In my recent post regarding Google Voice and life integration, one of the main points that I may have failed to mention explicitly is the purpose of all this stuff: to live better, to be able to connect with the people who matter to you seamlessly, without stuff getting in the way.
As I say again and again, technology is designed to help us be better people, live better, feel more human. When people become frustrated with technology, it’s because what they’re dealing with isn’t good technology, it has failed. Thankfully, we’re getting to the point that we’re finally able to create good technology. Then, I ran across this article regarding the integration of T-Mobile’s Bobsled service into Facebook. Awesome stuff.
In case you missed it, the Facebook component is simply a basic VoIP service that lets you make free voice calls to any of your Facebook friends, and it now boasts a redesigned interface that promises to “more clearly differentiate it from a Facebook owned service.”
GigaOM has a great explanation of the whole thing.
Here’s how the new product works: After downloading and installing Bobsled for Facebook on a Windows or Mac PC, the software adds a phone icon next each friend in your Facebook Chat window. Tap the phone icon, and a free voice call is initiated, even if the call recipient hasn’t installed the Bobsled application yet.
Aside from one-touch calling, the service also supports voice mails in case the personal you’re calling isn’t available or doesn’t pick up. I ran a quick, early test with Mike Wolf, one of my GigaOM colleagues, and the sound quality wasn’t bad. More importantly, I didn’t have to worry about what phone number to dial.
This is it, folks, this is where we start to see the death of the phone number. If you read the above article, you see how powerful this technology really is. Now that Skype (and, concurrently, Microsoft) and T-Mobile are throwing their weight behind VoIP for everyone, we’re going to see a radical shift in the way people communicate. Voice may once again rise in popularity (I’ll only bite if people understand that a five minute conversation is an eternity to me).
We’re changing rapidly, and this is a beautiful thing, but the venerable Phone Number is staring death in the face now. It’s been a long time coming, but I believe the next ten years (even five, possibly) will see the functional demise of the phone number as the most widely identifiable and understood method of communication. As these technologies evolve and improve, we’re going to see even more features begin to emerge that will enable us to lead better lives and communicate even more efficiently. I, for one, am still looking forward to the collective human consciousness that we’ll all be tapped into one day. For those of you who have heard my theory, it doesn’t sound so far-fetched anymore, does it?
For a while now, I’ve been using an app called Audiogalaxy to get back to my music library at home and essentially have access to my library with over 100 gigs of music to supplement whatever tracks I have synced to my iPhone/iPad. It’s fantastic, mostly because I know two things:
- I have music on my iPhone that I can listen to anywhere, regardless of whether I have a data connection or not.
- I can, with a data connection, get access to my huge music library.
The recently-uncovered Apple patent application is simultaneously awesome and horrific for a few reasons, all of which have to do with #2.
One of the most explosive and formative things to happen to America recently is the widespread adoption of mobile data and internet usage. As I’ve discussed before, the mobile telecom providers have used this to push their agendas and create an awful dystopian future that the American wireless subscriber is going to end up paying dearly for. It’s going to be ugly, folks. Get ready for a future based on as-yet-unwritten disgusting rates based on AT&T’s greed.
If you think this reaction is a bit overblown, let’s dissect the groundwork that needs to be in place for a person to listen to music with Apple’s new system. A person would need:
- A computer running iTunes (for syncing purposes). This is pretty much standard, and shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.
- An iOS device with a data connection. Not everyone wants to or can run a persistent data connection. iPod touch devices are reliant on wifi, and people with the lower-tier AT&T or Verizon data plan (250 MB for $15.00/month, in AT&T’s case) may not be comfortable with a service that sucks up data every time they wan to listen to a song.
- Possibly: the above computer with a persistent connection to the internet. This is a variable, and the future is hazy here. Depending on how the whole “Music Locker” thing will work, or how MacOS Lion home server is structured, this may or may not be necessary. We’ll see.
Let’s assume that a person has an iPhone, is using AT&T, and is using the $15.00/month data plan for 250 MB of data per month. We don’t know how much of each song will be synced to the iOS device, but let’s assume it’s about 30% of each song to allow ample buffering time. We can then “fit” three times the number of songs on the iOS device due to the reduced footprint of each song on the device’s memory. The remaining amount of each song would then be pulled from a cloud. I say “a” cloud because it’s unclear if that cloud will be the individual’s computer or this “Music Locker” service. Let’s assume it will be from this person’s computer, so as not to incur any additional fees (yet). The computer will have to be on in order to access the library data, which means an extra power demand and a load on the person’s internet usage (we’re also assuming that internet usage is capped, which, despite some companies claiming their data is “unlimited,” is most likely the case). Most likely, the data usage through a home internet connection is insignificant (especially relative to a theoretical cap of 50-250 GB). The proposed data usage relative to mobile internet connection with a 250 MB cap is significant, however, and listening to a day’s worth of music can potentially eat up all of a person’s monthly data before they have to pony up another $25.00 for the higher 2 GB plan.
Did you catch that? Let’s look at it again.
The folks who want to use this feature will be streaming data every single time they listen to music. The amount of data that will be used is unclear, but I predict that listening to music for a prolonged period of time (even a few hours a day) will cut deeply into or completely use up a person’s data for the month (again, assuming usage of a cheaper $15.00/month, 250 MB plan). Even on a 2 GB plan, monthly data usage can quickly skyrocket, shooting people dangerously close to the ceiling or their plan. I use about 1.5 GB/month right now with occasional usage of my Audiogalaxy service to get at my home library. If I were to switch over to a model that used data every single time I played a song, I’d find myself breaking that 2 GB barrier on a monthly basis, which would cost me more money.
AT&T and Verizon made a long-term move here, and we’re staring it in the face right now. Back when AT&T first introduced tiered data pricing, I could see the act as predatory. More and more services are being pushed online, to the cloud, and so forth. What AT&T did was squeeze the pipes before the water started flowing. Netflix is growing in popularity and capability, and their long-term dominance in the mobile media marketplace (I love alliteration!), while not guaranteed, is just shy of that. How are we going to watch movies on our mobile devices if we’re being pinched to do so? How will companies innovate if they know they’re going to be dealing with hamstrung devices? People are going to be paying for subscription services and the bandwidth it takes to use them, a double whammy. The outlook doesn’t look good.
Boy am I glad I got that unlimited Clear iSpot subscription while it was still around.
Was perusing my Apple feed when I came across this headline:
I’m still amazed that there are companies out there who believe that subscriptions on the iPad are a bad idea, or that they need to test the waters. That’s insane. What these companies need to understand is that the iPad does, certainly, represent (or stands at the forefront of) a digital publishing revolution. I could get the New Yorker Twitter feed, I could subscribe to the RSS feed, but it feels different when you see the class New Yorker covers splayed on your screen in glorious color. It’s a good app, and it’s a good experience (unlike the absolutely horrendous, awful, want-to-vomit “The Daily” app).
Subscribe today, you’ll really like what you see. And no, I’m not on Condé Nast’s payroll, I just like the app.
Now that Osama Bin Laden has been snuffed out, you can be sure that just about every major video game franchise out there set in modern-day war zones will have offer some sort of reenactment of the the event.
I know it’s wrong, but what will that be teaching us? I play a lot of video games, and the militaristic, “Nuke ’em all!” sentiment that video games can generate is very subtle and incredibly powerful. The problem is, we don’t know the effects that these mass-media and major cultural events will have on future generations. The difference between this and something like Grand Theft Auto (as the poster child of video game extremism) is that we, as a society, condone killing in a militaristic and highly organized fashion. We tell people it’s OK to put on a uniform and kill people, that holding a gun and putting bullets into “terrorists” is a good thing, as long as the “terrorists” are wearing turbans and the settings are all in dusty hamlets with Arabic-sounding names.
It’s not. I’m not sure how I feel about the possibility of this type of stuff getting into peoples’ heads as “awesome.”