Thank The Lord for Leo Laporte.

 

 

I like British radio, I really do. We have some top-class broadcasters, like Stephen Fry, Jonathan Ross, Russel Brand and Wogan (can you see the link yet?). But since I got into podcasting when iTunes introduced them a few years ago, I have been exposed to the sheer depth of American hosting talent available to me and I don't think things will ever be the same again.

 

Radio broadcast in the UK has become complacent, because we seem to view it as a kind of playground for TV personalities to dabble in while their other work is in post-edit. The connection between all the British broadcasters mentioned above (other than that they are largely all on Radio 2) is that they are all more successful and famous for their TV work and radio is, or has been a secondary career for them. I know that Wogan rarely appears on telly any more, and that the rest all probably cut their teeth on radio in the early days of their career, but what I'm getting at is that we don't seem to generate people like Leo Laporte.

 

This guy is absolute class. I can't think of a more natural, silky smooth operator in broadcast media today. But he is by no means alone in this: John Dvorak (so completely at odds with his gentle Czech classical namesake!), Dave Hamilton, Paul Therrott....the list goes on and on. They appear to have a conveyor belt in the States to churn out quality in this area and it really is something for them to be proud of. If these people were in the UK, they would be huge stars on national radio, given the right content, but they seem to be taken a little for granted in their homeland. Even the independent 'garage' podcasters like Lloyd Hannemann et al seem to understand that skill in speech is only a part of the communication to an audience and that personality and a willingness to be approachable in topic is essential. Too much of even the better presenters in the UK have fallen into the self-referential laziness that can eventually isolate listeners (Brand's drug consumption, Ross' now-tedious smutty obsessions). The US alternative is extremely seductive.

 

How did this happen? We Brits pride ourselves on our refinement in language and sophisticated communication. We occasionally deride our American counterparts for their lack of them (and we all secretly feel superior to them in these things don't we? We can't help it.)  I think it is something to do with the business side of things. For some reason, it always surprises me that even the most modest of US podcasters can find a sponsor that is willing to at least partially fund their work. They certainly have a much freer minded market economy over there, with more people willing to risk more money on more burgeoning projects. We in the UK never really had the proliferation of local FM stations(partly a geographical by-product) that has created a widespread culture of excellent production in the US. UK investment in small to medium media enterprise is far less enthusiastic, with the result that there is now an echelon of ultra-successful talent at the top, with only their TV collegues bringing up the rear. Oh, and Chris Moyles, for our sins.

 

I hope that the UK uptake in podcasts can change this. Perhaps in five or ten years the freedom that is inherent with internet distribution will mean that a new generation of UK talent can match those in the US. But for now, ouvrir La Porte any day. (Sorry about that).

 

P.S. Having said all that, Fry is brilliant in his tech blog, so can we please have him as a guest on TWiT. Please?

Vista la Hasta, Baby.

Well, I've done it. I've gone and reinstalled Vista on my ageing desktop. I had it on there toward the end of last year, but had no end of problems; the DVD drive wasn't recognised and had no online drivers (are there really no generic drivers for this eleven-year-old technology yet?), the graphics card drivers were shonky and slowed the machine (P4, 2.66Ghz 2GB RAM, 256Mb Graphics Card: no turkey yet) and several of the key components of a satisfying, stress free experience were just simply not working. In the end, I gave up on it (a relatively easy decision, as I had received Vista Ultimate as a gift) and installed Mandriva Linux, which is a brilliant alternative to Mac and Windows.

I suppose I was harsher than most on Vista because I'm so used to using Mac OS X, which, despite the murmuring of the masses, is by and large free of these hassles. I've only ever had one reason to use the 'hold power switch' technique in four years of owning my PowerBook G4 (a power-cut during a back-up to a mains-powered Hard Drive) and there isn't that infuriating restart circus that you get when dealing with Windows. Productivity? There's no doubt that you can't install the majority of the apps on Mac that you can on XP, but I've got to say that I always get more done on my Mac. There's something about the way Windows works that leads you down blind alleys, installing disappointing needless apps, servicing a protection regime of anti-virus and spyware blockers that encourages me to waste a lot of time on simply messing around with the machine itself. And some of the features that I was looking forward to using most on Vista were a little disappointing.

Take, for example, Dreamscene. This feature allows you to use a video file as your desktop wallpaper (as opposed to your screensaver). I thought this sounded fantastic, and indeed the guys at Microsoft have done a really good job at getting some relatively hi-def video files to run in the background without stealing the amount of resources that you would think. I'm sure that many people like me (most Mac users appreciate a company that tries to make using a computer more palatable) if asked in a focus group would have been very positive about Dreamscene. But, in practice, the effect doesn't come off at all. It should be an extremely impressive thing to see your wallpaper moving around (the effects are pretty good), but there's no getting away from the fact that to most people it just looks like any other movie file playing on the machine. And despite the efforts of the Microsoft crew, it does affect performance, especially on older machines. Somebody at the development stage should have realised that a lot of effort was going into something that just wasn't worth it. And that goes for a lot of what Microsoft has done with Vista: a lot of real effort and achievement in slightly the wrong direction. A lot of the system is derived from Cupertino, and it does feel a little like using Tiger, but for me it simply can't compete.

So why Vista again? Well, the drivers for my various parts have largely come down the pipe, there's more and more compatible software and you can run the system a lot faster if you shut down a lot of the eye-candy. But really it was the efforts of Microsoft in the area of online content and Vista client applications that got me back on side. The Windows Live suite has got a hell of a lot going for it, as Microsoft have learned a lot from the likes of Google and Yahoo and, in my opinion, improved on them. Integration is quick and seamless, and you get a really consistent experience using these apps online and off. I own an Xbox 360 and there is also a fair bit of integration there as well, meaning that there is quite a lot of temptation for someone like me (with not a lot of spare time) to surrender my online efforts to this deserving cause. The only real downside is that I reckon most people won't appreciate these efforts as much as I do and will continue to use the many alternatives on the market. This would reduce the appeal of Windows Live, as it relies on a good proportion of friends, family and colleagues using it, which would be a real shame (I can't believe I'm taking this tack with bloody Microsoft!).

But there is a lesson here for Apple. I love using my Mac; it is no doubt the superior system. I bought my PowerBook at the same time as I bought a Windows laptop and the value for money is in a different league. Features that the PowerBook has and the Winlap didn't are almost endless; Wifi, DVD drive (the Winlap only had a CD, not even a RWCD!), large 17inch screen, silent operation, a consistent and organic operating system, Firewire, USB 2, a fast processor, large HD, the list goes on and on. The PowerBook is still a powerful laptop today when compared with even £600 Windows laptops. But Apple's online integration into OS X is clumsy in my opinion. They put a lot of uploading features into the iLife suite (which is otherwise an impeccable set of software), and offer .Mac, which on the face of it should be a more natural way of getting content online and sharing it. But £69? £69.00 GBP? For something that everyone else is getting free? And the upload speeds in the UK are absolutely atrocious. Reliability is the worst I have ever encountered on this type of product and I have RARELY had a successful backup on iDisk, upload on iPhoto or a happy experience with anything to do with .Mac. Even the email is inferior and offline more often than Yahoo or GoogleMail. The only reason a lot of people continue to subscribe is for the @mac at the end of the address.

 

Am I a .Mac subscriber? Hell yes, but only because I picked up a box at ToysRUs when they were selling their Apple stock off cheap. I got it for £9.99, but I tell you that I had to give it a moments debate even at that price. Come on Apple! Get your act together and sort out a decent free online service.

Must dash, there's a lot more Christmas cheese in the fridge and I haven't come close to blocking my main arteries yet. Happy New Year to everyone and let's hope that there are lots of good techie surprises in 2008.

Sling my iPhone, Baby.

Hello everybody! Welcome to the first of quite probably one blog entries. I have tried a few of these things before, but this Google one makes as much sense as any, because it will be a lot easier to post from any device I'm browsing on. I suppose there will be an iPhone version once the SDK has been released at MacWorld.

Incidentally, the one thing I am waiting with baited breath for is the first Slingbox software to be released for the iPhone (if it is released at all). This device is a marvellous invention, but is severely hampered for me at the moment, as I can only play content within my home network. I have a Nokia as well as my iPhone that can play content on it via 'port forwarding', but I haven't tried it yet and can only suppose that it would be a disappointment, due to the tiny screen. 

Indeed, the only drawback I can foresee for the software on the iPhone is the bandwidth available on the EDGE network. Some natty compression will have to be used to get decent playback there. That said, I tried a webpage-loading comparison yesterday, with my Nokia 6120 on HSDPA versus my iPhone on EDGE and you might be surprised at the outcome. The difference in time loading various pages on the BBC, Facebook (with the iPhone WebApp) and suchlike, was minimal; six seconds at most. If this sounds unlikely, then try it yourself: the Nokia seems to take ages formatting the page, and there is a definite delay while it decides whether there is an HSDPA signal before attaching to it. It also takes a while opening the internet explorer program (and this is one of the quicker Nokias). While the speed of the connection is vastly superior, it is the device itself that lets the side down. Don't even ask me about my O2 XDA Exec (3G) as this device was slower than both with Internet Explorer and barely comparable with Opera (although this was ruined by the excessive time it takes for Opera Mobile or Mini to load). It's not all yet about sheer signal horsepower.

This, however, means that a 3G or HSDPA iPhone will be quicker than any of these devices, but for now I am more than happy with the best 'phone I have ever owned.

Well there, I've done it. My first Google blog post. A bit geeky, I suppose, but there you go. I am interested in all kinds of stuff, but I must admit that technology seems to be taking up most of my time lately.

See you soon!