If you’re only going to do one thing then you better do it really well

Unfortunately, this is a lesson that Skype seems to be struggling with. Given that its primary function is messaging (instant, voice or video) I can’t understand how they do a worse job of it than some of their competitors who only do those things as extra features.

I’ve been a long-time user of Skype and there are situations where it is quite useful. Unfortunately, as an instant messaging platform it has gone downhill massively for me recently.

There have always been times when messages didn’t arrive for a while (sometimes days) and then all arrived at once. I don’t use the notifications on my phone because it’s not clever enough to understand when I’m already using my laptop and have seen a message, or am actively in a conversation and so pings every single time someone messages regardless.

There have always been some drawbacks, but for a good while it was one of the best messaging apps out there, so I persevered.

More recently, I’ve had a problem with the mobile version continually setting my status as “Available” even if I wanted my status set as “Invisible” – that’s a new bug which irritates the hell out of me, but more importantly, it is someone else’s product which has really made realise how bad a job Skype sometimes does.

I learned of the competing system because my family use Facebook chat and so eventually I relented and installed the Facebook chat app on my mobile – I was very pleasantly surprised. Messages are pretty much instant and while we were away recently I tried to do a voice call to a UK landline using Skype - it was so poor quality it was unusable. I immediately switched to Facebook chat and that worked perfectly and was lovely and clear.

Facebook chat also won’t ping my mobile if I’m using a browser to talk – I can also mute notifications for a specific conversation for period of time too – all really sensible and useful features.

Why is it then that Facebook – who only do a chat app as a secondary feature – can do a far better job of it than Skype? It’s a shame that Facebook chat isn’t really suited to a business environment – I just hope Skype pulls their finger out soon and catches up with the best in the market.

Simon on: The Internet of Things

According to one industry expert, the Internet of Things (IoT) is going to have a massive impact on the events industry as we know it.

So is this network of things embedded with electronics, sensors and connectivity exchanging data and interoperating within the Internet infrastructure really going to impact events anytime soon?

It’s very unlikely.

Currently the IoT is domestic as opposed to business. There are smart homes but when it comes to the office, there’s realistically not that much available.

It’s also of little interest to the events industry other than perhaps iBeacons, yet they are not online, so don’t really count as the IoT. Even then, organisers have to rely on an accompanying app which according to one study - only 8% to 12% of attendees typically download.

So without a huge percentage take up on apps, iBeacons not really being part of the IoT (even if they could be useful in the right environment), is the IoT really going to have a major impact on the events industry?

Right now I can’t see anything that offers real benefits to attendees. Don’t get carried away by commentators who don’t really know what they are on about.

Originally published in Conference News

Simon on: ITCM - Real-time voice translations make progress

Science fiction is once again influencing reality as Microsoft takes inspiration from Star Trek's Universal Translator.

The preview programme for Skype Translator allows English and Spansih speakers to have a conversation in real-time, in both audio and text.

Although context may prove to be problematic, the Skype Translator is a wonderful use of technology. There'll be obstacles, but even Star Trek didn't have it all figured out.

Read the whole article, featured on ITCM, by clicking here.

Simon on: App overload

App overload is now common because so many aren’t good enough so don’t get used or need updating so often we ditch them. Yet they’re still being hyped.

A recent example was a promotional video for an American convention centre: it was full of hype yet utterly pointless.

The app in question was just for the convention centre, so an attendee has to install that app AND the event app - a great route to failure.

Worse still, the app didn’t offer any real benefits. Sure, you can see a message pointing to a Starbucks a few metres away or watch augmented reality videos if you stop at a sign. The only useful feature was a local transport map which you could probably download easily from a website.

Technology should streamline everyday tasks, enhance activities or make something that was difficult, easy. It shouldn’t try to replace sensory functions like vision.

When it comes to conferences, forget the gimmicks. If you absolutely have to have an app, make sure it provides material that adds to the conference.

Originally published in Conference News