Phil Bradley's weblog

Does the 'e' in ebooks mean easy?

It could, quite easily. Since getting the iPad I've really started to read e-books much more than before - I bought the device primarily for that reason, and it's not disappointed. I was going through my Amazon list the other day and saw a title that I'd added to my wishlist (The sweetness at the bottom of the pie in case you're interested). Downloaded it onto the iPad in about 30 seconds flat, no more, and started to read using the Kindle app. It's not got a huge number of bells and whistles, but it does the job perfectly well.

Later in the afternoon was my off to London trip and I debated taking something to read with me, got sidetracked and left without anything. Got to the station - no book! Dragged out the iphone, downloaded the Kindle app, logged in, downloaded the book again onto the iPhone (didn't take more than about a minute on the 3G signal), opened it *at the point I'd stopped reading at home* and then carried on. Read all the way into London, popped the phone away. Got home, went to bed, opened the iPad, into my book and carried on reading where I'd stopped on the iPhone.

No lugging the book around. No keeping an eye on it. No trying to remember where I was. I wanted it, I read it. How much easier can it get? And what's more - I no longer have to worry about having the book cluttering up the shelves gathering dust. Why on earth would I want the physical item? Makes no sense to me.

Google Facebook Faceoff

Well, there's lots of discussion at the moment on the possibility that Google is going to go head to head with Facebook. Quite a nice article over at Gigaom about it: Google Trying to Build Facebook Competitor? Good Luck With That which is worth a quick read. Since I like search AND social media I'm obviously quite interested in the concept, so what's the possibility and should libraries be interested?

Google must be looking at Facebook with considerable envy, if not fear. While Google still rules the roost with number of visits, people are going to spend a lot longer at Facebook. Google's always had the problem that, if they're successful, people will get the information they need and then leave. The better they are at doing this, the worse off they are. This is one of the reasons why they roll out new products, all tied into the Google account - they want you to stay with them for as long as possible to throw advertising at you. Facebook doesn't have this problem - people naturally gravitate to the service and spend a lot of time there. I usually have a Facebook tab open - I don't automatically have a Google tab, and if I did it would probably be Bing.

The addition of the like button is hugely important. It's doing in a stroke what Google wants to do - create relevance and bring the good sites to the top. Google tries this with links and algorythms, but this can be gamed (Google bombs anyone?) without too much work. In order to do the same with Facebook a lot more work has to go into it.

It's really easy for companies to grasp the Facebook concept - it's like an interactive webpage on another site, with lots of fans of the product. It doesn't have the same threat (real or otherwise) that blogs have, and Google can't compete with that.

Facebook isn't really getting into search - not in any kind of Google/Bing type of way, but they could, and the possibility is enough to scare Google into some sort of action.

So, those are a few of the many reasons why Google needs to get active in this area - and fast. The next question of course is - can they? Google doesn't actually *like* people that much. They prefer their figures, they trust the algorythms (even when they should - remember the Michelle Obama image incident?) and they fail miserably in this area. They pulled the Second Life clone Lively, Google Wave is far too complicated for most people to use, Buzz has about as much buzz about it as a geriatric bee and they have screwed up over and over on the security and privacy element. Consequently there's no reason to trust that they'll get it right this time.

On the other hand - they're already there - almost. An example that I read - you get invited to a party on Facebook. Facebook knows about it because of status updates, events, and pictures posted. Google knows via the email, Buzz, Google calendar, searchs on Google maps for the location, Picasa images, Google docs, possibly via Blogger, YouTube videos, Google chat discussions and so on. They also know who your friends are already - who follows you on Buzz, links via the resources already mentioned and so on. All they have to do is combine that together and they immediately have a really powerful network. Draw it all together and you have something far more powerful than Facebook can even dream of.

Do people trust Google more than Facebook? That's a harder call, and Facebook has taken a real battering recently over the whole privacy thing. However, we're also looking askance at Google here as well, so I think I'd go for a draw on this. Google's also lost of a lot of credibility because really, when you come to think of it - their successes while big (ok, huge) are limited. Search, email, maps and well... it gets a bit harder after that.

Will people sign up for GoogleMe (if that's what they call it) when it launches? Yeah, obviously they will. But the problem here is that Google is going to have to get people to have Google accounts - really, those people who want them, already have them. They have to overcome the inertia by providing more than Facebook. As good as Facebook isn't close to being enough. They'll also need to get into bed with Zynga, because people will want to port their Farmville across to a new service and while Farmville is essentially mindless (I'm sorry, but we both know it is) but any resource that potentially drags in over 80,000,000 on its coat tails cannot be dismissed.

How does this affect libraries? If you've got an open system ala a public library, not a huge deal I suspect. If you don't, and it's filtered, then you'll have problems. As Facebook gets bigger, and more companies start to use it to promote themselves and add useful data to it it's going to be harder to stop staff using it - for work reasons alone. Once you open that up, it's a real can of worms, because Facebook begets GoogleMe, and GoogleMe begets Google apps, and before you know it - people are off using the net for whatever they like, and we can't have that can we?

So.. predictions - on the understanding that you don't throw 'em back at me if I'm hopelessly wrong. Is it just a rumour, or is it actually happening? It has to be happening, Google spring into action for a lot less reason than this, and it's going to be huge, so yes, they're building it as we speak. Launch date? End of the year I reckon, if not before. Will it get a bunch of new users? Yeah, I'd go 100,000,000 almost overnight. Will it be a success? As for that - I'm not sure. It's a huge gamble for Google, so they really need to get it right or lose considerable credibility. But they consistently screw up social media. I'm really not going to try a call on that one!

Future Technologies

I spent an enjoyable evening at the Royal Society event 'Future Technologies' last night, as part of its 350 years anniversary. The panel included 

• Sir Tim Berners-Lee FRS , inventor of the World Wide Web and Director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
• Stephen Fry, writer, broadcaster and technophile
• Professor Dame Wendy Hall FRS , leading computer scientist at University of Southampton
• Dr Jim Haseloff, synthetic biologist from University of Cambridge
• Bill Thompson, technology critic and commentator on digital culture.

There was a live webcast, which will be shown on Royalsociety.tv at some future point. I made some brief notes in case you're desperate to know what happened. The first part of the evening was spent with the panel in discussion, and then it moved out into the audience. The hashtag for the evening was #SFFuture.

"What was the most important advance in the last 350 years, and what will be the most important advance in the next 350 years?"
SF: We're all foolish. What surprises me is how people respond to technology, rather more than the technology itself. Probably the most important advance was the electronic motor and the next advance will probably be biological, but who knows?
JH: Information processing in the last 350 years, and in the next, we're moving towards manipulating biological systems.
TBL: "The scientific method" TBL then refused to predict, but would like to see more ways of supporting democracy and science.
BT: Digital computers for the past, biological for the next 350 years.

They talked about tipping points, and SF recalled the stuck in a lift moment, which was the tipping point for Twitter. BT said that the personal computer was a computer, as you could use computers and tools for yourself. TBL said that for him a tipping point was email, which lead to everything else, and spam indicated the tipping point itself, since people saw the point of sending out emails to millions of people.

There was a general talk on disadvantages for children who do not have access to the internet, which was then widened out to a lack of access to the rest of the world.

As usual, SF was particularly interesting, so I've snipped out a few points he made. He doesn't know what the world will be like when we're all on the net, but that it will be 'human shaped'. We can't work out what's going to happen and even the inventors such as TBL have no idea either. He also derided the 'old is natural' concept. It's a complete misunderstanding, since everything we do is new. For example, we now don't beat children, and this is the first time in history this has happened and the concept is completely new - old is not particularly natural. JH came in at this point and said that even our crops are not natural, since the breeding process changes them, and said that we have an attachment to natural crops, but what does that actually mean?

Questions were then asked from the audience. 'Should there be complete freedom on the web?' TBL said that it's not a technology question, it's a case of a question for society. Ignore technology, and look at society. WH made the point that while the web itself is free, it creates huge monopolies. 'How does culture get changed by the web?' TBL said that you'll always find small communities on the web, and they are a balance on the scale of tiny through to large, and it's perhaps more how cultures change the web. SF pointed out that people worry about this with every technology; books, penny dreadfuls, cinema, tv, video games etc. 'Will technology dumb us down?' WH said that we can't predict what people will do with technology, it's moving too quickly. SF said that people will do what people will do. Was amused to see iPhone 4 and said it was going to be great for prostitutes.

I had my question all ready, and was going to ask about how libraries need to change and adapt, and what they'll look like in the future. I even had the microphone in my hand - but much to my frustration, we ran out of time. However, there was a twitterwall and my question and my opinion on the value of libraries was repeatedly scrolled up the screen, so I managed to get the point across to the audience, even if it didn't go further.

Fair Play to Richard Ashmore

This wasn't something I was expecting, but I had this email yesterday:

"Afternoon Phil,

Good spot on the Apple story.

We had a ring in on this from another reporter and I was told it was a genuine link but did have my doubts to be honest. I can't believe I didn't see the 'parody account' bit!

Weird thing was newsdesk rang the US to make sure it was stood up and I was told it did. Obviously it wasn't and I should have checked it myself.

I've added your feelings on the issue to my Facebook page anyway and have had the ridicule I deserve from friends and fellow hacks.

All the best and good spotting."

(I asked his permission to repeat this by the way.) So the guy screwed up (don't we all!) and took the criticism on the chin - points to him for that. Just a shame that the Daily Mail don't have his attitude - the story just disappeared from their site; they like airbrushing history rather too much for my liking.

Incompetent Journalists Richard Ashmore and Barbara Ellen

"Don't believe what you see on the Internet" is a phrase that I see quite often, and of course it's perfectly correct to have a healthy skepticism. However, this is then often followed up with a comment along the lines of "It's not proper news" or something similar. Today I'm able to bring you two marvellous examples of incompetent journalists. Please step forward Richard Ashmore of the Daily Mail and Barbara Ellen of the Observer. Between them their stupidity is quite breathtaking. Let's start with Richard Ashmore. He's written a story that starts with Apple boss Steve Jobs reveals iPhone 4 may be recalled. You might want to check the link fairly quickly, because it's likely that the Mail will pull the story off the site or change it (although obviously they can't do much about the papers). However, here's the appropriate bit:

Now, let's see where this quite startling comment comes from shall we. On the Twitter page that they got the quote we have this:

Can Richard Ashmore not read? Or alternatively is he just terminally stupid? If you look over at the biography it states 'Of course this is a parody account'. If you go on to look at a few of the tweets on the parody account it's perfectly obvious that it's a fake. Clearly Richard Ashmore either didn't read *anything* other than the tweet, or his research was zero. Absolutely shocking.

Next up is Barbara Ellen. She's written an article entitled 'Put porn where it belongs - in an online ghetto' and again I'm saving you the trouble by providing a link to the appropriate bit. Don't actually have a problem with what she says about pornography, and indeed I said something similar myself a couple of days ago, but the jaw dropping bit is right at the start of the piece.

This is of course not happening. Does she really think we're all going to have to start typing http://xxx.pornowebsite.com ? I presume that she does. Does she not understand the difference between prefix and suffix? Obviously not again. She's quite clearly not even got a rudimentary understanding of how the internet works, and yet she's employed - and even being paid - to write rubbish about a subject that she's clueless about.

So, step forward Richard Ashmore and Barbara Ellen - the best examples of clueless stupid journalists you could possibly hope to find!

[Edited to add]As noted in my comments, and predicted by me in my opening paragraph, the story has now disappeared. If you click on the link you'll get this:

Daily Mail - censoring their own content, protecting their own useless journalists. If proof were needed (which it isn't), they're a disgrace to the 4th estate.

Short R5 item on libraries and volunteers

There was a really interesting, but rather short item on Radio 5 this morning about using volunteers in libraries. It centred around the strike in Southampton (more news from the local Daily Echo newspaper) by library staff who are opposed to the recruitment and training of volunteers. The Tory run council want to scrap funding for 6 librarians and replace them with volunteers.

The Radio 5 reporter went into the local park and asked local people what they thought about the idea. Very interestingly, everyone that he spoke to was totally against the idea - comments were along the lines of 'you can't trust a volunteer to turn up' 'why would I want to work in a library in lovely weather like this?' 'what if a volunteer doesn't turn up and people are relying on the library to open?' There wasn't a single voice in favour of the idea. Really very cheering indeed.

Unfortunately the programme isn't available to listen to again, so I can't point you to the actual report online, but I think I've reported it reasonably well.

Sex domain gets official approval

An interesting article that I picked up from BBC News which I think is long overdue. Icann, the organization that oversees this has finally agreed to the creation of the .xxx domain which should be up and running in early 2011. There are already more than 100,000 pre-reservations. Hopefully this will make it much easier to block this type of material but what I'd like to see (which won't happen) that *all* pornographic material has to be on a .xxx domain, and if anything is hosted on a site that isn't, it can be closed down.

Bing changes interface

Bing is currently making some quite substantial changes to its interface. If you recall, when you ran a search all of the options for narrowing a search were down the left hand side of the screen. Well, they've now moved - or are in the process of moving to being below the search box. A search for hubble telescope results in the following:

This seems to be a sensible move, and really makes the most of the concept of Bing being a decision engine - providing you with appropriate links at appropriate times. Search for different subjects and you'll get different replies:

Now, that's all well and dandy, but there's a distinct lack of consistency. In the first instance we've got videos as the second option, and images as the last. With the musician we have images second and videos fourth. I'm not sure if this is because Bing suspects that we'd prefer to see still, soundless images of Lady Gaga rather her actually singing, but whatever the reason, the inconsistency is annoying. I also found that if I did searches for other bands I got links to songs and albums, so it's all a little slapdash I fear.

A third example, this time a health one gives us this:

As well as the other tabs (and surely there must be images and video that would be useful here?) we have a health tab, with content shared from the MayoClinic.

There are other examples, illustrated in the SearchEngineLand article which relate to finance among other subjects, but these are being rolled out slowly over the next few days, so you may not see them yet.

My bottom line is that it's a good idea, and I'm pleased to see Bing tweaking what they're about, but more consistency within the interface please.

CriticalPast

Search over 57000 videos and 7 million photos. This is an ok little resource. The video tends to be focussed on the 1940s with over 23,000 clips, dropping down to 78 clips during the 1990s, which is a bit odd, and not quite what you'd expect. Search options are not brilliant, but you can filter by colour/sound/language/date/location. Fairly heavy US bias as well from my browsing.

Irritatingly, while they say that there are over 7 million photographs, I couldn't see how to access any of them, which was irritating. It's only when you've viewed an image that you get to see the stills from the clips themselves that you can purchase. They are royality free, but you do have to pay for use from a couple of dollars upwards.

It's an interesting collection, and if you're into US history from the 40s, it's made for you. Other people may have rather slimmer pickings though.

MyTweetMag

MyTweetMag. I've seen a few of these popping up recently, and I suspect there will be a lot more before we finish with them. They take a twitter feed, pull in content and display it for you in a magazine type format. It's a different way to do things I guess. I'd like to tell you more about this one, but they don't appear to be letting people join or login yet, despite the links.