Google Home vs. Nest Audio: which sounds better?

It goes without saying that the Nest Audio wins this contest hands down. But perhaps it’s not clear just how much better the sound is out of the Nest Audio.

Granted, the Home was released a veritable lifetime ago as far as consumer electronics aging goes. But if you’re sitting on a Google Home or two you’re probably not worried about the age of the device – I mean, it still works and it’s still updated – but rather whether there’s any reason to spend the money to treat your space (and ears) to a sonic upgrade. Basically – is there a reason to upgrade?

Well… yes. Now, full disclosure: I’m not one to upgrade my technology just for the sake of upgrading. There has to be a compelling, useful feature that the upgrade presents that the current device – or devices – does not. And even then the actual decision may be delayed just to make sure I’m not spending impulsively.

So in the case of the Home, it became clear that its audio just wasn’t matching the mid-range and high-range clarity of the Home Max or even the Home Hub Max. This became more obvious as I’ve recently started doing more listening on speaker groups, mostly listening to radio or music on all of the speakers on the main floor. The Home’s deficiencies were on display as I moved throughout the house.

Even so, at CAD$129 it didn’t seem to make sense to upgrade. I can’t believe that I’ve become a deal-seeker, but why not? It also helps to curb impulse buying if one at least waits for products to go on sale, so that’s what I did. And at CAD$99 the Nest Audio is more compelling, coming in at the same price as the Home was when I initially bought in if I recall correctly.

Ok great – but what are my impressions?

Well, first of all I was surprised by two things: the weight of the Nest Audio (considerably heavier than the Home) and the size (smaller than I was expecting, at roughly the same height as the Home). Then once the device was configured and I sent audio to the speaker group, I was again surprised: was the bass I was hearing coming all the way from the Home Max on the other side of the house, or was this little Nest Audio really hitting these impressive lows???

It was the latter. The Nest Audio represents a significant leap in audio quality over the Home. Like, night and day. It’s much clearer over the entire frequency range, and it actually produces discernible, clear and meaningful bass frequencies. Now, it does seem a little quieter than the Home, which seems to be the trend with all of these speaker upgrades that I’ve written about. But the sound is so much better at reasonable listening levels that I really do have to recommend the Nest Audio to anybody who has been holding on to their Homes for a number of years.

Which doesn’t mean that you should get rid of the Homes. Redeploy them if you can, or gift to somebody who’s new to the Google ecosystem or somebody who could use some more sources of audio. The Home is still capable and as I said earlier it is still supported. But if you have particular areas that can benefit from better audio – larger rooms, or primary listening areas – then go for the upgrade.

Now I just have to resist the temptation to upgrade my two remaining Homes before the sale ends 🙂

Google Home vs. Nest Home Hub Max: which sounds better?

A little while back we added a Nest Home Hub Max to our collection of smart home devices. The Hub Max was intended to replace a Home that we use in the kitchen. And given the wife’s preference to blast music on that device, I attempted to do my due diligence in researching the topic:

“Does the Nest Home Hub Max sound better than the Google Home?”

But the answers weren’t forthcoming. Given that one device has a display and the other does not, perhaps it’s the case that the two devices are not often cross-shopped. Regardless, I took the plunge and thought I’d return the Hub Max if it performed poorly.

Before going any further it might do you some good to read about ten paragraphs into this post, where I talk briefly about my experience with replacing a Sony mini bookshelf system with a Vizio SP-70 Crave Pro speaker. Here’s the main takeaway:

Crave Pro […] the music reproduction was something altogether different from the Sony.  Again, the Sony is louder and has boomier bass.  But… but… does that make the Sony better?  Because, truthfully, the Pro actually has a wider soundstage and richer bass at moderate listening levels.  It can’t get as loud as the Sony while maintaining the same composure that the Sony can, but… it can get loud enough

Thing is – my experience with the Nest Home Hub Max and Google Home was altogether similar.

The Home seems to go louder than the Hub Max – but, the Hub Max has a much more pleasing sound. Its bass is richer compared to the Home, while the latter’s is more boomy. And, likely due to the inclusion of the two front-firing midrange/highrange speakers, the mids and highs are reproduced more faithfully on the Hub Max – even when the music is played louder.

My impression has only improved over time, much as it did with the Vizio vs. the Sony. And as with that latter comparison, it has become apparent – again – that music doesn’t need to be cranked to be properly enjoyed.

If only the wife felt the same. Nonetheless, I’ve tried to tune the bass and treble settings so that when she does (frequently) crank the volume past 7, the sound at least holds together as well as can be expected for a speaker of this size.

So there you have it. If you’re looking for better sound, you’ll be happy with the Hub Max. If you absolutely need that boomy bass and are looking to go as loud as possible – stick with the Home.

(Vizio Smart-)Cast All the Things

So the music system has been running really well with the various Chromecast Audio (and regular Chromecast) devices sprinkled throughout our house.  No complaints really on interaction, responsiveness, usefulness, etc.  However… Progress(tm).

I’ve probably alluded to my ongoing quest to reduce and de-clutter my living space.  This is and probably will forever be a source of intrigue, excitement, and cash drainage.  Technology marches forward and enables ever-smaller devices to fill the role that myriad other devices once filled – or at the very least, that much larger devices once filled.  And in some cases devices become virtualized and move into the realm of bits and bytes, losing their corporeal selves and existing in “the cloud”.

Riiiight.

Back to music.  When I first began the home audio aspect of my Home Automation ambitions 11 years ago, the unanswered question was: how to bridge the digital world and physical world?  Digital, in that I was writing the software that would form the basis of the home audio system, and physical in that you need hardware to produce the music – and also to control it.  It’s interesting reading the old articles chronicling those first steps, and then reading the machinations I went through as I struggled with concepts and financial constraints to realize the system I was aiming to build.  All of this reading is available on Piper’s Pages, if you’re interested.   Even then, the two big questions were: how to physically interact with the system? And: what will produce the music?

It’s the latter that I’m focusing on in this post.  The early system’s intentions were so cute, in retrospect.  Multiple sound cards, running outputs of cards into inputs of other cards, worrying about card addressing.  So quaint.  And then we moved to another house, and those sounds cards haven’t done a single DA conversion since.  Nope… the new, temporary solution was to use smartphones or tablets connected via AUX or Bluetooth.  The remote/renderer capability of the system made this a little more bearable, in that you could purpose a tablet as a renderer and have it tethered to an amp via AUX/Bluetooth, then control it with your smartphone running as a remote.  But again… so quaint.

This was certainly a stopgap solution.  I had envisioned a full-fledged Sonos setup for the move, a dream that was never realized due to cost and unanswered questions of how to get my music to Sonos.  Would I be back to utilizing sound cards and piping music to the Sonos network via AUX?

At some point we gained Cast integration, and that was a Good Thing(tm).  Cheap to implement, could repurpose existing amplifier/speaker hardware, and it brought with it the software challenge of how to integrate my 11-year-old software project with something that was both modern and surprisingly sensical in its approach (I’m speaking of the technology that underpins Cast).

But…… Progress(tm).

The system has certainly been capable.  Multiroom is a thing, mulitple audio streams is a thing, Bluetooth headaches are not a thing.  What became evident through is the divide between interaction models.  You can get as far as casting audio to a destination, but then you have to switch mindset and think of the destination itself: is the amp on? is it on the correct input? do I control the volume in software or hardware? is the Harmony remote in the right mode?  It’s a conceptual disconnect.

Still, Cast certainly seemed like the right way to go.  And Google eventually launched the Chromecast Built-in program, which seemed to address most or all of my problems.

Which brings us to the real reason for this post – my experience with Vizio’s SmartCast products.  Specifically, the Crave 360 and Crave Pro.  And I have to tell you, I’ve really been on the fence about the move to Chromecast Built-in, much less Vizio’s own implementation.  Truthfully, moving to built-in represents more of a sideways move than a forward move: same Cast technology, same Cast integration, same music in the same physical locations (probably).  You’re spending money but on the face of it the only thing you’re really addressing is the “disconnect” issue.  Unless, of course, the new hardware does better at music reproduction.

In my case the Sony bookshelf that the Crave Pro was to replace is a pretty good system.  It’s louder than the Pro, it has boomier bass.  What irks me is the “disconnect”.  And the wires.  Man, the wires.  Getting the Sony into the music ecosystem means four physical devices (1 amp, 2 speakers, 1 Chromecast Audio), 5 wires, and 2 power outlets.  In this age of appliances I really wanted a single integrated device with a single wire going to a single power outlet.

Sooo… Crave Pro.  It really is my first experience with the amplified-speaker age that we’re in now.  And… I was disappointed.  The Cast aspect was fine, really.  But the music reproduction was something altogether different from the Sony.  Again, the Sony is louder and has boomier bass.  But… but… does that make the Sony better?  Because, truthfully, the Pro actually has a wider soundstage and richer bass at moderate listening levels.  It can’t get as loud as the Sony while maintaining the same composure that the Sony can, but… it can get loud enough.

I’m aware of the danger in trying to convince yourself of something.  And I definitely vacillated on the Pro.  The 360, on the other hand, went through one night of uncertainty but then became a firm “yes” after applying a software update which solved strange Cast disconnect issues.  The 360, unlike the Pro, is a new entrant – having a portable speaker that can be used in the yard or the garage.  It fills that role and it fills it well, so it got to stay.  And so did the Pro, honestly, once I decided that insane volume no longer has a place in our house.

That’s right folks.  Apparently I’m maturing… who knew.  The Pro is the right answer for the intended application.  It’s different than the Sony – in all the ways previously mentioned – but it turns out that it’s the right answer for the particular application.

So ya… the march goes on.  The music system is evolving.  I’ll spare a paragraph to say that what I like about the Crave 360 and Crave Pro are their simplicity: an amplified speaker with a physical volume knob (actually a ring) which itself is very thoughtfully integrated into the design of the unit.  Whatever transport controls the speaker supports are hidden away as swipe and tap gestures within the ring.  Music reproduction is nice – and actually impressive on the 360 given its size – at anything below 75% volume.  Which, frankly, is just fine when you remember that these things are not meant to be concert speakers but rather are intended to fill a room with music.

I’m happy.  They can both stay.

Latitude is (almost-)dead – how do I go on?

I’ve espoused the virtues of Latitude as it relates to my Home Automation obsession.  While Google’s Location service once provided a critical means to validate home/way state, it was always critical in the determination of “occupant prediction” – that is, setting up a home-automation posture in anticipation of homeward-bound residents.

It’s no news anymore that Google is shuttering Latitude on August 9th.  It’s something that I predicted on my twitter feed, and I wasn’t alone in feeling that the end was near.

Google attempted to placate the masses by adding a Location feature to Google+, but from a developer perspective it was the retirement of the Latitude API that hurt the most – never mind the giveth/taketh soreness that has come out of Google’s decision to maintain Location History but close it off to 3rd-party developers going forward.

Whatever.  That ship has sailed (or soon will).  The bigger question for me was – how the heck do I keep location-awareness as a staple in my home-automation system?

I was pretty sure that 3rd-party solutions would crop up, ala the Google Reader debacle.  But unlike RSS feeds, there’s something very personal about location data.  Obviously I was (am) placing a large amount of trust in Google to hand over my location data to them, but I was very loathe to do the same for any other entity on the face of the planet.

So I enlisted my go-to man Tasker to fill the void.

Tasker always had a close relationship with Latify on my smartphone.  Tasker would determine which of three Latify profiles were most suitable at any given time.  So it wasn’t a huge stretch to rip out Latify and have Tasker poll location itself, sending that information to my home server so it could Do Something(tm).

And in a nutshell… that’s all there is to it.  With the help of the Tasker App Factory, I’ve produced an .apk that’s been installed on the wifey’s phone and – voila – the home automation system will remain location-aware after August 9.

So that’s part one.  And a very important part it is.

Part two encompasses what to do about sharing location information with friends, whcih is what one traditionally thinks of when they think of Google Latitude.  And in all honesty, I’ve only ever really seen that as valuable in the context of family, where each member probably wants to know where the other is for safety reasons.  To that end I whipped together a page on my intranet which takes Tasker’s reported location data and puts it on a lovely map.  As with all things intranet, this page is accessible from the Internet at large – for authorized users – and works on a laptop as well as it does on a smartphone.  It uses the Google Maps API for all the map-py stuff, AJAX so that locations update dynamically, and it’s generally Very Cool(tm).

So there it is – I’m quite happy with the current solution.  So a heartfelt “Thanks!” to Google for $crewing developers the world over once again.

Blackberry will be a strong 3rd, and it won’t matter

So the company once known as “Research in Motion” has finally played its hand, and the reviews are mixed.

Personally, I side with Goldman Sachs and I’ve tweeted as much – I truly believe that Blackberry will be a strong 3rd in the smartphone market.  And I’m going to attempt to explain why.

When people think of RIM and its long slide from #1 in its industry, they instinctively think of Nortel – another Canadian tech darling that rode at the top of its industry, but now exists as a small part of a larger patent portfolio.  Management issues aside, both companies found themselves in a position of increased competition and eventually lost much of their perceived relevance.

Yet, I still believe strongly in Blackberry’s prospects – on the mobility side at least.  Part of that is of their own doing, the rest is a function of their industry.

Industry first.  Blackberry’s competition consists of Android, iPhone and Windows Phone.  And while you can argue the finer points of who has executed most impressively with respect to O/S, ecosystem and application offerings, you can’t deny that each company manufacturers a smartphone experience that is starkly different from the others.  Apple’s iOS devices offer a curated, walled garden.  Windows Phone, a less-curated walled garden but a very polarizing user interface with strict design guidelines.  Android represents the wild-west of the smartphone industry; no restrictions, and vendor-specific customizations.

Each platform offers a modern version of a smartphone operating system.  Each platform is supported by an application and media ecosystem – arguably of differing sizes and content quality, but the infrastructure is there.  So on the face of it, you have four competing products and solutions, all of which represent the state of the art in the smartphone space, all of which offer distinctive user experiences.

That being said, Blackberry no longer needs to compete on specifications alone, or price alone.  They’ve differentiated sufficiently on standout, unique features – Blackberry Hub, Blackberry Balance, Blackberry Peek, an interesting take on the homescreen – that they have a compelling offering in BB10.  Note that I’m not saying that these are good features; just different.

That’s the industry that Blackberry is playing in.  And it’s fortunate that they’re not aiming to take on iPhone or Android, because they honestly have no chance of gaining any signficant market share from those competitors.  However I do believe that they stand a very strong chance of stealing market share from Windows Phone – and that comes down to the Blackberry name and legacy.

My evidence is subjective.  iPhone and Android are considered the gold standards when it comes to smartphones and app stores, yet I’m still surprised that I continue to see people clinging to their older Blackberry devices.  Meanwhile, Microsoft has a 1 1/2 year head-start on Blackberry yet they’ve failed to establish themselves as a bona-fide 3rd.

What is it about Blackberry that inspires so much loyalty?

I don’t have the answer, and while I’m under no allusion that the suggestion of loyalty  is enough to bring the masses flocking, I can’t deny that there’s something compelling about the Waterloo-based company’s iconic products.  I never see a Windows Mobile phone in public – why so many BB7 (and older) devices?

But the real question is – is it enough to convert BB7 (and older) users to BB10?  Will that be enough to pull Blackberry out of its slump?  Will users that have eschewed iOS and Android for Windows Phone, instead jump ship again to BB10?

Realistically, the long-term prospects for the company are still questionable.  And unfortunately, it does appear to be a result of the amount of time that it took for RIM to finally get its act together.  While I have no doubt that BB10 can trounce Windows Phone in the smartphone marketplace, the real truth is that Microsoft is quite happy to lose money on Windows Phone if necessary in order to push its presence in that space – with the intention of promoting its vertically-integrated solutions.  Blackberry, meanwhile, has no worthwhile consumer business outside of Blackberry mobile phones – in that respect it’s truly make-or-break on BB10.  Meanwhile, their enterprise business is not the behemoth it once was:

  • It has come under intense competitive pressure due to the BYOD movement
  • It has been scrutinized due to recent service outages
  • It doesn’t have the same brand loyalty that exists in the consumer market

Consider the news of changes to service fees, and it becomes more obvious that Blackberry’s traditional revenue streams are drying up as a result of the industry shifting more towards generic, data-centric service plans.  I imagine they’ll even have an increasingly-tough time hocking their BES software, despite the ability to manage iPhone and Android devices, as any potential customer must realize the obvious conflict of interest: that Blackberry would rather you use their software to manage their devices while they also collect on BES service plans.  Why go with Blackberry’s enterprise software if alternatives exist from vendors with no vested interest in the end-user devices they purport to manage?  Who wants to hitch their wagon to the horse that left them behind the pack for such a long time?

Okay, so why is Blackberry a “buy”?  And why do I agree with Goldman Sachs?

Because the company still has value.  And having brought their consumer side out of the doldrums, they have arguably more value than they did 12 months ago.  They’ll probably see mildy-impressive sales of BB10 devices after launch.  They will inevitably report strong earnings for a quarter or two, perhaps longer.  They’ll beat expectations.  And around the same time they’ll plateau as they struggle to gain more market share.  They may divest Enterprise.  There may be more layoffs.  And their rating will change to “sell”, and investors will make their quick buck.  What of Blackberry after that?  Who Knows(tm).

Which brings us to the second part of this article’s title.  Blackberry will be a strong 3rd, but they’ll either maintain that position as a smaller, more streamlined version of their current selves or – more likely – they will attain that position and then find themselves in the same boat as Palm in the not-too-distant future.  There simply isn’t enough market share to support their continued existence as the RIM we’ve always known.  Even if Apple releases a new iPhone with the same stale iOS, it will only take them one product cycle to rectify that problem.  Microsoft will not go away and will not concede significant market share.  Android will not cede market share, particularly as Google continues to push its software and hardware agenda.

I simply don’t see the version of reality playing out that has Blackberry being a content, distant third in the smartphone space, gaining no significant market share while giving investors a continuing return on their investment.  And that’s a shame, because I truly believe that Blackberry is an innovative company with a compelling legacy and the technical know-how to create good devices.

Ultimately, we’ll see if I’m wrong.  Considering that I’m no expert in this field, I can naively hope that I will be wrong.

Does Google really have tablet woes?

There seems to be much discussion concerning Google and its apparent failure in the tablet market.  If I understand, the suggestion is that Google has failed to execute correctly; it simply hasn’t put enough effort into pushing the idea of an Android tablet so much as it has pushed the idea of Android mobile devices. The Nexus 7 is widely regarded as Google’s first (and only) success in the tablet space, despite being preceded by a number of retail devices and one major OS revision.

And it would seem that time isn’t on Google’s side either, what with the impending release of Microsoft’s Windows 8 RT tablets.  Microsoft has been courting the tablet space for a number of years now, and their inability to make deep inroads was as much due to Windows itself as it was to a lackluster consumer demand.

But with Apple proving that tablets are now in demand, and Microsoft having an established user base on the desktop that seems primed to jump into mobile, is Google destined to be a distant third in the tablet space?  Have they gotten it wrong while Apple has run with the crown and Microsoft has finally gotten it right

I think there’s more at play here.  I’ve talked about it here, and others have talked about it too – that is, the question of whether people really need a tablet.  Tablets have – and still do – sit somewhere between the uber-personal smartphone and the uber-productive laptop/desktop.  They’re an interesting media consumption device, and Apple successfully capitalized on its existing media ecosystem by introducing another client that was less personal, less presumptuous and more convenient than the existing alternatives.

And yet we’re seeing a shift in the tablet space.  Like it or not, tablets are approaching the smartphone in size and – crucially – in importance.  They’re becoming more personal.  The shift from 10″ to 7″ has obvious implications re: productivity, and the combination of lower price and smaller screen suddenly makes the device more personal again – probably because it’s more mobile.  Microsoft will likely find success with Windows 8 RT, but it won’t be iPad-level success.  Rather, they’ll have nothing more than a viable slate alternative to a Windows desktop/laptop at best, and a larger version of a Windows Phone 8 smartphone at worst – complete with the market traction that they’ve enjoyed for the past year with Windows Phone 7.

Personally, I think that the relative success of the Kindle Fire and the Nexus 7 are harbingers of the future of consumer tablets.  Curated experiences.  Portals to the ecosystem.  Unquestionable media-consumption devices that can run mobile apps on a larger, more comfortable screen than a smartphone.  And presently, the only real contenders in this space seem to be – yes, Kindle Fire and Nexus 7.  But there’s more to the story.  Google is probably better positioned than any other company at present to lead the next tablet wave.  Why?  Simply, Amazon has no interest in tablets for tablet’s sake.  Google, with the unvieiling of the Play brand, has a competitor to Amazon and they have an app store to compete with Apple.  And… they have a slew of online resources that cater to social and productivity – the latter of which has been Microsoft’s strong suit.

They’re the only company that has a 7″ tablet, a mature media store, a mature app store, and mature cloud-based social and productivity offerings.  If they were to use the 7″ tablet as a curated experience, they could immediately offer the end-user a solution to every usage case there is for a mobile device that’s not a smartphone and doesn’t have a hardware keyboard.

Stop treating Drive/Docs, Gmail, Google+ etc. as mere apps.  They need to be integrated.  Google needs to own the experience.  Sure, a user can still run the Kindle app, but there would be an obvious and clear distinction between an “app” and the ecosystem.  Stop treating the tablet as an app launcher and start treating it as an extension of your brand.

This is something that Google could do without alienating the notion of “openness”.  Again, they’re well-positioned – they have the hardware “Nexus” brand.  Rather than have a Nexus phone and a larger Nexus phone as they do now (ie, the Google Nexus and the Nexus 7), have a Nexus phone with stock Android and a Nexus tablet with “Google Experience” – the curated experience.  And if they want to continue to pursue the 10″ space (which they should), then get serious about tablet apps.  Distinguish them in the Play store, and work with developers to take advantage of the recent app guidelines.

Google still has time to figure this out.  Word is that an iPad Mini will be released soon, but unless Apple changes the staid iOS experience then we’re really only talking about the same old iPad in a smaller form factor.  It will challenge the Kindle Fire and existing Nexus 7 simply because it’s an Apple product.  If Google were to redefine (or evolve) the 7″ tablet space then they could compete with an iPad Mini on the same basis – it would become a bonafied Google product, not just an Android tablet.

Move over Latitude (client), enter Latify

I had a recent issue involving Latitude and my home automation “somebody-is-coming-home” logic.  What hurt the most is that, around the same time, I had made some significant changes to my Latitude polling code which would increase the polling frequency if it was determined that a Latitude user was in “rapid motion”.  I’ll refrain from posting details re: the exact definition of that term, but suffice it to say that the intent was to collect more information when a user is moving around so that we could determine their enroute in a more expedient manner.

So while I got that code working, I was subsequently stymied by an apparent inability to receive updates from the Latitude API at anything faster than 1 update per 10 minutes.  Given that my code needs at least 3 data points before it can make an “enroute” determination, the apparent limitation meant that the code wouldn’t know you were enroute until at least 30 minutes had passed in your current transit session.

Bummer.

So as evidenced in the link above, I took to the Latitude Google Group and after some time it was decided that the issue wasn’t with my code or the Latitude API, but rather the Latitude client on my phone.  Apparently some client update along the way had changed the upload behaviour, such the client was now batching updates.  In other words, the phone would hold on to a set of updates and upload them in one shot.  Which is great for battery saving, but not so great for real-time location reporting.

I heard about this Latify character amid other general rumblings about Latitude being battery hog.  I never did pay much attention to the third-party contender as I hadn’t noticed any particularly heinous battery drain myself with the official client.  But given this most recent development, I had no choice but to look elsewhere.

I’m either hugely  glad that I did or vaguely glad that I did.

In concert with Tasker, the premium version of Latify has been put to use on my handset to switch between rapid GPS-based updates (when driving) to less frequent cell/wifi-based updates otherwise.  I’ve created a Tasker profile that attempts to determine when the phone is moving (by determing if the connected cell tower has changed) and will switch Latify from a 1hr update period to a 5min update period if motion is occurring.

In general it seems to work well, and on some days I notice incredible battery prosperity.  If this is indeed due to Latify and my usage patterns, then I am indeed hugely glad for the Latify/Tasker combination.  If battery usage is not part of the equation, then I’m vaguely glad – yes, I’ve got more control over my Latitude updates and I seem able to track my movements at 5-min intervals if, say, the wifey is driving me around; but I’m also curiously dismayed by some of Tasker’s quirks and the hack-ish way I’m having to deduce cell-tower based movement.

Making tech work for me (smartphone automation with Tasker)

I’ve made a few mentions of my fondness for MortScript during my time in the Windows Mobile world.  It was most useful when it came time to automate in-car tasks – resolve Bluetooth connectivity drops, dis/connect A2DP, keep the screen alive.  Other things were more general in nature, like emulating a Bluetooth “timed discoverable” feature and restoring the Normal ring profile after Silent had been active for a period of time.

All useful additions, features or fixes.  And I’m sure that I’ve given a shout-out to Tasker as my go-to-guy for giving me the same sort of hacking pleasure on Android.

Fortunately, my Tasker experience to-date has been more about adding functionality than fixing O/S problems.  And I’ve extended the functions I mentioned in this post to the point that I’m tickled pink (not literally, of course) over the added convenience that has been bestowed on my Android phone.

The aforementioned post has a section aptly named “Tasker” that basically talked about things which happen automagically when the phone is in the car.  Basically, when the car’s Bluetooth is detected, the phone can be in one of two states which we’ll call “Car In” and “Car Docked”.  It’s the latter which is of most interest, and it becomes active – as mentioned in that previous post – when external power is connected.

(it would be possible to sense the presence of an actual “car mode” cradle, but the Desire Z doesn’t have the requisite hardware.  I find it acceptable to consider the phone in a “car docked” mode if the car’s bluetooth is detected and the phone is plugged in – which pretty much means that the phone is sitting in a cradle)

Gone are the days of auto-launching Google Navigation – more on that later.  I definitely wanted a 3-foot user interface to come up when the phone entered Car Docked mode, but Google chose to deny access to the actual Car Home app on my phone.  So, I relied on Vlingo‘s “InCar” feature to emulate the Car Home app.  And this was… acceptable.  Vlingo’s usefulness as a Siri-like assistant was questionable, but I was digging the convenience of the InCar interface so I told Tasker to fire up this interface when Car Docked mode became active.  From there, I could launch Navigation or Maps or – if Vlingo was cooperative and background noise was low enough – speak a command to open any app of my choosing.

Vlingo’s usefulness fell significantly once it stopped being able to hear anything I tried to yell at it.  I think this happened shortly after I rooted the phone, but no matter; it was the kick in the pants that I needed to convince me that it was time to rid myself of this dysfunctional relationship with Vlingo.  Away it went.

It was subsequently replaced with a pure-Tasker solution, in which I could hold down the search key and up would pop a custom menu containing all of my useful in-car shortcuts.  So there was a link to Navigation, Opera Mobile, XiiaLive for streaming audio, and some other useful apps.  And this was… acceptable… but it was just wasn’t integrated enough.  What I really wanted was to hit the home key and have a real 3-ft interface appear.  What I really wanted was Google’s Car Home app.

My decision to root the phone was actually the ticket I needed to get Car Home installed, as it involves booting into recovery and installing a signed package file containing Car Home.  Anyhow, that was done, and so we arrive at the point where I am today – getting in the car and putting the phone in its cradle and connecting power automagically brings up the 3-ft interface of the Car Home app.

It may seem to you like I’ve spent a lot of time to get something going that’s trivial.  And on the face of it I’d agree with that perception.  But you have to keep in mind the how and why of it all.

The “how”, in this case, is Tasker.  And the “why”, in this case, is Tasker’s flexibility and power.  Car Home has the ability to launch itself whenever it detects a certain Bluetooth device – ie, the car – and that’s great.  But I want more to happen when my phone is “docked” in the car.  And this is why Tasker is important, and why I’d rather have Tasker launch Car Home at the appropriate time.  In actual fact, Tasker sets the phone’s “Car Mode” setting to true, which is a global setting which may have other (desired) ramifications.

Now… recall that I mentioned Tasker’s previous duty of starting Google Navigation whenever the Car Docked state became active.  I could tell you that it’s nice to have Navigation up when you’re driving, and to some extent that’s true, but my car has navigation built-in – and that screen is 2x the size of my phone’s screen.  I could tell you that Google Navigation shows semi-reliable traffic information, and that’s true too, but I don’t need that info for the entire drive.  Plus, I can always get there with two taps: one tap on the Home button to bring up the Car Home launcher, one tap on the Navigation icon to bring up navigation.

So why did I ever have Tasker launch Navigation as soon as the phone was docked in the car?

One word: Latitude.  Click the link.  Honestly, do it.  Then you’ll know why Latitude is important for me.  With Navigation active, GPS is also active, and when GPS is active the phone is aware of movement with more precision than it is when using WiFi and/or cell towers.

So Navigation was a useful means to a GPS-enabled end.  And while I still find Navigation useful, it’s really the Latitude updates that I wanted to occur while the phone is docked in the car.

Most obvious solution: tell Tasker to turn on GPS, and Bob’s your uncle.  Well, not so fast – even if Tasker can just turn on the GPS module and leave it turned on (which I doubt), you get into trouble with the opposite action: turning GPS off.  Suppose somebody is trying to use GPS when Tasker turns it off?

So my solution is somewhat more creative.  And this goes back to the “how” and “why” of using Tasker at all when Car Home seems suited to fulfilling your 3ft-interface needs.

Something else that I’ve had Tasker do is adjust my phone’s brightness dynamically.  And yes, the phone has an auto-brightness setting, but believe me when I say that the lowest brightness setting is still way too bright when you’re driving in darkness.  When the phone is docked, Tasker runs a task that loops and constantly measures the light-sensor’s reported ambient light level.  Then, in conjunction with the Screen Filter plugin, it is able to dim the screen to levels that would be un-achievable otherwise.  It can even take sunset/sunrise times into account, as those tend to be the trickiest times of day when it comes to suitable lighting.  This logic recently underwent a rewrite, and it’s not as straightforward as following the sensor’s (somewhat finicky and fluctuating) reported level.

Anyhow, this task is great because it’s an active loop that I can use to call other tasks.  And the lastest task is… one which attempts to get a GPS fix.  So every 60 seconds or so, Tasker asks the Android system for the most accurate location info possible.  Android dutifully obliges by determing which location services are permitted – GPS and/or “net” – and uses the most accurate one to get the requested information.  The beauty here is that it’s now Android which is determining what needs to be done to get the location data.  If Navigation is active and using GPS, then the location data is known and returned to Tasker.  Okay, Tasker doesn’t actually do anything with that information.  BUT… if GPS is not active, then Android will turn on GPS, get a fix, return the location data to Tasker, then turn off GPS if nobody else is using it.  Which completely solves Tasker’s  problem of determining when/if GPS should be active.

This is good news, because Latitude seems to be hooked into a system event notification that goes something like this: “if the phone determines that its location has changed, let me know.”  Well, because Tasker is asking for updated location info every minute, and its asking for the most accurate location info available, it’s necessarily the case that Latitude will get notified every minute if the phone has moved.  Meaning…

…all of my Latitude-dependent services will have precise, up-to-date location info.

I know what you’re thinking – what happens if I’m moving around and I’m not driving?  This is entirely possible.  And the short-answer is – nothing.  We’ll get the same old imprecise Latitude info and it may not be terribly relevant either.  BUT… and this is important… everything I’ve done re: Tasker and the “Car Docked” mode means that the special use case of having the phone docked in the car will result in precise, relevant Latitude info.  Period.  Even if I only drive one day a week, it’s now the case that the driving scenario is handled in a seamless, extensible, straightforward manner.  It requires no special user intervention that wouldn’t occur otherwise.  It doesn’t even require that Navigation is active.

And that’s the design philosophy that I aim for.  Look at a problem, find an elegant and workable solution.  Refine the solution.  And hopefully, extend the solution to resolve related problems.  If you can extend the solution, then you know you’ve come up with a solid foundation or approach.

That’s why I’m tickled pink.  I love to solve worthwhile problems 🙂

The Big Social Three ( != Facebook+Twitter+”Google+” )

On the way into work this morning, while stopped at a red light, a billboard inexplicably caught my attention.  It wasn’t particularly creative, and I could say that it was even a little elementary in its design and message.  Nonetheless I read it, and my eyes finally rested on two little images appended to the bottom of the ad:

One image was the Facebook icon.  The other, the Twitter icon.

As a recent inductee into the Google+ membership, I wondered if the day would ever really come when the little “g+” icon gets added to that ubiquitous twosome.  And on further thought, I decided that it probably would not – at least not to the same degree – and that it probably wouldn’t want to be either.

Facebook and Twitter had a definite head-start on Google+ in the Social Media space.  Now, you can look at Apple’s iPod, and probably Microsoft’s Windows Phone 7 (in a few years) and say that they were behind the curve but quickly rose to relevance (or dominance, in the case of Apple).  The primary contributors to their success: innovation and creativity in the case of Apple, and deep pockets and existing horizontal market penetration (XBox Live, Office, Windows) in the case of Microsoft.

Certainly one can argue that Google has some amount of innovation, creativity, market penetration and deep pockets at its disposal as well.  Even so, I would bet that the absence of a pervasive “g+” icon is all but guaranteed in the physical world.

Firstly, I think that Google+ is intended to target a different demographic than Twitter, and certainly Facebook.  While Facebook is garish and narcissistic, and Twitter is a sea of homogenous 140-character posts, Google+ appears to be positioned far more modestly. It’s a tool for an online presence, yes, but a public/private one – much like we have public and private lives.  Then, it’s a tool for organization and managing that presence – exemplified by the “Circles” feature – as well as seamless links into other properties like Picassa.

In my estimation, the result is that you’re more likely to cultivate your Google+ presence than you would Facebook or Twitter.  I mean, let’s face it – the type of person who’s amassed an army of “friends” on Facebook isn’t likely to make the jump to Google+ just to re-amass the same army.  But.. anybody who’s tried to sort the wheat from the chaff of never-ending wall posts and status updates will likely appreciate Google+’s organizational features, and would make the jump to Google+ if only to get down to the business of bringing order to chaos.  The best analogy that I can think of is: Facebook/Twitter = raves and clubs, while Google+ = dinner, Starbucks, cocktail lounge, family gathering, etc.

The second reason why the g+ icon will never become ubiquitous in meatspace is because, well, Google already owns online search and advertising.  Chances are that somebody reading a billboard will be more apt to “google” the company before they ever go directly to Facebook or Twitter and look for the company.  They may even use Google search to find the company on Facebook and Twitter.  And if you’re using a Google product to perform the search, why does Google need to dilute its Google+ brand by playing also-ran to Facebook and Twitter?  It can continue to do what it does best – offer relevant alternate search results and splash advertising beside the results.  In this sense Google has the lead and Facebook/Twitter are playing catchup: that is, Google is the one that’s synomous with “online web” and Google is the one that’s setting about the task of organizing it (and critically, monetizing it).  Facebook in particular is still cultivating a walled garden, and Twitter – while supremely useful in the worlds of trending topics and celebrity gossip – has design limitations which limit its usefulness for much else.

Google apparently has the bit between its teeth with regards to social media, such that Google+ has become an important product within the Googleplex. But it’s not trying to build a Facebook clone, as the cordoned-off nature of Facebook runs contrary to Google’s core business practices.  Rather, I think Google+ is a big player in the evolution of Google’s strategy – which is to make the online world navigable, relevant, and to bring it closer to home.  They’re not trying to own the web, building some alternate ala Facebook’s strategy.  Facebook needs to plaster its blue “f” all over the place in order to drive traffic to itself.  Meanwhile, Google’s doing the driving – to Facebook and Twitter, yes, but crucially to the rest of the resources strewn across the web – not least important of which are the authoritative sites for many of the companies that have a mere shadow presence on Facebook.

A word of caution for Google though: don’t push too hard with Google+.  Google is great at getting its products “to market” without really advertising them.  And because of this, Google rarely seems desperate and they rarely seem as though they’re trying to sell you something.  Any company is capable of being agressive (and enjoying the fruits of that labor, like antitrust investigations and privacy lawsuits) but few are capable of being truly innovative and sticking to a philosophy that resonates with human nature.  Google is uniquely positioned to do the latter.  Don’t blow it.

Farewell Latitude (for now) (update: it’s back)

So that’s it then – no more Google Latitude on my phone or the wifey’s.

It’s not that Latitude has lost its usefulness.  Far from it – it’s quite handy.  Rather, it has lost its practicality.

For whatever reason, Google took it upon itself to change the update frequency of Latitude, and this has had a noticeably-adverse affect on battery life.  Google’s own search engine will yield results explaining that the frequency went from something like 42/1 to 6/2 – ie, a 42 minute period when not moving and 1 minute when moving, to 6 minutes when not moving and 2 minutes when moving.

Now I don’t know if these numbers are correct, but I do know that something has definitely been amiss in the Latitude department for the past month or two.  It started when Shelly’s S60v3-based phone would no longer post Latitude updates.  Google seemed to have resolved this issue about a week ago, but in looking into the problem I came across other posts talking about increased battery usage, attributing said increases to the change in update/polling period.  So once functionality was restored on Shelly’s phone, I noted that she seemed to have gone from two or three days between requiring a charge, to needing to charge each night.  Hrmm.

So the first phone to have Latitude disabled was hers.  And wouldn’t you know it, battery life was magically restored.  And while I’ve always known that Latitude used some of our precious mobile battery life, I certainly couldn’t justify a 33-50% reduction in said life.

Battery life on my own phone is harder to characterize, as I tend do Do More Things(tm) on it, and I also tend to update my apps regularly.  Nonetheless, even with charging my phone in the car for one or both of the daily commutes, I was still getting alerts every night warning of 10-15% battery remaining – and I distinctly recall the ability to do a good amount of web browsing without any battery concerns in days past.

So today is the first day that I’ve disabled Latitude on my phone as well, and I have no intention of charging it in the car today either.  We’ll see what happens this evening.

It’s unfortunate really, because I’ve found that Latitude is one of those things where you like to Fire and Forget(tm) – that is, turn on the tracking service (privacy concerns notwithstanding) and it’s always available when you need it.  Sometimes it’s a safety consideration, other times it’s a simple matter of convenience.  I’ve even taken to using the Location History to do some data mining.

But until the battery life issues are worked out, it’s no more always-on Latitude for me.

[update 2011/04/06] Well Latitude is back on my phone.  As usual a number of variables have changed on my phone – WiFi is being turned off by Tasker unless I’m on a “home” cell tower, and I’ve upgraded Maps to the latest and greatest (v5.2 I think).

Anyhow, battery life is acceptable at this point (although a Mugen 1800mAh battery is en-route).  And it would seem that updates aren’t going out every 6 minutes – on my phone at least.  Looking through the data logs on Shelly’s phone I was dismayed to see packet data activity every 6 minutes throughout the day – surely an indication of Latitude phoning home.

You may wonder why Latitude is again active on the wifey’s phone.  Hey, you’ll have to ask her – I turned it off a few times and it’s magically gone back on again each time.

So I’ll have to take a look into the WiFi settings on her phone.  I was under the impression that Symbian is very sane about powering the WiFi module, only doing so when an application explicitly requests data access.  And while this could still allow Latitude to request WiFi when it wakes up every 6 minutes, I was of the belief that the user had to explicitely select a predefined WiFi “access point” to use, or else tell the phone to go searching for an available WiFi network.  Which is to say, unless their’s human intervention, the phone shouldn’t be turning the WiFi module on.

So either my understanding of WiFi on Symbian is wrong, or Latitude on Symbian is a just a different beast altogether and it’s misbehaving badly.