In a line, chatbots are more profitable than self service and that's why businesses will adopt them. Last year and the beginning of this year we have seen a lot of companies embrace machine learning and use chatbots as a new interface for users.

Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/bot-cellphone-chat-bot-chatbot-190362/

What is a chatbot

If you haven't yet heard of or used a chatbot (try Slack for a few of them) it is basically a service (or program) that will take an input from a user like a chat, tweet or message and render a service. Some examples of bots are the ones in Slack, IFTTT, Skype and so on. A lot of messaging platforms have introduced them as a way to enhance the value of the platform because now with a simple line of text you can get things done in addition to just chatting with people.

What's in it for users

Well the obvious benefit to users is, convenience. They don't have to spend time navigating websites and reading all the options before they find the cheapest airline ticket, or best hotel room and so on. With a simple chat you're able to now order for those services.

Mobile and wearable enable faster access

Add to this the small mobile screens with high speed internet, wearable that you can use, you now have a bigger need and ability to trigger workflows and services quickly. You don't  have to wait to be in front of a computer (or rather a keyboard :P)

Isn't this bad for business

Websites relied on pageviews for ad revenue and on user searches for revenue. There was a lot of opportunity to cross-sell and up-sell if users came to a page. Now, if users are just typing what they want in a single line with no option to show them new services or ads, why will businesses embrace the chatbots? Well, the reason is because chatbots can be more profitable than self service.

So .. why will it succeed for business

Users like to have a simple way to do things because it isn't their profession to use your product or their passion to use your product (well most users anyway). They use your product as a means to get something done. So the less they have to do, the better they like that. When wesbites came up and became popular, they gave something to the customer that they never had .. the ability to self serve at anytime from anywhere. The customer didn't have to drive to an agent or office or make a phone call during business hours or only on weekdays. It opened up a lot of flexibility to get the same service at any time. 

Businesses will start to adopt chatbots as helpful agents to optimize their service for you

But with that came the burden of reading and choosing on the customer. More and more, websites and services have complex options and conditions on their website so a customer really has to invest a lot of time before they can make a decision. So now a chatbot can take away that from a customer by automatically picking the best option. This makes the chatbot a sort of an agent. The chatbot can suggest more profitable plans to users or charge a premium and I would bet that users will prefer that instead of having to do all the research and selection themselves on a website.

Make it easy to stay with the service

Also, it makes it easy for the user to stay on a particular service if they just need to chat a line or two to make some changes or to enable or disable some services since the big configuration is already done as a one time setup. Most users will just stick with the simple service instead of having to switch and research the best alternative.

The customer will also win .. eventually

Over time, I think as third party chat bots become popular there will be a case for a win-win for businesses and customers. Chatbots can truly act as agents that work on behalf of the customer picking the service provider that is the best option for the customer and not generating more profits, or cross-selling new services. Imagine a third-party chatbot telling you to stop subscription because you just don't use it enough to justify the cost :)

Anyway, I think that is still some time away. For now, I think businesses that embrace chatbots will be able to offer a new easy way to use their services and customers will be fine with paying a premium for that. They'll likely see better retention rates too. This would be something they'll want to do.

I was reading an article on TechCrunch the other day titled Do Startups Stand A Chance Against Valley Incumbents?. That got me thinking on what is Google's biggest threat. Google has slowly grown from a small search engine that was powering Yahoo and Microsoft web search back in the early days to one of today's biggest companies.



Its success can be attributed to three powerful strategies Google followed (and still follows).

1. Simple design to encourage users: From its single line web search to email and to every other product Google makes, they are really focused on simplicity. They go to extraordinary lengths to maintain the simplicity and consistency of their sites.
2. Really powerful search and ad matching: The keyword matching and bidding systems used by Google's AdWords and AdSense platforms are outstanding. Since they have captured the search market as well, Google is able to generate volume which drives optimization which again drives better ROI for advertisers. If advertisers see better ROI, they are more likely to go back to Google to advertise.
3. Free: Google offers almost all its services for free. You can't compete with that! Most users don't know where Google really makes money, but they trust Google because the search and almost everything else is really really good and free.

Ok, so now you're wondering why I am still talking about Google's strengths when the blog post is supposed to be about Google's threat. I just wanted to lay some ground work. Google's revenue comes from its ad network. The table below shows that more around 96% of Google's revenues are from advertising revenues. This has been true for many years now.

	Full Year			2013
			(unaudited)	(unaudited)
Revenues	2011	2012	2013	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
As % of Google Segment Revenues
Google Websites	69%	68%	67%	67%	68%	68%	67%
Google Network Members’ Websites	27%	27%	24%	25%	24%	23%	23%
Other Revenues	4%	5%	9%	8%	8%	9%	10%

Source: http://investor.google.com/financial/tables.html (see 2013 information). More information here.

The key strengths of Google is also its biggest weakness. Google is one of the biggest proponents of the Internet and has believed that if more people use the Internet then Google will have more content to search and therefore can make more money. But as more people came to the Internet, two things happened,

1. Google made more money: Yes that part was true to a certain extent
2. The organic search results started interfering with the ads

The second point is key. As more people (advertisers) also come on the internet with their websites, blogs, pages (facebook, linkedin, pinterest, etc.), then Google organic search (the main search results) will have more (if not all) the advertisers in it. So there will come a point when Google will have to pick what to show in the search in order for users to click on the ads. If Google stays true to its search philosophy, it will have to show the advertiser's site in the search result and the advertiser's ad on the right. Users will naturally click on the search results and Google search will start cannibalizing on its ad revenue. At some point, the advertisers will see that if they are relevant, users will find them anyway on Google and if not, users will not click on their ads because they found better "results".

So, as I read the article on TechCrunch I was thinking to myself, who could stand up to Google? The simple answer is .. no one has to. Google search and advertising paradigm is heading towards a point of collision. Well, you might argue how come this hasn't been happening so far. If all of Google's ads are links to others sites, then why has Google been able to generate revenue so far. The reason for that is that advertisers didn't have enough presence on the Internet to link them to people. So keywords were the answer. Advertisers could use keywords as hooks to draw people to their sites. Now, with so much data and information about each advertiser on the Internet (continuing to grow), advertisers do not need the keyword hooks anymore. Google can already find the right match and show that in the search results.

I am yet to dig into whether we can spot signs of this theory from Google's revenues and rankings. But you can see anecdotal evidence in the way Google has started showing paid ads more prominently, in the form of widgets, giving it larger screen real estate, etc. in the recent years. Here's a great post on recent changes to Google's ad spots on its search results page.

http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/a-more-organic-experience-part-iii/19022014/

Google has tried numerous attempts to generate revenue from hardware (Motorola purchase), services (like Google Shopping Express) and others to diversify its reliance on the ad revenue but with ad revenues making up 96% of total revenues, there is a lot of work to do. Google is the king in search but I think it is getting closer to being forced to make difficult decisions on whether it has to stay true to its search philosophy or try to play the consumer to continue its dominating ad revenue.

Please leave your comments.

Today I went to StartupRoots organized by The NextBigWhat team, in partnership with 10,000 startups. I was in two minds when I heard about the event, but when I saw Ravi Gururaj was going to speak at that event, I decided that I have to go. Here's what I saw and my views. Apart from all the great things that took place there, the highlight was the shark tank event where four early stage companies were given an opportunity to pitch to the sharks who had promised to make a funding offer to the company right there on stage if they liked the idea.

Very informal and honest:
Very few events I can say make you feel they're authentic and honest and at the same time they give you a closeness of sitting in a coffee shop with the speakers. This event was exactly that. Hats off to Mukund Mohan for making the environment so lively with his witty humour and liveliness.

Honesty and open-ness of the sharks:
When it comes to asking questions and giving feedback, it was a really open and honest interaction. I felt that Mukund played a really important role in asking right questions on behalf of the audience and the founders and the sharks were very honest about their feedback.

All four startups were funded:
All startups were supposed to come and make an offer for giving a stake in their company for a certain sum of money. I was really happy that the sharks made counter offers where companies weren't able to convince them and the founders accepted the counter offers. The counter offers did seem fair. Ravi Gururaj explained the nature of why the counter offers were made. They looked reasonable and fair.

Is the format right:
There was so little time given to the startups and I felt some of them weren't getting to the point quick enough or talking about what the sharks were looking at. Get to the point people and be really clear on why you're doing this and what you need the money for. The questions asked by the sharks were on similar lines. I think it would have helped if the startups were given a basic format to stick to so at least the basics will be covered.

Are there really buzz words:
I do think that there are buzz words. I mean if something is hot, business that ride the wave will find it easier to make money. So there's nothing wrong with buzz words. However startups forcing buzz words into what they're doing when it really isn't riding the wave, to me, looks like the wrong way to try to make a pitch. These sharks seemed pretty experienced to differentiate the two and asked the right questions.

Effective elevator pitch of hunches:
I wonder how so much of funding was done so quickly (7 mins per startup). Do the sharks have a strategy to evaluate against, or have they done some homework before coming .. I think they have their secrets. In some cases they didn't promise the whole funding in a single round so they offered it as a two stage investment if the company met the milestones after the first round. Also, Ravi said he had heard one of the startups pitch at a different place. So I guess its a bit of hunch and a secret evaluation criteria. If the money is a lot they might go into a lengthy evaluation, otherwise they might stage the investment.

Overall, I was excited to see so many companies trying to create something new. The sharks were very encouraging and fair. I caught up with Ravi after the event. As always, it was great talking with him .. some useful insights to learn. Here are some pictures from the event.

After the event I saw so many startups talking and mixing with the sharks. I think it made for a good informal way to discuss ideas, learn from sharks and meet new people. I learned a lot and am happy that such great events are taking place in India. Looking forward to some great companies.

Update 1: Here's a link to who got funded by how much. Thanks for the detailed information NextBigWhat team :),
http://www.nextbigwhat.com/live-funding-india-startuproots-details-297/
Nice pictures as well.

Karthik

When Windows 8 was showcased by Steve Balmer, I must admit that I was impressed and quite honestly feared that Apple might have met a worthy competitor. The tiled look definitely was pretty to look at. The idea that you can have a single OS on multiple devices was impressive - buy an app once, and use it everywhere. I also saw Xbox beginning to use the new Windows 8.

Fast forward to today and my views are less optimistic about this operating system after I have been using it for a few months now. I upgraded from Windows 7 and decided to give it a try thinking that it will be a really great experience.

Here are some things I don't like:

The full screen metro apps:
Yes, I know you designed it that way, but why do i want to see only a single app on my 22" monitor! The only flexibility Microsoft has given is the ability to have side by side apps occupying 80% and 20% of the screen. The problem with that is that most apps don't do anything useful in that 20% so there's no point even doing that. Yes, i know we shouldn't call it Metro apps but they haven't given it a better name yet. Wasn't Metro the biggest thing in Windows 8 .. hmmm.

Web browsers really suck in Metro mode:
I don't know if they were told to be designed that way through developer guidelines or if everyone just designed for the tablet in mind, but the web experience on Metro is really bad if you're on a computer. You have to move the mouse all over the place to do simple things. The tabbed browsing is really bad. For an advanced a heavy user of browsers, I don't want to see animation too much. Yeah its cute to look at the first few times, but after that, it slows you down and gets irritating.

Pictures don't make the app better .. just beautiful:
For a while now, Microsoft has resorted to using beautiful images as backgrounds to apps. Is that a way to make us like the app or get distracted? I'm not sure what the intent is for that, but if I wanted to see beautiful images, there are better sites to do that. We see the same thing in Windows 8 apps - Weather for example. The pictures dominate the design more than what the app is supposed to be doing. Keep it simple guys .. :P

Save as .. what were you thinking!:
When you try to save a file from a Metro app, you get this really bad looking save as dialog box. Its almost easier to save to Desktop and go to Desktop and use the older style Explorer to move it on your own. The navigation is really difficult and you can only see a part of the file name even though the rest of the 22" screen is empty. I wonder if anyone saw that and still decided to go ahead with it.

Searching is weird if you have to go to the right every time:
To perform a search (or find) in any app, you have to move the mouse to the right edge of the screen, wait for the animation to show the search option and then use that. It makes it look like you're searching the computer instead of the app. How is search a OS level function? Isn't it something each app implements specific to what they're trying to do? Anyway, its confusing and I hope Windows finds a way to fix it.

Here's what I like:

Boot speed is awesome:
Windows 8 boots up really fast, much faster than Windows 7. Was it designed keeping the tablet in mind? Well it works awesome on the computer.

Desktop is close by:
If you didn't like the Metro, don't worry. The desktop is always close by. Just click it and you can get back to work.

Automatic updates:
Windows automatically keeps your operating system up to date. I think that's something apps like Dropbox, Evernote, etc. have been doing for a while now. As consumers, we don't want to control which app is updated when. Just make sure it works when I need to use it. Microsoft has done a great job at getting this in for Windows 8.

Live id for login:
At some point, the web will merge with the desktop. Windows 8 has taken this first step towards that. I like the fact that you can go to a website and see that you're computer is there. I'm sure it also reduced piracy a lot given that every machine is trying to register on the web.

Refreshed UI:
Ok the flat panes, tiles, look plain but its nice. Good refresh from tons of gradients and colors before. I think keeping it simple in the UI makes it easier to focus on what you want to do.

So how is this related to strategy

• I think the tablets, phones and desktops can have a single OS but more like what Ubuntu has done and not what Windows 8 is doing
• I'm not at all surprised that Windows 8 has not seen a lot of adoption. There is just too much change in one version
• The OS should take care of making the apps render and useable in different form factors. Let the developers focus on the apps and make it work seamlessly
• The most used apps - office apps are not present on Metro only windows tablets. That is probably a big drawback to why Windows 8 tablets are not selling
• I like the multi-tasking ability in Desktop mode and like the Metro for tablets .. great start but more work needed

In the end, I appreciate the fact that Microsoft has taken such a big leap. A company so big is making such a big change, that is impressive. I think they have enough stickiness right now to experiment with the next or next two releases before they start losing serious market share. So its great to see them being bold now and trying out different things. That's all for now :)

Karthik

I just stumbled upon this link and happened to see a video by Lee Doren. He speaks very enthusiastically and in my opinion, has his fundaes quite right on the macro economy front. He is a strong believer in capitalism and I liked his argument on how capitalist nations create wealth. Just finished (well almost finished) Wealth Of Nations by Adam Smith and its a great book.

So if you want to listen to some good debate and discussion on macro economic topics, do check out this channel on YouTube.

Cheers,
Kar.

Its been a while since I blogged. Today I think I will continue blogging because:
a. Its always great to read them again
b. Rediff launched its renewed blog service - http://blogs.rediff.com/. I am moving to Rediff blogs, but I doubt they're Google indexed so I'll blog here and import. Or maybe XML connect the two. Not decided yet.
c. I'm gonna finally start blogging about my passion - robotics (in a separate blog of course). Trying to "connect" with the experts through the world wide web. There isn't a good blog on robotics .. yet :)
d. With the iPhone in hand, I can now mo-blog a lot more .. and with great pictures!
So what's happened in the last 6 months! I quit Rediff. yep .. that was a big decision. I wonder if it was the right decision though. But too much had been said and too much had been kept unsaid. And we're not getting any younger .. so why wait for something. Time to fly I say .. India needs people to shake it from its flaky present, full of corporate disownment, commoditized degrees, lackluster work cycles and a sad habit of only following the West.
It isn't too much about following them that pisses me off. We were once passionate about the arts, music, science, technology, war even! What happened .. how can a nation be taught how to fall in line .. and for how long. What happened to the rising middle class? Gen X? Baby boomers of India? Silicon valley of India? What happened to the money the VCs were going to bring? There are fundamental shifts that need to happen, but one thing I have realized over the last 3 years is that the effort of following one's passion is surprisingly under-valued and over-estimated. So is it too much to wonder .. where have all the people gone.

Cheers,
Kar. (somehow the KP sign-off brings bad memories)

Over the past few days, I've had this recurring realization that big problems are solved by simple communication. I'm not talking of course of the soapy revelations of love that you are intending to make to your neighbour. I'm talking of simple things. We live in a web of communication mediums and yet use them so poorly. I think the humance race is ever-evolving new ways to communicate but has forgotten that it isnt the medium that needs fixing but the user.

Today I had the chance to look back at how we used to work a year back. Full of "terms" and diagrams, it was a mess .. a communication nightmare. To make communication easier, we decided to bastardise .. i mean standardize the terms. Week after week, discussions just kept piling up. End of the day, the CEO decided to cut through the noise and explained what he wanted in 8 slides. That started a new way of working at Rediff.

Six months after that, we work in a much better way. Terms are out, simplicity is in. The focus is on understanding rather than discussing. I just need to tell my Tech boys what i mean and it becomes instantly clear what the whole point is. Business rules aren't a forced torture anymore.

But more recently I've had the opportunity to try this technique on newer and much dearer issues. Trust me, they work. You just need to ask and be clear about it. Things surprisingly become more easy just by getting everyone to understand the thing with more clarity. So meetings are good .. you just need the right kind of meetings.

Cheers,

KP 

Have you ever heard the term "Necessary but not sufficient"? It seems that scientists have long before learnt to accept that certain requisites are necessary but not sufficient if an outcome is desired. Back in 9th and 10th class I had, with amazement, wondered how deep an understanding this would require. Imagine that! To accept that you need to do a certain activity X if you want an outcome but it isnt sufficient.

Fast forward to present. It seems that product managers need to learn this hard fact again. The problem with us is that we attribute the "solution" to the problem to the last effort that resulted in the solution. But we conveniently forget that the 'n' tries before that might have contained in them, disguised like pink flowers in a red bouquet, necessary but not sufficient conditions.

So the next time you hit the same wall, you simply apply the magical "solution" and bang .. it falls flat on its face. "Way to go ... product manager ... now give us proper business rules", I hear my tech lead go. . "Darn ... not again", I think to myself. But the secret is out boys and girls. The secret is the necessary but not sufficient conditions that this product manager forgot (or lazily ignored) to complete.

So the next time you get over a problem, just traceback to see what are the necessary conditions you crossed. You can stick it up to the tech dude if he tries to pull a fast one on you. 

Cheers,

KP.

I was recently having an argument with my tech colleague on why we should use SMS to convey something to our users after they perform a particular option. The reason he gave was that SMS is an asynchronous technology and so we cannot rely on it.

SMS is fast catching on as a reliable but delayed medium. Because of its asynchronous nature, people have come to accept it as something that the reader will see when he / she wants to. Something like a non-interrupting medium like e-mail. This makes for it to be extremely reliable and yet convenient form of messaging.

I wonder if in such a medium, ordering the messages in chronological order is important. I think its the way we have all been brought up. Fixing a frame of reference like time. Even for such a medium it seems to fit well into the scheme of things. So what then should we do with an asynchronous medium ... should we try to make it reliable by ensuring messages reach immediately or simply build on the medium differently and let different creators build apps they way they want to above the different medium. Ok that got a little confusing there .. but the point was just that an asynchronous medium is reliable, just that its perceived to be unreliable because its different.

With that thought, i'll stop this post. Well its been a long time since I blogged.

Cheers,
KP.

Now ask most email users and they'll tell you that this is a great idea and its new and its wonderful. Not that I dont think its a great idea, its just that I think I've seen this before. On iGoogle. Basically the idea of widgets has been around for a while now and iGoogle didn't do as well as people expected, I don't suppose Yahoo's My Yahoo! did very well either. Why? Because you dont want to customize something you dont use very often.

This doesn't mean people dont use Google and Yahoo. It just means that people don't use the Google page and the Yahoo main page very often. Now you might see the unique visitor traffic, the page views on those and say they're in millions so obv people are coming there. Thats true. But they're coming there to do "something on the page" not to "see the page".

But email, its different. People login to gmail to well read and send emails. So its a great place to integrate apps. Also Firefox plugins like RTM in Gmail are hugely popular. Just goes to show why widgets in email will work. In a way chat in Gmail itself is a widget.

So i wonder if web pages will be taken over by apps (or widgets) and people will choose where they want to put them. So its not a page we'll be used to but rather the service provided by that provider, whether it is on a page or via an app or maybe even an application you install on your computer or mobile. End of the day, its not the medium but the service that we're interested in.

By the way, Facebook really showed the way when it comes to apps. The problem is that people don't associate Facebook with any one functionality. Its basically a place where you can connect with people you are close to. Google has now integrated Calendar and Docs into Gmail and also has provided a way to add other custom widgets, although its a little complicated to do that right now. Exciting stuff ahead I hope :)

Official Gmail Blog: New in Labs: Calendar and Docs gadgets

Cheers,
KP.

Here's a question I want to ask Google. Is language the only difference between cultures? Why is Google in 38 languages such a big deal? Is it because they think that if Google sites were in multiple languages then people all over the world would be able to use Google sites with the same ease ....

WRONG! Usability is not just about the language of the site. It depends on a lot of other things. Yes language is probably the main barrier to remove but still, you will not get adoption as you could if you designed the site for that region. The big question to ask is - Is the site's "look" what you want to associate with the company or is it the site's "use". Because I see the Google search bar has been used in 38 languages and its great. But do all people all over the world search the same way? I doubt it.

Why is Google spending millions on usability tests (Im assuming its millions) but testing their sites primarily on American users? The rest of the world do not think and act like Americans. So please do these tests with other users and understand that people respect the use and not the looks of the site.

Back in the days when the Internet spread to outside America, Yahoo was the biggest site and what they did was right because people accepted it. Is Google following Yahoo in this respect ... I wonder.

The facts are there to prove that Google's "minimalistic" interface is not winning in every region in the world. China, France and Brazil are regions where Google's search is not a majority. Yes, Google has dominated the search market because they were better than Yahoo, not because they did the best for every region. So I am sure that if there's a regional player which starts innovating from ground up and incorporates the use of the site the way the people in that region are comfortable in, Google will find it really difficult to penetrate that region (unless of course they go and buy that company out).

Rediff is one of those companies always striving to find out what the "Indian" internet user wants. Its editorial section proves that they have succeeded in that domain at least. Google news, Indiatimes, Yahoo have all tried to grab the online news market, but have not been able to dent Rediff's dominance. The reason is simple, Rediff editorial understands what an Indian online news reader wants. Hint: its not exactly the same news that he/she gets offline.

That's where websites can make an impact in the years to come. I believe smaller and smaller sites will make very local, region specific innovations that resonate with its people and no amount of brand building can take away that crowd, provided its useful. This is great news because it will fuel innovation in the right direction. There are far too many me-too Indian sites out there trying to replicate the success that their American counterparts have achieved. Its time to better that.

Official Google Blog: Google Sites now in 38 languages

Cheers,
KP.

Its been a while since I have blogged. Mainly due to the holidays and all. Gmail announced that they're going to have emoticons in Gmail. Thats a great idea, but again I wonder if its not just another "quick" innovation, as compared to a well thought out innovation.

Why were emoticons popular:
Back in the days of chats and terminals, emoticons and actually symbols were used to differentiate messages from the others and also the human brain can process images faster than words. So if you look at it, emoticons progressed from chat rooms and IRC to yahoo chat and other chat programs. Basically because they were the same users who were using them.

Today's audience of email (and specially Gmail) is far different from the old days of computer know-it-alls and wannabes. Its normal people who want to send messages. With Gmail trying to promote emoticons its actually forcing the normal people to start learning what emoticons are. This isn't a great idea. I dont suppose a lot of people will use this.

The other side:
Smileys are better than emoticons ... because although emoticons started with IRC, I suppose a lot of people are using smileys on SMS. Smileys are easier to read anyway.

So overall, I think they're trying to make email more than just text but not going the attachment way. Rather trying to make it more colourful by integrating text with images. That is nice .. and emoticons are a nice way to start, but I guess there can be a better way.

Official Gmail Blog: A picture is worth a thousand words

Cheers,
KP.

Android came last year and now the first Android powered phone is coming out. Somewhere back in November 2007, Google released the Android, an open platform (Operating System) for mobile phones that developers can use to create applications for mobile phones. So why is it so special? Well, today's mobile phones have a lot of legacy architecture, and they were built before Web 2.0. That means they didn't envision integration and mashups. Here are some of the things that make Andriod cool:

1. Deeply integrated
Applications can be deeply integrated. That means you can call up the Maps application from your contacts to see "where" your contact is. You dont have to first get out of your phone book and then bring up the Maps application and look up the address there. Thats neat !

2. Applications can receive notifications
Here's a really cool feature. You applications can receive notifications (incoming messages) directly. So its not just native SMS that alerts you anymore. Maybe you'd like to know when your books was dispatched from Amazon, or when your stock went up, or when your friend reached a cafe. It just opens up a great deal of possibilities developers can bring out on the phone.

3. Advanced features
Yes it does support advanced features like 3G, OpenGL, touchscreen. Steve Horowitz (Engineering Director at Google) demoed a prototype of the phone. It has Quake! Need i say more ... Plus the maps application was really fast running off the 3G network.

4. Map view
Here's another neat treat for developers. Google has made available the map view for other applications to use. So not only is the Google Maps application deeply integrated, you own application can have a map view and build features on top of that.

I think this is a well thought out product. Google even offered $10 million for the coolest apps. On Wednesday, the much awaited G1 phone from T mobile is releasing in the US. So lets talk about Gmail on G1.

What's the big deal about Gmail on G1:
Its an application written by Google engineers. Looking at their video, its looks pretty nice. You can do all the basic things you do on Gmail on the web, on the phone. Really its like they've tried to bring all the functionality that Gmail provides on the web to the phone. I would have expected them to be smarter than that. Mobile is not a PC - so we dont want to do the same thing on the mobile like we do on the web. Personally i dont really find the star feature and archiving very useful. Why have they brought all that into the G1?

Some cool things:
Gmail notifications: you get notified when new mail arrives right on the home screen and you just need to tap it to open up the application and read your mail.
Contacts are integrated: Gmail contacts are integrated with your phone. So it auto suggests, the same way it does on the web. And additionally ... if you add a contact on Gmail on phone, it gets synced with the web. Nice !
Attaching images: you can attach images, but they seem to be silent on attaching any other file. I wonder if G1 can handle Microsoft files. Hmmm...

But what i dont understand is ... there isn't any real mobile specific feature. Why is Gmail trying to copy its web version on the mobile. A simple suggestion - dont just auto suggest names, let us "say" out the name and bring up matching contacts to choose from. Motorola did a great job at Voice recognition in their V3 series way back. The Andriod seems to have forgotten that its a "phone" but looks at it more like a mini computer. I guess it will evolve.

But for a start, im thrilled to see Google coming on to mobile. One last question - When is it coming to India? :)

Here's the video of Android (released last November)


Official Gmail Blog: A sneak peek at Gmail on Android

Cheers,
KP.

airlines economy jet airways kingfisher recession

Recently I visited Bangalore. I had managed 11 days of leave so I had decided to take the train both ways, what with the flight rates and all. But as the holiday neared, my urge to quickly check out the fares forced me to check the online fares. For one thing, the taxes have gone up. For another, airlines dont charge Rs. 0, like they used to. These days the minimum fare starts at Rs. 500. Another difference - these fares dont seem to change at all. I checked a month in advance and up till a week before the flight. It didn't change at all. A flight that used to cost Rs. 2525 now costs Rs. 4890. So i did what any lazy IT Bangalorean would do, I booked the flight an cancelled the train ticket. 

So i'm at the airport and its much less crowded. The flights are not full even on a Wednesday night (when Thursday was a holiday. That means you take Friday off and you get 4 days off). The first thought that went through my head was how much were these flight operators bleeding. Is it causing them to cut cost too much? Have they performed all the necessary tests before the flight takes off? Have they overrun the same plane to save cost? Ok maybe i'm getting paranoid but who really checks on them ... 

The other day I heard of 2 major collaborations Jet and Kingfisher and then their extension to Air India. Is this natural consolidation happening in the industry or premature consolidation. I belive it is the latter. The increase of fuel prices is unwarranted right now. It is a backlash of the currently unsteady US economy.

This is causing a shortage of fuel supply, leading to increasing of flight prices. But the Indian consumer has a very steep elasticity curve (ok im getting technical here). Basically it means that if the price increases by a factor of 2, the number of people buying tickets decreases my more than 2. In this case it might be as high as 4. So if the price doubles (as it has), the number of buyers decrease by 4.

This has undoubtedly led to a consolidation wave. Lets pause at consolidation for a second. When do consolidations happen - when there is saturation. When the market has too many players and they're bleeding each other out, players begin to consolidate to scale up and leverage strengths. Why is our airline industry running into a premature consolidation? The main reason is because they have no way out. They can't increase prices because the Indian consumer will fall back into alternate transport. The biggest support (government) is not helping them out. To support the industry the government must step forward and ensure continuation of competition.

Why do we not want to let airlines consolidate?
The main reason why competition helps is that it encourages innovation and fair price determination. If your economy has a lot of players and everyone fights a lot, there's a good chance that people will reduce unnecessary costs, reduce their profit margins and give more value to the consumer. Also players will find innovative ways to differenciate and offer better services to the consumer. In either way the consumer gains. But when the players consolidate, it settles into 2 or 3 big companies that make up the entire airline industry. They all enjoy fair profit margins and enjoy big chunks of the consumer pie. So there's no need to fight with competition, rather they all collaborate to enjoy the profits.

Our airlines are modelled on the US airlines. With the growing airline industry, I would have loved to see a lot of innovation for the Indian consumer. Today we operate like any American airline. We have not innovated enough yet so guys please dont consolidate already. This really is bad news for the airline industry today.

Is there some hope:
The good thing still is that airlines today are still competing with the railways and road transport. So they'll still need to lure the consumer with good value. Also we have mostly Indian domestic airlines. The government can encourage other foreign airlines to enter the Indian scene and compete. But this time around, lets make sure that we let the players compete.

Just for the record, the return train journey was more than 24 hrs but a flight was only 2 hrs. Still it was managable. End of the trip you're happy you saved around 4 grand and maybe plan another holiday .... 

Cheers,

KP.

Official Gmail Blog: Tip: Sending empty messages

Here's a cool feature that Gmail has introduced. When you want to send empty messages, you just put a EOM at the end of a subject line. At work, i come across so many situation where you have to choose between features that conflict with each other. For example, when you try to send a message without any text in it, Gmail prompts for confirmation. That is a cool feature because a lot of people tab-enter or click send by mistake. So surely you cant remove this feature. Now how about people how want to send the message in the subject line itself. I've seen myself do this a lot lately.

These two features seem to contradict. I think if you analyse the two types of users, the second type are more advanced users of mail. So logically they'd be willing and able to do a slightly more complex task. So resolve their problem by adding an EOM at the end. Not the most simple solution but it works. I'd ideally want Gmail to guess and resolve both situations, but hey ... even people cant do that sometimes. So its better to have a slightly complex solution that works all the time than to have a simple solution that works only sometimes.

I wonder though, why Gmail wants to prompt if the text is empty at all. They have a nice undo feature. In my opinion, Gmail should just remove the stupid prompt and send "empty" messages 5 - 10 secs later with an undo option. So if you clicked send by mistake, you'd see a count down for 10 secs with an undo option at the top of your inbox (the same way we see an undo option in Gmail). You just click undo before the countdown ends and no mail is sent. If you wanted to send an empty mail anyway, you just ignore the countdown and in 10 secs the mail has been sent.

Cheers,
KP.

I had this lucky chance the other day to actually test out and play around with an Apple iPod Nano chromatic. Here's what was not covered in my previous post:

1. Some really awesome games

iPod has these really cool games that use the accelerometer. One of them is Maze. You have to work your way around a maze by tilting the iPod as you move along. Really fun to play (even if you have WC installed on a laptop with 64-bit AGP). You can pick up more from the iStore. Something to do instead of figiting away on the mobile when you're waiting for 45 secs at the bus stop. Here's a pic on Apple's site that shows the game.

2. Do not disconnect when transferring

Here's something that has to be told. Do not disconnect the iPod when transferring music. It freezes up (err .. like the Microsoft blue screen) and sits there. There's a way to reset it though but you have to use a complex key sequence. So next time you plan on transferring songs, be careful.

Good buy? Still yes !

Cheers,

KP

Here's an interesting thing that happened last weekend in Bangalore. A blogger, mom and now writer has published her first book "34 Bubblegums and Candies". She released it in Bombay and released it in Bangalore last weekend at Crossword. I received a mail about this blog and then Crossword also sent a promotional email to me. Wow ... this author knows how to be heard.

Anyway, its great to hear that bloggers are moving to authoring "real" books. But somehow it seems odd that someone who became famous in the blogosphere should aspire to write a book. We have all grown up thinking of authors as someone who published a physical book. Maybe that definition needs to change. It certainly wont if bloggers start running away to publish their own books. But I guess this does show that blogging and writing are very closely knit indeed.

Today's bloggers grew up in a world of books and pages. I guess tomorrow's bloggers will grow up blogging away and connecting online. Wonder if Amazon Kindle can help in that.

For all you comic fans out there, here's some good news. Marvel comics has come out of the big, underground building (somewhere we dont know) and onto the internet. Yup ... they are interacting with the rest of the planet. I don't have anything against them personally but as a kid I loved Marvel comics but somehow they were never approachable, they didn't even have a face. Well today they have names and they're super cool. Ok fine so they aren't aliens ... damn .. but at least they are funny people. You have to give them that.

Anyway I'm following Marvel on twitter and its really cool. Here's the link. A lot of news and polls. Good stuff. When I was a kid I actually rented out comics (mostly Garfield) from a library and read it. No ... that wasnt ages ago .. but still it made me wonder what happened to comics that we loved so much. What are kids doing these days? They're on the internet, on social websites, on coding projects, on a whole lot of things that we're doing right now.

Its nice to see that comics have started to embrace the internet rather than shy away from it. Even Dilbert gives a free comic a day. But still it doesn't have quite the same feeling as sitting down with a comic book. The other great thing comics have done is going the gaming and movie route. Most comics today are trying to tie up with gaming labels and movie houses and release long drawn episodes. Take batman for instance ... remember we're waiting for what happens next as a sequel to the movie and not as a comic in the bookstore ... When you read a comic you would enter the world it created and then explore it with your own ideas and imagination. To some extent games are doing that these days. Letting you take the role of the character and define the way the story goes. Movies also let you live the story for a while. But still hardcore comic fans will insist that its nothing like reading a physical copy of the book.

I do wonder whether America defines what happens as technology forces us out of one medium into another. Are comic fans going to have to give up the thin, brightly coloured, glossy, crackling piece of pure fantasy for 2 hours of staring at the idiot box? Somehow are we becoming a very lazy bunch of people who like to be told what the story is like while we just sit and watch instead of letting the story take place in our world of imagination? I think its a wave. There will be the rise of comics as they take shape on the internet and on the televisions, but they'll find their way back to the good old "comic shelves". For now, Im going to check out how Marvel is planning to embrace the Internet.

Cheers,
KP.

P.S.: I voted for Mystique as the best female character and guess what she was number 1. Wohoo !

So Apple has released its new version of the iPod - the Nano chromatic. Its a much bigger step than previous ipod updates. This one seems to go closer to the iTouch than the others. Some of the great features you'll see on this one are:

1. The great vertical form:

Ok here's the first best feature. I just loved the vertical fom factor of the ipod nano. Then Apple removed it for some reason. I searched and searched for even a second hand vertical form factor ipod but they had already stopped production. Thankfully they've re-introduced it. Its way better than the rediculous square. Dont change it again guys ....

2. Large bright screen:

I think Zune made a big point here that everyone likes a big screen even if its on a small mp3 player. So iPod has a large bright screen which is always nice to have. Way to go on this one!!

3. Motion sensor:

iPod Nano now has the motion (also called orientation) sensor that made iPhone cool. So if you tilt the nano the album art basically flips and gives you a different way to see your music or the video. This is especially good because most videos use the wide aspect ratio that wont fit on a slim vertical screen. So this is also a good point on the nano.

4. Genuis feature:

Ok here's another really great feature. If you're listening to a song and you want to listen to similar songs, just press and hold the middle button and select the genius feature. Basically it creates a list of songs that are similar to the one you're hearing. Isnt that cool ... I'd probably buy the nano for just this feature.

5. Shake to shuffle:

This one first came out on Phillips and Sony. If you want to change songs you basically just shake the device and it shuffles to the next song.  I wonder how people will find this useful cause the iPod is mostly inside your pocket or your bag. I wonder if you have to start jumping to change songs ;)

6. Album art:

This is something Apple's been harping about since iTunes was launched. You get to see album art when you scroll through songs. Works on the flipped horizontal mode. I wonder if US listeners like to see album art cause really ... I dont think Indians care. But if you do want to see it then this device allows you to. Now this is one of those hidden incentives to buy original music cause pirated songs wont have album art. So you're kind of "trained" to want to see album art and so you'll move closer to buying songs. With iTunes store well integrated, you can easily buy songs. I guess its a great way for Apple to make some money with songs as well.

7. Ways to browse music:

A little enhancement here is a new way to browse music. You can press and hold the center button and Browse by Album, which shows you other songs in this album, and Browse by Artist, which shows you other songs by this artist. Creative Inc. has these features on their mp3 player but not in this easy-to-access-mode. I guess Apple has basically turned the menu to start from the current song, which might be good.

8. Smooth curved edges:

If you thought the nano already has curved edges, its gotten more tapery. Basically I think this is a great idea to help you slide it into bags, pockets, and whereever else you put your ipod. Im not a big fan of this design though, like the proper candy bar style better. 

There are still a few unanswered questions:

1. Does album art stay on always when the iPod is playing draining the battery?

I found this problem with the creative. It is super irritating especially when you put any podcasts on it. You have to play it like a video and it has this still image always on and draining out the battery. Yeah i know it has a big battery life but i dont believe in wasting !

2. What formats does it support?

Are we still stuck with "limited" options or can we play everything, like the creative.

3. How sensitive is the shake to shuffle feature?

Does it mean every pot hole will change the song .... i hope not. Otherwise there better be an option to turn it off. Dont want to be cursing the ipod at every road trip.

4. Why do we need 8 gb !!!

This is something i have yet to understand. Does Apple think we dont have access to computers for days? I need 2 GB but i need something cheap. If you're going to raise the cost by $100 for super expensive memory chips, then you're just making it more difficult for me to buy this thing.

Well, here's something on the strategy front. I think Apple has done a great job as usual. They've noticed that a few innovations have come along since the touch wheel (even by other players). So this kind of made it clear that this clearly is a battle Apple is ready to fight. It picked the better innovations and put them all in one place. Is this supposed to push the market to the iTouch? I dont think so. This is a different market that values size over everything. We like the occasional video and picture but its mainly about music that fits in the pocket. Here's a really great video thats on youtube explaining the features. Do check it out.

Cheers,
KP.

Update: Its already available in India - just checked it on eBay - starting at Rs. 8,190 (in US you get it for $125 - Rs. 5,700). So if you know anyone coming from US, then you know what to ask for ;)

Stanford started this initiative of sharing its engineering material with everyone free of charge. So you can download the entire course material, videos, assignments, etc that Stanford students use - free of charge. Hey, didn't MIT do the same thing (Open Course Ware - http://ocw.mit.edu) a few years ago. So whats so new about Stanford. I think its a me too on MIT. But this does herald a big shift in the way the world will see education.

Maybe the name of the college will not matter so much anymore, because earlier you only had access to the best material in the best colleges. Now anyone can access at least the written stuff from anywhere (you can download recorded lectures as well sometimes). What then is the real value of going to an ivy league college - Well, the professors. It will not be about just the degree and where you got it from. The world will start to value the professors who taught you and what they have to say about you. Would that make it a fair play in this overcrowded job market? We'll have to wait and see. For now, the information silo barrier that separated the haves and the have-nots has been accepted as a thing of the past.

Another way to look at this is that material will become so widely available that students will go to colleges to learn how to think and process this information. Not to actually "get" the knowledge but how to "use" the knowledge. I remember at L we used to talk about how the world has moved from a Knowledge economy to an Idea economy. That too has its merits. At the end of the day, unless you learn how to use knowledge, it will not help.

I cant help but wonder that in the middle of all this there is a very big skill that is so vital to everyone but not stressed at all. How do you manage so much of information in so little time? Is it time management, knowledge management - call it what you will, but there needs to be a much better way to use this. MIT release OCW a few years back and hoped it would change the world. But how can you changed the world when the world doesn't know how you make use of what you've given them. I think the world needs to accept and evolve a way of using this knowledge.

If you look at Google, they talk about organizing the world's information. But they're just bringing it to you in a primitive format. Its still not usable. Compare this to being able to read every text book that mentioned "information retrieval". Is it really useful? We need a radical shift in the way we use information - not just search through it and find results. With all this talk of semantics, we're still talking about how to find the "right" piece of information. Is that the next big thing? Or is it in something that helps us "use" the information that we need.

Cheers,
KP.