'Windows 10 on everything' is Microsoft's gambit to profit from its competitors

Windows on anything means revenue from everything, at least that's the idea. gadgets by aslysun/shutterstock.com

Microsoft’s aim to make Windows 10 run on anything is key to its strategy of reasserting its dominance. Seemingly unassailable in the 1990s, Microsoft’s position has in many markets been eaten away by the explosive growth of phones and tablets, devices in which the firm has made little impact.

To run Windows 10 on everything, Microsoft is opening up.

Rather than requiring Office users to run Windows, now Office365 is available for Android and Apple iOS mobile devices. A version of Visual Studio, Microsoft’s key application for programmers writing Windows software, now runs on Mac OS or Linux operating systems.

Likewise, with tools released by Microsoft developers can tweak their Android and iOS apps so that they run on Windows. The aim is to allow developers to create, with ease, the holy grail of a universal app that runs on anything. For a firm that has been unflinching in taking every opportunity to lock users into its platform, just as with Apple and many other tech firms, this is a major change of tack.

From direct to indirect revenue

So why is Microsoft trying to become a general purpose, broadly compatible platform? Windows' share of the operating system market has fallen steadily from 90% to 70% to 40%, depending on which survey you believe. This reflects customers moving to mobile, where the Windows Phone holds a mere 3% market share. In comparison Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure platform Azure, Office 365 and its Xbox games console have all experienced rising fortunes.

We’re way into the post-PC era. Blake Patterson, CC BY

Lumbered with a heritage of Windows PCs in a falling market, Microsoft’s strategy is to move its services – and so its users – inexorably toward the cloud. This divides into two necessary steps.

First, for software developed for Microsoft products to run on all of them – write once, run on everything. As it is there are several different Microsoft platforms (Win32, WinRT, WinCE, Windows Phone) with various incompatibilities. This makes sense, for a uniform user experience and also to maximise revenue potential from reaching as many possible devices.

Second, to implement a universal approach so that code runs on other operating systems other than Windows. This has historically been fraught, with differences in approach to communicating, with hardware and processor architecture making it difficult. In recent years, however, improving virtualisation has made it much easier to run code across platforms.

It will be interesting to see whether competitors such as Google and Apple will follow suit, or further enshrine their products into tightly coupled, closed ecosystems. Platform exclusivity is no longer the way to attract and hold customers; instead the appeal is the applications and services that run on them. For Microsoft, it lies in subscriptions to Office365 and Xbox Gold, in-app and in-game purchases, downloadable video, books and other revenue streams – so it makes sense for Microsoft to ensure these largely cloud-based services are accessible from operating systems other than just their own.

The Windows family tree … it’s complicated. Kristiyan Bogdanov, CC BY-SA

Platform vs services

Is there any longer any value in buying into a single service provider? Consider smartphones from Samsung, Google, Apple and Microsoft: prices may differ, but the functionality is much the same. The element of difference is the value of wearables and internet of things devices (for example, Apple Watch), the devices they connect with (for example, an iPhone), the size of their user communities, and the network effect.

From watches to fitness bands to internet fridges, the benefits lie in how devices are interconnected and work together. This is a truly radical concept that demonstrates digital technology is driving a new economic model, with value associated with “in-the-moment” services when walking about, in the car, or at work. It’s this direction that Microsoft is aiming for with Windows 10, focusing on the next big thing that will drive the digital economy.

The revolution will be multi-platform

I predict that we will see tech firms try to grow ecosystems of sensors and services running on mobile devices, either tied to a specific platform or by driving traffic directly to their cloud infrastructure.

Apple has already moved into the mobile health app market and connected home market. Google is moving in alongside manufacturers such as Intel, ARM and others. An interesting illustration of this effect is the growth of digital payments – with Apple, Facebook and others seeking ways to create revenue from the traffic passing through their ecosystems.

However, the problem is that no single supplier like Google, Apple, Microsoft or internet services such as Facebook or Amazon can hope to cover all the requirements of the internet of things, which is predicted to scale to over 50 billion devices worth US$7 trillion in five years. As we become more enmeshed with our devices, wearables and sensors, demand will rise for services driven by the personal data they create. Through “Windows 10 on everything”, Microsoft hopes to leverage not just the users of its own ecosystem, but those of its competitors too.

Fossil of world's earliest modern bird could help us understand the extinction of dinosaurs

How Archaeornithura might have looked. Zongda Zhang

Fossils of the oldest member of the lineage to which today’s birds belong has been found in Hebei province of Northern China. The discovery pushes back the evolutionary record for birds by nearly 6m years and challenges the traditional view of bird evolution. The fossils may one day help solve the puzzle of why dinosaurs that weren’t related to birds were wiped out as a result of mass extinction.

A challenge for evolutionary theory

We have known for a long time that birds are the living descendants of theropod dinosaurs, an evolutionary branch that can be traced back at least 140m years to the so called “first bird” Archaeopteryx (which means ancient wing). Fossils of this creature were first found in found in Jurassic-era limestones in Bavaria, Germany, in 1861.

In recent years, however, researchers have learned two important things that have challenged that narrative. First, many researchers no longer consider Archaeopteryx to be a bird at all, rather a member of a closely-related group of feathered theropod dinosaurs. In addition, new fossil discoveries, especially from China, have dramatically widened our view of the diversity of early birds.

Feathers and all – meet Archaeornithura Wang et al., Nature Communications

The fossils described in the recent study, published in Nature Communications, were dug out from silt rocks just 10m years younger than those which gave us Archaeopteryx. It is extremely surprising that ornithuromorph birds had evolved and diversified to that extent in just 10m years after Archaeopteryx.

Despite being of a similar age to Archaeopteryx, Archaeornithura was a great deal more advanced. Measuring 15cm in height, it had well-developed feathers, an advanced abdominal region and wings and lacked feathers on its legs, suggesting it was a wader.

Survival of the high-flyers

The finding of Archaeornithura is important, because it may help shed light on why only the types of dinosaurs that evolved into modern birds survived the famous end-Cretaceous mass-extinction 66m years ago.

If it walks like a bird… H. Raab/wikipedia, CC BY-SA

Other groups of birds, such as Enantiornithines, which often had teeth and clawed fingers, became extinct – but the branch that went on to give rise to all modern birds survived for some reason. If we could pin down when and how ornithuromorph birds evolved from their earlier ancestors and what makes them different to other, earlier birds, we might understand the reasons for the dramatic success of modern birds and why they made it while other dinosaurs died out.

A great deal more research is needed to solve the puzzle of bird evolution. Archaeornithura is not enough on its own to provide all the answers. But fossils such as this will certainly help inform the debate and assist in our search for related species. Understanding the evolution of modern birds and how they made it across one of the largest extinction events of all time is surely a major holy grail of evolutionary biology.

How we can break free from sexism in science

No really, it's fine! Shutterstock

Two women recently had their research paper rejected by a science journal based on an incredibly sexist review of their work – an event that has caused outrage on social media. While the journal, PLoS ONE, has apologised and given the authors a second chance, not everyone is as lucky.

The case provides an opportunity for journals to adopt an open peer-review system – a process in which scientists evaluate the quality of other scientists' work – so that reviewers cannot hide behind anonymity. But it also shows it is time to get tough on the widespread biases in universities.

Peer-reviewed publications are the main currency for academics. It is through such publications that academics tell the world about their latest research findings. Decisions about hiring – and academic career progression – are also made largely on an academic’s publication record. The main purpose of peer review is to act as quality control, making sure the work is technically sound before a paper is made available to the public.

Peer review is clearly something that we need to get right. Ask any researcher though, and you would be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t had an unhappy review experience.

Unreported numbers?

Occasionally we see dramatic examples of malpractice. In the most recent case, a paper that investigated gender biases in academia based on a survey of PhD students in the life sciences was rejected by PLoS ONE on the basis of a single review. The review was a tirade of undisguised sexism, which suggested that the authors had misinterpreted the results because they are women. It concluded: “It would probably also be beneficial to find one or two male biologists to work with … in order to serve as a possible check against interpretations that may sometimes be drifting too far away from empirical evidence.”

In this case, multiple aspects of the peer-review system failed. The academic editor assigned to the paper was an immunologist, whereas the paper was in the social sciences, bringing into question the editor’s expertise and ability to choose suitable reviewers. Another problem was that only a single review was obtained – usually two or three reviewers are sought to try to obtain balance. It also seems that the editor had not carefully read the review and/or paper, as the review was forwarded without criticism. The editor’s rejection note read:

The qulaity (sic) of the manuscript is por (sic) with issues on methodologies and presentation of resulst (sic). A precise bibliographic search will be useful to improve the manuscript. A clear summary of the issues concerning the quality of this manuscript is given by one reviewer.

Rightly, the journal has issued an apology, the paper is back under review and the original editor and reviewer are no longer on the books.

There may be a number of unreported cases out there. Shutterstock

But while this case was corrected, many are not. A similar level of online rage was directed at the Royal Society which earlier this year awarded only two of 43 fellowship grants to female applicants. By their own admission, this bias appears to be getting worse each year.

The bigger picture

These recent examples speak of gender biases that are routinely found in academia, whether in grant allocation, hiring, mentoring, reference letters, salaries, invited journal articles or even student feedback.

We also know that gender biases are only the tip of the iceberg – in particular remarkably little attention is given to racial discrimination. There are substantially fewer studies on racial bias in academia, but there are similar examples of dubious peer review and there is evidence of racism in article citations and willingness to mentor students simply based on name.

We must use these cases to look at how we can improve the situation. Many journals (including PLoS ONE) operate a single-blind review system where the reviewer can see the authors' names, but the authors never see the reviewer’s name. In some disciplines double-blind review is standard, where the authors' names are hidden from the reviewers.

This approach does address some of the problems, but in practice it is often possible to guess who the authors are. Some journals now offer open review, where reviewers sign their comments with their name and/or the review is made publicly accessible. A further step still is to have post-publication review, where all articles are first published and then peer review occurs in public. Indeed PLoS ONE recently announced that they are aiming to move towards open review.

Besides innovations in the peer-review system, we must also all look in the mirror. The system is made up of individuals. It is us who are biased. Studies show that women are no less likely to discriminate against women – and those of under-represented races are no less likely to have racial biases.

Cognitive biases are so numerous and universal that at the very least we should make ourselves aware of how deeply they can run. Online tests of implicit bias are a great way to start gaining some self-awareness. Institutional training and national programmes to address biases will undoubtedly also help.

In academia, strong hierarchies and nepotism compound problems associated with biases. For faster change, each and every one of us need to act as exemplars – admitting to our own mistakes, calling out those of others and monitoring biases in journals and institutions.

The stakes are higher than most of us realise. Biases in academia distort research outcomes – and can even damage human health. If we continue to ignore our biases then we will continue to stifle the insight we could be gaining from a more diverse set of collaborators. Ultimately we all suffer.

When it comes to information overload, we're like frogs in boiling water

It's like this: you have to eat the frog. frog by Dirk Ercken/shutterstock.com

To consider how being constantly connected through computers and mobile devices has encroached on our working lives, consider the experiment about the frog in a pan of boiling water.

A frog in a pan of cold water that is gently heated will not realise it’s boiling to death if the change is sufficiently gradual. In the same way, the web has affected our attention span and so our productivity – slowly but surely the heat of distraction has increased as decades of internet evolution has added email, websites, instant messaging, forums, social media and video.

Striving to manage technology better or wean ourselves off from distractions such as social media updates or emails can be very hard, if not virtually impossible for some. It requires serious willpower.

Lock-down

What’s the answer for today’s organisations – lock-down and block, and risk restricting access to genuinely useful content and services? Blocking and locking-off parts of the web can only hinder progress and innovation, or by reacting to slow to change and innovation as seen in the NHS can have a negative impact on technology uptake, especially now the internet is now made up of things.

If we are to advance knowledge, it’s essential to have access to the full gamut of content online. Whether that’s to study the effects of pornography on society or for a student’s private consumption, we have to be mature about this, there is some content on the Web that will always be demanded. In fact the government’s efforts to deal with online pornography has led to the over-zealous use of internet filters. Dumb filters performing keyword filtering inevitably led to legitimate sex education websites being blocked.

Procrastination is not new and there will always find new and inventive ways of putting-off work. But there are means to help tackle that distraction, if only for some rather than all of the time.

And yet, despite the volume, it doesn’t slake your thirst. SparkCBC, CC BY-SA

Eat that frog

The problem with digital distraction is often starts from the first moment we sit down at our desks, or even before we’ve got there. Once we open our email we are drawn into conversations, questions and broadcasts. The more emails appear, the more we feel compelled to deal with them.

A useful solution involves that frog again: we all have tasks we ignore and delay, nagging away at the back of our minds. We have to complete these tasks, so why not start your day by doing just that and eating that frog: instead of checking frivolous updates and emails, tackle an important task that’s hanging around first thing in the morning.

The Pomodoro Technique

The popular Pomodoro Technique, which suggests using 30 minute time slots for a single task, followed by a break, can be helpful in dedicating time to specific projects. Another way to reign in distraction is to create lists or use time management apps like 30:30 or Wunderlist. These help set up a structured pattern to the working day, which is especially useful if you need to use social media professionally but also need to carve out time to get other things done.

Meditate

Meditation and mindfulness has gained much attention in the last couple of years, such as Andy Puddicombe’s popular Headspace imprint. In a busy office this offers a sensible solution to problem of losing focus. Just five minutes meditation could help quiet the mind and return focus to completing the current task. Various studies have highlighted the benefits of meditation and mindfulness on a digital worker’s productivity, and general happiness too.

Create an alternative productivity calendar

Paper diaries are still often used, if less so with the modern proliferation of electronic alternatives. These often dictate the modern worker’s routine, so much so that they fill in the spaces with fractured and incomplete tasks. Another solution is to create a personal online calendar to overlay a work calendar. By scheduling everything, from checking social media and emails to family time and free periods, it’s possible to make better use of the time you have.

One of many in the armoury. lemasney, CC BY-SA

Self-management starts with you

There comes a time to cut back on things that aren’t good for you, whether that’s food, drink, or social media. We realise that seeking distraction from our daily tasks is not healthy, especially if we can minimise it.

Professor Steve Peters has helped many high-profile sports stars control this impulsive, emotional part of the brain – something he calls the “chimp brain”. The easiest way to do so is not to feed it, for example, by not opening email. But finding a happy medium between restriction and necessary use is not easy.

Some have tried to constrain email and its effects on the workforce by turning it off for set periods. In Germany there have been calls to prevent companies from contacting employees out of hours. While this is fine for those working the nine-to-five, this no longer applies to many for a variety of reasons, some personal, some due to the nature of the work.

Self-management tools are a better option. For Google users there is an app called Inbox Pause which does just that, preventing new email distraction. There’s also restrictions for email on mobile devices that only updates when connected to known work or home networks – which means less chance of compulsively checking while out and about or on holiday.

But all of these require commitment, and like any lifestyle modification there has to be a willingness to change. Technology will continue to embed itself within our lives at home and at work, especially the use of smartphones. So if we feel the need to reign-in the distractions, whatever app or technique we choose to help us, it hinges on our own self-discipline.

Opportunity of a lifetime: NASA's 4,000 days roving Mars

The rover that could, and still is, running scientific marathons on Mars. NASA/JPL/Cornell/Maas Digital LLC

NASA’s exploration rover Opportunity landed on Mars more than 11 years ago, in January 2004, with what then seemed like ambitious goals: to survive 90 Martian days and drive 600 metres. Opportunity has since driven the first off-Earth marathon (42.2 kilometres, or just over 26 miles) and just passed through its 4,000th Martian day – known as a sol on the Red Planet, lasting 40 minutes longer than on Earth.

I’ve been fortunate to have been involved with the project from the start, but never would I have thought that besides my wife’s companionship, the other constant in my life would be a robotic rover roaming across the surface of a planet hundreds of millions of kilometres away. To put this in perspective, since Opportunity landed I finished my PhD, started a family, and worked at six institutions in three different countries.

Opportunity found fame and fortune early on. Right where it landed, finely-layered sedimentary rocks revealed evidence that liquid water had once pooled on the Martian surface. Mars is a prime location for the search for life outside our own planet, and water is the most important prerequisite for life. That discovery was hailed as the scientific breakthrough of 2004 by the journal Science.

Looking back at the landing module in Eagle crater, where Opportunity found water. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/USGS/ASU

Opportunity then had to become more daring. As only impact craters reveal what is hidden below the sand that covers most of Meridiani Planum where the rover had landed, the exploration strategy adopted was to hop between craters.

Crater-hopping on Mars

From 20-metre-wide Eagle crater via the 150-metre Endurance crater and 800-metre Victoria crater eventually to the 22km-wide Endeavour crater: with each successive crater the next seemed always beyond reach – or so it seemed to us, so far away. It took more than 600 sols to traverse roughly 6km between Endurance and Victoria – and more than 1,000 sols to cover the 21km from Victoria to Endeavour.

A 26-mile Martian marathon, and counting, for the 11-year-old rover. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/USGS/ASU

Opportunity drove in and out of Endurance and Victoria craters – a dangerous, potentially mission-ending undertaking that had to be cleared by NASA headquarters in advance. In the process it took images of and investigated spectacular cliffs of layered sandstone within the craters. More water was discovered at Endeavour, but unlike the previous discovery, this time it was from an earlier Martian eon and was non-acidic and more friendly towards life.

Between craters, Opportunity could investigate rock fragments that had landed on top of the sand sheet and in doing so discovered meteorites among the rubble. Opportunity’s twin rover Spirit and, more recently, NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory rover, Curiosity, had already observed iron meteorites from a distance. After all, chunks of iron metal glinting in the sun appear otherworldly – even on another world. But only Opportunity was able to take a detailed sample of their composition – and only Opportunity discovered stony meteorites. While the fragments were discovered several kilometres apart, they seem to part of a larger whole – possibly the massive impact that created the Victoria crater.

Opportunity’s view from the top of Cape Tribulation into the Endeavour crater. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/ASU

Danger everywhere

There were occasions where it was touch and go whether Opportunity would be able to continue its journey. En route to Victoria crater, the rover got stuck in a sand dune – subsequently dubbed Purgatory – and it took 38 sols to free itself. On another occasion, one of the notorious Martian dust storms that extend across entire regions blocked out much of the sunlight for days on end, threatening to permanently shut down the solar-powered rover.

However, perhaps the greatest threat to its continued mission is man-made: NASA’s latest budget proposal is not sufficient to continue Opportunity’s operations. While our rover certainly now shows signs age and wear, Opportunity has gathered many friends and admirers during its long journey and there is realistic hope that funding for another mission extension can be found.

After 4,000 days, looking out to a rocky spire in Mars' Spirit of St Louis crater. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Cornell/ASU

So, how did Opportunity celebrate its 4,000 days? She drove five meters onto an outcrop peninsula inside Spirit of St. Louis crater, a small crater among the rocks marking the rim of the much larger Endeavour Crater and sniffed the air with her Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer. True to her name, Opportunity is still more than capable of making important new discoveries, generating new records with each passing day. It’s been a pleasure working with Opportunity so far, and I hope that she’ll remain part of my life for a while yet.

Space travel may be bad for your brain – here's why

I really hope this is the right flag NASA/flickr, CC BY

There is bad news for those planning to go to Mars in the near future: a study in mice has suggested that radiation in space could cause cognitive decline in astronauts. However, we know from past research that mental, social and physical exercise can boost cognitive functions. With planned Mars missions moving ever closer, it might be be worth exploring activity as a way to counter radiation damage.

There are many hurdles to overcome to get to Mars. The obvious one, of course, is the amount of time it takes – about eight months. But for those brave enough to attempt such a journey, this may well be acceptable. What could be harder to accept, however, are the harmful galactic cosmic rays you’d be subjected to, produced by supernovae far away from Earth. This is a form of radiation that we already know damages the body and increases the risk of cancer.

Mouse maze

Worse still, a new report suggests that this type of radiation also damages the brain. In this report, scientists exposed mice to charged particles at the NASA Space Radiation Laboratory. Six week later, they tested the memory abilities of these animals. Unfortunately for those eager to go to Mars, the news was not good.

The scientists used two tests of memory. The first is perhaps the simplest test available for mice: novel object recognition. Mice spontaneously explore new objects placed in their environment, but eventually get used to the objects and spend less time near them.

The task exploited this tendency by first presenting the animals with two identical objects, such as small statues. After the mice had spent some time exploring these, the researchers replaced one of the statues with a different object, for example, a salt shaker. If the mice had remembered exploring the statue, they would show a spontaneous preference for the salt shaker.

But after receiving a dose of radiation, the mice showed significantly less preference for a new object compared to mice who had not been irradiated. Indeed, depending on the type of charged particles that the mice were exposed to, in some instances they had next to no preference for the new object. This indicates that they did not remember the object they explored first.

Can I get directions, please? Duncan Hull/flickr, CC BY

The researchers also did a second test placing one object in one location and a different object in another, within the same environment. The experimenter then moved one of the objects to a new location, while the other remained in the same place. Ordinarily, the mice would have spent more time exploring the displaced object compared to the object that had not moved.

This indicates that it had learnt the location of each of the two objects. Again, following radiation, the mice did poorly. For several of the doses of charged particles, the animals showed essentially no preference for the displaced object. In short, they either failed to learn the association between the object and the location in which it was initially placed, or they were unable to remember it.

Staying fit

So what was the underlying reason for these results? The scientists conducting this work next looked in detail at the neurons – the brain’s functional units – of the mice. In specific regions of the brain, the dendrites – the part of the neurones receiving inputs from other neurons – were less branched. In addition, the specific portions of the neurons where communication takes place, the dendritic spines, were also reduced following exposure to radiation. Mice with the largest loss of spines had the worst memory.

Neuron in the brain Mike Seyfang/flickr, CC BY

Of course we already knew that radiation is bad for you and that cell death is related to memory problems. While the research may have implications for astronauts, it is most likely not as simple as humans getting their neurons fried on the way to Mars and inevitably ending up demented. We now know that the brain is plastic and that the relation between brain damage and memory loss is complex.

So while the loss of connections between neurones likely contributes to the cognitive deficits in dementia, the rate at which this occurs may depend on what you do with your brain, how active you are and what experiences you seek. Current dementia research, for example, indicates that activity is protective. It seems that any activity – be it mental, physical, or social – to an extent protects the brain from succumbing to the worst ravages of dementia. In particular, learning and meeting new people are effective.

Ultimately, memory is based on synaptic plasticity, which is the ability of synapses to strengthen or weaken over time. By introducing extra activity which encourages such plasticity it may be possible to counter radiation damage to the synapses. What would be really useful is research that looks at the consequence of radiation in mice that are staying active and training their memory. If activity does indeed counteract the effects of radiation we could perhaps safely travel to Mars anyway – as long as we play chess and go on Skype dates on the way there.

Periscope live streaming could turn the tables on the rise of video-on-demand

Return to the old ways of doing things? Infrogmation, CC BY-SA

That live streaming app Periscope, which allows a real-time video broadcast from a phone to the internet, has been acquired by Twitter and represents the next logical step in the process that has seen social media integrated into every facet of daily life.

This purchase incorporates Periscope into a platform that is already a gateway to news feeds and live streams of every imaginable type. It also reveals an increasingly sophisticated business model that offers hope of long-term viability for the company.

Events from all over the world have already raised the profile of live streaming: debates are already being had over whether the imminent UK general election or even next year’s US elections will be the “Periscope election”. UK users, such as Sky News’s Joe Tidy, have led the live streaming charge with Periscope and then for posterity through Vine, Twitter’s other video service, that allows users to post and share short, 10-second bursts of video.

Social media has asked us to share our thoughts through status updates, tweets, images and videos of our day. Now live streaming cuts out the detail and messy complexity of processing uploaded files. It also removes any opportunity for the uploader to consider their content or pause for cautious reflection on its appropriateness. The inspiration of Periscope lie in live news reporting, and anyone familiar with television journalism will recognise the concept behind live streaming – as well as the potential risks.

Live streaming is not a new concept; live video-sharing apps such as Qik has become a virtual veteran of the genre, while Livestream, Meerkat, and uStream offer direct competition. Another indication of the emerging importance of live streaming is Livestream’s introduction of Broadcaster, a piece of internet connectivity hardware that adds live streaming capabilities to professional broadcast-quality cameras.

Although we shouldn’t write-off Meerkat, which has been first to produce an Android app, what Periscope competitors all lack is a massive established user base. Twitter’s role as the gateway to Periscope brings tens of millions of users who have developed specific ways of interacting with their social media platform, whether through Twitter’s website, through the official or third-party mobile phone apps, or others like Tweetdeck. This also includes Meerkat. Live streaming is now just one further feature that Twitter users can deploy, with a very low learning curve.

As the gatekeeper, Twitter now also holds the keys to how Periscope-powered citizen reporting will develop and the potential creation of hundreds or even thousands of community broadcasters. In what could also be seen as a threat to traditional broadcasters, Periscope provides the capability to create an entirely new level of reality television – one that will eat into the reality game shows genre popularised by the likes of Big Brother and “structured reality” televisions series such as Made in Chelsea.

However, a quick scan of Periscope streams reveals the variety of content: someone walking behind their family through a holiday resort; walking home through darkened streets after a night out; and a show enticingly labelled with the tweet: “Don’t miss out ladies”. Of course as live broadcasts, all have now been and gone. There is no catch-up nor version posted on YouTube. Most controversially – and to the dismay of large channels and TV studios – it’s easy to find streams of television programmes and sporting events, content for which the broadcasting rights are jealously guarded.

However, any sample of Periscope streams reveals mostly the mundane – streams that would require major effort by structured reality show scriptwriters to make them worth watching, never mind justifying the insertion of advertising. Placing technology intended for professional use into the hands of end consumers does not usually make for high-quality results – an observation already well proven with desktop publishing, video editing and music creation software. Periscope provides a complete separation of the technological means and tools required for live streaming from the skills and knowledge needed to make those live streams viewable and, hopefully, interesting.

Interest will still be found with the live capture of the actions of famous people. In the midst of an election campaign, streaming offers the opportunity for citizen reporters to capture the gaffes and errors of candidates. The last UK election campaign saw controversy generated with the help of the then prime minster Gordon Brown live broadcasting his own inopportune comments through a radio microphone. It would be a stretch to claim that these statements lost him the election – but they certainly contributed.

With recognition that view-on-demand is becoming the preferred means to watch television, the prospect is that Periscope could draw us back to a live viewing schedule of Periscope-structured reality. The problem, for traditional broadcasters at least, is that these shows will now be seen through Twitter and then on endless repeat through Twitter’s other video technology, Vine.