Mobile Computing in 2012

This original idea behind this blog was to "predict the present": use common sense in order to explain what's going on, in hope of trying to be better prepared for what's going to happen. I do think that trying to accurately predict the future is somewhat pointless, but speculating about it, isn't: if you do it right, you end up with some plausible scenarios which you can work with.

So what's most plausible to happen in 2012?

Smartphones
In 2011, 7 out of 10 mobile phones sold in Israel were smartphones. It is true that they are more expensive, more fragile and in some ways less practical than a regular mobile phone, but they combine the capabilities of almost any other gadget you own: camera, music player, GPS system, diary, personal computer and obviously a phone. We used to think that for this level of compactness we have to compromise in quality or functionality, but in 2011 we saw significant improvements in smartphones' hardware and software, which turned them from semi-functional Swiss Army knives into Leatherman multi-tools.

As for 2012, we will surely see even faster phones with increased amounts of memory and storage. Existing technologies like NFC will become more common and there's a slight chance that battery life will also improve a little, thanks to new the new processors and operating systems that can use them. Smartphones will increasingly replace your wallet and ID card, which will cause concerns about their security. We may also see smartphones that will be able to replace your streamer and send audio, video and Internet content directly to your TV screen.

When it comes to form factor, in 2011 smartphones became thinner but also too large. I really think that for the current technology, 9mm is slim enough and can easily slip into the tightest skinny jeans. On the other hand, we saw phones with 4.7" and even 5.3" - this is too large and cannot be used with just one hand. I really hope that this trend of "bigger is better" will end this year.

Tablets
It is not a secret that I dislike Apple, but I cannot ignore the fact that the iPad is a huge success and it's the only premium tablet that sells in large numbers. In fact, Apple has about 75% of the market and a large ecosystem of applications, accessories and content providers around it. I do not think this situation will not change drastically, despite Android 4.0 and better models. Android-based tablets are enjoying success in the lower-end and eBook reader markets but there are rumors about a cheaper, smaller iPad. I personally don't think it will happen.

The great unknown here is Microsoft's Windows 8. It can run on efficient ARM processors which will allow it to operate on approximately the same hardware as Android and iOS. It may not sound that revolutionary, considering Microsoft's underwhelming success in the mobile phone market, but let's not forget: when it comes to ecosystems, they are still the biggest software producer in the world, and own both Office and Exchange, probably the most widely used business applications. If they won't mess it up, Microsoft may make a tablet OS that can actually be used for work and content creation, not just consumption.

Tablets use the same hardware as smartphone so we can assume that the same improvements we will there will apply to tablets as well. We may see newer, denser screens with resolutions greater than HD. I do hope that we won't see a 3D capable tablet.

Laptops
The laptop market shrunk in 2011, due to the increased popularity of mobile phones and tablets. Laptops are not cool anymore and netbooks seem slow and useless even for basic uses. Intel's idea to solve it is the ultrabooks, which are extremely thin, light and quite powerful laptops that look similar to Apple's Macbook Air. For the time being they haven't been a huge success, but reduced prices and more choice may change that. However, laptops will probably continue on losing ground to easier-to-use, smaller, cheaper and cooler mobile devices.

A gradual change we may see is in laptop storage: most laptops are still equipped with regular, spinning hard drives, however the new ultrabooks use the smaller solid-state drives (SSD). Increased demand for these drives will increase production and drive prices down, which in turn will make SSDs more common in less expensive machines as well. Other technologies we may see this year in some laptops are WiDi, which allows to wirelessly attach screens to laptops and OLED displays which will allows perfect viewing angles, longer battery life and thinner chassis. Intel's Thunderbolt could potentially make desktop computers obsolete by allowing external upgrades to laptops, but its adoption seem to be slowed than expected.

So what would I like to see next year in the mobile marker? I would like the stupid patent war end, better batteries, better user experience and lower prices. I wish for these every year and to be honest, the wish gets partially granted every year. I think this year will be the same.

T - 366

According to a popular meme, we have one year to go. The world will end exactly one year from now, just a little after the winter solstice of 2012 (also known as 21.12.2012). The Mayan said so, the Internet says so and even Ronald Emmerich, the great documentary director said so. So who are we disagree?

The problem is to begin with, that the Mayan never said that the world will end. All they said is that their 4Th era will end and the 5Th one will begin. They actually see it as a cause for celebration, in very much the same way that we saw the beginning of the new millennium as an opportunity to party and replace our IT equipment.

Update: Actually some say that the end of an era is the end of the world, which means that the Mayan civilization is similar to the Western civilization in one respect: we can't seem to be able to agree on anything.

Some epocalyptians would say "Yeah, but look at what happened in 2011. Natural disasters, revolutions, economic collapse, the death of Steven Jobs". I agree, it was quite an eventful year, but how is that related in any way to the concept of "the end of the world"? Well, It isn't. Economic hardship always causes political unrest and natural disasters happen frequently at various magnitudes in various locations around the world. The sad truth is that the only difference this time was that it happened in one of the most developed countries in the world, so we got live video streams.

I can predict what's going to happen in 2012: some people will die, but more will be born. Some leaders will get elected and reelected, others will be lose their positions. Some people will still struggle to get enough food to eat, others will have to struggle with the choice between the McLaren MP4-12C and the Ferrari 458. Many people will find the answers to all of their questions in god, while major scientific discoveries will be made. Apple will release more products that their names start with an "i".

Maybe I am wrong and the world IS going to end exactly one year from now, but I do have good news: 2012 will be 2.74% longer than 2011, so we have one more day to party.

Opinion Nanny State

Back in 1948, Israel declared itself as a "Jewish and democratic state". Let's not be naive, it is almost impossible to make it work smoothly in a way that everyone is satisfied. In fact for a long time (1948 to 1966), the democratic part of this declaration was relevant to non-Arabs only (Jews, Druze, other minorities). The Arabs were still allowed to vote and had some degree of freedom of speech, but that was about it. They were governed by the military in their towns and villages and were greatly limited in their movements and activities.

Strangely though, the idea of "Jewish and democratic" sort of worked for a long time. Not without frictions, not perfectly and the Jewish and Arabs community are mostly separated, but much of it is by choice. Israel is by far not the "apartheid state" which human rights organizations claim it is: Arabs and other minorities vote, have complete freedom of speech, receive social welfare, can study universities and are protected by laws against discrimination.

Something else is worrying and might undermine the idea of "Jewish and democratic" state, and it's not the way the Jewish majority treats minorities, or the LGBT community or even illegal immigrants. It's the right-wing insecurity that makes me concerned. Yes, there is a small group of people inside Israel that can be described as anti-Zionists and object to its existence. It's natural: political opinions, like any other natural phenomenon, behave according to a Normal Distribution curve and you can find a few extremists on both sides. But the majority - the vast majority - are somewhere in the center. Patriotic, loyal and willing to serve their country to one degree or another.

Making such a legislative effort in order to curb these few extremists (which can literally be numbered in dozens) does not make any sort of sense to me. Is this right-wing government that insecure about its own policy, that it's willing to sacrifice basic human rights for even its most loyal citizens, just in order to stop people from talking against it? Is it willing to throw away one of the few and strongest arguments we have left, which is the fact we are the only democracy in the Middle East?

Unlike capitalism, Democracy is equal for everyone, especially in this day and age. Everyone should be able to speak his or her mind. Some of those who support the laws say that these laws only limit certain, extreme and damaging opinions. But the fact is, no one can tell what is a damaging opinion and what isn't. Furthermore, by doing so, you DO limit the freedom of speech and conscience, however you look at it.

I honestly believe that the Israelis are self-assured enough and can form their own opinions by themselves. We do not need a government that tells us what to think and prevents us from speaking our minds. I belong to the center-left, I whole heatedly agree with the idea of Israel as a national home for Jews, but I will not accept it being turned into yet another dictatorship in the middle east. If it will, it won't be my country anymore. Literally.

The man who dared to simplify

It is known that Nicola Tesla discovered the alternating current, which allowed the efficient generation and delivery of electricity. It's also known that Daimler built the first internal combustion engine and car. Still, many believe that Edison had "invented" electricity, and it was Ford's Model T to become the first car to sell more than a million (and later 10 million) copies.

How did that happen?

These people took existing products, discoveries and ideas, polished them, simplified them and made them accesible to the masses. Tesla did discover AC current and efficient way to generate and conduct it, but Edison became famous because he let people see in the dark and listen to music. Daimler did build the first car from the engine and up, but it was Ford who found a way to build them cheaply and on a massive scale.

Same goes for Steven Jobs: Creative and Cowon were already making digital music players a few years before the iPod arrived. Sony Ericsson and HTC were selling smart phones long before the iPhone was announced. Tablet computers have been there, in one form or another since the mid-1990s, but it was Apple's CEO who popularized them, made them a success and establish an emotional connection between the costumers and their devices.

But the greater thing Apple and Jobs are responsible for is ushering the age of personal computing. They did so by creating devices that were increasingly easy to use, functional, good-looking and relatively affordable. It started with the Apple computers, through the MacIntosh computers, and on to the recent i-devices. All of these devices either created whole new industries or at least made the competition work harder.

We shouldn't also forget Steven Jobs' activities in the years of his exile from Apple. His investment in Pixar, George Lucas struggling software workshop, ultimately led to a revolution in animated movies with masterpieces like the Toy Story series, The Incredibles and my favorite, Wall*E. His work at NeXT led to the creation of the object-oriented windowing systems we see today in every operating system, from OS X, through Windows and to Linux. Also, it should be mentioned that Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the creator of the HTTP and the first web browser, used a NeXT computer both for the work and as the world's first web server.

Some time ago I called Apple a religion and Steven Jobs the prophet of that religion. I meant it as a parody, but in a way it is true. And sure, I never owned an Apple product and probably never will and I do not like Apple's business practices. But as a technology enthusiast I have to appreciate Jobs, because he dared seeing the big picture clearly, and then repaint it the way he thought is best.

An unexpected equalizer

"A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking."

Andy Warhol

Ever since the industrial revolution began, societies became "flatter". I am not saying more equal: the rich, as usual did get richer, but at least more people were provided with an opportunity to live better and more pleasant lives. Obviously, most of us won't be able to buy a mansion in the Hamptons or outside London, but we do have roofs over our heads, some sort of transportation, some level of education and we do live about 30 years longer than we did in the 19th century.

But we always want what the rich people have. We still look at their BMW cars, their Omega watches and Prada and Aramani outfits. This is a part of our Western Civilization to want more, and as long as we don't deteriorate into the kind of riots that happened in London last month, it's mostly alright. But I have great news for you: in some little ways, you live like billionaires.

If you go to a computer shop in the street, you can buy the same laptop as businessman. If you can't afford the same brand, you can buy a similarity equipped laptop for a much lower price. Those two laptops may not have the same badge, but will have the same display, same processor, same graphics and same storage. There's even a chance that with the "rubbish" brand will give you longer warranty and better hardware.

Things become even more interesting when it comes to mobile devices: many consider the iPhone 4 to be the best phone money can buy. It sold tens of millions of units, but it will always be the same iPhone 4, with the same display, the same interface and the same grip-of-death problem. If you rather have an Android phone, the best model you can buy (at the time of writing) is the Samsung Galaxy S2 - which costs around €600. Not cheap, but certainly not out of reach for most of the middle-class.

Sometimes you do see premium products, like diamond-coated iPhone 4 or gold-plated Nexus S (I am not making it up - you can actually buy these products). But these modifications do not add functionality, usually ruin the elegant, no-nonsense industrial design. Also, technological products are meant to be temporary, replaceable and they get outdated very quickly. Trying to cover a phone, a tablet or a laptop with diamonds or Swarovski crystals is like gluing plastic flowers to a tree: come summer, it will look pathetic and dishonest.

Technology made convenience more accessible, and mass production made luxury widespread, and despite everything, this trend only grows stronger. Yes, renting a 2 bedroom apartment is not as nice as owning a house in Beverly Hills, Ford Focus is not as fun as a Ferrari 458, but I guarantee you that your HTC Sensation phone is just as good as a billionaire's. Maybe even better, because you appreciate it more.

An open letter to Mr. Adams

Many times in the past 10 years I wondered how would you comment on the increasingly functional and complex gadgets that appeared during the last decade. How would you react to the metamorphose of your beloved Apple from a small and alternative computer maker into the technology powerhouse that they today. What would you say about the rise of Google and Wikipedia as the predominant providers of knowledge, the Facebook generation and the loss of privacy.

How would you include references to the war terror attacks, the war in Iraq and the credit crunch in your stories. How would you try to help the people of the Indian ocean, New Orleans, Haiti and Japan. What would you write in the obituaries for George Harrison, John Entwistle, Gerry Rafferty and rock music in general?

But I don't like "what if" questions. Instead, today I keep asking myself where are you? Are you working in a diner alongside Elvis? Are you playing music with your dream band? Maybe quietly typing a book on your MacBook Air, a book which we won't have any last chance to read.

You are greatly missed.

the future of global language and why Chinese is an unlikely candidate

My English friend told me once:
'English is a very difficult language to be spoken correctly and very easy to be spoken as you pleased and be perfectly understood'.

Several years have past and now I clearly see his point. Communicating in English require in truth not so much knowledge of the grammar or huge range of vocabulary. What you need is the confidence to speak whatever and however (oh my... how many people do that those days)and patience, human understanding (beyond any language) and willingness to have a dialogue in the first place. The last three, being the attributes normally of the more linguistically advanced speaker.

English became and establish itself as a global language of politics, business and science. But it wasn't always like that of course. If we take a step back in time, we will see that for centuries political and cultural elites of Europe communicated in French. Until today French language is considered the language of diplomats.

So why French... well for several obvious reasons. Firstly, France being the biggest country in Western Europe with the huge at the time military and economical power was able to extend its influence beyond it borders. Right, that's all good, you can say, but the German Empire was also powerful and influential. Which leads to another point. Unlike French, German does not derives directly from Latin, although of course influenced by it as almost any language in Europe, has its roots in Proto-Germanic. And the importance of Latin, funny enough, as the Lingua Franca is commonly known. Since Latin survived the collapse of the Roman Empire, not only as the language of the religion but also in the diplomatic and political sphere, although until the 'unification' of rules and standards of Latin by French monarch Charlemagne, variations in spelling and pronunciation as well as 'localisms' where extremely widespread. Charlemagne managed to reform Latin with the help of, surprise surprise, Irish monks, who were believed to have the most pure and unchanged classical Latin.
For the same reason - being as close to Latin as it gets, Italian had his popular time, however more in culture than socio-economical settings.

In the huge short cut
Latin was highly influenced by Greek. And through the medium of Ancient Greek, that derived from Linear A and B languages of which we know very little (especially linear A seems to be rather 'mysterious' in its large part for linguists) Latin was somehow related to Sanskrit, since both Latin and the languages directly based on Sanskrit (Hindu, Sinhalese and so on) share some basic words (such as bread: pan -Latin, pane - Sinhalese just to give one example).

The politics and history shape the languages, make them distinct or dominant. If we look at ancient Mesopotamia, we will see how one culture pushed the language of a previous group away upon they arrival in the region, preserving it for spiritual or religious use.


So, that's about the history. How about the future?

We may identify several factors influencing the evolution of the language:

• political, economical and military power;
• the size of the population speaking the language as natives;
• cultural or religious influence;
• geo-political neighbourhood;
• expansion;

Rapidly growing economical and military power - China, may create the possible candidate for the global language - Chinese which might result necessity for the politicians and business people to learn Chinese. However, it seems to me that Chinese from their part recognise the importance of English and learn it on the massive scale. It may come as surprise however, that some political analysts and futurists predict a fall of China as world's power sooner than we thing. Some also indicate that Turkey would take its place. So perhaps you could start learning Turkish as soon as possible wanting to jump on the bandwagon before anybody else. Another emerging economic power might possibly be Brazil, but it is unlikely that Portuguese would ever become a candidate for the Global Language. Especially if we take into consideration its closeness to Spanish, then we may assume that there will be no need for Portuguese to expand.
The usage of Spanish would rise steadily in North America due to the migration from Central America and growth of the Spanish speaking population.
English would be widely used in the European Union, but depending on the power shifts in South and Eastern Europe Russian may give a way to other Slavic languages such as Polish or Slovene, or to some kind of Pan-Slavic language.

Dismissing the candidates:

Why not Chinese:
Chinese as we all know it, is a very difficult language mostly because of its pronunciation and melody which is crucial in proper communication.. Mandarin has around 4 'accents' meaning that I word, said with different intonation may have 4 different meanings (anybody who attempted to learn Mandarin will surely know that from the standard example of the word: 'ma'). Also, quite alien grammar, highly imprecise time wise (no tenses) which again surprisingly may pose more difficulties. That is all in quite sharp contrast and the opposition to English. And this is precisely what makes English so popular. However, I am not dismissing the Chinese characters and I believe some of them may come into everyday use to make writing shorter.

Why not Hindi:
Although population of India, economical importance of the country and the number Hindi speakers is huge, so is the number of 'Indian Languages' that are not only in some cases very different from one another but also do not share one script. Due to that fact, English remains as one of the official languages of India, long after decolonisation and it is widely spoken.

Why not Spanish:
Although Spanish is the second spoken language around the globe, Spanish speaking countries, have no significant influence neither in politics, economy, nor science. Then again, I will not try to dismiss Spanish in social settings as the number of Spanish speakers is huge around the world.

Why not some kind of artificial creation such as Esperanto:

Because. In my view, artificial languages have no chance of becoming popular on the global scale.

So what possibly the future holds for the Global Language:

• Further progress and dominance of English with very distinct localisms and borrowings from the variety of different languages. No language is so flexible and adaptive as English, perhaps because modern English itself is based on a fantastic mix of languages: Latin and French, Saxon (Germanic), Norwegian and Gaelic (Celtic).
• Expansion of Arabic, which will be most likely if the religion of Islam and Arabic-speaking population will expand and prevail, but it is also more likely if (as Turks have done with their language) the Arabic would adapt the Latin alphabet. It is highly unlikely in my view, that something that is not written in the Latin script would have a chance to dominate the world.
• Multilingual global society that would be able to communicate perfectly well in many different languages. This is the most likely option in my opinion, basing on the given evidence that the languages evolve in geographic isolation from each other.

As in the past different groups migrated across Europe and southern Asia, loosing contact with each other causing pronunciations to shift, grammatical details to be altered.
How different the situation appears today. Instead of isolation, we have a great mix of cultures and languages. The true melting pot of identities, sometimes embedded in just one individual.

If you were born in Western Europe, you are likely that your parents come from different countries, sometimes even different from the one you were born in. If you are European, you are also more likely to change your location multiple times throughout your life. And that your future spouse would have a different cultural and linguistic background than yours.

In the global world, with increased communication, media and human mobility as well as related international and interracial marriages, the children of the future would have no one, no two but even more languages that would be classified as their native. And their careers, jobs and education would give them many more to master.

That last scenario I am actually quite fond of. And I hope that if this is ever to happen, then that would be the first step for mutual understanding between people that would be able to alter forever human interaction and direct it into commonalities of identities rather than divisions.

The Future Of Progress

The Electric Monk was a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers washed tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watched tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believed things for you, thus saving you what was becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expected you to believe.

Douglas Adams, "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency"

Ever since the prehistoric times, humans created tools which were used to compensate for our disabilities and faults. The first spear was thrown because men were not fast enough to catch deers and not strong enough to face mammoths. The wheel was invented because there was a limit to how much and how far man (or their beasts) could carry loads, and even clothes were originally created to help us survive in punishing weather conditions.

Later on, more complicated tools and machines were created in order to empower people and make them more productive. New ways of providing energy to these machines made them even more powerful, useful and in many cases much deadlier. In the last 70 years a new breed of machines evolved, that were not created to improve man's physical abilities, but rather his mental ones: computers can calculate faster, memorize more accurately and retrieve those memories much better and faster than any person. No wonder many of us have several of these, often in our own pockets.

There are two common denominators to all of these machines, which includes even the most advanced ones: none of them can actually work for a sustained period of time without human intervention and all of them were invented by humans. Even the most advanced robots and the fastest computers still need us to survive, and advances in technology and science which enables the creation of even more complex machines is created solely by us, humans.

But can this situation change? We assume that the last advantage we have over machines is our brains, which are still many orders of magnitude faster than the most powerful supercomputer, not to mention other advantages we have like self-awareness. But let's face it: even now, there are many man-made systems that cannot be fully grasped by one person. To make matters even more interesting, we will reach a point in which computers will overtake us in terms of raw computing power. This day is actually not far - it will probably happen before the middle of the current century.

Computing power is not everything though and several advances in artificial intelligence will have to be made but as it often happened before, new inventions or new found power source led to new and unpredictable uses. This might just be the case with AI as well: more computer power will lead to more advanced algorithms which might eventually lead to increasingly sophisticated AI and even what many calls "Singularity" - the point where artificial intelligence will surpass ours.

The Singularity movement claims that at this point and on, man kind will not be able to determine his own future because the technological changes will occur so rapidly and decisions will be made by computers equipped with super-intelligence. They will be smarter, make better decisions and we will likely not understand their reasoning.

Sounds scary, isn't it? And why shouldn't we be afraid? Our pop culture feeds on this fear: "2001: Space Odyssey", "Terminator", "The Matrix" and even "1984" show us worlds ran by machines in which humans cannot control their faith and become slaves - but will this be the actual case? Are we that great at managing ourselves? How many decisions do politicians make each day that are based upon faulty logic, lack of information or petty interests? How come, despite our amazing advances, 1.5 billion people can hardly make a living?

We cannot predict the results of the Singularity assuming that it will happen, in the same way that no one could predict that the first thrown spear was the first step toward the moon landing or the wheel being the first step toward the Bugatti Veyron. So like any other historical milestone, we should be open-eyed about it but do not dismiss it.

the past and the future of the mobile phones

Do any of you remember the time BEFORE the mobile phones?
How did we use to keep in touch, arrange the meetings and appointments, inform others about the emergencies? Well we did. And we did quite well. For centuries.Perhaps we were better organised, punctual and reliable than we tend to be now.

I was in the High School when the wave of GSM started slowly conquering the souls of young people. The handsets ceased to be of the size that could easily classify them as the weapons of mass destruction. And by that I mean not only the annihilation of the large quantities of user's brain cells. The 'analog brick', oversized and heavy could serve as a tool designed for the assault on the fellow human being.
And then of course came the price that would allow rather average teenager to afford a newest model.

Amongst my friends, the good old Alcatel was on the top of the list, not because it was such a brilliant phone but because the network providers gave it away for free, when largely unaware parents, dragged to the store by their offsprings, signed up for the 1-year (oh yes! those were the times) contract. Other models, also popular: Ericsson (no, not Sony Ericsson), Nokia and Simens. At that stage you would rather want to avoid Samsung with his HUGE handset, that recalled the analog models. And most likely caused a brain tumour.

Unlike with the analog technology, the GSM had several network providers and the competition was fierce. Some of the companies in order to lure clients, offered 5 first seconds of the conversation for free.
From that moment onwards (for at least another year) all my friends got highly specialised in the conversations that lasted 4 to 5 seconds. We even copied our physic homework from one another using 5 seconds calls.
But of course you were doomed to made mistakes and miscalculations! - I answer before you ask - Especially when drunk.
I remember my friend's father saying to him: If you got so many 6s in the Lotto, we would be bloody billionaires!
However most of the bills I saw at that time, followed the pattern: 665 phone calls, duration of each of them 5 seconds, 0 PLN to pay. The scheme was scrapped very fast.

As the phones became smaller, more colourful and multifunctional, everyone jumped on the band wagon of the digital technology. Forget about the mobile phone that serves it's purpose, i.e making a phone calls. It also had to have a calendar, a note pad, a camera, a voice recorder, games, WAP and so on.
Before the era of smart phones even begun, the book sellers in South Korea reported a massive dip in sales, correlated with the wide-spread of phones with digital cameras. What's the point of buying, if you can just sit down with your coffee and take photo page by page and then share with your friends on line or through MMS?

What is the future of mobile phones then?
I remember my 16-year-old friend begging her dad 13 years ago, to give her his own Alcatel and promising to pay him off from her pocket money. To which he answered:
Honey, by the time you would pay me off, there would be such phones that you don't even require to dial the number. You think about calling and you are calling already.

You can think this is far fetched, but I seriously think that this is the future. More and more technological integration in one device would lead to multi-operational technology that then would conjoin variety of functions. The size would become smaller and smaller and the prices will be lowered year by year. Not only for devices themselves but also for the access to the Internet and data transfer the prices here will steady decrease. There will be more chargeable services however.

Your multi-operational device will measure your bodily functions and send the alerts to your private medical companies who will automatically get onto your shared calendar and set up the appointment in the time suitable for your needs and condition. Several monitoring factors will be taken into account so that your device would easily know that you are running low on iron and will mention it next time you are making your shopping list with it. Everything that you see, feel or hear, can be automatically send and shared on any social network, if you so wish. And yes, you would be able to call and text as usual, but you would just have to say it, or think about it, as your braincells would be also used to operate your multi-operational not 'smart-phone'any more, but more like a 'genius phone'.
Just to give you an example.

Have you seen Futurama and the episode on eyePhone? Well, that in my opinion is not a distant future.

William Webb (The future of mobile phones: A remote control for you life - Magazines, Student - The Independent) argues that in around 10 to 15 years we would have a device that would replace many ordinary things that we now cannot think of leaving the house in the morning. The device that would actively engage and interact with our day-to-day routine, much more than just a communication device - more like a remote control for your life. You still call it a "mobile" from habit, but it is an organiser, entertainment device, payment device and security centre, all developed and manufactured by engineers.

On a typical day it will start work even before you wake. Because it knows your travel schedule it can check for problems on the roads or with the trains and adjust the time it wakes you up accordingly, giving you the best route into work. It can control your home, re-programming the central heating if you need to get up earlier and providing remote alerts if the home security system is triggered. It is your payment system - just by placing the phone near a sensor on a barrier, like the Oyster card readers in use on London transport, you can pay for tickets for journeys or buy items in shops. With an understanding of location, the mobile can also provide directions, or even alert the user to friends or family in the vicinity.

And I largely share this view.
But I think and strongly believe that the shift will happen in the way we are charging and powering our devices. And I am also convinced that the solution would be quite surprising, like charging your phone with the electrical impulses that your body produces of some totally out of the box innovation related to the new energy sources that would be implemented shortly before or after 2020.

But for now, sit back, relax, watch your TED or Youtube, chat with friends online, write a business e-mail, record your thoughts, play games, read a book, take some pictures on your smart phone and just wait for the future. The future that obviously is bright.

Linux lost the battle. Linux won the war

The most argued about subject in the rather short history of personal computing, is "which one's better? PC or Mac". When it comes to numbers, Microsoft Windows computers still outsell MacOS computers at a rate of 1 to 9. However, Mac users are adamant that they use the better platform and its success in the premium laptop market is a proof. I won't get into this argument, mainly because I have an opinion about it: I am an atheist which means I don't believe in any sort of religion, even if its symbol is a bitten fruit.

There is a third platform as well, with an even fewer and more fanatic followers. And if Mac users feel they are unique because they are 1 in 10, imagine how an avid Linux user feels - he is one in 100. A Linux user will argue that his operating system is being used in the highest-end servers and supercomputers, that it's open, rock-solid, fast, efficient, highly customizable, has plenty of software packages and above all - it's free.

You cannot argue with a Linux fanatic. Not just because he feels really special, but because he is right. However, there is a reason why Linux users are a minority: they don't multiply. They are too busy finding drivers, compiling code and posting questions in support forums. While Linux systems are remarkably low-maintenance when configured properly, getting to this configuration is as easy as cross-country mono-cycling. Linux is not easy to configure and use for an advanced user, and it's close to impossible for a novice. The easiest and most popular Linux distribution Ubuntu is the closest thing Linux has to offer as a mainstream operating system, but in my experience it's still far less friendly for a power-user than Windows 7. So I am using Linux for my home server, but I rarely use it on my PC.

And yet, at the moment, I use more Linux-based devices than Windows-based devices. How is that possible? Well the fact is, we tend to confuse the terms "operating system" and "user interface". An operating system is actually a bunch of smaller programs, and user interface is just one of them, very much in the same way that a car's body shell is just one part, while the interior consists of chassis, engine, transmission and stirring. If we apply this analogy to Linux, then it has a brilliant chassis, engine and transmission. It's also very fast and very safe, but you won't buy it because it looks like a 1970s Lada.

When it comes to specialized uses, Linux is hard to beat. The fact that it's lightweight and open allowed developers to adapt it to both high-end servers on one hand and to devices with limited resources on the other hand. The fact that in Linux the user interface can be completely replaced makes it a perfect "embedded" usage such as in internet-connected devices, mobile phones, tablets and many others.

In addition to my home server, my media streamer in the living room runs Linux. My wireless router also uses a specialized version of Linux called DD-WRT. Both my phone and my ebook reader use Google Android, a Linux derivative. Hence, I use Windows on my desktop and laptop computers, but I use Linux on one computer and four different devices.

While Linux enjoys a decent success in the high end corporates and the embedded devices markets, Android is quickly becoming the major player in the mobile, Internet-connected industry. Recent studies show that it may already have the largest market share. And this figure should not be taken lightly, because according to another study, during 2010 more tablets and smartphones than desktop and laptop computers.

Linux is a great example for a products that its benefits overtake its faults and manages to carve a niche (or actually several of them) and become a major player in most of them. So you might not see it on your desktop, but you might hold it in your hand, read of it, or even be connected to it without even realizing it. Linux lost a battle, but it may win the war.

A short preview

This blog cannot change history. It won't change the future either. It will however try to explain the "what's going on" using the "what happened".

Another objective of this blog is to make people understand that we need not panic. Life is changing but the basics are still the same.

I will start with the example of the Coca Cola formula. Apparently, the best kept secret of the food industry has been revealed. My first reaction was "well, it's about time". My second reaction was "well I could have prepared my own coke years ago".

No, I didn't chew any coca leaves, I am actually referring to OpenCola. Yes, the same guys that brought you Linux, Firefox and Android, decided that Cola should be free for all and their formula is out there since 2001. There's even a Canadian firm that produced it commercially (for those of you who still think that open source is communism: you are allowed to sell open source-based products, as long as you tell everyone how you made them).

The revealing of the Coca Cola formula is indeed a sensational news item, but it's certainly won't change any lives: after all, how many of you will start brewing their own beverages?

I wonder if some day we will see Moonshine-Cola smugglers running away from the police in southern USA.