http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144192132144506.html#printMode
We live in a time that worships attention. When we need to work, we force ourselves to focus, to stare straight ahead at he computer screen. There's a Starbucks on seemingly every corner -caffeine makes it easier to concentrate and when coffee isn't enough, we chug Red Bull.
In fact, the ability to payattention is considered such an essential life skill that the lack of it has become a widespread medical problem. Nearly 10% of American children are now diagnosed with atention-deficit hyperactivity disorder(ADHD)
In recent years, however, scientists have begun to outline the surprising benefits of not paying attention. Sometimes, too much focus can backfire; all the caffeine gets in the way. For instance, researchers have found a surprising link between day dreaming and creativity- people who daydream more are also better at generating new ideas. Other studies have found that employees are more productive when they're allowed to engage in "Internet leisure browsing" and that people unable to concentrate due to severe brain damage actually score above average on various problem-solving tasks.
A new study led by researchers at the University of Memphis and the University of Michigan extends this theme. The scientists measured the success of 60 undergraduates in various fields. from the visual arts to science. They asked the students if they'd ever won a prize at a juried art show or been honored at a science fair. In every domain, students who had been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder achieved more: Their inability to focus turned out to be a creative advantage.
And this lesson doesn't just apply to people with a full-fledged idsorder. a few years ago, scientists at the university of Toronto and Harvard gave a short mental test to 86 Harvard undergraduate. The test was designed to measure their ability to ignore irrevant stimuli, such as the air-conditioner humming in the background or the conversation taking place nearby. This skill is typically seen as an essential component of productivity, since it keeps people from getting distracted by extraneous information.
Here's where the data get interesting: those undergrads who had a tougher time ignoring unrelated stuff were also seven times more likely to be rated as "eminent creative achievers" based on their previous accomplishments. (The association was particularly strong among distractible students with high IQs)
According to the scientists, the inability to focus helps ensure a richer mixture of thoughts in consciousne..Because these people struggled to filter the world, they ended up letting everything in. They couldn't help but be open-minded.
Such lapses in attention turn out to be a crucial creative skill. When we're faced with a difficult problem, the most obvious solution - that first idea we focus on is probably wrong. At such moments, it often helps to consider far-fetched possibilities, to approach the task from an unconventional perspective. and this is why distraction is helpful: people unable to focus are more likely to consider information that might seem irrevant but will later inspire the breakthrough. when we don't know where to look, we need to look everywhere.
This doesn't mean, of course, that attention isn't an important mental skill, or that attention-deficit disorders aren't a serious problem. THere's clearly nothing advantageous about struggling in the classroom, or not being able to follow instructions.(It's also worth pointing out that these studies all involve college students, which doesn't tell us anything about those kids with ADHD who fail to graduate from high schoo. Distraction might be a cognitive luxury that not everyone can afford)
Nevetheless, this new research demonstrate that, for a certain segment of the population , distractibility can actually be a net positive. Although we think that more attention can solve everything that the best strategy is always a strict focus fueled by triple espressos that's not the case. Sometimes, the most productive thing we can do is surf the Web and eaversdrop on that conversation next door.
2011年2月21日月曜日
2011年2月16日水曜日
2045: The Year Man Becomes Immortal 1/5
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2048138,00.html
On Feb. 15, 1965 a diffident but self-possessed high school student named Raymond Kurzweil appeard as a guest on a game show called I've Got a Secret. He was introduced by the host, Steve Allen, then he played a short musical composition on a piano. The idea was that Kurzweil was hiding an unusual fact and tha panelists they included a comedian and former Miss America had tu guess what it was.
On the show, the beauty queen did a good job of grilling Kurzweil, but the comedian got the win: the music was composed by a computer. Kurzweil got $200.
Kurzweil then demonstrated the computer, which he built himself a desk-size affair with loudly clacking relays, hooked up to a typewriter. The panelists were pretty blase about it; they were more impressed by Kurzweil's age than by anything he'd actually done. They were ready to move on to Mrs.Chester Loney of Rough and Ready, Calif, whose secret was that she'd been President Lyndon Johnson's first-grade teacher.
But Kurzweil would spend much of the rest of his career working out what his demonstration meant. Creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It's an act of self-expression; you're not supposed to be able to do it if you don't have a self. to see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial inteliggence.
That was Kurzweil's real secret, and back in 1965 nobody guessed it Maybe not even him, not yet. But now, 46 years later, Kurzweil believes that we're approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. when that happens, humanity our bodies, our minds, our civilization will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He believes that this mooment is not only inevitable but imminent. according to his calculations, the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.
Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster that is , the rate at which they're getting faster is increasing.
True? True.
So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might concevably come a moment when they are capable of something compratbale to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they creat consciousness not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethcal decisions , appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.
If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there's no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer.It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn't even take breaks to play Farmville.
Probably. It's impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which(with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because if you could, you'd be as smart as they would be. But there are alot of theories about it. Maybe we'll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we'll scan our consciouseness into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity.
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about hte future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
On Feb. 15, 1965 a diffident but self-possessed high school student named Raymond Kurzweil appeard as a guest on a game show called I've Got a Secret. He was introduced by the host, Steve Allen, then he played a short musical composition on a piano. The idea was that Kurzweil was hiding an unusual fact and tha panelists they included a comedian and former Miss America had tu guess what it was.
On the show, the beauty queen did a good job of grilling Kurzweil, but the comedian got the win: the music was composed by a computer. Kurzweil got $200.
Kurzweil then demonstrated the computer, which he built himself a desk-size affair with loudly clacking relays, hooked up to a typewriter. The panelists were pretty blase about it; they were more impressed by Kurzweil's age than by anything he'd actually done. They were ready to move on to Mrs.Chester Loney of Rough and Ready, Calif, whose secret was that she'd been President Lyndon Johnson's first-grade teacher.
But Kurzweil would spend much of the rest of his career working out what his demonstration meant. Creating a work of art is one of those activities we reserve for humans and humans only. It's an act of self-expression; you're not supposed to be able to do it if you don't have a self. to see creativity, the exclusive domain of humans, usurped by a computer built by a 17-year-old is to watch a line blur that cannot be unblurred, the line between organic intelligence and artificial inteliggence.
That was Kurzweil's real secret, and back in 1965 nobody guessed it Maybe not even him, not yet. But now, 46 years later, Kurzweil believes that we're approaching a moment when computers will become intelligent, and not just intelligent but more intelligent than humans. when that happens, humanity our bodies, our minds, our civilization will be completely and irreversibly transformed. He believes that this mooment is not only inevitable but imminent. according to his calculations, the end of human civilization as we know it is about 35 years away.
Computers are getting faster. Everybody knows that. Also, computers are getting faster faster that is , the rate at which they're getting faster is increasing.
True? True.
So if computers are getting so much faster, so incredibly fast, there might concevably come a moment when they are capable of something compratbale to human intelligence. Artificial intelligence. All that horsepower could be put in the service of emulating whatever it is our brains are doing when they creat consciousness not just doing arithmetic very quickly or composing piano music but also driving cars, writing books, making ethcal decisions , appreciating fancy paintings, making witty observations at cocktail parties.
If you can swallow that idea, and Kurzweil and a lot of other very smart people can, then all bets are off. From that point on, there's no reason to think computers would stop getting more powerful. They would keep on developing until they were far more intelligent than we are. Their rate of development would also continue to increase, because they would take over their own development from their slower-thinking human creators. Imagine a computer scientist that was itself a super-intelligent computer.It would work incredibly quickly. It could draw on huge amounts of data effortlessly. It wouldn't even take breaks to play Farmville.
Probably. It's impossible to predict the behavior of these smarter-than-human intelligences with which(with whom?) we might one day share the planet, because if you could, you'd be as smart as they would be. But there are alot of theories about it. Maybe we'll merge with them to become super-intelligent cyborgs, using computers to extend our intellectual abilities the same way that cars and planes extend our physical abilities. maybe the artificial intelligences will help us treat the effects of old age and prolong our life spans indefinitely. Maybe we'll scan our consciouseness into computers and live inside them as software, forever, virtually. Maybe the computers will turn on humanity and annihilate us. The one thing all these theories have in common is the transformation of our species into something that is no longer recognizable as such to humanity circa 2011. This transformation has a name: the Singularity.
The difficult thing to keep sight of when you're talking about the Singularity is that even though it sounds like science fiction, it isn't, no more than a weather forecast is science fiction. It's not a fringe idea; it's a serious hypothesis about hte future of life on Earth. There's an intellectual gag reflex that kicks in anytime you try to swallow an idea that involves super-intelligent immortal cyborgs, but suppress it if you can, because while the Singularity appears to be, on the face of it, preposterous, it's an idea that rewards sober, careful evaluation.
2011年2月5日土曜日
How Your Name May Cost You at the Mall
Looking to sell some of that stuff from your garage, fast? Call the Zimmermans.
According to a new study, people whose surnames start with letters late in the alphabet may be the fastest to buy. What could possibly explain this weird phenomenon, which the study authors dubbed "the last -name effect"? The research didn't provide a definitive reason, but the authors offer an intriguing theory. Since America's obsession with alphabetical order often forces the Z's to the back of the line in childhood, they suffer.They were always the last to get lunch in the cafeteria --sorry, Young , the other kids bought all the chocolate milk again-- and had to beg for the teacher's attention from the back of the classroom. So later in life, when the Z's -- and even onetime Z's who became A's through marriage see an item they really like for sale or are offered a deal, they jump on it, afraid that supplies won't last. The chocolate milk is finally in front of them. So they grab it.
"For years, simply because of your name, you've received inequitable treatment," says Kurt Carlson , an assistant professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business and a co-author of the papre, which is to be published in the Journal of Consumer research. " So when you get to exercise control, you seize on opportunity. It's a coping strategy, and over time it becomes a natural way to respond"
Carlson and Jacqueline Conard an assistant professor at the Massey Graduate school of business at belmont Univ uncoveered the last-name effect through four different experiments. In the first one, MBA students received offers via e-mail for four free tickets to a women's basketball game but were told the overall supply was limited. The average response time for people with names beginning with one of the last nine letters of the alphabet, T through Z was 19.38 minutes. Those with names starting with one of the first nine letters, A through I, replied in 25.08 minutes a statestically significant diferences.
For the second experiment, 280 adults with an average age of 39.1 responded to an e-mail invitation to fill out an online survey. In exchange, they were told, they had a 1 in 500 chance of winning $500 in a drawing. (In fact, since only 280 people responded, the odds were much better.) Again, people with surnames closer to the end of the alphabet responded faster to the offer. The results didn't idffer by gender, and the researchers also found that people whose current surnames were at the beggining of the alphabet but whose childhood surnames had been closer to the end also responded to the offer more quickly. In other words, Zimmermans who married Addisons and changed their names were still coping with their lousy place in past lines.
These two experiments have a relatively obvious shortcoming: people who responded more slowly to the e-mail offers could have just been checking their accounts less frequently. A third experiment addressed that issue by giving everyone a deal simultaneously. At the end of a college wine-evaluation class, the instructor told the attendees they'd get $5 and a bottle of wine if they participated in a 45-min. study a few days later. As expected, students with late-in-the-alphabet names were more likely to accept the offer, and they did so faster than the others.
In a final experiment, researchers asked 41 undergraduate students to imagine a scenario in which they needed a backpack, then saw a bookstore sign offering the item at 20% off "while supplies last." But, the students were told, they did not have their wallet, and it would take 15 minutes to fetch it and return to buy the backpack. THe late-in-the-alphabet students were more likely to say they found the discount appealing and that they'd run home to close the deal.
The results are provocative, but come on: Isn't it a stretch to posit that one's place in a grammar-school lunch line has any impact on adult behavior? Perhaps not, at least according to my own utterly unscientific surveys. I grabbed a TIME staff list and started scanning the Z's. I found one Paul Zelinski, 59, a production director for TIME and sports Illustrated for Kids. Zelinski says he spent many days in the back of the class as a student in Brooklyn Catholic schools. "In grammar school, I didn't mind, because there was this girl next to me who was cute", says Zelinski. " But in high school, it stunk. I couldn't see over the taller guys in front of me"
Upon hearing an explanation of the last-name effect, Zelinski said it made perfect sense. He's always looking to close a deal quickly. He recently bought a car on the Internet; instead of haggling forever, he got what he considered a fair price, made the purchase and moved on.
Zelinski still frets about being in the back. In early January, he attended college football's national championship game in Arizona, where he stood near a railing for two hours to guarantee a good view of the Auburn pep rally. He also says he gets to New York Giants game early, at 8 a.m., to tailgate, because he fears that the prime spots will run out. " Idon't know if that has to do with being Zelinski or being Polish", he says. " I might have to go into therapy next week to find out"
What do the lucky ones at the front of the line think? Do they, in fact, inquire about things more slowly than poor souls named Zelinski? I scanned the contact list in my cell phone. Since I don't have a direct line to Hank Aaron or former New York Mets relief pitcher Don Aase, my first entry is Henry Abbott, the excellent basketball writer who runs the True Hoop blog at ESP totally fit this theory" says abbott, 36. "My wife calls me the researcher. I don't get dazzled by the first deal. I just finished scanning 30 websites for a stupid muzzle for my dog"
Does he buy the last-name effect? "Maybe," he says. " I can understand that if my name began with a Z, I'd be sick of waiting. I do have a feeling that if I miss a deal, there are going to be other good deals." Three days later, Abbott e-mailed me a note: "Found myself thinking about this story several times since we talked. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense"
The last-name effect has very practical implications. Companies especially those pitching limited-time offers, should first mail out those promotions to consumers with surnames that fall deeper in the alphabet. Shoppers with these names should be more aware of their tendencies. Does it really make sense for me to buy this item? Or is alphabet angst at play?
As for teachers, the takeaway is clear. " There may be no great alternatives to alphabetical order", says Carlson. "but, flip it around every now and then. That's a reasonable way to balance things out."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2045050,00.html
According to a new study, people whose surnames start with letters late in the alphabet may be the fastest to buy. What could possibly explain this weird phenomenon, which the study authors dubbed "the last -name effect"? The research didn't provide a definitive reason, but the authors offer an intriguing theory. Since America's obsession with alphabetical order often forces the Z's to the back of the line in childhood, they suffer.They were always the last to get lunch in the cafeteria --sorry, Young , the other kids bought all the chocolate milk again-- and had to beg for the teacher's attention from the back of the classroom. So later in life, when the Z's -- and even onetime Z's who became A's through marriage see an item they really like for sale or are offered a deal, they jump on it, afraid that supplies won't last. The chocolate milk is finally in front of them. So they grab it.
"For years, simply because of your name, you've received inequitable treatment," says Kurt Carlson , an assistant professor at Georgetown's McDonough School of Business and a co-author of the papre, which is to be published in the Journal of Consumer research. " So when you get to exercise control, you seize on opportunity. It's a coping strategy, and over time it becomes a natural way to respond"
Carlson and Jacqueline Conard an assistant professor at the Massey Graduate school of business at belmont Univ uncoveered the last-name effect through four different experiments. In the first one, MBA students received offers via e-mail for four free tickets to a women's basketball game but were told the overall supply was limited. The average response time for people with names beginning with one of the last nine letters of the alphabet, T through Z was 19.38 minutes. Those with names starting with one of the first nine letters, A through I, replied in 25.08 minutes a statestically significant diferences.
For the second experiment, 280 adults with an average age of 39.1 responded to an e-mail invitation to fill out an online survey. In exchange, they were told, they had a 1 in 500 chance of winning $500 in a drawing. (In fact, since only 280 people responded, the odds were much better.) Again, people with surnames closer to the end of the alphabet responded faster to the offer. The results didn't idffer by gender, and the researchers also found that people whose current surnames were at the beggining of the alphabet but whose childhood surnames had been closer to the end also responded to the offer more quickly. In other words, Zimmermans who married Addisons and changed their names were still coping with their lousy place in past lines.
These two experiments have a relatively obvious shortcoming: people who responded more slowly to the e-mail offers could have just been checking their accounts less frequently. A third experiment addressed that issue by giving everyone a deal simultaneously. At the end of a college wine-evaluation class, the instructor told the attendees they'd get $5 and a bottle of wine if they participated in a 45-min. study a few days later. As expected, students with late-in-the-alphabet names were more likely to accept the offer, and they did so faster than the others.
In a final experiment, researchers asked 41 undergraduate students to imagine a scenario in which they needed a backpack, then saw a bookstore sign offering the item at 20% off "while supplies last." But, the students were told, they did not have their wallet, and it would take 15 minutes to fetch it and return to buy the backpack. THe late-in-the-alphabet students were more likely to say they found the discount appealing and that they'd run home to close the deal.
The results are provocative, but come on: Isn't it a stretch to posit that one's place in a grammar-school lunch line has any impact on adult behavior? Perhaps not, at least according to my own utterly unscientific surveys. I grabbed a TIME staff list and started scanning the Z's. I found one Paul Zelinski, 59, a production director for TIME and sports Illustrated for Kids. Zelinski says he spent many days in the back of the class as a student in Brooklyn Catholic schools. "In grammar school, I didn't mind, because there was this girl next to me who was cute", says Zelinski. " But in high school, it stunk. I couldn't see over the taller guys in front of me"
Upon hearing an explanation of the last-name effect, Zelinski said it made perfect sense. He's always looking to close a deal quickly. He recently bought a car on the Internet; instead of haggling forever, he got what he considered a fair price, made the purchase and moved on.
Zelinski still frets about being in the back. In early January, he attended college football's national championship game in Arizona, where he stood near a railing for two hours to guarantee a good view of the Auburn pep rally. He also says he gets to New York Giants game early, at 8 a.m., to tailgate, because he fears that the prime spots will run out. " Idon't know if that has to do with being Zelinski or being Polish", he says. " I might have to go into therapy next week to find out"
What do the lucky ones at the front of the line think? Do they, in fact, inquire about things more slowly than poor souls named Zelinski? I scanned the contact list in my cell phone. Since I don't have a direct line to Hank Aaron or former New York Mets relief pitcher Don Aase, my first entry is Henry Abbott, the excellent basketball writer who runs the True Hoop blog at ESP totally fit this theory" says abbott, 36. "My wife calls me the researcher. I don't get dazzled by the first deal. I just finished scanning 30 websites for a stupid muzzle for my dog"
Does he buy the last-name effect? "Maybe," he says. " I can understand that if my name began with a Z, I'd be sick of waiting. I do have a feeling that if I miss a deal, there are going to be other good deals." Three days later, Abbott e-mailed me a note: "Found myself thinking about this story several times since we talked. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense"
The last-name effect has very practical implications. Companies especially those pitching limited-time offers, should first mail out those promotions to consumers with surnames that fall deeper in the alphabet. Shoppers with these names should be more aware of their tendencies. Does it really make sense for me to buy this item? Or is alphabet angst at play?
As for teachers, the takeaway is clear. " There may be no great alternatives to alphabetical order", says Carlson. "but, flip it around every now and then. That's a reasonable way to balance things out."
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2045050,00.html
Google Dials up voice service in Egypt
Google is working some new connections.
The search giant has thrust itself into the ongoing upheaval in Egypt by working with Twitter to expand communications options for Egyptians, and in so doing, the Internet search shop took another big step into telcoterritory.
Through the acquisition of SayNow, Google and Twitter have created a service used by Egyptian protesters and supporters to post voice message online. With Internet services cut off there, the few remaining phone networks have been the only communications links available in many parts of Egypt.
Google says it acquiresd SayNow last week, a calling and voice meessaging service used largely as a publicity tool for celebrities and performers. In the following days since the purchase, Google says it has worked with the SayNow staff and with Twitter to allow Egyptians to leave voice mails that are posted as Tweets at Twitter's speak2 Tweet.
The workaround scheme to thwart the Mubarak government's Internet shut down not only puts Google in the international spotlight, but it highlights the Net giant's broader ambitions as it takes on a larger role as an alternate international phone company.
Web-calling services like google voice and Skype have taken a big chunk out of the conventinal calling business, and international telcos.
Last year, Google introduced Google Voice, whose virtual dial pad allows users to make free calls via their computers. The dialing feature was an addition to the Google Chat video calling services that rivals skype.
Last week , Google started offeering users the ability to move or port their phone numbers to Google voice from their telco accounts.
Google, it seems, wants to be the new phone company.
Google shares were up 2% to $611.10 in afternoon trading Tuesday.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/01/google-dials-up-voice-service-in-egypt.html
The search giant has thrust itself into the ongoing upheaval in Egypt by working with Twitter to expand communications options for Egyptians, and in so doing, the Internet search shop took another big step into telcoterritory.
Through the acquisition of SayNow, Google and Twitter have created a service used by Egyptian protesters and supporters to post voice message online. With Internet services cut off there, the few remaining phone networks have been the only communications links available in many parts of Egypt.
Google says it acquiresd SayNow last week, a calling and voice meessaging service used largely as a publicity tool for celebrities and performers. In the following days since the purchase, Google says it has worked with the SayNow staff and with Twitter to allow Egyptians to leave voice mails that are posted as Tweets at Twitter's speak2 Tweet.
The workaround scheme to thwart the Mubarak government's Internet shut down not only puts Google in the international spotlight, but it highlights the Net giant's broader ambitions as it takes on a larger role as an alternate international phone company.
Web-calling services like google voice and Skype have taken a big chunk out of the conventinal calling business, and international telcos.
Last year, Google introduced Google Voice, whose virtual dial pad allows users to make free calls via their computers. The dialing feature was an addition to the Google Chat video calling services that rivals skype.
Last week , Google started offeering users the ability to move or port their phone numbers to Google voice from their telco accounts.
Google, it seems, wants to be the new phone company.
Google shares were up 2% to $611.10 in afternoon trading Tuesday.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/01/google-dials-up-voice-service-in-egypt.html
2011年2月4日金曜日
Google wants to fight smartphones battle on Web
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30684_3-20030589-265.html?tag=topStories3 より
Google has been playing catch-up to Apple in the mobile world for several years, but it's starting to carve out its own nich by emphasizing its strength on the Web.
The Android Market Web Store was the most interesting thing to emerge from yesterday's event at Google headquarters, and it's one that Apple can't easly duplicate overnight. It's also in keeping with Google's philosophy of pushing Web development over native software development when possible, a strategy that isn't always practical on smartphones but is starting to make more sense as computing power grows in tablets.
Most importantly for Google, it gives Android uses a clearner, simpler, and more user-friendly option for buying apps than the much-maligned Android Market. It should also appeal to developers, who will have many more options at their fingertips for promoting their apps on the store and a better chance of being found within the see of application.
The advantages of the Android Market Web Store are simple: Android users can browse app selections just like any other Web site from any Web-connected device, rather than dealing with the small, cluttered and awkward Android Market interface on their phones. A purchased app is linked with a Google Account rather than a device. so it can be automatically pushed to any Android devices registered to that account at the time of purchase.
And Google has also come up with something that hits Apple where it hurts: Web services. For all its skill in designing mobile hardware and software, Apple hasn't been able to come up with all that many services that tie everything together over the Web.(Find my iphone is a notable exception, but that requires a $99 annual subscription to MobileMe.
Apple's iTunes is the hub for its mobile strategy, and even the most diehard Apple fan would admit the desktop application is getting abit long in the tooth. iTunes has given Apple an centralized distribution and payment-processing system that's arguably as responsible for the growth of iPS as anything, but it's resource-intensive any linked to a single computer: youcan manage and purchase apps on the iPhone or iPad, of course, but if you want to back them up, you have to physically connect the device to computer.
Google has long sought to eliminate that link with its Android strategy, pitching its Web-based services as a selling point for those concerned about app backup and contact management. However, if didn't really have a credible alternative to the ease-of-use that accompanies app shopping on a bigger screen, not to mention the rather poor experience in the native Android Market. Now it does.
Eric Chu, mobile platforms product manager for Google, said that the Web Store won't replace the native Android Market on phones and tablets as yet. He said Google will continue to make improvements to the native store because that's still probably the best experience on phones.
But Google's quest in this world is to one day replace software developed for specific machines withsoftware developed on and for the Web. Mobile devices lag behind their desktop counterparts when it comes to supporting this kind of strategy(and even desktops aren't all the way there) but as standards get sorted out and mobile browsers become more powerful, the conditions needed to allow that to happen will start to come together.
Google has been playing catch-up to Apple in the mobile world for several years, but it's starting to carve out its own nich by emphasizing its strength on the Web.
The Android Market Web Store was the most interesting thing to emerge from yesterday's event at Google headquarters, and it's one that Apple can't easly duplicate overnight. It's also in keeping with Google's philosophy of pushing Web development over native software development when possible, a strategy that isn't always practical on smartphones but is starting to make more sense as computing power grows in tablets.
Most importantly for Google, it gives Android uses a clearner, simpler, and more user-friendly option for buying apps than the much-maligned Android Market. It should also appeal to developers, who will have many more options at their fingertips for promoting their apps on the store and a better chance of being found within the see of application.
The advantages of the Android Market Web Store are simple: Android users can browse app selections just like any other Web site from any Web-connected device, rather than dealing with the small, cluttered and awkward Android Market interface on their phones. A purchased app is linked with a Google Account rather than a device. so it can be automatically pushed to any Android devices registered to that account at the time of purchase.
And Google has also come up with something that hits Apple where it hurts: Web services. For all its skill in designing mobile hardware and software, Apple hasn't been able to come up with all that many services that tie everything together over the Web.(Find my iphone is a notable exception, but that requires a $99 annual subscription to MobileMe.
Apple's iTunes is the hub for its mobile strategy, and even the most diehard Apple fan would admit the desktop application is getting abit long in the tooth. iTunes has given Apple an centralized distribution and payment-processing system that's arguably as responsible for the growth of iPS as anything, but it's resource-intensive any linked to a single computer: youcan manage and purchase apps on the iPhone or iPad, of course, but if you want to back them up, you have to physically connect the device to computer.
Google has long sought to eliminate that link with its Android strategy, pitching its Web-based services as a selling point for those concerned about app backup and contact management. However, if didn't really have a credible alternative to the ease-of-use that accompanies app shopping on a bigger screen, not to mention the rather poor experience in the native Android Market. Now it does.
Eric Chu, mobile platforms product manager for Google, said that the Web Store won't replace the native Android Market on phones and tablets as yet. He said Google will continue to make improvements to the native store because that's still probably the best experience on phones.
But Google's quest in this world is to one day replace software developed for specific machines withsoftware developed on and for the Web. Mobile devices lag behind their desktop counterparts when it comes to supporting this kind of strategy(and even desktops aren't all the way there) but as standards get sorted out and mobile browsers become more powerful, the conditions needed to allow that to happen will start to come together.
Report: 90% of Americans own a computerized gadget
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/02/03/texting.photos.gahran/index.html より
If it seems like nearly everyone you see these days, from kids to seniors, has some kind of tech gadget handy, it's not just your imagination.
According to a new report from the Pew Internet and American Life project, nearly 90% of Americans now own a cell phone, computer, MP3 player, game console, e-book reader or tablet computer.
In generations and their gadgets, Pew explores how age groups in the U.S. tend to use their tech devices. It defines six generations ranging from age 18 to 75-plus.
A few highlights about how Americans of different ages use mobile devices:
Cell phones
Eighty-five percent of Americans currently own cell phones, making it the single most popular type of tech gadget. Slightly more Americans use their cell phones to take pictures(76%) than to send ore receive text message(72%) -- but across all age groups, those two non-voice call activities are the most popular.
Among the 15% of Americans who do not own a cell phone, one-third live in a household with at least one working cell phone. So, overall, "90% of all adults (including 62% of those age 75 and older) live in a household with at least one working cell phone", the survey finds.
Also, Pew notes that as of June, about a quarter of all U.S. households had gone mobile-only, ditching their traditional "landline" phone connections.
This includes more than half of all adults ages 25 to 29 and it indicates how crucial it is to update the U.S. 911 emergency calling system to be more friendly to cell phones, as well as to accomodate more types of communication than voice calls.
Even though more people are getting smartphones (30 percent of U.S. cell phone owners, by most estimates), only Americans ages 18 to34 are especially likely to use their phones for several purposes: internet access, e-mail, games, getting or playing music, sending or receiving photos, recording video, etc.
The only widely popular activities across all age groups are taking pictures and text messaging, which may explain why 70% of Americans still rely on non-smart "feature phones", which have fewer bells and whistles.
MP3 players
As, tech gadgets go, MP3 players are relatively limited devices. So it's a bit surprising that the youngest and most tech-savvy age group Pew studies is by far the most likely to own an MP3 player.
Three-quarters of American ages 18 to 34 own an MP3 player, but only 56% of the next oldest group(35 to 46) do.
Tablets
As of September,5% of U.S. adults owned tablet computers such as the iPad or Galaxy Tab, up from 3% in May. (Apple's popular iPad hit U.S. stores in April.)
With the launch of several Android-based iPad competitors. expect this kind of device to become much more popular in the next year. it'll be interesting to see whether tablet ownership starts to displace some ownership of laptop computers.
E-readers
Currently, 5% of Americans own e-reader devices such as the Kindle or Nook, but this vastly underestimate the total number of people who read e-books.
Many people read e-books ontheir smartphones, tablets, and desktop or laptop computers. E-reader devices are most popular among Americans ager 47 to 56.
I suspect that in the next year, tablets will shake up all kinds of patterns of mobile device ownership and use in the U.S.
If tablet prices start to drop and more options for size and connectivity emerge(especially likely for aAndroid models), it's possible that that many people who rely primarily on feature phones might choose to invest in a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet( a one-time expense) rather than upgrading to a full smartphone(with higher monthly bills and often unexpected charges).
The opinions expressed in this story are solely those of Amy Gahran.
If it seems like nearly everyone you see these days, from kids to seniors, has some kind of tech gadget handy, it's not just your imagination.
According to a new report from the Pew Internet and American Life project, nearly 90% of Americans now own a cell phone, computer, MP3 player, game console, e-book reader or tablet computer.
In generations and their gadgets, Pew explores how age groups in the U.S. tend to use their tech devices. It defines six generations ranging from age 18 to 75-plus.
A few highlights about how Americans of different ages use mobile devices:
Cell phones
Eighty-five percent of Americans currently own cell phones, making it the single most popular type of tech gadget. Slightly more Americans use their cell phones to take pictures(76%) than to send ore receive text message(72%) -- but across all age groups, those two non-voice call activities are the most popular.
Among the 15% of Americans who do not own a cell phone, one-third live in a household with at least one working cell phone. So, overall, "90% of all adults (including 62% of those age 75 and older) live in a household with at least one working cell phone", the survey finds.
Also, Pew notes that as of June, about a quarter of all U.S. households had gone mobile-only, ditching their traditional "landline" phone connections.
This includes more than half of all adults ages 25 to 29 and it indicates how crucial it is to update the U.S. 911 emergency calling system to be more friendly to cell phones, as well as to accomodate more types of communication than voice calls.
Even though more people are getting smartphones (30 percent of U.S. cell phone owners, by most estimates), only Americans ages 18 to34 are especially likely to use their phones for several purposes: internet access, e-mail, games, getting or playing music, sending or receiving photos, recording video, etc.
The only widely popular activities across all age groups are taking pictures and text messaging, which may explain why 70% of Americans still rely on non-smart "feature phones", which have fewer bells and whistles.
MP3 players
As, tech gadgets go, MP3 players are relatively limited devices. So it's a bit surprising that the youngest and most tech-savvy age group Pew studies is by far the most likely to own an MP3 player.
Three-quarters of American ages 18 to 34 own an MP3 player, but only 56% of the next oldest group(35 to 46) do.
Tablets
As of September,5% of U.S. adults owned tablet computers such as the iPad or Galaxy Tab, up from 3% in May. (Apple's popular iPad hit U.S. stores in April.)
With the launch of several Android-based iPad competitors. expect this kind of device to become much more popular in the next year. it'll be interesting to see whether tablet ownership starts to displace some ownership of laptop computers.
E-readers
Currently, 5% of Americans own e-reader devices such as the Kindle or Nook, but this vastly underestimate the total number of people who read e-books.
Many people read e-books ontheir smartphones, tablets, and desktop or laptop computers. E-reader devices are most popular among Americans ager 47 to 56.
I suspect that in the next year, tablets will shake up all kinds of patterns of mobile device ownership and use in the U.S.
If tablet prices start to drop and more options for size and connectivity emerge(especially likely for aAndroid models), it's possible that that many people who rely primarily on feature phones might choose to invest in a Wi-Fi-enabled tablet( a one-time expense) rather than upgrading to a full smartphone(with higher monthly bills and often unexpected charges).
The opinions expressed in this story are solely those of Amy Gahran.
登録:
投稿 (Atom)