provide viewers with up to four times the resolution of full-HD 1080p. However, not all RealD 3D auditoriums have 4K projectors–many feature 2K digital projectors. As for the rival, all IMAX Digital 3D theaters use 2K dual-projector systems which give twice the resolution of full-HD and a brighter 3D image.

RealD 3D auditoriums with 4K projectors can provide a visibly sharper image, especially with movies shot on similarly high-resolution cameras.

Coming to the 3D rendering chapter, let us note that RealD technology is capable of extending beyond the screen, however, the screens used in most cinemas tend to be flat and positioned further from the viewer, which would minimize the coming-at-you effect. The 3D effect they produce would also be similar to what you’d experience on your 3D TV at home.To some, 3D movies should “pop” out of the screen, similar to what audiences experience with 3D rides at theme parks; this is what you actually get in IMAX theaters.

However, these “nuances” remain very tiny, and can sometime be hard to spot. They are also dependent on the movie and its actual shooting technique.

Final Verdict

Imax screens are massive and curved, which should help improve your view of the screen and minimize ghosting. Imax Digital 3D screenings should also be consistently brighter. Imax says that its linear polarizing technology provides an “improved signal-to-noise performance over circular polarizers” and “allows more light through”. However, keep in mind that this technology makes 3D movies less tolerant of movements, especially tilting your head sideways.

RealD 3D typically provides better viewing angles that allows viewers to tilt and turn their heads while watching.

Beware the consistency issue at hand here: while RealD theaters venues only need to sport “compliant digital cinema projectors”, meaning that your moviegoing experience would depend on the type of projectors used by the cinema as well as the sound system installed, IMAX theaters have to meet standards for audio and image quality which means they’ll look and sound more consistent anywhere you go.

So, have you already tried IMAX? We hope you’d share your experience with us.

The article "What Is IMAX?", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Let us segregate it geographically now.

Social Network Time: Global Comparison

United States, United Kingdom and Australia

Well, if the time spent by U.S. users on the Internet (through desktops only) was transcribed into an hour, then 27 percent of it would be spent on social networks. This same figure applies to the U.K. and Australia. In minutes, this does mean that in the U.S., 16 minutes out of every online hour is spent on social networks; In order for us to make this figure comparable to other online activities, U.S. internet users spend nine minutes on entertainment sites and five minutes shopping out of an online hour.

In the UK, 13 minutes out of every hour online is spent on social networks, nine minutes on entertainment sites and six minutes shopping. Australian Internet users spend 14 minutes on social sites, nine on entertainment and four minutes shopping online.

Across all three markets above, time spent shopping online is growing YOY over the past few years. The champions in that segment are U.K. online shoppers, spending 10 percent of all time online shopping in 2012, compared to nine percent in the U.S. and six percent in Australia. In counterpart, Australian users are the champion consumers of online news. Six percent of all time spent online in Australia in 2012 was on a news website, compared to five percent in the UK and four percent in the U.S.

A Downward Trend

Having said at the beginning of the article that social networks were the clear winners of the online time consumption worldwide, things seem to decline sensibly, lately. The U.S. figure dropped from 30 percent of all time spent online to 27 percent (As stated above); In Australia time spent on social dropped from 27 percent to 24 percent while in the UK it dipped from 25 percent to 22 percent year-over-year.

Main reason: The rise in Internet access via 3G and 4G networks as consumers spend increasingly more time online while on the move, through their mobile devices.

Mobile Browsing

When looking at the U.S. browsing data for mobile devices, email accounted for the largest time spent on average, for the same categories for Q1 2013. Email made up 23 percent of time spent on mobile devices for Q1-13, while social networking accounted for 15 percent. The mobile data does not include app usage, but does include mobile browsing within an app, so things remain a bit shady when dealing with this kind of analytics.

Conclusion: the Internet world is definitely shifting mobile.

Sources: ZDNet, The Telegraph, WSJ

Cover Image by Stanislav Petrov

The article "Around a Third of Online Time Is Spent on Social Networks", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

What all of this means? Well, observing Tech consumer preferences and trends over the past few years can be confusing. A decade ago, bigger laptops were the stars of the computing show, since laptops were mainly considered as desktop replacements. A few years later, things changed in favor of smaller dimensions, simply because users noticed that bigger sizes meant heavier loads to carry (consumers are shortsighted, no?), lifting smaller and lighter laptops to the top of the bunch. Of course, there are design and ergonomic concerns, and there are also fashion trends that comes into play too in those matters, some people would say.

Talking about smartphones, things go exactly the opposite way: starting up small, sizes tend to grow bigger with every new releases. The most direct and obvious reason for this is that displays are getting more performant, making it more enjoyable to manufacture them with bigger sizes. However, bigger screen sizes automatically mean bigger battery packs, thus, bigger device sizes.

Of course, fashion trends have their importance too, when it comes to shapes and colors, accessories and other similar stuff, but rarely have we seen fashion concerns shaping size preferences for Tech devices. Size criteria, be it for computers or smartphones is a personal preference and choice “par excellence”.

So it’s a matter of personal taste, we get it. But what are the arguments exchanged in favor or against bigger smartphone sizes?

Smartphones: Bigger Will Always Be Better

There are things that should always stay small: TV remotes and other similar stuff. But mobile phones aren’t just phones any more. Smartphones of today are full-fledged pocketable computers. So a larger screen means better internet browsing, more enjoyable games and movie viewing. The only that should stand in that matter is: “If it fits in my pocket, then it’s not too big”.

By saying bigger is always better, we implicitly know that smartphones currently reached their ultimate perfect size: somewhere around 5+ inches. Why? Because this size is the perfect middle ground between tablet practicality and phone pocket-ability. So why compromise on a few inches when it can still be carried around seamlessly?

However, Smartphones Don’t Need To Be That Big

Bigger phones are simply impossible to handle and operate. In the near future, we might have to grow bigger thumbs in order to be able ti use them comfortably. Have you tried maneuvering a 5.x-inches smartphones single-handedly? It is so impossible, you’ll go crazy! The fun part is that manufacturers are racing each others in producing bigger phones year over year. Huawei just released the Ascend Mate sporting a 6-inch display. Good luck handling this tiny baby.

Then comes the pocket-ability concern. Big screens defenders might say they can still hold these huge smartphones in the pockets of their trousers or jackets, but really, when did we come to this? Having to pocket a huge slate that makes our pockets look like overloaded cargo space on a busy day. The climax is reached when we actually do take the devices out of our pockets to make a call: what a more delightful sight than that of you holding your shoe box-sized smartphone in public?

Besides, if you want more enjoyable media and reading, go get yourself a tablet. Why is there a tablet market? Exactly for these types of needs. Please indulge yourselves with increased multimedia enjoyment, without encumbering our pockets and wallets! Didn’t Steve Jobs say that 3.5 inches is the perfect size for smartphones? Why would you pretend knowing more?

Those above are basically the two parties’ major arguments concerning smartphone size, as we were able to hear it from our immediate entourage.

Now we need to get a broader idea on this specific matter. We need to get your feedback. Please participate in the poll below, and do not hesitate to send out your comments.

The article "Are Smartphones Over-expanding? [Poll]", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Those are online advertising techniques that fill your browser with ads that “takes over” your display. Those techniques are pretty much annoying if you’d ask me, nevertheless very effective in leaving a definite imprint of the advertised product in the minds of internet users. If done right, using some interactive components, these ads can become truly informative.

This is what BlackBerry is trying to do lately. As we’ve repeatedly mentioned it before, BlackBerry is betting all-in for its comeback with its latest BB10 software and devices it is releasing. When you’re betting the whole house and the garden behind it, you cannot skimp on the means, neither can you on the marketing.

BlackBerry is indeed using that kind of marketing technique, in an effort to make the “takeover” resemble the BB10 Hub feature that helps users organize their content on the new BlackBerry 10 devices. Android and iPhone users will also experience BlackBerry’s ad content in the form of mobile takeovers starting the week of March 25. Those mobile takeovers will fill your screen with what looks like a BlackBerry 10′s, demoing a specific feature like its photo “Time Shift” capability that allows you to scroll through several captured options for each face in a picture.

Benefits of Real-Time Takeovers

Well, the most obvious benefit of these kinds of direct interactive marketing techniques is that it definitely help spread targeted information about the product in a better and catchier way. It is more interesting than any other advertising mean.

Now for Blackberry, these real-time takeovers will link the company image to regained innovation levels. An example of these techniques will be a keyboard challenge that BlackBerry will be launching too: smartphone users are invited to scan QR codes on digital banner ads to upload the game, which pits you against the Z10 in a typing challenge. The company also offers a personalized demo on its flagship website that, with a user’s permission, pulls socially-shared data like music and Facebook contacts to give you a unique walk-through of BlackBerry 10 features.Another benefit would be enhanced perception. Users will tend to perceive companies using this kind of technique to advertise products as truly innovative. Why? Because this technique is rather new. It is also a bit more impressive than regular plain advertising. Because it also serve to demonstrate specific features in products in a more Tech-Savvy way.

We must never forget that this kind of campaign can’t cut short on Social Media assistance. Companies cannot but rely on the viral vibe that these channels provide, and the crazy amount of precious user data that they contain.

The article "Innovative Marketing: Real-Time Takeovers", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

It’s been a long time since the last time we actually wrote about the Cupertino company, or any of its products. But it’s that time of the year when the iPhone rumors start blooming here and there and everywhere around the net.

But this year, more than any other time before, things will be kind of tough for Apple and the iPhone. Because the competition is stronger, ever more active, and most importantly truly innovative and definitely up-to-par.

Innovative? Well, one sure bet with Apple products down the years has been their ability to innovate the interface in surprisingly usable ways. The iPhone will ultimately be remembered as the UI that made mobile computing possible.

Well, lately, the competition did indeed catch up in this very segment: in the Galaxy S4, Samsung has preempted the next likely interface advances – gesture control and eye tracking. It will now take a special effort on Apple’s part to advance its own interfaces without looking like a fast follower.

Apple, a follower? That will definitely beat the company down, directly hitting its most popular trademark, its very soul and reason to be. Indeed, things are looking like this might be happening soon: the iPhone 5S (or let us just call it the next iPhone) is rumored to have wireless charging and even a stylus pen accessory. If that’s the case it is beginning to look very Samsung indeed. Things don’t just stop at eye tracking. Samsung’s use of touch-free control through gesture is another “legacy” Apple-like innovation.

We will not dive into financial performance and share price, as Apple is still very performing well in those particular fields so far, and that is something that shows definite commitment from the market and shareholders. Apple is still considered a very safe bet for an investment. Share price was also held up by the “cheap iPhone” rumors, which potential existence could mean newer market segments for Apple to grab at, the low end.

However, what is a certitude is the fact that Apple needs to do some things before releasing its new iPhone, if the company wants to cope with the harsh competition and retaliate on the same grounds other manufacturers hit the Cupertino company lately.

iOS7 Should “Think Different”

Android is undeniably evolving faster than iOS. As impossible as it might have appeared in the early days of Android, it is pretty much a fact that things are now much more… leveled up. Android commands now 75% of the smartphone market and this too is a fact. Google’s Android is now a much more polished Smartphone OS than a few years back, adding up to the hyper flexibility the OS offers to its users.

iOS 6 brought some updates that were welcomed of course, but they were also a bit late – even at that time: Facebook integration, an improved Siri and Passbook (that has lots of potential). How could we forget the formidable Apple Maps flop? There you go: iOS 6 didn’t serve Apple in any way. And this will have to change. What am I saying, it will have to double change.

Contrasting with this comes Google’s Nexus 4: when you look at a device like the Nexus 4, you’ll find a beautiful piece of hardware at first. Google Now makes Siri look like a joke. Across the board, Google’s mobile design has improved dramatically. The Nexus 4 even has a cool wireless charging orb! And the whole package is incredibly cheap (especially compared to the iPhone 5 price tag).

As we’ve been hearing and reading all around, the iPhone’s next hardware upgrade will likely be minor. This is why Apple needs to kill it in its iOS upgrade. It will have to kill it.

With superstar industrial designer Jony Ive given more authority over the visual design of Apple’s products, iOS may now be poised to take some seriously bold steps forward.

Let us try and list some of the features the next iOS iteration MUST sport:

• Multi-user sign-in
• AirDrop file-sharing
• Dynamic app icons that display live data
• A radical expansion of Siri (by opening up an API to third parties)
• Improved app management
• A whole new Apple Maps app
• The ability to set default Web browser, maps app and email client
• More content sharing abilities
• An improved notification center (Android definitely did a lot of harm in this particular field)

A whole new UI refresh might also do lots of good to the platform. Of course, Apple wouldn’t want to shake the boat that much, as it might scare away settled users out of their comfort zone. But starting to think that particular way will be eventually good, as it will also pave the way to future improvements.

Of course, a significant hardware update could still be scheduled after all. If the rumors are true, we may be getting an iOS-powered smart watch alongside the next iPhone. An iWatch could succeed in snapping consumer excitement about Apple firmly back into place and keep the masses happy until the iPhone can get a proper hardware refresh. But even with a sleek, wearable gadget, Apple needs to push its software forward. iOS 7 needs to be indispensable.

iOS7 needs to be something really big.

We’ll leave you now to ponder upon some nice iOS7 concept ideas formulated by Apple fans and geeks around the globe.

The article "Next iPhone: What Apple (Obviously) Needs To Do", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Let me go back a notch to the early days of both. These formats came as an alternative to the back then (and still nowadays) popular and mainstream DVD format. Main motivation to have a new format was technological progress, mainly better quality, higher data compression.

Here are the technical highlights of the early days:

1. Both formats use blue lasers rather than red (used for standard DVDs).
2. Both have the same options for video and audio compression.
3. Blu-ray offers significantly more storage space — 50 GB on a dual-layer disc versus HD-DVD’s 30 GB.
4. Back then, the DVD Forum, which establishes DVD standards, approved HD-DVD and not Blu-ray. Toshiba, the primary company behind the HD-DVD standard, has a seat on the DVD Forum Steering Committee.

Facts were that Tech companies aligned on two opposing fronts: Toshiba, Microsoft and Intel -amongst others- sided with HD-DVD. First step in this battle was when Microsoft released an add-on HD-DVD drive for its Xbox 360 in November 2006. The Blu-ray Disc Association had Sony (which released the Blu-ray-equipped PlayStation 3 in November too -surprisingly!!-) Pioneer, Dell and Apple, Disney and Fox on its board of directors.

Blu-ray got higher levels of adoption by movie studios and motion picture publishers straight away, because of the global motivation to eradicate home entertainment movie piracy trends. But the battle wasn’t won just because of that: many people initially thought that HD-DVD would be the winner solely because it was less expensive, and had a better cost structure.

The facts are that HD-DVD died. And pretty quickly too. How did this happen?

The Tale of a Foredoomed Prince

The battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray lasted for a little more than 5 years.

Sony’s decision to employ Blu-ray as the PlayStation 3′s optical format meant even the more than 750,000 HD-DVD players sold by November 2007 paled in comparison to the millions of PlayStation 3s in circulation.

By the end of 2006, Microsoft had shipped ten million Xbox 360s to stores, while Sony had only sold a few hundred thousand units of the new PS3. However, Microsoft only sold a limited number of its optional HD-DVD drives to Xbox users, while every PS3 shipped with Blu-Ray capabilities.

Compared to standalone HD disc players, Sony’s PS3 not only offered the cheapest Blu-Ray system, but also did a variety of other things, including media downloads and of course games. Throughout 2007, Sony shipped nearly as many PS3 units (6.5 million) as Microsoft sold Xbox 360s (7.3 million). Again, every PS3 played Blu-Ray, while only a small number of Microsoft’s console buyers opted for the HD-DVD option. Many PS3 buyers were buying them because it was the most economical Blu-Ray player.

Another big reason for Blu-ray’s catch up sprint was due to, as we stated above, movie studios and publishers’ support of Blu-ray which gave the latter a huge head-start. Riding that same wave, Warner Brothers announced that it planned to become a Blu-ray exclusive publisher in the summer of 2008. The news was unexpected (at least for the HD-DVD camp), and led Toshiba to entirely cancel its scheduled HD-DVD keynote presentation.

It is strongly believed that Warner Bros did choose Blu-ray over HD-DVD simply because the Blu-ray group offered hundreds of millions of dollars in extra payments at the 11th hour. Unfortunately, Toshiba did not have an immediate strategy outlining how it would now compete against Blu-ray’s sudden exclusive support of more than 70% of the major movie studios.

In weeks shortly after CES, Toshiba launched a final offensive, dropping hardware prices on all HD-DVD players at retail and running a $2.7-million Super Bowl advertisement. Good effort, but unfortunately, who would possibly buy a rifle that had no shootable ammo to be bought?

HD-DVD’s misfortunes didn’t end just there: Microsoft’s efforts to support HD-DVD in Windows Vista and on the Xbox 360 had a limited effect because Vista turned out a commercial failure, and 360 sales were in a precipitous free fall, dropping 33% year over year in 2007.

What the Death of HD-DVD Actually Meant

The major loser in this modern formats batte was clearly Microsoft. The death of HD-DVD presented further evidence that Microsoft is incapable of pushing its own proprietary standards using its Windows monopoly. Building support for HD-DVD into Windows Vista did almost nothing to shore up support for the format, and tying it to the Xbox 360 similarly did little to push things toward the outcome Microsoft wanted.

The Xbox itself was also supposed to rapidly turn around in price, but it soon became clear that the Xbox 360 was actually more expensive to buy compared to the PS3 for users who get a hard drive, HD disc player, wireless networking, and other features left off Xbox models.

… Microsoft proprietary standards failure…? Does WMA ring a bell? WMV? See what I mean?

The article "What Happened to HD-DVD?", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

In fact, when thinking about what we actually do on the Internet, things boil down to a few activities, in the end: we conduct some random searches to find out more about a word, a recipe, a product or an event, we consult our social networks pages, we read news here and there, we check our emails, we buy things, and basically, that’s for it.

Hence websites can be classified in these few categories: Search Engines and related, Social Networking platforms, News related and Magazines, Blogs, and Marketplaces.

Our interest today is to look a bit deeper into the latter, the online marketplace-based website. When talking about online marketplaces, companies can take various business positions on the continuum between being a pure reseller of products and services (acquire and sell at markup) and being a multisided-platform (B2B, C2C). You would say it all depends on the type of product/service the company is dealing with. You might be correct there, but the nature of the product doesn’t hold that much imprint on the business model choice. It appears that, after all, that choice is still a pure corporate decision and strategy.

Online Digital Content

When talking about digital content such as cable and satellite broadcast services (Dish Network), online music stores (iTunes), movie rental services (Netflix), we’re mostly considering a generic trend of reseller-based model. How? Users deal with the main company’s online store (not with the originator of the product), the latter defining prices and delivery terms.

How about application stores? Things differ in that particular segment. Outlets like Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play are only mere display shelves on which 3^rd party developers sell their content to users, unlike iTunes and Netflix. While being positioned closer to the multisided-platform model than ever, this type of model still allows control from Apple and Google over the content (quality and distribution control).

Another different example in that Digital Content segment is that of the PlayStation Store (or Xbox Live), where users buy games from Sony and Microsoft directly , while 3^rd party content providers control prices.

Retail/e-Commerce

We all know eBay: it is the archetype of the multisided-platform. Sellers and Buyers interact any way they want to, while maintaining control over every single detail of the product and its offering on the platform, and revenues are made through a kind of royalty or commission on sales. When it comes to offline business going online, we have to differentiate these companies by their original activity: if we’re talking about a supermarket, a multi-brand or even a monobrand store, then the correspondent online store will most probably be a pure reseller model.

The case of Amazon is a tricky one: Amazon started off as a pure reseller. However it now allows 3^rd party merchants to sell products on Amazon.com (These merchants represent about a third of the whole transaction volume on Amazon). So it is a hybrid model that stands in the middle of the bracket between pure resellers and MSPs.

Of course, other examples can be given about the subject, but the decision of adopting a business selling model is still motivated by other factors, amongst them:

• Scale: Higher demands products are better sold by one single marketplace (pure reseller) rather than by multiple small merchants, because gains can be realized from economies of scale in purchasing, logistics and warehousing. This is effectively why Amazon adopted a hybrid model: act a reseller on high demand products, while leaving it to 3^rd party merchants to sell lower demand items.

• Aggregation: Some products are better sold alongside other products, you know, like the razor and the blade. That is why you can find song bundles on iTunes. Even when product complementarity are limited, resellers can extract more value from buyers when bundling products together, like in a cable bouquet, whereby sports and movie channels are offered hand-in-hand.

Still, creating an online marketplace is not an easy task. There are lots of things to be considered and measured, in order to define viability and to decide on a model: what kind of economies of scale can be possibly made? Do buyers derive significant benefit from aggregation? Does taking control of your marketplace provide a better experience to everyone on your platform-to-be? Do buyers need to be protected from the sellers (works the other way around too)? Does your marketplace distribute information on all parties equally?

When these are answered and that path is defined, companies should be aware of the evergreen catch-22 problem: buyers might not join if there’s not enough sellers, and neither will sellers if buyers are not there too. So a multisided-platform marketplace is not an easy model, unless it comes to take advantage of the weight of an incumbent reseller that is not being able to perform well, due to his initial bad business model choice.

The article "Online: How Companies Adopt Different Sales Models", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Still, mobile ads are everywhere. In mobile apps, in mobile games, in mobile websites… all around our mobile phone screens. What a terrible business model! Not only is it terrible, it is also ugly, unaesthetic, and cumbersome. It is true that display ads function well in print, no doubt about that. We sometimes even see awesome print ads. Even web ads displayed on desktop or laptop computers screen are rather acceptable (actually we don’t mind them, given the fact that we got used to them; but most importantly, we tend not to consider our computers such intimate items as our mobile phones, hence the extra flexibility with this particular matter).

Why mobile ads don’t work? Well, here are some reasons why:

1. Layout: On mobile phones, there is no “right side”. As we’ve mentioned above, ads on computer screens are acceptable, mainly because users are now conditioned to find them in the right margin of their screens, in websites sidebars. Mobile screens being intrinsically too small (even the bigger ones are small when it comes to maximizing screen usage), there’s no possible concept of a right margin dedicated to secondary stuff like widgets and ads. So ads popup in unexpected places, in the middle of nowhere, and are ugly.
2. Inefficiency: Mobile ads are rarely read. Since people tend to consider them as annoyances, they hardly look upon them. Furthermore, since these ads do popup in shady places on the screen, users accidentally tap on them, sending and accumulating over time erroneous analytics, making it tricky to track mobile ads’ effectiveness.
3. … People simply don’t like them: multiple surveys conducted with mobile phone users show that people find mobile ads very intrusive, at least more intrusive than their computer siblings, because like we said earlier, mobile phones are a more private circle.

What would be the solution to this plague? One solution would be mobile apps. Instead of showering users with ever-so-intrusive mobile ads, why don’t companies build their own mobile apps and embed whatever message or service they want to promote? People value apps for their functionality. This might be the way to go for advertisers.

The article "Why Mobile Ads Don’t Work", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

For most of us, news like this implies sadness and reason to mourn. But this wasn’t the case at Britannica. Employees did celebrate this massive shift with lots of joy and positivity, as if this is something they have been eagerly waiting for.

Looking closer makes it a bit clearer: given how little the print set generated in its latest years, and noting that the company already started its digital editorial process some while ago, it was definitely becoming time consuming to maintain a print set the same way it always was maintained before. Motivation to shift to a full-digital model was there.

Another reason that accelerated this critical shift was the need to provide users and readers with updated articles, definitions and information, which was practically impossible to do through a printed set, and incredibly easy in a digital pack.

In fact, the real reason for this shift was Wikipedia. Well, not totally, but it definitely contributed to it, through the disrupting wave the Internet-based crowd-sourced encyclopedia generated. Not totally, because the Internet and digitization of information is something that was bound to happen sooner or later, with or without the existence of Wikipedia.

Traditional Encyclopaedia Britannica: Rise and Fall of a Business Model

Encyclopaedia Britannica’s business model relied a lot on door-to-door sales, you know, the same old model information retailers still use in Lebanon: phones calls, appointments or even surprise visits to your household door. And given the fact that Britannica was one of the very oldest and very reliable sources in the segment, overall sales performance was never a worry; it was rather a success story.

Then along came a spider: the 1990’s CD Rom era. And so came Encarta, Microsoft’s own encyclopedia bundle. Apart from being less “physically present”, Encarta was bundled on most of the Windows PC back then. That was practically a backbone breaker for Britannica. Of course, a CD Rom version of the Encyclopaedia was made available, but with its price tag set at around USD 1.200 back then, competing was not just a stroll in the park, far from it.

Hard to compete on that ground and with these terms. Print sets sales went from 100.000 sets sold in 1990 to around 3.000 in 1996.

This is when the company, in a desperate but genius move, launched Britannica Online, a web-based version of the encyclopedia, which of course cannibalized the print sets sales to a very large extent, but also created a new way out that will prove to be a key factor of Britannica’s survival.

Britannica Online

Retaliation and Opportunity

After being sold to Jacob Safra in 1996, Britannica with its new management changed the whole business model through the amendment of multiple components of the whole equation:

-          Door-to-door sales force was shit down. Direct marketing was adopted, cutting around 2.000 jobs in a single strike.

-          Prices were revisited; Britannica went from being sold at USD 1.200 to USD 100 within months.

-          Online revenues were boosted through paid subscriptions and advertizing.

Taking these measures was an inevitable thing to do, given the tricky situation Britannica was put in. However, a second disruptive wave was coming along, and this time it was definitely bound to break the whole business if not handled in an efficient manner. Internet was here, and it was coming flapping hard, ready to crush any online-ready business that hasn’t prepared itself for the shift yet.

But Encyclopaedia Britannica was ready. Britannica Online was already there, and beating hard.

The big opportunity came in when the new management, led by Jorge Cauz, thought to extend Britannica’s business scope from a reference tool to become a learning and educational platform, teaming up with school and colleges, providing them with services based on Britannica’s valuable database, with a more flexible and differentiable package to fit educational needs.

Winner blow, at last.

How come Wikipedia didn’t definitely kill Britannica? It was all about the balance of quantity over quality. Even though Wikipedia grew to become a leading source of information, being crowd-sourced and strongly backed by Google’s search algorithms, it is still a “blurry version of an HD movie”, whereby it was good enough to watch, but not good enough to enjoy. This is where Britannica succeeded by positioning itself as a “quality content provider”.

Today Encyclopaedia Britannica is doing extremely well, with steady sources of revenue, good margins, added to the same old content (as far as credibility and reference are concerned) that got dynamic (frequently followed-up and updated). What is most important is that the company has found the right business model, and a good and sustainable way to reach people that need the services Britannica has to offer.

The article "Tech Transitions: Encyclopaedia Britannica Case", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

RIM, in rather bad shape lately, was betting everything on its comeback with a new BlackBerry 10. Really betting everything it had. With RIM shares now trading down well over 5 percent on Wednesday, it seems obvious that many traders were not impressed with BB10′s debut.

What did BlackBerry OS lack in order to be at par with all the current smartphone competition?

• A sort of revolutionary fresh OS
• Seamless UI and transitions.
• More and better Apps, and of course the infrastructure to support them
• A really powerful and feature-packed camera
• Viral and sustainable consumer appeal

Given the above, did Research In Motion (Now BlackBerry) succeed in hitting big? Read on.

A revolutionary Operating System: Not really

BB10 took a lot of work, not doubt about that. Simply because RIM couldn’t but take the development of their new OS seriously, given their delicate posture. And efforts can definitely be seen, but the new OS is far away from being revolutionary. Far away. It really doesn’t add much to the existing knowledge and Technology in any way. It just catches up, at best.

Seamless UI: Remains to be seen

The most remarkable BB10 feature is its UI. However, with every new smartphone UI comes a learning curve that can someone play against the product. So BlackBerry will truly need to active downstream, offering active and efficient support in order to make things easier on its users.

The feature that might attract users to try the new BB10 is definitely BlackBerry Hub (or notification center), because it looks pretty nice and fairly intuitive.

More and better Apps: Still needs some work

Facebook, Skype, Twitter and Angry Birds will just not do it. And those were unfortunately the base apps that BlackBerry showcased in their launch presentation. If BlackBerry doesn’t find a way to provide consumers with a better apps market place and some truly exclusive titles, no one will ever buy a BB10 device for the apps it offers.

A powerful and feature-packed camera: Remains to be seen

In our opinion, Nokia’s 808 PureView still packs to date the best camera on a smartphone, with a 41-megapixel sensor that allows users to zoom digitally without reducing the quality of their images. And it looks like BlackBerry did not do anything to top Nokia’s efforts.

That said, the new announced software features — image overlays to change the appearance of photos and videos — prove to be popular with consumers, the BB camera might be something consumers would be happy with.

Consumer Appeal: Too early to tell

It is true that BlackBerry still has a strong user base, and old BB owners are to be considered faithful ones. But this reality is not sustainable, since BlackBerry has been stalling over the last couple of years, bringing in very few new users to its user armada, since no new device or feature was announced and released.

BB10 can come as a long-awaited saviour, but BlackBerry will have to immediately try to gain traction on it, by constantly working on updating the platform, trying to stay in touch with the market requirements as far as hardware and applications are concerned, and try to re-create a killer feature that will let its devices stand out from the crowd, the way it used to in the past, through a bold and business-oriented focus.

Future will tell soon enough.

The article "BlackBerry 10 Is Here", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

However, two main schools debate over the impact comments might have on the overall perceptibility of online content, the first school putting comments at the very core of online content appreciation, giving more value to the original content, while the other simply believe that comments are just a way for readers to highlight details, or at most interact with the author and potential readers.

How Much Are Comments Worth?

It goes without saying that Disqus is in the “reader comments are great” camp . It doesn’t simply end here: Disqus launched “Promoted Discovery”, an embedded service that hands over prepaid-for content right next to regular reader comments.

It’s true however that Disqus isn’t pioneering with this new feature, since Outbrain already helps publishers and advertisers buy and sell web traffic. Nevertheless, this is not what interests us here; what matters here is the rationale behind such services.

Someone who takes the time to read reader comments of a story is likely to be passionate about the topic and more likely to click on the proposed content. Meanwhile, reader comments overall are being treated with a new seriousness due to recent studies that suggest they shape perceptions more than we thought.

We expect advertising revenue to grow from less than 5% in Q4 of 2012 to over 60% of our revenue by the end of this year

~ Daniel Ha – Disqus CEO

Is It a Viable Model? How Far Will It Go?

Disqus can possibly succeed in making this kind of model go mainstream. With native advertising champion Fred Wilson as one of its investors and current access to millions of websites, things are made easier. However, finding relevant content is not a simple stroll in the park. And our own experience with the Discovery service of Disqus led us to some irrelevant content most of the time. Of course, things will definitely improve as scale grows, and as Disqus deploys the service to more websites. Accuracy will come hand in-hand with scale.

Still, the main obstacle to the growth of this particular service lies in the very nature of it, with a killer dilemma: publishers might not be totally willing to offer a service that will take readers away from their own website, depriving them from precious traffic time and lowering their bounce rates drastically. It is true that this kind of service will provide money, hence the dilemma.

Another final obstacle, and not a small one too: betting that comments will be an advertising gold mine can also be impacted by the fact that big players can simply decide to completely block the whole commenting thing. A “no comment” model. Tumblr already went this way: founder David Karp recently declared that the site downplayed comments in favor of “a beautiful design and no jerks.”

A tough nut to crack here. What do you think?

The article "Disqus: Are Web Comments a Good Business?", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

I slowed down a bit, and noticed something. It suddenly occurred to me how rarely I do write something by hand. The truth is that my handwriting sucks.  Even though I still have lots of Moleskine notebooks I basically use for grounding thoughts down. I barely use them. I use them less and less with each passing month.

… Do we still need to hand write? Did we reach a time when we stopped writing with our own hands, with a pen and paper?

The Digitization of Our Lives

The truth is that I can’t really remember when was the cut-off transition between the time when all of my writable documents were found on my desk, on solid paper, and the time when they moved to live in cloud-based repositories. This effectively came gradually, but rather fast.

The main utility of this shift is that these day-to-day accessible and editable documents can now be readily accessible from any of my devices. And, The most flagrant example is how quick I replaced losable paper-written “to do” lists with reminders apps that automatically synced with all my portable devices. Just awesome.

All of this is an undeniable source of productivity and increased comfort. But nevertheless, it would only be fair to notice that some things can get lost in all that digital noise. I shouldn’t feel that awkward when I write a checkbook! And my case is still a mild one: I still do use my pens daily (not for too long, though) to take quick notes. But that’s for it.

Trying to Maintain an Old School Spirit

How to do this? You just have to shut the lids of your laptops every once and a while, to try and do your writings (especially creative ones – needing perpetual corrections) on paper with your own handwriting, be it Moleskine-like notebooks, bloc notes, plain paper.

Why do this? This is the bigger question, right?

Trust me, when you will resolve to hand-write things more often, you will immediately find that you will be able to better focus on your writing task , away from all your various notifications, inboxes, social networks’ peaking and multiple browser tabs. That’s why.

Writing stimulates a bunch of cells at the base of the brain called the reticular activating system (RAS). The RAS acts as a filter for everything your brain needs to process, giving more importance to the stuff that you’re actively focusing on at the moment—something that the physical act of writing brings to the forefront.

~ Lifehacker

In most ways, all this Technology does undeniably enhance our increasingly complex and fast-paced lives. It makes it harder to lose track of things and more convenient to stay in touch with the things that matter to us. But take it like this: the way it is still nice and warm to touch, smell and read a paper book or play a vinyl record, I believe there is still room in our life to practice all the handwriting we so hardly learned at school some twenty or thirty years ago.

Don’t forget to pick up your pen and write from time to time. You’ll like it.

The article "Handwriting: Why We Should Still Do It", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.

Today more than 700,000 Raspberry Pi computers have been shipped to developers and modders who are fitting them to various robotic devices, surveillance systems, drones and similar, but also to coders looking to build their first programs.

So what, exactly, is the Raspberry Pi?

The Pi is a credit card-sized device. What type of device? A computer, one of the lowest-cost ones in fact. Oh, and it looks nothing more than a bare motherboard with a set of attached ports.

Some factual figures now: the Pi is powerful enough to stream 1080p video, browse the web and write documents, and it mainly was designed to be ultra portable. As far OS are concerned, well, Linux runs on the Raspberry Pi, including ArchLinux, Debian “wheezy” and Raspbian — a Pi-optimised version of Debian.

Why the Pi? According to the company, the Pi is there to encourage a taste for experimenting with computers. You know, geeky handcrafting.

There are two versions of the board, the Model A and the Model B.

The $25 Model A Raspberry Pi will ship in the first quarter of this year. The board doesn’t include the ethernet port, has only has 256MB of RAM — half that of the Model B — and only one USB port. The board consumes less power than the Model B and so is suitable for use in battery-powered robotics devices.

The Origins and the Start

The Raspberry Pi Foundation was established with the goal of inspiring the young generation of IT enthusiasts, mainly programmers: provide a computer cheap enough for kids and easy enough for them to fiddle with. The bet was simple: It was about time that the young Tech population gets interested in playing with the underlying technology that makes smartphones and social networks work.

It would have been heartbreaking if it turned out that kids aren’t interested.

~ Eben Upton

Meeting this unexpected huge demand was a real challenge. To meet it, Raspberry Pi struck a deal with electronics distributors Premier Farnell and RS Components and licensed them to manufacture and distribute the boards. This setup was simply great: it brought the buying power to keep component prices low and the global distribution network to handle the logistics.

Eben Upton

The Raspberry Pi is sold at just above cost price, just enough to still maintain a minimal profit markup, used to fuel the foundations’ activities.

Sales of the Raspberry Pi board are split about one third in the UK, one third in North America and one third in the rest of the world (mostly Europe). This is where we can see that the Pi still has a long way to go, since it didn’t hit markets that may be totally adequate to the product’s low cost structure: Asian and African markets.

Early adopters of the Pi were in general not children with an interest in programming, but men with passion for computing. Weird, heh?

The board is currently being used for tasks ranging from automating factory production lines to running consumer media player appliances.

The Pi: Other Alternatives?

One single example is Cubieboard, a 1GHz board based on the ARM Cortex A8 processor with 512MB or 1GB of memory.

The numbers might at first glance suggest this kind of boards is faster and more capable than the 700MHz Pi. However, while its chip carry out memory access operation tens of a percent faster than the Pi, floating point operation and multimedia performance is basically “worse”.

The article "The Raspberry Pi Story", written by Chadi Abou Nohra appeared originally on Tech-Ticker.