After I wondered yesterday if Google Plus can be the new Face of Social Networking, I was able to get an invite today and spent the whole afternoon and evening on it, and I must admit I love it immensely. So much so that I wanted to invite all my Facebook friends to it right away, but soon discovered the tedious invitations have already closed due to overwhelming response.
Here is a feature-by-feature review on Google Plus. I did not want to, but comparisons with Facebook are inadvertent and unavoidable.
Circles: Easy to drag-drop friends into circles. Contacts can be added to more than one circle, the biggest relief I had after the demo did not show so.
Sharing: When you share something, you can choose one or more circles, or make it public, or share it only with one or more people—the best part—belonging or not belonging to your circles, through their email ids.
Facebook had the omnipresent 'Like' on all shares and pages, Google has the counterpart '+1' to the same effect. The advantage +1 has is that all your +1's can be viewed at a single place on your Google Profile.
Stream: Very much like Facebook/Twitter/Yammer/Orkut. The outstanding feature being, you see even private messages on the stream, and need not look for and go to another page on the site. Clicking on one of your circles listed on the left help you see the stream only from friends on that stream. There is even a link that lets you see notifications from people not belonging to any circle! Very useful.
Posts: Commenting/sharing works like FB, but both comments and shares can be edited later. You also have the added privilege of disabling comments or resharing.
Photos: Shows all recent photos from your circles on one page, arranged in non-identical thumbnails(proportionate to image sizes, I think) the way Google image search does. Nice! Includes all your Picasa albums in your photos, and you can share them with specific circles or people. You create a new photo/album, it gets added to your Picasa account. How cool is that!
The photo viewer looks like it is picked up from Orkut. The newer version many people haven't seen since it was post Facebook. Comments appear on a collapsible channel on the right and can accommodate many more comments than a FB photo can.
Sparks: Looks sleek with the photographs of the featured interests, but I did not find it much useful, people who do not read much might like this. I anyway have too much to follow on Reader and networking sites that I don't feel the need of Sparks at all.
Chat: The GTalk chat is integrated into Plus, very much like GMail, with the additional feature that you can chat at once with an entire circle, or choose individuals from multiple circles. Did not try it out yet, do not need it anyway.
Hangouts: The link to start a hangout occurs on the right side, Requires an additional plugin that downloaded in less than a minute. Did not try it again, for the same reason as the chat above. A cool feature nevertheless.
Mobile: A small section in the bottom right displays a link saying Get Google+ for your mobile device that lets you send an sms to your mobile phone containing the url to the mobile version. You click the link on the sms and it takes you to a page that has another link taking you to the Android market that lets you download the mobile app. How lame! It could have simply asked you to search and install the Google+ app from the market.
Also, while entering your mobile number, you need to select your country, which shows Indonesia, Ireland, Isreal, India, and Italia in that random order.
However, having gone through all this, the android app is great to use. The Circles are not circles there, but the app is smooth and clean.
Instant Upload: A very nice feature of the mobile part. I clicked a photo, and within the next minute I received a notification on Google+ telling me that a new photo has been added from Instant Upload. I can then share the photo like I share anything else. Sweet.
UX: Awesome. I hear Andy Hertzfield, the original Mac guy, is the design lead on Google Plus. Hover over a photo album, it opens up like you flick a pack of cards, showing three photos.
You drag a contact into a circle, it makes a full anticlockwise circle inside the circle and sits at the rightmost available space. A green +1 pops up. Drag a friend out of a circle and you see a red +1. Delete a circle, it fades and rolls off the screen, and other circles roll on to take its place. Cute!
Hidden Gem: The familiar Gmail shortcuts of j and k to navigate to the previous and next conversations respectively exist in Google Plus as well!
The bottomline: Google Plus has a long way to go. Both the interface and the idea is easy and meant for the masses, not like Google Wave that interested mainly the techies. It may take some time before Plus evangelists are able to lure all (or most) FB users to Plus, till then, I have another place to share. Phew!!
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Download Google Chrome?
Even if you google Google Chrome from the Chrome omnibar the first link takes you to the Chrome homepage that asks you to download Google Chrome.
I am surprised why.
You can drag and drop an attachment into Gmail only in Chrome. You can search or translate using voice only on Chrome. Google is also partial towards Chrome when it lets you upload folders to Google Docs. Only Chrome lets you view and print PDF attachments and files in browser.
These and many more such features may have been built with Chrome in mind and may not work in other browsers. Hiding them from non-Chrome is a child's task: it is a one-line check every javascript novice knows, and Google does that.
Why then, in the Lord's name, could they not do a browser check for the Chrome homepage?
I am surprised why.
You can drag and drop an attachment into Gmail only in Chrome. You can search or translate using voice only on Chrome. Google is also partial towards Chrome when it lets you upload folders to Google Docs. Only Chrome lets you view and print PDF attachments and files in browser.
These and many more such features may have been built with Chrome in mind and may not work in other browsers. Hiding them from non-Chrome is a child's task: it is a one-line check every javascript novice knows, and Google does that.
Why then, in the Lord's name, could they not do a browser check for the Chrome homepage?
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Can Google Plus be the new Face of Social Networking?
Google was coming up with a new social network called Circles, ReadWriteWeb had reported on 13th March 2011, and Google had denied it.
Yesterday Google announced the launch of Google Plus, a product they claim aims to fix the broken online sharing that exists today. Google Circles is a small part of it.
The only part that competes with Facebook.
And the best part.
Circles lets you segregate your friends into circles, thereby helping you create distinct sub-networks and share selective stuff with selective people. This is a feature I direly miss on Facebook when I want to share, for example, a raunchy video with my classmates but cannot because I have my uncles and aunts and parents on my network as well. Or talk about job openings but cannot because I don't want my employer and colleagues to see that.
Maintaining circles might be a tedious job for some if you have 'friends' overlapping more than one circle. I hope Google has taken care of it while designing their Circles so that we have a Venn-diagram-like arrangement:
And you do not need to look for and invite people. Circles will scan your contacts and prompt you to befriend people and designate them in circles. Facebook has apps doing so for you, Plus has that in-built.
Other than Circles, Google + comes with a host of other apps, Sparks, Hangouts, Instant Upload and Huddle. Sparks is a similar to a feed aggregator, and based on what Google knows about you from your email, feed reader, browsing patterns, and now Circles, makes recommendations on articles you might like. Google Reader already does a part of it.
Hangouts is like one of those chat rooms Yahoo used to have 10 years ago. Google has added video chat and restricted rooms to your friends. Though I did not read about it, but I hope you should be able to hangout only in a particular Circle.
Instant Upload is a useful tool for your phone—it syncs up your phone's album with the cloud and then you can choose whom to share with and what. I strongly believe there are a dozen Android apps in the market already doing that.
Huddle is a group chat thing, which is as old as chatting. Combining it with a circle means you do not have to invite people to group chat. Not much of a value addition. You'd rather post it on your wall for that circle and people can reply.
Another project Google isn't advertising with Plus is Google Takeout, which lets you archive and download all your data from Circles, Profiles, Contacts, and Picasa in one big scoop. Against Google principles of having data offline, but Takeout might impress some old-schoolers.
Converting Facebook devotees to Google Plus might be a mammoth task. The rapid growth of Facebook to 500 million users worldwide from a few Harvard students in 7 years cannot be undone by another social networking product from Google whose Orkut was crestfallen not so long ago.
There are FB users for whom the internet is equivalent to Facebook. There are people who never used a computer or internet in their lives (e.g. people from the older generation) but Facebook was a compelling reason for them to do so. The Facebook 'Like' button on sites and the Facebook login being used as an open id have ensured FB has reached far and inside. Google has the +1 button and open id, but not many people use the Google open id and not many would have heard of +1.
Not to talk of the millions of apps and games written for Facebook. Google Plus does not have a place for that. At least not yet.
I can draw a clear analogy between this and what Microsoft is trying to do with Office 365. Google wants to break the loyalties of Facebook users showing them all the data they have about them from their emails and searches. Microsoft did the same thing the same day when they launched Office 365 and demonstrated cloud compatibilities with their MS Office products. I had argued yesterday that MS will not be able to convert all the Google Docs loyalists to Office 365; the same reasoning holds true for FB to Google Plus conversions as well.
Let us just hope Google+ is something out-of-the-world, or it fails miserably, the way Google Wave did. It is already difficult sharing the same stuff on Facebook, Buzz, Twitter, and Yammer. If some people move and some do not, I do not want another place to communicate with my friend circles.
For now, I want to try Google Plus out. Anyone out there who has invites want to use one on me?
Yesterday Google announced the launch of Google Plus, a product they claim aims to fix the broken online sharing that exists today. Google Circles is a small part of it.
The only part that competes with Facebook.
And the best part.
Circles lets you segregate your friends into circles, thereby helping you create distinct sub-networks and share selective stuff with selective people. This is a feature I direly miss on Facebook when I want to share, for example, a raunchy video with my classmates but cannot because I have my uncles and aunts and parents on my network as well. Or talk about job openings but cannot because I don't want my employer and colleagues to see that.
Maintaining circles might be a tedious job for some if you have 'friends' overlapping more than one circle. I hope Google has taken care of it while designing their Circles so that we have a Venn-diagram-like arrangement:
And you do not need to look for and invite people. Circles will scan your contacts and prompt you to befriend people and designate them in circles. Facebook has apps doing so for you, Plus has that in-built.
Other than Circles, Google + comes with a host of other apps, Sparks, Hangouts, Instant Upload and Huddle. Sparks is a similar to a feed aggregator, and based on what Google knows about you from your email, feed reader, browsing patterns, and now Circles, makes recommendations on articles you might like. Google Reader already does a part of it.
Hangouts is like one of those chat rooms Yahoo used to have 10 years ago. Google has added video chat and restricted rooms to your friends. Though I did not read about it, but I hope you should be able to hangout only in a particular Circle.
Instant Upload is a useful tool for your phone—it syncs up your phone's album with the cloud and then you can choose whom to share with and what. I strongly believe there are a dozen Android apps in the market already doing that.
Huddle is a group chat thing, which is as old as chatting. Combining it with a circle means you do not have to invite people to group chat. Not much of a value addition. You'd rather post it on your wall for that circle and people can reply.
Another project Google isn't advertising with Plus is Google Takeout, which lets you archive and download all your data from Circles, Profiles, Contacts, and Picasa in one big scoop. Against Google principles of having data offline, but Takeout might impress some old-schoolers.
Converting Facebook devotees to Google Plus might be a mammoth task. The rapid growth of Facebook to 500 million users worldwide from a few Harvard students in 7 years cannot be undone by another social networking product from Google whose Orkut was crestfallen not so long ago.
There are FB users for whom the internet is equivalent to Facebook. There are people who never used a computer or internet in their lives (e.g. people from the older generation) but Facebook was a compelling reason for them to do so. The Facebook 'Like' button on sites and the Facebook login being used as an open id have ensured FB has reached far and inside. Google has the +1 button and open id, but not many people use the Google open id and not many would have heard of +1.
Not to talk of the millions of apps and games written for Facebook. Google Plus does not have a place for that. At least not yet.
I can draw a clear analogy between this and what Microsoft is trying to do with Office 365. Google wants to break the loyalties of Facebook users showing them all the data they have about them from their emails and searches. Microsoft did the same thing the same day when they launched Office 365 and demonstrated cloud compatibilities with their MS Office products. I had argued yesterday that MS will not be able to convert all the Google Docs loyalists to Office 365; the same reasoning holds true for FB to Google Plus conversions as well.
Let us just hope Google+ is something out-of-the-world, or it fails miserably, the way Google Wave did. It is already difficult sharing the same stuff on Facebook, Buzz, Twitter, and Yammer. If some people move and some do not, I do not want another place to communicate with my friend circles.
For now, I want to try Google Plus out. Anyone out there who has invites want to use one on me?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Office 365: is it worth the hype?
Steve Ballmer is blabbering about Office 365 as I write this; the live event (Press conference) can be streamed here. During the past half an hour, I heard him repeating "Office 365 is where Office meets the Cloud" at least four different times. Come on dude, have you ever typed https://docs.google.com on your browser?
Is this a kind of product that will change the way businesses work? Had this come five years ago, I'd have said yes. And it offers nothing new that Google Docs/Apps does not. Storage on the cloud so that it can be accessed anywhere, online collaboration, conversations and discussions, we've been-there-done-that.
The Office 365 website has a page called 'Why Microsoft?' that boasts: We deliver the best productivity experience across the PC, phone, and browser for the way you work today—and the way you will work in the future. Today? And future? Sure, if you can fit in "the last five years" under today or future.
The emphasis was on small and medium businesses. MS prices Office 365 at $6 per month per user. Google Apps is available at $5 per month per user, and at $50 per annum, and if you want only the Office part, it is free! Why would a small/medium business already running on Google Apps/using Google docs like to switch?
The one area where Microsoft Office 365 can score over Google Apps is for organizations that use the offline versions of Office and they use it as a productivity tool for faster collaboration, but they would be large enterprises. The four plans for large enterprises are costlier, available for $10 to $27 /user/month.
Another advantage people might see is that you can use your offline copy of Microsoft Office to connect to Office 365, and hence you don't need a browser. Google has a different idea altogether—they believe you do not need anything other than a browser.
Mr Ballmer tells us Office 365 can be accessed from a mobile device running Windows Mobile OS as well. And Google Docs can be accessed from a device running Android. Or Windows Mobile. Or iOS. Or any Operating System on any device that can run a browser.
The debate will continue. It is basically between open-source and proprietary, and the philosophical differences between the way Google and Microsoft, and Apple for that matter, treat the cloud. Google wants to put everything on the cloud and provide direct access from there, and MS/Apple want to maintain a local copy of the cloud data onto end-user devices.
Google Docs have come a long way ahead. I need not advocate the benefits here, but the evolution it has been through puts it at quite a headstart. And the support and development from the open source community will keep it way ahead.
Is this a kind of product that will change the way businesses work? Had this come five years ago, I'd have said yes. And it offers nothing new that Google Docs/Apps does not. Storage on the cloud so that it can be accessed anywhere, online collaboration, conversations and discussions, we've been-there-done-that.
The Office 365 website has a page called 'Why Microsoft?' that boasts: We deliver the best productivity experience across the PC, phone, and browser for the way you work today—and the way you will work in the future. Today? And future? Sure, if you can fit in "the last five years" under today or future.
The emphasis was on small and medium businesses. MS prices Office 365 at $6 per month per user. Google Apps is available at $5 per month per user, and at $50 per annum, and if you want only the Office part, it is free! Why would a small/medium business already running on Google Apps/using Google docs like to switch?
The one area where Microsoft Office 365 can score over Google Apps is for organizations that use the offline versions of Office and they use it as a productivity tool for faster collaboration, but they would be large enterprises. The four plans for large enterprises are costlier, available for $10 to $27 /user/month.
Another advantage people might see is that you can use your offline copy of Microsoft Office to connect to Office 365, and hence you don't need a browser. Google has a different idea altogether—they believe you do not need anything other than a browser.
Mr Ballmer tells us Office 365 can be accessed from a mobile device running Windows Mobile OS as well. And Google Docs can be accessed from a device running Android. Or Windows Mobile. Or iOS. Or any Operating System on any device that can run a browser.
The debate will continue. It is basically between open-source and proprietary, and the philosophical differences between the way Google and Microsoft, and Apple for that matter, treat the cloud. Google wants to put everything on the cloud and provide direct access from there, and MS/Apple want to maintain a local copy of the cloud data onto end-user devices.
Google Docs have come a long way ahead. I need not advocate the benefits here, but the evolution it has been through puts it at quite a headstart. And the support and development from the open source community will keep it way ahead.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Method size limit in Java
Java cannot have a infinitely long method. The JVM limits the length of any method to 65535 bytes.
I would have not found it myself, I seldom write methods that are longer than 10-20 lines, I read it here.
A valid case can be while using long jsps. Okay, I do not write long jsps either, but if you have many (statically) included jsps, and you have several javascript files included in the jsps, you might encounter a compiler error.
65535 bytes is quite huge. I wrote a simple method printing out numbers to test the maximum length that it goes to, and discovered that it will take you 6546 such statements to exceed the size limit. Not possible in my world. This method would be completely unfathomable in both the meanings of the word.
I would have not found it myself, I seldom write methods that are longer than 10-20 lines, I read it here.
A valid case can be while using long jsps. Okay, I do not write long jsps either, but if you have many (statically) included jsps, and you have several javascript files included in the jsps, you might encounter a compiler error.
65535 bytes is quite huge. I wrote a simple method printing out numbers to test the maximum length that it goes to, and discovered that it will take you 6546 such statements to exceed the size limit. Not possible in my world. This method would be completely unfathomable in both the meanings of the word.
public void unfathomableMethod(){
int i = 0;
System.out.println(i++);
System.out.println(i++);
System.out.println(i++);
System.out.println(i++); System.out.println(i++); System.out.println(i++); }Nevertheless, there is a bug logged on the SDN: 4262078, on 12th Aug, 1999. That's right, sir! Almost 11 years ago. And I know why there has been no action towards this: if you need this, either you do not know the concept called loops, or you are doing some other really bad programming. Pathetic. On the verge of disgusting!
Monday, June 20, 2011
Pasting screenshots into GMail
The official GMail Blog reported last week that Pasting images into messages just got easier, with a caveat though—it is presently available only on Google's own Chrome. The very short blog post emphasized on the most important use of this feature—the ability to paste screenshots into the mail body without having to save them locally.
I don't mind the condition, I anyway (love and) use Chome. But I was highly disappointed with their paste-screenshot-without-saving gimmick. I took a screenshot using Command-Control-Shift-4 on a Mac, or a more comfortable PrntScrn on Windows and clicked Ctrl-V inside the compose box. A cute little spinner made me wait for 17 seconds (Yes, I timed it!), and then I saw my screenshot. The poor thing looked like it was sentenced stoning till death, and at the last moment, when almost all blood was drained off, a compassionate soul showed mercy and stopped the sentence. Then someone took a picture of the skeletal remains with the camera set in high exposure compensation, and pasted it into the Gmail compose window. Here's how it looked:
Click this image to view a full size version and look at how derived my taskbar looks.
I download the image by right-clicking from inside the email and saving-as png. I open it up in the Windows Picture Viewer. I see the same whatever-was-left. I use Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome—the same perished remains. I view the email in an Outlook account, still pale and bloodless.
I use MS Paint to open the image. It looks fine. ACD See, works again. GIMP, yes. Picasa, oops! At least some consistency in Google products. None of GMail, Chrome, and Picasa could display the image properly.
This is the actual image (well, ok, this is a scaled-down version, click it to view the actual one):
So the screenshot is captured alright. The PNG contains the complete information about the image, but the a certain type of renderer cannot display it correctly. This was a straight forward scenario Google perhaps forgot to test before advertising the feature all over the internet.
And I was inconsequentially excited. I will have to go back to the old method of saving the screenshot before emailing it.
I don't mind the condition, I anyway (love and) use Chome. But I was highly disappointed with their paste-screenshot-without-saving gimmick. I took a screenshot using Command-Control-Shift-4 on a Mac, or a more comfortable PrntScrn on Windows and clicked Ctrl-V inside the compose box. A cute little spinner made me wait for 17 seconds (Yes, I timed it!), and then I saw my screenshot. The poor thing looked like it was sentenced stoning till death, and at the last moment, when almost all blood was drained off, a compassionate soul showed mercy and stopped the sentence. Then someone took a picture of the skeletal remains with the camera set in high exposure compensation, and pasted it into the Gmail compose window. Here's how it looked:
Click this image to view a full size version and look at how derived my taskbar looks.
I download the image by right-clicking from inside the email and saving-as png. I open it up in the Windows Picture Viewer. I see the same whatever-was-left. I use Internet Explorer, Firefox, and Chrome—the same perished remains. I view the email in an Outlook account, still pale and bloodless.
I use MS Paint to open the image. It looks fine. ACD See, works again. GIMP, yes. Picasa, oops! At least some consistency in Google products. None of GMail, Chrome, and Picasa could display the image properly.
This is the actual image (well, ok, this is a scaled-down version, click it to view the actual one):
So the screenshot is captured alright. The PNG contains the complete information about the image, but the a certain type of renderer cannot display it correctly. This was a straight forward scenario Google perhaps forgot to test before advertising the feature all over the internet.
And I was inconsequentially excited. I will have to go back to the old method of saving the screenshot before emailing it.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Sound Cloud
If you thought Google Music was cool, take a look at Sound Cloud. While Google Music, very much like all the other apps by the search engine giant, does not create/store data, but crawls the web and filters relevant data, Sound Music lets you create and share your own sounds!
SoundCloud works in the same way as Flickr; the way you click, upload and share photos in Flickr, SoundCloud lets you record, upload and share your music. And yes, very much like Flickr, you will have to buy one of the annual subscription plans available from €29 to €500 if your total tracks go longer than 120 minutes. Very much like Flickr, when you upload your music, it gives a unique url to your upload, and hence you can embed it on any website you wish to.
A short trip to the homepage, and I was impressed with the design and especially the 'Timed Comments' in the form of a waveform sitting at the centre, which I later learnt in the tour, can be generated for comments on your shared sounds as well. The footer features a list of features that SoundCloud provides, including a visualization for your sound, direct links to share it on FB, Twitter, Blogger, Wordpress and other popular websites, and connect with over 100 apps.
This Berlin-based startup had the initial intention of allowing musicians to share recordings with each other, but later transformed into a full publishing tool that allowed musicians to distribute their tracks. Over around four years, it has evolved into a general-purpose music sharing tool. I was surprised to find recent Bollywood albums like Delhi Belly and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara. (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara had its music launch just yesterday, but the album was available on Sound Cloud 10 days ago. All these albums are also available for download. I am sure they keep encountering copyright issues from time to time.
Anyway, I find this a useful site, I only wonder why is it not that popular--not popular in Indian/American circles at least, since I had never heard/read of it till last week, but the kind of music shared on this cloud tells otherwise. Google tells me they have over 3 million subscribers! I don't see any publicity for it anywhere, probably because of the European base.
While I am sceptical about the copyright infringement part of it, recalling the fate of Napster, I believe SoundCloud has a huge scope as a platform for musicians, keeping to the original intent. And I wonder why do we still not have any such startup in India/US?
SoundCloud works in the same way as Flickr; the way you click, upload and share photos in Flickr, SoundCloud lets you record, upload and share your music. And yes, very much like Flickr, you will have to buy one of the annual subscription plans available from €29 to €500 if your total tracks go longer than 120 minutes. Very much like Flickr, when you upload your music, it gives a unique url to your upload, and hence you can embed it on any website you wish to.
A short trip to the homepage, and I was impressed with the design and especially the 'Timed Comments' in the form of a waveform sitting at the centre, which I later learnt in the tour, can be generated for comments on your shared sounds as well. The footer features a list of features that SoundCloud provides, including a visualization for your sound, direct links to share it on FB, Twitter, Blogger, Wordpress and other popular websites, and connect with over 100 apps.
This Berlin-based startup had the initial intention of allowing musicians to share recordings with each other, but later transformed into a full publishing tool that allowed musicians to distribute their tracks. Over around four years, it has evolved into a general-purpose music sharing tool. I was surprised to find recent Bollywood albums like Delhi Belly and Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara. (Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara had its music launch just yesterday, but the album was available on Sound Cloud 10 days ago. All these albums are also available for download. I am sure they keep encountering copyright issues from time to time.
Anyway, I find this a useful site, I only wonder why is it not that popular--not popular in Indian/American circles at least, since I had never heard/read of it till last week, but the kind of music shared on this cloud tells otherwise. Google tells me they have over 3 million subscribers! I don't see any publicity for it anywhere, probably because of the European base.
While I am sceptical about the copyright infringement part of it, recalling the fate of Napster, I believe SoundCloud has a huge scope as a platform for musicians, keeping to the original intent. And I wonder why do we still not have any such startup in India/US?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)