No Strings on Me

The Google I/O keynote wrapped up a few hours ago (all three hours of it), and while not blown away, I came away quite impressed. There was no new version of Android, no new Nexus device (not technically), and I still see no actual reason to own a Chromebook, but Google finally seems to be one integrated company whose products and services work together, rather than a loose federation of engineers working on their own pet projects. I won’t go into everything that was announced, frankly, most of the keynote was aimed at developers so I wouldn’t know where to begin, but I did want to highlight a few standouts for me.

Google Hangouts

Not to be confused with Google+ Hangouts, the new Google Hangouts is Google’s attempt to unify their disparate messaging platforms into one communications tool. I had high hopes for Hangouts. With messaging apps such as WhatsApp claiming to have more users than Twitter, and my growing addiction to Facebook Messenger’s chat heads, I’ve been looking for a single chat solution that would work across platforms. As I’ve stated many times, I’m a multiplatform user. On most days, I spend half my day using Windows and iOS, and the other half Mac and Android. I want to seamlessly take all my messages from device to device, and platform to platform. In my perfect world, this service would work similar to iMesseges and Messenger on iOS and Mac OS X respectively.

Unfortunately, Google Hangouts misses the mark a bit. While it does work across platforms, it does not integrate SMS the way Facebook Messenger or iMessenger does. While there may be a lot of buzz around messaging apps, my social network is still painfully addicted to SMS, and most of my friends and family have no idea what WhatsApp or Viber is. Therefore, without SMS, Google Hangouts still requires everyone you know to also be users to make it useful. Fail.

Galaxy S4 Google Addition/Nexus/WTF

So, this announcement came out of left field for me. While I love Google’s Nexus program (stock Android FTW!), it’s always come with a caveat of having to accept less than top of the line hardware. The GS4 is Samsung’s latest and greatest, and now you can get it with stock Android. It costs more than I’d like, but $649 is what unlocked, carrier free, top of the line devices costs in a smartphone market that is anything but free.

As for whether or not I’ll pick up one of these on June 26, I’m torn. Essentially, I can already run stock-ish Android on my GS3 via CyanogenMod. Since the GS3 and GS4 are so similar, it makes it a tough call to spend that much money for a bigger screen, which honestly, I don’t want anyway. Also, where’s Motorola?!

Google Play Music All Access

I don’t get music streaming services. There I said it. In a world where I can get unlimited Netflix streaming for $7.99 a month, paying $9.99 a month for music is simply too costly; video is worth more than audio for me. If these services were $4.99 a month, I might give them a go, but as is, I’ll pass.

Google+

There were a lot of new features for Google+, but the most interesting revolved around photos. When Google first announced the new photo editing features, I was actually hoping they were bringing some of those advanced photo editing features found in more expensive apps to a free Google product. What we got instead was an automated, sometimes creepy, photo editing and recognition tool built into Google+. I don’t think these new features are bad, but I don’t want to simply click a button and have Google determine what’s “best” without my input.

Final Thoughts

Like I said in the beginning, I was really impressed with what I saw at I/O. While there weren’t any huge hardware announcements, the main takeaway for me was that Google, whether through Chrome or Android, is a platform that goes with me wherever I go and on whatever device I choose. Google understands that restricting users to hardware the way Apple insists, isn’t in the companies best interest. Honestly, if Apple released a version of iMessenger for Android tomorrow, I’d be first in line to use it, and I bet a lot of people would too. It’s a missed opportunity for Apple to restrict all of its software to Apple hardware. I’m sure Apple has their reasons, but I’m glad Google doesn’t subscribe to the same philosophy. Or as Andy Ihnatko, Chicago Sun-Times columnist tweeted (@Ihnatko), “Not a quote, but definitely a subtext: ‘buy whatever desktop, laptop, phone, or tablet you want…our services will run on it.’

With both Apple and Google set to reveal the latest iteration of their smartphone platforms at WWDC and I/O respectively over the next month, I’ve been thinking a lot lately about each platforms software design; how each operating system “feels” in the hand. From a purely functional perspective, iOS and Android offer very similar experiences; both allow you to make a call, read email, access thousands of apps, send texts, etc. Despite performing similar functions, iOS and Android feel remarkably different, at both the OS and app levels. Most recently, I’ve noticed these differences in Google Now for iOS.

Google Now feels better on iOS

Using Google Now on iOS is an incredibly smooth experience. The app, like virtually all of iOS, responds instantly to the touch in what feels like a true one-to-one input. The Android app, and similarly Android in general, doesn’t feel slow by any means, but there is a slight delay when compared directly to iOS. It’s not just perceived lag, however, Google Now also feels more “playful” on iOS. Granted, playful is about as subjective an adjective as you can get, but it does accurately describe for me a major difference between the app on iOS and Android. For example, when pulling down on the cards in the Google Now iOS app, the cards collapse on top of one another, and bounce back when released. Upon first using the app on iOS, I often found myself just doing that pull and bounce back over and over simply because it was fun. Pulling down on the Android app on the other hand, only scrolls through the list of cards. Yes, I understand that Apple has a patent on the bounce back feature that is in dispute, but that doesn’t take away from how great that particularly feature makes the app feel. Apple created a design language early on with iOS where we now expect an app like Google Now to feel the way it does on iOS.

Of course, simply having a more playful or lag free experience doesn’t necessarily equate to a better experience. The biggest value add of Google Now is its ability to predict what information you’ll want, when you’ll need it, and alert you. iOS still forces you to launch the app to pull this information, rather than have that information pushed to you in real-time. Google Now may feel better on iOS, but it’s still more useful on Android.

Design is difficult

When Apple designed the iPhone, the company clearly put a lot of thought into not only what the device could do, but also how it would feel. In Google’s attempt to catch up, they leaned more on the feature set, and are now slowly coming around to creating not only a more coherent look and feel for Android, but also Google apps on iOS. Designing how an OS not only functions, but how it feels is incredibly difficult. This difficulty is even more pronounced in the modern smartphone which is essentially a blank, buttonless canvass. There’s nothing intuitive about touching a glass screen to play a game, check your bank account, or send a tweet. Making all these tasks seem intuitive requires a deep understanding of what people like, and how we use and learn technology.

As technology enthusiasts we love spec sheets and long feature lists because we love to experiment and tinker; the more bells and whistles we have the better. But functionality without strong design is destined for failure. From day one, Apple designed iOS with more than functionality and features in mind. Google is learning this lesson and is now creating some of the most beautiful apps on iOS. Operating systems and apps that pay as much attention to design sensibilities as they do feature sets are good for the industry, and the tech enthusiast.

Before even getting into my experiences with Facebook Home, I must first admit, I’m a reluctant Facebook user. Facebook’s popularity began to grow right around my senior year of college, but I never really felt a strong desire to join. If I wanted to keep in touch with friends in different schools/cities, I had AOL Instant Messenger (AIM). Through AIM I could communicate directly with friends, and share photos and website links through my AIM profile. I also saw no reason to complete an online Facebook profile when all my friends already knew the superficial information it would contain from the myriad of chain emails we all passed around in the late 90s/early 2000s. Furthermore, having witnessed the rise and fall of MySpace, I figured Facebook would be just another passing fad. But there I was in the fall of 2005, a freshly minted college graduate, bored out of my mind working as an Administrative Assistant in a Legal Staffing agency, and wondering where it all went wrong. It was in that moment that I joined Facebook.

At first, I felt completely vindicated by not joining sooner as what I found was hardly exciting. At this point in Facebook’s history there was no newsfeed. To get updates on my friends, I had to visit their profile pages individually. Once the newsfeed became a reality, however, I found myself using the site more frequently; typically multiple times a day. My usage increased further when I purchased my first iPhone. In recent years, however, my use of Facebook has declined. For my own purposes, I simply found Twitter to be more useful.

It is in this environment that I find myself at the launch of Facebook Home. Facebook Home represents the company’s biggest bet on mobile, Android in particular. The question, therefore, is can a lapsed Facebook user really come home again?

What is Facebook Home?

At its core, Facebook Home is an Android launcher. As best as I can describe it, a launcher refers to the UI/UX elements of a smartphone’s home screen and app drawer. On Android, one can install a number of launchers that not only change the look of the phone, but also add additional functionality such as the ability to add more rows of icons to the home screen. Being able to change the launcher at will is one of the great features of Android, as it allows for deeper levels of customization.

The Facebook Home launcher takes one’s Facebook Newsfeed and makes it their lock screen and home screen. The best approximation I can make for the look of Home is the cover page for Flipboard, as the various newsfeed updates cycle through at a constant rate. Having the newsfeed as home/lock screen means that any posts made by one’s friends, whether they be images, status updates, etc., are displayed at all times on the home/lock screen. It also allows for faster access to Facebook’s features. For example, double-tapping on an image or status update from the home/lock screen performs a thumbs up. Of course, the biggest drawback to having one’s newsfeed as home/lock screen is that there really isn’t a way to ultimately control what content shows up on the phone. While it’s easy to hide or ignore unwanted information when using the Facebook app, it is not as easy to avoid on Home. Facebook take note, it’s time for a thumbs down button.

Home also makes changes to the app drawer, creating one page for favorite apps, and another that lists all apps. Gone are widgets and folders, the former of which I missed the most. Having widgets for things like email, Twitter, Voicemail, Podcast player, etc. make navigating a smartphone easier and information more accessible. I know iOS users may be used to staring at row after row of apps, but I no longer am. One can also post a photo, check-in, or update their status from the app drawer.

Home also makes some changes to how one receives and responds to messages on Android. When paired with Facebook Messenger, Home makes sending texts or Facebook messages easier through the use of “chat heads.” Chat heads are little bubbles that appear when one receives an SMS text or Facebook message from their friends. The bubble displays the person’s photo, and when tapped, allows the user to respond to the message or discard it without having the exit whatever app they were using previously. Chat heads can be moved to anywhere on either side of the screen, and while multiple heads can stack on one another, they cannot be individually separated.

Of all the new features, chat heads are my favorite. I’ve always wanted the ability to respond to texts from anywhere on the phone, and chat heads make it look easy. Fortunately, chat heads can be enabled via Facebook Messenger independent of using Facebook Home.

It’s Just Not that Interesting

Even with these new features, however, Facebook Home just isn’t that interesting to me. More accurately, Facebook itself remains a social network from which I derive few pleasures. Like any social network, Facebook’s value is dependent upon the content being shared by those in one’s network. There once was a time when our co-workers, parents, and prospective employers weren’t on Facebook, and my friends posted posted funny (i.e., inappropriate) pictures, wrote embarrassing status updates, and quite simply, shared too much. Today, my Facebook Newsfeed is mostly comprised of pet photos, engagement announcements, and photo’s of friend’s kids. Yes, this is me complaining about getting older, but ultimately, this isn’t the type of content I traditionally seek. On most days, I’m generally more interested in what is going on in the world, than what’s going on in your world. In fact, the entire time I used Facebook Home, I kept thinking wouldn’t it be cool if my Twitter feed took over my lock screen? (Yes, HTC, I realize that’s sort of what Blinkfeed is designed for, so I am intrigued to give it a try now.)

There and Back Again

For the Facebook user, there’s nothing inherently wrong with Facebook Home. The interface is fast and smooth, and it truly does make interacting with Facebook easier. The problem, therefore, is a personal one. If one wasn’t enamored with Facebook before Home’s release, I don’t see how Home will change their mind. While I won’t be using Home much longer, Facebook can at least take solace in the fact that I will continue using Messenger (at least until Google provides a solution). Love those chat heads.

Each year tech companies inundate consumers with the latest and greatest in consumer electronics. Our phones get sharper displays, our cameras better optics, and our apps more features. While not every consumer requires each iterative update to their favorite hardware or software, these updates are necessary for pushing the boundaries of  technology forward and creating the foundation for the next big innovation. For example, if Apple had not pushed smartphone design and software forward, most of us would still be using a flip phone, or worse, a BlackBerry. It is ultimately the consumer, however, and not the tech companies that determine whether or not a new piece of technology is worthy of adoption. The power of the consumer is often to the benefit of the entire industry (just look at the failure of 3D smartphone displays), but it can also be a lag on innovation. If the consumer is resistant to change, or unable to learn new operating paradigms, technological advances can be stunted.   

This argument was on display during a recent episode of TWiT where the guests discussed the failure of Windows 8. Much has been made about the trouble with Microsoft’s latest operating system, and some have offered their own advice on how to fix it, including one of the TWiT panelist who remarked that what Microsoft really needed was a better consumer. One not put off by the different (i.e., confusing) look and feel of Windows 8, and willing to take the time to figure out the new OS. Unfortunately for Microsoft, most average consumers weren’t looking for a radically different Windows experience; they wanted more of the same, just prettier. Presenting a new user experience no one asked for has led most consumers to shun the new OS.

Apple is having a similar problem with iOS. Many tech pundits, and even the pot calling the kettle black CEO of BlackBerry, believe iOS is in need of a refresh. After nearly six years, the basic look and feel of iOS has barely changed. Given the iPhone’s market share, however, Apple risks alienating more casual users with any substantive changes made to the OS. As a result, Apple has been very conservative with its updates to iOS, preferring small incremental changes.

iOS 4.2.1 (2010)                       iOS 6.1.3 (2013)

Whereas Microsoft can be seen as seeking a solution without a problem, Apple can be accused of just the opposite; choosing to ignore a problem instead of solving it. Whether Windows 8 or iOS, the speed at which both operating systems advance are partially dependent upon how quickly consumers are willing to accept those advances. So how does a tech company “build a better consumer?”

Unfortunately for tech companies, building a better consumer isn’t like building a new piece of hardware or software. Despite the pervasiveness of technology in society, it is still often confusing and alien to most consumers. Therefore, the challenge for these companies is to create compelling reasons for a consumer to invest in a new operating system, or buy a new app. To truly move the consumer forward, and thus the technology itself forward, tech companies require as much psychology as engineering; soft and hard science. By figuring out where the technology meets the needs and aspirations of the consumer, tech companies can elevate consumer expectations of their technology. When consumers expect more, they are open to the promise of having those expectations met through further advances in hardware and software. Only by treating the consumer as an integral part of the creation process, rather than simply someone to sell to, can tech companies build a better consumer.

I could feel the tears welling in me long before asking Clementine to pull the trigger. Unlike most videogames I’ve played, Telltale’s Walking Dead managed to elicit emotions from me typically reserved for beloved TV series and movies; emotions that occur with fully realized characters whose fates you actually care about. It had been quite some time since any piece of fiction, whether movie, TV, novel, etc., had moved me in such a way. But there I was, asking poor Clementine to make the ultimate decision regarding my character’s fate, and all I could do was cry. I had spent the previous 10-15 hours doing everything I could to keep Clem alive, but our journey had reached its end.

The Walking Dead was my favorite videogame of 2012.  It offered a gaming experience that went beyond the simple tropes of stop the bad guy and save the world. Instead, it offered a moving and engaging experience about survival and friendship, choices and loss.  What made the Walking Dead so amazing wasn’t the graphics, or twitch gameplay, it was another gaming mechanic: player agency.

The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines agency as, “the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.” Videogames are all about granting the player agency; it is literally the value proposition of a videogame, what sets it apart from other forms of media. In the Walking Dead, the story unfolds through a series of choices the player makes. Do I try and protect Clem from the realities of the world littered with zombies, or do I tell her the truth in hopes that it better prepares her to deal with that world? Do I take the side of my friend and his family, or look out for the woman who’s good with a gun? Some changes have large ramification such as which character will live or die, others are more personal choices that reveal more about you as a player than affect the game’s outcome. In most other games, player agency primarily manifests itself through gameplay specific decisions such as what weapon(s) should I use to defeat this next wave of enemy troops, or how can I sneak past this guard without being noticed?

Despite earning Metacritic’s 2012 Game of the Year honors, however, many gamers felt the Walking Dead was not a real “game.” A typical gameplay scenario in the Walking Dead involved the main character, Lee, surveying his surroundings for something useful to accomplish a specific task, talking to his group of survivors, and making dialog choices through those conversations. Occasionally, the game breaks out for quick-time events where the player presses specific buttons in a timed sequence to get the character to perform an action. This type of gameplay is a far cry from more traditional games where the player performs the character’s every action, and reflexes, not dialog choices are valued. This limited view of what constitutes a game is holding the gaming industry back.

As I’ve gotten older, I have often felt that games have not kept pace with my own maturity. Despite their prettier graphics, the majority of games today are still simply variations of the same games I played as a kid. They’re mainly power fantasies, focused on action and violence that cater to a mostly young male audience. While these games have their place in the gaming landscape, they represent a disproportionate share of modern games. If games are about player agency, the ability to directly affect the outcome of a game’s story should count for gameplay just as much as guiding a player through complex environments in a platformer, or directly controlling how the hero takes down the bad guys in the latest first-person shooter. Not all games should be story-driven and slow paced, but just as I can enjoy the spectacle of the Hunger Games trilogy along with the thought provoking political intrigue of The Post-American World, so too can I enjoy a story driven Walking Dead along with the space faring adventures of the Master Chief in Halo 4.

Videogames need to grow up. If the industry is ever going to stop being the scapegoat for violence, or be taken seriously as an art form, it needs to prove that it can provide more meaningful experiences. Games like the Walking Dead present a future of what games can be; experiences that make the player more than a witness to the events unfolding, but an active participant.  

I could write my own post about this, but I agree with everything Cage is saying.

‘Heavy Rain’ director David Cage challenges game industry to just grow up http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/3960630/david-cage-video-game-industry-grow-up-already