Shop Until Your Fingers Drop

http://reviews.cnet.com/software/google-shopper-android/4505-3513_7-35536482.html

For thirty two posts, I have expounded upon the failings of technology.  Though these thoughts are authentic, I must confess my own shocking shortcoming to my nonexistent fan base:  As I profess my aversion to technology, I pathetically commit the odious and hypocritical act of persistent online purchasing (or, more aptly described, “online browsing”).

That being said, I was eager to learn of Google’s new shopping application:  Google Shopper.

“The newest version of Google Shopper has an attractive user interface, a new way to find deals, and other tweaks.  Whether you're looking for apparel, electronics, accessories, or pretty much anything else, the app is a great place to start, as it scours the entirety of the Web for both local and online retailers that carry the items you desire.

“As is typical with Google-made Android apps, Google Shopper's user interface is simple and starts with a search bar.  Up top, you can type in a keyword, start a voice search, or activate your camera to run an image search, which can recognize not only bar codes, but also books, CDs, DVDs, and video games by their cover art.  Hopefully, in future versions, the app will have some more of Google Goggles' powers built in so as to recognize an even wider variety of items.  But for now, the options available are more than sufficient.”

One further admission:  I am not merely an online shopper.  I am an online bargain shopper.  The difference?  The latter requires effort.  Google Shopper offers a number of features that ease the deal-searching process (which, I assure you, is tedious).

Though I still own a low-tech phone that does not connect to the internet, I do think the application is handy, especially the feature that permits users to snap photos and search for items.

Like all other recreational technologies, the application is unnecessary for mankind’s basic daily routine.  Do we need to shop online?  No.  Would we have the money to pay full price for items if we didn't spend hundreds of dollars on data plans?  Yes.

If you’ll allow me to minimize my hypocrisy, I cannot judge this app as harshly as my habit recommends that I should.  For now, let’s let Google Shopper off with a warning.

I promise we’ll ticket the sucker next time around.

Chromebook: One more [useless] gadget

http://www.businessinsider.com/google-chromebook-review-2012-10

You’ve seen the commercials, I’m certain.  Befuddling, no?  What is this Chromebook?  How can a laptop cost only $249?  Read on.

“The idea behind the Chromebook is to run just about everything within the Chrome browser, with Google services covering your documents, email, calendar, etc.

“But unlike normal laptops, there's no file management system. It's not a laptop. It's not a tablet. It's a shell that houses a web browser.  That's it.

“While Google added more of a “desktop-like” feel to the Chromebook's operating system with a home screen of icons that launch web apps in the browser, it's simply a facade.  There is no way to effectively manage files that aren't Internet-based.  If you don't have an Internet connection, you're extremely limited in what you can do.”

I apologize…  I must appear pathetically obtuse.  I assure you, I’m a bright girl.  Really, I am.  But…  I still don’t get.

Assuming the Chromebook performs its existing functions irreproachably, it remains a useless and superfluous device.  Netbooks and tablets offer more functions than the Chromebook at the same affordable price.

Truly, the Chromebook is a tricky device.  As in, it’s a trick.  Ostensibly, it is a fully practical laptop that boasts standard features at an accessible price.  After all, no other twelve inch folding gadgets with full-sized keypads and screens skimp on the primary computing functions expected of a laptop-looking device.  Disillusioned online shoppers who neglect their technology homework may purchase the “computer” and be surprised by its dependence on apps and an internet connection.

There you have it.  A reason to continue reading.  Witty and Wireless:  Saving readers return shipping fees with every post.

And how will you be paying, sir? With cash or by smartphone?

http://money.cnn.com/2012/10/19/technology/innovation/isis-mobile-wallet/index.html

On 22 October, Isis, a mobile network founded by Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile, will release its mobile wallet app.  Partnerships with such major retailers as Foot Locker, 7-Eleven, McDonald’s, and Sports Authority give Isis "serious firepower.”

The network will support American Express and Capital One credit and debit cards, and will store payment cards, loyalty programs, and merchant offers.  Though the company has yet to reveal which smartphones will be compatible with Isis, we do know that its system functions with near-field communication chips and short-range wireless technology.

Unfortunately for Isis, its lengthy startup process permitted other web payment apps to capture consumers.  eBay, Paypal, Google, Venmo, and Square are a few examples of successful mobile payment applications/ services/ technologies.  However, “if Isis’ carrier partners work with handset makers to pre-install Isis’ software on new phones—a likely scenario—the upstart venture could quickly gain traction.”

A few weeks ago, I wrote of the cultural loss I associate with a coin-less and bill-less society.  Though this application isn’t harmful or silly in any way, it shatters yet another seemingly timeless tradition.  Unless you’re staggeringly wealthy, your on-hand cash and coins likely weigh very little.  That means we’re adopting these technologies to save time…so we can get home to Facebook?

Each day, we approach a Jetson civilization of sleek, colorless, personality-less metal.  Indeed, when I learn of applications like Isis, I begin the wearying process of staking my house to the lawn.

what's hAPPening?

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/a-new-google-app-gives-you-local-information-before-you-ask-for-it/?ref=technology&pagewanted=print

This article details Google’s newest app, Field Trip.  The program seeks signals from cell towers to detect the location of users and then offers unprompted historical trivia about the area.  Google likens the app to “a local friend” who guides you on “your way through a city.”

 While this app does seem like a refreshing idea, awakening individuals to the lovely, rare, and titillating sights that comprise their surroundings, I am perturbed by the world this app foreshadows.  As the essay notes, “Google, along with other computers and researchers, dreams of so-called ubiquitous computing or ambient intelligence—computers woven into the texture of life as opposed to being separate machines.”  EEK.

Why do we need this?  Why must we place yet another shaving of unreality before of our eyes?  What information is so vital that it must disturb the serene flora and unfettered fauna the earth willingly and generously proffers?

Those who promote these technologies allege they will provide us with indispensable knowledge.  We will be informed, alert, and equipped for life.

I must ask…  With all of the latest apps, devices, websites, and technologies, do you notice much of a difference in us?  In our literacy?  In our concern for dying people?  In our retention of data?  In our familiarity with United States history?

Perhaps we’re more aware of things, but are we any different?  Any more knowledgeable?  I don’t think so.

Because ambient intelligence offers the same data as the aforementioned technologies, it will offer the same [lack of] benefits as those technologies.  Indeed, though its visibility tops that of the earlier devices, this is the only significant change.  Ambient intelligence will not improve us; it will merely distract, fluster, and aggravate us.

Must this be our future?  Must this app dictate the route of pending technologies?  Let me ask once more..what’s hAPPening to us?

To Remove or Not to Remove? That Is Google's Question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/world/middleeast/google-wont-rethink-anti-islam-videos-status.html?ref=technology

On 15 September 2012, Google denied the White House’s request that the internet service remove the provocative anti-Islam YouTube video that has caused wild discord in the Arab world.

Ever deferential to the laws of the nations it serves, Google maintained that the video did not flout any regulations specific to Arab countries “because it was against the Muslim religion but not the Muslim people.”

Moving for a moment to the general procedures of Google, the corporation does not police the videos that are uploaded to YouTube because such a task is decidedly undoable.  Seventy two hours of video are uploaded to the site each minute, causing Google to investigate only those videos that are flagged by users as inappropriate or that receive a valid court order/ government request for removal.

What to think?  It seems as though Google found a slight loophole in the wording of the laws of Arab nations.  Good for Google.  Though I promise that I recognize the tremendous repercussions and stupidities of the coming statement, I must tout my belief that unrestricted speech is always the way to go.

As readers of my blog have learned, I am hardly a technology enthusiast.  However, one accomplishment I do reluctantly assign to the cyber realm is that it has generously gifted each forcibly hushed living being with the potential for worldwide, vociferous impact.  This is an unspeakable triumph.

Though Google’s decision is cheeky and provocative, I laud the corporation for its uncaring resolve.  Indeed, Google respects its users enough to show them everything it can, including its objectionable content.

Did you catch my use of the word “respect?”  I said it and I meant it.  Despite the corporation’s absurd wealth, it defers to the judgments of its users.  We decide what is appropriate.  We decide what is crass.  We decide what is lovely.  We decide what is worthwhile.  Yes, this means we will encounter startlingly offensive videos and posts that demean our values, religions, lifestyles, origins, colors, upbringings, etc.

But given the resilience of mankind, isn’t it worth it?

If a smartphone rings in Uruguay...

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/a-firefox-smartphone-for-the-poor/?ref=technology

The cited article is an intriguing one, as it addresses Mozilla’s mission to release a mobile operating system for smartphones, which it will market to the developing world.

Apple and Google phones are too pricy for these technologically evolving populations, resulting in a tantalizingly uncrowded market.

Mozilla hopes to price its Firefox models between $100 and $115, or “one-third to one-sixth the cost of the competition.”

In terms of the phones’ capabilities, they will offer “the middle of the high end of the feature set,” boasting touch screens, cameras, accelerometers, and Firefox browsers.

Though China advertises cheaper smartphones in the developing world, their $70 models offer miniscule screens and outdated software, marking them as inferior products.

Though my face adopts an unattractive soured expression when I think of the looming contamination of beautiful cultures by the corrosive, pernicious, homogenizing effects of technology, I cannot deny the brilliance of Mozilla’s plan.  Indeed, marketing smartphones to struggling individuals who covet modernity and global significance constitutes a tactical triumph.

Because Mozilla cannot advance a product that rivals those of Apple and Google, it is logical for the company to pursue a business model that does not crave technological excellence, but instead seeks impressively widespread distribution.  Indeed, Mozilla realizes that Apple and Google are inaccessible to developing populations and chooses to market to those nations.

Two things I will never cease to appreciate are simplicity and cleverness.  Kudos to Mozilla for cultivating a plan that boasts both.