Wednesday, 20 August 2014

Lenovo N20p Chromebook review: An affordable dual-mode device

Lenovo's latest Chromebook functions as both a regular laptop and a stand-supported tablet. But what is it like to use in the real world?

When you think of a Chromebook, you typically think of a keyboard-centric laptop -- but Lenovo's hoping to shake up that mindset with some versatile new devices.

The company has come out with a couple of convertible Chromebooks that can act as both traditional laptops and touchscreen tablets. The first, the Lenovo N20p Chromebook, costs $330 and offers a 300-degree tilting display. The second, the ThinkPad Yoga 11e Chromebook, costs $479 and features a higher-quality screen that bends back a full 360 degrees.

I've been living with the N20p model to start with, and one thing's for sure: It offers a Chrome OS experience like no other.
Body, design and that tilting display

At first glance, Lenovo's N20p Chromebook looks like any run-of-the-mill laptop: The computer has a matte-plastic gray casing with Lenovo's logo and the Google Chrome logo at its top. Open the lid and you're greeted by an 11.6-in. screen and a chiclet-style Chrome OS keyboard.

In that mode, the N20p Chromebook is pleasant enough to use: It's one of the higher-quality devices in its class, with sturdy construction, a commendable keyboard and a smooth-feeling and responsive trackpad. If you press on the center of the lid, you do feel a little give -- almost a slight springiness -- but by and large, the N20p seems well-built and less flimsy than some of the cheaper options in its price range.

The N20p is comfortable to hold on your lap, too: The laptop is 11.6 x 8.3 x 0.7 in. and 2.9 lbs. -- slightly heavier than some of the less sturdy devices of its size but still quite light and easy to carry.

As with other touch-enabled Chromebooks, you have the ability to tap, scroll or zoom the N20p's screen with your fingers, which I find to be a surprisingly useful feature. It's even more interesting, though, when you push the N20p's display back beyond the standard stopping point -- past the flattened-out 180-degree mark and all the way around to its fully tilted stand mode.

In that mode, you actually end up with the keyboard upside-down -- in other words, with keys facing downward -- serving as a base. The keyboard is automatically disabled in that state, so you don't have to worry about accidental key presses. Instead, what you get is a tablet-like experience, complete with a virtual on-screen keyboard that appears when you need it.

Coupled with the N20p's touch input, this setup works incredibly well. It opens up a whole new range of uses for the device while still leaving its traditional operations in place.

I've been using the N20p Chromebook in its laptop mode for work, for instance, then flipping the screen around and shifting into stand mode when I want to do something less input-oriented and more browsing-based -- catching up on articles I've opened throughout the day, scrolling through my social media streams or watching videos with the device resting comfortably on my lap.

It's reached the point where shifting between the system's two modes feels effortless and natural to me, and I've really grown to appreciate having that option. Chrome OS itself isn't entirely optimized for touch, so certain things are still a little awkward -- like trying to tap the small "x" to close a tab with your finger, for example -- but all in all, the touch-centric stand experience is quite pleasant. You just have to think of it as a complement to the traditional laptop environment rather than a replacement for it.

When the N20p is in its stand mode, the user interface does change a bit: All windows appear maximized, while a button shows up in the bottom-right area of the screen that allows you to switch between opened windows using a graphical interface. (Those already familiar with Chromebooks will note that it's the same task-switching command also present on the top row of the regular Chrome OS keyboard.)

The on-screen keyboard works well enough, too, though if you're typing anything more than a few words, you'll almost certainly want to flip the system back around into its laptop mode for easier text input. Given the choice on any device, I think a full-size physical keyboard is always going to be preferable for heavy-duty typing.

Because the screen can be adjusted to any position while the N20p is in its stand mode, you can flip the laptop into a tent-like arrangement if you want -- or even onto its side for a vertically oriented portrait view. I haven't found a need to use either of those orientations, but the possibilities are there if you want them.

As for the display itself, it's the same 1366 x 768 TN panel found in most lower-end Chromebooks these days -- but even within those parameters, it's one of the better screens I've seen. It's glossy, bright and less grainy than the displays on many similarly priced systems. Viewing angles aren't great and it's no match for a higher-quality IPS display, but I've been able to use it for full days without being annoyed or feeling any significant eyestrain.

On the left edge of its frame, Lenovo's N20p Chromebook has a proprietary charging port along with a USB 3.0 port, a dedicated HDMI-out port and a 3.5mm headphone jack. The laptop's right edge, meanwhile, holds a USB 2.0 port and a physical power button -- something slightly different from most Chromebooks, where the power button exists on the keyboard.

The N20p Chromebook has two speakers on either side of its bottom surface. The speakers are pretty decent, with loud, clear and full-sounding audio. They're not the best you'll ever hear, but for this class of device, they're actually quite impressive.

Performance

So far so good, right? Unfortunately, there is one asterisk with Lenovo's N20p Chromebook -- and it's on the subject of performance.

The N20p Chromebook uses one of Intel's new Bay Trail processors -- the Intel Celeron N2830 -- along with 2GB of RAM. In real-world use, it feels like a meaningful step backward from the level of performance I've grown accustomed to seeing with the recent crop of Chrome OS devices, most of which are powered by Intel's speedier Haswell-based chips.

To see the difference between two Chrome OS devices that use Intel processors, I compared the N20p to an Asus Chromebox, with a Haswell-based Cerelon 2955U processor and 2GB of RAM. The N20p Chromebook was consistently slower at loading pages -- by as much as two to six seconds, depending on the site -- and just seemed significantly less zippy overall.

Cons: Low-resolution display with low-quality TN panel; performance not as good as that of other Chromebooks in its class

In fact, even without a side-by-side comparison, the N20p just doesn't feel terribly snappy. I noticed its limitations the most in situations where I had several browser tabs running; there, the device really seemed to struggle and reach levels of sluggishness I haven't experienced on Chrome OS in quite some time.

All things considered, I'd say this: If you're like most people and tend to keep only one or two tabs open at a time, the N20p should be fine for your needs. It's still a noticeable step down from the level of performance you'd get from other similarly priced or even less expensive systems -- which is disappointing, to say the least -- but for basic levels of use, it's acceptable enough and may be a worthwhile tradeoff for all of the device's positives. If you do any resource-intensive multitasking, however, you're going to find yourself frustrated by the relatively low performance ceiling.

Lenovo does offer a model of the N20p Chromebook with a slightly higher-end Bay Trail processor, the Intel Celeron N2930; that model is sold only via Lenovo's website and costs $20 more than the regular base model. While I haven't had an opportunity to test it firsthand, the promise of enhanced performance seems to make the extra $20 a worthwhile investment.

The N20p does do reasonably well in terms of battery life: The laptop is listed for eight hours of use per charge, which is pretty much in line with what I've gotten. As for storage, the device comes with 16GB of onboard space along with the option to expand with your own SD card.
Bottom line

Lenovo's N20p Chromebook offers a compelling experience that goes beyond what the typical Chromebook provides. The tilting display really is a nice touch that expands the device's potential and opens it up to new and interesting types of uses.

The system is held back, however, by lower than average performance -- something we'll probably be seeing more of as Intel's Bay Trail chips make their way into more Chrome OS devices. That's a factor you'll have to closely consider in determining whether the N20p Chromebook is right for you.

The N20p Chromebook is a standout device with lots of attractive qualities. For folks in the power-user camp, it's just a shame it's not available with the more robust internals that other similarly priced products provide.

Best Microsoft MCTS Certification, Microsoft MCITP Training at certkingdom.com


Saturday, 2 August 2014

In search of a social site that doesn't lie

Facebook and OKCupid experiment on users. So what's wrong with that?

Rudder's post described a few of the experiments that the dating website had carried out. In one, OKCupid told people that they would be good matches with certain other people even though the site's algorithms had determined that they would be bad matches. That's right: The company deliberately lied to its users. OKCupid wanted to see if people liked each other because they have the capacity to make up their own minds about who they like, or if they like each other because OKCupid tells them they should like each other.

(The controversial post was Rudder's first in several years; he had taken time off to write a book about experimenting on people. Due out next month, the book is called Dataclysm: Who We Are (When We Think No One's Looking).)

The OKCupid post was in part a response to controversy over a recently discovered Facebook experiment, the results of which were published in an academic journal. Facebook wanted to see if people would post more negative posts if their own News Feeds had more negative posts from their friends. In the experiment, Facebook removed some posts by family and friends because they were positive. The experiment involved deliberately making people sadder by censoring friends' more uplifting and positive posts.

Don't like this kind of manipulation? Here's Rudder's response: "Guess what, everybody: if you use the Internet, you're the subject of hundreds of experiments at any given time, on every site.

That's how websites work."


What's wrong here

Rudder's "everyone is doing it" rationalization for experimenting on users makes it clear that he doesn't understand the difference between what OKCupid and Facebook are doing, and what other sites that conduct A/B tests of different options are doing.

The difference is that OKCupid and Facebook are potentially changing, damaging or affecting the real relationships of real people. They are manipulating the happiness of people on purpose.

These companies might argue that this damage to the mood and relationships of people is small to the point of being inconsequential. But what makes them think it's OK to deliberately do any damage at all?

The other glaring problem with these social science experiments is that the subjects don't know they're participating.

Yes, I'm sure company lawyers can argue in court that the Terms of Service that everyone agreed to (but almost nobody read) gives OKCupid and Facebook the right to do everything they do. And I'm sure the sites believe that they're working so hard and investing so much to provide free services that users owe them big time, and that makes it all OK.

Imagine a splash screen that pops up each month on these sites that says: "Hi. Just wanted to make sure you're aware that we do experiments on people, and we might do experiments on you. We might lie to you, meddle in your relationships and make you feel bad, just to see what you'll do."

No, you can't imagine it. The reason is that the business models of sites like OKCupid and Facebook are based on the assumption of user ignorance.
Why OKCupid and Facebook think it's OK to mess with people's relationships

The OKCupid admission and the revelations about the Facebook research were shocking to the public because we weren't aware of the evolving mindset behind social websites. No doubt the OKCupid people and the Facebook people arrived at their coldly cynical view of users as lab rats via a long, evolutionary slippery slope.

Let's imagine the process with Facebook. Zuckerberg drops out of Harvard, moves to Silicon Valley, gets funded and starts building Facebook into a social network. Zuck and the guys want to make Facebook super appealing, but they notice a disconnect in human reason, a bias that is leading heavy Facebook users to be unhappy.

You see, people want to follow and share and post a lot, and Facebook wants users to be active. But when everybody posts a lot, the incoming streams are overwhelming, and that makes Facebook users unhappy. What to do?

The solution is to use software algorithms to selectively choose which posts to let through and which to hold back. But what criteria do you use?

Facebook's current algorithm, which is no longer called Edgerank (I guess if you get rid of the name, people won't talk about it), is the product of thousands of social experiments -- testing and tweaking and checking and refining until everyone is happy.

The result of those experiments is that Facebook changes your relationships. For example, let's say you follow 20 friends from high school. You feel confident that by following them -- and by them following you -- that you have a reliable social connection to these people that replaces phone calls, emails and other forms of communication.

Let's say you have a good friend named Brian who doesn't post a lot of personal stuff. And you have another friend, Sophia, who is someone you don't care about but who is very active and posts funny stuff every day. After a period of several months during which you barely interact with Brian but occasionally like and comment on Sophia's posts, Facebook decides to cut Brian's posts out of your News Feed while maintaining the steady stream of Sophia posts. Facebook boldly ends your relationship with Brian, someone you care about. When Brian posts an emotional item about the birth of his child, you don't see it because Facebook has eliminated your connection to Brian.

And don't get me started on OKCupid's algorithms and how they could affect the outcome of people's lives.

Not only do both companies experiment all the time; their experiments make huge changes to users' relationships.

The real danger with these experiments
You might think that the real problem is that social networks that lie to people, manipulate their relationships and regularly perform experiments on their users are succeeding. For example, when Facebook issued its financial report last month, it said revenue rose 61% to $2.91 billion, up from $1.81 billion in the same quarter a year ago. The company's stock soared after the report came out.

Twitter, which is currently a straightforward, honest, nonmanipulative social network, has apparently seen the error of its ways and is seriously considering the Facebook path to financial success. Twitter CEO Dick Costolo said in an interview this week that he "wouldn't rule out any kind of experiment we might be running there around algorithmically curated experiences or otherwise."

No, the real problem is that OKCupid and Facebook may take action based on the results of their research. In both cases, the companies say they're experimenting in order to improve their service.

In the case of OKCupid, the company found that connecting people who are incompatible ends up working out better than it thought. So based on that result, in the future it may match up more people it has identified as incompatible.

In the case of Facebook, it did find that mood is contagious. So maybe it will "improve" Facebook in the future to build in a bias for positive, happy posts in order to make users happier with Facebook than they are with networks that don't filter based on positivity.

What's the solution?

While Twitter may follow Facebook down the rabbit hole of user manipulation, there is a category of "social network" where what you see is what you get -- namely, messaging apps.

When you send a message via, say, WhatsApp or Snapchat or any of the dozens of new apps that have emerged recently, the other person gets it. WhatsApp and Snapchat don't have algorithms that choose to not deliver most of your messages. They don't try to make you happy or sad or connect you with incompatible people to see what happens. They just deliver your communication.

I suspect that's one of the reasons younger users are increasingly embracing these alternatives to the big social networks. They're straightforward and honest and do what they appear to do, rather than manipulating everything behind the scenes.

Still, I'd love to see at least one major social site embrace honesty and respect for users as a core principle. That would mean no lying to users, no doing experiments on them without their clear knowledge, and delivering by default all of the posts of the people they follow.

In other words, I'd love to see the founders of social sites write blog posts that brag: "We DON'T experiment on human beings."

Wouldn't that be nice?

Best Microsoft MCTS Certification, Microsoft MCITP Training at certkingdom.com