Plantronics shows off personal speakerphone

Renee Niemi, SVP, Communication Solutions with Plantronics presented a few new (or soon-to-be available) products.

To set the stage, she mentioned that there's a disconnect (no pun) between the message, tone of voice and body language between face-to-face meetings and voice-only calls. 

Face-to-Face / Video, she says, breaks down this way: 7% message, 38% tone of voice and 55% body language, while voice-only / phone call communication is 13% message and 87% tone of voice.

Niemi then showed off Calysto 825, a new personal speakerphone that connects the mobile phone and PC phone (Skype) with a unified user interface. 

"Because it works with both the PC phone and your mobile phone, it lets you focus on the conversation, not the tool," said Niemi. "It also has a wireless microphone, which allows you clip the microphone on and still remain part of the conference if you need to step away from the speakerphone."

The latter feature assumes you stay within distance of the speaker, of course, and will hopefully have a mute button for those times you need to stay connected but muted.

Another tool is a software app that Plantronics is launching called Instant Meeting, an Android and Blackberry app that allows one-touch connection to conference calls. 

It searches through the Outlook calendar [and hopefully other CalDav calendars such as Google Calendar or iCal] and then prompts to join the meeting at the appropriate time. 

When confirmed, it will dial the number, enter the passcode and directly put you in to the conference call with a single touch. Diemi didn't really describe what happens in those systems in which you have to say your name and push the # on the keypad before joining the conference, but perhaps there's magic happening there, too, which we'll find out when the app is released.

Finally, she showed off the Voyager Pro UC, a new headset that allows synchronized presence between the PC phone and the mobile phone. In addition, it has sensor capability, or the ability to know whether a headset is being worn or not. 

This sensor capability eliminates the issue of having a phone call go to your Bluetooth connected headset that may have slipped down between the seat or is in your coat pocket. If you find it and then put it on, the call will switch over to the headset. Anot

Has Fujitsu Abandoned the Macintosh Platform? ScanSnap Snow Leopard Issues

Fujitsu had a good thing going, with the ScanSnap for Mac offering one of the best scan-to-PDF options.

But like all good things, this one looks like it's coming to an end, as ScanSnap on the Snow Leopard platform is walking around gingerly on only two paws.

Consider this:

1. The S1500M is the only current Mac-based ScanSnap scanner; all the others (S300M, S500M, S510M) are on Fujitsu's discontinued list.

2. CardIris 3.6, which ships with the S1500M, is not compatible with Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6). CardIris 4.0 is compatible, but you don't receive that version when buying an S1500M

3. Adobe Acrobat is now at version 10 with Acrobat X. Which version ships with the S1500M? Acrobat 8. Yes, that's right, the only Fujitsu Mac ScanSnap has a version of Acrobat Pro that's TWO versions old.

When I asked Fujitsu about upgrading to Acrobat 9, six months after it launched, I was told that what you buy is what you get. Meaning that anyone buying an S1500M today will get Acrobat 8.

Fujistu is clearly choosing to abandon the Mac platform, as they've not made a ScanSnap unit that's Mac compatible since 2008.

How's that for progress?

PDF viewing in Apple's Preview looking fuzzy? Welcome to Acrobat X on Snow Leopard

I'm working through a few workflow scenarios for workflowed.com with Acrobat X's scanning and optical character recognition (OCR). Along the way, though, I noticed two quick insights in to Acrobat X.

First, it does a great job of shrinking the file size automatically after the text recognition is run. In many cases, I don't even have to run the "reduce file size" feature to bring multi-page documents to a manageable file size.

Second, the issue that cropped up under Apple's Preview in Acrobat 9, after I'd applied the "reduced file size" to shrink the file size, remains. The image will look blocky and jagged, as if a great bit of information has been abandoned. 

I initially chalked the issue up to an error in the file reduction algorithms, but the advent of Acrobat X—with its better-than-average standard compression—brings the issue back to the forefront. Even without running the "reduce file size" feature in Acrobat X, any file that's been OCRed will appear jagged and blocky within Apple's Preview application.

Researching the topic online didn't turn up any clues, probably because Acrobat X is so new; since I couldn't ignore this issue, as it affects all the scans I was applying OCR to, I turned to my contact at Adobe's PR agency to get insight in to the issue.

It turns out that Adobe X's new rendering engine may steal a few pages from Acrobat 9's file size reduction score. In doing so, this presents a potential rendering issue in Apple's Preview.  According to my contact:

Acrobat X's new scan compression technology divides the image into 3 layers - Background (BG), Foreground (FG) & Mask. BG, FG images are highly down sampled while mask is kept at a higher resolution (to maintain text readability). 

The layering makes sense, as Adobe has always had the ability to choose Image-Text (where the image overlays the underlying OCR text) or Text-Image (where the text attempts to lay out in a patter closely resembling the image, but the text is the top layer). 

I've always opted for Image-Text, as it allows the human looking at the document to read what's actually on the page, should he or she find the OCR text they copied from the PDF a bit, well, lacking.

My contact went on to provide some reasoning behind the miss-match of Preview and Acrobat Reader X, the latter of which seems to display the images in a much higher quality output:

Here is our hypothesis on the reason of low quality rendering by Preview. In order to render a page, it down samples mask to the resolution of FG (or maybe BG), so it loses on text crispness or quality that a high resolution mask provides. Adobe Reader/Acrobat, on the other hand, up samples images to the highest of the resolution of BG, FG and mask to get the rendered bitmap.

Is this the reality? I guess we'll have to see whether Apple issues an update to Preview in the near term. If not, I'm stuck either suggesting that every client upgrade to Acrobat Reader X, or choosing to completely forego the workflow of using QuickLook to view text-heavy OCRed documents.

Does Adobe Elements 9 Plays Well With All?

Adobe today announced its Elements 9 consumer image- and video-manipulation products (editing sounds so 1990s) in the form of Photoshop Elements 9 and Premiere Elements 9.

Over the past few releases, Elements has begun to move toward parity on both the Macintosh and Windows platform, but the Mac version had always lagged behind.

It appears the days of second-class citizenry for Mac users may be over, though, as Adobe lists an equal feature set between the Mac and Windows versions of both Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements.

Premiere Elements, in particular, now has the sharing and access to the Plus service, which gives up to 20 GB of storage for approximately $50.00 per year.

In addition, Premiere Elements 9 addresses the ability to use tapeless workflows—from Flip cameras to D-SLR consumer and pro cameras—a feature that's only recently been added to Adobe's flagship editing tools, Adobe Premiere Pro, as part of the much more expensive Creative Suite 5 software bundle.

Speaking of pricing, that has also dropped for Elements 9 bundles with Amazon reporting the combo pack—Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements—that's pictured below clocking in at $149.00 but with a rebate that drops the price to $119.00 (after waiting for several weeks to receive the mail-in rebate check, of course).

We look forward to testing the two products, on both platforms, to compare the feature sets, before the product's release date of November 1, 2010. [Update: Adobe's PR reps say that the product is available now, even though Amazon still lists the availability at November 1]

Trackpad Possession - Time for an Apple Exorcism?

A few weeks ago, after updating to OS X 10.6.4, I noticed my cursor has begun to move around on its own.

Sliding slowly a bit to the right, then back a bit to the left, it will make its way across the screen. It appears as if an invisible hand (from Babylon to Dunstan to Smith) is controlling the cursor.

Trying to wrest control back will only result in pain, although it occasionally responds to a firm swipe and then behaves for a few seconds to a few minutes.

The problem sometimes manifests itself as an invisible finger on the trackpad, in which case attempting to move the cursor in the opposite direction only results in enlarging a browser window or all the icons on one's desktop (as if the user's one finger on the trackpad is working in unison with the un-helpful invisible finger).

Other times it begins to alt-tab through icons, switching between programs, or jumps to a previous page in the browser window. These last two are keyboard commands, not multi-finger swipes. Since they can happen without any hands being placed on the keyboard or trackpad, these multi-key commands are being issued consistently without user intervention.

During the course of writing this blog post, my Macbook Pro exhibited all three effects, eliminating an almost-complete draft of this blog post in the process and jumping between various programs. The only way to get out of the alt-tab is to hit the Return button, since clicking on the proper program is impossible.

Given the nature of this random, devilish behavior, I typed "possessed trackpad unibody" into Google and got back a large number of hits, many occurring within the last few weeks since 10.6.4 was dropped on the unsuspecting masses.

A little more digging and I found that Apple is well aware of this problem, with many discussions on their support forums, including one with over 1000 responses. Yet tech support can't seem to diagnose the problem, or gives the standard Apple line that they've never seen the issue before.

As some posters have noted, it's so randomly intermittent, it's hard to demonstrate. Imagine trying to take it into a Genius Bar and know that it's going to work (or not work) at the allotted reserved time.

For me, it's gotten significantly worse over the past week, occurring every 4-5 minutes and lasting for 10-20 minutes at a time. Then, as quickly as the possession overtakes my machine, it disappears, leaving me mentally exhausted from battling the Apple demons. Just when I get comfortable that I am in control again, the possession occurs.

Where's an exorcist when I need one?

Suggested fixes abound from a clean reinstall of the OS (doesn't work) to trashing the com.apple.bluetooth.plist preferences (doesn't work) to resetting the PRAM (doesn't work) to turning on/off Airport (works temporarily). In the "works temporarily" category, some users will post that the problem went away when they did one of the above, only to post later that the problem has re-occurred.

One poster also said it only affects machines with certain video cards, except many other users have reported it with other video cards (mine doesn't have the Radeon HD 4870 the poster mentioned) and the solution Apple gave him was to keep the laptop plugged into an external monitor. Hello?!

If Apple can't exorcise its invisible helping hand, it may be time to switch back to Windows. I've got to get some work done without fighting the invisible forces of the evil unhelpful hand.

Hulu - Plus or Minus?

With the advent of the iPad / iPhone 4 came the excuse the Hulu has been waiting for to charge for content that it had claimed would be free.

You know, Hulu.com, the website with the banner at the top of the page that says "Watch your favorites. Anytime. For free." Here's an example from today, August 13, 2010, several weeks after Hulu Plus was launched:

Except, now that we have Hulu Plus, your favorites aren't available at anytime for free.

I was overseas while this happened (in other words, in the vast swathes of the world where no one, not even US citizens, can watch their favorites, anytime, for free) so it wasn't until this week that I had a chance to explore Hulu's approach to its three-part slogan.

The company put up a blog post that set off warning bells in the first few paragraphs with terms like:

Hulu Plus is a new, revolutionary ad-supported subscription product that is incremental and complementary to the existing Hulu service.

Follow that? Here's a breakdown of the wording

On first blush, it's ad-supported, just like Hulu is. So far so good. I might be able to tolerate an ad or two, but not the 10-15 that seem to be popping up in each episode (as Hulu execs keep experimenting with odd pre-roll vs interstitial ad models every few weeks).

What's revolutionary about it, though? Apparently the revolution is that Hulu Plus is a PAID subscription service that REQUIRES one to watch advertisements.

Wait, so I get to pay to watch ads?

Yes, apparently so. That must be the complementary part of Hulu Plus: both serve ads, possibly some of the exact same ads.

So what's the incremental way Hulu is enticing the average Hulu viewer to pay for the subscription?  Show them a past episode, then yank it.

Seriously, a committee on bad marketing couldn't make this stuff up. On second thought maybe only a committee could.

Here's an example of what you see if you try to watch a video that's been yanked back into the dark recesses of Hulu Plus. This example is courtesy of Safari crashing a few days after I'd watched an episode that was free (just not anytime) and then restoring all the windows after the crash.

The Hulu Plus blog advocates the reasoning behind all of this ad-supported revolutionary approach to paying to watch advertisements is because of all the devices you'll get to watch those ads on: the iPhone 4, iPad, set-top boxes, Macs, PCs, etc.

Except, on July 29, 2010, a month after the blog post, the iPhone 4 upgraders were upset that they weren't able to view these ads on the iPhone 4. Says one commenter (unaltered):

I upgraded to a Iphone because of Hulu plus. I’m disappointed in hulu for not letting my use the service after it was announced. I’m probally now going to return the Iphone 4 and go back to my 3GS and purchase slingbox and watch for free each month off my dvr and direct tv. Better do something quick our your going to loose me for good $120 a year . . . . 

On second thought, maybe this is a brilliant scheme, undercutting the SlingBox concept of free viewing of these same episodes from television or your DVR.

So, please, someone inform the committee that the chance to pay-per-view-advertisements is brilliant, but they're underselling it.

Systems Integration for the rest of us

Preparing to attend a show for systems integrators in Las Vegas this week, I spent part of today covering Steve Jobs' WWDC keynote address for StreamingMedia.com.

Read the details on iPhone 4 and my take on Apple's attempt to outgoogle Google with iAd and HTML5 lip service on the streaminedia.com site, but pause first to reflect on these excerpted comments that Jobs made. . . .


"Apple is not just a technology company," said Jobs. "It's the marriage of technology and the humanities that distinguishes Apple."

Echoing sentiment I've heard from Sling's CTO Bhupen Shah, who reminded me years ago that the ease-of-use for compelling products is all about the hardware and software working seamlessly together, Jobs drove the point home using the example of the new iPhone's second camera.

"On iPhone 4, it's not just a front facing camera: it's a front facing camera and 18 months' worth of work to come up with software that you'll never even notice when you want to place a video call," Jobs said.

"It's a complete solution so all of us don't have to be system integrators."



iPhoned

And another thing . . . Adobe and Apple iPad HTML5 spat heats up

So the Adobe / Apple spat is heating up, now that one of Adobe's tech evangelists has responded to Apple's inclusion of "anti-Flash" language in its iPhone software version 4.0 licensing agreement.

Lee Bigelow posted what is best described as a rant against the license restrictions, which say, in part:

"Applications must be originally written in Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and only code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the Documented APIs. (e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited)."

One paragraph sums up Bigelow's feelings, as he goes for the jugular in questioning why any programmer would support the iPad / iPhone ecosystem with its HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript-only implementations, requiring content to be coded only in C language derivations:

I am positive that there are a large number of Apple employees that strongly disagree with this latest move. Any real developer would not in good conscience be able to support this. The trouble is that we will never hear their discontent because Apple employees are forbidden from blogging, posting to social networks, or other things that we at companies with an open culture take for granted.

Except, after posting the blog, Brimelow was forced to redact a line. And not in the typical way that bloggers do it, with a strikethrough, but fully remove the line.

The original post read:

What is clear is that Apple has timed this purposely to hurt sales of CS5. . . . 

The new post reads:

[Sentence regarding Apple's intentions redacted at request from Adobe]. This has nothing to do whatsoever with bringing the Flash player to Apple’s devices. That is a separate discussion entirely. What they are saying is that they won’t allow applications onto their marketplace solely because of what language was originally used to create them. 


Later, Bigelow does use a strike-through to redact the line that says he's speaking in his official Adobe capacity.

Now let me put aside my role as an official representative of Adobe for a moment as Speaking purely for myself, I would look to make it clear what is going through my mind at the moment. Go screw yourself Apple.


Open culture proponents meet crisis management public relations and investor relations practitioners. Ugh.

Flash on a Mac: Memory Hog?

Despite many entreaties to believe that the Emporer does, indeed, have on clothes, I can't help but noticing this type of occurrence happens more frequently these days:

Safari takes up 15.7% of the CPU core while Flash Player takes up 85.7% of the CPU core?

If it weren't for a 2-core processor, the warring coupling of Safari and Flash wouldn't be able to dwell in the same silicon home together.