About a year ago, I opined that Apple was flirting with old ideas and possibly stunting their culture of innovation. Now we hear more troubling news that Apple is going ahead with products of questionable utility: a bigger iPhone and an iWatch.
The argument for a bigger iPhone boils down to this-- competitors have offered bigger smartphones, so Apple should follow suit to take back lost market share. This makes a very big assumption-- that people buy larger smartphones because of their size. It's an assumption based primarily on the sales of one phone-- Samsung's Galaxy Note II, which runs the Android operating system. But I have yet to see conclusive evidence that a larger screen is the difference that influences most smartphone buyers. I have no doubt that Apple will be able to sell a version of their most popular device with a differently sized screen-- they've done it with the iPad mini. The problem is, the iPad mini cannibalized sales of the full-size iPad, a more profitable product. Whatever market share it grabbed from Amazon's Kindle and Barnes and Noble's Nook, it's been a dubious boost to Apple's fortunes, and a likely reason for that stock slide.
As for the iWatch... I don't believe there is an argument that can be made for it. Even the slickest-looking iWatch will fail because of a watch's inherent limitations. You've got to develop wireless headphones because no one wants a wire running down their arm. You're got to convince people that your design will compliment whatever style they're wearing (something you have to consider whenever something is worn, rather than pocketed). Even overcoming those hurdles, you've still got to deal with the fact that you've just prevented a usable hand from operating the device, and you've got to develop an interface that's useful within such tiny confines. If they're just making the iPod nano with a wrist strap, how is that different from what's already available for a lot cheaper?
Neither of these ideas creates an entirely new revenue stream. What they do is segment an existing revenue stream into smaller, less profitable chunks. I'm not sure how that's a recipe for success. Simply putting a product out there as an alternative to your competitors is not a growth strategy, it's a holding pattern. It's as if Apple is at the gates of El Dorado, and instead of just going inside and grabbing the gold, they're going after the guys selling cheap souvenirs by the side of the road.
Google, on the other hand, seems to have their gaze fixed firmly on the future. Take out the Android operating system, and the online advertising, and you don't have much currently in terms of money-makers. But they've created the most comprehensive map, directory, and database of the world--necessary framework for their future products, such as real-time augmented reality (Google Glasses) and self-driving cars. They've also begun introducing Google Fiber--free, fast internet--to cities around the country, part of an infrastructure that can increase the usefulness and reliability of Google Glasses and Android phones, as well as make in-development ideas like "Smart" homes (and even "Smart" neighborhoods) a real possibility. Apple users found out how far ahead Google's data is after the Apple Maps debacle. While Apple's been sitting on cash it doesn't know what to do with, Google has spent millions on R&D building a support network for the interconnected world we all know we're headed towards.
Maybe Apple can wake up and recognize their (shrinking) lead in online content
distribution, and turn Apple TV from a niche set-top accessory into a
more comprehensive experience (i.e. an Apple flat-screen TV). But we haven't heard about that good idea for a while. Only the uninspired ones.
Imagine the future, and it's not a bunch of people staring down at their wristwatches. Changing a screen size doesn't change anything else. Google understands this--so they're building the foundations of the future, and they're offering a glimpse of the products that will take advantage of it.
If Tim Cook wants to keep Apple on top, he should take note of that.
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apple. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Monday, March 12, 2012
Apple Pays Its Shareholders, What About Its Workers?
On the same day that Apple was declared "World's Most Admired Company" by Fortune magazine, it launched its own internal investigation into the labor practices of Foxconn, the company in China responsible for assembling iPhone and iPad devices.
Currently, Apple has nearly a 100 billion--that's BILLION--dollars in its bank account. That's cold, hard cash. It's been well earned by Apple. They've given us a device that we care deeply about, can't live without. But at the same time, they earned it off the backs of the workers in the Foxcomm factory, and others like it. Workers who at the very least have been grossly underpaid, and at worst were treated like little more than slaves.
Did Apple know this? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Apple has a very easy solution to this troublesome problem.
Shareholders want Apple to issue a dividend, repay the investors for the shares they bought. UPDATE: Apple announced today that's exactly what they will do. But we all know if there's this much profit, there must be some hair in the soup. Someone's getting screwed. And in this case maybe its that assembly line worker. The point is, pay him. Pay him a decent wage. You'll still make billions. And maybe you'll change the world too. Because when those workers in China owe their jobs to an American business, the world gets that much more connected. And it becomes a little bit harder to tear us all apart.
Apple has a decision to make. Do they spend their money helping the rich get richer? Or do they use their enormous wealth to make the world a better place for everybody--beyond just giving us new devices on which to play Angry Birds?
Currently, Apple has nearly a 100 billion--that's BILLION--dollars in its bank account. That's cold, hard cash. It's been well earned by Apple. They've given us a device that we care deeply about, can't live without. But at the same time, they earned it off the backs of the workers in the Foxcomm factory, and others like it. Workers who at the very least have been grossly underpaid, and at worst were treated like little more than slaves.
Did Apple know this? Maybe, maybe not. It doesn't really matter. What does matter is that Apple has a very easy solution to this troublesome problem.
Shareholders want Apple to issue a dividend, repay the investors for the shares they bought. UPDATE: Apple announced today that's exactly what they will do. But we all know if there's this much profit, there must be some hair in the soup. Someone's getting screwed. And in this case maybe its that assembly line worker. The point is, pay him. Pay him a decent wage. You'll still make billions. And maybe you'll change the world too. Because when those workers in China owe their jobs to an American business, the world gets that much more connected. And it becomes a little bit harder to tear us all apart.
Apple has a decision to make. Do they spend their money helping the rich get richer? Or do they use their enormous wealth to make the world a better place for everybody--beyond just giving us new devices on which to play Angry Birds?
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Google Glasses, and Is Apple On The Wrong Side Of Innovation?
The New York Times Bits Blog has a piece yesterday about Google's new technology venture: Google Glasses. According to the blog's sources, the glasses will resemble a bulky pair of late-90s Oakleys, cost $250-$600 dollars, and feature augmented reality--data showing up before your eyes when you look at something, like a star review when you look at a restaurant you're passing by.
The concept isn't new, but it is a prominent vision of where we're headed in mobile computing. Today's smartphones require us to look down to access information-- there's a clear advantage in a smart device that allows us to look up.
However, it doesn't seem like Google Glasses are ready for prime time, and it doesn't look to me like they will be. There are a couple problems I see:
1. It's a pair of bulky, late 90s Oakleys.
Many people say that the iPhone is a fashion statement. Which refers to its smart, sleek design and ubiquitous popularity. But it's also something that you keep in your pocket. Glasses are, quite literally, "in your face." Sunglasses are a deeply personal object, unique to one's style. And there's a reason why Oakleys' heyday was over a decade ago.
2. They're glasses.
People who don't need glasses don't wear them, unless they're sunglasses. People who do need glasses have eyeglasses that won't fit under a pair of Oakleys. The 3D trend is stuck on this same obstacle-- people feel uncomfortable with glasses (or extra glasses) on their face.
3. The money quote from the NY Times article: "The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click. We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”
Oh boy. Engineers are in love with finding new ways to navigate the devices they put in front of us. First, they came up with punch cards. Then scroll wheels. Then the mouse. The joystick. Finally-- the touchscreen. Apple's navigation system worked because it was so intuitive: when we pick up something to take a closer look, we "pinch," when we drop something, we spread our fingers. This is the way we've always navigated with real objects-- Apple translated it to the smartphone.
This head tilt thing? "Quick to learn," and "second nature" and "almost indistinguishable" to people looking at us? Read between the lines and the picture you get is a twitchy man bobbing his head about while onlookers wonder if they're witnessing epilepsy or a the beginnings of a stroke.
And our heads move a lot. Can the device tell our intentions with such precision? If I turn my head to look at a hot chick or move quickly to dodge falling bird doo, will I accidentally email my mom or dial a number in Taipei?
Why not create a navigation system based on iris movement and the simple "double blink?" Looking around would move the cursor or scroll, and a double blink (which people would normally not do) would make a selection. That's far more intuitive than nodding and bobbing.
4. The biggest hurdle is response speed. The reason augmented reality apps are nothing more than a novelty right now is that they don't work fast enough. By the time something loads, your gaze has shifted. If you have to stare at something for a long time in order for Google Glasses to show you the relevant data, then why not just pick up a smart phone instead? No one likes to uncomfortably stare at something for more than a second or two. Is 4G fast enough to deliver the data? Are the GPS, the cameras and the chipset all integrated to generate results fast-- as fast as the blink of an eye?
With all this said, Google is at least on the right track. Some type of heads-up display is the future, I'm convinced. Which is why a line near the bottom of the blog post gives me concerns about Google's competitor, Apple:
"Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist."
Yikes. So Google cops Oakleys, while Apple goes after the Casio Calculator Watch?
There's a reason the watch market collapsed following the explosion of cell phones. Watches are no longer a utility. They've become merely a fashion item. Like glasses, people buy they to match their personal style. Expecting to mass market one style of watch the same way Apple sells one style of cell phone is a boneheaded expectation.
The wristwatch concept doesn't solve any problem... indeed, it creates new ones. Yes, your hands are free, but in order to navigate, you're forced to keep one arm immobile while the other one touches. You're looking down, not up. You require a separate device to hear (glasses, at least, are close enough to the ear to incorporate a built-in headphone. I mean... wristwatch? Really?
This revelation comes on the heels of new photos that show the new iPad 3 will be THICKER than the iPad 2. While it seems the difference is no more than 1.5 millimeters, and improvements to the display and camera account for the extra space, its hard to believe Apple couldn't shave down the extra millimeter to avoid the perception of going backwards. If faster, smaller, lighter are the watchwords for future tech, Apple's fatter iPad sequel has been set up for obsolescence.
For Apple to continue its lead in the mobile computing field, they need to show they're thinking forward. Google's Glasses concept at least shows an eye looking ahead. Apple's wrist watch and belly-busting iPad 3 seem to indicate they may be staring at their feet.
The New York Times Bits Blog has a piece yesterday about Google's new technology venture: Google Glasses. According to the blog's sources, the glasses will resemble a bulky pair of late-90s Oakleys, cost $250-$600 dollars, and feature augmented reality--data showing up before your eyes when you look at something, like a star review when you look at a restaurant you're passing by.
The concept isn't new, but it is a prominent vision of where we're headed in mobile computing. Today's smartphones require us to look down to access information-- there's a clear advantage in a smart device that allows us to look up.
However, it doesn't seem like Google Glasses are ready for prime time, and it doesn't look to me like they will be. There are a couple problems I see:
1. It's a pair of bulky, late 90s Oakleys.
Many people say that the iPhone is a fashion statement. Which refers to its smart, sleek design and ubiquitous popularity. But it's also something that you keep in your pocket. Glasses are, quite literally, "in your face." Sunglasses are a deeply personal object, unique to one's style. And there's a reason why Oakleys' heyday was over a decade ago.
2. They're glasses.
People who don't need glasses don't wear them, unless they're sunglasses. People who do need glasses have eyeglasses that won't fit under a pair of Oakleys. The 3D trend is stuck on this same obstacle-- people feel uncomfortable with glasses (or extra glasses) on their face.
3. The money quote from the NY Times article: "The navigation system currently used is a head tilting to scroll and click. We are told it is very quick to learn and once the user is adept at navigation, it becomes second nature and almost indistinguishable to outside users.”
Oh boy. Engineers are in love with finding new ways to navigate the devices they put in front of us. First, they came up with punch cards. Then scroll wheels. Then the mouse. The joystick. Finally-- the touchscreen. Apple's navigation system worked because it was so intuitive: when we pick up something to take a closer look, we "pinch," when we drop something, we spread our fingers. This is the way we've always navigated with real objects-- Apple translated it to the smartphone.
This head tilt thing? "Quick to learn," and "second nature" and "almost indistinguishable" to people looking at us? Read between the lines and the picture you get is a twitchy man bobbing his head about while onlookers wonder if they're witnessing epilepsy or a the beginnings of a stroke.
And our heads move a lot. Can the device tell our intentions with such precision? If I turn my head to look at a hot chick or move quickly to dodge falling bird doo, will I accidentally email my mom or dial a number in Taipei?
Why not create a navigation system based on iris movement and the simple "double blink?" Looking around would move the cursor or scroll, and a double blink (which people would normally not do) would make a selection. That's far more intuitive than nodding and bobbing.
4. The biggest hurdle is response speed. The reason augmented reality apps are nothing more than a novelty right now is that they don't work fast enough. By the time something loads, your gaze has shifted. If you have to stare at something for a long time in order for Google Glasses to show you the relevant data, then why not just pick up a smart phone instead? No one likes to uncomfortably stare at something for more than a second or two. Is 4G fast enough to deliver the data? Are the GPS, the cameras and the chipset all integrated to generate results fast-- as fast as the blink of an eye?
With all this said, Google is at least on the right track. Some type of heads-up display is the future, I'm convinced. Which is why a line near the bottom of the blog post gives me concerns about Google's competitor, Apple:
"Apple engineers are also exploring wearable computing, but the company is taking a different route, focusing on computers that strap around someone’s wrist."
Yikes. So Google cops Oakleys, while Apple goes after the Casio Calculator Watch?
There's a reason the watch market collapsed following the explosion of cell phones. Watches are no longer a utility. They've become merely a fashion item. Like glasses, people buy they to match their personal style. Expecting to mass market one style of watch the same way Apple sells one style of cell phone is a boneheaded expectation.
The wristwatch concept doesn't solve any problem... indeed, it creates new ones. Yes, your hands are free, but in order to navigate, you're forced to keep one arm immobile while the other one touches. You're looking down, not up. You require a separate device to hear (glasses, at least, are close enough to the ear to incorporate a built-in headphone. I mean... wristwatch? Really?
This revelation comes on the heels of new photos that show the new iPad 3 will be THICKER than the iPad 2. While it seems the difference is no more than 1.5 millimeters, and improvements to the display and camera account for the extra space, its hard to believe Apple couldn't shave down the extra millimeter to avoid the perception of going backwards. If faster, smaller, lighter are the watchwords for future tech, Apple's fatter iPad sequel has been set up for obsolescence.
For Apple to continue its lead in the mobile computing field, they need to show they're thinking forward. Google's Glasses concept at least shows an eye looking ahead. Apple's wrist watch and belly-busting iPad 3 seem to indicate they may be staring at their feet.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Apple's iPhone 4 Antenna Issue Actually A Good Thing
I don't get all the hubbub about this iPhone 4 antenna issue, which everyone seems to be panicking about (except, you know, actual iPhone 4 users). In fact, if pressing the little black line on the lower edge of the phone really does kill reception and drop calls, it's actually quite a genius feature.
For years, mankind has struggled to end phone calls with ridiculously long talkers. Remember that episode of Seinfeld when Elaine uses a hairdryer to pretend she's in the car, so she has an excuse to stop talking with her friend's long-winded boyfriend?
Well we no longer have to resort to such ruses. With the iPhone 4, simply give your phone the "death grip" whenever a call is lasting a little too long.
"Oh, sorry, I would have loved to listen to all the names you've thought of for your cat... but this damn iPhone!"
"Oh, I didn't hang up on you, Mom. I heard most of your lecture about how I need to get a real job. It was just this phone thing..."
"Don't be silly, of course I wasn't bored by your ruminations on whether you should have chicken salad or tuna for lunch. It's all Steve Jobs' fault."
So rejoice, iPhone 4 owners. You now have a magic button that can act as a get-out-of-call free card any time you need it. Apple should really be selling this as a feature.
Just don't use it on me.
I don't get all the hubbub about this iPhone 4 antenna issue, which everyone seems to be panicking about (except, you know, actual iPhone 4 users). In fact, if pressing the little black line on the lower edge of the phone really does kill reception and drop calls, it's actually quite a genius feature.
For years, mankind has struggled to end phone calls with ridiculously long talkers. Remember that episode of Seinfeld when Elaine uses a hairdryer to pretend she's in the car, so she has an excuse to stop talking with her friend's long-winded boyfriend?
Well we no longer have to resort to such ruses. With the iPhone 4, simply give your phone the "death grip" whenever a call is lasting a little too long.
"Oh, sorry, I would have loved to listen to all the names you've thought of for your cat... but this damn iPhone!"
"Oh, I didn't hang up on you, Mom. I heard most of your lecture about how I need to get a real job. It was just this phone thing..."
"Don't be silly, of course I wasn't bored by your ruminations on whether you should have chicken salad or tuna for lunch. It's all Steve Jobs' fault."
So rejoice, iPhone 4 owners. You now have a magic button that can act as a get-out-of-call free card any time you need it. Apple should really be selling this as a feature.
Just don't use it on me.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Ok, Now Even Cats Are Getting Into The iPad
This is getting serious. The iPad, which I officially was not thrilled by when Steve Jobs first announced it, is quickly becoming beloved by its users. Apple looks to have another hit on its hands. Why, even cats can't wait to get their paws on it:
That is just cute.
This kind of stuff is winning me over a lot more than those awkward sitting-with-it-on-your-lap advertisements. Who reclines in that manner, legs up? Just uncomfortable.
This is getting serious. The iPad, which I officially was not thrilled by when Steve Jobs first announced it, is quickly becoming beloved by its users. Apple looks to have another hit on its hands. Why, even cats can't wait to get their paws on it:
That is just cute.
This kind of stuff is winning me over a lot more than those awkward sitting-with-it-on-your-lap advertisements. Who reclines in that manner, legs up? Just uncomfortable.
Friday, April 09, 2010
Apple Pulls A "She's All That" On The iPad
In the landmark 1999 film, She's All That, Freddie Prinze Jr., with the help of his sister, Anna Paquin, makeover the dorkiest girl in school, Laney Boggs, and turn her into, well, one of the hottest girls on the planet, Rachel Leigh Cook. All it really took was removing the glasses and throwing away those paint-covered overalls.
Well, Steve Jobs and Apple have done the same thing to the iPad. When news of the device first came out, many people, myself included, compared it unfavorably to a certain feminine hygiene product. But the gripes went beyond the name. The criticism boiled down to this: it was a giant iPhone without the phone. The iPhone software, which allowed one application open at a time, made sense for a phone, because how much multitasking can you really do on such a small device? But for the iPad, it was limiting. Why buy an iPad for a netbook price when it won't even allow you the basic functionality of a netbook: mainly, to be able to surf the web, type, and maybe watch a movie or something all at the same time. The iPad seemed like a total dork: a gadget with no real use to anybody.
But yesterday, Apple announced that the new iPad/iPhone software will ALLOW MULITASKING. Suddenly, the glasses are off. The iPad is wearing a skimpy dress and walking slowly down the stairs to the tune of "Kiss Me," by Sixpence None The Richer.
Now, the iPad CAN be like a netbook. It can handle more than one thing at once. Instead of having to hang out in a dingy basement while you paint, you can IM with friends or upload your collection to Facebook. You can move back and forth between apps effortlessly, without resetting the applications and losing data. And for goodness sakes: now some of the apps that were crappy because you had to leave them open for them to work, well, they can actually function normally now.
I may have made fun of her before, but with this new feature, the iPad changes from a gadget into something more closely resembling a fully functional computer... and that's a device any guy would like to bring to the prom.
Gratuitous Additional Picture Of Rachael Leigh Cook
__________________________
[For my ultimate cell phone ideas: Click Here. For other ways to use your cell phone for FUN! Click Here.]
In the landmark 1999 film, She's All That, Freddie Prinze Jr., with the help of his sister, Anna Paquin, makeover the dorkiest girl in school, Laney Boggs, and turn her into, well, one of the hottest girls on the planet, Rachel Leigh Cook. All it really took was removing the glasses and throwing away those paint-covered overalls.
Well, Steve Jobs and Apple have done the same thing to the iPad. When news of the device first came out, many people, myself included, compared it unfavorably to a certain feminine hygiene product. But the gripes went beyond the name. The criticism boiled down to this: it was a giant iPhone without the phone. The iPhone software, which allowed one application open at a time, made sense for a phone, because how much multitasking can you really do on such a small device? But for the iPad, it was limiting. Why buy an iPad for a netbook price when it won't even allow you the basic functionality of a netbook: mainly, to be able to surf the web, type, and maybe watch a movie or something all at the same time. The iPad seemed like a total dork: a gadget with no real use to anybody.
But yesterday, Apple announced that the new iPad/iPhone software will ALLOW MULITASKING. Suddenly, the glasses are off. The iPad is wearing a skimpy dress and walking slowly down the stairs to the tune of "Kiss Me," by Sixpence None The Richer.
Now, the iPad CAN be like a netbook. It can handle more than one thing at once. Instead of having to hang out in a dingy basement while you paint, you can IM with friends or upload your collection to Facebook. You can move back and forth between apps effortlessly, without resetting the applications and losing data. And for goodness sakes: now some of the apps that were crappy because you had to leave them open for them to work, well, they can actually function normally now.
I may have made fun of her before, but with this new feature, the iPad changes from a gadget into something more closely resembling a fully functional computer... and that's a device any guy would like to bring to the prom.
Gratuitous Additional Picture Of Rachael Leigh Cook
__________________________
[For my ultimate cell phone ideas: Click Here. For other ways to use your cell phone for FUN! Click Here.]
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Stuff I Wish Existed Instead Of The Ipad
Ok, so the iPad was somewhat of a disappointment. I wish Apple had offered up something other than a giant iPhone that fixes few of the shortcomings of the original, more portable version. In fact, I came up with a few devices I wish Apple, or someone else, would come up with:
The "Hula":
A portable device that is Hulu-capable. There were rumors of an iPhone Hulu app almost a year ago, but nothing has surfaced. Hulu allows users to stream hundreds of TV shows, both old and new, for the low low price of... free. It would be awesome to watch TV shows anywhere. There could even be an option to download the show (for a fee) to watch later (like on a plane or somewhere without wi-fi or cellular service. Furthermore, the device could stream shows from other websites, like ABC.com (Lost), comedycentral.com (South Park) and others. You can already watch these on your computer for free... why not your phone, or some other portable device?
The "Satchel":
A satellite-capable cell phone, able to access both Direct TV and Sirius/XM radio from anywhere. Here's what makes this great. There's a limit to how much data can be sent over 3G, or even tomorrow's 4G cellular networks. So even if Apple gives us a device that streams video other than YouTube and all that, load times could still be slow when a million people are trying to view content at once. Satellite, however, doesn't have this problem. The satellites send a signal, all you need is a device that unscrambles that signal. Sirius already makes a portable player. Could these two satellite titans join forces and create the ultimate media device?
The "Gamepod":
I Got Tired Of Using MS Paint, SO I Took This From The Internet
Your PSP can play movies, surf the internet, and play videogames. The Nintendo DS has dual touchscreens. Your iPhone and Blackberry meanwhile, claim they can play games, but its still not the ultimate gaming experience. Why not create a device with the ergonomics of a portable game system with the functionality of a smartphone?
Yeah yeah, I know:
NGage
But that thing is Ugly. If we had given up on an Apple phone after the Motorola Rokr disaster, where would we be today?
A Nintendo or PSP Phone? Are you really gonna tell me that's a bad idea?
Any company interested in following up on these ideas, please contact me. I have no technical expertise, but I'll gladly take a 1 million dollar idea fee.
(plus a lot on the back end)
Ok, so the iPad was somewhat of a disappointment. I wish Apple had offered up something other than a giant iPhone that fixes few of the shortcomings of the original, more portable version. In fact, I came up with a few devices I wish Apple, or someone else, would come up with:
The "Hula":
A portable device that is Hulu-capable. There were rumors of an iPhone Hulu app almost a year ago, but nothing has surfaced. Hulu allows users to stream hundreds of TV shows, both old and new, for the low low price of... free. It would be awesome to watch TV shows anywhere. There could even be an option to download the show (for a fee) to watch later (like on a plane or somewhere without wi-fi or cellular service. Furthermore, the device could stream shows from other websites, like ABC.com (Lost), comedycentral.com (South Park) and others. You can already watch these on your computer for free... why not your phone, or some other portable device?
The "Satchel":
A satellite-capable cell phone, able to access both Direct TV and Sirius/XM radio from anywhere. Here's what makes this great. There's a limit to how much data can be sent over 3G, or even tomorrow's 4G cellular networks. So even if Apple gives us a device that streams video other than YouTube and all that, load times could still be slow when a million people are trying to view content at once. Satellite, however, doesn't have this problem. The satellites send a signal, all you need is a device that unscrambles that signal. Sirius already makes a portable player. Could these two satellite titans join forces and create the ultimate media device?
The "Gamepod":
I Got Tired Of Using MS Paint, SO I Took This From The Internet
Your PSP can play movies, surf the internet, and play videogames. The Nintendo DS has dual touchscreens. Your iPhone and Blackberry meanwhile, claim they can play games, but its still not the ultimate gaming experience. Why not create a device with the ergonomics of a portable game system with the functionality of a smartphone?
Yeah yeah, I know:
NGage
But that thing is Ugly. If we had given up on an Apple phone after the Motorola Rokr disaster, where would we be today?
A Nintendo or PSP Phone? Are you really gonna tell me that's a bad idea?
Any company interested in following up on these ideas, please contact me. I have no technical expertise, but I'll gladly take a 1 million dollar idea fee.
(plus a lot on the back end)
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Apple Debuts "iPad"
Apparently, no one in the marketing department thought of the obvious connotation.
Judging by what I've seen, this is basically an iPhone on steroids. Which Mark McGuire will tell you, isn't necessarily a good thing. The iPad starts at $499 for a 16GB, Wi-Fi-Only model. That's pricey for something that's too big for a pocket, can't run simultaneous applications (like a real computer can do), looks cumbersome to hold while typing, still doesn't display websites that use flash animation, and doesn't really offer much more than an iPhone does except a larger screen and more robust applications.
And while this idea is nice, it looks a bit off:
w/ Keyboard Dock (Sold Separately)
Would Apple have been better off launching a touchscreen netbook similar to what the iPad-keyboard dock combo appears to be? At least then, presumably, you could watch a movie while surfing the web or play a game while IMing, which are things Apple seems to not realize people do on their computers. The iPhone operating system is perfectly designed for a phone... but a computer, or tablet, needs to offer more.
I'm sure I'll check it out at the Apple Store, but it's not something I'm rushing to buy. I haven't seen anything I can't live without, and I haven't seen anything I want. Maybe something will change my mind. But basically, it looks like Apple just made a very expensive drawing pad/book.
I'm not that impressed, Apple. "iPad?" Seriously?
Again:
Apparently, no one in the marketing department thought of the obvious connotation.
Judging by what I've seen, this is basically an iPhone on steroids. Which Mark McGuire will tell you, isn't necessarily a good thing. The iPad starts at $499 for a 16GB, Wi-Fi-Only model. That's pricey for something that's too big for a pocket, can't run simultaneous applications (like a real computer can do), looks cumbersome to hold while typing, still doesn't display websites that use flash animation, and doesn't really offer much more than an iPhone does except a larger screen and more robust applications.
And while this idea is nice, it looks a bit off:
w/ Keyboard Dock (Sold Separately)
Would Apple have been better off launching a touchscreen netbook similar to what the iPad-keyboard dock combo appears to be? At least then, presumably, you could watch a movie while surfing the web or play a game while IMing, which are things Apple seems to not realize people do on their computers. The iPhone operating system is perfectly designed for a phone... but a computer, or tablet, needs to offer more.
I'm sure I'll check it out at the Apple Store, but it's not something I'm rushing to buy. I haven't seen anything I can't live without, and I haven't seen anything I want. Maybe something will change my mind. But basically, it looks like Apple just made a very expensive drawing pad/book.
I'm not that impressed, Apple. "iPad?" Seriously?
Again:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)