If you're seeing this, then I've done something wrong, or you're looking in some strange places.

I've migrated this blog from Movable Type to Wordpress. It's over here.


Short Nexus 7 2013 Review

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Nexus 7 2013 Model

Since I've had it a few weeks now, I thought it was worth writing about the new Google Nexus 7, which annoyingly doesn't have a particularly distinct new name to differentiate it from last year's model. So let's call it the 2013 model.

I was a big fan of the first Nexus 7. It was sold at what was essentially cost price, and along with the various Kindle Fire varieties, really kick-started the 7 inch screen as the tablet format of choice. Having previously owned a 10 inch tablet (the Sony S), I simply found it slightly too large to carry around everywhere, and consequently just didn't use it a great deal. Whereas a 7 inch device slips into jacket pockets, takes minimal space in bags or luggage on journeys, but is still big enough to allow you to do things that are just too uncomfortable to do on phones.

The first thing to say is that if you already have a Nexus 7 and are happy with it, then you really needn't upgrade.

So why did I go against my own advice?

It boils down to a single reason - lack of space. I was one of those cheapskates who only stumped up enough for the 8GB model costing £159 rather than spending a bit more and picking up a 16GB model. It was only slightly galling to find that Google fairly quickly stopped making the 8GB model and offered the 16GB for the cheaper price while introducing a 32GB model.

Because the thing you're going to want to do with the Nexus 7 is download things to watch or listen to later - or perhaps stream them. You won't be writing your magnum opus on it (well theoretically you could, but I'd pair it with a Bluetooth keyboard at the very least if that was the case). You're probably not going to even write long emails on it. You might Tweet with it, or update your Facebook status. But that's probably it.

So what's changed between models?

Not a whole lot. It's still made by Asus to a pretty high standard. There's a camera on the back now, but I always think that you must be a bit desperate - and quite possibly mad - to want to use a tablet to take photos. But we all see them being used. And perhaps there'll be a time when I need to use the camera - probably because I don't have a proper camera with me, and my phone has died.

The screen has improved. But that's almost academic, because the screen was pretty awesome to begin with.

It has wireless charging. But that's really not made the mainstream yet. I find myself living in a world where every device, including this, charge via micro USB. And that's a very convenient world. However the supplied Micro USB cable did break very quickly which isn't great.

Unlike the first iteration of the Nexus 7, there is some technology called SlimPort built into the new version which allows you to mirror your tablet's screen via HDMI on an external monitor or television. But I've yet to use this, and don't know if there are any limitations. However there were a couple of occasions in the past when I wanted to do this, so although it's not essential, it's nice to have.

The price has gone up though, with the 16GB model now selling for £199, while the 32GB model that I plumped for sells for £239. If you spend £299 you can get an LTE capable device too.

Sadly there is still no microSD slot or easy way of using an external USB drive. It's not alone with this of course, and it's interesting to see manufacturers like SanDisk making things like wireless memory sticks to get around the issue. In the past, I've used workarounds by buying an OTG USB cable alongside an inexpensive app that allowed playback of files stored on an external USB stick. My rule of thumb is to now maximise the storage on any mobile device - because I know I'm going to use it.

Android 4.3 is great, although I haven't noticed anything too substantially different since 4.2, since I don't use the multi-user log-in that's a major part of it. But it's probably a bit snappier than 4.2 - even on the first generation Nexus 7. And Google has now broken out many apps from the OS to give owners of devices made by tardy phone manufacturers and networks access to get the latest and greatest versions of its apps regardless of the OS version they're running.

After a few days of not supporting it (and forcing me to sideload the app), the BBC made its iPlayer app compatible with it, and it's one of the relatively few devices that support downloading of programmes which is fantastic, with radio is due to follow in 2014.

Similarly, an initial problem I had with the Netflix app also disappeared after a few days.

Battery life seems very decent. Exactly how much life you get is obviously dependent on your usage, and the type of things you're doing. I've run it all night streaming radio with well over half the battery left in the morning. I'm not a massive game player, although the newly released FIFA 14 seems to work well, and there wasn't noticeable drain. Players of first person shooters might be the best people to ask about this.

The radios on the device seem to work well, with WiFi in particular being very strong and stretching to places lesser devices get no signal.

And there's now a little LED at the foot of the device that tells you if you have an alert of some description when the device's screen is off.

I'm never entirely sure why Asus is so slow making official cases and accessories for its devices. They're missing a trick and some very easy money. I bet Apple barely sells a single iPad without also flogging a massively over-priced case to go with it. They'd certainly not release a new model without offering a full range of cases at time of launch. Cases to them are like mats or alloy wheels for a car dealer - there's a good margin on them.

So I'm using a very decent and fairly priced MoKo case - £14.99 from Amazon - which holds the devicesnugly, has a way to prop it up, and includes a magnet that automatically switches on the device when flipped open. Oddly, despite including this functionality in the first generation Nexus 7, Asus's own travel case didn't include this magnet. Very strange.

Overall, I think they've shaved a fraction of a millimetre off its thickness, but making something so thin that it snaps has never been a major issue with me. Some still find the large black bezel top and bottom a bit off-putting, but I'm fine with it. When you're using it in landscape mode, it gives you somewhere to hold it without getting in the way of the screen's real estate. And the fact that the screen is very close to 16:9 means it's far superior for watching videos compared with the oddly ratioed iOS devices.

Of course the 7" Android market is getting very crowded with even Tesco launching a low priced device in the last week. Having a Nexus device means that I'm always on the latest version of the Android OS, but I'm not sure that's vital for everyone. So if £120 is your upper limit, get something else. That said, I prefer a proper Android device with access to the Google Play store to Amazon's version in its Kindle Fire devices. And it does seem that paying more does get you faster processors. If you've ever played with a "basic" Android phone, you know how sluggish they can be. But I've not played with some of the more recent devices, and they may perform very adequately.

There is also the interesting phablet area with devices like the Galaxy Note series filling a gap. It's certainly true that if you're using one of these, then you probably don't need a 7 inch tablet as well.

If you already have a Nexus 7 and you're happy with it, there really is no reason to upgrade. Otherwise, it's a superb 7 inch tablet, and would take an awful lot to knock it off the top of the heap in its category.

Radio Times 28 September 2013

Well it's the 90th Anniversary of the Radio Times which you can't fail to have noticed. And I've not done one of these for a while. But to be honest, this is just a standard takedown of a night of TV.

As ever, it's best viewed large.

The Worst Kind of Film Ads

| | Comments (0)

From the title of this piece, you might already trying to decide whether I'm going to be talking about:

- Trailers that give the entire plot of the film away;
- Trailers that are seemingly more interested in the awards their actors have previously earned than telling us anything about this new film;
- Ads for foreign language films that try desperately to avoid telegraphing that fact by not including any dialogue in the trailer.

But in this instance, I'm talking about none of those things.

Recently at work there was a group email that went around offering a free screening of an upcoming film. All attendees had to agree to was to be filmed and/or recorded afterwards saying what they thought of the film. These would then be used in television and radio ads for the film.

In fairness, the film may be superb.

I don't know.

And from what I could see in the invitation, you could be as honest about the film as you liked. If you think it's hopeless, then you can probably say that. But I wouldn't imagine that your contribution would be used.

But my problem is that, regardless of how good the film is, these are the worst kind of cinema ads.

A trailer may be edited disingenuously, or include the only funny joke in the entire "comedy" film, but you at least stand a chance of making some kind of educated decision about whether you're interested in the film (e.g. the trailer for Pain and Gain made it very clear that I'd rather chew my own arm off than ever go and see it). Yet these audience reaction ads are worse than useless.

It's true that recommendation is a great way to get me to see a film. That might be a critic who I regard highly, or just a good friend whose taste I trust. Even someone who I think has an appalling taste in films can give me valuable information about whether or not I want to see a film.

But random people off the street are useless.

So if your movie ad is filled with happy smiling people emerging from a cinema somewhere telling a camera crew how great the film is, that tells me nothing. I'm certain that I could find a grinning fool who'd tell a camera that Sex Lives of the Potato Men was the best thing ever. Indeed wave a camera in someone's face and they'll happily lie to that camera as convincingly as they can manage to get screentime.

And the same goes for those print or outdoor ads that instead of using newspaper, magazine or established websites for critical remarks, use random people they've found on Twitter. I'm not saying that I implicitly trust anything that Heat, Stylist or the Daily Star says about a film, but I've got a better notion of how high they set their bar than I do @crazydavethecinemagoer or @everythingisjustsobrilliant.

While we're at, horror films that are advertised with night-vision cameras focused on an audience "jumping" does not persuade me that your work is any good either.

Look - I realise it's not easy being a film marketing company. You've essentially got a new "brand" to launch on an unsuspecting public every week. But these lazy advertising tropes fool no-one, and almost certainly don't work.

And for me, they have the worse effect - I tend to think that you've got something to hide and that your film is actually rubbish.

King's Cross Square Open

| | Comments (0)

King's Cross Square Open

This morning King's Cross Square was finally open.

King's Cross Square Open 2

For many months now, King's Cross has been a construction site as first they built the new concourse, and then dismantled the ugly 1970s facade. Now the original frontage has been revealed.

Some Final "Snagging" At King's Cross Square

There's still a bit of "snagging" to complete - workers rush to finish the last corner before the grand opening.

King's Cross Square Lectern

I've no idea who'll be officially opening the square - but my money's on Boris. This will be the lectern that they use anyway.

New Healthy Fast Food

They continue to try to make us eat more healthily.

There Are A Couple of Teething Problems

But there's the odd teething problem.

Coming Live With Living Statues

I'm not sure quite why they hired so many living statues, but I suppose they needed a "thing."

More Excited To See News Reporter Than New Square

Either way, the living statues alongside an actual news reporter seemed to be the most exciting thing for most commuters/travellers/passers-by.

The Future of The Sky at Night

| | Comments (0)

In the last day or so, there's suddenly been a bit of press speculation about the future of The Sky at Night - the BBC's long running monthly astronomy programme. And when I say long running, I mean it. It's been going since 1957.

In some ways this isn't surprising. It always felt to me that the BBC didn't really have much love for the programme, but while Sir Patrick Moore was still alive, there was no way they were going to cancel it. Sadly Moore died at the end of last year, and the easy thing to do was to continue the programme with the group of presenters who'd been assisting him in the previous years anyway. It was probably put into a box marked "difficult" - to come back to you later.

The programme has, in my memory at least, always been a mixture of hard science about space, mixed with regular routes into the subject for those who are beginners. I strongly suspect that if you ask any British astronomer aged under 60, they'll tell you that they were inspired by The Sky at Night. I've watched it year in, year out, for as long as I can remember.

The programme stands apart from just about everything else the BBC puts out. It's a science programme that has not been "relegated" to BBC 2 or BBC 4. Natural history and Bang Goes the Theory aside, this makes it a rare exception to BBC 1's regular output. It airs monthly which is not how we "do" TV these days. But of course that allows the programme to highlight the different things we can see in our night skies across the year. It's erratically scheduled late at night on BBC 1, with a weekend daytime repeat the following week on BBC 2, and with BBC 4 prime-time repeats. So lots of opportunities to watch, but with Sky+, the country's most popular DVR being unable to correctly series link it, you have to keep your eyes open to catch it! And it's made very cheaply. I've no actual idea of the production budget, but it must surely give daytime TV shows that are ordered by the yard a run for their money in cost terms with no studio, and presenters who work in the area rather than just being professional TV presenters.

At this point in time, I think the BBC could go one of three ways:

- It could scrap the show, ending one of it's longest running franchises.

- It could continue the show in the same way as it is now. The New Broadcasting House Post-It note budget probably dwarfs it.

- It could "reinvent" the programme - updating it and investing in making it bigger.

I suspect a lot of hardcore fans would say the second option is the best. But I don't think that we should completely ignore the third. While I wouldn't want to see the science parts of the programme needlessly diluted to make it "accessible" to a mainstream audience (as I say, it already is), that doesn't necessarily mean that a refresh wouldn't be appropriate.

Stargazing Live has shown that there remains a strong interest in astronomy. That programme - which curiously sat alongside The Sky at Night while the two programmes essentially ignored one another - shows what's possible. Although I wouldn't want to use that as a template for how a refreshed Sky at Night should be automatically envisaged.

I recently went to a great talk from Helen Czerski at Soho Skeptics, and there was the inevitable question about TV dumbing down science. Czerski said - and I paraphrase - that for every episode Horizon about cats that seem a bit simplistic, there's another that gets much deeper into its subject. I do sort of agree with that, although I'd argue that most science TV comes to us with the assumption that we, the viewers, know nothing about the subject in advance. Whereas if you watch a programme about, say, the history of a certain school of art, it would expect that you're vaguely familiar with the subject. We don't start from first principles every time.

What I'm trying to say is that you can make a programme accessible without making it simplistic or covering hard science. And whatever route the BBC goes with The Sky at Night, I hope that this is considered.

One way or another, we need Sky at Night to continue. That's why I've signed this online petition.

A Moody Night

| | Comments (0)

A Moody Night

This was taken some time ago near the coast in the middle of the night, with a sea mist coming in. But it was in colour with horrible tungsten lights. It looks much nicer once it's been taken through Silver Efex Pro.

Also, Flickr chose it for their Explore section, which has led to many more views and favourites compared with what I'd normally get. Lovely of them!

Note on Comments

| | Comments (0)

Unfortunately I'm currently being deluged by comment spam on this blog - many hundreds of comments a day. While most of the comments aren't getting through, I thought the best thing to do for the time being was switch them off for a bit. It's the most hassle-free solution for me. In any case, I get about one proper comment a month these days, with most feedback coming via Twitter or Facebook.

At some point I do need to move this blog over onto a newer platform, and put a more full-featured commenting mechanism in place. But I'm not in a position to do that right now. So hopefully leaving comments off for a few days will get this blog removed from some of the active blog-spam lists and we can get back to normal.

There have been discussions elsewhere about switching off comments altogether, but I'd rather not leave them off permanently.

Anyway, if you feel a pressing need to respond to something I've written in the meantime, drop me a note via a blindingly obvious email address or via Twitter, and I can publish your comment.

I find the story of Ministry of Sound taking legal action against Spotify absolutely fascinating, and potentially troubling, as it potentially opens up many cans of worms.

As I understand it, it goes something like this. Ministry of Sound has a very profitable business releasing compilation albums. They licence tracks from various labels which they compile into a compilation album - usually following some kind of theme. Often, these tracks are also mixed using beat and key matching to produce a continuous piece of music.

Spotify represents a threat to this business because users can make and share playlists on the service. In particular, Ministry of Sound is upset that users have been replicating their compilation albums (which as I understand it, are not available on Spotify) by building playlists that contain the Ministry of Sound compilations' tracks in the same order. It would seem likely that users are naming these playlists after their respective Ministry of Sound albums.

Ministry of Sound is arguing that it has copyright on the track selection and order, and that therefore users/Spotify are in breach of its copyright.

To be clear - the tracks are legitimately available on Spotify. It's the order that they're being collated or curated in that's being questioned.

Ministry of Sound claims that it takes a lot of work curating their compilations as well as the skill of their producers in determining the order.

So is this copyrightable?

Media Guardian draws an analogy with football fixtures, which are deemed to be copyright. If I wanted to put Arsenal's fixture list on this website, I legally need to pay a fee to do so. I don't believe that's the case in retrospect. I can report on all the fixtures that have taken place this season to date. But I wonder how useful an analogy this is? Only a very select number of bodies determine the fixture list (The Premier League, the Football League, the FA, Police etc.), whereas anyone can sequence some pre-existing songs.

And this could conceivably extend to radio. Is the order that your station plays songs copyrightable? Because if Ministry of Sound wins its case, then that would seem to be the corollary. Indeed I know that not all stations were completely happy when One Golden Square launched its Compare My Radio website. In that instance, the site replicates what other commercial products do, which is to report what songs have been played after they have aired.

But think about this. Station X plays sequences of three songs between ad breaks. They're a hit music station, so they have a relatively small playlist. So in one break, they play songs A, B and C in that order. Station Y, owned by a rival group, in another part of the country, is also a hit music station. It too plays those same three songs in the same order. Does Station X own the copyright? Can it sue station Y? Is three songs too little? Maybe it should be four? Even then it'd still be possible to run into cases where one station replicates another's playlist order.

And let's return to Spotify for a moment. What if Ministry of Sound inadvertently copied a Spotify user's playlist? I mean there are a lot of users of Spotify, and it's entirely conceivable that a fan of "Dubstep Classics" has already created a playlist with some of the same tracks in order.

Indeed, a really malicious user might seek to circumvent Ministry of Sound by selecting a series of likely tracks that could appear on a future album, and then creating every possible combination of those tracks. While 10! (ten factorial) for ten tracks is a large number - 3,628,000 - computers do let us get through these things quite quickly. Would the copyright of every combination of those tracks be owned by our smart user, thus preventing a record company playing those tracks in any of those orders? If so, then this would prevent anyone else using those particular tracks in any order at all!

I would argue that while the skill of the mixer (or the engineer who's using the software that actually does the mixing in many cases) is perhaps copyrightable, the order of the songs in an unmixed Spotify playlist is neither here nor there. And perhaps a user should be prevented from using copyrightable album titles for their playlsits. But if a sequence of songs is copyrightable, then how long does that sequence need to be? Is just playing Blurred Lines followed by We Can't Stop It copyrightable?

I'd argue that the case needs to be thrown out. But then I'm not a copyright lawyer...


| | Comments (0)


Earlier this evening, while the House of Commons debated the Get Britain Cycling report, the LCC organised a massive cycle ride around the Houses of Parliament. The demonstration of something like 5000 cyclists was to make the case for road planning and traffic infrastructure to properly take cyclists into account. This certainly hasn't happened to date.

Here's a video I shot of the evening, including some lovely views of thousands of cyclists crossing Westminster Bridge into the bright sunlight.

Space For Cycling from Adam Bowie on Vimeo.

(And yes - it does seem like someone "abandoned" their Bentley in the middle of the street towards the end of the ride)

And here are a few more photos from the evening.



Some more here.

Twitter Latest

Monthly Archives

Powered by
Movable Type 5.2.2