Progressive web apps have the potential to be the ultimate cross-platform app solution.Read More
What innovations have yet to be seen from the traditional office suite? Despite what Microsoft will have its customers believe, there have been few advancements in this fieldRead More
Google revised its AdSense platform yesterday, by including responsive design, according to a TechCrunch article.
The new units use AdSense’s asynchronous ad code, and developers can use the same kind of CSS media queries they are used to from building their responsive sites to build these responsive ad units. This, Google says, means you can “now dynamically specify the size of the ad that will be served, adapting it to fit the way your site renders a page on a particular device.”
Developers still need to make some tweaks such as making sure that each ad unit matches one of Google's standard sizes. No more cut and paste. But it's a big step forward, nevertheless.
This move to make AdSense more dynamic is smart, since Google is trying to diversify its advertising business, which is currently very desktop oriented. Owning a platform (Android) combined with a more robust ad embedding strategy will be key in ensuring Google's revenue remains strong. Their disappointing performance last quarter (at least according analyst expectations) is certainly creating some pressure to innovate.
Wearable computing is relatively new, and is not yet a mainstream product category. Even now the category is a little too niche to be called "cool," and the whole "Glassholes" term doesn't help legitimize it either. Nevertheless, that doesn't stop technology companies like Google or Apple from trying to coming up with the "next big thing."
There is quite a bit of debate regard the best body placement for wearables. Is it the wrist, head, ankle, arms? The jury is still out.
However, a recent Forrester study has provided some insight on the matter, according to John Koetsier of Venture Beat.
According to the study of 4,600 adults, 12 percent of us would want to purchase wearable technology, like glasses, on our face. That’s almost 22 million Americans. But more than twice as many — 28 percent — are interested in wrist-based wearable devices. That’s almost 50 million people.
The study coincides with a statement made by Apple CEO Tim Cook, who said at the D11 conference that customers don't want wearables on their face. Instead, he thinks a less obtrusive device would be more suitable.
But, why the wrist? Today most watches are more of a fashion statement, since the majority of people (particularly young adults) use their phone as their watch. Yet, there is a considerable amount of interest in wrist wearables, especially in the fitness market.
The Forrester result syncs with an April study by ChangeWave, which said that a full one-fifth of U.S. consumers were interested in buying an Apple iWatch — sight unseen. And it fits with a recent trend toward personal fitness monitors such as Jawbone’s Up, the Fitbit, and Nike FuelBand — all of which are worn on the wrist.
What do you think? Would you rather have Google Glass or an iWatch? Leave a comment below.
The "internet of things" is arguably one of the most exciting trends today. The idea that household appliances, temperature controls, lighting, vehicles, and all types of wearables could be controlled by your phone or tablet is very exciting. But, there is a problem; the internet of things is has hit a roadblock, according to Brian Proffitt (in Read Write Web).
He points out that the internet is simply "...a network that connects any given device to any other given device. That connection alone, however, doesn't mean that these gadgets will know how to talk to one another, much less that they'll have anything to say." Web protocols, such as HTTP, SMTP, FTP, POP, and IMAP, work well for things like email, the web, file transfers, etc because there isn't anything too complicated that needs to be communicated. This is not necessarily the case for devices that have considerably more to say.
Things now communicate primarily with centralized servers controlled by a related developer or vendor. That works, after a fashion, but it also leads to a bunch of balkanized subnetworks in which devices can communicate perfectly well with each other - but can't actually talk to devices on any other balkanized subnetwork.
Take cars. A Ford Focus, say, can communicate perfectly well with Ford service or data centers when sending data about itself over the Internet. If a part needs replacing, the car's systems can report back to home base, which in turn generates a service notification to the car's owner.
But say you wanted to create real-time traffic alerts based on information from cars currently on the road. Now you've got trouble, because your Ford is probably only set up to talk to other Fords - not Hondas or Porsches or Teslas. This is because they don't speak a common language. So, for instance, there's no easy way to let vehicles daisy-chain warnings that there's road construction ahead or that an idiot driver is roaring up the shoulder at 90 mph.
Proffitt notes that some of these issues can be solved with greater adoption of communication standards like Bluetooth or NFC. Nevertheless, even if all the devices used the same internet protocol, the problem would still exist.
To consider this a little more closely, consider a "smart" living room featuring three devices connected to the Internet: a Nest thermostat, a Spark-enabled light and Makita automated drapes. Each device gathers data and sends it back to its manufacturer, and can take a handful of limited actions. If the room gets too warm, the Nest will turn on the air conditioning. If it's dark outside, the Makita controller will close the drapes. If someone's in the room and it's dark enough, the Spark could turn on the light.
See what's not happening? The Nest isn't talking to the Spark, which isn't talking to the Makita, which isn't talking to the Nest. At best, you might be able to get a hub-style home-control system that could manage each of these devices. But such controllers often suck the same way universal remotes for your home TV setup do.
Ending with a difficult question, Proffitt asks whether it's better to have connected silos or an internet of islands. There are positives and negatives to both, but the internet of islands would likely lead to a much more flexible and robust internet of things.
Check out the full article in the source below.