TECHNOLOGY INSPIRATION
Technology-People-Innovation

Latest Post

Technology is all about making our lives easier, except when it isn't

Technology, it's an intrinsic part of your life. It lets you announce how hungover you are then share a customary Sunday roast Instagram finally finished off with a long and hideously detailed phone call with a friend about how everything was 'off the hook' last night.

Of course you'll never be able to do all three though, because that's technology at its core - fantastically useful and 100 per cent never capable of working just when you need it to. Don't believe us? Here are 10 tech battles where ultimately you will never be the victor...

1. Making your smartphone stay silent

You can turn the volume down using the little side buttons. You can go to Settings and turn audio off completely. You can then turn your phone off, dismantle it and put the parts in a suitcase and throw it in the sea. But come your next big meeting, funeral or intimate clinch you'll still hear "BEEP-BOP! BEEP-BOP!" to tell you there's a new Easter-themed version of Angry Clans available.  

2. Remembering your set-top pin

Go on, tell us what it is without looking at the card stuffed inside? After a couple of failed attempts you're on the brink of being locked out of your telly, forcing you to shut everything down and yank the card out frantically. Yep, you've now missed the 9pm box-office slot… popcorn back in the cupboard.

3. Using mobile data in the countryside

With no wi-fi nor 3G available, you're forced to deal with E, the lame horse of the downloading world or, worse, GPRS, the dead horse. Simply posting a tweet means holding your phone deathly still in one hand, like it's a sleeping baby filled with plutonium, while you will it to function. After twenty minutes you're told it hasn't worked and will, of course, immediately try again. You could have written the tweet on a Post-it note and cycled around the UK showing it to people in less time.

4. Getting voice control to work

Never more hard-fought than when trying to showcase your new phone or games console to your parents. Go on, Mum, ask it anything, you prompt. "What time shall we have tea?" No, I mean, ask it something else. "What's the song in that advert about bread?' No, you have to ask it something that you could more quickly and easily find out yourself, like the current time. "Okay, what time is it?" No, you have to press it again… look, just forget it.

5. Finding a spare memory card

Put it anywhere other than inside your camera and it's never seen again. You have a better chance of finding a specific pin in a stack of other pins while blindfolded and using only your mouth.

6. Cleaning living room tech

Just like you, household dust is addicted to the holy plastic-meets-metal trinity of stereos, televisions and set-top boxes. Trying to wipe it away is as pointless as digging upwards – as soon as you've put the cloth away the dust has doubled, like the crows in Hitchcock's The Birds.

7. Untangling headphones

If approached in a calm, methodical manner, we're sure it's possible, but, really, who does that? You thrash at them wildly, one-handed, before they annoy you so much that you tug a bit too hard and damage the cable. As a result, music only comes out of one ear cup, really capturing that sonic nostalgia of pressing your ear against the closed door of a gig after being physically removed. Happy days.

8. Opening a car window the desired amount

We're all for the iCar invasion, but electric windows still appear to have just two settings: "retract fully to unleash a hurricane through your motor" or closed. All other options see your passenger despairing as you repeatedly press buttons to find the sweet spot, before demanding that you do it up again because the field smells a little too fresh. By this point a wasp's flown in, the ensuing panic causing you to crash into said field.

9. Typing with one hand

After five failed attempts at inputting your still pathetically unsafe six-letter password, blood pressure reaching dangerous levels, it's time to admit defeat and put the sandwich down.

10. Re-boxing any gadget, ever

The tech equivalent of trying to get toothpaste back in the tube. Out of the box came the device, a plug and a slim paper booklet, so why is it that now you want to get it back in there for Mr Ebay there's a power brick the size of a microwave? Replacing polystyrene packaging is a task that reduces grown adults to tears of frustration faster than you can scream, "Get the crystal!"

The Olympus OM-D E-M10 is the brand's best priced OM-D yet

T3 rating:

4 stars

Like:

  • Decent price
  • Wi-Fi and tilting toucscreen
  • Stunning images

Dislike:

  • Viewfinder could be comfier
  • Smaller sensor than rivals

We've been blessed with premium grade interchangeable lens compacts of late that have blended pleasing form with excellent functionality – chiefly those from Fuji's 'X' series and Olympus' OM-D and Pen camera ranges.

The difference between the latter two options – OM-D and Pen – has chiefly been price and portability, but the latest OM-D in the 16 megapixel Micro Four Thirds system Olympus OM-D E-M10, reviewed here, is both the most compact OM-D to date and the most affordable too. Conceivably anyone who has been lusting after the high endOlympus E-P5, might also now want to take a look at the E-M10.

With its shrunken DSLR-like styling, the most obvious advantage here is an eye-level viewfinder, plus its maker has also found room for a tilting LCD screen at the back.

In its black and silver combination that we reviewed, the E-M10 doesn't unduly suffer in comparison with its pricier siblings in the weather proofed range-topping Olympus OM-D E-M1 and olderOM-D E-M5.  

The cover that protects the compartment housing both rechargeable battery and optional SD media card at the base of the E-M10 was the only element that seemed noticeably plastic-y or 'budget' feeling to us.

There's enough space to put your hands and the layout didn't feel as cramped as its predecessors. Altogether it feels a little less over-engineered than the E-M1 and E-M5, and, if you don't need the pro-level weather resistant body, the E-M10 is all the better for it in our opinion. And the body here is sturdy magnesium alloy anyway.

There is, however, some very strong competition on the market in the E-M10's category, not least from the Fujifilm X-A1 and Fujifilm X-E2, but also the Sony A5000 and Sony A6000, theSamsung NX300 and Samsung NX30, the new Nikon 1 V3, plus the impressivePanasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 and GM1.

The Olympus retails for a suggested £699.99 with the ultra compact 14-42mm zoom we had for review, which feels fair, said lens extending automatically when the camera is switched on, rather than having to be manually extended, as with earlier iterations of the same lens.

title: Olympus OM-D E-M10: Controls / url: Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Controls

Olympus OM-D E-M10: Controls

In terms of controlling the 14-42mm lens supplied, barely a couple of centimetres in depth when retracted, unlike your average electronic zoom we were still able to zoom in or out by turning a ring on the lens barrel, rather than togging backwards and forwards via a zoom lever on the camera itself.

While the automatic nature of the lens made for smoother zooms when shooting video, we did find it slower to respond than a manual zoom when attempting to compose our photographs, when simply a quick flick of the wrist would have nigh instantly got us where we wanted to be.

But there's always the option to go for one of the 16 directly compatible Micro Four Thirds lenses including manual zooms. If you buy a lens adapter for the OM-D E-M10, choice is extended to around 60 lenses, including those for older Four Thirds system DSLRs and original film shooting OM cameras.

Atop the camera, giving it a rangefinder-like look, we get two unmarked control wheels, the foremost one encircling the raised shutter release button.

The one toward the rear can readily be operated by the thumb to scroll up and down through menu screen options, or alternatively enlarge a portion of an already captured image on screen with an anti-clockwise twist. A clockwise twist, does the opposite and instead displays previously captured images as a series of thumbnails.

Across the raised hump that houses both the eye level electronic viewfinder and pop-up flash, at the other end of the top plate we find a familiar bottle top style shooting mode wheel.

Here we get the regulars of Program, Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority and Manual modes, along with the failsafe of scene and subject recognising intelligent Auto (iAuto).

This being an Olympus camera, the mode wheel also has access to the built in digital effects, of which there are 13 options, including our favourite of the HDR image-like Dramatic Tone, alongside Pop Art, Pinhole camera and Diorama options.

A video mode is also present on the same dial. Though we were able to start and stop filming with a press of the dedicated red record button on the E-M10's top plate, this movie menu also allows colour saturation to be adjusted and short clips to be filmed in black and white.

title: Olympus OM-D E-M10: Screen, Battery / url: Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Screen-Battery

Olympus OM-D E-M10: Screen

The adjustable 3-inch monitor on the back of the E-M10 is also a touch screen, although it's not immediately obvious as on-screen settings are so tiny we had to be quite precise with our finger taps.

As noted earlier there's also a traditional eye level viewfinder provided on the E-M10 - not a feature that we always find in this price bracket. It even comes with a built-in eye sensor, so as we move our attention from the large LCD to the smaller window above, it automatically activates for seamless operation. Remove an eye from the viewfinder the main LCD switches itself back on like magic.

It's also well worth giving praise to the resolution provided by the OM-D E-M10's viewfinder and LCD – the former housing a whopping 1.4 million dots and the latter 1.037. As a result the viewfinder doesn't feel pokey and blurry compared to the larger screen.

While the 3-inch LCD can be tilted up or down, it cannot be flipped completely so that it's facing the subject before the lens for selfies.

Nor can it be flipped outwards from the body so it is sitting alongside it, as with the screen on any camcorder and competing interchangeable lens cameras including Samsung's NX30. However Olympus would very likely argue that this would have added to the camera's bulk.

Olympus OM-D E-M10: Battery

The chunky BLS-5 battery that slots into the base of the OM-D E-M10's handgrip is charged via a standalone charger, rather than its manufacturer stinting on the basics and asking us to charge it within the camera body itself.

Battery life is good for around 320 shots from a full charge which is perfectly respectable for a camera in its class; yes Sony's previously reviewed A5000 may offer 420 captures from its own battery but this is the noted exception rather than the rule.

title: Olympus OM-D E-M10: Picture quality, Verdict / url: Olympus-OM-D-E-M10-Picture-quality-Verdict

Olympus OM-D E-M10: Picture quality

 

The E-M10 produced cracking pictures during the course of our testing period, with plenty of punch provided. If we wanted to add a bit of extra 'zing' then we merely reached for the Dramatic Tone option in the Art Filter mode, to provide a bit more contrast and depth to shots.

You would imagine that you were looking at pictures taken with an SLR rather than a compact, which makes the asking price worth paying, especially if you prefer a smaller overall form factor.

Yes, compact system cameras have long promised results similar or a match for DSLRs, but we only feel it's very recently that we've come across a couple of cameras – the other being the excellent Fujifilm X-T1, for which we can say that claim starts to ring true.

As noted earlier, it's when shooting video that the mechanical zoom supplied comes into its own, drifting smoothly through the shot avoiding any jerky movements that the less experienced videographer might add if making manual adjustments.

We'd prefer to use a manual zoom for stills, and the supplied lens for video if we had a choice, but there's no doubt that the bundle here makes for a tight, manageable package capable of some quite excellent results.

Olympus OM-D E-M10: Verdict

If, like us, you've hankered after the more 'classic' models in Olympus' contemporary OM-D range but baulked at the £1,000+ price tags, then the £699, 16 megapixel OM-D E-M10 and zoom lens combo is the answer to your prayers.

Not only does it look and feel great, but When it comes to image quality, the E-M10 doesn't disappoint, providing detailed, colour rich images.

Olympus OM-D E-M10 release date: Out now

Olympus OM-D E-M10 price: £699.99

No internet connection? Well, now it doesn't matter

 Google now cards are a handy tool that provide personalised data such as meeting times, location information, the forecast, sports scores and much more – which is why it's even more handy that it can now operate offline. 

Even if you're on the train or just in the middle of no-where, Google Now cards will still let you view all of your informational cards when the internet is out. 

"Next time you're on the subway and want to check on your day's appointments with Google Now, you won't have to worry about lack of cell service. Starting today your Google Now cards stay loaded, even when you lose service in the subway… or your favorite underground bar!" announced Google in a Google+ post. 

You will need to update the Google Search App for Android in order to get offline support.

The newly updated Android Search app also includes a new Now card that will show the approximate location of your vehicle to help you remember where you parked.

Google Now is a two-year-old personal assistant developed by Google that responds to voice and text queries and serves up relevant information based on your repeated user habits. 

You can access Google Now in Google's Search apps for Android and iOS and in the Google Chrome browser.


Rumours of a new Android programme, Android Silver, have been swirling for some time — but it seems that Google's latest big idea is much more than the support service we'd initially heard about.
Rumours of a new Android programme, Android Silver, have been swirling for some time — but it seems that Google's latest big idea is much more than the support service we'd initially heard about.

Multiple sources say that Silver is going to be a very big deal indeed — and that could be good news for phone fans and a big blow to Samsung.

What is Android Silver?
Silver is a bit like a more advanced Nexus programme, but instead of working with one manufacturer on one device, Google will work with multiple firms on multiple devices.

Google supposedly wants to help manufacturers to deliver a premium Android experience, so participating firms will get help from Google with their development and marketing costs, and their devices will get preferential treatment when it comes to software updates.

There will be Android Silver kiosks in shops and an Amazon-style video support service for Silver users, but the existing Nexus programme will be stopped.

Why is that good for me?
It should mean a wider choice of high-end Android devices at reasonable prices, and those devices will be free from the bloatware, unwanted apps and over-the-top customisation that plague some firms' handsets.

That's because participating firms will have to agree not to mess around with stock Android in much the same way Microsoft's Signature programme banished bloatware from participating PCs.

The devices must "closely adhere to Google specifications" and will "sharply limit the number of non-Google apps that can be pre-installed on devices" or ensure that phone owners will be able to uninstall them.

It also means that you'll be able to buy handsets without wondering if you're getting the most up to date version of Android or whether the firm will bother supplying Android updates after a few months.

What's in it for the manufacturers?
Money — as much as $1 billion of it. Silver should help the smaller players compete with the 500lb gorilla of Android: Samsung. Companies that don't have Samsung's massive R&D and marketing budgets will be able to benefit from Google's deep pockets.

The downside, however, is that by becoming part of the Silver programme the manufacturers may find it harder to differentiate their products from one another: If the rumours are correct and Google is specifying the hardware as well as the software (as it does with its own Nexus devices) there won't be much the manufacturers can do to make their devices different from their rivals'.

Who is taking part?
LG and Motorola have been named as the most likely candidates for initial devices. Others are expected to follow.

When is it going to happen?
We don't know. The leaks are based around documents from the tail end of last year and the rumours of a new Nexus 10 tablet at this summer's Google I/O suggest that if the Nexus programme is being replaced, it isn't happening imminently.

Google is already cracking down on the way Android is presented, though: Both the HTC One (M8) and Samsung Galaxy S5 boot screens feature the words "powered by Android".

Why is Google doing this?
Control. By limiting what manufacturers do with Android, Google can ensure consistency and quality across devices — something that isn't always the case at the moment. By working more closely with manufacturers, Google can ensure that Silver customers get the best possible Android experience.

That sounds sensible enough, but there's another theory doing the rounds: Silver is anti-Samsung insurance.

Google gives away Android because it wants users' data and Samsung's dominance is a threat to that: Samsung's plans to eventually drop Android are well documented, and if it forks or drops Android that will leave an enormous hole in Google's data gathering.

By putting the Android brand at the centre of multiple firms' marketing and helping those firms better compete with Samsung, Silver could be an attempt to minimise the damage Samsung could do. If Silver is successful, it might just persuade Samsung to stick with Android for longer.

Microsoft is opening a state-of-the-art training facility in Miami, its first within the United States.
MIAMI: Microsoft is opening a state-of-the-art training facility in Miami, its first within the United States, the company announced Friday.

The tech giant already has some 100 innovation centres in 80 countries worldwide in countries like Uganda and Greece. These centres aim to help governments, academic institutions, community leaders and startups better use technology to innovate and develop more collaborative learning — with the goal of spurring economic development. Along the way, of course, the company is cultivating a new generation of Microsoft loyalists.

Microsoft vice president Sanket Akerkar told The Associated Press the company looked at Miami as a great hub for tech in the Southern United States.

"Miami is a great destination in and of itself," he said. "We've got forward thinking government leaders," he said. The Latin American connection also sets the city apart.

Microsoft is working with city and county officials to open the center next month. It will be housed at the new downtown, entrepreneurial institute Venture Hive. The Hive, which opened its doors last year thanks in part to city and country grants, already serves as an incubator and accelerator for some 35 companies from around the globe.

Venture Hive Founder Susan Amat says public, private and academic partnerships are key to developing the region's entrepreneurial and technology scene.

Bringing Microsoft in is part of the broader goal of "bringing the world to Miami," she said.

Akerkar said he hopes to start offering training for teachers and professors this summer on the "app economy" so they can help their students learn hands-on how to design their own apps.

The announcement comes as investors, startups and global companies descend on Miami for the new eMerge Americas Techweek conference, part of a broad effort to promote technology and innovation in South Florida.

Akerkar acknowledged Miami's tech scene is still in the startup stage itself.

"What we're thinking about is maybe more of the potential and the place it can go," he said, adding the company eschewed other cities for its first US site because those regions already have robust technology support systems in place.

"In places where there's already a tech hub, there's already support systems," he said. "We want to add to the investments being made in Miami."

The company is eyeing Houston for its second site.


But why would Jobs even have tried to skirt the law, given how much was at stake?
That's the provocative question being debated in antitrust circles in the wake of revelations that Jobs, the co-founder of Apple who's deeply revered in Silicon Valley, was the driving force in a conspiracy to prevent competitors from poaching employees. Jobs seems never to have read, or may have chosen to ignore, the first paragraph of the Sherman Antitrust Act:

Every "conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce" is illegal, the act says. "Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine" or "by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both wsaid punishments."

Jobs "was a walking antitrust violation," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law and an expert in antitrust law. "I'm simply astounded by the risks he seemed willing to take."

The anti-poaching pact was hardly Jobs's only post-mortem brush with the law. His behaviour was at the centre of an e-book price-fixing conspiracy with major publishers. After a lengthy trial, a federal judge ruled last summer that "Apple played a central role in facilitating and executing that conspiracy." (Apple has appealed the decision. The publishers all settled the case.)

Jobs also figured prominently in the options backdating scandal that rocked Silicon Valley eight years ago. Thousands of options were backdated at both Apple and the computer animation studio Pixar, where Jobs was also chief executive, to increase the value of option grants to senior employees. An investigation by Apple's lawyers cleared Jobs of wrongdoing, saying he didn't understand the accounting implications. But it concluded that he "was aware or recommended the selection of some favorable grant dates."Jobs himself received options on 7.5 million shares, which were backdated to immediately bolster their value by over $20 million. Apple admitted that the October board minutes purporting to approve the grant were fabricated, that no such meeting had occurred and that the options were actually granted in December.

Five executives of other companies went to prison for backdating options, but Jobs was never charged. (Other Apple executives eventually settled Securities and Exchange Commission charges and left the company. The commission did praise Apple itself for its "swift, extensive and extraordinary cooperation.")

Jobs's conduct is a reminder that the difference between genius and potentially criminal behavior can be a fine line. Jobs "always believed that the rules that applied to ordinary people didn't apply to him," Walter Isaacson, author of the best-selling biography "Steve Jobs," told me this week. "That was Steve's genius but also his oddness. He believed he could bend the laws of physics and distort reality. That allowed him to do some amazing things, but also led him to push the envelope."

Brian Lam, a technology reporter and founder of The Wirecutter website, said that a few antitrust issues hadn't dimmed Jobs's luster in Silicon Valley. "His reputation is pretty much set in stone," Lam said. Jobs "didn't pay much attention to convention, and now more than ever, that's the culture of tech companies."

Professor Hovenkamp characterized both the e-book agreements and the anti-poaching pact as "blatant restraints of trade." Jobs, he said, "was so casual about it, so bold. Didn't he have lawyers advising him? You see this kind of behavior sometimes in small, private or family-run companies, but almost never in large public companies like Apple."

Apple declined to comment.

Jobs was certainly brazen. Testimony in the e-books case suggested that Jobs was eager, even frantic, to have an e-book agreement in place in time for his announcement of Apple's latest product, the iPad. There's no indication that any lawyers put the brakes on. (On the contrary, the chief architect of the scheme inside Apple was a lawyer.) In an email to James Murdoch, then an executive at News Corporation, which owned the publisher HarperCollins, Jobs offered what amounted to a classic case in price fixing: "Our proposal does set the upper limit for e-book retail pricing based on the hardcover price of each book" and urged HarperCollins to "throw in with Apple."

HarperCollins did, along with other major publishers. Judge Denise L Cote of federal district court for the Southern District of New York ruled that "Apple is liable here for facilitating and encouraging the publisher defendants' collective, illegal restraint of trade," adding: "Through their conspiracy, they forced Amazon (and other resellers) to relinquish retail pricing authority and then they raised retail e-book prices. Those higher prices were not the result of regular market forces but of a scheme in which Apple was a full participant."

Why were no criminal charges filed? The justice department's antitrust division chief, William J Baer, recently noted that the department had filed 339 criminal antitrust cases since President Obama took office, many of them on charges of price-fixing. The issue is, of course, moot with Jobs, who died in 2011. But his co-conspirators in the publishing industry may have benefited from the relative novelty of e-books. "There's a traditional reluctance to go for criminal liability over novel practices," Professor Hovenkamp said. "There was probably some thinking that with e-books, the technology was so new, and it was disruptive. It's tough to prove mens rea," or criminal state of mind.

And there may have been political constraints, too. Although consumers were the beneficiaries of the case (and prices of e-books have dropped since the case was settled), publishers and their allies, including many authors, warned that the perverse result was to solidify Amazon's dominance.

The anti-poaching case may be taking a bigger toll on Jobs's reputation, especially since he seemed so cavalier about people's jobs. Jobs was again injudicious in his emails to competitors. In 2007, he threatened Palm Inc. with patent litigation unless Palm agreed not to recruit Apple employees, even though Palm's then-chief executive, Edward Colligan, told him that such a plan was "likely illegal."

That same year, Jobs wrote Eric E Schmidt, the chief executive of Google at the time, "I would be extremely pleased if Google would stop doing this," referring to its efforts to recruit an Apple engineer. Schmidt forwarded the email, adding his own indiscreet comment: "I believe we have a policy of no recruiting from Apple and this is a direct inbound request. Can you get this stopped and let me know why this is happening? I will need to send a response back to Apple quickly so please let me know as soon as you can."

When Jobs learned that the Google recruiter who contacted the Apple employee would be "fired within the hour" he responded with a smiley face.

"How could anyone have approved that?" Professor Hovenkamp asked. "Any competent antitrust counsel would know that's illegal. And they had to know they'd get caught eventually."

Apple, Google and other technology companies reached an agreement with the justice department over the no-poaching agreement in 2010, and agreed not to engage in any agreement or activity to reduce or prevent competition for employees. Last week, Apple and other technology companies settled a related class-action lawsuit, agreeing to pay $324 million.

Again, the justice department chose not to bring criminal charges against some of Silicon Valley's most prominent executives. (The justice department said it did not comment on decisions not to file charges.)

Both the e-book and anti-poaching cases "look suspiciously like a lot of other cases that resulted in criminal charges,"Hovenkamp said. "But there's always the factor of prosecutorial discretion."

There's no way of knowing whether Jobs, had he lived and been healthy, would have faced charges, especially since he was a recidivist. Given Jobs's immense popularity, prosecutors might not have wanted to risk a trial, Hovenkamp noted. Jobs probably came closest to being prosecuted in the backdating scandal, but by then he was already known to have had pancreatic cancer.

But why would Jobs even have tried to skirt the law, given how much was at stake? Isaacson said that he couldn't comment on specific cases, but noted that "over and over, people referred to his reality distortion field." Isaacson added, "The rules just didn't apply to him, whether he was getting a license plate that let him use handicapped parking or building products that people said weren't possible. Most of the time he was right, and he got away with it."

Lam, of The Wirecutter, said Jobs's seeming indifference to the law wasn't unusual in Silicon Valley. "Look at Bill Gates," he said. "He was arrested for speeding and driving without a license. And Microsoft had its problems with antitrust law. It's just a characteristic of young tech entrepreneurs to look at the rules and question them. You can't get into this game without a healthy distaste for the status quo."

But even as Jobs was doing his best to snuff out competition, he publicly reveled in it, Isaacson said. "The paradox is, Steve Jobs was totally energized by competition. His famous 1984 ad was about destroying IBM. He later felt the same about Microsoft Windows and did the PC versus Mac ads. And in his last few years, he was obsessed with Google Android. Yes, he tried to block them in court with lawsuits. But also he competed by getting totally energized and whipping his troops into a frenzy to build better products — and announcing that all of his competitors' products sucked."

Correction: May 2, 2014

An earlier version of this column, and an accompanying picture caption, misstated Steven P Jobs's role in the origins of Apple. He was a co-founder, not the sole founder.

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget