The good news: Gmail seems to be working again.I've been using for the last couple hours in both IE and Firefox. For the last few days I've been getting by in "Basic HTML" mode (never shutting down the browser), but now I seem to have full functionality again.
What still bugs me is that there's no explanation for what went off the rails (ie no response to my trouble ticket).
So anyways, we shall see going forward ...
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Gmail -- Still Messed Up
Today I opened a technical trouble ticket with Gmail. Here's what I wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can login ok, but after that cannot load pages. This has been getting worse and worse over the last 2 weeks. I blogged here with error screen caps
http://on-theball.blogspot.com/2007/04/gmail-performance-issues.html
Occasionally the system will work for a few clicks, and I can switch to "Basic HTML". With this interface, things work o k. But then when I start up again, I revert to the "Standard" interface, and all the problems resume. I have no problems with Google Calendar -- this problem is with Gmail only. I've used Firefox and IE on XP. I've also tried this under IE at the local library -- same symptoms. Please help.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would be prepared to concede that my PC is wacky, but after experiencing the exact same symptoms at my friendly neighbourhood Toronto Public Library, I know something is up!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I can login ok, but after that cannot load pages. This has been getting worse and worse over the last 2 weeks. I blogged here with error screen caps
http://on-theball.blogspot.com/2007/04/gmail-performance-issues.html
Occasionally the system will work for a few clicks, and I can switch to "Basic HTML". With this interface, things work o k. But then when I start up again, I revert to the "Standard" interface, and all the problems resume. I have no problems with Google Calendar -- this problem is with Gmail only. I've used Firefox and IE on XP. I've also tried this under IE at the local library -- same symptoms. Please help.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I would be prepared to concede that my PC is wacky, but after experiencing the exact same symptoms at my friendly neighbourhood Toronto Public Library, I know something is up!
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Gmail performance issues
Gmail is working terribly for me.
It's been sporadically bad over the last 2 weeks, but in the last 24 hours has been almost unusable.
Symptoms:
-generally I can login ok, and get to the Inbox (though even this isn't 100% today)
-from there, its hit or miss whether I can read individual messages
-sometimes I can read a message, but it hangs indefintely when I try to send a reply
There are several error messages, including 717 and 767. These tend to appear after 30-60 secs of waiting.
I normally use Firefox 2.0.0.3 on XP, but I get the same symptoms with Internet Explorer.
I've just joined the Google Groups "Gmail Help" group, and am clearly not the only person experiencing this problem.
See for example #1
See for example #2
Also I will figure out how to formally submit this issue to Gmail
Friday, February 23, 2007
XM-Sirius merger -- why not?
There's been lots of coverage this week of the proposed XM-Sirius satellite radio merger. Of course the approval process will be fraught with all kinds of posturing and inside-the-beltway politicking, none of which I am qualified to comment on.
But what I CAN say is that this is expensive technology, for which there are already viable alternatives. A big debate about these 2 companies truly misses the point about where digital subscription radio is headed. For whatever reason it's an industry that attracts an outsized share of the media spotlight (I think related to the Apollo-era space exploration fantasies of 40 and 50-something male journalists). Anyways, regulators really should just step out of the way!
It's not that the sat radio services aren't any good --I've been a happy XM customer in Canada for the last year. It works well, and delivers solid value (albeit one I would classify as a luxury good). The overall brands of Sirius and XM are of a high quality, and just as importantly they are building meaningful sub-brands (ie the 100 or so channels themselves). Along with customer relationships (ie people willing to pay a premium for commercial free audio content), these are what will retain value in years to come. The satellites themselves will be of marginal significance in the overall digital subscription radio business.
Why you ask? Well think about the competition from ever-popular web radio (programming + brands) combined with mobile phone data networks (billing relationships with customers). In terms of the distribution, today's digital coverage is already quite good in North America, and will only get better. Take for one example Verizon's Wireless Network (choose a heartland state, like say Ohio).
Oh alright there are still rural areas which don't have service, but ONE specialized satellite provider will be able to cover those potential customers for decades to come. For 95% of the population, the mobile phone companies will have coverage AND a strong interest in providing subscription-based entertainment and information services.
In Canada Telus Mobility and XM Radio have been notably ahead of the curve in providing just such a service. XM provides branded channels and music programming, and Telus moves the data (I understand a company called MSpot also provides some infrastructure). I've used this service, and while it has its warts (not enough channels, and too many dropped signals), it points to the way of the future. When you consider the massive investment being made to increase network capacity for purposes of streaming TELEVISION to mobile phones (see MediaFLO and DVB-H), you know that the ground-based data networks will more than suffice to deliver high-quality audio.
So anyways -- no one should get hung up on the disappearance of one satellite radio player. There will be more than enough competition from a variety of players using far more sustainable technology. And that's without even getting started on the iPod alternative ....
But what I CAN say is that this is expensive technology, for which there are already viable alternatives. A big debate about these 2 companies truly misses the point about where digital subscription radio is headed. For whatever reason it's an industry that attracts an outsized share of the media spotlight (I think related to the Apollo-era space exploration fantasies of 40 and 50-something male journalists). Anyways, regulators really should just step out of the way!
It's not that the sat radio services aren't any good --I've been a happy XM customer in Canada for the last year. It works well, and delivers solid value (albeit one I would classify as a luxury good). The overall brands of Sirius and XM are of a high quality, and just as importantly they are building meaningful sub-brands (ie the 100 or so channels themselves). Along with customer relationships (ie people willing to pay a premium for commercial free audio content), these are what will retain value in years to come. The satellites themselves will be of marginal significance in the overall digital subscription radio business.
Why you ask? Well think about the competition from ever-popular web radio (programming + brands) combined with mobile phone data networks (billing relationships with customers). In terms of the distribution, today's digital coverage is already quite good in North America, and will only get better. Take for one example Verizon's Wireless Network (choose a heartland state, like say Ohio).
Oh alright there are still rural areas which don't have service, but ONE specialized satellite provider will be able to cover those potential customers for decades to come. For 95% of the population, the mobile phone companies will have coverage AND a strong interest in providing subscription-based entertainment and information services.
In Canada Telus Mobility and XM Radio have been notably ahead of the curve in providing just such a service. XM provides branded channels and music programming, and Telus moves the data (I understand a company called MSpot also provides some infrastructure). I've used this service, and while it has its warts (not enough channels, and too many dropped signals), it points to the way of the future. When you consider the massive investment being made to increase network capacity for purposes of streaming TELEVISION to mobile phones (see MediaFLO and DVB-H), you know that the ground-based data networks will more than suffice to deliver high-quality audio.
So anyways -- no one should get hung up on the disappearance of one satellite radio player. There will be more than enough competition from a variety of players using far more sustainable technology. And that's without even getting started on the iPod alternative ....
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Under the Hood: Broadband Video News Powered by RedDot CMS
I was just checking out this presentation by a couple former colleagues. Jonathan and Andre were at the OpenText User conference in Huntington Beach CA. These guys (and several colleagues back at the ranch in Toronto) are doing amazing custom work with the RedDot Web CMS product:
http://www.keebler.net/blog/2007/02/13/presentation-broadband-video-news-powered-by-reddot/
Jonathan in particular is getting to be a RedDot guru, and I gather the presentation was well-received. Here's a summary written by a knowledgeable attendee (who among other things says: "These guys are killer. I feel utterly humbled in their presence. I could only hope we might even attempt some of these things that they make sound like normal practice."):
http://www.sowrey.org/2007/02/13/broadband-video-news-powered-by-reddot-at-summit-2007/
CMS's are notoriously problematic to bring into large organizations, and many such projects fail. It's really good to see the time and effort being put into optimizing a system for the benefit of content managers -- normally the true arbiters of success for a CMS project. The work had also evidently sped up publishing times which is crucial kin the competitive online news field.
I was responsible for technology and operations at CHUM Interactive, and brought in RedDot in 2005. It's a very good product, but out of the box doesn't fully suit the needs of a past-paced 24/7 TV news environment. It's a good thing we started with smaller web sites that had less-exacting requirements. Admittedly our first couple implementations weren't pretty, but we hit our stride after about 6 months. By the spring of 2006 our RedDot-powered sites were quite good (imho).
In retrospect we created conditions for success by training and supporting motivated (and highly capable!) internal staff. Once there were 3 developers knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the product, things really started to cook. They don't all have to be the super-experts Jonathan is, but just need to complement each others skills.
I think CHUM now had the best RedDot practice in Canada, and perhaps even in North America. This is pretty remarkable given that the company is a TV/Radio broadcaster, and does RedDot work strictly to serve internal business needs. The darkish cloud on the horizon is that it may prove difficult in years to come to keep the team intact, as professional services firms will undoubtedly be able to pay more (and offer more varied projects) for this sort of focus and expertise. So for anyone in the media business thinking of standardizing on a web CMS product: don't expect to do it successfully without putting together a highly capable team. And don't expect to keep said team together without some energetic care and feeding!
http://www.keebler.net/blog/2007/02/13/presentation-broadband-video-news-powered-by-reddot/
Jonathan in particular is getting to be a RedDot guru, and I gather the presentation was well-received. Here's a summary written by a knowledgeable attendee (who among other things says: "These guys are killer. I feel utterly humbled in their presence. I could only hope we might even attempt some of these things that they make sound like normal practice."):
http://www.sowrey.org/2007/02/13/broadband-video-news-powered-by-reddot-at-summit-2007/
CMS's are notoriously problematic to bring into large organizations, and many such projects fail. It's really good to see the time and effort being put into optimizing a system for the benefit of content managers -- normally the true arbiters of success for a CMS project. The work had also evidently sped up publishing times which is crucial kin the competitive online news field.
I was responsible for technology and operations at CHUM Interactive, and brought in RedDot in 2005. It's a very good product, but out of the box doesn't fully suit the needs of a past-paced 24/7 TV news environment. It's a good thing we started with smaller web sites that had less-exacting requirements. Admittedly our first couple implementations weren't pretty, but we hit our stride after about 6 months. By the spring of 2006 our RedDot-powered sites were quite good (imho).
In retrospect we created conditions for success by training and supporting motivated (and highly capable!) internal staff. Once there were 3 developers knowledgeable and enthusiastic about the product, things really started to cook. They don't all have to be the super-experts Jonathan is, but just need to complement each others skills.
I think CHUM now had the best RedDot practice in Canada, and perhaps even in North America. This is pretty remarkable given that the company is a TV/Radio broadcaster, and does RedDot work strictly to serve internal business needs. The darkish cloud on the horizon is that it may prove difficult in years to come to keep the team intact, as professional services firms will undoubtedly be able to pay more (and offer more varied projects) for this sort of focus and expertise. So for anyone in the media business thinking of standardizing on a web CMS product: don't expect to do it successfully without putting together a highly capable team. And don't expect to keep said team together without some energetic care and feeding!
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Is Sling Media leapfrogging the wireless entertainment industry?
I liked this story in the Hollywood Reporter today. Why? Read on ....
Sling Media and MTV Networks went head-to-head Tuesday at the 3GSM World Congress in a debate about how mobile is changing television ... For many at the GSM's Mobile Entertainment Summit session ... the Slingbox's ability to stream a television set onto a computer, mobile phone or palm pilot seemed to leapfrog the laborious efforts of the telecom industry to secure mobile TV in an effective, cost-efficient and quality manner for the end user.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/news/
Interesting eh? MTV is very credible in this regard, having worked hard across various geographies and for several years now to extend their business to mobile devices. The MTV VP argued that unique products (generally short-form, and of an on-demand nature) are required to satisfy users on the go.
On the other hand, there's certainly appeal to the argument that all consumers really want is to be able to access the video content they have bought and paid for on their TVs on other devices (such as laptops, Palmtops and of course mobile phones). I liked this article because it put its finger on the crux of a real issue. Makes me wish I'd been in that room in Barcelona earlier this week!
But seriously, where do I come down on this? More on the side of Sling ... but with one big caveat. Who pays the mobile data charges? For end users today their model could entail hefty monthly fees for downloaded or streamed content. In Canada today it's necessary to play ball with the mobile carriers, and this inherently means mobile-specific product offerings for consumers.
Sling Media and MTV Networks went head-to-head Tuesday at the 3GSM World Congress in a debate about how mobile is changing television ... For many at the GSM's Mobile Entertainment Summit session ... the Slingbox's ability to stream a television set onto a computer, mobile phone or palm pilot seemed to leapfrog the laborious efforts of the telecom industry to secure mobile TV in an effective, cost-efficient and quality manner for the end user.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/international/news/
Interesting eh? MTV is very credible in this regard, having worked hard across various geographies and for several years now to extend their business to mobile devices. The MTV VP argued that unique products (generally short-form, and of an on-demand nature) are required to satisfy users on the go.
On the other hand, there's certainly appeal to the argument that all consumers really want is to be able to access the video content they have bought and paid for on their TVs on other devices (such as laptops, Palmtops and of course mobile phones). I liked this article because it put its finger on the crux of a real issue. Makes me wish I'd been in that room in Barcelona earlier this week!
But seriously, where do I come down on this? More on the side of Sling ... but with one big caveat. Who pays the mobile data charges? For end users today their model could entail hefty monthly fees for downloaded or streamed content. In Canada today it's necessary to play ball with the mobile carriers, and this inherently means mobile-specific product offerings for consumers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
