Why there are 31 days in August

Many things that seem arbitrary or even sinister, are in-fact done for pragmatic reasons. Although there is a common rhyme for remembering which months have 30 and which months have 31 days, and the arrangement seems arbitrary, remembering which months have 30 and which have 31 days is easy if you know why.

Originally the calendar was much different. March was the first month of the year, which seems logical, having the year start in the Spring. However there had been some issues with the calendar and when the changes were decided, the new calendar was implemented the next month, which happened to be January. That is how December went from being the tenth month (the prefix "deci" implies ten) to the twelfth month. As the new calendar was set, March had 31 days followed by alternating 30 and 31 day months except for the last month of the year which only had 29 days.

It stayed that way until Augustus Caesar died. When Julius Cesar was killed, his successor, Augustus later had the month of his birth renamed in his honor, July. When Augustus died, the roman senate conferred a similar honor on him. However with only 30 days in August and 31 in July, it could be considered a smite to Augustus and his family. So August was lengthened by a day and that Day was taken from February which was already a short month. The months after August were adjusted as well to keep the 31/30 pattern.

Another artifact of history is the diagonal measurement of television screens. Previous readers of my writings will know that TV tubes started off as round bottles with the screen being imaged on the bottom of the bottle. The size of the screen was the inner diameter of the bottle. Later this became the diagonal measurement we have today.

Comparing diagonals does give the consumer a straightforward picture of the relative sizes of display screens when all displays have the same aspect ratio. Until now, it has either been 4:3 and since 2005, 16:9 for televisions. Vizio has recently introduced a Cinema-wide TV with a 21:9 aspect ratio. I read a review that attributed the new aspect ratio as something sinister on Vizio's part, trying to inflate the size of their screen. The article listed the square inches of the screen against the area of a 16:9 screen of the same diagonal.

The truth is, in a world where there multiple aspect ratios, the consumer will need two numbers to describe the screen size. This can be height and width or diagonal and aspect, which the company provides, actually it is what Vizio is promoting. Sometimes the press can go a bit overboard. Giving the diagonal was never intended to be misleading or confusing. As with the days of the month, it started as a way to simplify before other events made it more complex. The Cinema-wide set is a great innovation and will be great for the consumer.

Why an Apple TV Set Will be Good for the Market

Once cell phones moved beyond alpha-numeric displays to high information content displays, they very rapidly evolved from being just a device to make phone calls to an interactive link between the cell phone user and the world. TV sets were, by nature, high information content. Although there have been improvements in the image quality, there have been scant developments in TV usage models that are native to the set itself. All of the development has been in the form of attachments to the set, leaving it as just a display. A priori, I would have expected video cameras to have been built into TV sets before being included in notebook or cell phone platforms. Much of the reason for this is the extreme cost competitiveness in the TV business. It is difficult to charge for anything added to the platform as the business is a constant phyrric battle for marketshare. As I have noted elsewhere, for the first 40 years of color TV set sales in the US, the average price never moved from $400. The average size did not change much either. Consumers were taught to expect every innovation and every improvement for free. This changed in the conversion to HDTV, but average prices paid have been gradually inching their way back down to $400.

Part of the blame has to also go with the platform's orientation around traditional content providers. This orientation is the answer to the question asked by the Washington Post, "so who is killing TV Innovation?" Apple's entry will spark a round of genuine innovation. More importantly, Apple will most probably charge for their innovations rather than give them away for marketshare. Presumably, this will give cover to other brands to also start charging for their innovations.

Ahead of Apple's entry, the incumbents are stepping up their own innovations. The connected TV idea (again attachment focused) has given way to "Smart TV". Vizio has introduced its Cinema-Wide TVs with aspect ratios that match theatrical display. Although much of TV promotion is based on published specs, features that the consumer can see always have more impact than features the consumer only reads about. When not in use showing a cinema-scope movie the extra acreage on the side of the TV screen can be put to use providing interactive or control features. This is much the same concern prompting the preference for 16:10 vs 16:9 for computing devices. The extra screen area provides for control functions without cropping the 16:9 broadcast image.

The image above is a relief of a battle between the Roman and Germanic Armies.

A Bigger iPhone and a Smaller iPad

When the standard size for a notebook screen was 10.4”, I visited a PC maker that was planning to introduce a notebook with a 15” screen. The planned notebook was termed a “Resider”, too big to actually carry around. By the time 15” notebooks were introduced, bezels had gotten thinner and overall notebook technology had improved to the point where a 15” notebook could be carried around. However, the continued technological advance has indeed made the 15” class something of a resider. It is more and more likely that if you carry a computer around with you (other than your smart phone) it is a tablet with a significantly smaller screen. That screen will have many more pixels and much higher visual bandwidth than the 1990’s resider.

There is nothing magical about any particular screen size. It is a trade-off among the 3 dozen or so other factors by which a display will be measured. For mobile devices, cost, convenience, and battery life consumption are the main factors in the equation of which screen size is a result. As thinner and lighter notebooks allowed for bigger screens, thinner and lighter screens allow for bigger screens in smart phones. Improved resolution in screens allows for smaller screens with increased visual bandwidth in tablets.

The introduction of a bigger iPhone and smaller iPad, narrows the gap between smart phone and tablet devices ever so slightly. If rumors are to be believed, Apple initially rejected the idea of a sub 10” tablet due to the difficulty of inputting data (typing). That and the ability to conveniently be viewed by multiple viewers are the prime differences between a Tablet and smart phone today. As smart phones run into the resolution limit of the human eye, about 220 dpi for older folk, increasing the display size becomes necessary in order to run more visually complex apps and display advertising. However, although there is no magic barrier that determines what is a pocket sized device; smart phones are already quite large for most pockets.

In “The case for a flexible touch panel keyboard,” (published in Touch Panel, Sep 20, 2009), I make the case for a second, roll-out, screen for phones. The roll-out screen could serve as a keyboard or as the primary viewing device when there needs to be multiple viewers. Such a configuration would narrow the Tablet/Smartphone gap even further or eliminate it entirely. In other articles, I have argued that due to the increased cost, the market making application of OLED technology will be one that makes use of the technology’s physical flexibility. The scroll design will find some application long before it is needed to rescue the crew of an unfortunate Mars landing (reference the movie "Red Planet"). I expect that it will be a new form of the tablet rather than just as a display.

Norm

Short Reach Communications: Can we Talk?

Breaker-one-nine, short reach communications have been around for some time. They have also involved social networking, 10-4.

Introduction
As digital signage becomes more talented in recognizing the consumer, is displaying "push" advertising on the screen the best way to interact with viewers. As home viewers sit in front of their TVs with their cell phones, how long until the TV learns to interact through the cell phone as well.

Cell Phones

There are four radio receive functions on a smart phone (Cellular, WiFi, Blue Tooth, and GPS). In addition the phone has other sensors that can be used to receive data (microphone, camera, touch panel, and motion sensor). In some cases the data rates are low, but the tiniest amounts of data can be used to set up a WiFi connection. The popular app Bump uses the phone’s GPS (providing location) and motion sensor (providing a time-stamp and impact signature) to set up a WiFi connection between two phones that are "bumped" into each other.

Smart phones also have a variety of data output options. There are the three radio output protocols Cellular, WiFi, and Blue Tooth). There is also the speaker, the display, and the camera flash. The display and speaker are principally for output to people and the camera flash is not principally a communications device at all. However, as with Bump’s use of the motion sensor, co-opting these as digital communications devices is foreseeable. Both inputs and outputs can be characterized by their data rate, range, and security (or sometimes more appropriately, privacy).

In addition to these channels there are others that could be added to the smart phone platform. Near Field Communications (NFC) is an updated version of RFID. It now comes in the traditional static version (conveying a never-changing ID for either the phone or the user) as well as an active version that is a genuine data link. Infrared (IR) data transfer used to be on the palm-top computers and some phones, but has mostly been dropped from the phone. Tablets, however, commonly do have an IR port as, of course, do TVs and remote controls.

TV and Signage
Currently, the most common mode of input from a person to their TV is via the IR link between the TV and remote control. In digital signage, it is either through a touch panel or the person accessing a displayed QSR code, opting in for more information. As signage grows smarter, the consumer’s very face becomes a mode of input as the signage recognizes the person to some degree (age, gender, etc.) and crafts specific content for that person. However, push advertising can be intrusive, especially if it singles out an individual in a public place. Even if a consumer opts in to interact with a digital sign, how best should they signal that and over what channels should the link be established. The sign could just display the requested content. It could also communicate via the consumer’s smart phone, not necessarily though the cellular or WiFi connection.

With the consumer's home TV, most cable systems have "push button to obtain more information" function. Advertisers do not use QSR codes as most sit to far from the TV to read a QSR with their camera phones. There is also the same question as in digital signage, should the requested information be put on the main display or delivered to the cell phone.

Conclusion Displaying push, or even opt-in information on the main display may not always be appropriate or welcome for either digital signage or TV. The cell phone offers a convenience and multiplicity of channels to deliver custom information securely and privately. Though the home TV solution does not necessarily have to be the digital signage solution, Having the same interactions at home and out of home would have some benefit. Particularly for the digital signage industry, some though should be given as to how interactions should take place.

Norm