Perseverance leaves for Mars

Ready to go
Merritt Island, FL
July 2020
This screen grab originally shared on Instagram

Some days are more historic than others, and today is one of those days.

I woke up early to watch a nuclear-powered rover - @MARSPersevere - leave Earth for the final time and point itself toward Mars. We've done this before: Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, Curiosity. But it never gets old, and each mission goes that much further than those that came before it.

I've written before about why space exploration matters perhaps more back home than it does out there. And this is probably more true now than at any time in history. When the planet runs into turbulence, we look for inspiring achievements to remind us of the best in humanity. That we're more than what we scroll past in our Facebook feeds, and better than what we see on the evening news.

So we watch the best of the best in the scientific community do their thing and send robotic emissaries to other worlds. And we hope their devotion to advancing the state of the human race somehow rubs off on the rest of us.

#Mars2020 #CountdownToMars #Mars #NASA #Perseverance

#TwitterHack: Planet Earth shudders.

No, Jeff didn't post this
London, ON
July 2020
This photo originally shared on Instagram

So Twitter got hacked yesterday - in quite likely the worst possible way.

This isn't a run-of-the-mill security event - Bill Gates and Barack Obama didn't simply forget to stop using the dog's name as their password - and the implications for all of us digital citizens are more than a little grim.

This is keep-you-up-at-night cybersecurity stuff, and it involves a sophisticated social engineering-type attack targeting the weak-willed squishy bits - Twitter employees - with access to hugely powerful administrative tools.

In the middle of a pandemic, it may seem difficult for us to recognize that this, too, represents a clear and present danger to our digital health. But we can't afford to drop the cybersecurity ball, either, even if Twitter seems to have lost the script.

For the record, this is me. I haven't been hacked. At least I THINK I haven't.

Sigh.

#twitter #twitterhack #bitcoin #breach #cybersecurity #security #datasecurity

Related:

CTV News Channel interview (via YouTube)

CTV News interview (via CTV Winnipeg Facebook)

CTV News story (with video)

Global News 980 CFPL radio interview with Mike Stubbs (via Apple Podcasts)

Newstalk 610 CKTB radio interview with Shelby Knox (via iHeartRadio)

Russian hackers target Canada

The news cycle has a funny way of rewriting my schedule. This one's a doozy.

I got an email yesterday from the news team at CTV Toronto. They were working on an exclusive story and wanted my take. The FBI and Department of Homeland Security in the U.S. had released a big list of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that they suspected of having been used by Russian hackers in their attempts to break into systems owned by the Democratic National Committee. The story has been swirling for months that state-sponsored Russian hackers had been trying to influence the outcome of the U.S. presidential election by engaging in cybercrime against electoral targets. (And, no, despite what Donald Trump says, we can't simply "go on with our lives." This stuff is important, and we're all at risk if we simply do nothing.)

The list released by the FBI/DHS contained some 900 so-called malicious IP addresses that were allegedly targeted by the hackers. Six of those IP addresses were traced to Canada. One of them was traced to HydroOne, the huge electric utility that serves the province of Ontario. Ruh roh!

What's the deal with IP addresses, anyway? Each IP address typically corresponds to a unique Internet-connected device, like a laptop, a server, or possibly even an Internet-connected smart device. Every Internet-connected device has a unique IP address, and everything we do online has that IP address attached to it. Send an e-mail, and that IP address is included in the package. Tweet someone? Post a Facebook status update? All of these activities have an IP address embedded in them, and assuming you know where to look, you can easily track the activity right back to its source.

Except hackers don't much like having their activities traced back to them. So instead of using their OWN computers to launch attacks, they hunt around online looking for devices and computers with weak security. And when they find them, they install malware on them that lets them remotely take over the machine - often without the owner's knowledge. Are you a victim? Well, if you don't use updated security software, are always clicking on unknown links from friends and strangers alike in Facebook, use the same easy-to-guess password on multiple systems and haven't changed your passwords in ages, there's a reasonable chance that your computer has at least some malware on it.

The good news: it doesn't look like the Russian hackers were directly targeting the electric utility, and they weren't trying to break into any nuclear generating stations, either (Good...I'll cancel that earlier ruh roh.) Rather, they were targeting weak systems with malware that would then give them a jumping-off point for further attacks - and would make it difficult for those attacks to be traced back to their original source. It's classic hacker methodology: Probe into vulnerable systems, implant malicious code on them, then springboard from there. Sometimes these victimized networks are called "zombie nets", and we often see them used in those big Distributed Denial of Service attacks.

The bad news: Hydro One's security protocols are woefully inadequate if they allow one of their systems - it could be a laptop, a server or some other computing device - to be compromised in this way. Just like you and I have to keep our security software updated and can't click on every link we see in Facebook lest we get our machines infected with malware, likewise Hydro One failed to ensure its own systems were similarly protected. Someone's got some 'splaining to do. And the fact that Hydro One is among those victimized reinforces to us yet again that no one, and nothing, is safe.

As you can imagine, thanks to some faceless Russians and an apparently asleep-at-the-switch electric utility employee, I've been a bit busy on the media front explaining this one.

CTV National News led with the story, and my clip was included at the top of the show (link here), and in Senior Political Correspondent Glen McGregor's report (link here). CTV Toronto's Paul Bliss broke the story in Toronto, and his report is here. The main story on CTVnews.ca is here:
Exclusive: IP address at Ontario power utility linked to alleged Russian hacking

I spoke live with CTV News Channel's Scott Laurie last night, and am scheduled for another hit with the network this morning at 9 ET. I spoke with Newstalk 1010's John Moore at 5:47 and am live again with CKTB Niagara's Tim Denis at 6:50. I expect more of the same as the fallout from this highly disturbing chapter in digital vulnerability to continue to ripple out.

It makes for early mornings, late nights and long days in between, but it's quite the experience to be right in the middle of the media storms like this one - and to be the guy who tries to sort it all out.

Are you carrying a bomb in your pocket?

Just over 10 years ago, I went on my first media adventure when, as an analyst, I found myself in the middle of Dell's exploding laptop debacle. Although by then I had been getting quoted in trade publications for a couple of years, this was the first story that leaped out of the tech press and landed smack in the middle of mainstream media. CBS News picked the story up, and my name ended up in all sorts of crazy places.

Fast-forward to today and it's time for another media frenzy involving exploding and flaming hardware. Except this time it isn't Dell. It's Samsung. The company is recalling all of its Galaxy Note 7 smartphones because a small number of them could potentially ignite under certain circumstances. The company has received reports of 35 fires related to a flaw in the unit's lithium-ion battery. Because it can't track down precisely which devices are affected, it's issued a global recall notice.

It's an unprecedented move that couldn't have come at a worse time for Samsung. The company had just begun to turn things around this year after a few years of challenged revenue and profitability. The Galaxy Note 7 is its new flagship model. It was introduced only two weeks ago, and there's a lot riding on its success. Although Samsung is the world's largest smartphone maker, Apple continues to squeeze far more profit out of each iPhone sold. The smaller Galaxy S7 and S7 Edge, released earlier this year, had begun to turn the tide and the company's profits and revenues had improved last quarter. This recall could put an end to the turnaround. And as Apple prepares to launch its next-generation iPhones next Wednesday, Samsung's stumble puts it at a distinct disadvantage.

As you can imagine, media interest in this has been intense. Here's a rundown of who I've spoken to so far today:

Newstalk 1010 Toronto - John Moore
Newstalk 1290 London - Lisa Brandt & Ken Eastwood
AM1150 Kelowna - Phil Johnson
CTV News Channel - Marcia MacMillan
CTV News Channel - Beverly Thomson
Newstalk 1290 London - Al Coombs

CTV News also posted this piece: 'Almost like little bombs': Why do lithium-ion batteries explode?, byline Daniel Otis

So what do you do if you have a Samsung Galaxy Note 7? Get in touch with the folks you bought it from - visit the store or go online - to find out if your unit is one of the units with a defective battery. Samsung is preparing replacement units for customers, and says it will take approximately two weeks to get everything in place.

In the meantime, carefully watch where you charge it - on a hard surface, with no other materials anywhere near the unit - and monitor the phone as it charges to ensure it doesn't overheat. Do not leave them unattended, and pull the plug if the device, the cable or the charger become too warm.

Even if you use another brand of phone, follow these guidelines to ensure you don't become a fiery statistic. Don't assume that Samsung is the only company whose phones may have issues with hot and/or exploding batteries. It's an industry-wide issue (even Apple's Macs once had, um, issues.) The lithium-ion batteries at the core of virtually every mobile device sold today are, in effect, little packages of highly combustible chemicals. Defects in manufacturing, software or damage to the units themselves can quickly result in something known as a runaway thermal event - aka fire, explosion or both.

It's another example of just how unpredictable the tech world can be, and how careful consumers need to be about what they buy, and how they care for it once they're using it every day. Batteries are not to be trifled with, and now we have another, highly visible example.

Microsoft's $26.2b LinkedIn gamble: I'm not impressed

The tech world was buzzing this morning with news that Microsoft had made a $26.2 billion U.S. offer to buy LinkedIn. The move seems to position Microsoft to make inroads in the fast-moving enterprise social market - think Facebook, only for businesspeople - but I'm not entirely convinced that this is a smart move.

Lots of reasons why I'm not drinking the megadeal Kool Aid. First and foremost, Microsoft has a history of writing large cheques on splashy acquisitions, most of which either never go anywhere (Skype) or quite literally crash and burn (Nokia, aQuantive).

While acquisitions can be an effective means of establishing presence in fast-evolving tech sub-sectors like enterprise social (it's faster to buy an existing, substantive and successful player than it is to develop the technology and eminence on your own), the cultural challenges of integrating a player like LinkedIn into its day-to-day operations and strategic vision are monumental, and Microsoft wouldn't be the only tech titan to run into headwinds on the integration front.

LinkedIn's more recent difficulties with flatlined user and revenue growth, which decimated its share price prior to today's announcement, reinforce the belief that Microsoft is paying a serious premium for a second-rate target. It's hard to see where the $26.2 billion U.S. in differential future value is going to come from - or why Microsoft felt compelled to offer such a massive premium for LinkedIn when no one else was apparently ready to make a similar deal.

We're 13 years into LinkedIn's history, and a similar amount of time into the social and enterprise social timelines. The company and the enterprise social media sub-sector are closer to middle-age than anything else, and you'd think the offer size would reflect the fact that this company's and its market's best days may no longer be ahead, but behind.

So, yes, I'm a bit cynical. But I'm hardly alone: Microsoft shareholders pushed its stock price down following the announcement this morning.

I discussed my concerns with BNN's Michael Hainsworth in a live interview earlier today. Here's the link.

Your turn: Do you use LinkedIn? If so, why? If not, why not?

The Panama Papers - The 6 things you must know

Aaaand we're back....

I've been rather silent of late - probably the longest interval between blog entries in, well, ever. I'm not entirely sure why I lost my muse for a bit, but I can reaffirm that I didn't much enjoy it. My fingers feel best when they're massaging an Apple keyboard, or exploring the controls of my Nikon, or holding the bar ends of my oh-so-pink Specialized wonderbike deep in a turn as I pound the pedals and accelerate toward the next curve. So tonight it's the Apple keyboard's turn, and it feels good. Let's do this, shall we?

Disclosure: I have a day job that allows me to wander into radio and television studios and talk about geeky things. Sometimes I even get woken up early to talk about geeky things from the darkened comfort of my home. Hopefully the dog remains asleep when that happens, but there are unfortunately no apps that can mute the sound of an excited schnauzer at 6 a.m. Or any other time, for that matter.

Once upon a time, the geeky things in my geeky world were separate and distinct from the decidedly non-geeky things that make the top of the evening newscasts. Those days are apparently over, as technology is increasingly woven into the very fabric of the everyday stories that make the mainstream news. Geek news is no longer the exclusive domain of geeks, and every story, whether we like it or not, always seems to have a geeky dimension that matters in some way to the average folks who lead average lives. Pocket protectors no longer define "tech".

Which explains why I got called yesterday* to explain the tech dimensions of the rapidly unfolding Panama Papers story, why I spent a good chunk of today talking about it, and why it'll probably dominate my analyst's agenda for some time to come. As I often do when I'm asked to weigh in on a story, I like to pull together some rough notes that I then share with the producers and hosts I work with. It gives them insight into how I dissect a story, and gives us a roadmap for the interview. Here's what I jotted down for this one:

The short-story version is this isn't just something that affects the rich and famous. We must all worry about it, too, because even little people like us are generating lots of data that someone will find valuable.

The list of people involved is huge - and I have a feeling it'll ripple out even further by the time additional analysis is done - and released - on the full 11-plus-million pages of leaked information. The list includes Iceland's Prime Minister, Sigmundur Davíð Gunnlaugsson, Pakistan's PM, Nawaz Sharif, Ayad Allawi, ex-interim PM and former VP of Iraq, Ukraine president Petro Poroshenko, Argentine President Mauricio Macri (who had campaigned against corruption), Alaa Mubarak, son of Egypt’s former president, and even actor Jackie Chan.

Beyond the names themselves is how easily even the most routine of fiscal transactions can be tracked and ultimately shared publicly. All it takes is a leak here, a leak there and before you know it your entire financial history can be laid bare for all to see.

The Wikileaks/Edward Snowden leaks should have been our biggest clue that anyone and everyone can fall victim. This time it's a who's who of political and business people whose private affairs are on display. But what it it's one of us? What stops an angry ex-spouse, business partner or employee from digging around and surfacing similar data on us?

We're inadvertently laying the foundation for something just like this to happen to us, everything we do is now stored, saved and tracked. And we aren't asking questions about what's being done to keep all of that information - OUR information - safe and secure.

Scary times, and our blase attitude toward information security isn't doing us any favors. In the meantime, here's a quick Q&A as reference/background:

Q1 - This is being called an "unprecedented" leak of millions of documents from the database of Mossack Fonseca, the world’s fourth biggest offshore law firm. How does a breach of this magnitude even happen?
A1 - We can talk about how even the most seemingly secure data can be quickly and quietly stolen thanks to staggeringly obvious gaps in internal security. I could easily walk into an office with a USB drive and walk out, undetected, with tons and tons of unencrypted, damning data. What I do with it afterward is anyone's guess.

Q2 - So it's Vladimir Putin. What does a data breach scandal involving one of the world's most notorious politicians have to do with you and me?
A2 - We can talk about how even ordinary citizens can be victimized. Our data is being gathered and stored everywhere - banks, retailers, governments, tech companies - and we're all one breach away from being exposed. There is no such thing as "below the radar" anymore. Everyone's data is valuable to someone, and we're all at risk. You don't have to be an oligarch and one-time communist spy to become a victim. We should all be worried.

Q3 - How hard can it be to connect the dots between millions of documents? Who has the time to analyze all of this and build a damning case against us?
A3 - Not that long ago, it would have taken years of grinding, extensive, complex analysts to paint a picture. Now, increasingly sophisticated, automated analysis and search tools - something like Google for Forensic Analysis - make short work of looking at a giant blob of data and telling a fascinating, potentially damaging story. With a USB drive in one hand and the right app in the other, even a semi-skilled hacker could easily go to town on pretty much anyone he/she wants.

Q4 - Are the risks getting worse?
A4 - Yes. Think of how much more we rely on apps, systems, web/cloud services today compared to just a few years ago. Think about the Internet of Things, and how the amount of data being collected from our day-to-day lives will increase exponentially and even logarithmically over the next few years. That data - our data - is valuable. And more of our data is being stored and exposed with each passing day.

Q5 - Can we protect ourselves?
A5 - We can. But it takes diligence and attention. Some tips:

• a) Don't overshare. Don't grant access carte-blanche. Question companies/apps/services that request blanket accesses to your information, and be prepared to delete apps or close services when you think they're overreaching.
• b) Encrypt everything. Virtually every device, app and service now offers enhanced security via end-to-end encryption. Go into the settings and turn it on. Also use dual/multi-factor authentication whenever possible (i.e. add fingerprint/voice/swipe/etc. authentication to existing password-based access methods. Two locks on a door are better than one.
• c) Be password-smart. Use hard-to-guess passwords, change them regularly and use different ones for different apps and services. Never share them.
• d) Clean up old devices, apps and accounts. Don't leave old data hanging around. Take deliberate steps to ensure it isn't easily harvested by criminals. Properly dispose of old hardware, too.
• e) Review data security policies. This applies at work as well as with any company you do business with. They should all have data usage and terms of use policies on-file. If they aren't safeguarding your information, ask why and be prepared to go elsewhere if you're concerned.  
• f) Google yourself. Every once in a while, go online and do basic searches for yourself to see what's out there - and whether or not that makes you nervous. 

Your turn: What else do you want to know about the Panama Papers? It's going to be burning hot all week, so have at it. I'm all ears...

--
ICYMI, here's a rundown of who' I've spoken with so far:

• CTV News Channel, Scott Laurie, weekly Clicked In segment
• NewsTalk 1010 Toronto, John Moore
• NewsTalk 1290 London, Andy Oudman (we'll explore more on our weekly Tech Talk segment tomorrow)
• CTV London, Gerry Dewan (video here, just over 11:00 in)
• 610 CKTB Niagara, Larry Fedoruk (podcast/audio here)
• NewsTalk 1010 Toronto, David Eddie
• CFRA Ottawa (my weekly Tech Tuesday segment with Rob Snow - MP3 here)

(And, yes, I get a little thrill every time my producers play Van Halen's Panama just before an interview. I'm strange like that.)

Error 53, and why Apple isn't getting a Christmas card this year

Another day, another Big Tech Company behaving badly. Come along for the ride, shall we?

Who this affects: Owners of relatively recent Apple iPhones and iPads that have the Touch ID fingerprint scanner/home button (iPhone 5s and newer, and iPad Air 2 and Mini 3 and newer.)

The problem: If you've broken your screen and had it repaired by a non-authorized repair shop, you'll want to pay attention. If the Touch ID component - which is part of the screen assembly - is not an Apple-authorized part, then the device will lock up with something called at Error 53 when it is later upgraded to iOS9. That's because iOS9 checks all the hardware, and if the Touch ID module isn't recognized, it deliberately locks the device as a security measure.

The real problem: Error 53 basically "bricks" the device, turning it into a very expensive - and useless - doorstopper. Data and apps are lost, and it cannot be recovered or reset. Users must buy a new device.

What it means: While Apple claims its policy is aimed at maximizing the security of its products - it essentially wants to make it difficult-to-impossible for the Touch ID sensor to be replaced by something less secure, that might allow hackers to gain access to the device - the cynic in me sees this as a huge cash grab.

The net effect will be to, ah, encourage iPhone and iPad owners to seek repairs from the Apple Store or similarly authorized repair outlets - which is more expensive and not always convenient or even possible for customers who live away from major urban centres.

It's as if Toyota, GM and Honda decided to "encourage" owners to bring their cars ONLY to the dealer by threatening to leave them stranded permanently by the side of the road with a destroyed engine if they dared get their oil changed by the friendly neighborhood mechanic. That kind of consumerist bullying wouldn't stand in the automotive industry, and it shouldn't stand here, either.

The issue has caused thousands of devices to be essentially destroyed - admittedly a relatively small number considering Apple sold 75 million iPhones last quarter. But already lawyers in the U.S. and the UK are gearing up to launch class action lawsuits against Apple.

In the meantime, if you have a relatively new iPhone or iPad and your screen breaks, be very careful about where you bring it to be fixed. Although it'll probably cost you more for an off-warranty repair, stick to an Apple Store or an Apple-authorized retailer or repair outlet, just to be safe. If you've already had your device repaired, you may want to hold off on upgrading to iOS9 until this whole mess is cleaned up.

Your turn: Does this tick you off as much as it ticks me off?

Here's why you must share your passwords before you die

You've got to feel for Peggy Bush. The 72-year-old Victoria, B.C. resident lost her husband, David, to lung cancer last August. The couple owned an iPad, and she continued to use it after his death to play games.

She ran into problems after the app stopped working, and she tried to reinstall it. While she knew the four-digit PIN used to unlock the device, she was unable to log into her late husband's Apple ID - and you need the Apple ID in order to install or update software on the tablet. Without it, you've got a very expensive doorstopper.

Apple asked for a death certificate, along with her late husband's will - in which he left everything to her. After she provided these to the company, Apple balked, and insisted she also provide a court order before they'd let her into the account.

While Apple's terms of use are pretty clear - users "agree that your Account is non-transferable and that any rights to your Apple ID or Content within your Account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate your Account may be terminated and all Content within your Account deleted" - the company has granted access to surviving family members in past cases, including relatives of a U.S. Marine killed in Iraq in 2004 who won a court case to regain access to his account.

After the issue spilled into mainstream and social media last week, Apple backed down and allowed her to reset the password and access the account - no court order required.

The bottom line: The issue of so-called "digital legacy" (what happens to our digital accounts after we die) is only going to become more mainstream as we shift more of our lives online. Facebook was ahead of the curve when it instituted "Memorialized" accounts last year, along with specific rules and processes for family members/loved ones to follow in case someone died without leaving express instructions in advance. Those kinds of frameworks would have saved folks like Peggy Bush a lot of trouble and heartache.

But framework or no framework, this case serves as a reminder to us all that it's high time we have certain conversations with our loved ones about how our digital assets are to be handled after we're gone. No one ever wants to talk about stuff like this, but we need to, now more than ever.

The one thing you must know before upgrading your phone's operating system

Upgrades to mobile phone operating systems - Apple's iOS, Google's Android, etc. - often promise exciting new features on existing hardware. And they're free, so millions of users dive in as soon as the downloads become available.

We all love the sound of free, after all, don't we?

The reality is often anything but pleasant, as older, weaker hardware frequently bogs down under the weight of the new software. And now, a $5 million class action lawsuit against Apple says it knowingly crippled users of its older iPhone 4S models with the most recent iOS9 upgrade.

The lawsuit, launched by Chaim Lerman, accuses Apple of engaging in deceptive trade practices and false advertisement by claiming iOS 9 was compatible with older phones, including the iPhone 4S.

Unfortunately for iPhone 4S owners, reality was a lot crappier: After they upgraded, their phones froze, crashed and generally failed to perform properly. The lawsuit says Apple knew this would happen, but still marketed the OS as being better - faster, more feature-filled - on older hardware.

To make a bad situation worse, once you upgrade, you can't downgrade. So owners were stuck: Either keep using their now-crippled devices or trek to the Apple Store and buy a new one.

Will this have much of an impact? Likely not. It's a small dollar amount for the world's most valuable tech company, and a similar lawsuit a few years ago went nowhere,

But it serves as fair warning to smartphone (and, let's be realistic, tablet) owners: The next time a new free operating system upgrade becomes available, think twice about upgrading if your device is more than a couple of years old.

You know, that old flip phone is looking better and better with each passing day.

Heads up: New-and-improved Wi-Fi is on the way

For years, Bluetooth has been the technology of choice for low-power, short-range (i.e. a few feet) wireless communications, while Wi-Fi has been the preferred wireless technology for connecting devices within your home or office.

Well, thanks to the Internet of Things, which will require lots and lots of wireless connections between small-ish appliances, outlets and wearables, a new better-than-Bluetooth standard is required.

The Wi-Fi Alliance, the global body which is responsible for determining connectivity standards that ensure everything can talk to everything else, has approved something it calls 802.11 HaLow (pronounced like "halo" - such cleverness! The technology, which is an extension to the upcoming 802.11ah standard, was announced at last week's CES in Las Vegas.

Unlike current Wi-Fi devices that operate in the 2.4Ghz and 5GHz bands, HaLow devices will use the 900MHz band. The benefit: much lower power consumption, double the range, and it works far better through walls and other obstacles.

Why not use existing Wi-Fi? Because the current standards (b, g, n, ac, et al) would burn the battery on always-on, sensor-rich, always-connected devices like intelligent door locks, smart bulbs and appliances. The group says HaLow "will enable a variety of new power-efficient use cases in the smart home, connected car ... as well as industrial, retail, agriculture and smart city environments."

It's a direct competitor to low-power versions of Bluetooth, so expect a bit of a VHS vs. Beta-like battle for inclusion on your next fitness tracker wristband or smart door lock.

Either way, expect new devices sporting the updated standard to hit the market in 2018. Which gives us three years to buy a new router and adjust to the realities of wireless sports bras, connected coffee mugs and intelligent toasters. I'm not sure I'm ready for my toaster to be intelligent, but perhaps that's an issue for another day.

Death by iPad: Watch out for In-app purchases

Like many 7-year-olds in the U.K - and presumably elsewhere - Faisall Shugaa, likes to play games on his dad's iPad. Unlike most kids his age, he ran up an almost-$6,000 bill over five days in December playing the Jurassic World game.

All together now: Ruh roh!

While the game itself is free, it uses in-app purchases to allow players to upgrade their characters and buy virtual goods. Before his father knew what had happened, there was a huge bill waiting for him on his credit card. He had provided the four-digit passcode to allow his son to use his device, and his son had also memorized his dad's Apple ID login information. Pretty precocious for a 7-year-old, don't you think?

The story has a happy ending: his father, Mohamed, complained to Apple, and they've refunded the money.

That aside, this is only the latest in a long line of similar stories. In-app purchases have long put parents' credit cards at risk when they hand their mobile devices over to their kids, and despite moves by Apple and Google to tighten things up a bit, we still have cases like this.

It's easy to blame the technology - and let's be clear, in-app purchases are the work of the devil, the Borg, and Donald Trump working in concert - but accountability ultimately lies with parents who increasingly see these devices as convenient babysitters. They naively ignore the risk of in-app purchases, and they fail to keep a lid on their kids' online activities. They can easily enable parental controls and limit connectivity, but many parents simply can't be bothered.

This is something to keep in mind as other free-to-play games like Clash of Clans, Boom Beach and Mobile Strike (starring none other than Arnold Schwarzenegger blindly punching the daylights out of a smartphone screen) launch big budget marketing campaigns to get you to play. They make their money via in-app purchases, so the best bet is to not take the bait in the first place.

Online as in life, there's no such thing as free.

Is this the dumbest cop story ever?

Sometimes a tech-related story comes along that just makes you shake your head. This is one of them. Here's the lowdown:

A high-ranking police officer in Montreal attends a party over the holidays. In his unmarked cruiser parked on the street outside, he leaves a bag containing a bunch of stuff, including a USB flash drive containing detailed information - names, home addresses, the works - on undercover police officers and informants.

You know where this is headed, don't you? Of course you do!

Sometime overnight, someone breaks into the car and steals the bag. As you can imagine, the drive is gone. We can safely assume the data on it wasn't encrypted, and we can safely assume someone's copying it onto a Dark Web server as we speak.

It took this long for the story to come to light because I'm convinced the police force was mortified that it happened in the first place. Oh, the lawsuits that are going to fly from this one.

I spoke with my colleagues at CJAD Montreal and they filed this story. I may have used a profane word or two when discussing it on the phone, as there's no excuse for this, especially from a cop who really ought to know better.

Unreal.

The sad case of the hoverboarding priest

More techie goodness from my geeky world. I talked about this on last week's Clicked In segment on CTV News Channel* and thought it would be fun to share here, as well:

Pity the hoverboard. Not only is it not a true hoverboard (unlike Marty McFly's board from Back to the Future II, it has wheels, and most definitely does not hover) but it's been getting a lot of negative publicity lately. Exploding batteries, airline bans, injuries and legal run-ins. It's ugly all around.

Now, the ultimate insult to injury. Over the holiday period, a priest in the Philippines decided to use a hoverboard during Christmas Eve Midnight Mass. To no one's surprise, the video of him cruising up and down the aisles of his church during the service went viral.

Unfortunately, Internet fame doesn't always mean a happy ending. His bosses, apparently, were not amused. The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Pablo, in a Facebook post, no less, ripped him a new one for using the hoverboard in what they call an inappropriate manner: 

Then they suspended him from his post to give him the time to reflect on his mistake. He's since apparently acknowledged the error of his ways, and promises it'll never happen again.

I'm guessing Google Glasses and prayer apps are also out of the question at this particular church. Which is something of a bummer, because innovative use of technology as an engagement tool could be an effective means of turning around sagging membership and boosting participation numbers. Maybe I'm too much of a religious heathen for my own good, but you'd think church leaders wrestling with falling attendance and shuttered buildings might want to rethink how they plan to appeal to the next generation of congregants, namely folks who were raised on smartphones, apps and, yes, hoverboards.

The key is balancing the tech with the traditional: Not always easy to do, as we can see here, but if I ever had the opportunity to meet him, I'd still high-five the priest for trying.

Your turn: Does a hoverboard - or an app, or a picoprojector or similar piece of technology - belong in a church, synagogue, mosque or other place or worship? Is tech disrespectful to religion, a critical marketing tool to drive future growth, or something in between?

* Every Sunday at 8:20pm Eastern, I chat about two or three of the most notable tech stories from the past week with Scott Laurie on CTV News Channel. If you're in Canada, hope you can tune in. If not, I'll post links to the video as they become available.

Twitter prepares to remove its 140-character limit

Another day, another editorial note: I write lots of stuff. Analyses, mostly, as prep for my on-air work. I often call them talking points, and I typically share them with my producers when we're preparing for an upcoming interview. While nothing I do on radio or TV is scripted, by preparing overviews in writing, it helps me wrap my head around a topic, it gets the entire team on the same page, and it makes for what I think is a better interview.

At least I hope it does.

Over the weekend, I found myself reading over some of the talking point packages I've pulled together recently, and I realized they stand rather nicely on their own as somewhat nerdy-sounding blog entries. So in the interest of taking some of the research and analysis that I do day-to-day and making it more accessible, I'm going to share sharing more of these here, as well.

The first one is a closer look at Twitter's plans to remove its 140-character limit, which I wrote in advance of a CTV News Channel interview with Marcia MacMillan that aired this morning (video link here.) Looking forward to your feedback.

The issue

The influential tech website, Re/Code, published a report Tuesday that quoted multiple reliable sources as saying Twitter is working on a feature that will allow users to bypass the 140-character limit that has applied to tweets since the microblogging service’s launch in 2006.

The feature will reportedly go live before the end of Q1 2016.

This isn’t the first we’ve heard of this

Re/Code first reported on this last September. This week’s update narrows down the timeline and provides additional details on what to expect.

The rationale

While Twitter is widely considered to be the heartbeat of the Internet, the resource used by digerati to connect Right Now when major news is happening - or when they simply want to reach out to a broader audience - it has struggled to grow its audience beyond the core of tech-, media- and culture-savvy users.

In October, the company reported it had 320 million monthly active users (MAUs), up only 1% over the previous quarter. In contrast, Facebook has 1.55 billion MAUs and continues to grow at a consistent rate.

The impact

As concerns over sustained growth mount, investors have hammered the company’s shares, which continue to trade at historic lows - under $22 at close Monday, less than a third of its all-time high. In social media, growth is life, and a stagnant user base is a massive red flag. Like a rocket, it either accelerates rapidly or it risks crashing to Earth.

Coupled with stubbornly high costs - it costs a lot of money to run a global-scale real-time multiplatform utility - and challenging revenue and profit growth, the company doesn’t have the dollars to fund continued innovation in new/expanded services.

Twitter laid off 8% of its staff last year - its first ever - and it’s entirely likely there will be more bloodletting if things don’t improve.

What Twitter needs to do?

Unless it figures out how to spark renewed growth, the company is vulnerable to takeover or worse. Strategies for achieving this include radically altering the very nature of the service to enhance its appeal to a wider, more mainstream and less techie audience (i.e. figure out a way to get my mom to use it.)

Twitter’s abandonment rate - i.e. the number of users who have signed up, then bailed - is among the highest in the social media space. While loyal users “get it”, mostly everyone else does not. Like a powerful, stripped down sports car, it’s too difficult to explain in 30 seconds, and its real power isn’t immediately apparent to the casual user.

Beyond growth, Twitter needs to monetize, too

While Twitter certainly needs to kickstart user growth, it also needs to figure out how to make money from (monetize, in online parlance) the users it does have. Unfortunately, the nature of its service makes that difficult to do.

For users who want to go beyond the 140-character limit, they can include shortened links to websites, blog entries, photos, videos and other content. In virtually all cases, though, this content lives outside of Twitter’s playground. While Facebook keeps users firmly within its so-called walled garden, Twitter simply serves as something of a glorified switching station, redirecting traffic to all other parts of the Internet instead of keeping that traffic and user-attention for itself. It’s hard to make money when you’re pointing traffic elsewhere.

The reported change would allow Twitter to host more of this linked content within its own Twitter.com domain and app - which would give it a platform to turn all that internal traffic into revenue-generating activity. That activity is mainly ads, of course, but also includes big data/analytics - basically insight into user activity which would allow it to further tailor its services AND sell that knowledge to third party marketers, agencies, advertisers and others.

This Big Brother-like tracking - which Google and Facebook have raised to a high art - is easier to do when you own the entire playground.

What Twitter has been doing

The company removed the 140-character limit on direct messages (DM, or private person-to-person messages) last year. Now, DMs can be up to 10,000 characters. In comparison, Facebook Messenger’s messages are capped at 20,000 characters.

Jack Dorsey, founder and original CEO, returned to head the company last year, as well, in a move designed to reinforce investor’s faith in the struggling company. It hasn’t worked yet, and this week’s report is a sign that the company is preparing for more significant change.

Why is there a 140-character limit in the first place?

The tight cap was instituted as a way of allowing tweets to comfortably fit into the size of a standard SMS or text message (which is 160 characters. When Twitter was launched, its main delivery method was via text message, so aligning with that tight infrastructure made sense back then.

As Twitter became a full-fledged app and web service and moved away from its SMS-based roots, the 140-character limit stuck.

What are the potential risks of removing the 140-character limit?

Twitter’s very nature is light, agile and sparse. The character limit forces brevity and allows users to scroll through large volumes of tweets in virtually no time at all. You can cover a lot of ground by reading a tweet stream. It’s an architecture that works just as well on smartphones and other mobile devices as it does on a desktop or laptop computer.

Unlike a Facebook timeline or newsfeed, which is often cluttered with longer-form content, Twitter’s interface is efficient and easy to follow.

By eliminating the character limit, the company risks becoming a me-too platform by losing the lightness that made Twitter so appealing in the first place. The trick is to open things up for newbies to drive growth without ruining the power-user-like experience for the already-addicted. A tough balancing act indeed.

What’s the company saying?

In response to the Re/Code report, Dorsey tweeted late Tuesday using the very same trick that many users use to bypass the 140-character limit: A screenshot of a longer-form piece of writing.

He somewhat cryptically hinted that the company’s solution might involve something of an enhancement to this workaround: "We've spent a lot of time observing what people are doing on Twitter, and we see them taking screenshots of text and tweeting it. Instead, what if that text...was actually text? Text that could be searched. Text that could be highlighted. That's more utility and power."

The fact that Dorsey even commented in response to the report is notable, as last year’s initial report was met with silence (which is more typical in Silicon Valley.) It lends tremendous credence to the building belief that something big is about to happen.

The bottom line

Messing with the basic formula that made Twitter such a darling in the first place is a massive risk. If botched, it will ruin the very flavour of the service and turn off its loyal - if stagnant - user base. It may be a fifth the size of Facebook, but those 320 million users are pretty rabid about Twitter.

But the company is clearly at an organizational and fiscal crossroads, and business-as-usual simply can’t cut it anymore. It needs to swing for the fences by making fundamental changes to the way it works.

The DM change last year was just a tiny taste, a baby step on a path that will ultimately rewrite what Twitter is and how it works. It’s a risk the company can’t afford not to take.

Your turn: Is is technological heresy for Twitter to remove the character limit?

Is Uber a ripoff?

Quick note: As CTV's Technology Analyst, I often talk and write about tech. As tech moves increasingly mainstream and touches more of us no matter how tech savvy we may be, I'm going to share more "work" stuff here on the blog. Hope you enjoy!

The Uber ride-sharing app/service has been getting more than its fair share of attention over the last few months, largely because it threatens to decimate the established - and highly regulated - taxi industry. It's a classic case of new vs. old, tech vs. traditional business, and like so many other tech-driven revolutions, it'll probably claim lots of victims before the war is finally over. Assuming it ever ends at all.

Headlines blared on New Year's Eve after some riders complained of huge bills to get home, including $1,100 in Edmonton, $650 in Montreal. The company uses something called "surge pricing" during periods of high demand, and as horrifying as it might seem to pay as much to drive across town as others might to fly across the country, there's a reason for it.

As part of my research, I pulled together a few key talking points that we should all keep in mind the next time we see another Uber-rips-off-poor-consumers headline. As with most tech-related themes, there's often a lot more to the story than initially meets the eye. Here's what you need to know:

1. Surge pricing is a direct outgrowth of the supply-and-demand ethos that underpins the capitalist economy. Like it or hate it, it's more or less how our broader economy works.
2. Uber has caught flack for seemingly scandalous surge pricing during times of crisis - like the Toronto floods in 2013, Hurricane Sandy in 2012, and when a subway shutdown sent Toronto commuters into the streets last year.
3. The operative term for most customers should always be "buyer beware", but as consumers have shown time and again when it comes to tech-based services, they fail to do their homework.
4. Perversely, Uber isn't ripping anyone off: No one is forced to pay this rate, and anyone can walk away at any point in time - before the ride begins. 
5. With that in mind, few of us read the terms of use after installing the app, and we often fail to ask questions when we get into the Uber driver's vehicle. Uber explains its Dynamic Pricing model rather clearly here.
6. Eliminating surge pricing could very well have an impact on non-emergency-period pricing - in other words, Uber rides during "regular" periods could become more expensive to make up for the lost crisis-period revenue.
7. That's because demand-based pricing models often use elevated rates during high-demand periods to balance off artificially low rates during lower-demand periods. Ever book a beachside hotel when it's snowing outside? Yes, just like that.
8. With this in mind, no one complains when their Uber ride is significantly cheaper than an equivalent trip in a conventional taxi.
9. If it wants to, Uber could very well curtail surge pricing to win some PR points. It has agreed to do so under some circumstances - i.e. during times of crisis - in New York.
10. Uber has received a number of well-deserved black eyes for the rough-and-tumble way in which it operates. It is no stranger to controversy, and this latest round doesn't do its brand any favours. This is common with boundary-pushing companies like this that disrupt traditional businesses using technology.
11. That said, it's ultimately up to customers to determine whether Uber lives or dies. Customers vote with their wallets, and if they feel they're being ripped off, they'll find an alternative.
12. Right now, only Lyft offers much competition, and even then in relatively few cities/markets - and not in Canada, yet. That could change over time, however, and once again the markets will determine who wins and loses.

So as much as we like to rage on Uber for being the tech bad boy of the shared economy - and as gawd-awful the optics of surge pricing are - folks who pay three- and four-figure bills to get a ride have no one to blame but themselves.

The app makes it abundantly clear that surge pricing is in effect, and it's no one's fault but the consumer's for failing to read the screen before getting in the car and agreeing to the rate.

Eyes open, folks.

Your turn: Uber vs. taxi. Which side are you on?

One more thing: I spoke with Kevin Gallagher for a report he filed for last night's CTV National News. Video link is here. Story is here.

Can you stay safe on Cyber Monday

I've spent a lot of energy over the last week discussing online security. No surprise, as Cyber Monday - the biggest online shopping day of the year - looms tomorrow, and hackers are already licking their chops at the prospect of millions of unprepared potential victims scouring the Internet for deals on cheap smartphones and neighbor-annoying drones.

Just as it is with drunk driving, safe sex and safe social media practices, keeping yourself on the happy side of the equation is actually pretty simple. Yet countless folks continue to get themselves into trouble by ignoring what most rational-thinking people had figured out long ago.

I did an interview with CTV's Canada AM on Friday morning to run through the key things we need to keep in mind before we grab a device and prowl the virtual shopping aisles. The interview with Beverly Thomson is here (and on YouTube), and the news team published a tips and tricks page here, as well.

Your turn: Do you find all this holiday shopping - online and off - just a little much? Why/why not?

Clickbait: Just say no to Justin Bieber

I had a fun interview this morning (video here) with Beverly Thomson on CTV's Canada AM about something we all run into in our online lives, even if we're not aware of it. It's called clickbait, and here's a rundown of everything you need to know about it.

What's clickbait? It's loosely defined as Web-based content that is designed to attract your attention through a catchy, provocative, shocking headline, and get you to click on it. Things like quality, accuracy or even truth aren’t normally part of the equation. The headlines give you just enough information to pique your curiosity, but not enough to finish the story, and they all seem to follow a particular structure:

• You won't BELIEVE what Justin Bieber wore last night!!!
• This kid went went to hug a giraffe. What happens next will blow your mind!!!
• These 4 facts about eye gunk will change the way you look at life FOREVER!!!
• Everyone laughed when she first walked on stage. But then she opened her mouth!!!
• What this rescued beagle can do with a xylophone will make you cry!!!

So, of course, you’ve GOT to click through, otherwise you’ll NEVER KNOW how it ends! You simply CAN’T go on with your life without taking the bait, because human nature dictates we don’t want to feel deprived - especially when the solution, a click, is so simple.

What happens once you click on it? Rarely do you ever get what you hoped for. Most of the time, you click through, only to be greeted by a ton of popup ads and other annoying, sometimes nasty stuff. The pages are often designed as slide shows instead of all-in-one pages, which forces us to click through multiple pages. This drives page views up, and creates even more ways to serve up - and charge for - ads.

Clickbait is frequently inserted into social media streams, often worded and structured to look like legitimate news or entertainment content.

Since content quality has nothing to do with it, you often get dumped onto a popup-laden page, only to realize you’ve been “had”. Many clickbait victims thus spend very little time on the site - which is becoming an important metric in the legitimate web industry’s efforts to clean it up.

Why it exists: Clickbait is designed to serve up ads. It can even install adware on your computer or device, which then serves up MORE ads long after you’ve visited the site. It's all about revenue generation, not about quality content or building lasting advertiser/customer relationships.

And it gets worse: Some clickbait also serves up spyware and malware. Hackers use the popularity of clickbait - and our willingness to follow up on anything that includes Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Donald Trump or any of the Kardashians - to target potential victims by redirecting them to rogue websites that secretly install malevolent software in what’s often called a “drive-by” attack.

Who’s doing it? Some of the most popular websites today - including Buzzfeed, Upworthy and Diply - use clickbait tactics to drive traffic. These are the legit players. Plenty of other sketchy sites are doing the same thing, fighting for your attention and not always playing by the rules. Legit or not, advertisers follow traffic. And many of them don't much care how that traffic is generated.

What’s being done to rein it in? Facebook announced last year it’s taking steps to reduce the impact of clickbait. For starters, it’s tracking how long you spend on a site after you’ve clicked it from Facebook. Short visits are a clear sign of clickbait. Google also regularly updates its algorithms to prioritize legitimate content and reduce the possibility of being “fooled” by clickbait.

Is that enough? No. We shouldn't rely on the web giants to save us from ourselves. Ultimately, we're responsible for ourselves, and it’s up to us to recognize the signs and patterns of clickbait and break ourselves of the habit. The payoff is never what the headlines promise, and clicking on them can often expose us to unnecessary risk - like hacking and identity theft. It's time for all of us to smarten up.

Want to learn more? Here's the video of that Canada AM interview:

The perils of jailbreaking your iPhone

Do you have an iPhone? Do you know what jailbreaking is? That's geekspeak for a somewhat shadowy technique used by some adventurous owners of iOS devices to circumvent Apple's rather rigid controls over how software is installed on iPhones, iPads, iPod touches and Apple TVs.

Out of the box, Apple exerts some of the most restrictive rules in the industry to ensure a consistent user experience. So for most of us, we can only install apps from the iTunes App Store, which Apple, of course, vets carefully before they're even made available there.

In contrast to the buttoned-down, out-of-the-box iOS experience, a jailbroken device can be heavily customized, and software from anywhere on the Internet can be downloaded and installed. Jailbroken phones can often do things that "legit" devices can only dream of.

Sounds fun in theory, but the reality can be frightening. Jailbroken devices are at significantly increased risk of being infected with malware, spyware, and other nasty code. All that fiddling around could make the devices unstable. It can also "brick" the device, which essentially turns it into a doorstopper. And if you try to return a jailbroken device to Apple for service, you'll likely be turned away, as jailbreaking voids the warranty.

Well, we're now seeing evidence of the most widespread jailbreak-related malware outbreak since iOS devices first hit the market. The iOS-specific malware, known as KeyRaider, affects only jailbroken devices - so the rest of us can breathe easy - and it has infected an estimated 225,000 devices so far. It allows hackers to steal Apple account information, including the Apple ID, password and unique device identifier. Hackers can then use that information to make "purchases" on your account. They're also selling the stolen information online, so expect further identity theft attacks against the identified victims in the weeks to come.

I discussed the issue with Beverly Thomson on CTV's Canada AM this morning, and the story and video can be found here. I also discussed it live with Mike Stubbs on First Thing on London's NewsTalk 1290 CJBK.

Scary stuff, but the good news is we can easily avoid the biggest risks by paying careful attention to our online and offline behaviors. This isn't rocket science: It only seems that way at first blush.

Published: A BlackBerry Reflection

I was asked by the editors of the Waterloo Region Record to write an essay on BlackBerry (formerly Research In Motion). As the onetime-darling and dominant force of Canada's tech scene, the company has been a central focus for my own career as a journalist/analyst, and it's fair to say I likely wouldn't be where I am if this company hadn't grown - and imploded - as it did.

The piece is longer than anything I've written in a while, and it's a lot more personal than my usual writing. To say I enjoyed the process would be an understatement: It was an honour to be asked, and it's an honour to see it in print.

Here's the piece if you want to give it a read:

How BlackBerry changed everything: RIM revolutionized communications and put Waterloo Region on the map

Your turn: Do you have a BlackBerry memory?

Microsoft Windows 10 - What you need to know

Microsoft released Windows 10 this week, and although a new version of Windows isn't the line-up-around-the-block event it was when the Rolling Stones Start Me Up was used to kickstart Windows 95, it's still a notable milestone given the fact that over a billion machines still run some form of it. Like it or not, this could touch you in some way soon.

I ended up doing a lot of talking yesterday. I chatted with John Venavally-Rao for CTV National News (report video here, newscast video here, report starts at 20:00), spoke with Marci Ien on CTV's Canada AM (video here, web article here), did a live hit with Michael Hainsworth on BNN, Marcia MacMillan on CTV News Channel (video here) and joined Todd van der Heyden's weekly Tech With Todd panel (video here). I chatted with CBC Radio stations across the country, as well as CKTB in Niagara, NewsTalk 1010 in Toronto, and CJAD in Montreal, among others.

I had jotted down a point-form Q&A that I used as a high-level visual guide through much of the day, and in retrospect I realize it probably answers many of the questions folks may have about Windows 10. So without further ado, here's my quick take on Microsoft's new make-or-break operating system:

1 - Is Windows 10 a big deal for Microsoft?

• Yes. In many ways, its success or failure holds tremendous importance for the future of the company.
• Windows 10 must make up for the relative failure of Windows 8 to win over consumer and corporate buyers.
• Windows 8 was a radically different beast, and it tried to bridge both desktop/keyboard-and-mouse and tablet/touch-based devices and use cases. The result was a two-sided beast that pleased no one.
• It didn't look, work or feel like the traditional Windows users had gotten used to. Removing the Start menu was another big boo-boo. Would you take a kid's binky away?
• Not surprisingly, users didn’t take to it - right now, only 16% of PCs run either Windows 8 or 8.1. Windows 7 is at 60%. Even XP - which was first introduced in 2001 and is no longer supported by Microsoft - still has 12%.
• Worse, the market for traditional PCs - which are Microsoft's bread and butter - has been shrinking for years. The total PC market is 21% smaller now than it was in 2011, with no signs of a turnaround. That's because the do-it-all desktop and laptop computers that once represented our only way of getting work done are now competing for attention - and budget - with smartphones, tablets and other mobile technologies.
• So… Microsoft needs Windows 10 to recapture consumer interest to drive flagging PC sales, reignite interest in Windows and give it control over the next generation of PC users. Whoever owns the software through which more people go online can control the revenues - advertising, subscriptions, additional software sales, etc. - that are made along the way.

2 - What's new in Windows 10 that separates it from Windows 8 and 8.1

• The first thing you'll notice is it boots into a conventional-looking desktop. You can still find tiles if you really look for them - hint, they're in the reborn Start menu - but the two-in-one philosophy of Windows 8/8.1 is gone forever. It's like the Windows 7 desktop got a fresh coat of paint.
• There's good news on the browser front, too. Internet Explorer, the creaky old browser that we've all come to hate, isn't completely dead - it's included mainly to keep corporate folks happy - but for the rest of us it has largely been replaced by a new browser, known as Edge. The new browser is Microsoft’s answer to newer and more popular browsers like Firefox and Chrome. It’s faster, more secure, and it has some slick new built-in features let you easily mark up a web page, then share it. It sounds kinda meh, but it's a transformational way to experience the web. Edge also includes some trick new features to make it easier to read articles, which makes sense given how much time we spend reading stuff through our browsers.
• Continuum adjusts the interface depending on what you're doing. So if you've got a convertible laptop and you flip from PC mode to tablet mode, Continuum makes sure you're not stuck stabbing tiny little buttons on the touchscreen with your big fat fingers. Less fiddling, more creating.
• It includes the Cortana digital virtual assistant which tries to out-Siri Apple's Siri not just on your smartphone, but on your computer and tablet, too. Just talk to it - Hey Cortana - and it’ll do pretty much whatever you ask, from checking the weather to getting the day’s work ready for you.
• If your hardware supports it, Windows 10 will let you log in using facial recognition - no more passwords, if you don’t want.
• It also sets the stage for new Universal apps that adapt depending on whether you’re using them on your PC, your tablet, or, eventually, a smartphone. Developers need to get on-board, of course, but the promise of seamless services across multiple devices is at least there.

3 - Windows 8 was all about touch, but it didn't balance touch and conventional computing all that well. Does Windows 10 achieve a better balance?

• No one likes all-season tires. They're lousy in summer, and they barely grip in winter. Windows 8 was like a cheap set of all-season tires. Windows 10 is still trying to pull off the all-season trick. It achieves it more effectively than 8, but even jacks-of-all-trades have their limitations.
• Windows 8 tried to be all things to all people. It stretched so far beyond the traditional desktop-based way of earlier Windows versions that users were turned off. It ended up failing on all fronts. Windows 10 dials back the newness. The traditional desktop now dominates. The Start Menu is back, and it’s supercharged. The somewhat misunderstood Tiles are still there, but you’ll have to look harder for them.
• All in all, Windows 10 does a far better job balancing the very different worlds of traditional keyboard-and-mouse computing, and touch-based tablets. It isn't perfect, but it's less maddening than its predecessor.

4 - Windows 10 is available for FREE for some Windows users. Why?

• Microsoft is giving Windows 10 away for a year to anyone who uses Windows 7, 8, and 8.1. I'm willing to bet that after the year is up, it'll still be free. If you're not running 7, 8 or 8.1, it's available for purchase for $249, though no one with sense would ever pay that much. If you're already running an ineligible old OS like Vista or XP, your hardware wouldn't be able to handle 10, anyway.
• Everyone else - namely Apple and Google - is now giving away their software for free. It’s what consumers expect, which makes it impossible in 2015 to charge for an operating system and expect anyone to pay for it.
• Instead, you give it away for free so that you can build the largest possible audience or market for all the stuff you'll sell them afterward. It's kind of like giving away the razor for free, then charging for the blades.
• Microsoft will make money on subscriptions, advertising, services, and other forms of revenue to be made THROUGH the new operating system. They just need to get us hooked first, in much the same way that Google gets us addicted to its online services, apps and Android, and then makes money through these gateways.

5 - How do you take advantage of Microsoft's free upgrade offer?

• Windows 7, 8 and 8.1 machines are already eligible for a free upgrade. For months now, your machine has likely had a notification letting you know just that.
• Look on the bottom of your desktop, in the tray beside the clock on the lower-right-hand side.
• There should be a Windows icon there. Click it and you'll be taken to the Get Windows 10 app.
• You'll be walked through registering for the upgrade - just provide your email address, then wait until you get an email confirming that the download is ready for installation. Warning: This could take some time, as it's a big download, and millions of users are hammering Microsoft's servers as we speak.
• If you don't see the Windows icon, go to Windows Update to get started.

6 - What should you keep in mind before upgrading from old Windows to new Windows?

• Although Windows 10 system requirements are virtually the same as for those suggested for Windows 8, some older hardware may not have the horsepower to run it.
• If your computer is a more than 3 or 4 years old, doesn’t have a lot of RAM, free drive space or a fast enough processor, it may be wise to stay put and simply get Windows 10 when you buy a new computer.
• Anything bought within the past couple of years should be fine.
• Before proceeding, make sure your data is backed up. If you’ve got to deliver that paper to a deadline today and don’t have another machine, you may want to wait until after your deadline.
• If you've got an extra PC or two and can afford to have it out of commission while you do real work on your primary, production computer, by all means download it anytime you wish and have fun with it.
• If you have only one computer for work or school, you'll want to wait about 4 to 6 weeks for the first set of bug fixes from Microsoft to be released. Every new operating system has its fair share of bugs. It’s considered less risky to wait a bit before upgrading, as the OS will be more reliable once those fixes are available and applied.

7 - How are the initial reviews?

• Windows 10 is more evolution than revolution.
• It fixes most of what was broken in Windows 8 and 8.1 and finally delivers on the promise of marrying traditional computing with tablet computing, all in one operating system on one device.
• If you've already gone over to Apple's dark side, it won't lure you away from your Mac, but it could be just enough to kickstart some XP, Vista and 7 holdouts into upgrading. We'll know in a few months if it's enough to keep Microsoft's stranglehold on a shrinking PC market in place.

Your turn: Will you upgrade? Why/why not?