This being said, we live in a time in which we not only read books. For some, the Internet is the main source of information, and it is true that its ubiquity and its real time content cannot be matched by printed media. There is a problem however with reading on-line; we read on a web browser, and the format displayed is not necessarily reader friendly. Even when we are reading on a browser on a big computer screen, websites have too many things going on, since the aim is to be visually appealing and plain text is not too fancy. Just imagine an Internet full of Wikipedias, that would be quite boring from a visual perspective. And this problem is more notable when we try to read in a smaller screen, such as the ones of an iPod or a Kindle. However, there are solutions, and one of them is called Readability. I have become a big fan.

Readability is a tool that you can install in your computer. It integrates with the navigation bar of your web browser. When you get to a web page you really want to read, there are several options. Of course, you can forget about all this, ignore this post, and read it as a webpage. Or perhaps you can still read it in your browser using Readability (similar to the reader function on Safari), which is already a notable improvement in reading experience. But the really cool part is that you can send it to your library, and later on read it on your tablet via the corresponding Readability App, or (and this is what I really like), send it to your Kindle, and read it there.

I have played a bit with Readability and here are the results, for those who are curious. To make it even more interesting, I’ve tested it with a website in Japanese, to make sure there were no problems with the text encoding neither in my iPad nor in my Kindle. Plus I know you were all super interested in learning something more about neutrinos in Japanese. So these are the screenshots:

• Firefox:

• Firefox using Readability:

• iPad:

• Kindle:

The verdict? It works great. There is a slight lag for the files to sync, especially with the Kindle. So if it’s a life or death matter that you read in that very same second this might not be great, but if you come across something you want to send to your device to read later off-line, it is great. And then of course you have those extra functions for sharing on Twitter or Facebook that are also quite cool. So quite recommended.

Disclosure – In no way I am linked to or sponsored by Readability. Not that I would mind, if they were willing to. Just saying.

If that fiscal benefit is ever to materialize, it first needs to align with the EU, which is traditionally strict against policies that favor domestic industries over those of other EU countries. This should not be a great problem however, since there are already some examples of incentives to the videogame industry in the European Union. Government funding in Denmark is aiding developers, for instance. The EU Commission itself even provided out a 2.8 million Euro grant to a consortium consisting of four technology companies and two universities for console hardware research. So this is a sector that is getting its place in the spotlight.

What does this tax break represent for the UK videogame industry? It represents nothing but good news, in a moment in which the economic crisis and more importantly, cheaper alternatives for outsourced videogame development in emerging markets seem to be conducing studios to shut down, downscale or to leave the islands. This tax relief is going to have some clear benefits, fundamentally because it will foster investment (simple logic, if the government doesn’t take my money away, I will be able to invest it in something else). The great thing is that this investment is going to be funneled to a high-tech industry that also has a strong export market. And of course all this will help to create jobs, which are really needed in the current economic environment. This is not a wild assumption; there are examples proving that these types of measures have worked, and this can be demonstrated with hard facts. In Texas alone, sales tax exemptions have contributed to the creation of 1,700 jobs in the videogame industry.

Is something similar going to happen in Spain? Apparently not. If the government is currently obliterating scientific R&D, which is (with good reason) an agreeably more important area of development, and chopping budgets on social pillars like healthcare and education, why even bother with videogames? Being from Spain, I hurt when I see simple measures that work to foster employment and that are neglected in my home country.

Or does it?

Frankly speaking, it is hard to tell. Navigating Samsung’s tablet catalogue is an intellectual challenge; it is relatively complicated to understand the catalogue, due to overlap among the different tablet models (by the way, the same applies to their smartphones). As far as my understanding goes, these are the tablet that Samsung seems to be currently offering (ordered by screen size):

• Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0’’ (seems to be discontinued)
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 7.0’’
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0’’ Plus
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7’’
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 8.9’’
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1’’
• Samsung Galaxy Tab 2 10.1’’

There is also the Samsung Galaxy Note 5.3”, which sits somewhere in between the smartphone and the tablet realms. And wait, there is also the new Galaxy Note 10.1”!

Guys, really? How can I figure out which product to buy? Just within the 7-9 inch range there are currently 4 different alternatives without a clear roadmap that helps to identify the positioning of the different models. I really appreciate Samsung’s flexibility and I guess this is an attempt at differentiating from Apple and at satisfying different market segments, but I also observe a remarkable product cannibalization. Unless of course there is a clear price positioning, which I ignore (figuring that out requires in itself further research). In any case it is not a straightforward process to understand the technical differences among all those models, and thus to identify what is the best tablet for one’s needs.

So here goes my 2 cents contribution, trying to summarize and understand the differences between the different models (this table only reflects the features that interest me the most, so just take it for what it’s worth):

Samsung Tablets

Far from finding an answer to my questions, I am more confused now. Even the exercise of creating that table was challenging since each country has a different Samsung website format with different offerings. Some of those models look too similar to each other, making it hard to figure out what the best option is. Super-geeks might thrive at the challenge of cracking the Samsung product lineup, but for the average human being (I’m one of them) it is very complicated to detect the exact differences at first sight, and this is a market where simplicity is becoming crucial. Not everyone might agree of course, and marketing is far from being an exact science, but confusing your potential customers never seems to be a good idea. Plus there are some interesting conundrums within that family of products. Why does the Tab 2 (7.0’’) run on Android 4.0 but has a slower processor than the Tab 7.0” Plus (that runs on 3.2)? Is it really necessary to have 2 products as similar as the Tab 2 (10.1”) and the Galaxy Note 10.1”? What is the fundamental difference between those 2 models? And so on.

But then, there is more. Beyond the hardware purchase decision, which requires in itself some serious due-diligence, there is another circumstance that in my opinion represents the main issue: if I buy a Samsung tablet, will I ever get upgrades to the latest Android version? This has been one of the fundamental criticisms to Android smartphone manufacturers; they have consistently neglected users of older phone models. Updates (if ever) usually come late. Some users are unable to upgrade unless they root their phone, but most don’t feel like going through the trouble, especially with the simplicity offered by Apple iOS’s ecosystem. The chaotic roll out of Ice Cream Sandwich on Samsung’s smartphone flagship (the Samsung Galaxy SII) does not convey very promising future updates, to be frank. So what now? I think I am going to stick around to my iPad for a while and wait and see. For now, it might be the least of evils.

If mobile phones in Japan are so good, how come they do not sell well (if at all) outside of Japan? They don’t sell because honestly, Japanese are not the best marketers, but also because these Japanese manufacturers don’t seem care about the rest of the world. Only that explains that their products are designed and used by Japanese people exclusively, and that they are only sold in the Japanese market.

Now you are maybe asking yourself, what is Jacobo talking about? There are plenty of Japanese gadgets all over the place, so what is all this rambling? That is indeed true; there are plenty of Japanese products everywhere. Japan is an exporting country and only recently its nuclear shutdown is messing up with its trade balance. But this is not because the Japanese are great marketers; it’s just because their products are simply superior in quality, and nobody can compete with them, especially when it comes to technology. If you want a camera, you buy a Japanese one. Need a videogame console? Sorry Xbox but this is still the world of Nintendo and Sony. And so on. That is the key point: the Japanese don’t sell to us; it’s us who buy from them. This seems to be the same but it is not, and that semantic different turns out to be quite crucial.

When you buy an iPhone, you get the same iPhone wherever you are. Every language you can think of is preinstalled, it has an antenna that works (when it does) with all the different frequencies around the globe, and there is a unique, universal platform called iTunes that you can access from any country (with some caveats). But most important of all; it’s available everywhere. You can buy it online, you can go to a store, whatever you prefer, but you can buy it. There is a great push into the market, aligned with Apple’s beautifully simple axiom: let’s sell as many iPhones as possible and let’s make a lot of money.

On the other hand, however, what do you get when you buy a Japanese phone? Well, in the majority of occasions you don’t really get anything since the model you want is not available. Unless, of course, you actually live in Japan, since (Xperia and some other rare exceptions aside), that’s the only place where you can buy it. But assuming that you’re there, what you would get is a phone in Japanese, usually loaded with Japanese proprietary software, Japanese apps and if possible, let’s make sure that it only receives the wavelengths used in Japan because heaven forbid, we might actually sell too many units around the world.

I simply don’t get it. Fragmentation doesn’t work in the current technology environment. The market is extremely networked and you need to have enough volume to attract developers to your platform, and the software and apps are the key. Steve Jobs showed the marketing way, you just need to follow. I had hoped that with Android’s growing prevalence, Japanese phone manufacturers would piggyback that trend and start showing the world what they are capable of, but it seems I was wrong. You know, the thing is that I want a Panasonic Lumix P-05C. I really want it. But of course, I am not living in Japan, and I don’t have a contract with NTT Docomo, so I can’t have it. So it seems the guys from Panasonic don’t want my money or anybody else’s who won’t relocate to the islands and pay in yen. Why? No idea.

So what happened? The idea was good and seemed to address all the needs we have these days of social and collaborative cloud-based frenzy. So how could that fail? Well, what happened is that there were technical issues, and that it was a marketing disaster.

So yes, it did address all those needs. All of them. Whatever happened to market segmenting and product positioning? Wave tried to do so much that it was complicated to see what it actually could do. Whereas social successes like Facebook started simply and scaled up, the Wave was trying to do plenty of things at once without really asking users what they would use the wave for. On top of that, there were good alternatives to address all of those individual needs (some of these alternatives belonged –and still do– to Google itself). So you have Google Docs to share documents; Flickr or Picasa to share photos; YouTube to share videos, and all types of instant communication tools if you want to chat. Then, who needs Google Wave?  It seems that this one stop solution did not work too well, albeit being a nice try. Focus on functionality seems to be the trend these days, yet Google apparently did not grasp it. An iPad does not do as many things as a computer (no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise), but what it does, it does really well. That simplicity and clear focus has been one of the keys to its success, and Google Wave lacked both.

In any case, it is not as if Google Wave ever really took off. Facebook is irritating plenty of users lately with all these new added complications (sorry, functionalities) and with its terrible Timeline feature but it does have one thing Wave never had: a massive amount of users. This critical mass is something the Wave never got, and the invitation-only strategy it used to get users definitely did not help. These guys have been repeating this since the days of Gmail and I have never been totally clear about this strategy’s benefit, especially when invitations were so limited in number. Why would they want to contain the Internet’s potential for virality?

And then, the Wave crashed too often. There is no clear rationale either behind this; why would they launch the product in pre-beta? This buggy behavior added to a relatively complex interface and a steeper learning curve than that of other social networks also contributed to doom the product. Google is notorious for having all these geek geniuses working for them; the Wave was probably ideal for them, but they need to realize most of the population needs simpler stuff.

The most important reason for the success of Google (let aside the algorithm), is the simplicity of its homepage. It is a site with no circumlocutions; it loads fast (unless you are in China), and it is not overcharged with unnecessary banners. It is just what we expect from a search engine, nothing more and nothing less. Google is even willing to lose money with the “I’m Feeling Lucky” button, which facilitates user experience (for those who actually use it, I guess). The alternative offered by portals like Yahoo was too overwhelming. There were way too many things going on the same page, and users were not so excited about that. We all know the market share numbers today.

Now, enter Facebook. What started as a beautifully designed social network has be reinventing itself and is recently trying to be something else. Don’t get me wrong; I appreciate companies that understand that the environment is not a status quo and that they need to keep up with the changes in consumer trends. And Facebook is feeling the Google threat. However it does seem that Facebook is trying to do too many things at the same time.

Facebook defenders will say: look at Google, it’s not just the simple search page any more. It is true, the current Google universe is indeed complex: Android, Gmail, Docs, YouTube, Google+, and so on. But it is equally true that Google’s expansion has been more natural and internally driven. Facebook seems to operate in sudden bursts of changes motivated just to counteract competitors’ actions, not to bring new concepts into the market. And also let’s not forget that Google has also failed plenty of times; Google Wave is a very good example of something really cool that didn’t work out. But Google has been able to keep new initiatives separated from the core driver of the company: the search engine, and all the money it gets from SEM. Facebook however is bundled up as one single product, and messing up with your only product with all these disruptions is not necessarily the best strategy to follow. Especially when each new change seems to contribute to harm Facebook’s already weak reputation.

The tragic events that took place in Japan earlier this year definitely had an impact on sales in Japan, but that affected the whole market and does not explain why the overall sales performance is being so unimpressive. According to VG Chartz, Nintendo has sold a total of 3,372,035 units of 3DS since its release until today. Quite an irrelevant number if you compare it with the total number of DS units in the market. Of course, Nintendo DS has been around for a long time already, but that argument does not explain why even recently DS it is still selling much more than 3DS. In the week starting July 23^rd Nintendo DS sold 68% more units than 3DS and I wonder whether such a large gap can be explained solely by the price difference, especially taking into consideration Nintendo’s considerable efforts to market the 3DS.

Source: VG Chartz

3DS has taken some beating in several reviews, battery life being one of the main concerns. In a lot of aspects the device is quite similar to its predecessor, and 3D gaming might not be such a great advantage, since it is mainly about the availability of titles. This is a market where network effects are crucial and hardware advantages have become irrelevant when the game offering has been superior, or at least better matching the market’s requirements, as Nintendo itself proved with the Wii or DS. These devices were technically inferior to those of its competitors but nevertheless became the undisputed market leaders. Some people may not be willing to pay a premium for that and instead stick to the DS Lite, which is cheaper and may offer an equally entertaining gaming experience.

The bottom line is that the value proposition of Nintendo 3DS is not so different from that of the DS, or at least the market does not seem to perceive that difference. It seems that the most important single factor that positions Nintendo 3DS in a place different to the DS is the price. If that price becomes irrelevant, how are those 2 products going to address different market segments? Are two different market segments even being considered, or is Nintendo trying to sell both products to the same customers?

Let aside those considerations, and still waiting to see whether this price reduction is a success or a failure, one thing seems clear: if two similar products are targeting the same customer, then there is a trade-off. The customer either buys one or the other, but it is unlikely that he or she buys both. This means that, while this price reduction may have a positive impact on 3DS sales, it is likely to take a toll on DS, since there is a high risk of product cannibalization. I am not sure whether harming your best-selling product is the wisest thing to do, but then again, the guys at Nintendo have consistently beaten the market, so they deserve some credit. Let’s see how it goes.

P.S.- For those who don’t know, the title of this post refers to the Blue Ocean Strategy framework, which can be easily applied to explain Nintendo’s great success, especially with the Wii.

According to WIPO, a utility model is:

… an exclusive right granted for an invention, which allows the right holder to prevent others from commercially using the protected invention, without his authorization, for a limited period of time.

Differences in duration

While in the case of patents, the protected period of time is usually 20 years, in the case of utility models, this duration is usually shorter. However, there is quite a lot of variation in that duration depending on the country, ranging from 6 years in Japan to 15 years in countries such as Philippines, Malaysia or Vietnam. ⁽¹⁾ 

Other crucial differences

Let aside the time duration, isn’t the rest the same as a patent? The general definition looks indeed familiar. Both patents and utility models’ fundamental goal is to protect inventors, but there are relevant differences which are crucial for smaller companies. Utility models have less strict requirements in terms of what qualifies for protection; minor incremental variations may be eligible. Utility models are also cheaper to obtain and to maintain, and the application process is shorter. For this reason, they are a really good alternative for smaller businesses or economies to protect their own intellectual property or inventions. Indeed, while we see countries like Japan or Germany in the list of countries where utility models are in place, it is a protection mechanism particularly interesting for developing economies. In these developing countries discoveries may not be so disruptive but entrepreneurs still need to have mechanisms to protect their minor or incremental innovations.

Importance for developing economies

It is important to bear in mind that in developing economic environments, certain improvements may not be cutting edge technological discoveries but still they can provide their inventors with a competitive advantage crucial for business and economic success. If these discoveries are protected, innovation is rewarded, technological free riding is discouraged and copycats are penalized. That should result in an increase in productivity and overall improvement of the economic performance. Furthermore, the incremental nature of the inventions protected under utility models implies that continuous innovation can be fostered, triggering further improvements and developments.

In some cases there are no other alternatives, since some of those minor developments are not deemed relevant enough to be protected by patent regulations. For those situations, utility models offer small entrepreneurs a protection that would otherwise not have been possible. Besides, the whole administrative simplification of the filing process and its lower cost implies better ROI for the discovery. This may not seem significant for some companies but can indeed be a key factor for micro-enterprises in developing countries.

⁽¹⁾ http://www.unctad.org/en/docs/iteipc20066_en.pdf

Really, the world doesn’t need to know every single detail. Just yesterday I was discussing with two good friends about the overload of information on the Internet and how it’s affecting people’s interactions and behaviors. There is probably no better way to alienate your friends than by tormenting them with information about every single minute of your whereabouts and by posting 17 photographs that look exactly the same where you appear holding a gin and tonic. And of course, please don’t forget to tag your friends in photos that depict compromising situations. They’ll love it, especially if they’re looking for a job.

Within my own creative limitations, I intend to bring some substance, so the (approximately) 3 people that read this blog have something interesting to look at. Posts may not be frequent, and despite the variety of topics, I am going to try to focus on my main passions: things like music (fundamentally the violin), visual arts, sports and technology. And once in a while (like just know), I’ll just ramble. Already the scope is quite broad.

But back to the theme of the blog. If there is any underlying common message that I intend to convey with this blog it is that it’s never too late, and that there is enough time to do (almost) all the things you like. We’re constrained by too many conventionalisms that tend to be wrong, and repress our dreams. I’ve personally followed the serious standard path; I got my MSc in Engineering, my MBA, I’ve learnt a few languages and I have a good job in a good company. But that doesn’t prevent me from keeping in shape, travelling, toying around with my iPod, going to movies or making the violin squeal regularly. I’m tired of hearing friends complaining about how they don’t have time for anything and then they spend 3 hours daily sitting on a sofa and watching TV or devote half of their spare time to refresh their Facebook wall just in case someone might’ve posted something of extraordinary relevance within the previous 37 seconds. Blah blah blah. There is always time, and you’re never too old. If you think otherwise, you’re just making up excuses.

To each their own, however, and I don’t intend to be any kind of educator. There are plenty of people who are smarter than me and do a better job at that. As a matter of fact, that is their job, to educate people. I just want to prove it’s possible by example. For those who do want some serious inspiration, look somewhere else and follow the right people. Speaking of which, here goes my 2 cents contribution; there is a very inspiring book called Never Too Late, by John Holt, which I recommend all those people to read and get into action instead of being constantly looking for external alibis not to do things.

So I just got home after seeing Hilary Hahn perform at Palau de la Música de València. Her performance, as expected, was sublime. Besides the difficulty of the repertoire itself (speaking of which, I was expecting more Bach), she also had to deal with part of an audience that apparently didn’t know when to applaud or how to behave properly and insisted on coughing every time there was a rest longer than a quaver. Luckily most of them were gone by the time of the encore. But alas, despite my own personal frustration with those irritable throats, I really enjoyed the performance and Hilary was as good as ever. The 2 hours flew by. I am used to listening to her on CD  (I have 5 of her Deutsche Grammophon recordings) and I feel really fortunate to have had the chance to see her live.

Going to see someone like her playing the violin has a double and opposing effect. On the one hand, it is an extraordinary motivation to see that such a beautiful sound can be manufactured with a couple of well-crafted pieces of wood and a hank of horsehair. On the other hand, however, one goes back home, puts some resin on the horsehair, starts moving the bow and suddenly realizes with frustration how hard is to do anything that goes beyond first position. Then again, the music is so fabulous, that the motivation prevails.

Update: 2011.05.13

I forgot to mention the superb performance of Valentina Lisitsa, who did a great job at the piano and was present in every piece except for Bach’s violin solo. I must admit I didn’t know her and after reading her bio now and listening to her playing, I am really looking forward to listening her version of Rachmaninov’s Piano Concerto No.2.

And, for those who don’t know what the program was, here it goes:

First Part

• G. Tartini/F. Kreisler: Variations on a Theme of Corelli
• L. van Beethoven: Sonata No. 5 in F major
• C. Ives: Sonata No. 4 “Childrens Day at the Camp Meeting”

Second Part

• J.S. Bach: Partita No. 1 in B minor, BWV 1002
•  G. Antheil: Violin Sonata No. 1