kelvin quee

One of my favourite companies and one of which I follow almost on a daily basis does an about-turn.

Palm, the company that popularised the PDA, is cancelling its new flagship product, the Palm Foleo. You can read the company’s announcement (a blog post) here.

The annoucement came as a huge shock to me. Palm, a company which I’ll consider as relentlessly obstinate, seemed to have yielded to public pressure and its new shareholders (Elevation Partners).

While I’ll not consider the Palm Foleo as revolutionary, I would not consider it detrimental to Palm’s future. It would have been a fantastic deployment ground for its new Linux-based operating. I’m also expecting the new operating to be eventually take residence in Treos and Tungstens.

More later

It continuously interests and bewilders me that with such rapid advancements in communications technology that people are still unable to communicate effectively. Mostly, it isn’t really about Technology per se, it is about Communication.

Often, I’ve sent emails that were never replied. Emails sent but badly replied, completely missing the points. Or, the ultimatum of Bad Email Communications – Email sent, not replied but Action taken with totally erroneous understanding.

Most youngsters (though I’m one myself) have this fixation on SMS-ing/text-ing/messaging (depending on which part of the world you’re from) and they seem to love to communicate everything with short messages (which I’ll now call ‘SMS’). Granted that SMS is great for leaving a note or chatting up with the cute chick/hunk you just met 5 minutes ago, it’s not for conducting a discussion.

It’s not a tool for discussion. It’s not a tool for discussing projects with moving targets. It’s not meant for anything that can’t fit in 160 characters.

And I haven’t mentioned how I dread typing English on a numeric keypad. Even with T9 Predictive Text, it’s still a major chore. Factor in the strange, Singapore style of SMS/text/message lingo and you’ve a text message in perfectly legible Roman characters that requires far more than a modern day living Rosetta stone to translate.

And our Singaporean youth seems to carry those bad habits from their texting routine into emails and instant messages.

In order to encourage better communication between people, I hereby list down what I’ve learnt after years of bad experiences.

Kelvin Quee’s 5 Rules for Effective Electronic Communications

In order of importance:

1) Use the phone. To be precise, use the VOICE function of the phone.
The only exception is when you suspect that the person might be occupied or the Action only needs to be taken after a long time.

2) Are you sure you cannot use the VOICE function of the phone? See Point 1.

3) You are going to TEXT? No! Can you send an Email instead? When you send a email, please ensure you put in a meaningful Subject line. Oh yes, there’s a Subject line function available! Please type in English and use proper punctuation too. Thank you.
Email takes too long? Then you should probably CALL. See Point 1.

4) Are you sure you cannot use the VOICE function of the phone? See Point 1. No? Okay. What about Email? See Point 3. Email is too slow and a Call is too intrusive? This is probably the only time you should then use a SMS.

5) So we see that you have to use SMS. Alright, please exercise your articulation prowess with care and express yourself clearly and fully within 160 characters. Use English. Thank you. Are you sure you can’t just CALL? See Point 1.

I never was a good Communicator. I’m far from perfect. Still, I learn from bad experiences and I’ve learn that we should use the Right Tool for the Right Job. Get the point across, get things done quickly and move on.

There’s more to life than spending Time on correcting mistakes due to a badly written Text Message.

(For non-Singaporeans: Starhub is a info-communications company. One of their many services is MaxOnline, an Internet broadband service through co-axial cable. This post is mainly about how Starhub MaxOnline ‘blocked’ an important port of my Internet Connection.)

(Note: The word ‘block’ and its various forms are in quotes because I cannot be absolutely sure what Starhub was doing and what actually happened at that moment. As far as I understand, the situation, to the best of my knowledge, was that I couldn’t access any sites that uses Port 443. To me, and I believe most people in the IT profession, Port 443 was inaccessible or ‘blocked’. To avoid possible misunderstanding, I will place the word ‘block’ in quotes. It’s up to you to interpret it.)

(Disclaimer: Everything here written is an account of what happened. It’s meant to express my opinion and not to change anyone’s opinion of Starhub. It reflects the truth to the best of my knowledge. I do not receive any incentives from Starhub or its competitors from this writing.)

I fumed.

I must have cursed in every possible permutation possible.

I checked every connection, both wired and wireless. I tested settings on all 3 computers. I tested every browser, from Opera to Firefox to Internet Explorer.

I spent 3 hours, when I should be studying for my exams, going through rigourously all my equipment, to realise that the fault lies over in Starhub.

Afterall, what are the possibilities that Starhub, having a plethora of engineers will actually fail? As compared to my less than $1000 equipment and my little experience in technology, the fault should be on my side.

As usual, I was wrong.

Here’s what happened: I was able to visit most webpages, but MSN Messenger and Gmail denied me. I was perplexed then. I mean, what’s the difference between normal webpage and MSN Messenger and Gmail?

Then I thought that my router or computer maybe blocking certain ports. My LevelOne router has been screwing up previously, so I thought that it must be the broken link. I tried to fix it. I couldn’t. I almost felt like throwing my router out of the window.

I then used wget (on Windows!) to connect to Gmail. That’s when my suspicions is confirmed. wget reported that it failed to connect to Port 443 (for SSL).

Starhub ‘blocked’ my Port 443! I wonder what other ports they are ‘blocking’.

I then called Starhub, cursing. The guy over at the other end refused to believe my claim until he made me go through all the firewall and Internet Explorer security settings nonsense, even though I displayed adequate knowledge that I knew that Starhub was ‘blocking’ my ports.

After I ended my call, when I next tried accessing the Internet much later (and more infuriated), it was fixed.

Still, it was a very bitter experience for me, especially when I pay about $600 (1 USD=1.6SGD) a year for internet access.

For a while, I thought I must get back at Starhub, so I went to read their Terms and Conditions. Then, I grew wiser, especially when there’s a section that reads:

12. Liability
a. The Service is provided on an “as is” and “as available” basis and you agree and accept that you use the Service or rely on any Content obtained through the Service at your sole risk. We expressly disclaim all warranties of any kind, whether express or implied, including implied warranties of merchantability, satisfactory quality, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement to the fullest extent allowed by law. No advice or information whether oral or written, obtained by you from us or through the Service will create any warranty not expressly made in this Agreement.

b. You will be solely responsible for the Content/data retrieved, stored or transmitted through the Service and/or the Equipment.

c. If you are dissatisfied with the Service or with the Content, products or services available on or through the Service or with any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, your sole and exclusive remedy is to discontinue accessing and using the Service or terminate the Service according to this Agreement.

Now, I wished that I’ve a friend who is a lawyer. Does anyone know if the terms “as is” and “as available” are too all-encompassing? Is it a fair term?

Wired Podcast has Joanna Glasner commeting on the irrationality of the current music model (CDs, mp3, Itunes and all).

Which suddenly inspired me about a possible new model.

Watch this space.

http://wiredblogs.tripod.com/podcasts/index.blog?entry_id=1408418

Update (25 Feb 06): The Observer has a article, Striking a Bum Note, that goes about the same tune as I had in mind.

Inspired by mitokondrion, I decided to recall the little experiment yours sincerely tried while he was part-timing and part of the morning rush-hour MRT crowd.

Every morning is the same old routine of trying to get oneself squeezed into the sardine tin can. And if one manages to get in, one now has to be worried about where to place one’s gaze.

Place your gaze on a person and you are greeted back with the Great Singapore Scowl.

“Why are you staring at me?”

If you’re a guy and your gaze lands on a lady, you are automatically classified as either:

1) Trying to pick up the lady
2) A lecherous guy savoring on a eye candy
3) Just plain rude
4) All of the above

It’s worst if your gaze lands on a man, you will be labeled as:

1) Trying to pick up a fight
2) Just plain rude
3) All of the above

So, all the while, every passenger in the cabin directs their gaze to a spot where no one is, the total area which is, pathetically small.

In any case, if just a gaze itself is interpreted as such, it is unthinkable if you try to strike a conversation.

Stubornly, I tried.

I started with aunties, obviously, because aunties won’t think that you’re picking them up. Usually, it’s Hokkien with the starter line being, “Wow. You buy so much stuff. Cooking a big meal ah?”

And they will ratter on about their sons, daughters, what they are cooking…. blah…

It’s interesting though. It feels good.

Sometimes…. just sometimes, I’ll be lucky enough to have some lady reading a novel I’ve read (or I’ve some knowledge about) and I’ll go, “How do you find the book?”

But, actually, the hardest part is to make eye contact first without being labeled as a buaya (Malay for “crocodile” - or somebody trying a pickup. See definition). Once that’s established, it’s easier.

As a principle, I never probe for personal details and never asked for their number. Usually the conversation revolves around neutral topics and their favourite authors. That’s how you gain trust. Though, sometimes I feel like I’m an idiot for not doing so.

I never had success with guys though, only those old enough to be my grandpa, which is strange. Once, I tried to talk to a male, middle-aged Caucasian, thinking that he should be more conversant than Asians and, boy, was I wrong. I was simply ignored.

Most of the time, if you’ve established a certain presence in the train, picked up enough clues about your target and established eye contact, you should be able to chat someone up. I believe if you approach with a no-strings attached attitude and with absolute sincerity, it should work.

Go ahead, try. Even if you don’t succeed, it’s great training. Otherwise, you have just made your train ride so much more meaningful for yourself and one other person.

It’s one small step for you, one great move to eradicating the Great Singapore Scowl.

See this email and my previous post.

Half price is still too much. $5 is still too much. And what about the ads? Are you going to remove them from the paid subscription?

I don’t see why STI has to go “paid” mode in the first place.

I mean, if it’s because of decreasing ad revenue, I think you are missing the whole point. Every netizen can vouch for this, STI is badly designed and not taking full advantage of available ad placement strategies.

(Free, no subscription needed) Suggestions to SPH

1) Clean up your design. The online edition is a wacky world of ad splashes, scrolling news ticker and gaudy colours. Take a lookie at BBC News. Granted that BBC News has no ads, how about LATimes and New York Times? Both are featuring ads elegantly with clean designs. And, PLEASE, you don’t have to use Flash for everywhere right?

2) Display relevant ads. Google’s AdSense says it all - Put a PDA ad beside your PDA review, place a health supplement ad beside the latest lab release of Vitamin A effects on the human body. Hardly groundbreaking techniques, simply common sense. If your software can’t do it, get a human being to. Think $2k would pay that guy well. I’ll do it for the same amount of peanuts, eagerly.

3) Get the classifieds back. Imagine how useful the Classifieds will be if they are online and searchable. You can jack up the costs of advertising and I think advertisers will pay quite willingly. I mean, it’s a dream come true for both advertisers and users alike. Think you can have profits so many times more than the current subcriptions charges.

4) Combine (2) and (3). Voila. Display relevant Classifieds ads besides your news/editorial/forum/extra contents. Think about it, the relevancy of the ad placement will definetly earn you so much more. How come no one has ever thought of that before? Makes mental note to patent it.

In conclusion, stop this subscription drive. It has earned you so much bad PR, and it’s a senseless business idea. Suppose you don’t get the minimum subscriber base, which advertiser will give a *tweep* about STI? Stay free, regain your lost corperate goodwill, refine your site, return us our online, searchable Classifieds and make your ads relevant. I think that will keep you, STI, afloat and profitable for a long time.

This morning as I was going through my emails, I received a rude shock. Straits Times Interactive will be charging its readers, STi will no longer be free.

Excerpts from the email:
…

We thank you for your interest in the website and would like to inform you about a major change coming to STI in March: After 10 years of giving ST news reports out for free online, STi will begin charging readers to access it.

A subscription will cost S$72 for six months (S$12 a month), or S$120 for a year (S$10 a month). A one-month subscription will cost S$15.

…

From March 15 onwards, the site will become a subscribers-only website.

My very first reaction was, NO, I’ll not pay $10. No way. Why? Let’s take a closer look at the paid service:

1) The entire paper, plus the weekly supplement magazines, are now all available from 6 am onwards on its publication day.

Which is what I’m expecting anyway. How can paid subscribers expect anything less than unrestrictive access to all sections of the paper at the earliest possible time? This, so called “perk” is simply non-valid. It’s a must for any paid subscriptions.

2) A 7 day archive, instead of a 3 day archive previously.

It sounds good to the undiscerning ear but think about - You are paying $10 to $15 a month and have access only to news up to a week ago? STi should in fact offer a minimum of a 1 year archive! Come on, I’m paying. What do you stand to lose by opening up your databases? You will even earn from the repeat impressions of your (old) ads!

3) Ads

Neither the email nor the report online (which you have to login to read, Ridiculous!), paid any attention to this issue. Most paid subscriptions will have those distracting ads removed from pages served to you, but since STi did not address this, which is a feature in its own right, I doubt they will be removed. So that’s subscription for ya, you pay $10 a month to watch those flickering ads. Great deal.

All-in-all, both the email and the report online emphasised on features that are a must of any paid-subscription online news and, in fact, STi doesn’t even bother to make it attractive for anyone to subscribe. They even sounded like we own it to them, like how they have been providing news for free for the past 10 years and that it’s not “tenable” for printed news to be charged while the online version is not.

STi, I tell you, paid subscription with such measly features at $10 month will not work. And I’ll even offer my views for free.

Let’s look at your online readership-base: Singaporeans aboard are your most loyal subscribers. They’ll glady offer you the money. Next up are foreigners interested in Singapore matters. Both of which are mostly fairly affluent and wouldn’t twitch at the cost.

Finally, there is this largest group of readers, most of which already have access to the printed version. The reason why they will need the online version is mainly because they need a digital version of it to work on, or in the less probable case, they don’t have access to the printed version or prefer to read the paper online. The majority, myself included, however, are just casual browsers who will occassionally need the paper. This group of people would pay a cent, they will find even logging-in a chore.

Out of the 280,000 subscribers who are now reading STi for free, I think less than 10,000 will eventually pay for the mediocre service.

I’ve a few suggestions to the paid online newspaper:

1) Make the ads go, if you haven’t already done so. Please.

2) Offer a better archive, at least a year back. This will be a great resource to people doing research, students especially. And you get the additional benefit of increased ad impressions (if you haven’t already killed the ads).

3) Give web-exclusive features, like in-depth reports of news not available in the print addition, further development of news after printing time, much like an addendum, or stock analysis of companies featured in the Money section. Learn from the Economist. I believe your creative team can think up more right? Or you can simply hire me at $15 per hour, I’m cheap.

4) Be more sincere at wooing your potential subscribers. Such an email release is simply… unacceptable. Many online newspaper hate and regret to charge readers, you seemed almost proud to do it.

In fact, I think you shouldn’t even charge readers. Few online newspapers do. Many did and turned back. In fact, looking at the listings of newspapers in Yahoo!SG, only Wall Street Journal require a paid subscription. New York Times only require a free registration. Most of the rest are accessible for free. Oh, Yahoo! needs to change the site summary for STi from 15 March 2005.

Even among online newspaper that charge, nearly all give subscribers of their print edition free access. They see it as offering a complementary service to loyal customers. WSJ, The Economist, Time and NYTimes all do so. In that sense, few Singaporeans, most of whom are already subscribers of ST print edition, will not allow STi to “doublecharge” them.

I see STi marching towards doom, obstinately. With so much history to learn from, since online newspapers, whether paid or unpaid, have existed years before STi launch 10 years ago, I can’t believe that they are still taking the wrong path.

I was wandering around altavista (for old time’s sake - AV was my favourite search engine before google came around) until it surprised me with it’s Chinese-to-English translation service. I was like, COOL!, I’ve always wanted to try out something like that. Even though I’m already bilingual, I would like to see how a computer would attempt to translate a language as complex as Chinese.

So I fed it with zaobao.

Well, what came out was at least readable (will comment on results later). I was like thinking, google couldn’t be too far behind, i mean, it’s google anyway. As expected, google has a similar service for Chinese-English, though it only support Chinese Simplified characters. Altavista’s Babelfish supports both Chinese Simplified and Traditional. Hence from here you can see Google’s China focus, excluding Macau, Hongkong and Taiwan (these places still using Traditional Chinese characters).

For a fair comparision, google language tools was also fed with zaobao.

And here are the reults:

zaobao translated by altavista babelfish
zaobao translated by google language tools
The original zaobao

It seems to me that altavista’s babelfish Chinese-English translation beats Google’s Language Tools.

Firstly, babelfish seems to have better grammar, it translates 即时新闻 into “Immediate news” rather than “Immediately news” by google.

More importantly, babelfish knows more famous Chinese people than google, so it tends to translate their names correctly. Google got 周杰伦 as “Week outstanding roentgen”, babelfish got that right as “Zhou Jielun”. And, Google totally missed North Korean N-Man’s name, mixing it up with gold” while babelfish prints it prettily as “Kim-Jong II”.

Contextual-wise, both are pretty readable. Babelfish makes less mistakes and has better grammar, aiding in understanding. As with any machine-translation service, you need a little imagination to help.

Both got wrong 美与伊拉克武装组织洽谈和平协议, but babelfish needs less guessing on the reader’s part with “America and Iraq arm organizes the discussion peace agreement”, google failed miserabely with “Beautifully arms with Iraq organizes the discussion peace agreement”. Correct translation being “Armerica and Iraqi Arms Groups Dicusses Peace Agreement”.

And both got “海指”, or the Straits Times Index, as “The Sea”. *laughs*

If you need a Chinese-English translation service, go for Altavista’s Babelfish. Google doesn’t always get everything right. :) Admittedly, Chinese isn’t an easy language to translate and it would be interesting how far machine translators will get it right.

Tip: Google Chinese understands Hanyu Pinyin. To search for “新加坡”, simply type “xin jia po”.