A Stab at Tech Journalism: Microsoft Surface Pricing

The price of Microsoft's new Surface tablet was recently revealed (or leaked, I'm not sure how official it was) to be $499, and the device was released today.  That's $499 without the highly touted keyboard cover and the smallest amount of storage. I'm not going to say this is a bad price point, the Surface has many features which the iPad doesn't come near to offering (like USB ports) at about the same price.  The problem for Microsoft, though, is that this may not fit the reason why people buy tablets.

Buying a tablet or a new smartphone is buying into an entire ecosystem.  Apple's "there's an app for that" marketing campaign demonstrates that people care what a device can do. Not necessarily what it's capable-hardware wise especially-of doing, but what they're setup and already ready to do. There might be many in the Linux community that enjoy writing their own software, but when it comes to consumer electronics they're a minority.  A new tablet or smartphone needs to be competitive in the app market. Google was playing catch up with android but managed to rapidly increase their available apps by creating an open market.

"But surely Microsoft doesn't have that problem, there's years worth of windows programs, right?" some of you may be saying. The answer is, wrong.  At least not on this Surface.  The other one does. The five hundred dollar Surface is the one running windows RT, which only runs the "modern" (I really wish Microsoft had showed some spine and stood by the metro moniker) style apps. These apps are full screen, launched from a grid, and ultimately not that different from the way every other tablet and smartphone operating system works.  And there's isn't that many of them.  The Surface RT includes Office 2013 when you buy it. If your an office fanatic this could sell the Surface, but I don't think that's what people are using tablets for.

Tablets aren't for productivity, they're generally recreational. Maybe Microsoft is tapping into the market in a new way, but if they're not they're selling a product for the same price with a weaker app selection.  How will windows RT do for running movies from amazon? Netflix? Youtube? Hulu? How well will windows work to play music from your favorite service? If the answer to any of these isn't as well or better than their competitors it's a tick against Microsoft and the Surface.

The other Surface, the Surface Pro, will be better as it'll be running a full fledged version of windows 8.  But this confusion is what could be truly deadly for Microsoft.  An average consumer walks into buy their Surface, figures they'll get the cheapest one because they're just using if for fun, and then is locked in with a device that doesn't run windows like they're used to.  They'll be aggravated and angry. They'll say, "Why's it called windows if it's not really windows!?"  And then if they can't find "an app for that" thing they want to do it'll further strain their patience with their brand new Surface.  They probably won't be happy if they go back to Microsoft store saying their new Surface can't do what they thought it could and an associate replies with, "Oh to do that you need the Surface Pro."

The only thing I can tell for sure is that Microsoft is taking a gamble with the Surface.  It might work out great, creating a really mobile, tablet style device that also works great for productivity and business applications.  The Surface might just end up being your real "all in one" device.  The other distinct possibility, though, is that the Surface ends up angering consumers.  With Microsoft behind in the mobile market and facing stiff competition from Apple and Google in winning the hearts and minds of future users things could be very bad if this gamble doesn't pay off.

What Makes a Great Debate?

The first presidential debate happened last night.  I've recently uncomfortably found myself to be a political junkie and have been catching up on it, reading the news about it, and in general enjoying the excitement.  There is one thing I'm noticing during all the hubbub; the current debate format isn't good.

I read one analysis that said the debate seemed undisciplined, and seemed to bemoan with Mr. Lehrer the loss of the final section for discussion.  This doesn't really bother me.  Perhaps it's because the nebulous sounding topic "governance" seems a little less interesting than the rest of the debate topics, but I feel it's because the discussion seemed fruitful and intelligent.  Cutting off the speakers to cram in some extra talking points would have diminished what the audience was able to glean.  The article I read also said the debate was too specific, with things like Simpson-Bowles plans and Dodd-Frank bills, but I disagree.  This disagreement actually has a very fundamental basis.

Politics often seems watered down to triviality these days.  Our "sound-byte society," short attention spans, and internet meme making abstracts out deeper understanding of complex issues, and issues like the role of government, economics, and law are deeply complex.  I'm glad the candidates got plenty of time to go back and forth in explaining their ideas, getting into details and nuances that usually get lost in "let's move on to the next topic."

The Lincoln-Douglas debates were three hours a piece, each candidate getting a total of 90 minutes (split into 60 and 30 minute periods for whoever went first).  Now, candidates typically have 2 minutes going back and forth until the moderator wants to move on to the next topic.  You can say a lot in two minutes, but I don't think you should have to.  There are many things which require some time to explain the nuance (and I've now used the word twice within as many paragraphs, but I just find it so appropriate that I'm OK with this generally inadvisable writing practice).

Perhaps I'm informed by a scientific background, how many scientific theories would have ever gotten off the ground if some theoretical Einstein Bohr debates had only allowed the scientists to speak for a few minutes at a time? None of the important mathematical formulations could have been presented, the evidence and experimental methods of testing would be reduced to barely challengeable data tossed into the fray, and ultimately the question of how our world works would be answered not by who had the most complete and consistent ideas but who was more pithy and charismatic.  I worry that's what's happening in how a great and powerful nation is being led.

Love Day By Day

My fiancée and I met with a friend of mine recently and in retelling how we met it was noted that the story wasn't, "love at first sight."  As deeply in love with my bride to be as I am it did cause me to wonder a bit.  I do think there was some initial attraction between us way back then, but ultimately I agree there was no falling in love head over heels upon laying eyes one on the other.  As I look back on our relationship it's grown over time, slowly and gradually.  We don't have love at first sight, but we have what I'm calling love day by day.

Love day by day is that understated love that's expressed between two folks consistently and sincerely.  It's us saying our daily "I love you"s and wanting to spend time with each other.  It's trying to find ways to make the other person happy.  I could go on, but don't wish to belabor readers with a sappy list.  Going back and reading over this I'm almost getting a little snide myself.

I would like to discuss the triangular theory of love, though.  It floats around in relationship advice, therapy, and books and promotes the idea of love primarly being made up of intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy and commitment without passion is friendship, and other combinations can define other relationships.  I'm prone to a certain measure of emotional austerity and suspect it would be difficult for me to ever feel "love at first sight", but from the descriptions I believe it to be a magnificent burst of passion toward another.  A couple can feel this and then grow in intimacy and commitment to match the passion they feel, and I hope those who live giving their feelings greater quarter than I do do so.

That said, love day by day is based around commitment.  It's commitment that comes easily because we feel intimate and passionate about one another.  Commitment is a powerful concept, and - likely due to the aforementioned emotional austerity - I feel more important for a relationship than passion.  Being dedicated to another is what will allow one to break down their barriers and their pride and allow themselves to be vulnerable in the unnerving depths of intimacy.  I've always belived passion and physical affection in particular should represent a deeper commitment, and as such I've become more passionate toward my fiancée as I've committed more and more to her.  Commitment lasts beyond hurt feeling and dull days, and I'll gladly live without love at first sight, as long as I have love day by day.

The Rise of Video Games: Sci-Fi

I just watched a trailer for a new game coming out called Remember Me.  I see people describing it as Total Recall in a Blade Runner setting.  It looks like a great piece of science fiction: computers becoming part of who we are as humans making our memories open to manipulation, changing what we do and who we are through one electronic attack.  I have a feeling I'm really going to like it.

Last post I bemoaned the loss of good, let alone great, science fiction on TV.  It's sad to see it go, and I still hope eventually we'll turn away from our love of watching the "reality" TV dregs of entertainment and return to having something on TV that seeks to challenge and explore our existence and future, but until we do when I really want to experience that I'll have to turn to video games.

Currently I've been playing Mass Effect 3, the latest in one of my favorite series and what I'd argue may be one of the best pieces of science fiction ever written.  In my humble opinion Mass Effect can easily go toe to toe with Star Trek, Star Wars, or any of the other greats of science fiction.  It's a classic space opera with aliens, intergalactic politics and adventure, and spaceships.  It's got some fascinating science to go with the fiction, the title of the series referring to localized physical phenomenon that changes the effective mass of objects in a certain area.  It's probably the only work I've seen that mentions that lasers as a weapon could work, but will be limited to short ranges due to diffraction.

Mass Effect also carries the proud tradition of solid writing and well done characters set forth by developers Bioware.  There's an alien from a proud warrior species who's gruff and cynical like one of those proud warrior race dudes might be, but wistfully lament's his species inability to come together and rebuild themselves after being struck with a biological weapon that's reduced them to near sterility.  There's a professional, very physically attractive woman whose appearance might seem pandering to a male audience at first, but I feel reinforces the later revelations of her difficulty accepting herself as an independent human being more than her father's genetic experiment in creating the perfect offspring to carry on the family name.  There's an artificial intelligence seeking that if you prod in the right direction will fall in love with your ship's pilot.  And these are just the outstanding instances, the game is full of great stories.  You get to take part in writing some of them yourself if you play it.

I've also quite the fondness for the series Deus Ex.  Deus Ex may be the quintessential exploration of what it means when we finally begin to merge ourselves with machines.  The title itself is almost certainly a play on the phrase "deus ex machina" or "god from the machine" and likely refers to the apotheosis of humanity through human augmentation.  It plays on what it will mean for mankind when electronic surveillance becomes a part of everyday existence and communication, what will happen when physical ability can be bought and sold, and every moment of gameplay makes you wonder what we'll be able to do when our eyesight can be enhanced with a computer chip or our strength with a set of servos.  It's a game that makes one wonder deeply about the future of humanity as we hurtle toward technologies drastically changing who we are and how we interact.

Thoughts such as this are what make science fiction is a wonderful and important genre.  While it may be too expensive to hire the writers and special effects team necessary on a TV show now, video games make the perfect stage.  The games already computer generated, and so special effects are mostly just paying artists for the ideas.  Writing in video games is still an art that few can do well, but the industry is constantly learning and we've clearly already made some gems.  There's not much I like on TV these days, but there's some great things to play on the game console.

The Fall of Television Science Fiction

I just watched an episode of Star Trek (Next Generation to be specific-¡Picard rules!) and afterwards thought about playing some more Mass Effect 3.  I actually turned off the TV and did some reading, but my mind got caught up considering the state of sci-fi these days.

I think most any fan of the genre will happily, or I suppose more like disgruntled-ly, tell you there really isn't any good sci-fi on TV anymore.  Personally I think this ended with the show Firefly, and maybe that's why it holds such a fond place in my heart-it was practically television science fiction's dying breath.  Don't get me wrong, there's been a good one or two in the last while. I liked Sarah Conner Chronicles, and Dollhouse.  I might debate whether or not Lost counts as sci-fi, but that doesn't mean it wasn't quite enjoyable.  I hear lots of praise for Fringe, though I lost interest somewhere about halfway through the second season.

Television science fiction isn't going away, for sure, but I remember the days of Star Trek, Babylon 5, Farscape, Stargate, and Sliders.  I lived in a time where I could watch something that truly imagined something outside normal human experience and embraced that concept to explore.  You have to dig for that on TV nowadays.  Of course, you have to dig for anything of remote worth these days.

I recently heard that when TV was first invented people thought it would change the world for the betterment of humanity.  TV may have been a major part of winning the cold war.  It changed the way people communicated, allowing a story to reach millions from all around the world.  People thought that this power could be harnessed to spread messages of thoughtfulness, enlightenment, and truth to better humanity.  Such a grand vision is now swallowed up in banality as we're treated to a parade of vapid celebrity voyeurism and bad parenting, lack of life skill, or legitimate mental illness freak shows.

TV may be no more than a plethora of pathetic pandering to the "lowest common denominator," but there's still great science fiction out there in literature (I listen to a weekly sci-fi short story podcast that's wonderful) and also in one of our emerging art forms, the video game.  I'm getting a little long on this post already, so I think I'll make this a two parter and express my love for video game science fiction separately later. So, ¡Tune in again for the exciting conclusion!

What to write when nothing comes to mind

So I like to post at least once a month, and here I am sitting on about an hour left to August and I still haven't written a thing.  There's lots to write about, I can always launch into another mathematics and society rant, or if I'm watching my blood pressure something about computer science and beauty has been ruminating lately.  A friend put forth the interesting idea lately that computer literacy is the new literacy, and I'd like to write on that but felt oddly compelled to do some research before doing anything with that idea.  I'm engaged now and should have lots of ideas and feelings about relationships, love, and weddings.  I've even thought about doing some amateur tech journalism, but the most interesting thing I can think of now the big moves Microsoft is making, and since I'm currently working for them I'd prefer not to get into NDA territory, even though I probably wouldn't say anything that hasn't yet been said on most other tech news outlets.

So, plenty of interesting things to write, but just can't bring myself to put the words down.  Why?  Well, writing is hard.  It takes a mental effort to organize ideas and thought, and even more if an idea isn't quite yet fully formed and needs additional thought to be complete.  I got home tonight, ate some snacks for dinner while putting on some TV shows I wanted to catch up with, and then started thinking about writing.  But I wasn't really thinking about writing, I was thinking about the show I was watching, and I'm only finally banging this out by pausing the show and focusing on writing.

My mom is a six time published (and that's just the novels) author, so I've picked up a thing or two about writing.  One thing about it, which I suspect extends to any art in general, is that the most important thing is to sit down and do it.  While the romantic thought of waiting for inspiration to strike and then whipping up a masterpiece overnight in a frenzy of artistic furor may be appealing, it's just not reflective of reality.  The Sistine Chapel ceiling was painted because the pope offered a large commission, and Michelangelo signed it "Michelangelo, a sculptor" to express his feelings that he didn't consider himself a painter and would rather be working on his statue of Moses.  The Sistine ceiling is well known as one of the greatest pieces of art in the world, and I've always liked the thought that Michelangelo didn't even want to paint it.  I think we can learn a lot about how we can do great work even when we really don't want to do it.

Have I learned how to be happy at a job?

This question occurred to me earlier and I've been wondering ever since. There's a whole bunch of people moving to a different jobs where I'm working and I've been browsing other jobs as well.  It's possible this is perfectly reasonable and the place I work now is just a horrid place to work, but I've come upon another possibility: I haven't learned how to settle in and enjoy a workplace.

It's not that hard to believe. I haven't had a really long term job since high school. I've popped in and out of on campus work and temporary summer positions. And for most of the last year I've worked hard continually looking for a full time job, so I'm already in the habit of searching out opportunities.  Even in all those years of schooling much of the experience was putting in the time at one class and then excitedly looking at the course catalog to see on to which class I would move.  All in all, it does seem that I lack any recent life experience in finding a way to say, "I like where I am now, no hurry in finding something else."

Of course there's nothing wrong with a little ambition and trying to improve one's position in life. It's actually a great virtue, trying to better oneself.  I worry that I may be being all to quick to give up a good thing, though. I live very close to where I work and would almost certainly have to give up the short 20 minute walk to work in favor of either buying a car or finding public transportation options. Both of these possibilities are more costly and neither provides the modicum of exercise that I enjoy with walking.

Putting aside these practical considerations, though, I have a greater unease that I'm finding gratitude and satisfaction difficult.  Which I shouldn't because I have much for which to be grateful, even in the narrow field of my career.  My job went through quickly, allowing me to set myself up in Salt Lake near my beloved.  I think I should make more, but then again when is that ever not true and I make enough to live quite confortably and make good progress paying off my debts.  I'm providing a service that does help people and hopefully makes others' days just a little better.  I get to talk to people from all around the world.  While there's plenty to complain about, there's also plenty to appreciate.

It's interesting to consider how we learn to be happy with a job, and moreso how we do so without becoming complacent or stagnant with our position.  I look back and I see a life spent working hard to get to the next level and move on to the next thing, and while in many ways I plan to continue doing this, I also want to make sure I can simply enjoy the situation I'm in as long as it's not one in desperate need of change.