I predicted that Chrome would eat into Firefox market share. Turns out that didn’t happen, at least according to StatCounter.

Chrome hit 1% share pretty much on launch day, then stayed there. Presumably a lot of people tried it then went back to Firefox/IE.

I’ve been using Chrome as my main browser since it launched and I’ve not found any rendering problems to speak of so I guess the lack of interest must be related to it’s non existent extensibility model. Use Roboform? Not with Chrome you don’t!

As a developer I can see the problem with supporting plugins – you have no control over them and a badly written one can kill your application, damage your users’ data and leave them with a bad feeling about your app. On the other hand it’s expected these days that browsers are extendable, especially by the power users that Chrome will appeal to.

There’s also inertia to consider – you have to give people a compelling reason to swap. I happen to like the Chrome UI, speed and general usability over Firefox but I’m also not a big plugin user (although I do miss the Google toolbar and I’m baffled as to why it’s functionality isn’t built into Google’s own browser).

So I guess no extensibility and no other features to make up for it’s absence == people sticking with Firefox. For now at least.

I’m in the fortunate position of getting to visit a few tradeshows now and again. It’s fun, but most of the time there’s a lot of bigger, faster, better than before happening and not much real innovation.

This year though 3D TVs seem to have exploded, seemingly out of nowhere, from the labs and into… well, if not production then at least “tradeshow demo” status.

We’ve all seen the red/blue glasses and if you’ve ever been to a IMAX 3D showing you’ll know what a professionally produced 3D image can look like.

The glasses are a PITA though – that and the associated increases in production costs are why it’s never really taken off. It’s even worse if you wear spectacles for normal viewing, the 3D glasses are just uncomfortable on top of normal specs.

So what’s changed? Well recently I saw a 42” flat screen projecting 3D images with a real sense of depth (both into and out of the screen). I wasn’t wearing special 3D glasses and I was in a group of people who could all see the effect from a fairly wide viewing angle (not as wide as a normal picture, but you didn’t have to be spot on the target to see the effect). Hyundai are actually selling a TV using this technology in Japan (pictured).

So the display technology is maturing to the point where it’s becoming feasible – that’s point one.

Now look at production. Essentially to make 3D content you need two viewpoints. They don’t have to be separated by much - you only need the distance between your own eyes - but it’s still two cameras. More than that, it’s 2 sets of film to sync up and edit which just takes time.

Until you go digital.  Now your equipment is (relatively) tiny, it’s cheaper than ever before and keeping the footage in sync is far simpler. So using 2 cameras to get a stereoscopic viewpoint is perhaps not so crazy any more.

It’s even easier with animated movies, you just render it twice and move the “camera” between runs – your only cost there is render time (another thing that’s getting cheaper and cheaper as technology matures)

So will we all be watching 3DTV this year? No – but in 5 years? I wouldn’t bet against it. We’ve already got Hollywood producing 3D movies this year so the content is on the cards. The pieces are in place, they just need to come together…

This is probably going to be the first of many rants about the drive to make everything possible "mobile". Just because you can, doesn't mean you should... At CES a couple of years ago the industry buzz was around mobile video - ways to deliver it, devices for consuming it, stores to buy it etc etc.

Clearly I'm not "in the know". I don't have any access to sales figures or forecasts so I'll have to go on common sense: Does anybody spend money on downloading an episode of lost/desperate housewives/big brother/whatever to watch in jerk-o-vision on a crappy 320*240 screen, when they could just wait a couple of hours and watch it on the 40" telly at home? Really? Sure, I could see myself catching up on the news or watching a podcast if I've got an hour to kill but those services are essentially free. Plus I don't care about the quality too much. Actually spending money on a mobile download though? I just don't get it.

Prediction time: Mobile TV will not be the killer app that lights up the 3G airwaves and makes the world a better place! Just like WAP it won't go away, because its here now so why not keep it around, but I don't see it growing.

This assumes portable playback devices stay as limited as they are now. If somebody invents a 3 foot wide holographic screen, all bets are off but until then the mobile viewing experience will just remain painful. And yes, I know the N95 is pretty good but it's all relative - "pretty good" compared to other phones, but "woefully inadequate" compared to a decent TV.

This site has (as yet) no traffic as it's just getting started, but if one day you find this in google and happen to have spent money on a TV / video download to your phone - leave a comment and tell me why, OK?

(image courtesy of letsgomobile.org, reporting last year that the mobile video market was set to explode)

It may come as a surprise to know that the Segway personal transporter is illegal for use on public highways in the UK. That means roads, pavements and cycle paths are a no-no, although you can use it on private land. The quoted reason for the ban is safety concerns - although I'm cynical enough to think that it's got more to do with our elected leaders being unable to classify it which means tax and regulation can't follow. (seriously "safety concerns" - I've been run off the pavement by motorised shopping carts and bicycles before now so I can't see a Segway is any more dangerous)

Anyway I digress. Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik flouted the law yesterday by riding a Segway to work in an attempt to draw attention to the device and get it legalised. I'm behind the guy, Segways are very cool and could work wonders in an inner-city environment. Unfortunately they won't.

Why? Simple - they're damned expensive!  In the UK you'll pay between £4500 and £5500 for a new Segway. (roughly $9000 US if you're reading this over the pond).

I can buy a cheap, small car for £2000 that has better range and will shelter me from the rain, or I could buy a motorbike for similar money. If I want to stay green and avoid burning fossil fuels, I can compare the Segway to the new electric pushbikes where even the top end, long range model with all the toys is £1400 - still £3000 cheaper than a Segway.

Basically I think Segways are a fantastically cool way to travel short distances and I'd have one tomorrow if I could afford it, but the cost will keep them out of general circulation and no legislation will change that. They need to get the price down to under £1000 before it'll become a serious contender in the personal transport stakes.

 Tomorrow they (assorted boffins from around the world) turn on the Large Hadron Collider. I'm in awe of the engineering that this represents - it's the largest machine ever built on the planet as far as I know; it's a 27km underground circular tunnel with several massive support buildings above ground and it's initial purpose is to replicate the conditions present in the Big Bang. It does this by shooting really, really small particles down the tube really, really fast and watching what happens when they collide. 

(Where "really, really small" is "sub-atomic" and "really, really fast" is "as close to the speed of light as we can make it". Not the most accurate description you've ever seen I know, but it's all you're going to get from me; I'm not a particle physycist!)

There is also a "non-zero probability" that it will create an artifical black hole which will destory the planet and end human existance. Which technically brings it just within the remit of this site, since I can say "not likely". Mainly though I just wanted to put something down about it, because it's cool! 

Tomorrow we should know a little bit more about the world we live in. Actually it'll probably take them several years to analyse the data, but it all starts tomorrow. I'm all for that.

I said you'll see Chrome eat into firefox in 3 months. I my have been slightly pessamistic - according to StatCounter it took 1% of the global browser share in 1 day! Ouch - watch out Firefox, the Google steamroller is heading your way...

From Statcounter via TrustedReviews