Awesome Stuff: Computers And Gesture Input Devices

from the fruit-ninjas-are-everywhere dept

Okay, I really thought this week was going to be the one where our awesome stuff posts didn't have a theme. But... because of some last minute finds, you not only get two separate themes, but also four projects, rather than our standard three. First up, we've got two different takes on a computer, and then we've got two projects that help you rethink how you input data into a computer.

• First up, is the MiiPC. It's an Android-powered PC that's designed for family use. From the screenshots/video they show, they at least appear to have done a decent job making Android functional as a desktop OS. Some of the "family" features seem a little hokey and overhyped, but perhaps it appeals to some people. Of course, what struck me as most interesting about this was actually the price. $99 for a simple computer seems like a potentially good deal for people looking to just do simple stuff. This project blew past its funding targets quickly and has already more than doubled it with over a month to go.
• So that's a more modern take on a PC, but how about one that's a bit more retro? The the X500 is a modern computer case, but which takes its design cues from classic early 1980s gaming consoles like the Amiga, Atari and Sinclair. My first computer was an Atari 800, so I've got a soft spot for this style of design, even if it's probably not that practical these days. It's just a case, so you'll have to want to do some DIY computer building to get an actual computer in there. Also, if this one interests you, don't wait too long. The project ends tomorrow. It's already just barely squeaked over its target, so it will definitely be funded.
• Since we're talking about DIY, howzabout the DUO, the world's first DIY 3D sensor. If you've been living under a rock for a while, you may have missed all the buzzy and hype about the Leap Motion controller for gesture recognition on your computer. The DUO, conceptually, is pretty similar to the Leap, except that this not about fancy shiny locked up boxes, but about making your own damn fancy gesture controller. Basically, the different levels get you started at different points along the process of making your own such device (though, yes, you can also purchase fully assembled ones, but they're much more expensive than the Leap). The DUO is still only about 1/3 of the way to its target, but with nearly a month left, it seems like it will probably get there. Might not be as fancy as the Leap, but how much cooler is it to show off that you made our own?
• And since we're on the subject of gesture recognition for computers, how about the the NUIA eyeCharm, which is an add on to the Kinect (which we'll assume you already know about...), to make it so you can control your computer via eye movements. There were rumors that Samsung was working on something like this to be built into phones and tablets, but these guys are doing it as a simple add on to the Kinect. This one has just a week to go and is hovering right near its target, and should easily pass it soon (if it hasn't already by the time you read it).

Well, that's it for this week. Bonus points figuring out how many times Fruit Ninja appears in the Kickstarter videos above. I had no idea that that game had become such a "must show" in any such demo.

Filed Under: awesome stuff, computer cases, computers, crowdfunding, gesture, input devices
Companies: duo, miipc, nuia

This Is Not The Cloud Computing We Should Have

from the we've-got-it-all-wrong dept

Even though I was never a big Google Reader user, its death has got me thinking about online services quite a bit lately -- and really reminded me that we've done the cloud wrong. Rather than build true cloud computing, we've built a bunch of lockboxes.

The cloud was supposed to free us, not lock us in

"Cloud computing" went by a variety of other terms in the past before this marketing term stuck, but the key part of it was that it was supposed to free us of worrying about the location of our data. Rather than having to have things stored locally, the data could be anywhere, and we could access it via any machine or device. That sort of happened, and there definitely are benefits to data being stored in the cloud, rather than locally. But... what came with today's "cloud" was a totally different kind of lock: a lock to the service.

I can point many apps to data stored locally

I wrote something related to this a few years ago, concerning music in the cloud. If I have a bunch of MP3s stored locally, I can point any number of music apps at my music folder, and they can all play that music. As long as the data is not in a proprietary format, I can find the app that works best for me and the data is separate from the app. Even when you have proprietary formats like Microsoft's .doc, other apps can often make use of them as well -- so, for example, I can get by with Libre Office, and I don't lose access to all of my old Microsoft Word docs.

This is really useful, because it helps us avoid vendor lock-in in many cases. Even when, say, Microsoft or Apple dominates the market. It's still possible to come in and be compatible. The competition then focuses on building better services, rather than reinventing the data model. That's much more useful to consumers, because the innovation is focused on making their lives better, rather than reinventing the wheel.

Today's cloud brings us back to walled gardens

For the most part, today, however, "cloud" applications bundle the storage and the service as one, and the two are linked inseparably. You check your data into a new cloud service, but the application layer and the data are both held by the same company. Yes, you can often transfer data from one service to the other -- such as Google's "data liberation front" effort, which is fantastic (and goes beyond many other companies' efforts), but just the fact that data needs to be liberated suggests we're taking the wrong approach altogether. Rather than having to "export" all of your feeds from Google Reader and then waiting patiently for 50,000 other people who are trying to upload them to the few small Reader competitors out there, why shouldn't we have each had an OPML file stored somewhere that we control, and that we could easily point any reader application, whether its local or "in the cloud." And, yes, there are some services that attempt to do this, but it's not where the whole "cloud" space has gone.

Separate and liberate the data from the infrastructure

What the cloud should be about is both freeing us from being locked to local data, and also freeing us from having that data locked to a particular service. I should be able to keep my data in one spot and then access it via a variety of cloud clients -- and the clients and the data shouldn't necessarily be directly connected or held by the same party. If I don't want to listen to my music via one app, I can just connect a different app to my personal data cloud and off we go. If Google Reader shuts down, no problem, just point a different app at my RSS data. No extraction, no uploading. Just go.

There are, of course, plenty of players around which sort of do this. DropBox, Box, Amazon's S3 and even Google Drive are setting themselves up as personal data clouds, and there are a growing number of apps that run across them. Projects like the Locker Project are thinking about how we store personal data separated from apps as well. And I know there are a bunch of other projects either around today or quickly approaching release, that also seek to do something in this space.

But, for the most part, all of the stories that people talk about concerning "cloud" computing almost always involve services that tie together the app and the data and all you're really doing is trading the former limitations of local data for the limitations of a single service provider controlling your data. Many service providers want this, of course. It's a form of lock-in. Plus, having some sort of access to your data and your usage can enable them to do other things, such as more accurately data mine you and your usage.

But, as users, we really should be pushing more towards embracing the apps that separate the app from the data and that let you point their "cloud" app at any particular place you store your "cloud" data. Some of this may involve standardizing certain data formats, but that makes sense anyway, as, once again, that's an area where there are tremendous benefits to not reinventing the wheel, so that the innovation and competition can focus on the service level. While some vendors may fear losing lock-in, if they truly believe in their own ability to provide great services, it shouldn't be a problem. At the same time, they should also realize that embracing this kind of world means that it's easier for others to jump in and test their services as well.

The death of Google Reader raised a lot of issues around trust, and while you could "export" the data, that process is still messy and archaic when you think about it. The future of cloud computing should be much more focused on separating the data from the service. That would remove the fear that many are now talking about concerning adopting new cloud services that might not last very long. If the data is stored elsewhere, and entirely in the control of the user, then you don't need to trust the service provider nearly as much, but can dip in and test out different apps operating on the same data, and switch with ease.

If we're going to see the real promise of "the cloud" take place, that's where things need to head. We should be increasingly skeptical of "cloud" apps that also control the data.

Filed Under: cloud computing, data, innovation, openness, services, storage

Wal-Mart Wants Store Customers To Deliver Packages To Online Shoppers

from the leveraging-the-customer-base dept

Having just seen cases where legacy players have felt threatened by more innovative startups that take advantage of more distributed "peer-production" rather than top-down centralized systems of old, it's interesting to see a counter example. Apparently, Wal-Mart is considering a plan in which it tries to get in-store shoppers to help deliver packages to online buyers.

"I see a path to where this is crowd-sourced," Joel Anderson, chief executive of Walmart.com in the United States, said in a recent interview with Reuters.

Wal-Mart has millions of customers visiting its stores each week. Some of these shoppers could tell the retailer where they live and sign up to drop off packages for online customers who live on their route back home, Anderson explained.

Wal-Mart would offer a discount on the customers' shopping bill, effectively covering the cost of their gas in return for the delivery of packages, he added.

The company admits that it's just brainstorming the idea at this point, but it's always interesting to see big established companies recognizing that others have been disrupting parts of their core business, and rather than freak out about it, try to take the disruption even further. Of course, this might serve to disrupt other legacy providers, such as UPS and FedEx. Hopefully they won't freak out about it, but who wouldn't be surprised to start seeing stories raising moral panics about how "dangerous" this new plan will be since the drivers won't be wearing uniforms any more?

Filed Under: crowdsourcing, customers, delivery, disruption, innovation, peer economy
Companies: walmart

Why Google's 'We Won't Sue' Patent Pledge May Actually Suggest A Greater Proclivity To Sue Over Patents

from the don't-launch-patent-suits,-period dept

Google is getting some attention today for taking an official pledge that it won't initiate patent lawsuits over open source software on certain patents:

At Google we believe that open systems win. Open-source software has been at the root of many innovations in cloud computing, the mobile web, and the Internet generally. And while open platforms have faced growing patent attacks, requiring companies to defensively acquire ever more patents, we remain committed to an open Internet—one that protects real innovation and continues to deliver great products and services.

Today, we’re taking another step towards that goal by announcing the Open Patent Non-Assertion (OPN) Pledge: we pledge not to sue any user, distributor or developer of open-source software on specified patents, unless first attacked.

Initially, this pledge only covers 10 patents, but they claim they'll be adding more.

While this pledge is better than nothing, it feels like really weak sauce from a company that could and should go much further. For nearly Google's entire history, it simply did not act as a patent aggressor at all. It grew its own portfolio, and in some cases I believe it would use patents in countersuits against companies that sued it, but as far as I can remember, it was never an initial plaintiff in a patent lawsuit (feel free to point out an example case where that's not true). As far as I can tell, the first time Google acted as a patent aggressor was last summer, when its Motorola Mobility subsidiary went after Apple.

How much stronger and more powerful a statement would it have been for Google to not limit this patent anti-aggression pledge to just ten patents and just open source projects? The company easily could have come out and said: we won't sue over patents unless sued first. It would have been a clear and definitive statement that actually took a stand on a broken patent system -- and it would have been almost entirely consistent with the company's history. The fact that the company chose not to do this actually suggests that they're even more likely to be patent aggressors. This is unfortunate. It is not uncommon for larger companies to switch to a patent litigation strategy as they get bigger and as smaller upstarts start disrupting their markets, but Google had, in the past, indicated that it wouldn't follow that path. This pledge actually suggests an evolution in their thinking... and not in a good way.

As we've seen, historically, it's when companies start having trouble innovating and competing that they switch to litigating over patents. One hopes that this is not an indication that Google has reached that stage.

Filed Under: open source, patent aggression, patents, pledge, won't sue
Companies: google

Taxi, Limo Trade Group Hates Innovative Upstarts, Labels Them 'Rogue Applications'

from the can't-beat-'em-in-the-market,-so... dept

There's nothing like a bit of disruptive innovation to make the legacy players start busting out the old moral panics. We've written a few times about the new generation of ride-for-hire and ride-share services, which are really disrupting the old taxi and limo business -- leading to all sorts of highly questionable lawsuits and attempts at regulating these new players into oblivion. In almost every case, it seems quite clear that these attacks are not because the service is bad for consumers... but because it's disrupting traditional players who haven't innovated. So, it came as little surprise this week to receive an email from the "Taxi, Limousine & Paratransit Association" excitedly telling me all about a new paper they've issued with a giant "warning" about what they call "rogue apps." Isn't that great? Rather than innovative and disruptive services that consumers absolutely love, they just rebrand them as "rogue" apps and they can make them seem sssssssssssssscary. The paper grades various new services, giving them a "red light," "yellow light" or "green light."

Not surprisingly, the more well known apps -- Uber, SideCar, Lyft and Tickengo -- all have received the coveted "red light." While according to the TLPA this means they're dangerous "rogue apps," to me it suggests that they're all doing something right. They're providing services that people want that are more convenient or better priced than the old guard, which is why the old guard has to attack them.

The key point they make is that these are all "unregulated" taxi services, which allows them to go into full out moral panic mode about how, without regulations, these services will likely take advantage of consumers. The paper talks about threats of "criminal" drivers and the potential for meter rigging. Of course, as we've seen in other industries, this seems like a clear case of businesses using regulations to keep out innovation and competitors, rather than for a legitimate purpose. Yes, many of those regulations were put in place for a good reason originally, yet many of those reasons really don't apply to these new services.

In the past, you needed regulations to protect you from drivers taking extra long paths to where you wanted to go, driving poorly or charging too much -- because drivers could do that and there was little recourse. But the thing about these new services, which rely heavily on online reputation systems, is that these reputation systems make the need for such regulations much less necessary. The services, like Uber, set the price and poor drivers get booted from the system based on user reviews. And, since most people who have a mobile phone these days to use one of these apps will also have GPS on those phones, people can self-monitor if the driver is taking a reasonable route. Basically, the original safety reasons (which, again, may have made sense at the time) for many of those regulations simply may not really apply to these new services. But rather than deal with that, the legacy players are doing what legacy players do: using those regulations to try to stomp out innovation and stifle competition.

Filed Under: innovation, limos, protectionism, regulations, taxis, threats
Companies: lyft, sidecar, tickengo, tlpa, uber

Crazy Idea Of The Month: Allowing Patents On Mathematics

from the aren't-things-bad-enough? dept

It would be something of an understatement to say that people have strong opinions about patents. But as Techdirt has reported, there's a growing consensus that software patents in particular aren't working -- James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer have written an entire book, "Patent Failure", about how bad things are there, and why it's happening in this area rather than elsewhere.

One of the key problems is that software patents are essentially patents on mathematical algorithms -- sets of instructions for carrying out a calculation. Since it has long been a principle that you can't patent mathematical formulae or laws of nature, there is a tension there: if software is just mathematics, why should you be able to patent it at all? New Scientist points to an interesting article in the April 2013 issue of Notices of the American Mathematical Society, in which David A. Edwards proposes a radical way of solving that conundrum (pdf):

At present, only those things which are made by man are patentable. Thus, the courts have allowed new forms of bacteria which have been engineered to have useful properties using recombinant DNA techniques to be patented but would not allow such a bacterium to be patented if it were naturally occurring even if it were newly discovered. This is the basis for the nonpatentability of computer programs. They are algorithms, which are essentially mathematical formulas, which -- as everyone knows -- are "eternal" and hence discovered by man and not created by him. This argument which, to say the least, is philosophically controversial, leads to our present unfortunate policy. From an economic point of view, there is no rationale for distinguishing between discovery and invention, and we would advocate dropping entirely any subject matter restrictions whatsoever on what can be patented. One should be able to patent anything not previously known to man.

In particular, he believes it should be possible to patent mathematics, and hence software.

One of his arguments is that this would spur people to make more discoveries. But that presupposes mathematicians aren't trying to do that now for glory, peer esteem and tenure, but there's no evidence to suggest that. The same argument is sometimes made in support of software patents -- that they stimulate the production of more software. But that overlooks the fact that the computer industry thrived for decades before the introduction of software patents, and that companies like Microsoft grew into hugely profitable enterprises without them.

Indeed, in 1991 Bill Gates famously warned about the problems that software patents would create for the industry and his company:

In a memo to his senior executives, Bill Gates wrote, "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented, and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today." Mr. Gates worried that "some large company will patent some obvious thing" and use the patent to "take as much of our profits as they want."

That, of course, is exactly what has happened since the introduction of software patents, leading to the following situation today:

In the smartphone industry alone, according to a Stanford University analysis, as much as $20 billion was spent on patent litigation and patent purchases in the last two years -- an amount equal to eight Mars rover missions. Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filings.

That's bad enough for huge companies with deep pockets; it would be even worse for universities on tight budgets which might suddenly find themselves sued for using mathematical formulae without permission -- a ludicrous situation. Edwards seems to be aware that this is a problem, and tries to address it as follows:

Since patents only give control over the commercial applications of his or her discovery or invention to the patentee, granting patents on mathematical formulas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena would have no negative side effects on pure science.

That's not really the case, in the US at least, thanks to Madey v. Duke University, as Wikipedia explains:

In 2002, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dramatically limited the scope of the research exemption in Madey v. Duke University, 307 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The court did not reject the defense, but left only a "very narrow and strictly limited experimental use defense" for "amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry." The court also precludes the defense where, regardless of profit motive, the research was done "in furtherance of the alleged infringer's legitimate business." In the case of a research university like Duke University, the court held that the alleged use was in furtherance of its legitimate business, and thus the defense was inapplicable.

Clearly, there is huge scope for inventive lawyers (mathematical trolls?) to bring lawsuits against academics here, which would inevitably have a chilling effect on "pure science". Far from helping resolve the problems we have today with software patents, extending patentability to the mathematics that underlies programming would simply spread the misery wider, and make the lawyers richer.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: david edwards, innovation, math, patents, software patents

Awesome Stuff: Life Never Sounded So Good... On The Go

from the speakers,-speakers-and-headphones dept

So we're back with another week of awesome stuff. I really did not intend for each week to have a theme, but that's sort of how it's worked out for the past few weeks, and why stop now? This week, let's talk about speakers.

• First up, there's the Yaba Portable Speaker & Guitar Amp by PLX Devices. We've seen tiny speakers (that use whatever surface they're on) to create bigger sounds before, but the Yaba at least appears to have a pretty cool design that seems quite small for the level of sound they seem to suggest they're able to get out of it. It's tough to tell how well it really works in action unless you can see it in person, but conceptually, it looks cool. The fact that there's a version that can double as an absolutely tiny guitar amp seems quite cool for guitarists as well. Could definitely see plenty of uses for a device like this. It only just launched, but seems well on its way to hitting the goal. Early bird pricing at $39 sounds like a great deal, though they (not surprisingly) sold out quickly.
• But what if you've got some big old speakers around? How about easily turning them into portable speakers that play off of your mobile phone via Bluetooth (or regular line-in jack)? That's the plan for The Vamp, a tiny stylish box that can connect to any old speaker magnetically, providing both the connection and power. Even if you don't have old speakers around, the project's creator Paul Cocksedge notes that you can pick up old speakers for just a few bucks these days, since they've become somewhat obsolete. And yet here's a neat way to bring new life to old speakers. Cool idea. This one is still decently below its target, but it seems likely that it will get there in time.
• Of course, who uses speakers any more? These days, it's all about the earbuds. And that's why the last "awesome stuff" item this week is The Elroy. I'll admit, it took me a little while to understand exactly what this was, but basically it tries to combine the wireless flexibility of bluetooth with the general convenience of typical earbuds. That is, uptop, it's like a normal earbud setup (in fact, it sounds like you can use your own earbuds if you'd like), but about 1/3 of the way down a normal cord length, they just connect to a little bluetooth gadget which wirelessly communicates with whatever devices you want. So... no long cords getting in the way. Plus, it acts as a magnetic holder for the earbuds, which means no more dealing with tangled wires. And the phone features will even pick up / hang up as you detach / attach the earbuds to the unit. The thing that I can't fully get past is that the device itself still looks a little dorky -- not unlike bluetooth headsets, but now clipped to your shirt somewhere. The project describes it as "a piece of electronic jewelry" which sounds like a stretch. Also, it seems a bit on the pricey side for the benefit it provides -- but clearly lots of people disagree with that assessment, as it's quickly shot way past its target goal.

Well, that should give you plenty to listen to for a while. We'll be back next week, with more crowdfunded awesome stuff...

Filed Under: awesome stuff, crowdfunding, headphones, speakers

India Says: 'There Is No Direct Correlation Between IP And Innovation'

from the they-get-it dept

Techdirt has been pointing out for years that more patents is not the same thing as more innovation, even though many around the world would have us believe otherwise. It seems the message is finally getting through: here's a remarkable statement from India on the subject of innovation and small- and medium-sized companies, made at a TRIPS Council meeting:

there is no direct correlation between IP and Innovation even for the Small and Medium Industries. The technological progress even in the developed world had been achieved not through IP protection but through focussed governmental interventions like compulsory licenses, cross licensing, government funding, and competition policy. It is unfortunate that some of the technologically developed countries would like to showcase the positive effect of IP on innovation, when historically these countries including the proponents of this Agenda Item have reached this stage of technological development by focussing solely on the development of their own domestic industry without caring for the intellectuals property rights of the foreigners or the right holders. After achieving a high level of development, they are now attempting to perpetuate their hold on their technologies by making a push towards a TRIPS plus regime.

The last part is a clear dig at the US, which began as a pirate nation, but is now trying to impose the highest level of protection for intellectual monopolies on countries that are still at an early stage of their development, through the many bilateral treaties it has signed with them, as well as things like ACTA and TPP. The statement from India goes on:

Their agenda is not to create an environment where developing countries progress technologically, but to block their progress through the stringent IP regime. It is therefore essential that the flexibilities provided by the TRIPS Agreement need to be secured at any cost, if the people in the developing countries are to enjoy the benefits of innovations.

That is, far from acting as a spur to innovation in countries like India, intellectual monopolies prevent small- and medium-sized companies there from progressing to the point where they are able to compete in global markets with the Western enterprises that are pushing for stricter enforcement of patents and trademarks. This is why emerging countries would do well to think twice before signing up to restrictive FTAs and wide-ranging agreements like TPP that are specifically designed to keep them at a lower level of technological development.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: india, innovation, intellectual property, ip