The latest development channel release of Google Chrome contains the ability to sync the browser’s bookmarks. The feature will let you keep the same set of bookmarks on multiple machines as well as store them in your Google Docs. Interestingly enough, Google already has a web-based bookmark service that goes by the name of Google Bookmarks. I wonder whether the plan is to eventually use Google Bookmarks as the back-end sync destination instead of Docs (a much better fit, wouldn’t you say?). If that is the strategy, then it is my opinion that we should get ready for a huge overhaul to the Google Bookmarks service.

The current implementation of Google Bookmarks is – simply put – outdated. The feature that’s most prominently missing is the ability to share and make my bookmarks public. For a company that’s all about making the next generation communications platform (Google Wave), that’s kind of embarrassing. One of the biggest advantages of keeping my bookmarks on the web with services such as Delicious and Xmarks (formerly Foxmarks) is discoverability: I am able to see what tags (labels) others used for a web site and pre-fill their tags to my bookmark, the comments they used for it, as well as related sites that others bookmarked. Google Bookmarks also lacks browser-side import/export functions and doesn’t exactly have the best user interface in the game.

Assuming that the end-game is to use Google Bookmarks as the back-end for Chrome bookmark sync as well as for web access of bookmarks, I think it’s safe to say that the currently outdated service will get a very big revamp in the months ahead. Hopefully we’ll be able to get our hands on an official Chrome for Mac release before then. That, or we’ll see Google Bookmarks dropped and the bookmark functionality folded into Docs.

Back in 2008, Microsoft announced Office Web Applications – the web-based version of its ever-popular productivity suite – Microsoft Office. We’ve come across more details recently, with the beta release of Office 2010: the online suite will be made up of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote, will be capable of synchronizing with the desktop, will be platform and browser-independent, but will contain less features than the desktop versions of those programs. That should not be an issue, however, since most Office users use very few features in Office.

The suite will be available to everyone for free via Windows Live and to corporate users through different distribution channels. Since the announcement, such questions as “How would this affect Google Docs/Apps and the Zoho office suite?” have been widely discussed topics. Let’s take a pragmatic look at what we should really expect from Office Web Applications.

Office Web Applications vs. Google Docs/Apps

Microsoft Office is the 800 pound gorilla in the room, with a market share somewhere between 80-90 percent in the productivity software space. Google has been hard at work chipping away at those numbers, although we don’t have exact market share figures.

From a product perspective, not many people know about Google Docs. Before you write your emails, I understand that tech fans the world over would disagree. The reality is, however, that the mainstream consumer has no idea Google is a whole lot more than a search engine. Whenever I do consulting work and introduce organizations to Google Apps, they are amazed that Google has such awesome services with its Apps/Docs. And here is where Microsoft has the upper hand: from a brand name recognition standpoint alone, consumers are much more familiar with Microsoft Office than they are with Google Docs. This can be attributed to a generational factor in perception: Office has simply been around longer and Microsoft has had more time than Google to let people know about it, as well as for the people to get to know (and use) Office. Google understands this and has recently begun aggressively advertising Google Apps – all in an attempt to convert a few more users to the product before the other leg of the 800 pound gorilla makes its landing (the general availability of Office Web Apps, of course).

In that regard, the Office brand name will carry over to Office Web Applications in being an instantly-recognizable player in the productivity software space, leading consumers to try it out at a rate that – in my opinion – will be higher than the adoption rate of Google Docs. This is a perfect example of leveraging the immense power of an already-existing product (Office on the desktop) and carrying it over to the web – a move that should be commended. At a time when everything seems to be moving to the web, Microsoft’s software plus services approach looks like a surefire method to fuse the social collaboration features of web apps with the full-featured functionality of desktop programs.

Unfortunately for Google Docs and Zoho, brand name familiarity will drive many current Microsoft Office users to try Microsoft’s Office web suite. Something tells me that if one percent of the enourmous Microsoft Office user base would sign up for Office Web Applications, that number would trump the amount of users Google Docs and Zoho have, combined. And that’s not taking into account that Office Web Apps will be available to anyone using a Hotmail/Live email account (which trumps the amount of Gmail accounts).

Interface

Office 2007  as well as Office 2010 users will feel right at home using Office Web Applications, since the web-based version of Office will employ the Ribbon UI that has come to define the desktop software package. After using Office 2007 and a beta version of Office 2010 on the desktop, the Ribbon is a far-superior interface element than traditional menu-based layouts. This is yet another reason for users to turn to Microsoft’s web-based solution instead of those by Google or Zoho.

Cost

Microsoft has announced that it will initially provide the web-based suite free of charge to all users via Windows Live (rather than Office Live, which is being discontinued and rolled into Windows Live). That falls in line with what the competition is doing: Google Docs and personal versions of Zoho apps are also free. For organizations that require more than 50 users, Google charges a per-user fee for Apps; Zoho charges for corporate use as well.

Companies will have the ability to use Office Web Applications in two ways:

1. Host the Office Web Apps on-site
2. Access a hosted version as part of their Microsoft Online Services (MOS) subscription

That’s a solid strategy for Microsoft that makes a clear split between home/non-corp users and corporations, similar to Google Docs and Google Apps. Will organizations pick the lower-priced Google Apps over the more expensive Microsoft hosted solution? Common sense says “yes.” But it still remains to be seen.

Concluding Thoughts

There is no question that Office Web Applications will prove to be a strong competitor to Google Docs, Google Apps, and Zoho apps. As such, Office Web Apps will compete for two markets – the home (non-corporate) user as well as the business (small, medium, enterprise). With a very well-known brand name that has come to define the world of productivity software, Microsoft is sure to lure many new users to its web-based version of the suite. And if Zoho and Google apply each apply their marketing prowess, they can ride off the coattails of Microsoft moving Office to the web.

One important question remains: what’s the long-term strategy of Office on the web? Will Microsoft eventually charge all users to use the product, introduce a “fremium” model, or use the web version to entice consumers to purchase the desktop version of the software? In the long term, this blogger thinks that it’s more likely to be the former rather than the latter.

Earlier in May, word got out that Apple is planning to invest $1 billion in a server farm. The facility, to be located in the State of North Carolina, will follow a similar (albeit smaller) $600 million undertaking by Google. As could be expected, analysts, bloggers, and the Twitterverse the world over speculated about the possible uses for the investment, but I don’t think anyone hit the nail squarely on the head. I think Apple will use its new server farm to completely cut the cord between its iPhone product line and the desktop. And it will do so in a big way.

Since the iPhone is the premier mobile device made by Apple today, it gives us an idea of what features will migrate down to the iPod line in the future. So let’s take look at the current state of the iPhone and its interaction with the desktop computer. For the most part, an iPhone will synchronize the following items with iTunes: mail accounts, contacts, calendar appointments, bookmarks, stored passwords, user names, and apps. Most of these items can be synchronized today without ever plugging the iPhone directly into a computer: more specifically, contacts, calendar items, and mail can all be synced over-the-air (OTA) with web-based applications from Google (calendar, contacts), Yahoo online services, Microsoft Exchange, as well as Apple’s own MobileMe.

But let’s not forget the original reason for plugging an iPhone directly into a desktop system: music, video, and podcast synchronization. And here’s where the server farm comes into play: I believe that

Apple will use its new $1 billion server farm to back up and sync music, video, and podcasts over the air to and from users’ iPods, iPhones, and iTunes libraries.

Why would Apple want to do this? For starters, it would eliminate the need to plug an iPhone into the computer to perform a sync. Imagine your iTunes library on the desktop being synced to Apple’s servers – much in the same way that contacts and calendars sync to MobileMe today. Since the iPhone will also sync with these servers, all added libraries will stay up to date automatically, whether it’s iTunes running on Windows 7, an iPod Touch connected via WiFi, or an iPhone connected via 3G (AT&T allowing).

Apple is a company that’s well-known for taking an already-existing idea and executing with pure perfection. A few examples: the iPhone was not the first touch-screen smartphone, the iPod was not the world’s first digital music player. But both are nothing short of awesome when it comes to execution: the marketing (market targeting, pricing, sales channel/distribution), ease-of-use, and the sheer “cool” factor that goes along with owning these devices. Apple will make a complicated and confusing technology (synchronization) accessible to the mainstream audience via sexy devices (iPhone, iPod) and simple software (iTunes).

Apple will also achieve a side benefit here for the public good: since a merged copy of the user’s iTunes libraries will live on Apple’s servers, the user will have a back-up in the cloud and not even realize it’s there (until a hard drive goes bad or an iPhone gets dunked in a swimming pool) . In an era where back ups are crucial – yet (unfortunately) implemented by very few – this is a major benefit.

On top of that, it would also makes sense that Apple would enable online access to the stored media from any internet-connected machine. Here’s a use-case scenario: if I’m away from my iMac and the battery in my iPhone’s is drained, I can use my friend’s machine to stream my backed-up media collection straight from Apple’s web-based interface.

It would make sense that Apple bundle this sync functionality with its MobileMe web services package. At the present time, the service provides 20GB standard, with 40GB and 60GB packages available for $49 and $99, respectively. Apple could easily upgrade the default amount of storage to 40GB and provide upgrade plans of 80 and 160GB for a fee. Considering that storage prices are falling, the only thing Apple would have to keep an eye out for is bandwidth – nothing that the company can’t overcome.

So how far off is this dream of the ultimate tech zen? Considering that Apple is still in the early stages of building this data center, I’d put it about a year out. But with calendar, contacts, and whatever other data being synchronized over-the-air, syncing music, movies, and podcasts seems to be the next logical step! Sync FTW!

Join us on today’s TNR Podcast to hear us discuss this story, along with the day’s top tech news, in further detail. We broadcast LIVE at 5:30pm EST Monday – Saturday. Can’t join us live? Grab our RSS feed and subscribe!

While writing a post about jailbreaking (still in progress), I came across a jailbreak app called iRealSMS. In my opinion, this is one of the few apps that makes jailbreaking not only a good idea, but also a complete necessity. I have used this app (along with its less powerful sibling, iRealQuickSMS) and I can say that once you’ve used it (and been spoiled by it), going back to the regular process of texting is a displeasure.

What it does

The concept of iRealSMS is very simple: it allows you to send and receive SMS messages without quitting a currently-running app. iRealSMS runs in the background. Whenever an SMS arrives, the app displays a pop-up screen with a text entry box and a few options. The important thing to note here is that it does not close the open app the way the default Messages app does.

From the incoming SMS pop-up, you can send a reply, call the sender, or ignore the entire thing altogether (see screenshot above). When the screen is tapped to place the cursor in the text-entry box, a keyboard pops up for a quick reply (see screenshot below). After the reply is sent, iRealSMS goes away, allowing the app that was running before receiving the SMS resume.

There is also an option to send an SMS without leaving the current app. I use the volume up button to open the quick send box (press once, more than once increases volume). Now a standard feature when it comes to messaging apps, iRealSMS operates in landscape and portrait modes.

Real-world usage

For me, this app performed exactly as described. However, it does have some hiccups: moving between landscape and portrait sometimes caused problems. The app thought it is in the opposite mode and the keyboard pop-up is displayed that way. Another minor issue occurs when typing a reply and a new text comes in: the app throws up a new pop up window, interrupting the process. I would prefer to have the app wait for the message to be sent until displaying any further notifications. I had only one crash with the app, which is definitely not bad for a jailbroken program.

Recommendation

This is the one app I jailbroke my phone for and – as such – I give it my whole-hearted seal of approval. I don’t use the “pro” features of the app, so the iRealSMS is a bit much for me. Nevertheless, I love the ability to quick reply without leaving my current app. iRealQuickSMS offers these features, but no more. The deciding factor for me was the ability to search through text messages, which is only offered by iRealSMS. Whether you choose iRealSMS or iRealQuickSMS, both will change the way you text on the iPhone.

iRealSMS and iRealQuickSMS are both offered through Cydia and Rock Your Phone. I recommend Rock Your Phone, due to the trial and billing interface it provides. iRealSMS is 13.99 and iRealQuickSMS is 6.99. Both are well worth every cent.

Perhaps this app poses a real question for the iPhone/iPod Touch audience: does Apple need to rethink the way notifications are displayed on the iPhone/iPod Touch? The current implementation can be improved upon, since user experience has the potential to be frequently interrupted. For example: if the user wants to answer an SMS/IM, or change a calendar notification, he needs to leave the current app environment and go to that app. This breaks the user experience. There is no “flow”- something the Palm Pre does very well. What do you think?

We all love Apple. Well, most of us do. The last few years, especially since the Vista launch, modern media has pushed on us the virtues of owning a Mac. Most of the top names in the tech blogosphere use Macs, and support almost all of Apple’s products. Leo Laporte, Ryan Block, and Peter Rojas are all self-admitted Macs (though they all come clean to using PCs). The “in” thing to do in the industry is to be a Mac. While this may put Apple in a position to become the leader in the PC industry, there are several reasons as to why Apple doesn’t want to and cannot do so.

Apple has long been the underdog of the PC industry. Right before Steve Jobs’ return as iCEO, we can see that this was for a good reason. Apple’s product line-up was a mess and the company was suffering through its worst years ever. Apple started out as a company that was all about the ability to “Think Different.” With Jobs’ return to Apple, this concept was embraced again, and the company started producing computers for the people. The original iMac and iBook are perfect examples: a colored and translucent computer was all about style and appealed to a younger audience. On the other hand, Windows PCs of the day were still considered the computers of choice amongst the tech elite and the business world.

Cut to today

Apple’s lineup of computers is amazing, to say the least. An Apple computer represents the latest and greatest in hardware: processors, graphics cards, RAM, connectivity technology, and enclosure engineering are all top-notch. The Mac lineup caters to both personal and business users and does so with extreme precision. Yet Apple is still the underdog of the personal computer market, having approximately 10% of U.S. market share. And this is exactly where the company needs to and wants to be, give or take a few percentage points.

One of Apple’s greatest strengths is its ability to manufacture both the software and the hardware that combine to make an amazing piece of machinery which outperforms all competition. But this level of performance comes at a price: the company’s second-greatest strength is the margin it enjoys. The last bevy of financial reports have pegged profit margin in the area of 30% or higher. Compared to rival companies such as Dell and HP, that’s an astounding number! It has turned Apple into a company that’s not only debt-free, but one that also enjoys tens of billion of dollars in the bank (and other short-term investments). But why can Apple charge so much more for its computers while other companies try so hard to earn even a 5 percent margin?

How can Apple get away with such a high margin?

1. The single most important reason is that Apple is a top-tier premium brand. Top-tier premium brands, by definition, are limited to the very few that can afford its products. If Apple were to gain a larger market share, it would do so by expanding down-market and diluting itself into something that doesn’t occupy a top-tier premium position. If this were to happen, Apple would not bring home as much money per item.

2. OS X is wonderful software, and the Mac is a great computer because of it. The sheer joy of using the two is thrilling: they just work. But why is that so? How can Apple’s product work in such great harmony while other computers don’t? It’s because of the limited product portfolio that Apple carries, a lineup with very well-known specs. This allows Apple to engineer OS X in a way that works best with the hardware it ships. Contrast that with Microsoft’s Windows, which has to support millions of components and hardware devices, all while not really being sure which combination of processor, motherboard, and graphics card will be used. Yet Apple’s limited hardware carries a price not denominated in dollars: there are some people whose needs are not fulfilled by the limited amount of products that Apple makes available. There are those that would like a netbook, or a smaller headless tower with the expandability of a Mac Pro. Such wants are simply not fulfilled by Apple. If the company were to fill every single void in its computer line-up, there would be a lot more hardware that Mac engineers would have to support.

As successful as it is, Apple still has to fight some uphill battles!

By having such a small market share, Apple is able to make only those products that its loyal customer base demands. In effect, this means that unless Apple finds a strong business case (iPhone, iPod, Apple TV) for certain products, they are simply not on the radar for the company. Many Windows PCs come in form factors and specs that simply do not exist in the Macintosh line-up (Tablet PC, anyone?). Many different manufactures produce thousands of different hardware combinations to make the Windows PC ecosystem as rich and abundant as it is. And while Apple seems like it is totally in control of its fate, the company does have its work cut out for it.

Price

Windows laptops are cheap; ridiculously cheap. A comparably spec’ed machine to the Macintosh line, while not as sexy, can range from $300 to $1000 less expensive. The company does not build OS X to support certain peripherals. Instead, peripheral vendors make supporting software (drivers) for OS X. This awards Apple the right to not have to go out of its way to ensure that every possible combination of peripherals work with its operating system. Microsoft, with its 90 percent market share, tried this once and the net result was Windows Vista, pre Service Pack 1. We all saw how that worked out for them (deservedly or not).

Compatibility is still an issue

On top of that, PCs are the industry standard and run many programs that OS X can’t natively. Many engineering and business applications only run on Windows. Sure there is BootCamp and various virtualization applications. But in my experience, most people prefer to have the same OS at home as they do at work.

Windows 7

Apple has dissed Windows 7 during WWDC 2009 – labeling it as Vista with a different name. That’s a great facade in and of itself. Internally, however, Apple must realize that the new Microsoft OS poses a threat to Mac sales. Many in the industry have cited Windows 7 as the answer to the problems that plagued Vista. Personally, I use Windows 7 on my daily machine and I can attest that this is an OS everyone will want to use. I feel that it combines the ease-of-use in OS X with the software compatibility (games!) that we have come to know and love from Microsoft. If Windows users are satisfied by Windows 7, it doesn’t give people a reason to switch to a Mac.

Still the underdog

Apple’s PR campaign has been an all-out attack on Microsoft. The “Get a Mac” ad series is very direct, calling the Windows world “stuffy,” filled with problems and vulnerabilities, and with people whose top priority is number crunching. Apple is able to do this because it is the underdog in the personal computer space. It is the David that everyone cheers for, versus Microsoft (the Goliath). Could you imagine if Microsoft took the same approach in marketing its products versus those of Apple? The closest and most effective approach the team in Redmond has come up with thus far are the “Laptop Hunters” series, which just calls MacBooks what they are: more expensive.

When it comes to malware, being small is an advantage!

A small market share also works to Apple’s benefit when it comes to malware. As a hacker/virus writer, why go after such a small installed user base when Windows machines are so much more abundant? Macs aren’t virus-free because they are inherently more secure. They’re free of malware because hackers don’t care enough right now. There is not enough money to be made by hacking Macs. And if hackers were to target the Mac, Apple would be forced to respond much faster in patching its software – something the company is known to not take very seriously.

The long and short of it is that first, Apple would have difficulty breaking out of the number two spot in the operating system world. And second, being number two is not necessarily a bad thing: considering the baggage that being number one brings, being at the top would put the company in a place it does not want to be. If OS X were the dominant force in the computer world, Apple would have to deal with the same interoperability issues that Microsoft faces today with Windows. In the race for the computer dollar, Apple is a distant second: and that’s where it should stay for the benefit of its customers and for its own good. That is, if it wants to hold on to its extremely high user satisfaction ratings. But will it be able to stay second? And if so, for how long?

Project Trident is a  new scientific tool kit by Microsoft that aims to revolutionize the way academia deals with the increasing onslaught of experiment data. In the past, as well as today, a scientist would design an experiment, collect the data, analyze the data using some sort of programming, and review the results. The big hang up in all of this was the programming involved to bring the experiment to life: a programmer was brought in to make one-off programs for a specific experiment. Any changes to the experiment would require the programmer to make revisions. If another scientist wanted to perform the experiment elsewhere, there would be another programmer involved to write the experiment code. This became an ever-increasing problem of inefficiencies and wasted time. Microsoft to the rescue.Borrowing an idea from industry and computer science, the software giant has introduced an idea based around an existing concept: workflow. Without getting into a detailed explanation (ask in the comments if you want me to), we can say that workflow is the organization of work and the ability to visualize the working process. In software engineering, it can allow for minute changes to be made without destroying hours of productivity. A programmer is still required for the initial programming and set-up, but a scientist who is relatively tech-savvy would now be able to make small changes to the processing and flow of information in minutes. This is done by developing a GUI for the program that analyzes experimental data. Think of it as a flow chart that has some serious programming behind the boxes. This might sound so obvious, so why wasn’t it done before? Why did Microsoft have to be the company to push this out?

The answer, dear readers, is interoperability! Without the ability to work on several machines, the idea of workflow was nice in theory. Yet it still didn’t change the fact that scientist were at the mercy of their programmers. So Microsoft did what it does best: provide a common language, a common set of tools, and a common workspace for experiments to take place.

Often, it takes the industry leader to make a standard. Who better than Microsoft, the industry leader in many fields of software, to tackle this project head-on? Project Trident is based on .Net, Windows Workflow Foundation, and Silverlight (for those that want to run workflows remotely). The tool also has the ability to output into a myriad of other Microsoft software, including Excel and Word.

What does this mean for you and me? Absolutely nothing. What does this mean for the scientific community – the people for whom this is designed for? To them, it means the world! Now, scientists the world over have the ability to run experiments with little to no interaction from a programming expert after the initial set up. With a common foundation, scientists the world over can recreate experiments using the same software and redesign experiments for use with other settings. In its press release, Microsoft highlighted an experiment designed for mice that, with very little modification to the workflow, has the ability to run on humans. With one fell swoop, Microsoft has given the scientific community a much-needed set of tools, for free. The only question now is, will the scientific community use them?

Google Voice (GV) is the new version of GrandCentral from Google.  It is a service that gives you one number for all your phones.  Currently, it is only available to existing GrandCentral users, but it will be available to new users within the next few weeks.  The service, in its current guise, is completely free, so you don’t have to worry about your wallet screaming at you.  Google Voice comes packed with many features.  The basic premise is simple: to start things off, you pick your own international number and register your existing phone numbers, be they landlines or cell phones.   From there, you use your existing phones to call into GrandCentral, from which you can call the entire United States for free.  For a nominal fee, you can make calls to the rest of the world.  The rates are often less than traditional international rates and are more in line with what Skype charges for its international calls.

In late 2005, GrandCentral was founded by Craig Walker and Vincent Paquet. Fed up with having to run to the other side of the house to answer the home phone, they wanted a way to take all their phones and voicemail in-boxes and unify the experience.  In essence, GrandCentral never aimed to replace your phones, but to glue them together and give them more features, all to make your voice communication easier. In July of 2007, Google acquired GrandCentral for $95 million.  The founders were happy to accept the partnership knowing that they could do more with Google behind them.  Just a few weeks ago, Google officially announced Google Voice, which is the new version of GrandCentral.

So what exactly can Google Voice do for you? As I’ve already mentioned, you start by choosing your own international number.  You then take all the phone numbers you currently have, be they landline, cellular, or otherwise, and let Google Voice know about them.  This essentially becomes the glue that bonds all your separate numbers into a unified communications system.  From there, your new Google Voice number has the ability ring any (or all) of your phones.  That’s the basic functionality: the service has about 20 distinct, yet very integrated features in total.  But the real magic begins here: since Google Voice integrates directly with your Google Contacts list, you have the ability to have extremely fine-grained control over who calls you.  For example, you can group your contacts into different groups (like family, friends, coworkers), and then forward each group to a specific phone number you’ve registered.  Don’t want to get calls from you boss on your home phone?  Forward his calls directly to your cell.  Or you can listen in before taking the call – perhaps to see what mood he’s in.

If that’s not cool enough, Google Voice also comes packed with features that your average phone company would never even thing to offer. For example, one of the most useful features from this service is voice mail: all your messages from all your phones will be available in the GV voice mailbox, which then can be checked online or by dialing your Google Voice number from any of your authorized (registered) phones.  So instead of having to check multiple phones for missed calls, GV does that for you all in one place.  The service transcribes your voice mail messages into text and makes then available to you in an interface that is very similar to that of the excellent Gmail web interface.  GV also gives you the capability to send, receive, and store SMS  from the service.  These can also be accessed online and are displayed in a Gmail-like format.  And the list of features goes on and on: call recording, call screening, call blocking, voicemail sharing… we can’t possibly describe all the features of this amazing service in one blog post.  If you want detailed information about Google Voice, take it straight from “the Google” on the official Google Voice overview page.  Possibly the best thing yet about GV is that it’s free, so it literally wouldn’t cost a penny to give it a try once it is released.

With every product release, Google is pushing the innovation envelope further.  Sure, it gets beaten to the punch once in a while, but sometimes the effects of its products ripple through many industries.  How will Google Voice affect the telco industry?  At first glance, it looks like Google has dealt a death blow to traditional phone companies.  However, that’s not really the whole story: I don’t believe it’s Google’s goal to compete with the telcos.  From a marketing perspective, Google Voice makes phones more convenient to use for consumers.  The product still requires phones to operate.  The product is not (yet) aimed to compete with anything, since it’s truly a one-of-a-kind service.  Over time, it will be interesting to see what role Google Voice will play in the company’s overall monetization strategy.  The company already has its own mobile platform (Android) with a Google Voice app available for it (as well as the Blackberry).  So perhaps Google wants you to use Google Voice with your Google Android cell phone, and forget about your other phones?  What do you think?

Dropbox – the awesome storage, synchronization, and sharing application – is getting some much-requested changes.  In an email to current users, the Dropbox Team announced that it will be making changes to the service’s undo history, introducing a new feature called “LAN Sync,” and making numerous performance improvements.   The team also announced the forthcoming of an iPhone app.

Changes to Undo History

One of the features that has earned Dropbox so many fans is the automatic backup of any files the user deletes.  In the case that the user needs a deleted file later, whether it was deleted on purpose or by accident, Dropbox safeguards any deleted files automatically.  Moreover, the service saves old file versions in case the user needs to go back to them later – which is a long description for versioning.  Dropbox describes the features as being an ‘undo” for all files and folders.  Today, Dropbox keeps these deleted files and old file versions (something the team has termed “undo history)  forever.  For many users, this has resulted in wasted space and clutter, so beginning August 1, the new policy will be to keep 30 days of undo history.  If the users would like to retain the ability to have unlimited undo history, they would need to upgrade to a paid account.

iPhone App

Perhaps the biggest news out of this announcement is that a free iPhone app will be the first foray Dropbox makes into the mobile phone app space.  The app will allow on-the-go access to Dropbox as well as the ability to view files, save them to the phone (how would that work?), and “even take photos that sync instantly to your Dropbox!”  As a web-based service, having an iPhone app is a given, and it will be a welcome addition to what already is an amazing service.

Performance Improvements and LAN Sync

The Dropbox team is hard at work finishing up a new version of the Dropbox desktop software that “features numerous performance improvements.”  The new version of the software will also include the long-awaited “LAN sync” feature.  LAN Sync “knows when Dropboxes are on the same network and will automatically exchanges files directly between computers instead of downloading them from our servers.”  This should make sharing files (especially large ones) in an office environment much faster than the current implementation, which uploads all files to the cloud first, then synchronizes them across all other devices.

Competition

These are all welcome changes to what already is a great service with a very clean user interface.  Dropbox continues to be a leader in the file storage, synchronization, and sharing space, which consists of SugarSync, MobileMe, Windows Live Mesh, among others.  Dropbox leads these services in flexibility (being the service that works across all three major desktop computing platforms), user interface design, ease of use, as well as the ability to share files and collaborate with co-workers and friends.  It’s the service that makes all those tasks very easy and does them the best – in my (humble) opinion.  The closest competitor to DropBox is SugarSync, which offers similar features but lacks the dead-simple ability for quick collaboration.  It will be interesting to see the upcoming Dropbox iPhone app in action, and we’ll write a review as soon as we get our hands on it.  The Dropbox Team should also aim to release clients for other mobile platforms, namely Android, Windows Mobile, Nokia, as well as Palm’s WebOS (whenever that becomes possible).

Needed Improvement: there is only one

One major aspect of the Dropbox service that needs to be rethought, in my opinion, is the set-up process for synchronizing folders.  Currently, Dropbox synchronizes the contents of one folder that is created during the installation process.  This folder is located by default in the User > Documents directory.  Folders outside that one folder don’t get synchronized.  So if the user wants to sync all contents in his Mac’s home directory (or his User folder in Windows), he doesn’t have the ability to do so, short of placing the entire contents of the home/User folder into the Dropbox folder, which is illogical and can reek havoc on the system.  My recommendation to fix this issue: leave the default Dropbox folder the way it currently works, but also include an interface that would allow the user to select other folders to synchronize.  This is something SugarSync does very well with its SugarSync Manager (see screen shots below).  This is, however, the only aspect of Dropbox that needs rethinking.

About Dropbox

Dropbox is a product of Evenflow, Inc. and has received seed funding from Y Combinator and Sequoia Capital.  The service is free with a 2GB of storage limit, with paid plans available that upgrade the storage to 50GB or 100GB.  Dropbox synchronization uses AES-256 encryption and has no limit to file size for files added via the Dropbox desktop application, but files transferred through the web interface are capped at 250MB.  Dropbox uses Amazon’s S3 storage system to store files.

SugarSync Manager - Manage Sync Folders

SugarSync Manager - overview

It looks like Sony has finally realized that other mobile devices like the iPhone and iPod Touch are beating its PSP at its own game (forgive the pun).  The Japanese electronics giant has hinted that it might open its PSP Go to third party applications other than games.  The PSP Go is the latest addition to the PSP family, the successor to the PSP 3000.

In an interview with CNET, Sony’s Al De Leon said that while PSP content “will mostly be games, there’s an opportunity to look at non-gaming applications.”  Well, Sony, it’s about time!  The PSP is already an excellent device and the Go form factor – with its slide out gamepad – takes that to the next level.  It’s never really been clear to me why Sony hasn’t given developers the ability to develop and publish non-gaming apps to the PSP.  Perhaps it’s indicative of the company as a whole, you know – missing the iPod opportunity, missing the mark on the PS3, and having a very steel-fisted approach to any kind of modifications (read: hacks) to its devices.

What do you think?

YouTube has just released YouTube XL, which is YouTube – formatted for your big screen.  Over the course of the last few months, competitors such as Boxee and Hulu have been increasing the quality of their videos, with Hulu on Boxee on Apple TV (did you get all that?) seen as the ultimate set-up in streaming on-demand web video.  Today, YouTube has upped the ante with its aptly-named XL version.The folks over at Mashable have just been given a demo at YouTube HQ and they’re walking away impressed, with Ben Parr describing the new release as being “slick” as well as looking and feeling “a lot like a DVD menu, which if you think about it, is an interface made specifically for the TV.”  A few interesting details: the XL interface contain bigger buttons and is variable width.  The menu has been moved to the left hand side of the page and gives you the ability to browse by videos (spotlight, top rated, most viewed)  as well as to search.  You can also sign in and access your account.  Once a video has been selected, you are able to watch it in full-screen mode as well as in HD, browse playlists, or create a playlist of your own.  Ben from Mashable is really impressed with the video quality, saying “it looks great fully expanded on a big screen” and that the quality is on par with cable and satellite services.

The XL interface strips out many extra features, especially ones related to the community.  Comments, for example, aren’t present.  Neither is scrolling.  If you want those features, you have the option to go back to the original interface.  But make sure you bring a keyboard to type out that comment, as doing so with a remote control will not be that pleasing.

YouTube XL is available on the PS3 and will soon be available for the Wii.  I would also expect to see it replace the YouTube interface on the Apple TV and Tivo set top boxes.  TV makers left and right are including web browsers in their TVs, so the XL interface should be the interface you see on your next big screen.  On my personal wishlist is the ability to send over the YouTube link from the XL interface to my iPhone (or any other mobile device) and comment on the video from there.

(image from Mashable.com)