The local social web, foreseen

FaceTweet it!
H2G2, the collaborative online encyclopedia founded by Douglas Adams in 1999 –  and run by the BBC since 2001 – has received a facelift (currently in beta).

I’m not necessarily the site’s biggest fan, but the revamp led me to revisit it.

In doing so I stumbled across an article outlining the vision for H2G2 which Douglas Adams wrote over a decade ago.

Here is an excerpt. To say Adams was a prescient man is redundant. (Too late.)

What we are now focussed on at h2g2 is what happens when people start to share information while they are on the move. Soon we will start to see devices arriving that combine palmtop computers with cellphones with Internet devices with GPS systems. That – in a phrase we hear over and over again when people talk about the Internet – will change everything. You’ll be able to read and write to the Guide wherever you are: at the station, in the plane, on a park bench, in your car (pulled over to the side of the road with the handbrake on, of course) in a café;. And when you write in something as simple as ‘The coffee here is lousy!’ the Guide will know exactly what to do with that information and where to put it. And if you see, a few seconds later, a note which says ‘Yes, but the cheesecake is good’ it might be worth looking round the other tables to see who you’ve just made contact with.

Proud? Really?

FaceTweet it!

Sign: "We are proud to accept only Visa"

From the window of the London 2012 shop at St Pancras station.

Is it just me, or is this a complete sponsor own-goal?

I know what they’re trying to say. “Visa is the passport to a world of exciting, exclusive events.”

All I hear is: ”For reasons best known to ourselves, we’re going to make it harder than necessary to buy crap from this shop.”

I have a Visa card and this doesn’t make me any more enthused about the brand. In fact, given that they’ve presumably paid for this arrangement, it just makes me think they’re daft.

Please notify my next of kin

FaceTweet it!
In one of my very first posts on here, I talked about how I’m obsessed by epic failures in business and media.

So with Microsoft’s new Windows Phone 7 platform getting uncharacteristically good reviews from just about everyone, naturally my thoughts turned to a less glorious moment from the company’s recent history: the Kin phone.

I still can’t quite believe that what happened with the Kin really happened. You can read one rendition of the full story here, but here’s the digest version if you’re pushed for time:

2008 – Microsoft buy Danger, maker of the Sidekick (legendarily the phone which helped Paris Hilton to leak her address book).

2008-2010 – Using Danger’s people and technology as a starting point, Microsoft develop a secret phone project called Pink.

Total cost of development: $2bn.

April 2010 – The phone is launched under the product name Kin.

48 days later – Microsoft throw the whole thing in the bin and discontinue it.

There’s little doubt that the phone was a commercial failure on launch – and no shortage of theories as to why that was.

In reality, its almost immediate removal from the shelves probably had more to do with Microsoft’s reluctance to allow it to steal focus from Windows Phone 7 than anything else.

But it still fascinates me that the company was so dysfunctional that it ever let the thing come out in the first place, if it was to be scythed down so quickly afterwards. (The story probably tells us something about the psychology of over-large organisations –  prone to lack of communication, silo-based working, and in-fighting. But that’s a whole other blog post.)

The Kin’s marketing was something else: super-styled graphics, clever-clever phraseology all over its packaging, and verging-on-tryhard ads featuring the kinds of hipsters Microsoft hoped would be all over this device. They really, really pushed the boat out.

Which it why it’s especially brutal that the the Kin website now looks like this. Ouch.

(The original homepage code is still there, by the way: it’s just commented out.)

But don’t worry, if you’re one of – say – the 5,113 people who’ve actually connected your (now collector’s item) Kin to Facebook, you can still get help here… while the rest of us marvel at how much time, effort and money went down the toilet on this thing.

Euston, I hate you

FaceTweet it!
I couldn’t write a post about St Pancras station without a quick addendum about its near-neighbour Euston.

Although I work in Birmingham, I’m fortunate enough to rarely have to travel to London from the West Midlands.

Here – for those who don’t frequent Euston – is why I count myself lucky. It redefines ”grim”.

Don’t just take my word for it. Here’s how the station is characterised by the Euston Arch Trust:

Designed in the International Modern style, its somewhat bleak style has been variously described as “hideous”, “a dingy, grey, horizontal nothingness”, “an ugly desecration of a formerly impressive building”, a reflection of “the tawdry glamour of its time” entirely lacking of “the sense of occasion, of adventure, that the great Victorian termini gave to the traveller”, and “the worst of the Central London terminuses, both ugly and unfriendly to use”.

Writing in The Times, Richard Morrison stated that “even by the bleak standards of Sixties architecture, Euston is one of the nastiest concrete boxes in London: devoid of any decorative merit; seemingly concocted to induce maximum angst among passengers; and a blight on surrounding streets. The design should never have left the drawing-board – if, indeed, it was ever on a drawing-board. It gives the impression of having been scribbled on the back of a soiled paper bag by a thuggish android with a grudge against humanity and a vampiric loathing of sunlight”.

If you really fancy a laugh, here’s the Trust’s resurrection (via PDF) of British Rail’s 1968 brochure published to celebrate the opening of the newly redeveloped station.

St Pancras, I love you

FaceTweet it!

I adore St Pancras station, and the other day I realised a key reason why.

Artists’ impressions of any new development – or in this case, redevelopment – are normally an exercise in creative optimism.

So for a transport interchange, throw in happy travellers sitting outside wine bars, deep in animated conversation. Beautiful people skitting in and out of glamorous shops. Folks of all nationalities hugging as they’re reunited with their loved ones. Maybe a small art exhibition in one corner; a musician playing an impromptu gig in another. And around it all, the architecture itself – looking amazing no matter what the season or time of day.

You’ve probably guessed where I’m going with this. In the case of St Pancras, the reality – three years after it reopened, and against all odds – is exactly as envisaged. It’s an artist’s impression come to life, and more.

(“More” includes one thing you can’t capture in an architect’s plan: the wonderful mix of foreign accents around you, predominantly French, while you queue up to buy a coffee. Ah, parfait.)

As Martin Belam tweeted recently, comparing St Pancras to Paris’ Gare Du Nord:

There are nostalgic, partisan reasons why I love the station too.

As a kid, my journeys to London were generally limited to an annual pre-Christmas trip organised by the Nottingham Evening Post. In my late teens and early 20s, a trip to the capital was generally to do with my music career.

St Pancras was “my” station in London, and arriving there meant excitement.

To have the run-down, grimy train shed I remember growing up reinvented as what its pre-launch advertising called  - again, with rare accuracy – “Europe’s destination station” makes me strangely proud. (Thanks, Sir John Betjeman.)

Compare and contrast with its near-neighbour, Euston, using my favourite unscientific method: the Flickr test. There are 2,491 pictures on Flickr tagged “Euston station“, many – understandably – of trains rather than the station itself.

For ”St Pancras station“ there are 8,047.

Like the Selfridges building in Birmingham, people can’t resist taking photos on their way through – and rightly so.

I’ve included a few from Flickr below.

Now, if only some of the St Pancras fairy dust would fall on Birmingham New Street’s redevelopment, maybe this Facebook group‘s founding sentiment might one day no longer be true…

I’m not sure that 1984 could feel any more like an entirely different world

FaceTweet it!
Steve Williams, an online friend from the halcyon days of the TV Cream mailing list, submits that this clip – recently uploaded to YouTube -  is “the very best kind of Top of the Pops performance”.

I have to agree.

Need for speed

FaceTweet it!
On the latest This Week In Tech, John C Dvorak made some interesting claims about post-production on The Social Network (disclaimer: I still haven’t seen this film).

Do you know that movie was sped up to meet time requirements? They used two technologies: they used the technique where you change the frame rate, but you keep the voices the same so it sounds natural; they also pull frames out to give it a hectic quality.

I’ve no idea if that’s true (nor do I know enough about video production to make an educated guess). Certainly this feature on how the movie was finished makes no reference to the technique. Editor Angus Wall agrees the end result is fast-paced, but explains it thus:

The script was around 160 pages, so we were concerned that the first assembly was going to be correspondingly long. Our target was to keep the film under two hours. From the start, Kirk [Baxtor, co-editor] and I cut the scenes very tightly, using faster performances and generally keeping the pace of the film high. When the first assembly was completed, we were at a length of 1 hour 55 minutes – actually a minute shorter than the final version.

Personally I hope the artificial speeding up did happen, if only because it’s such a classically, supremely pop technique.

Ask anyone who’s ever ridden the waltzers. Faster = more exciting. Every time.

Kiss FM in London supposedly speed up their playlist songs habitually – and they can’t be the only ones.  A quick Google search throws up this straw poll on a US forum from 2008 – “Does your hit radio station ‘speed up’ songs?”

My hit radio station 95 triple x [does]. I can honestly tell. Everything sounds so much better on radio to me. I called in one night being really bored i asked them if it was true. The guy said yes, they do speed up the songs by around 10 seconds because airtime matters, as well as making the song sound better? I guess…

So this is going to sound crazy, but im so used to listening to all my favorite songs on the radio and when i’ve played them in their regular nature by Ipod… its noticable to the point where i’m annoyed with having to switch from two different speeds. I took it upon myself to download Audacity which lets you edit mp3s and all that jazz, i sped up the tempo of alot of songs i like that are played on the radio station, it just sounds better and its true!

My favourite example of this phenomenon is probably James Brown’s Papa’s Got A Brand New Bag – a live recording that was sped up significantly before it was even released.

Listen to the original version and tell me honestly that it would have been a hit without a little magic acceleration. I don’t think so.

And that’s before we even touch on this kind of thing…