I told you about Google Reader saying goodbye soon and I was really shocked. Can't someone just buy that from Google? Anyways, the first alternatives I saw were RSSowl and NetNewsWire but they're not so promising. They're nothing like Google Reader.
On the other hand, I've been using Feedly, a Google Reader client on web browsers and mobile devices, for the longest time now. Apparently, Feedly will have a Google Reader-like service of their own and will offer users a seamless transition from Google Reader to their service, currently codenamed "Normandy": http://icohgnito.tumblr.com/post/45336617243/google-reader-and-feedly
Of course, Flipboard is another option but I'm not really a fan of it.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
The RUR System - a proposed method for Really Useful Reviews
Background
I've been on the internet for almost 18 years now, and I've seen plenty of reviews all over the web, especially. And, in general, it's difficult to trust just anyone else's review, whether for a physical product, an app, a movie, a book, and so on. Sure, there are good, useful reviews out there, which only suggests that certainly there is a proper way to make a review. In general, it should be as objective as possible, and has less subjectivity as much as possible. In many cases, the review is too subjective, it becomes not-so-useful if you have a very different background from the reviewer, or you would totally appreciate the review because you are under similar circumstances as the reviewer. In some cases though, this attracts some much-unneeded internet hate, for example if a known Apple-loving journalist suddenly reviews a non-Apple product. Pageview-driven websites and egotistic website/blog owners like make these kinds of reviews, of course, for the ad revenues or just for bragging rights. But for the rest of us, the bottomline is the most important thing. Is it useful for us? Is it worth our $$$ or at least our time? In this article, I first review current review/rating methods. And finally, I will be proposing a new review method/system that maybe reviewers can use, that would ultimately benefit the readers (or viewers) of those reviews.
I've been on the internet for almost 18 years now, and I've seen plenty of reviews all over the web, especially. And, in general, it's difficult to trust just anyone else's review, whether for a physical product, an app, a movie, a book, and so on. Sure, there are good, useful reviews out there, which only suggests that certainly there is a proper way to make a review. In general, it should be as objective as possible, and has less subjectivity as much as possible. In many cases, the review is too subjective, it becomes not-so-useful if you have a very different background from the reviewer, or you would totally appreciate the review because you are under similar circumstances as the reviewer. In some cases though, this attracts some much-unneeded internet hate, for example if a known Apple-loving journalist suddenly reviews a non-Apple product. Pageview-driven websites and egotistic website/blog owners like make these kinds of reviews, of course, for the ad revenues or just for bragging rights. But for the rest of us, the bottomline is the most important thing. Is it useful for us? Is it worth our $$$ or at least our time? In this article, I first review current review/rating methods. And finally, I will be proposing a new review method/system that maybe reviewers can use, that would ultimately benefit the readers (or viewers) of those reviews.
Friday, February 22, 2013
What would it mean if Apple's invite to their next event says something like "We'd like for you to watch this."
Will it be an iWatch or an iTV? Or both?
Because it looks like the rumoured "iWatch" is imminent:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html
And of course, an "iTV" has been rumoured since time immemorial:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/14/death-by-apps/
Because it looks like the rumoured "iWatch" is imminent:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/02/talk-about-timing-apples-wristwatch-patent-arrives.html
And of course, an "iTV" has been rumoured since time immemorial:
http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/14/death-by-apps/
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Yahoo! Answers -- a lost but recoverable opportunity for Yahoo!
Read up on Yahoo! Answers' competitor's website:
Monday, January 28, 2013
Dear Apple, Re: Your Maps
So you've changed your Maps app's map data from Google to your own. Good for you.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Baseless Prediction/Speculation/Guess: The rumored "cheap" iPhone will be a revamped iPhone 4. [UPDATED]
There's a lot of talk about Apple releasing a cheaper iPhone model. People are saying it could be an iPhone mini... with a 3.5" screen? Or a plastic one? Laughable, all of them. But, I don't know, nothing's impossible, except... No, I don't think they'll call a 3.5" iPhone a "mini" because they already call it an iPhone 4 or 4S. I also guessed, well it could be an iPhone nano -- the iPod nano with phone capabilities.
But here's the thing. When the iPhone 4 came out in 2010, at least the iPhone 3GS was still being sold as the cheaper model (but still not cheap). When the iPhone 4S came out in 2011, the iPhone 4 and 3GS were still being sold as the cheaper models (but still not cheap). And so on:
But here's the thing. When the iPhone 4 came out in 2010, at least the iPhone 3GS was still being sold as the cheaper model (but still not cheap). When the iPhone 4S came out in 2011, the iPhone 4 and 3GS were still being sold as the cheaper models (but still not cheap). And so on:
Monday, January 14, 2013
How Apple could make a cheap iPhone
You should read John Gruber:
This “Apple should make a cheap iPhone” thing reminds me of the “Apple should make a cheap netbook” argument from four or five years ago.
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Really? You write an unconvincing argument for an iPhone mini and you write yet another one?
This time, the "tech bloggers" who think they know Apple are writing again. (Sorry, no links to poorly written articles.)
An idea for a "cheap" iDevice... Plus a living room solution / gaming console / entertainment center / etc. Hear me out! [UPDATED]
I must stress though that is just an idea! Wishful thinking, if you want to call it. But it's certainly not a prediction. :D
Of course, Google or Samesung or whoever else could just swallow up this idea and make it their own, but Apple has the best eco-system and industrial design philosophy in place for this to work and to sell.
The idea is this: cheap 4-inch iDevices, for only $99 (or maybe $149 or $199) each. You can play or run all the games and apps from the App Store, and consume all the audio and video and books you want, and maybe even make phone calls and send/receive messages.
Of course, Google or Samesung or whoever else could just swallow up this idea and make it their own, but Apple has the best eco-system and industrial design philosophy in place for this to work and to sell.
The idea is this: cheap 4-inch iDevices, for only $99 (or maybe $149 or $199) each. You can play or run all the games and apps from the App Store, and consume all the audio and video and books you want, and maybe even make phone calls and send/receive messages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)