This and that

Ok, I'm not one to pump out blog postings just for the hell-of-it.  I typically wait until something strikes me as weird, funny, or disturbing and then start to think about how I feel about it.  If I'm moved enough, I'll start to put some thoughts down here and then blast them out to the universe, as I'm pretty sure they won't get read here on this planet.  But that's ok.  I don't expect that everyone will be excited about what I have to say so I just consider it "therapy."  Much cheaper than the real thing don't you think?

So, what's got my panties in a bunch today?  You guessed it, the iPad.  More specifically, the over-hyping of the iPad since it's been out.  It appears that I'm not the only one who thinks this either.  This morning's ZDNet article "The five most overly hyped tech products in 2010" lists the Apple iPad as the 5th most over-hyped tech product this year. 

The writer's premise is that, while Apple did a masterful job at making people think they needed an iPad, the problem is that they made people think an iPad can replace their laptop.  The reality is that the iPad, and it's applications, are great but they don't actually let you be as productive as if you were using a laptop or even a netbook.  I laugh everytime I read about a new accessory for the iPad that includes a keyboard.  Don't they realize that if Steve Jobs had wanted you to have a keyboard on the device he would have made it that way?  Sure, Apple introduced keyboard accessories when they launched the iPad, but they don't really expect anyone to use them.  That's why they spent so much time on making the touch experience so "magical."

Suffice it to say, I was very happy that this ZD Net writer was brave enough to stand up against the Apple Faithful horde and speak his mind.  I completely agree with his remarks about the benefit of the iPad as being primarily a consumption of data device and not a productivity device.  Good on ya mate!

The second article I saw today was about the fact that the game "Angry Birds" would not be available for the Windows Phone 7 devices until next year.  Maybe.  The developer of the game, Rovio, says that porting their game to the WP7 platform is hard.  This probably means they don't have any WP7 developers on their staff and since they are based in Finland (Nokia country) it's understandable. 

The reason I'm unhappy with this isn't because I have a new WP7 device either.  I don't.  I'm not ready to switch carriers yet and my choices for WP7 are AT&T and T-Mobile.  I would like to get a smart phone, but my choices on Verizon's network are more limited.  I could get a Samsung, HTC, or Motorola smartphone but these are all Android-based.  My other choice is a Blackberry.  The good news is that "Angry Birds" is available for Android phones but I'm not convinced Android is as cool as everyone says.  Maybe it should be one of the tech products that is considered "overly hyped" by ZD Net?  My son does own an Android-based phone (Samsung I believe), likes it, and does have Angry Birds on it. 

My son also has an Apple iPod Touch with Angry Birds for my grandson to play, hence my addiction to the game.  Since I babysit two days per week, I get to play the game as well as a ragdoll game which I like.  Most of my access to these is during nap time (his not mine) and only if they send the iTouch along with him.  However, I do really like the "physics" type games and play them on the PC as well.  My addiction to these is under control though as I haven't reached the stage where I'll do anything to get my hands on a device that supports these games. 

So, what's my point?  Good question.  I think it's that, while I'd love to have enough scratch to buy whatever new toy I liked, I think the iPad would be used primarily for playing games and I don't want to spend that much just to play games.  I've spent way too much on Gameboys of every flavor, DS (no HD yet), and other handheld game devices to last a life-time.  I play games on my feature-phone, Wii, Xbox 360, laptop, and desktop PC so I would say there isn't a game platform I haven't at least tried.

I also think my point is that I think the iPad is completely over-hyped, like all Apple products, and I refuse to buy-in.  I probably won't buy-into the Android-tablet devices coming either.  I just can't see the point.  Maybe I should just get a Kindle and forget about the games?  Of course, I hear they're making Kindle games now too, so I guess I can't get away from them.  Fortunately, I do like games after-all.

10 Things Netbooks Do Better Than iPads (photos)

I found this excellent C|Net review of some of the differences between netbooks and the iPad.  I know I sound like an iPad hater, but I don't think my opinion will prevent Apple from selling a lot of iPads.  I read this morning that analysts expect 11 million iPads to be sold this year and that can't be just to early adopter geeks.

This article just gives you a better perspective of which of these types of devices to buy if you're considering getting one.  Neither of them will replace a desktop PC or even a decent laptop, but a lot of users have another mobile device, besides their cell/smartphone, when they're out and about. 

Check it out if you're interested and let me know what you think.

http://reviews.cnet.com/2300-3121_7-10002305.html?s=0&o=10002305&tag=mncol;page

A "case" for Apple's iPad

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27076_3-20018158-248.html?tag=rtcol;txt
Ok, I have to admit I'm still on the fence on the iPad.  Full disclosure, I don't own an iPad and I've never even played with one so my opinion is based solely on what I've read from others and not on personal use.  Does that make my opinion less "read-worthy?"  Possibly.  Does it mean that I will refrain from giving my opinion about the iPad?  Hell no!  It's my opinion and I'll say what I want.  If you disagree, stop reading right now.  Just stop it.

Now that we have that out of the way, let's continue.  One of my pet peeves about the iPad is that it is strictly a tablet-style device.  That is, it does not have a keyboard, other than the software keyboard you use on the screen.  My experience with these types of devices ranges from smartphones (yes, I've played with an iPhone) and tablet-PCs of various types.  Some you use your finger and some require a stylus to touch the screen with.  In almost every case I found that I wanted a physical keyboard to enter text.  I don't care for handwriting recognition systems (sorry Stepan) and software keyboards are pretty useless for entering more than a sentence.

So, this brings us to the picture of the product above.  That's actually an iPad inside a case called the tyPad.  You slip your iPad into the top of the case and use Bluetooth to connect to the included keyboard.  You'll have to read the C|NET review to get the whole picture, but when I read the review it spurred me to write this post.  My question is, if you needed a keyboard in the first place, why would you buy a tablet-only device?  I mean, the iPad costs between $499 (16GB, WiFi-only) to an whopping $829 (64GB, WiFi plus 3G)!  Add the tyPad for another $129 and you're approaching $1,000.  How many of us will opt to go this route when there are many, many options for netbooks, laptops, and convertible versions of those available for as little as $199?  Heck, splurge for a decent one and you're still only out $500. 

Perhaps it's just me, as I have yet to taste the Kool-aid the Apple-faithful seem to drink daily.  I'm not saying that the tyPad solution is a bad idea, but it just makes me wonder why I would buy an iPad and then stick it into a case with a keyboard.  The iPad is supposedly "magical", according to Apple, but if that's true, why didn't they "magically" include a damn keyboard in the first place? 

Ok, I'll climb down from my high-horse until the next time I think of something to say.

E-books, Pads, and SmartPhones oh my!

I've been considering writing down my thoughts about these types of devices for some time. I have strong feelings about them, having been involved in creating precursors to most of them, so I wouldn't consider myself un-biased.

Several years ago I was part of the team at Microsoft that launched the first version of Windows CE embedded OS, and the first devices utilizing that software. These devices were called Handheld PCs (or H/PC), were about the size of a box of bank checks (for those who remember what those are), and had small keyboards you could peck at but not touch-type on. These devices were meant to be used as a PDA and allow you to synchronize your calendar, contacts, tasks, and eventually email, with your PC. They weren't initially wireless, although that capability did get added shortly after these products hit the market.

These devices eventually lead to slightly larger devices, similar in size to Netbooks of today, ebook reading devices, and the forerunner of Smartphones. All of these early devices were running a version of Windows CE with applications appropriate to the device. They weren't perfect and they were more expensive than the market wanted so most of them dropped off the radar.

Fast-forward a decade and you have ebook reading devices that last weeks on a battery charge, have hundreds of thousands of ebook titles to choose from, and big players like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and even Apple competing for your dollars. The latest Kindle from Amazon is $139 for a WiFi-only version which just means that you need to find a hot-spot to download content. The only downside with the Kindle, or B&N's Nook, is the ePaper display they use which is only black-and-white, is limited to reading, and is somewhat slow to refresh the page. Compare that with Apple's iPad, which has a full-color display, has thousands of apps (mostly games), but costs as much as $599. Not exactly an "Apples" and Oranges (sorry!) comparison, but they do get compared all the time. Reading devices have come a long way since the pioneers like the Rocketbook, Cybook, or eBookMan. There are actually ~25 companies that offer an ebook reader today so the market is quite healthy but generally only for a few.

Speaking of the iPad, you can't watch anything on television today without catching one of Apple's iPad annoying commercials. It's the same tactic they used for the iPhone and you know how that's turned out. Pad devices have also been around for many years, at least from the 80's. Microsoft made a lot of noise, and spent a lot of money, pushing the Tablet PC but these devices ran full Windows which meant they were typically heavy and expensive. This was a pet project of BillG's so it was sacrilegious not to support it within the company. The problem was that users didn't see the benefit of using a stylus to scribble on this heavy device and more-or-less rejected them. Apple, on the other hand, took a different approach and based the iPad on their successful iPhone software. Microsoft could have done something similar by using their Windows Mobile software or even Windows CE Embedded which they continue to develop. So, despite the work that others did before them, Apple is lauded as the pioneer for introducing another "magical" device.

As for Smartphones, the market today is Apple's iPhone and Android (Google's embedded OS) variants from several vendors. It's interesting to note that Nokia is still the leader in the phone market, but only because they sell millions of feature phones which are less capable than smartphones. Rim's Blackberry is the only smartphone in the top 5 of all phone makers while Apple and any Android vendor is not. Reading the press about the smartphone market though, you would think that Apple invented the category and their only competition were a vendor using Android. Microsoft is bringing out their Windows Phone 7 software with several OEM partners and hopefully they will retain at least some of their share but there are no guarantees. Rim is still alive with Blackberry's and just announced their tablet device this week. Nokia is struggling, if you call being Number 1 struggling, as their Symbian-based (another long story) devices have not made any traction.

So, the market is quite active for these devices but they overlap in many areas. Also, it's unlikely that any user would own all of them unless they're uber-gadget geeks. Remember, most people still have a laptop as well as a smartphone or an ebook reader, or an iPad, so carrying around all of that crap is a pain. Yes, some are trying to use their iPad or smartphone to replace some or all of what they do remotely with their laptop, but the results are mostly negative. Pads and Smartphones aren't designed to replace a laptop so if a user needs to do something only a laptop can do, they still need to carry it. If they just want to read a book, check their email/Facebook page, or play a game, they have several choices to choose from.

Having seen my 2.5 year-old grandson manipulating his dad's iPod Touch device to play games, I wonder what he'll be using when he's 10, 20 or 30 years old. I'm pretty sure it won't look anything like what's available today and that's ok. Technology is supposed to help make us more productive, save us time, and hopefully a little happier so, as long as it's not an "Apple-only World" I'm fine with it. They didn't invent everything, despite what Steve Jobs says.

Thoughts on social networking

Due to popular demand, I'm considering actually using my blog. It's not that I didn't want to a year and a-half ago, it's just that I didn't have much to say. Oh, I've been using Facebook a bit, and commenting there, but I don't think that's the same thing. I tried Twitter too, but I never really got any satisfaction from 130 characters. I followed a few people there as well but have since stopped unless those people's tweets (twits?) are redirected to FB I don't read them. There's something about trying to keep up with a long list of semi-familiar names and the stuff they're writing. So, I'm too un-cool for Twitter but I feel fairly comfortable on FB.

My daughter is an interesting social networking (SN) "sociology" case. She's the right age (22) for MySpace/Facebook/Twitter/etc. but chooses instead to use Tumblr which she says is a bit like a blog and a bit like Twitter. You "follow" people on Tumblr but the posts are blog-like and you can include photos. I've never done a comparison of the different SN sites but I'm sure one exists. She lives on Tumblr when she's not working and we call it her addiction. She's even met a guy in Portugal on Tumblr and they video-chat on Skype all the time. She's going out to meet him in a couple of months so it proves that SN can bring people together. I guess.

Hopefully, I'll continue to write about my experiences with SN as I do find it fun to keep in touch with old, and new, friends and family there. Whether I'm just a statistic in this new form of communication or not, it does seem to serve a purpose for good or bad. We'll see.

Cometary out!

New blog

I've postponed starting a blog, or at least a proper blog, as I haven't been comfortable putting my thoughts out into the ether. Now, I think I'm ready to do so cautiously as I think I have something to say. That doesn't mean I think anyone will be interested, quite the contrary, but I've decided it doesn't matter. If I'm the only one who reads these words then that's ok. At the end of the day, we're our best audience usually and it's silly to think otherwise. Perhaps there are those who have the same opinions, experiences, feelings, etc. that I do, but they may never see this and it doesn't matter anyway. As long as I get some benefit from typing what I think that's all that should matter.

So, here's blog #1 done. No substance, no calories, kind of like lettuce.

KA