Time-zone: EST

Over the weekend, dining out with friends suffering in high-paying, corporate jobs, I had a realisation: There’s a big difference in how you measure time when you’re owning a business versus working for one.

When we work for someone else (usually something else – the money), we want the time at work to shrink. We wait for the lunch hour. We want the end of work day to arrive quickly. We look forward to the weekend all week. We want month end, and salary, to come quickly. We plan the time between vacations thinking, dreaming and planning the next vacation. We wish the clock just moved faster. A lot faster. We’ll call it Employee’s Shrinking Time. Or EST.

When we own what we are doing – our team, our firm, our idea, or our dream – we want the same time to expand. We don’t want end of month to come any time soon as that just means you’ve lost another month of critical time… even if we’ve been working 100 hour weeks all month. We want the day to have more than 24 hours, and sleep to vanish. We want the weeks to be longer and weekends shorter. In fact, we don’t just want the time to expand, we want it to just stop. Till we’re finished. (Which, if you’re good, is never.) We’ll call this Entrepreneur’s Stretching Time. Or EST.

So, which EST time-zone do you follow?

Posted from WordPress for Android

Continue reading Time-zone: EST

Organise your Google+ stream

One of the earliest feature requests of Google+ users was for an ability to define the default home stream / circle. Seems like the G+ team introduced this feature without publicity sometime over the holiday period (or maybe I missed all the publicity being away from the Internet for almost a fortnight).

I just discovered this feature a moment ago when browsing through some circle specific timeline. Google+ now allows users to define how many posts from any particular circle appear on their home timeline:

Click on the circle link in the left navigation bar to go to that circle’s stream. Once there, you get a slider on the top left of content section to define how many posts appear in the home timeline.

Google+ stream modifier

On that slider, Google+ offers 4 sets of options for each circle’s stream:

Glad to have some way of controlling the behaviour of my home stream. Now that it’s here, it’d be great if G+ provides this filtering function on user basis as well, along with the circle-basis it does now.

Now for a note of small concern – when you visit a circle’s page, you realise that the default setting for filtering is ‘Most Posts’, which means some posts may never appear on your home timeline (which is the only one most of us check). While this may be fine if a user knowingly chooses that option, but having it enabled by default means that users may never see certain posts on their timeline, without knowing it could happen.

This is similar to what Facebook regularly does, and is regularly criticised for by G+ users. Would be a pity if Google decided to go down that route without informing users first.

APIs: A Strategic Tool

Google+ APIs and the lesson from Buzz

Most social media users and application developers I know have one big issue against Google+: lack of an API to write posts to it via 3rd party tools.

While most might feel this is a big drawback, and someone even called it derisively as the ‘stalker API’, I think this not releasing ‘write’ APIs is a very conscious, strategic decision based on the learning from Buzz.

When Google released Buzz, it allowed people to connect some of their existing social networks to buzz and auto-post updates from those networks onto buzz. The problem with this was that most people just enabled that auto-connect and forgot about buzz. Their tweets, reader shares, talk statuses and flickr photos were auto-buzzed, but they never bothered to go in and actively interact there. Add to it the fact that most people who would have read a user’s updates were already following them on other social networks. So, once the followers realised that the users were only cross-posting content there, even they didn’t have any incentive to read the updates there. End result: a zombie network where everyone was ‘posting’ (sometimes even without knowing), and no one was reading.

Google has learnt from that experience and thus this reluctance to provide any ‘write’ APIs. Google also learnt something else from that experience – APIs can be used as a tactical tool to position the network in the market and amongst users.

And this is where its ‘read’ APIs come: assisting, ever so slightly, in making G+ the core content host for its user base.

Using a read-only API, people can auto-post their G+ posts on other social networks, or even list & link them on their blogs and websites. More importantly, using an image-reading API (which Google accidentally announced earlier today), I can use G+ as my photo host for any photos I post on twitter, my blog or almost anywhere else. The 3rd party twitter clients like Seismic, Tweetdeck and Gravity can now integrate G+ image previews using the upcoming API.

So we have a situation where users can’t auto-publish content from other networks to G+ (and thus need to be really active here to have an active stream), but they can use content from G+ to post to other networks (thus reducing, ever so slightly, their active participation on those networks).

Why wouldn’t Google want that?

I’m sure that Google also realises that most people are set in their ways and, without any 3rd party tool integration, will be reluctant to use Google+. And thus, the ‘write’ APIs will come some day. Google is just ensuring that G+ has enough active members using it as the (or a) primary network before it releases those APIs to lure in more users.

[Originally posted on Google+ here]

note2self&others : quick dump of thoughts. Might be edited / formatted later.

Tapping A Pain Point

Every new version of smartphone operating systems (iOS / Android) brings forth a ton of new features. Frequently, these new features include some (IMO) pretty flaky ones like Siri and face-recognition login. I don’t have in-depth knowledge of how Apple and Google decide which new features to include in their OS platforms, but if I was in their place, one way I would like to figure new features would be by addressing pain points.

One big pain point I discovered with my beloved Nexus One was that it could be lost / stolen, and once it was gone, I had no way of ensuring that all my data and applications on it could be secured. Yes, after I lost it, I did find a ton of applications that could have possibly helped me in tracking, wiping and even recovering my phone – but it was ‘after’ I had lost it. And that makes these applications slightly redundant. A person has to feel the pain of loss of a smartphone (or a close contact’s smartphone) before realising the need for an application that could have helped recover the lost/stolen phone.

I’m assuming that smartphone loss/theft would have taken off with the rise in popularity of smartphones over the last few years. Given the price of many of smartphones these days, losing them hurts. But that hurt can be somewhat lessened with phone insurance. The bigger pain point is the huge loss of data that we keep on these phones, specially if the phone was not locked and the data can be easily accessed by whoever got/took the phone.

My question is, given how big a pain point this potentially is, why have none of the major smartphone platform vendors – well, mainly Apple and Google – done anything about it?

Steve Jobs famously told Houston that Dropbox was not a product, but a feature. But, in my opinion, if there’s just one functionality that needs to be a feature of the OS/platform and not a 3rd party product, it is this: ability to wipe/encrypt, lock, trace lost and stolen smartphones.

Most smartphones these days come with GPS chips and regularly ‘check-in’ with the platform provider’s servers. Tapping into these two features, it should be relatively easy to provide a simple lost/stolen phone service.

What I suggest is this: Google, say, should provide a web page where I can sign in with my Google ID and see a list of all devices originally registered with that as the primary ID. When I mark a device there as stolen / lost, Google should:

  1. wipe/encrypt all the data on the device,
  2. remove all the applications I bought/downloaded from the device,
  3. disable most communication functions on it,
  4. start logging the GPS location of device, and
  5. display a static message on the device stating that it has been reported lost, thus disabled and should be returned to owner / police.
The first 2 steps would ensure safety of any user data that was there on the device, and the next 3 will help in recovery of the device.
Along with the option of marking a phone as lost/stolen, Google could also provide a ‘un-register’ device option so users can disassociate their IDs from the device before selling or disposing it off. The basic action required from Google’s side in this case would be:
  1. wipe all user data and applications from the device,
  2. reset the device to factory settings after dissociating all services and user IDs with it.

Yes, any smart thief might still be able to bypass all this by simply wiping the device and installing a custom ROM, but a lot of devices could still be recovered  and it would help protect user data on the phone from easy unauthorised access. More importantly, bricking phones this way would send out a strong signal to people who find/steal these lost/stolen smartphones that they are worthless bricks and they can have a greater chance of reward from returning them than trying to take them for keeps.

Continue reading Tapping A Pain Point

Wither Windows?

The bias towards Apple in mobile apps is already well established with many developers bringing out apps just/first for iOS. Two recent launches might be an early indicator of how that shift towards Apple is taking place on the desktop as well:

  1. Lytro, the click-now-focus-later digital camera would only work with Mac at launch, Windows to be supported later.
  2. Bitcasa, the upcoming unlimited cloud storage service too works only with Mac right now, Windows & Linux support to come later.

This could just be a coincidence, but those responsible for Windows over at MS should take this pretty seriously. It isn’t that there haven’t been Mac-only developers in the past, but this time it’s different. Back then Mac was a niche platform used by heavy graphics users, apple-fans  and few others. Today, Mac is going mainstream, fast. Most developers and designers these days have Macs as their primary PC and their investors mostly work on Macbooks too. This creates an ecosystem, specially for startups, where most people involved work primarily on a Mac. So far, though most of the folks in this ecosystem use Macs, they still consider Windows support as a core for success on the desktop.

This is where these two launches could make a difference. The issue is that both Lytro and Bitcasa are relatively high-visibility product launches within the developer / startup community. If they do even moderately well with Mac-only launches, it sends out a signal to all the app developers out there that Mac-only/first works. Add that to the popularity of Mac as a platform within the community, and we are only a small step away from a flood of independent developers deserting, or delaying, support for Windows.

Folk at Microsoft will remember how support from 3rd party application developers was a big factor in Windows taking off initially. If they don’t act soon, they’ll see the same flood of 3rd party developers start to migrate to Apple, hurting MS much more than piracy or cloud computing has.

If I were responsible for Windows at MS today, I’d throw everything – money, influence, marketing support, etc – to get these and any other high-profile apps / devices to launch with Windows support, if not exclusively on Windows.
Continue reading Wither Windows?

Farewell, Steve.

Rest in peace, Steve

“No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don’t want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life’s change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don’t waste it living someone else’s life. Don’t be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people’s thinking. Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

You lived hungry. You lived foolish. And you taught us how to live.

Farewell, Steve.

Regulators’ Decision Function

Telecom companies lash out at EU fiber proposal
(Click image for full article)

Reading this news piece got me thinking: What is the best, single point decision function for regulators?

  • maximise consumer benefit,
  • maximise domestic employment and investment opportunities, or
  • help develop national champions who can grow and compete globally

Each has its pros and cons, and they all tend to be in conflict with each other.

Currently most regulators, like the one in news above, seem to prioritise consumer benefit, followed by local investment and employment opportunities wherever possible.

But, is that the best option? If not, which one of the above should a regulator chose to maximise? (Or, in what order should a regulator prioritise them?)

Continue reading Regulators’ Decision Function