Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Looks Like I'm a Step Behind
See this news blurb about Nike & Life Fitness getting together to allow users to track their cardio experience. Certainly not the full set of data that people would want to be tracking, but its getting interesting. Also, it appears that these disparate companies can work together
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Fitness Data Ecosystem (Take 2)
A BIG Problem
I've been thinking a bit more about my thoughts on the Fitness Data Ecosystem (FDE) and one of the key problems with the concept is that it requires multiple companies, without necessarily aligned interests, to work together to make it happen. It is, quite problematically, a system.
A Solution?
Perhaps a much more contained solution would consist of the following three items:
Wrist Watch or System Controller: This is the nerve center of the system and unsurprisingly, looks and behaves just like a watch. It also receives signaling from the other devices and in th best case, also allows some user input. A much more flexible device, such as an iPhone, would be an ideal but clunky solution. User input will be described later.
Wrist and Ankle Accelerometer Bracelets: Simple and light-weight devices that measure acceleration and transmit that information to the system controller. If there is a Wrist Watch Controller, it would need an accelerometer, too.
Wireless Heart Rate Monitor: Nothing special, straps to the chest and transmits a heartrate signal to the System Controller. It, too, would have an accelerometer to track "core" motions.
Details
Basically, the FDE devices described above could keep track of all movements and physiological reactions (at least heart rate, which hopefully is a good proxy for everything you'd like to be measuring). The FDE System Controller would not have to process the data, just store the information for later processing. If the information is of high quality, the post-processing could literally map your progress through the gym and determine each exercise done. It could match your heart rate with the pace and patterns of your movements. What it wouldn't know, however, was how much weight you lifted for each exercise. This is where the System Controller and its interface become important.
System Controller Interface
You want the FDE SC to do two things for you: let you know what part of your workout you are supposed to be doing and track what you did. Here, a bright big display of your iPhone would be great. It would not only tell you that you were supposed to do 20 reps of preacher curls, but it would tell you that you should begin with 25 pound dumbbells and work up 30, 45 and 50 for your next three sets. If you ate your Wheaties that day and you want to crack it up a notch, the interface should let you quickly adjust the expected routine for what you actually did (a slider that goes in the increments of the machines or available weight set that you have).
I think due to the above interface requirements, a watch-sized device would be ill-suited to the task. I vote for the iPhone - only a few more weeks and we'll have an SDK that can make this all a reality (if all of the wireless devices are running no Bluetooth).
Will People Use It?
I think some would be intrigued by the notion that they can easily track and monitor their workouts. Others will find the ankle and wrist-bands and unsightly and geeky addition to their otherwise fashionable workout attire. In the end, it will be a subset of people, but I think large enough for it to be of interest of a company such as Nike or Adidas.
Side Benefits?
Why not wear these things all day long? They seem like they could serve as great low cost whole-body monitors for medical examination - you could just add whatever other specific device (like a blood pressure monitor) you might need and transmit its signal via Bluetooth, too. It seems to me that you should go to your next physical after having emailed your doctor a week's worth of body monitoring information. The interaction could be much more productive: you need to exercise more (not likely to be the feedback to somebody who would wear such a device regularly, but perhaps the doctors office mails you one a week before your appointment); you need to cool down more slowly in your workouts; focus on moving in the middle of the day (you sit still too long at your desk); why not walk a few extra blocks in the morning instead of getting off at the closest subway stop; your resting heartrate looks good (too high, too low).
You may just want to wear it all day long because you want to have a better idea how many calories you are burning in the course of a day/week and how you should adjust your diet accordingly.
Conclusion, for now
A lot of this sounds like something from the MIT Media Lab (and perhaps it has all been done before), but I don't necessarily think its outlandish to propose. But, despite Mr. Kent's prodding, I don't think I'm about to leave my current line of work to make it happen.
I've been thinking a bit more about my thoughts on the Fitness Data Ecosystem (FDE) and one of the key problems with the concept is that it requires multiple companies, without necessarily aligned interests, to work together to make it happen. It is, quite problematically, a system.
A Solution?
Perhaps a much more contained solution would consist of the following three items:
Wrist Watch or System Controller: This is the nerve center of the system and unsurprisingly, looks and behaves just like a watch. It also receives signaling from the other devices and in th best case, also allows some user input. A much more flexible device, such as an iPhone, would be an ideal but clunky solution. User input will be described later.
Wrist and Ankle Accelerometer Bracelets: Simple and light-weight devices that measure acceleration and transmit that information to the system controller. If there is a Wrist Watch Controller, it would need an accelerometer, too.
Wireless Heart Rate Monitor: Nothing special, straps to the chest and transmits a heartrate signal to the System Controller. It, too, would have an accelerometer to track "core" motions.
Details
Basically, the FDE devices described above could keep track of all movements and physiological reactions (at least heart rate, which hopefully is a good proxy for everything you'd like to be measuring). The FDE System Controller would not have to process the data, just store the information for later processing. If the information is of high quality, the post-processing could literally map your progress through the gym and determine each exercise done. It could match your heart rate with the pace and patterns of your movements. What it wouldn't know, however, was how much weight you lifted for each exercise. This is where the System Controller and its interface become important.
System Controller Interface
You want the FDE SC to do two things for you: let you know what part of your workout you are supposed to be doing and track what you did. Here, a bright big display of your iPhone would be great. It would not only tell you that you were supposed to do 20 reps of preacher curls, but it would tell you that you should begin with 25 pound dumbbells and work up 30, 45 and 50 for your next three sets. If you ate your Wheaties that day and you want to crack it up a notch, the interface should let you quickly adjust the expected routine for what you actually did (a slider that goes in the increments of the machines or available weight set that you have).
I think due to the above interface requirements, a watch-sized device would be ill-suited to the task. I vote for the iPhone - only a few more weeks and we'll have an SDK that can make this all a reality (if all of the wireless devices are running no Bluetooth).
Will People Use It?
I think some would be intrigued by the notion that they can easily track and monitor their workouts. Others will find the ankle and wrist-bands and unsightly and geeky addition to their otherwise fashionable workout attire. In the end, it will be a subset of people, but I think large enough for it to be of interest of a company such as Nike or Adidas.
Side Benefits?
Why not wear these things all day long? They seem like they could serve as great low cost whole-body monitors for medical examination - you could just add whatever other specific device (like a blood pressure monitor) you might need and transmit its signal via Bluetooth, too. It seems to me that you should go to your next physical after having emailed your doctor a week's worth of body monitoring information. The interaction could be much more productive: you need to exercise more (not likely to be the feedback to somebody who would wear such a device regularly, but perhaps the doctors office mails you one a week before your appointment); you need to cool down more slowly in your workouts; focus on moving in the middle of the day (you sit still too long at your desk); why not walk a few extra blocks in the morning instead of getting off at the closest subway stop; your resting heartrate looks good (too high, too low).
You may just want to wear it all day long because you want to have a better idea how many calories you are burning in the course of a day/week and how you should adjust your diet accordingly.
Conclusion, for now
A lot of this sounds like something from the MIT Media Lab (and perhaps it has all been done before), but I don't necessarily think its outlandish to propose. But, despite Mr. Kent's prodding, I don't think I'm about to leave my current line of work to make it happen.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Asynchronous Conversations
Idea:
Enable people to carry on spoken conversations in an asynchronous fashion.
Details:
The concept isn't too far out there - really its similar to email. As in, I write you and email and at some point in the future (not virtually instantaneously) you read it and potentially respond to it. Why not do the same thing with the spoken word?
I believe the scenario would look like this:
1) I have a number of topics that I want to talk to you about. I make a voice recording of topic one (i.e., I speak into my iPhone to the aSynch application). After the first topic area, I tap "end topic" and then begin talking about the next one.
2) I synchronize my conversation with a asynchronous conversation website (ACW). While doing so, I add a text tag to describe any new topics that I've brought up. Perhaps its a new service of Skype (although it doesn't seem to fit their mold).
3) My friend then synchronizes to the ACW, and my portion of the conversation is downloaded to his device (perhaps a Blackberry, but in any event, the only requirement would be that it was "standards compliant").
4) My friend looks at the topic areas (remember, all have been tagged), and arranges them in order that s/he wants to listen to them (or leaves them in the default order). Also, he decides how he wants to listen to the topics (her/his previous comments, then my responses; or just my responses).
5) My friend listens to my side of the conversation and at the end of each topic, they are prompted to add their response. Alternatively, they can break into the conversation and respond with something; useful if you are afraid that you'll forget about a specific point that you wanted to make.
6) The cycle of synchronizing and responding continues.
Interface
I think that this idea, while intriguing, is a real challenge from an interface standpoint. It will have to be very easy and intuitive to listen and respond. Ideally, it would be as intuitive as having a face-to-face conversation. It can't be that, but it can strive to be as close as possible.
Will it Work?
With the caveat of the above paragraph, I think that it absolutely could work, but there are a whole host of challenges:
1) Hardware: you don't want to have a dedicated piece of hardware to make this work, it has to be integrated into existing devices. As much as smartphones are doing something very similar, they seem like obvious devices to build software around.
2) [More to Come]
Enable people to carry on spoken conversations in an asynchronous fashion.
Details:
The concept isn't too far out there - really its similar to email. As in, I write you and email and at some point in the future (not virtually instantaneously) you read it and potentially respond to it. Why not do the same thing with the spoken word?
I believe the scenario would look like this:
1) I have a number of topics that I want to talk to you about. I make a voice recording of topic one (i.e., I speak into my iPhone to the aSynch application). After the first topic area, I tap "end topic" and then begin talking about the next one.
2) I synchronize my conversation with a asynchronous conversation website (ACW). While doing so, I add a text tag to describe any new topics that I've brought up. Perhaps its a new service of Skype (although it doesn't seem to fit their mold).
3) My friend then synchronizes to the ACW, and my portion of the conversation is downloaded to his device (perhaps a Blackberry, but in any event, the only requirement would be that it was "standards compliant").
4) My friend looks at the topic areas (remember, all have been tagged), and arranges them in order that s/he wants to listen to them (or leaves them in the default order). Also, he decides how he wants to listen to the topics (her/his previous comments, then my responses; or just my responses).
5) My friend listens to my side of the conversation and at the end of each topic, they are prompted to add their response. Alternatively, they can break into the conversation and respond with something; useful if you are afraid that you'll forget about a specific point that you wanted to make.
6) The cycle of synchronizing and responding continues.
Interface
I think that this idea, while intriguing, is a real challenge from an interface standpoint. It will have to be very easy and intuitive to listen and respond. Ideally, it would be as intuitive as having a face-to-face conversation. It can't be that, but it can strive to be as close as possible.
Will it Work?
With the caveat of the above paragraph, I think that it absolutely could work, but there are a whole host of challenges:
1) Hardware: you don't want to have a dedicated piece of hardware to make this work, it has to be integrated into existing devices. As much as smartphones are doing something very similar, they seem like obvious devices to build software around.
2) [More to Come]
Sunday, February 17, 2008
LED Lighting: In the (LED) Mood
Concept
Shift the lighting in your room/house to match your mood.
Background
LED lighting, though still prohibitively expensive for most of us, will become an increasingly viable alternative to incandescent and even compact fluorescents. Advantages will include both longer life and higher efficiency that we currently have today with incandescent bulbs. But LEDs will also allow a greater control over the mood of the room. Here, I propose a simple control system for in-room lighting that is compatible with your existing home wiring.
Details
The LED Concept Lighting (LCL) consists of two modules: the switch and the "bulb". The switch will be backwards compatible with existing wall switches and really only require two wires in: hot and ground. The bulb will screw into the standard set of sockets used today for lighting such as the S100 "Edison" socket or its European equivalent of the E27. See here and here for some ideas of the types of bulbs that are currently available. Current bulbs are available at a "fixed" color or frequency; they cannot be adjusted after they've been manufactured. Some have flirted with these ideas, such as this project, though I'm not sure they have expressed all of the thoughts I'm about to here (forgive me if you've done so, and I just missed it).
What will be unique about this system is the user's ability to change the light characteristics with a simple wall switch. This is far more that just a "dimmer switch", but a "mood switch". The switch will probably look much like the dimmer switches that you'll find that fit into a standard switch plate (i.e., the switch itself is narrowed a bit and there is an up/down slider on the side that governs the intensity of the light). The coolness is added with two extra controls: the three-bar slider (TBS) and the Temperature Dial (TD). The controls don't necessarily coexist well with each other, so there would need to be a small red LED above the control that is currently setting the light output. The switch would directly control all of the lights on the given circuit. High frequency data bursts could be put out on the circuit to set the parameters, similar, but much less complex than HomePlug although using it as a standard might keep the costs down.
The TBS is what it sounds like, basically a way for the user to directly control the Red, Green and Blue components of the light output. If you want the room to be "hot" and all red, just slide down the green and blue sliders and crank up the red. The possibilities are (almost) endless - to the degree of variation that each color element will allow. I'm guessing that 256 should be more than sufficient for customized coloration.
The TD is really an alternate way of adjusting the light that will be more intuitive for some people. This will, as the name suggests, set the light temperature and it will have the Kelvin markings around the edge of the dial. A range of 3000 to 5500 should probably be sufficient for most people.
The addition of the TBS and TD will require a unique faceplate to be used, but I think that as long as it follows standard conventions for everything else, it will not be a significant problem for backward compatibility.
One Step Beyond . . .
So all of that is cool, really cool actually. But it could be even cooler. How? By going One Step Beyond for this Gadget to the point where you add customizable programming for each lightbulb. Too hard - I don't think so. Here's how you do it:
The Bulb:
The bulk would need to be capable of "listening" to an outside control source and adjust the output of the three LEDs accordingly. The listening could take place over the power input (similar to the HomePlug idea floated above). The key for this to work, though is that each light has to listen and filter out instructions for other bulbs and only listen to its own instructions. Thus each light will need to effectively have its own ID or MAC address. For our purposes, instead of "Media Access Control", we need Lighting Access Control, so for fun we'll describe the address/ID as an LAC address.
The Controller:
Generally, I think that to have anything of even moderate complication, you are going to need to use a computer-based programming platform. So everything that follows, will make that assumption. The controller process consists of the following four functions: mapping the room, writing the lighting program, transferring to a dedicated controller and finally, running the program.
Mapping the room: As a first step, you'd want to map out each light's location in the room and probably associate a LAC address with each point on the map. Probably not too hard? I don't think so, but there could be a complication if the orientation of the LED lightbulb made a difference in the final program. There, the mapping may require the user to (a) take note of the LAC (b) screw the LED lightbulb and take note of the orientation with respect to the room. Orientation could be controlled by the outer ring of LEDs lighting as different colors and the user picking the best match for one of the walls. This could even work on chandeliers and such. If the system took off, you could even allow people (or manufacturers) to share models of common light fixtures, so they wouldn't have to remap/design lights themselves.
Lighting Program: The computer platform would give you, as the "light architect", total freedom to set the mood of your room. Your mood could be static, animated or responsive to its environment. Static moods don't necessarily mean boring: you could differentially color a room and come up with cool patterns that play well to the furniture and other surroundings there. An animated room could be simple or complex. The complexity could be stepped up another level through the use of "Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass" as I will describe later below. A rolling or pulsating pattern might look pretty cool. As would many "screensaver"-like options.
Transferring to Controller: After the lights have been mapped, the program written, its time to transfer it to the device that will control the actual bulbs. The technology used to send the control signals will dictate some of the aspects of the controller. If a wireless standard like ZigBee is used, the controller could be anything from a handheld remote to your laptop with a ZigBee USB fob sitting on the side of it. If HomePlug is used instead, the controller would have to be connected in some fashion to the same circuit as the LED lights that you were looking to control.
Running the Program: Running the program could be a matter pressing play on your laptop (perhaps the animation is tied into the iTunes visualizer on the music that you are stream through your house for your party). Alternately, it could be pressing button 1 on your handheld remote when you walk in the door and the room begins pulsating in the very cool way that you've spent hours programming.
"Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass"
OK, so the LED bulbs cost about $150 each. That's a lot of money! I have a room in my basement with 15 recessed lights. Even if I'm a bit crazy and I spend $2,250 to put LED bulbs in each of those lights, I am probably not going to add another couple hundred lights to make a contiguous "canvas" for me to develop some really, really cool lighting program.
Instead, what I propose to do is to mount a 2' x 2' piece of opaque glass below each recessed light that will spread the light from the LED out about 10x from the "wide angle" that bulb would produce. The opaque glass would hang about 4 inches from the ceiling and would be supported by four corner fixed pegs or screws going into the drywall of the ceiling. Between the opaque glass panel and the LED bulb, there would be an innovative lens that spreads the light evenly out to the full area of the glass. I'm not quite done with ensuring that the physics work here, but I'm sure that somebody smarter than me could tackle this in a matter of no time.
The effect of adding the "Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass" is that you'd have an almost contiguous surface that you could do some really cool things with, such as display pictures and more complex graphics. Here, the orientation of the bulbs really do matter and you'd begin to talk pretty quickly about how many "pixels" each bulb could represent or display. Initial lights ought to be capable of 128 pixels and densities could be increased in the bulbs without the glass needing upgrading (as long as it was in increments of 4x).
Who Should Do This?
GE, Philips come to mind immediately. They certainly own the lighting market in the U.S.
In fact Philips appears to have the beginnings of a system in place, but unfortunately looks to be only in the press release stage. Products available today look simplistic, such as the LED Color Changing Party & Deco Bulb. Other, similarly simplistic LED light items can be found here.
Smaller companies, such as ChannelBrite might have just the right combination of innovation and business skill to make this happen, at least at a small scale.
Will it Happen?
Probably, but will it take a while. Unfortunately, politicians are fixated on compact fluorescents as being the "mandated" wave of the future. Instead of looking for more efficient outcomes, the government has decided instead it will pick technology winners. This is not a case where the government should be mandating method, only outcome (efficiency). OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Shift the lighting in your room/house to match your mood.
Background
LED lighting, though still prohibitively expensive for most of us, will become an increasingly viable alternative to incandescent and even compact fluorescents. Advantages will include both longer life and higher efficiency that we currently have today with incandescent bulbs. But LEDs will also allow a greater control over the mood of the room. Here, I propose a simple control system for in-room lighting that is compatible with your existing home wiring.
Details
The LED Concept Lighting (LCL) consists of two modules: the switch and the "bulb". The switch will be backwards compatible with existing wall switches and really only require two wires in: hot and ground. The bulb will screw into the standard set of sockets used today for lighting such as the S100 "Edison" socket or its European equivalent of the E27. See here and here for some ideas of the types of bulbs that are currently available. Current bulbs are available at a "fixed" color or frequency; they cannot be adjusted after they've been manufactured. Some have flirted with these ideas, such as this project, though I'm not sure they have expressed all of the thoughts I'm about to here (forgive me if you've done so, and I just missed it).
What will be unique about this system is the user's ability to change the light characteristics with a simple wall switch. This is far more that just a "dimmer switch", but a "mood switch". The switch will probably look much like the dimmer switches that you'll find that fit into a standard switch plate (i.e., the switch itself is narrowed a bit and there is an up/down slider on the side that governs the intensity of the light). The coolness is added with two extra controls: the three-bar slider (TBS) and the Temperature Dial (TD). The controls don't necessarily coexist well with each other, so there would need to be a small red LED above the control that is currently setting the light output. The switch would directly control all of the lights on the given circuit. High frequency data bursts could be put out on the circuit to set the parameters, similar, but much less complex than HomePlug although using it as a standard might keep the costs down.
The TBS is what it sounds like, basically a way for the user to directly control the Red, Green and Blue components of the light output. If you want the room to be "hot" and all red, just slide down the green and blue sliders and crank up the red. The possibilities are (almost) endless - to the degree of variation that each color element will allow. I'm guessing that 256 should be more than sufficient for customized coloration.
The TD is really an alternate way of adjusting the light that will be more intuitive for some people. This will, as the name suggests, set the light temperature and it will have the Kelvin markings around the edge of the dial. A range of 3000 to 5500 should probably be sufficient for most people.
The addition of the TBS and TD will require a unique faceplate to be used, but I think that as long as it follows standard conventions for everything else, it will not be a significant problem for backward compatibility.
One Step Beyond . . .
So all of that is cool, really cool actually. But it could be even cooler. How? By going One Step Beyond for this Gadget to the point where you add customizable programming for each lightbulb. Too hard - I don't think so. Here's how you do it:
The Bulb:
The bulk would need to be capable of "listening" to an outside control source and adjust the output of the three LEDs accordingly. The listening could take place over the power input (similar to the HomePlug idea floated above). The key for this to work, though is that each light has to listen and filter out instructions for other bulbs and only listen to its own instructions. Thus each light will need to effectively have its own ID or MAC address. For our purposes, instead of "Media Access Control", we need Lighting Access Control, so for fun we'll describe the address/ID as an LAC address.
The Controller:
Generally, I think that to have anything of even moderate complication, you are going to need to use a computer-based programming platform. So everything that follows, will make that assumption. The controller process consists of the following four functions: mapping the room, writing the lighting program, transferring to a dedicated controller and finally, running the program.
Mapping the room: As a first step, you'd want to map out each light's location in the room and probably associate a LAC address with each point on the map. Probably not too hard? I don't think so, but there could be a complication if the orientation of the LED lightbulb made a difference in the final program. There, the mapping may require the user to (a) take note of the LAC (b) screw the LED lightbulb and take note of the orientation with respect to the room. Orientation could be controlled by the outer ring of LEDs lighting as different colors and the user picking the best match for one of the walls. This could even work on chandeliers and such. If the system took off, you could even allow people (or manufacturers) to share models of common light fixtures, so they wouldn't have to remap/design lights themselves.
Lighting Program: The computer platform would give you, as the "light architect", total freedom to set the mood of your room. Your mood could be static, animated or responsive to its environment. Static moods don't necessarily mean boring: you could differentially color a room and come up with cool patterns that play well to the furniture and other surroundings there. An animated room could be simple or complex. The complexity could be stepped up another level through the use of "Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass" as I will describe later below. A rolling or pulsating pattern might look pretty cool. As would many "screensaver"-like options.
Transferring to Controller: After the lights have been mapped, the program written, its time to transfer it to the device that will control the actual bulbs. The technology used to send the control signals will dictate some of the aspects of the controller. If a wireless standard like ZigBee is used, the controller could be anything from a handheld remote to your laptop with a ZigBee USB fob sitting on the side of it. If HomePlug is used instead, the controller would have to be connected in some fashion to the same circuit as the LED lights that you were looking to control.
Running the Program: Running the program could be a matter pressing play on your laptop (perhaps the animation is tied into the iTunes visualizer on the music that you are stream through your house for your party). Alternately, it could be pressing button 1 on your handheld remote when you walk in the door and the room begins pulsating in the very cool way that you've spent hours programming.
"Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass"
OK, so the LED bulbs cost about $150 each. That's a lot of money! I have a room in my basement with 15 recessed lights. Even if I'm a bit crazy and I spend $2,250 to put LED bulbs in each of those lights, I am probably not going to add another couple hundred lights to make a contiguous "canvas" for me to develop some really, really cool lighting program.
Instead, what I propose to do is to mount a 2' x 2' piece of opaque glass below each recessed light that will spread the light from the LED out about 10x from the "wide angle" that bulb would produce. The opaque glass would hang about 4 inches from the ceiling and would be supported by four corner fixed pegs or screws going into the drywall of the ceiling. Between the opaque glass panel and the LED bulb, there would be an innovative lens that spreads the light evenly out to the full area of the glass. I'm not quite done with ensuring that the physics work here, but I'm sure that somebody smarter than me could tackle this in a matter of no time.
The effect of adding the "Short Throw Wide-Angle Opaque Glass" is that you'd have an almost contiguous surface that you could do some really cool things with, such as display pictures and more complex graphics. Here, the orientation of the bulbs really do matter and you'd begin to talk pretty quickly about how many "pixels" each bulb could represent or display. Initial lights ought to be capable of 128 pixels and densities could be increased in the bulbs without the glass needing upgrading (as long as it was in increments of 4x).
Who Should Do This?
GE, Philips come to mind immediately. They certainly own the lighting market in the U.S.
In fact Philips appears to have the beginnings of a system in place, but unfortunately looks to be only in the press release stage. Products available today look simplistic, such as the LED Color Changing Party & Deco Bulb. Other, similarly simplistic LED light items can be found here.
Smaller companies, such as ChannelBrite might have just the right combination of innovation and business skill to make this happen, at least at a small scale.
Will it Happen?
Probably, but will it take a while. Unfortunately, politicians are fixated on compact fluorescents as being the "mandated" wave of the future. Instead of looking for more efficient outcomes, the government has decided instead it will pick technology winners. This is not a case where the government should be mandating method, only outcome (efficiency). OK, I'm off my soapbox now.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Time Out: The MacBook Air, It Just (Doesn't) Work(s)
My wife has been happily computing for the last three years on her G4 iBook. It has been getting long in the tooth and she just started classes this semester at GMU. It was time for a new computer, one that was light but did not need to be exceedingly powerful.
The rumored light-weight MacBook seemed like a good fit. The keynote presentation at MacWorld by the man in the black turtleneck sealed the deal. I ordered the MacBook Air (MBA) that day and it finally arrived last Friday. So far so good.
Wireless Migration Assistant
The problems pretty much started immediately. The Mac has a great little intro video (Leopard, actually) and then it goes into a configuration mode that allows you to migrate your information from an old Mac. Well, as instructed, I popped the DVD into Christa's old iBook and loaded the Wireless Migration Assistant (WMA) and proceeded to launch the transfer. All went as expected until the estimate times for a completed transfer began growing, and growing and growing.
Eventually, the old iBook gave some cryptic error message. Basically, it said that the transfer had failed for an unknown reason. The new MBA did not fail out, but the estimated completion time kept growing. No keystroke combination was successful in stopping or interrupting the process. The only thing to do: press and hold the power button until it shut down. And I tried again several times to the same effect. All the while with no messaging to tell me what went wrong. Eventually, I gave up and went to bed.
The next morning (Saturday, now), I gave it a few more shots. I connected the iBook to an ethernet connection to try to eliminate flaky wireless on its part as being the source of the problem. No luck. I eventually concluded that it must be bad wireless on the MBA, and called my local Apple store to see if they had the USB ethernet dongle in stock yet. They did - I then planned to go that evening. Then I went crazy.
Crazy, as defined as, "doing the same thing and expecting different results" kind of crazy. And there is a reason that people go crazy. It sometimes pays off. To be cleared: I gave it another go, doing nothing differently, and for whatever reason, it finally worked.
After completing the process on the MBA, all was good. All was good except for their being no printer. [What's up with Leopard not transferring printers, or even remembering them when you do the upgrade from Tiger?]
Remote Disk
One of the compromises, so to speak, that I made when trying to get the WMA to work was skipping my wife's application directory. This means that I had to install iWork '08 again. My only choice to do this: Remote Disk.
Things began just fine here. I loaded the software on my MacPro and enabled sharing. I inserted the install DVD and the problems began.
While the MBA instantly found the disk and the install package, it didn't like installing from the remote disk. So much so that I repeatedly go the error message that the install DVD was bad and that I should contact the manufacturer to get a new one. [Hello, Apple? I understand that the install program is what was generating these messages, but didn't you test this thing? Provide some context for the user?] Trust me, the disk wasn't bad.
Again, craziness ensued. Lots of it. Eventually it did pay off and the installation completed. I can't explain why: I did nothing differently the 10th time as the early nine tries.
It Just Doesn't Work
Don't get me wrong, I'm still probably too much of an Apple fanboy. But that is why it really bugs me when their tools don't do what the say they do. Specifically, there were a number of things that really bugged me about the whole MBA setup experience:
- Lack of useful error messages and feedback. None. No message was at all useful.
- Processes still "working" when they obviously were not. This was perhaps the most annoying aspect. Just admit it already when you're broken.
- The migration process could be much more flexible. The MBA does have a USB port and indeed many people have large external USB drives. Why not give the flexibility of exporting to a USB-drive and then importing via that drive with the MBA?
- Finally, I am annoyed that the processes finally did work. It wasn't as if I was doing something (obviously) wrong. Just keep trying and it might work. Isn't that the whole reason I stopped using Windows?
The rumored light-weight MacBook seemed like a good fit. The keynote presentation at MacWorld by the man in the black turtleneck sealed the deal. I ordered the MacBook Air (MBA) that day and it finally arrived last Friday. So far so good.
Wireless Migration Assistant
The problems pretty much started immediately. The Mac has a great little intro video (Leopard, actually) and then it goes into a configuration mode that allows you to migrate your information from an old Mac. Well, as instructed, I popped the DVD into Christa's old iBook and loaded the Wireless Migration Assistant (WMA) and proceeded to launch the transfer. All went as expected until the estimate times for a completed transfer began growing, and growing and growing.
Eventually, the old iBook gave some cryptic error message. Basically, it said that the transfer had failed for an unknown reason. The new MBA did not fail out, but the estimated completion time kept growing. No keystroke combination was successful in stopping or interrupting the process. The only thing to do: press and hold the power button until it shut down. And I tried again several times to the same effect. All the while with no messaging to tell me what went wrong. Eventually, I gave up and went to bed.
The next morning (Saturday, now), I gave it a few more shots. I connected the iBook to an ethernet connection to try to eliminate flaky wireless on its part as being the source of the problem. No luck. I eventually concluded that it must be bad wireless on the MBA, and called my local Apple store to see if they had the USB ethernet dongle in stock yet. They did - I then planned to go that evening. Then I went crazy.
Crazy, as defined as, "doing the same thing and expecting different results" kind of crazy. And there is a reason that people go crazy. It sometimes pays off. To be cleared: I gave it another go, doing nothing differently, and for whatever reason, it finally worked.
After completing the process on the MBA, all was good. All was good except for their being no printer. [What's up with Leopard not transferring printers, or even remembering them when you do the upgrade from Tiger?]
Remote Disk
One of the compromises, so to speak, that I made when trying to get the WMA to work was skipping my wife's application directory. This means that I had to install iWork '08 again. My only choice to do this: Remote Disk.
Things began just fine here. I loaded the software on my MacPro and enabled sharing. I inserted the install DVD and the problems began.
While the MBA instantly found the disk and the install package, it didn't like installing from the remote disk. So much so that I repeatedly go the error message that the install DVD was bad and that I should contact the manufacturer to get a new one. [Hello, Apple? I understand that the install program is what was generating these messages, but didn't you test this thing? Provide some context for the user?] Trust me, the disk wasn't bad.
Again, craziness ensued. Lots of it. Eventually it did pay off and the installation completed. I can't explain why: I did nothing differently the 10th time as the early nine tries.
It Just Doesn't Work
Don't get me wrong, I'm still probably too much of an Apple fanboy. But that is why it really bugs me when their tools don't do what the say they do. Specifically, there were a number of things that really bugged me about the whole MBA setup experience:
- Lack of useful error messages and feedback. None. No message was at all useful.
- Processes still "working" when they obviously were not. This was perhaps the most annoying aspect. Just admit it already when you're broken.
- The migration process could be much more flexible. The MBA does have a USB port and indeed many people have large external USB drives. Why not give the flexibility of exporting to a USB-drive and then importing via that drive with the MBA?
- Finally, I am annoyed that the processes finally did work. It wasn't as if I was doing something (obviously) wrong. Just keep trying and it might work. Isn't that the whole reason I stopped using Windows?
Monday, February 4, 2008
Time Out(s)
So I decided that from time to time, I will also talk about gadgets that I currently own and how they do or do not live up to their promise. I was inspired this weekend to do so - and a follow-up post will explain why.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Fitness Data Ecosystem
Of the few posts that I've made, I'm probably at greatest risk of just not being aware of products that might already exist to address this. I've looked - but haven't seen - so if you are aware of what I speak of - please let me know. But here goes . . .
The Beginning
My wife was kind enough to buy me a Nike triax c3 (sorry, no direct link due to an absurd use of Flash) for Christmas, which is a watch and heart-rate monitor. I had been looking into buying one and she was aware my research. The watch/monitor combination is nice and works just find (though the first one she bought did not work at all). It was a very modest price at Costco, I think about $35.
So it's great, I can look at my watch and see what my heart rate is. But unfortunately, it stops there. There must be something more and there is, but I will argue later that it isn't enough or at the very least, it falls short of the potential with current technology.
The Ideal
The ideal Fitness Data Ecosystem (FDE) would do three things well: define a standard data format for workout information and human physiology (perhaps with a cute name like FitXML), spur a new set of data capture and transfer devices and finally, spur the creation of a whole range of programs for people to evaluate and track their workouts and progress. Let's look at each of them in turn.
FitXML
Yes, I know, I Googled it too. It apparently does exist, but only used in a proprietary and horribly obscure program, Personal Fitness. So, for all practical purposes, it does not exist.
Contents of FitXML
I think it should have the following components:
- Any human body characteristics one could think up (height, weight, waist size, bicep, neck size, body fat, etc., etc.)
- Workout routine information (name, type of exercise, repetitions, weights, other gear used or to be used, etc.)
- Heart rate & other real time body stats
- Running/biking mileage, pace, GPS or pre-programmed waypoints (see Nike's very cool Google Maps mashup where you can just click your route).
- Songs played (or to be played)
- More? (let me know if something obvious is missing)
Data Capture & Transfer Devices
Here, I think most of the devices for data capture all exist in some form or another from all of the usual suspects. They do a great job if you are doing some sustained cardio routine. I do cardio, sure, but I also lift quite a bit (not that you'd know it by looking at me).
The next big leap that would have to happen is a set of weight machines that would sense what you were lifting. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard (i.e., a well placed strain gauge and some electronics). I think it could work like this:
- You approach a machine and when you are seated, your workout fob communicates with the machine to let it know that you've arrived and they synchronize timing.
- You lift (hard because you're a beast, as my kids would say).
- On each movement (begin, top, end), the machine transmits a time code, type of movement, the amount of weight going up.
- Some machines, the movement isn't obvious (like a Smith Bar). Here, your fob gives you several choices, but defaults to the workout routine that you've preloaded into the workout fob. The range of motions could be narrowed down by what portion of the machine the bar is traversing.
- For free weights, things potentially get trickier. However, the solution might be as simple as built in accelerometers. They are relatively cheap and small and would likely do the trick. There would have to be some sort of activation of dumbbells. There it could be as simple as when you take them off the (non-direct contact charging) rack, they search for the closest workout fob. Barbells could perhaps work with the combination of a strain gauge and the accelerometer. This would save the system from having to make all of the weight plates self-aware, so to speak.
Finally, after the workout the workout fob would wirelessly (Bluetooth?) send all of the workout information to your computer to where the information would be imported by your computer-based program.
Fitness Program (excuse the pun)
Here is where you will track your progress and build your future workouts. The primary function will be to manipulate FitXML. Well behaved programs will keep all of your data in the non-proprietary format and will compete instead on the innovative and intuitive ways to manipulate and create workout routines. I'd expect everything from opensource to commercial alternatives.
Who should do it?
All of the current fitness companies. But the problem is that they legitimately only control a portion of the fitness space, not enough. Nike already has a pretty good system of tracking running information with or without an iPod. Cybex does a good job getting pulse/calorie/distance information to the user on a per use basis. Nobody has a comprehensive system.
I think that somebody like Cybex or Nautilus are in the best position to make this happen, not somebody who just makes shoes. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of Nautilus or Cybex doing this will be a closed system that does allow for an ecosystem to develop around it (i.e., Nike do its thing with shoe sensors and watches).
Cost Implications?
I believe that Bluetooth is the best choice for data transfer - it should be wireless and on a standard protocol. Costs for Bluetooth are probably are $10 to $15 per unit (based on this article).
The Beginning
My wife was kind enough to buy me a Nike triax c3 (sorry, no direct link due to an absurd use of Flash) for Christmas, which is a watch and heart-rate monitor. I had been looking into buying one and she was aware my research. The watch/monitor combination is nice and works just find (though the first one she bought did not work at all). It was a very modest price at Costco, I think about $35.
So it's great, I can look at my watch and see what my heart rate is. But unfortunately, it stops there. There must be something more and there is, but I will argue later that it isn't enough or at the very least, it falls short of the potential with current technology.
The Ideal
The ideal Fitness Data Ecosystem (FDE) would do three things well: define a standard data format for workout information and human physiology (perhaps with a cute name like FitXML), spur a new set of data capture and transfer devices and finally, spur the creation of a whole range of programs for people to evaluate and track their workouts and progress. Let's look at each of them in turn.
FitXML
Yes, I know, I Googled it too. It apparently does exist, but only used in a proprietary and horribly obscure program, Personal Fitness. So, for all practical purposes, it does not exist.
Contents of FitXML
I think it should have the following components:
- Any human body characteristics one could think up (height, weight, waist size, bicep, neck size, body fat, etc., etc.)
- Workout routine information (name, type of exercise, repetitions, weights, other gear used or to be used, etc.)
- Heart rate & other real time body stats
- Running/biking mileage, pace, GPS or pre-programmed waypoints (see Nike's very cool Google Maps mashup where you can just click your route).
- Songs played (or to be played)
- More? (let me know if something obvious is missing)
Data Capture & Transfer Devices
Here, I think most of the devices for data capture all exist in some form or another from all of the usual suspects. They do a great job if you are doing some sustained cardio routine. I do cardio, sure, but I also lift quite a bit (not that you'd know it by looking at me).
The next big leap that would have to happen is a set of weight machines that would sense what you were lifting. It doesn't seem like it'd be that hard (i.e., a well placed strain gauge and some electronics). I think it could work like this:
- You approach a machine and when you are seated, your workout fob communicates with the machine to let it know that you've arrived and they synchronize timing.
- You lift (hard because you're a beast, as my kids would say).
- On each movement (begin, top, end), the machine transmits a time code, type of movement, the amount of weight going up.
- Some machines, the movement isn't obvious (like a Smith Bar). Here, your fob gives you several choices, but defaults to the workout routine that you've preloaded into the workout fob. The range of motions could be narrowed down by what portion of the machine the bar is traversing.
- For free weights, things potentially get trickier. However, the solution might be as simple as built in accelerometers. They are relatively cheap and small and would likely do the trick. There would have to be some sort of activation of dumbbells. There it could be as simple as when you take them off the (non-direct contact charging) rack, they search for the closest workout fob. Barbells could perhaps work with the combination of a strain gauge and the accelerometer. This would save the system from having to make all of the weight plates self-aware, so to speak.
Finally, after the workout the workout fob would wirelessly (Bluetooth?) send all of the workout information to your computer to where the information would be imported by your computer-based program.
Fitness Program (excuse the pun)
Here is where you will track your progress and build your future workouts. The primary function will be to manipulate FitXML. Well behaved programs will keep all of your data in the non-proprietary format and will compete instead on the innovative and intuitive ways to manipulate and create workout routines. I'd expect everything from opensource to commercial alternatives.
Who should do it?
All of the current fitness companies. But the problem is that they legitimately only control a portion of the fitness space, not enough. Nike already has a pretty good system of tracking running information with or without an iPod. Cybex does a good job getting pulse/calorie/distance information to the user on a per use basis. Nobody has a comprehensive system.
I think that somebody like Cybex or Nautilus are in the best position to make this happen, not somebody who just makes shoes. Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of Nautilus or Cybex doing this will be a closed system that does allow for an ecosystem to develop around it (i.e., Nike do its thing with shoe sensors and watches).
Cost Implications?
I believe that Bluetooth is the best choice for data transfer - it should be wireless and on a standard protocol. Costs for Bluetooth are probably are $10 to $15 per unit (based on this article).
Its My (Your) Data
A few weeks ago, I was talking to an old friend of mine from college (Scott Raymond) and our conversation touched on the topic of online banking. He made a statement that stuck with me and probably will show up in a number of future posts.
He said, "It should be your data," in reference to the online banking that we both use. USAA, for all of its wonderful characteristics, has some odd/annoying limitations on downloading your account activity data. Unless you use Quicken or MS Money, you're pretty much out of luck (and it only goes back six months). Doesn't seem quite right - It Should Be Your Data!
Personal Financial XML
I think we'd all be better off with a standard mark-up language for personal financial information; it would be something like FiXML, which is oriented toward (fixed income derivative) trading. It need not be more complicated than an SGML variant (of which HTML is the most famous child). The standard, if created, could free those stuck with Quicken and MS Money. It could also ensure that all of us would be able to download our personal financial information from a wide array of financial service companies and be able to store it and use it for years to come.
Ideally, this language would be flexible enough to handle both transaction level information (deposit or check written against a checking account) and invoice or statement level information (end of month credit card statement or bill from the cable company). The ability to incorporate both of those things would be quite valuable (I think), as would the ability to include blobs or pictures (think canceled checks).
Who Will Drive This?
It would be great to think that some forward-looking consumer advocacy group, perhaps the Consumers Union (the publishers of Consumers Reports), could find reason to put together interested parties and get a standard published. That, however, is probably way too optimistic.
That leaves me without an obviously standard bearer. Clearly Microsoft and Intuit (publishers of Quicken) have little to no incentive to make something like this happen, with their de facto standards already being adopted by many online services. Who then?
He said, "It should be your data," in reference to the online banking that we both use. USAA, for all of its wonderful characteristics, has some odd/annoying limitations on downloading your account activity data. Unless you use Quicken or MS Money, you're pretty much out of luck (and it only goes back six months). Doesn't seem quite right - It Should Be Your Data!
Personal Financial XML
I think we'd all be better off with a standard mark-up language for personal financial information; it would be something like FiXML, which is oriented toward (fixed income derivative) trading. It need not be more complicated than an SGML variant (of which HTML is the most famous child). The standard, if created, could free those stuck with Quicken and MS Money. It could also ensure that all of us would be able to download our personal financial information from a wide array of financial service companies and be able to store it and use it for years to come.
Ideally, this language would be flexible enough to handle both transaction level information (deposit or check written against a checking account) and invoice or statement level information (end of month credit card statement or bill from the cable company). The ability to incorporate both of those things would be quite valuable (I think), as would the ability to include blobs or pictures (think canceled checks).
Who Will Drive This?
It would be great to think that some forward-looking consumer advocacy group, perhaps the Consumers Union (the publishers of Consumers Reports), could find reason to put together interested parties and get a standard published. That, however, is probably way too optimistic.
That leaves me without an obviously standard bearer. Clearly Microsoft and Intuit (publishers of Quicken) have little to no incentive to make something like this happen, with their de facto standards already being adopted by many online services. Who then?
All my musings for naught
The NY Times reminds us today that it isn't enough to just have the idea - you can find the article here - it takes countless hours and determination to follow through and make the idea a reality. Oh well, its still fun to develop the ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)