The iPhone 5/4GS rumour mill is well and truly alive and most of the debate centres on whether this year update will be an iPhone 4S (i.e. a speed bumped iPhone 4) or whether we will see an entirely new model (i.e. the iPhone 5). There is also some speculation that we might see two new models – an iPhone 5 and an iPhone 5 Nano.
I don’t think it will be the first option. The Android market changes so quickly with new and better phones being released by the week and deals that undercut the iPhone. Apple cannot rest on their laurels and it is not in there nature to do so. The iPhone 3 to 3GS upgrade happened whilst there was a lot of activity in the original iPad. There are no such excuses this last year. Besides what have the iPhone hardware designers/engineers been doing for the last 12 months? The software guys have been busy with iOS5.
So will it be the second option or the third options? Who can say but what is clear is that Cupertino must offer a mobile device at a price point to be competitive with reasonably specified Android devices. Failure to do this will see them lose the battle like the original mac did to the PC.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The ultimate iPad?
I have owned my iPad (first gen 32Gb wifi) for over a year now. By coincidence I just happened to be in San Francisco on launch day and just couldn’t resist getting one. I predicted that they would be a massive hit and so far they have been.
How is it bearing up? Well to be honest it has been a mixed bag. Part of the original justification for purchasing the device was for my wife to use it surfing the web and to avoid scalding her lap but also the long battery life would be a distinct advantage. In reality this benefit was never realised because she still prefers to use the laptop for web surfing. I have to say that I agree with her.
Browsing the web - Don’t tell Steve Jobs but the truth is that surfing the web on an iPad is a bit of a disappointment. I often hit links by mistake or whilst trying to pinch or scroll. This tells that either the device, or my finger, isn’t optimal or precise enough for web surfing. Roughly translated I imagine Cupertino speak for this would be ‘website design has some way to go to be great on a touchscreen device’ but that’s another point. And don’t get me started on Flash because in this case I’m with Jobsy here. The fact that RIM is heavily promoting Flash compatibility on the Playbook just shows how far off the mark they are. Anyway, here’s a rundown feature by feature.
Battery life – is outstanding. Nothing more to say.
Perfromance – I’ve never had any CPU or memory related issues so again all is good. Wifi performance has been poor compared to my laptop on the same network though.
Screen – Despite not matching the ‘retina display’ resolution of the iPhone 4 it is still great. The colours are vibrant for watching movies and playing games. The retina display is rumoured for the iPad3.
Camera - I bought my iPad with my eyes wide open knowing that a camara equipped version (iPad2) would be waiting in the wings. In fact I could never understand at the time why the original iPad didn’t have one. We now know that it was because of graphics limitations with the A4 chip which are now resolved with the A5 successor. Anyway, this is now resolved.
USB/SD Card – Being locked down by iOS to iTunes is part and parcel of the new paradigm of mobile operating systems. This will change to the new iCloud services later. Should we need a file explorer in the 21st Century. I would like to see an inbuilt SD card reader though in the next device.
Keyboard – The iPad’s virtual keyboard is surprisingly decent for typing but I remain confused as to the position of some of the more obscure keys every now and again. The lack of a numbers on the front screen is painful as they are often required for passwords. I ended up purchasing a Bluetooth keyboard which I use when typing on the iPad for any duration.
Design – Both the original iPad and the successor, iPad2 look a cut above any other tablet out there. Top marks to Jonny and the team.
Case – My official Apple rubber/neoprene case hasn’t aged well. It still does the job but looks tatty and I have to remove it when placing the iPad in a dock stand. All resolved with iPad2 and smartcovers.
Apps – Like the iPhone I’m still a bit perplexed by hundreds of thousands of iOS apps. Yes I have a few dozen but as ever these appear to be more about marketing than actual use.
Conclusion – so what more is there to say. The original iPad has been a runaway hit and the iPad2 fixes some of the first gen issues. The inclusion of a USB/SD card port might be my only bugbear but I could fix that if I forked out for the adapter.
The fact that we still prefer to use a laptop at home for web surfing and the fact that I often use a keyboard with my iPad however leads me to think that perhaps the ultimate iPad won’t be the iPad3. If Steve can lower the pricepoint of the next Macbook Air it might just be that.
How is it bearing up? Well to be honest it has been a mixed bag. Part of the original justification for purchasing the device was for my wife to use it surfing the web and to avoid scalding her lap but also the long battery life would be a distinct advantage. In reality this benefit was never realised because she still prefers to use the laptop for web surfing. I have to say that I agree with her.
Browsing the web - Don’t tell Steve Jobs but the truth is that surfing the web on an iPad is a bit of a disappointment. I often hit links by mistake or whilst trying to pinch or scroll. This tells that either the device, or my finger, isn’t optimal or precise enough for web surfing. Roughly translated I imagine Cupertino speak for this would be ‘website design has some way to go to be great on a touchscreen device’ but that’s another point. And don’t get me started on Flash because in this case I’m with Jobsy here. The fact that RIM is heavily promoting Flash compatibility on the Playbook just shows how far off the mark they are. Anyway, here’s a rundown feature by feature.
Battery life – is outstanding. Nothing more to say.
Perfromance – I’ve never had any CPU or memory related issues so again all is good. Wifi performance has been poor compared to my laptop on the same network though.
Screen – Despite not matching the ‘retina display’ resolution of the iPhone 4 it is still great. The colours are vibrant for watching movies and playing games. The retina display is rumoured for the iPad3.
Camera - I bought my iPad with my eyes wide open knowing that a camara equipped version (iPad2) would be waiting in the wings. In fact I could never understand at the time why the original iPad didn’t have one. We now know that it was because of graphics limitations with the A4 chip which are now resolved with the A5 successor. Anyway, this is now resolved.
USB/SD Card – Being locked down by iOS to iTunes is part and parcel of the new paradigm of mobile operating systems. This will change to the new iCloud services later. Should we need a file explorer in the 21st Century. I would like to see an inbuilt SD card reader though in the next device.
Keyboard – The iPad’s virtual keyboard is surprisingly decent for typing but I remain confused as to the position of some of the more obscure keys every now and again. The lack of a numbers on the front screen is painful as they are often required for passwords. I ended up purchasing a Bluetooth keyboard which I use when typing on the iPad for any duration.
Design – Both the original iPad and the successor, iPad2 look a cut above any other tablet out there. Top marks to Jonny and the team.
Case – My official Apple rubber/neoprene case hasn’t aged well. It still does the job but looks tatty and I have to remove it when placing the iPad in a dock stand. All resolved with iPad2 and smartcovers.
Apps – Like the iPhone I’m still a bit perplexed by hundreds of thousands of iOS apps. Yes I have a few dozen but as ever these appear to be more about marketing than actual use.
Conclusion – so what more is there to say. The original iPad has been a runaway hit and the iPad2 fixes some of the first gen issues. The inclusion of a USB/SD card port might be my only bugbear but I could fix that if I forked out for the adapter.
The fact that we still prefer to use a laptop at home for web surfing and the fact that I often use a keyboard with my iPad however leads me to think that perhaps the ultimate iPad won’t be the iPad3. If Steve can lower the pricepoint of the next Macbook Air it might just be that.
Travel Happy
In today’s Sydney Morning Herald there is an article discussing the relative merits of the iPad as a travel gadget. Of course the iPad was used as a hook and the comments descended into the usual pro/anti Apple rant.
I have previously discussed the merits of the iPhone as a convergence device but many of the same points apply to the iPad. After all it is just a big iPhone without the phone, isn’t it?
To recap my previous post: A few years ago I was used to lug away on holiday a mobile phone, iPod, PSP, DSLR, camcorder, point and shoot digital camera and occasionally a laptop with all the respective cables and power supplies. I resisted from adding a portable dvd player to this collection. After I got an iPhone I decided to gradually phase out all these devices with the exception of my DSLR.
I now travel on holiday with a combination of iPhone, iPad and DSLR. My phone generally stays switched off. There are obvious advantages of this approach in reduced weight and cost. Also I only need to carry a single charger (my SLR is AAA battery powered) and I invested in an Apple video display cable to which displays the iPhone/iPad video onto hotel TV’s.
As always with convergence devices there are compromises to be made. The pros - iPad battery life, screen quality and build are excellent. The cons - the keyboard is adequate for most tasks but surfing the internet I find inferior compared to the precision of a mouse. Maybe website design just needs to evolve to better satisfy mobile touch screen devices. I also refuse to pay for an SD-card reader that really should be built in as standard.
Am I an Apple fan. I suppose the answer is qualified yes but I’d happily consider the respective Android alternatives out there when the time comes to replace my iPhone and iPad. To avoid vendor lock-in I have so far resisted purchasing content from iTunes and have only paid for a small number of iPhone/iPad apps.
The only device of genuine interest to me remains the Kindle. The iPad is NOT a great eReader. Now only if Amazon would start selling eBooks as cheaply as paper ones.
I have previously discussed the merits of the iPhone as a convergence device but many of the same points apply to the iPad. After all it is just a big iPhone without the phone, isn’t it?
To recap my previous post: A few years ago I was used to lug away on holiday a mobile phone, iPod, PSP, DSLR, camcorder, point and shoot digital camera and occasionally a laptop with all the respective cables and power supplies. I resisted from adding a portable dvd player to this collection. After I got an iPhone I decided to gradually phase out all these devices with the exception of my DSLR.
I now travel on holiday with a combination of iPhone, iPad and DSLR. My phone generally stays switched off. There are obvious advantages of this approach in reduced weight and cost. Also I only need to carry a single charger (my SLR is AAA battery powered) and I invested in an Apple video display cable to which displays the iPhone/iPad video onto hotel TV’s.
As always with convergence devices there are compromises to be made. The pros - iPad battery life, screen quality and build are excellent. The cons - the keyboard is adequate for most tasks but surfing the internet I find inferior compared to the precision of a mouse. Maybe website design just needs to evolve to better satisfy mobile touch screen devices. I also refuse to pay for an SD-card reader that really should be built in as standard.
Am I an Apple fan. I suppose the answer is qualified yes but I’d happily consider the respective Android alternatives out there when the time comes to replace my iPhone and iPad. To avoid vendor lock-in I have so far resisted purchasing content from iTunes and have only paid for a small number of iPhone/iPad apps.
The only device of genuine interest to me remains the Kindle. The iPad is NOT a great eReader. Now only if Amazon would start selling eBooks as cheaply as paper ones.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Is that a computer in your pocket or are you .....
One of my New Years Resolutions was to use Facebook a bit more. My wife is a facebook junkie and whiles hours away on it sat in front of the TV. I just don't get it but each to their own. Having started to use Facebook a bit more my question for today is where is facebook's strategy for tablet computers. The mobile app is fine but is a cut down version of the browser experience so why no app for the iPad for example.
I was intrigued at Mark Zuckerberg's definition of mobile technology at their recent Mobile press event which simply failed in any way to acknowledge the tablet computer as a mobile device. So according to him PC's and smartphones are important but tablets are not.
Link that back to Steve Ballmer's quotes recently about everything being a PC (including tablets and smartphones) thereby all being candidates for Windows (God forbid) and also the recently cleared up confusion from Google about where Chrome and Android sit and we can see that the Cupertino tablet has really caught the competition on the back foot. It seems to me that Job's vision and strategy is the only complete one on the market today.
So back to Facebook. Not only should people be asking why there's no app for the iPad but more importantly is where is the Facephone or FacePad.
I was intrigued at Mark Zuckerberg's definition of mobile technology at their recent Mobile press event which simply failed in any way to acknowledge the tablet computer as a mobile device. So according to him PC's and smartphones are important but tablets are not.
Link that back to Steve Ballmer's quotes recently about everything being a PC (including tablets and smartphones) thereby all being candidates for Windows (God forbid) and also the recently cleared up confusion from Google about where Chrome and Android sit and we can see that the Cupertino tablet has really caught the competition on the back foot. It seems to me that Job's vision and strategy is the only complete one on the market today.
So back to Facebook. Not only should people be asking why there's no app for the iPad but more importantly is where is the Facephone or FacePad.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Is Mark Zuckerberg a genius?
I recently saw David Fincher's movie The Social Network and enjoyed the movie immensely. The question I feel that the movie didn't (and perhaps couldn't) answer was the title of this blog.
According to the movie the evidence for:
He turned down $2m from Microsoft for some music play-list software
He was at Harvard in the first place
He wrote Facemash in one night - when drunk!
He's the CEO of one of the most influential start-ups in Silicon Valley history
The evidence against:
He allegedly stole the idea for Facebook
The movie seems to suggest that because he was socially inept and a good hacker that he's a genius. Is that enough? Whatever the truth of the matter the fact remains that he is at the helm of one of the hottest companies in the world whilst still in his twenties. If not a genius then that is evidence of some exceptional talents. Genius or not? I'd say it doesn't really matter after the first billion.
According to the movie the evidence for:
He turned down $2m from Microsoft for some music play-list software
He was at Harvard in the first place
He wrote Facemash in one night - when drunk!
He's the CEO of one of the most influential start-ups in Silicon Valley history
The evidence against:
He allegedly stole the idea for Facebook
The movie seems to suggest that because he was socially inept and a good hacker that he's a genius. Is that enough? Whatever the truth of the matter the fact remains that he is at the helm of one of the hottest companies in the world whilst still in his twenties. If not a genius then that is evidence of some exceptional talents. Genius or not? I'd say it doesn't really matter after the first billion.
Why do people hate Skyline?
I saw Skyline a couple of weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was quite surprised to see the scathing reviews from critics and moviegoers alike.
OK the script isn't great but neither was it that bad either. The cast and characters were OK too but I found the story, direction and effects all above average. IMDB rates this movie at 4.7 (based upon 4000 ratings) when I last checked but I'd score it somewhere in the 7.xs and I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.
So why the discrepancy? Well maybe I had an off day and just enjoyed a crap movie too much, but the doubt at the back of my mind I suspect that there is something more sinister at work here.
It turns out that the Brothers Strausse (silly name I know) effects company Hydraulx Filmz is contracted to work on Sony's big budget alien invasion movie Battle: Los Angeles due for release in early 2011 and that the Strausse Brothers didn't declare their involvement in Skyline to Sony. From what I gather Sony wanted Skyline pulled until after the release of their film. All in all it sounds a bit hypocritical of Sony to me given the acknowledged dirty tricks they've employed in the past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4741259.stm
but hey I wouldn't want to get on their bad side. Whatever the truth of the situation I figure that Skyline is a pretty good movie and when the budget is factored in it becomes a pretty amazing movie. Count me in for Skyline 2. And as for poor old Sony - don't worry - the trailers for Battle: Los Angeles look great too so I'm in for that movie too.
OK the script isn't great but neither was it that bad either. The cast and characters were OK too but I found the story, direction and effects all above average. IMDB rates this movie at 4.7 (based upon 4000 ratings) when I last checked but I'd score it somewhere in the 7.xs and I'm a pretty harsh movie critic.
So why the discrepancy? Well maybe I had an off day and just enjoyed a crap movie too much, but the doubt at the back of my mind I suspect that there is something more sinister at work here.
It turns out that the Brothers Strausse (silly name I know) effects company Hydraulx Filmz is contracted to work on Sony's big budget alien invasion movie Battle: Los Angeles due for release in early 2011 and that the Strausse Brothers didn't declare their involvement in Skyline to Sony. From what I gather Sony wanted Skyline pulled until after the release of their film. All in all it sounds a bit hypocritical of Sony to me given the acknowledged dirty tricks they've employed in the past
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4741259.stm
but hey I wouldn't want to get on their bad side. Whatever the truth of the situation I figure that Skyline is a pretty good movie and when the budget is factored in it becomes a pretty amazing movie. Count me in for Skyline 2. And as for poor old Sony - don't worry - the trailers for Battle: Los Angeles look great too so I'm in for that movie too.
RED One
I don't get the opportunity to go the cinema as often as I'd like so it's a minor miracle I've managed to see two movies over the last couple of weekends. One has been savaged by the critics and the other lauded. The tenuous connection between the movies - they were both shot digitally using RED One cameras.
The first is a sci-fi flick called 'Skyline' which has been savaged by critics and user reviews alike. The question I'm wondering is why? OK the script is a bit hammy here and there but I thought the cast, story, direction and special effects were all fine, even dare I say it good. There's no doubt that the film plagiarizes elements of a whole bunch of other sci-fi movies (War of the Worlds, Cloverfield, Independence Day in particular and to a lesser degree The Matrix and Predator) but then what alien invasion movie doesn't owe something to H.G. Wells original story War of the Worlds? Aside from The Matrix I enjoyed this film more than the others listed above and I think it's the movie that Cloverfield should have been. So why the scathing reviews? Maybe that's a question for Sony and the subject of another post.
The other interesting aspect is that this move allegedly cost $10-15m to make and that included 1000 effects shots. That's amazing as to me it looks like an $80-100m movie. Given that I'm currently working on a $10.5m IT project I find it amazing that a film that looks as good as Skyline can be made for the same money.
Best Scene: When the F22-Raptor takes out an alien.
Best Quote: Well there aren't any!
The second movie is 'The Social Network' and certainly nobody is complaining about Aaron Sorkin's wonderful script, David Fincher's direction of the fantastic cast. I found the movie interesting on a number of levels but mainly in its portrayal of life in a US Ivy League University (Harvard) - they have groupies? - and to a lesser extent the evolution of a tech startup in Palo Alto. What I felt the film didn't really address is a question that's burning in tech circles right now. Is Mark Zukerberg a genius or was he just lucky? Again that's a question for another post.
Best Scene: The Henley Rowing Montage
Best Quote:
Gage: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No.
Gage: Do you think I deserve it?
Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at the lawyer] What?
Gage: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don't want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no.
Gage: Okay - no. You don't think I deserve your attention.
Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
[pauses]
Mark Zuckerberg: Did I adequately answer your condescending question?
The first is a sci-fi flick called 'Skyline' which has been savaged by critics and user reviews alike. The question I'm wondering is why? OK the script is a bit hammy here and there but I thought the cast, story, direction and special effects were all fine, even dare I say it good. There's no doubt that the film plagiarizes elements of a whole bunch of other sci-fi movies (War of the Worlds, Cloverfield, Independence Day in particular and to a lesser degree The Matrix and Predator) but then what alien invasion movie doesn't owe something to H.G. Wells original story War of the Worlds? Aside from The Matrix I enjoyed this film more than the others listed above and I think it's the movie that Cloverfield should have been. So why the scathing reviews? Maybe that's a question for Sony and the subject of another post.
The other interesting aspect is that this move allegedly cost $10-15m to make and that included 1000 effects shots. That's amazing as to me it looks like an $80-100m movie. Given that I'm currently working on a $10.5m IT project I find it amazing that a film that looks as good as Skyline can be made for the same money.
Best Scene: When the F22-Raptor takes out an alien.
Best Quote: Well there aren't any!
The second movie is 'The Social Network' and certainly nobody is complaining about Aaron Sorkin's wonderful script, David Fincher's direction of the fantastic cast. I found the movie interesting on a number of levels but mainly in its portrayal of life in a US Ivy League University (Harvard) - they have groupies? - and to a lesser extent the evolution of a tech startup in Palo Alto. What I felt the film didn't really address is a question that's burning in tech circles right now. Is Mark Zukerberg a genius or was he just lucky? Again that's a question for another post.
Best Scene: The Henley Rowing Montage
Best Quote:
Gage: Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: [stares out the window] No.
Gage: Do you think I deserve it?
Mark Zuckerberg: [looks at the lawyer] What?
Gage: Do you think I deserve your full attention?
Mark Zuckerberg: I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition, and I don't want to perjure myself, so I have a legal obligation to say no.
Gage: Okay - no. You don't think I deserve your attention.
Mark Zuckerberg: I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try - but there's no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention - you have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook, where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients, are intellectually or creatively capable of doing.
[pauses]
Mark Zuckerberg: Did I adequately answer your condescending question?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)