mendax.org » internet http://mendax.org WyldKard's mental brouhaha. est. 1996 Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:40:46 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 What new Flash content? http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2010%2F08%2F31%2Fwhat-new-flash-content%2F&seed_title=What+new+Flash+content%3F http://mendax.org/2010/08/31/what-new-flash-content/#comments Tue, 31 Aug 2010 13:40:46 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=2125

We wonder what sites Dave Winer visits when he argues that ’s boycott of Flash for its devices isn’t working.

I see new Flash content several times every day when I catch up on the news with my .

What Flash-heavy news sites is Dave visiting, because we don’t see them. Before the was released, we’d routinely see video embeds in RSS feeds that were Flash-based, but most of these have now been replaced or supplemented with HTML5-compatible versions. In fact, other than Flash video, what new Flash content is being created on anything other than a fashion/designer web page? Most web-savvy companies have moved on, or at the very least, now offer non-Flash versions of their sites.

Winer’s claim is akin to the argument that Barack Obama is a muslim – outlandish claims not backed by facts. We suppose, if someone sought out Flash-heavy news sites, one could find them, but why try to skew the big picture? Sites that only offer Flash content nowadays are effectively cutting out their mobile audience, considering that most Android devices don’t even support Flash yet. So any site that cares about readership (i.e. a good news site) isn’t throwing Flash in your face. And really, it’s not even about just mobile readership anymore, as more and more people are using devices like the at home.

When the was released, there were those who refused to buy it based on its lack of Flash support (or at least so they claimed). But those voices are dying, and the longer it takes for a proper competitor to reach the market, the more companies are foolish for not offering HTML5-compliant content. And no one’s going to support Flash long-term if HTML5 works for a broader audience, despite the fact that Flash was a preferred tool for many developers in years past. If that were the case, developers would still be writing in FORTRAN.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/08/31/what-new-flash-content/feed/ 0 Verizon FIOS: non-basic install a nightmare. http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2010%2F06%2F15%2Fverizon-fios-non-basic-install-a-nightmare%2F&seed_title=Verizon+FIOS%3A+non-basic+install+a+nightmare. http://mendax.org/2010/06/15/verizon-fios-non-basic-install-a-nightmare/#comments Tue, 15 Jun 2010 18:44:56 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=2030

We jumped on the FIOS bandwagon for our last move in hopes of super-fast internet speeds. While cable was long-touted as an outstanding alternative over DSL, our Comcast connection wasn’t perfect, and the 12MB advertised speeds were hardly that. So when we moved to a location previously wired for FIOS, we thought we’d be in for smooth sailing, since the only major complaints about FIOS we encountered were regarding a fresh install. Supposedly, once everything was in, people experienced Internet ecstasy.

Making the order.

The process we went through just to get FIOS activated was nothing short of a monstrous affair, however, at least as far as activating utilities go. While we already scouted out the information we needed for the plans we wanted, we were ambushed by our electric company when we activated power at our new residence. They claimed to be a FIOS partner, and could go ahead and take out FIOS order, thus not necessitating a call directly to FIOS. If anyone ever tells you this, tell them they are liars, and immediately hang up.

We told them no such thing, and though the convenience worth it. Little did we know that our power company could only offer us plans that were not the lowest advertised, nor were the packages very customizable. Of course, we didn’t know this until the basic order had already gone through, so by the time we hung up the phone, we had to call Verizon anyway to sort things out. And so began our phone call march, because getting through to a human being at Verizon is no easy process, especially when Verizon bounces you from operator to operator, oftentimes dropping the call midway through. Complicating the calling chain was the fact that our mobile phone number, representing the only phone we own, was not bound to a local area , which meant that we were routinely routed to a Verizon office hundreds of miles away, instead of dealing with someone who could handle local orders.

Hours later, we finally got our order fixed. Not fixed per se, because we basically had to start a new order, and the rep we spoke to promised to delete the original order once it entered their system (apparently there’s lag in this). It’s worth noting that when we explained that our power company took our FIOS order, the immediate response was, “Yeah, don’t do that.” This was a common thought among Verizon reps we spoke to, which begs the question as to why Verizon has affiliates like power companies in the first place, since even Verizon employees think it’s a bad idea. (Apparently, numerous calls are fielded every day in which Verizon employees need to fix issues with customer orders thanks to affiliates screwing them up.)

Of course, the original order didn’t get cleared when it should have been even after we lined up our correct order. This required even more phone calls to the local office after we received e-mails and phone messages concerning the first order.

Using TiVo.

There were two non-standard requests with our order, both of which caused us pain in getting things set up. The first was that we had a TiVo HD unit that we previously used with Comcast, which we were told would work with FIOS. When the FIOS installer showed up (mind you, they provide a window of four or eight hours, effectively making you take the day off of work), he didn’t know much about TiVo at all. He fumbled through the TiVo menus and eventually got a signal to show up, and was thus content with this part of the setup. He did not, however, make sure that the on-screen guide worked, so when he was done, none of the channels matched up with their descriptions. We would later find out that fixing this was a simple matter of re-running the TiVo setup process, but Verizon was useless in providing this information. Their response to my concerns that things weren’t working as intended was, “We don’t support non-Verizon supplied .” Yet they do, actually, because they bothered going so far as to install the Cable Card we’re leasing from them. In other words, they did a half-ass job; either support setting up the TiVo in full, or don’t do it at all and just hand customers their Cable Card.

Verizon’s shitty router.

The second FIOS install obstacle was that we didn’t want to use their supplied router, because we already had an Time Capsule which handled our routing needs. This was a non-issue with a cable modem, but as our brief time using DSL showed us, things would be more complicated if the supplied modem had a built-in router. We addressed this in advance with the FIOS installer, and he said it wouldn’t be a problem – he wasn’t authorized to make changes to the provided router, but the included manual had all the instructions necessary to disable the routing capabilities of the Verizon device, such that we could just hook our Time Capsule up to it. Liar.

First off, no manual was supplied with the router. There was a quick setup guide, but no in-depth instructions. Naturally, he took off before we could go through the supplied guides in depth, so we were left hanging. We explored the firmware options via the router’s web interface, searched the web, and came up empty-handed: the supplied device did not have a way to disable the router. Sure, we could have just sucked it up and used our Time Capsule for backup purposes only, but we liked Back to My Mac working as intended, didn’t want redundant DHCP, and are, quite simply, stubborn. So, back to the phone, being transferred from person to person, and ultimately coming upon a solution.

Originally, we thought we needed a networking interface module (NIM) to use as a basic modem, which we could then plug our Time Capsule into. It turns out that NIMs weren’t being distributed by Verizon anymore, however, despite the fact that not every rep we spoke to knew about this, so we were transferred to their business department twice because they could supposedly provide us with such a mythical NIM. The real solution, however, is simply to have Verizon deactivate the internet-over-coax signal, and enable the internet-over-ethernet signal on the main FIOS box (installed in our basement). This meant that we’d still have a coax cable running from the FIOS box to our (not first through their router), and we’d have an ethernet cable running from the FIOS box to our Time Capsule. Figuring this out wasn’t easy, because one Verizon rep was insistent that the ethernet port on the FIOS box was for technician troubleshooting purposes only (this despite the fact that we pointed to internet resources saying otherwise).

Sadly, when the signal switching was eventually done, another Verizon rep refused to stay on the line to verify that things were then working as intended. Of course, they weren’t, so we were now back to having no internet. Calling back, and explaining the changes made to our setup, a new rep insisted that we needed to reattach the router such that they could try to query it, even though we explained that internet-over-coax was disabled. She was insistent that they could still query the router, though we knew she was wrong. Eventually, she agreed to send over a technician again to sort things out.

Of course, by then we were back on the internet searching for solutions, and we finally found one. It turns out that once the signal-switching occurred, the internet-over-ethernet worked so long as the Verizon supplied router was attache to the FIOS box over ethernet. This then required us to login to the router’s web interface and ask for the IP to be released and reassigned. Once we pressed the “release” button, we needed to swap out the Verizon router for the Time Capsule. The IP was reassigned to our own router, and we were up and running. Up and running about 10 hours after the original technician showed up.

Conclusions?

The biggest conclusion here is that Verizon employees who handle FIOS tech support (on and off-site both) have no consistency ins training. Some are positively clueless about Verizon-supplied , while a few have either been around long enough, or taken the time to research the equipment, and thus know enough to properly inform Verizon customers. Either way, the installation process is long and painstaking even without a fresh install.

Of course, if we had simply ordered a regular package, complete with Verizon’s comparatively poor DVR and configuration-limited router, perhaps the entire installation for us would have taken no more than two hours. But this isn’t 1999, and installing broadband internet in homes where many people have their own routers and DVRs shouldn’t be a troublesome experience for the customers or the on-site technicians.

Of course, now that everything’s installed, our has been rock-solid over the last month, so at least there’s that. Speeds are much faster than via Comcast (and for less money), which is certainly nice. But we knew to expect that going in, so while the end- may get an “A,” the customer during install gets a “D” a best. Not exactly what we expected considering all the AT&T slamming in favor of Verizon. Even Comcast, which as a comparatively poor reputation, has never caused us as much pain when we had a problem, and in most cases were responsive and better informed than the many Verizon folks we spoke to. Something worth keeping in mind if you ever make a similar leap over to FIOS.
Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/06/15/verizon-fios-non-basic-install-a-nightmare/feed/ 0 Three iTablet needs, three need-nots, and three things that’d be nice to have. http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2010%2F01%2F21%2Fthree-itablet-needs-three-need-nots-and-three-things-thatd-be-nice-to-have%2F&seed_title=Three+iTablet+needs%2C+three+need-nots%2C+and+three+things+that%26%238217%3Bd+be+nice+to+have. http://mendax.org/2010/01/21/three-itablet-needs-three-need-nots-and-three-things-thatd-be-nice-to-have/#comments Thu, 21 Jan 2010 15:30:03 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1915

The reason we’re so enthused about ’s rumoured tablet computer is because its proposed mobility suits our lifestyle. Simply put, our MacBook Pro is too big to comfortably cart across the country often, and our doesn’t offer key functionality that we need in our road-warrior lifestyle. While there’s already some middle ground in the likes of a smaller MacBook, or even moreso in the overpriced MacBook Air, the iTablet proposes less power in a smaller package. The key with the iTablet will be in how balances trade-offs, because their goal will be to ensure that the iTablet feature pendulum doesn’t swing too far in the direction of the , nor to the MacBook. This is consistent with the concern, mirrored by John Gruber, that the iTablet simply won’t offer enough over the to justify the price.

It’s eyebrow-raising that “too big” and “too expensive” were the major knocks against the Newton, and here we are facing the arrival of the mythical Tablet, which, according to the Wall Street Journal, has a big 10-inch diagonal screen and will cost around $1,000. But I’d argue that the Newton wasn’t too big, too expensive, period — I’d say it was too big and too expensive given what it offered.

For the iTablet not to succumb to the Newton’s fate, it has to set itself apart from the . This is even more important when one considers that the iTablet will most likely run on the same version of OS X that the and Touch do. There will need to be some key differences in OS load-out, however, and these differences become quite clear when we’re on the road with only our , and consider what we can’t do well.

Three things the iTablet needs.

1. A readable screen size: The is small for a reason, and while certainly capable of browsing the web, the reality is that non-mobile pages are still inconvenient to browse at length. There’s a reason that mobile web pages are often preferred on the , and why apps designed to replace web interfaces are designed with a different interface in mind. This issue has already addressed, of course, because the iTablet’s screen is expected to be 10″ long diagonally. Arguably, this means that few users will need to zoom in on full-size web pages on the iTablet’s screen to read the respective content. Would a 12″ screen be better at this? Sure, but 10″ should be manageable, while anything smaller offers questionable benefits.

2. User-defined multi-tasking: When Backgrounder came out for jailbroken iPhones, it changed the way we did business. It didn’t play as important a role in our use of the before we picked up a 3GS, but now it’s an invaluable tool for us. We can run Pandora in the car while getting directions from Navigon, or we can jump back over to the app to switch podcasts without having to restart Navigon (it still doesn’t handle podcasts properly). We can leave a game to check on e-mail, and jump right back in with nary a delay. The funny thing is, when we’re using Backgrounder, we rarely do it with more than a couple apps at a time. This is revealing: while people would love native support for third-party apps to have multitasking capabilities like the core apps do, most people don’t really need to keep many apps open in the first place. So even if the iTablet has a much slower processor than what we’re used to in a MacBook, it shouldn’t matter too much. As of right now, the 3GS already meets our requirements for horsepower as far as multitasking is concerned, so a slightly more powerful processor would be sufficient for most users.

What may want to consider, if they haven’t done so already, is letting users define a limited number of applications to run in the background. Say, a user can launch a given app, and via some gesture, send that program into a multitasking state. Maybe a small bar at one side of the screen has three empty boxes, and when a program is told to run in the background, its icon is sent to occupy one of these three boxes. That way, users can see which apps are running in the background, and with another gesture, stop the background process for a given app, whereupon its icon is removed from one of the three multitasking boxes.

Since we’re bloggers, we’ll use a typical blogging workflow as a perfect example for this. We launch Byline, our RSS reader. We drag its title bar to an empty multitasking box. We return to the springboard and launch a photo-editing app, and also drag its title bar to an unoccupied multitasking box. Finally, we do the same for the WordPress app. We can now jump back-and-forth between these applications by simply clicking on one of the multitasking boxes for the application we want to switch to. This allows us to easily copy content from Byline into WordPress, mock up graphics to do same, and voila, no needing to launch applications again and again just to switch between them. When we’re done with an app, we press and hold its icon in the respective multitasking box, and the icon explodes in a cloud of virtual dust as the application closes. This type of multitasking would make the iTablet a much more efficient work-buddy than the is today.

3. Decent text input: Dan Moren wrote a great piece collecting various text input methods that the iTablet could use. Regardless of which method goes with, we’ve said for some time that text input is the ’s greatest weakness. This is where the iTablet can really set itself apart from the , because most travelers will want some easy form of text input, and ideally one that doesn’t drop a giant virtual keyboard across half of one’s screen. Netbooks may have cramped keyboards, but at least they stand out of the way of the already-small display. A 10″ screen may be of a sufficient size for viewing full-screen content, but if half that screen is used as a keyboard, that 10″ will seem unreasonably small.

We figure that a bluetooth keyboard approach is the most logical, though definitely expect to have something up their sleeve as far as a unique input method is concerned. Without this, the iTablet doesn’t seem like it would offer enough, especially when one can buy a Macbook for around the same price.

Three things the iTablet doesn’t need.

1. A cellular data connection: The has 3G data for a reason: it’s a phone. In a world where every telecom is on LTE, and it’s ubiquitous across the country, then it makes sense to slam LTE-capable into the iTablet. In the meantime, there’s already the , which has the capability to tether its cellular data connection to any nearby computer. (AT&T just has to turn the feature on.)

There’s also the issue of supporting CDMA if they decide to work with Verizon. CDMA doesn’t let one use data and voice at the same time, which would be an issue for consistent functionality if released a CDMA on Verizon, but this is hardly an issue for the iTablet (since it wouldn’t have voice anyway). Instead, the issue is one of customer satisfaction: if the iTablet is linked to Verizon, current customers who are tied to AT&T will be annoyed at having to get a second data subscription. Even if the iTablet were capable of both CDMA and GSM, so it could work under any of the major cellular services, one must wonder if this would be a solid business move. More likely, would leverage the iTablet as yet another gadget to compliment one’s life with. If the iTablet doesn’t sport cellular data, then users will still need to get an to enable tethered data access on the iTablet. It’s a win for , and with so many iPhones out there already, one wonders who would seriously complain if the iTablet required an for data. Verizon hold-outs shouldn’t be too displeased either, assuming that the will eventually head to Verizon in 2011. In our opinion, the iTablet should be carrier neutral, insofar that it doesn’t support any cellular data subscription natively, and instead piggy-backs whatever the user’s is on.

2. GPS: Look, the iTablet is too big to sit in one’s windshield, and it’s too big to cart around while hiking in the back-country. Sure, one can argue that the costs are negligible at this point, but so is the benefit to having GPS in the iTablet outside of location-based apps. Again, doesn’t want the iTablet to replace the . There’s no reason couldn’t integrate sharing of GPS data to a computer tethered to an , and that sounds like a much more reasonable business solution than throwing GPS into every device that’s not a desktop. After all, most use cases for the iTablet will be indoors, anyway, and that means not having a GPS signal in the first place. (Besides, tethered to an ’s data connection, the iTablet could use cell-phone triangulation to roughly determine location regardless of GPS availability.)

3. Ports: With the iTablet using the AppStore, there’s no need for an optical drive because we wouldn’t be installing anything from CD or DVD. wants people to use iTunes, and since most mainstream media can be acquired there, there’s no reason to let people rip optical media for playing on the iTablet, either. Maybe will allow wireless sharing of a drive from another computer (just as the MacBook Air can do), just to rip media in iTunes, but the feature isn’t really necessary. There’s also no reason to attach USB devices other than an /, so while we may see a USB port for this reason alone, there’s nothing else we would expect to see connecting to the iTablet other than a magsafe power cord. Of course, we could just as easily see finally integrating wireless synchronization of iTunes over wi-fi, so we can easily envision the iTablet without a single USB port also. Assuming still requires the iTablet to tether to a computer running legacy iTunes, the question of a USB port is clear.

Initially, we proposed that the iTablet should have a mini display port, but with the realization that the device would be built around the mobile version of OS X, this seems less likely, since apps will be built around a certain resolution. Even with resolution independence built into apps, all attaching a large monitor would do is scale the existing graphics up to a larger size, not allow one to actually display more content. Perhaps there would be some benefit to this if text could be scaled down on a per-app basis when a larger monitor is connected, but we just don’t see many people doing something like this, even if we would.

In the end, chances are good that the iTablet will not have a single port to its name other than a power connection, be that a magsafe connector or a typical interface if the iTablet is designed to synchronize with legacy iTunes.

Three things that would be nice to have.

1. No need to tether to a desktop: The isn’t a stand-alone product, even though many users probably use it as such. However, for the to truly shine, it needs to be tethered to a computer with a full-fledged OS, if only for the to interface with a full iTunes library. Sure, the can be used to purchase movies and music, but its limited storage means that older content needs to reside somewhere and the cloud isn’t quite there yet. Never mind that the will even complain when certain downloads fail, telling the user to try again via iTunes.

The iTablet, hopefully, will stand on its own: it should serve as a device that iPhones can tether to, and not become yet another gadget that needs to be synchronized with a computer running a full-fledged version of iTunes. That would likely call for a magsafe power connector, versus the typical connector a tethered device would have.

Of course, as a stand-alone media device, one would expect the iTablet to have plenty of disk space, so we’d expect to see a fairly large SSD drive. The MacBook Air sports a 128GB SSD HD, and we’d expect to see at least that much storage capacity in the iTablet, so it can hold most user’s complete multimedia libraries.

2. Front-facing camera: The idea of a device with a 10″ screen being burdened with a rear-facing camera is just silly. The iTablet won’t have a camera in the same sense as the , but we can definitely see how it might sport an iSight to use iChat with. In fact, with better text-input features than the , the iTablet will most likely sport iChat for quick, real-time communication. The ability to enable video-chats, however, would be nothing short of gangbusters.

3. Greater cloud connectivity: If the iTablet had everything already mentioned, it would already be a pretty spectacular device. But with greater cloud integration, thanks in part to a more evolved Mobile Me , the iTablet could leverage features like Back to my Mac to grab files remotely, perhaps even to add such files to the iTablet’s own iTunes library (such as grabbing ripped mp3s remotely to alleviate the lack of an optical drive). With rumours that iTunes may well come to the cloud in the near future (as well as iWork), there’s some hope that Mobile Me will become a true competitor to the various free cloud-based services, and the iTablet is the perfect platform to showcase such cloud evolution.

Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/01/21/three-itablet-needs-three-need-nots-and-three-things-thatd-be-nice-to-have/feed/ 1 iTablet AppStore has its downsides. http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2010%2F01%2F11%2Fitablet-appstore-has-its-downsides%2F&seed_title=iTablet+AppStore+has+its+downsides. http://mendax.org/2010/01/11/itablet-appstore-has-its-downsides/#comments Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:00:21 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1906

By now, the rumour-wagon has settled on the idea that ’s purported tablet device, to be unveiled on the 27th, will run a mobile version of OS X (possibly the same OS as 4.0). The logical follow-up is that this tablet will also acquire its applications from iTunes, just like the does with the existing AppStore. In fact, with resolution-independence for apps being recent among ’s advice to developers, it follows that apps will likely support ’s upcoming tablet as a host. In other words, we can likely expect the AppStore to serve up both and iTablet apps in the near future.

The logic behind distributing applications in this manner for the iTablet makes sense, particularly for ’s bottom line. Under regular OS X, doesn’t get a 30% cut of every application sold, nor can control what gets sold, and how these independent applications function. With apps, effectively makes free money, with the only associated cost tied to a staff of horrible reviewers, who may as well be high-school interns. Why not capitalize on the AppStore’s success by pushing this model into a market for the “general computer user,” which the iTablet will no doubt target?

For many end users, this makes sense. The AppStore is a one-stop-shop for all one’s application needs. Grandma and Grandpa don’t need to make a trip to the local Store (if there even is one) to get new . Nor do they need to find obscure indy titles by following -minded blogs, or trolling Google for searches like “image editing program for mac”. No, all they need to do is run the AppStore program on their newly-minted device and start browsing titles.

For the rest of us, the power users, the AppStore has less merit. We generally know where to find the we want, or at the very least, know how to find it. And we’ve all invested time and money into the third-party programs we know and love. And that’s why we’re a bit perturbed at rumours suggesting that the iTablet won’t be running on Intel, because we want the iTablet to replace our general computing computer, but under the traditional application distribution model, not the new one.

If the iTablet isn’t running on Intel, many of our old favorites just won’t work. Kiss goodbye programs like Crossover, for example, which are slowly becoming a staple for the aging gamer in us. Heck, forget about emulating Windows with Parallels or VMWare, unless you want to stick with a MacBook for basic portable computing needs. In general, forget about all the shareware, downloaded applications, widgets, and scripts we’ve been using on OS X over the years. The iTablet cares not for these investments, because the iTablet is here to clear the slate (pun intended).

Yes, the iTablet’s AppStore will be easier to manage than the current way of acquiring applications on OS X. We can delete applications without needing apps like AppZapper to make sure that no residual mess was left behind. But there are other problems, such as iTunes not backing up user data for deleted apps (only apps currently on an device), and the matter of redundancy. Do we need to replace all our OS X applications to acquire iTablet-specific applications now, assuming we’re really going to use the iTablet as our primary computing device? Will third-party developers be able to port their old OS X apps into the AppStore, and somehow give old license holders an easy way to transition customers over for free?

Maybe in the long term, it doesn’t matter. If the rumours are true, is transitioning a good part of their audience (and potential audience) to a cleaner, simpler, computing experience, like ChromeOS and Litl. And they can do that without building an OS from scratch, because OS X even in its mobile form is still OS X, albeit with greater user and developer restrictions. Maybe when this platform has become more ubiquitous, no one will care that we dumped hundreds of dollars worth of because of what the AppStore is effectively making a new platform. But in the meantime, in the transitional period that could last for at least a year, you know we’ll be bitching about not being able to run legacy OS X apps on our fancy new devices.

Of course, with the AppStore’s quick growth-rate, assuming the iTablet is a success, and assuming the device will do things like support multi-tasking for downloaded apps, bluetooth keyboards, and other “must-have” features for daily mobile computer users, perhaps the AppStore’s benefits will outshine its flaws. Here’s hoping.

Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2010/01/11/itablet-appstore-has-its-downsides/feed/ 1 Enderle just wanted to write “JewJew.” http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F12%2F10%2Fenderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew%2F&seed_title=Enderle+just+wanted+to+write+%26%238220%3BJewJew.%26%238221%3B http://mendax.org/2009/12/10/enderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew/#comments Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:00:15 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1898

While we brought the Joo Joo up in passing, Rob Enderle proclaimed that the former CrunchPad could crush the market for tablet computing, thereby souring ’s entrance into the market altogether. The only problem with his assertion is that the tablet isn’t the same beast as the Joo Joo, and to say that the latter will quell consumer desire for the iTablet is like saying that Motorola’s Razr savaged the .

Enderle is really comparing apples to oranges (no pun intended); all of these non- products are extremely limited: the Kindle is first and foremost an eBook reader, the Razr is just a cellphone, and the Joo Joo is a web-surfing tool. For those like Enderle who still don’t get it, the Joo Joo is a one-trick pony. It’s not a media monster running iTunes, it isn’t a keyboard-less computer with the capacity to run OS X applications, and it certainly doesn’t have the potential packing of the print industry to push forward with digital distribution of magazines and newspapers.

Most consumers probably haven’t even heard of the Joo Joo and its developer, Fusion Garage. The Joo Joo will cost $500, and for what’s probably just twice that, users will be able to own an -polished product that does significantly more. So even if news of the Joo Joo does trickle down to the average computer user, we’re not so sure anyone’s going to care, especially once announces their own tablet (which will be an actual computer and not just a web-browser).

But what can we expect from a tech analyst with such stunning gems as this:

[It] sounds way to close to JewJew with implications that could offend a wide variety of buyers…

You’re right, Enderle, that’s what’s going to make the Joo Joo fail.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/12/10/enderle-just-wanted-to-write-jewjew/feed/ 0 Will MacBook evolution lead to the iTablet? http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F12%2F09%2Fwill-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet%2F&seed_title=Will+MacBook+evolution+lead+to+the+iTablet%3F http://mendax.org/2009/12/09/will-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet/#comments Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:00:36 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1876

We’ve ruminated at length about the rumoured tablet computer, from the “dock” that is our Apple Annex, to the Macbook sibling that is our iTablet Excelsior. And with recent clues shoved down our digital throat across the blogosphere suggesting that an tablet will indeed be announced sometime next year, we find ourselves once again justifying its impending existence.

The truth’s in the Air.

It began with the MacBook Air and may indeed end with it. Almost two years ago, we complained that the MacBook Air was overpriced for a poorly performing machine with so little to offer other than a reduced physical footprint. To be fair, that same complaint holds even truer today, with even the basic 13″ MacBook Pro beating the MacBook Air out on all specs to include price, with the Air merely coming in at 1.5 lbs lighter. How many real-world applications is that 1.5 lbs going to make a real difference for?

But the Air, as we stated back in January, 2008, is a great proof-of-concept. And that proof-of-concept has gotten slight buffs during its two generational updates. One could almost say that the Air is ’s notebook AppleTV, in the sense that it’s more of a hobby to set the future stage than to sell based purely on its present merits. That’s not to say that the Air isn’t decent; we’re even considering picking up a used Air if the price is right, just so we have a very portable, no-frills writing device that runs OS X (we’ve seen first-gen models go for what amounts to the price of a netbook hackintosh). But if money is indeed a consideration, the Air today is a poor purchase when the 13″ MacBook Pro offers so much more for less money.

Back to the Air as a proof-of-concept, the makings of an tablet were all thrown in front of us in 2007. The had the touch technology, and the Air had an ultra-portable form factor. explored SSD hard drives with the Air, and in a sense, teased the niche market for expensive-but-polished notebooks. The unibody was touted as an end to user-replaceable batteries, offering solid battery life that trickled into the MacBook Pro lineup. And with all that, proved that there was a market for the Air, and one that could likely grow with cheaper costs.

So what’s left? Take the Air, throw away the keyboard, and tablet nirvana is just around the corner. While we wouldn’t expect to revive the Newton or Air names for a future tablet, one has to admit that the latter name is catchy and far more apt for a tablet than for what the Air is today.

Tablet as the new king of media.

Looking at iTunes LP and iTunes Extra content, we see a pretty exciting, open technology for developers to exploit. These technologies add even more reason to go all-digital, as consumers won’t have to feel like they’re missing out on bonus content if they don’t buy a CD with art and lyrics on the pull-out jewel case pamphlet, or the extra content on DVD menus. The best thing about iTunes Extra, though, is that it’s flexible enough to be used with other media, like print. That is to say, books, newspapers, and magazines, in digital format, could have a degree of interaction that typical e-publications don’t. Instead of simply reading a PDF or ePub document, consumers will be able to interact with their digital downloads in a way we expect one to interact with web sites, only in this case, an online connection would only be leveraged sporadically.

For example, newspapers could have polls. When a user submits their response to the poll, the information is transmitted the next time the Tablet has an internet connection. Thereafter, the newspaper poll will show results to date, without the user having to manually reload the poll data. Local weather information could be dynamically generated upon purchase, while old issues of the publication would have static records based on the actual weather histories. Users could enable/disable audible readings of articles, and magazines could include video clips of product reviews, better leverage advertising, and generally include more media that would otherwise have been cut in a print magazine because of limited space. And books could leverage interactive media in another way: imagine reading through Lord of the Rings, and having an easy-to-access map of Middle-earth, where the Fellowship’s location is marked, and corresponds to where you are in the book’s reading. With enough foresight, one could even cross-reference terms from Lord of the Rings to Tolkien’s other works, assuming they too were purchased. In other words, digital publications could link to one another in a sort of quasi-wiki method.

Ultimately, these are things that will add value to a digital download, thereby making them more attractive for consumers. Considering ’s success with music, and to a more limited degree and film, it would not be surprising if took on the e-publishing mission with a zest yet unseen by the eBook industry. And why shouldn’t carve out this rather important niche, especially since it won’t be competing head-on with today’s : the type of interaction we’re talking about isn’t suitable for an e-ink display. will want colour (lots of colour!), and the quick, reactive display that one would expect to see on the or, in this case, an tablet. Sure, the battery life won’t be as good as an eBook reader, but the experience will be better.

There have already been plenty of rumours suggesting that has met with print-industry big-wigs, and other rumours indicating that print-industry execs are meeting with one another to address their future digital distribution plans. (Supposedly, has even offered a 30/70 split to publishing houses as financial incentive.) It should be obvious to anyone that standardizing this distribution, to a firm degree, will be beneficial to all companies involved. And with leading the charge, would it really surprise anyone if iTunes was rebranded as something more like “iMedia?”

The Tablet as a MacBook.

With the type of interactive content we’re talking about, won’t release a dedicated device. Anyone with iTunes will be able to download the latest music, movies, and magazines, and be able to sync them across all their iTunes-capable devices. What better way to showcase the multimedia prowess of the music/movie/magazine conglomeration flipping through virtual pages of the latest New York Times bestseller with an actual flick of one’s finger, using similar gestures to control music and movie playback? The processing power we’re talking about, particularly for the multimedia elements, will be greater than what most eBook readers have today.

is about totality of experience. That’s where the trumps every other smartphone on the market, and why was able to beat out competitors in 2007 when the , to much initial criticism, was unleashed upon the masses. ’s only going to duplicate this effort with a tablet: a perfect machine to showcase its multimedia initiative, but still capable of tackling most average computing needs. So yes, the tablet will support a wireless keyboard/mouse, and run the regular version of OS X. Its specs will likely be similar to that of the MacBook, or maybe even the 13″ MacBook Pro. But the market for a tablet is clearly different than the market for these more traditional laptops, so it won’t cannibalize sales of other products any more than the Mac Mini cannibalizes sales of the iMac. Users who need a traditional notebook experience for class or work will still get a MacBook: it’s the desktop baseline for getting work done with mobility in mind. But those who can spare not having a physical keyboard will love the tablet, because it offers extra mobility at the expense of easy desktop integration. Some tablet owners may cart around a wireless keyboard in their tote bags, but they will likely be the exception. Everyone else will treat their tablets like an eReader that can do so much more; the tablet will be the perfect, portable entertainment tool aimed at those who consume information rather than games. It won’t be a one-trick pony like the CrunchPad Joo Joo, because as Steve Jobs said, an tablet will be expected to do more than simply serve as a web-reading tool for toilet-surfers.

The assumed $1,000 price-point seems entirely realistic at this point, especially when one realizes that the tablet will be little more than a MacBook Air whose keyboard was replaced with a capacitive touchscreen. That price doesn’t make us gawk at all. In fact, we’re ready to jump at a tablet purchase under these conditions, and we wouldn’t be surprised if the device is ready in time for CES 2010.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/12/09/will-macbook-evolution-lead-to-the-itablet/feed/ 0 Real-time strategy to become more social, complex? http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F12%2F04%2Freal-time-strategy-to-become-more-social-complex%2F&seed_title=Real-time+strategy+to+become+more+social%2C+complex%3F http://mendax.org/2009/12/04/real-time-strategy-to-become-more-social-complex/#comments Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:45:47 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1868

Electronic Arts (EA) is already preparing the Command & Conquer (C&C) franchise for the future vehicle for proliferation: digital distribution. Kotaku, meanwhile, says that some fans are skeptical:

News of the transition was sending fears of a Facebook-ized, watered-down C&C among some series fans.

And yet C&C always was watered down, offering little more than eye-candy to recent sequels. The good news is that EA CEO John Riccitiello hopes to change that, and bring more innovation to the real-time strategy (RTS) genre.

“…I have a shared vision that the RTS category is due for fundamental innovation and not just cooler graphics,” Riccitiello said. “We’ve gotten to the point where you can see the particles around individual grenade explosions inside rooms where windows fall apart. That was never what made RTS good. That was just sort of eye candy on top of a very traditional game mechanic. From when Red Alert and Starcraft sort of defined the genre, it hasn’t moved.”

While Riccitiello’s take on RTS games mirrors our own, his seniority is at question when he uses Red Alert and Starcraft as examples of genre-defining games. In reality, predecessors Command & Conquer (yes, the original), Warcraft, and Warcraft II, solidified the genre that Dune II built. And really, nothing fundamental has changed since then, either. And that portends danger for developers not willing to let go of the tried-and-true method of simple throwing a new unit or two at a player each level, while making them rebuild from scratch on a new map. The repetitive play is what kills the genre in one game alone, let alone when looking at new RTS games.

“Some of what Facebook does, in terms of letting you collectively experience things, have not been stitched together by the game industry in terms of lessons learned there. You start applying that thinking to a C&C franchise you get something pretty special.”

This is where Riccitiello’s price as CEO may be worth it, because at least Riccitiello is looking at some aspects of what make Facebook games, and , so alluring. If RTS games are meant to illustrate a greater struggle, then the thousands of players participating in battlefield combat should be able to assist one another, participate in local battles, and change the tide of war one small step at a time. In many ways, this mirrors the idea of Online’s Realm vs. Realm PvP scenario, but at a less granular level.

If there’s a clear disadvantage for one player to effectively handle a large army, compared to many players handling less units at a more focused level, then new aspects in RTS titles emerge: buildings alliances, strategies, and resource flows become important. And ultimately, the complexity of individual units can grow, because with less units, players have the ability to use more unit abilities in order to create battlefield synergy, whereas in purely single-player games, players must first be concerned with amassing large armies and rushing the enemy head-on.

Adopting certain key aspects of social and multiplayer games can be a good thing for the RTS genre, as long as it’s done right and with the intent to grow the genre “up,” rather than “out.” That is to say, adopting the wrong aspects of social games will result in a watered-down RTS experience that may be more accessible to non-gamers, but at the expense of the RTS faithful. Maintaining the complexity of strategy and risk-taking, however, and adding on top of this formula a perpetual battlefront that all players share, will only satiate RTS gamers more.

Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/12/04/real-time-strategy-to-become-more-social-complex/feed/ 0 Why do you need Flash on your iPhone? http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F11%2F04%2Fwhy-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone%2F&seed_title=Why+do+you+need+Flash+on+your+iPhone%3F http://mendax.org/2009/11/04/why-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone/#comments Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:00:20 +0000 WyldKard http://mendax.org/?p=1858

People love to complain, and we think half of it is due to laziness. Or incompetence. And with the , it’s no different. Take MMS for example: thousands claimed it was silly for the not to support it, but we disagreed. MMS is an outdated technology for which there are plenty of modern-day solutions, ranging from e-mail to Twitter. To rely on yet another protocol for sharing multimedia, when more reliable solutions exist, is nonsense. With rock-solid Twitter integration thanks to the dozens of Twitter apps on the AppStore, we barely find a need for SMS anymore, let alone it’s bigger cousin. Never mind the fact that e-mail works just as well for sharing multimedia.

But then there’s Flash, arguments for which are even more ridiculous. Who needs Flash on their ? Yes, some sites aren’t non-Flash friendly, and therefore can’t be browsed via Mobile Safari, but that’s less ’s fault, and more the fault of web developers who decide to use Flash instead of other, more accepted (and open) technologies. It’s not like Flash was always viewable from every browser anyway, so why do people argue that the should suddenly adopt Flash as a sort of multimedia standard? Even dismissing arguments about how Flash is burdensome on one’s CPU and battery, there remains the obvious distaste for a third-party plugin that’s not friendly to industry-wide standards.

What Flash is, is a luxury. A luxury you get to have if you’re on a system not constrained by smaller processors and batteries. A luxury you get when you don’t care about a common user interface for your apps, because you’re not using a heavily-integrated phone-computer. And that luxury is not a right just because a bunch of lazy developers refuse to use more modern technologies to reproduce the output of a commercial Adobe product.

What people should be complaining about is not that the doesn’t support Flash, but that some sites are developed in Flash in the first place.
Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/11/04/why-do-you-need-flash-on-your-iphone/feed/ 0 iPhone as computer, revisited. http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F08%2F07%2Fiphone-as-computer-revisited%2F&seed_title=iPhone+as+computer%2C+revisited. http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/#comments Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:30:16 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1805

When the came out, we were one of the few who didn’t parade around the idea that it was the cell-phone Messiah. Heck, the didn’t do much that our Danger Sidekick didn’t, though the user experience was admittedly cleaner. But with OS 2.0 and the realization of an open AppStore (with some issues, admittedly), the user experience is as varied as the thousands of applications available. That’s why we weren’t so much taken aback by Meg Hourihan’s comment about whether or not she would purchase an 3GS: upgrading the was akin to upgrading her computer. John Gruber was quick to confirm this idea:

A decade ago, my first PowerBook was a secondary machine to the desktop anchored at my desk. Now, my main machine is my MacBook Pro, but it feels a bit like an anchor now. My mobile secondary computer is my .

And now that we have an 3GS, we too acknowledge the shift in computing gadgetry: on the very day we activated our 3GS, our MacBook Pro’s screen refused to turn back on after we set the 3GS up, and rebooted after the most recent Safari 4 patch. It turns out that the logic board needed to be replaced, since there was a known issue with the NVidia graphics card in our 17″ version of the MacBook Pro. While the repairs were done at an Store an hour away, it still took a couple days to get the computer back, and in that time, we relied almost entirely on the for our internet-related tasks after work. And we weren’t very disappointed with the experience. In fact, in many ways, reliance on the 3GS versus the MacBook Pro was a relief: the device was always on us or nearby.

Now we’re hardly saying that the 3GS is an appropriate stand-in for a full-fledged computer. We still maintain that the is a poor device for inputting of most meaningful text, which is why we use the as a reader more than we rely on it to respond to people outside Twitter and SMS. But for this former purpose, the 3GS shines, because it’s snappy in most every sense of the word, and the experience of using it on the road (via 3G) is pretty much the same as using it at home on wi-fi. And that consistency makes the shine. For many, with greater storage (to hold all one’s songs, movies, and photos) and a bluetooth keyboard, the could theoretically become a replacement for the average home computer user almost entirely.

So changed were we by our forced use of the 3GS for nearly a week, we decided to offer our fixed MacBook Pro on craigslist. Not to rid ourselves of the anchor for our home computer use, but because we now find the device to be overkill for what we need to get done at home, and we see little reason not to downgrade to a smaller anchor now. Indeed, ’s “low-end” lineup is now ever-more attractive to us, and for the limited computer needs we have at home, we can finally agree that a 17″ monitor isn’t much of a necessity now that we’re not tied to an online game that benefits from it. Thanks in great part to AppStore apps, and the rise of mobile web pages tailored to the ’s display, there’s an easy case to be made for ’s replacing netbooks and many common-use notebooks/desktops. Again, the only obvious items holding the back from becoming a true computer replacement is its poor input mechanic and limited storage space, but the former can easily be remedied with technology that appears to have green-lighted with better Bluetooth gadget operability.

We’re still holding out for a mid-way solution between the and MacBook, and we’re hoping that the iTablet fits the bill. But in the meantime, we’re only seeing use of our 3GS go up, while our MacBook is getting lonelier by the day.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/07/iphone-as-computer-revisited/feed/ 0 Apple to advance iPhone gaming, not join console fray. http://mendax.org/feeder/?FeederAction=clicked&feed=Posts+%28RSS2%29&seed=http%3A%2F%2Fmendax.org%2F2009%2F08%2F06%2Fapple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray%2F&seed_title=Apple+to+advance+iPhone+gaming%2C+not+join+console+fray. http://mendax.org/2009/08/06/apple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray/#comments Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:30:25 +0000 WyldKard http://wyldkard.com/?p=1698

Despite ’s sordid foray into the video gaming market with the ill-fated Pippin, TUAW’s Mike Schramm believes that is willing to give console gaming another go. His speculation is based in large part on a piece by Erik Sherman at BNET, in which Sherman notes various patents filed, and various individuals hired, as evidence of ’s gaming console initiative.

No TV console aspirations.

We’ll address Schramm first, by noting that an escapade into console-gaming-land would be a horribly poor move for . ’s success with the , and later the , was due to them being able to put a decently-priced but amazingly polished device into consumer’s hands. Before the , mp3 players weren’t particularly notable aside from the fact that they existed at all. pretty much defined the portable mp3 market, and arguably, created the mainstream movement towards legal mp3 downloads. With the , entered a market densely packed with crappy phones, where even the best sported comparably poor user interfaces and little real online functionality. With the AppStore, blew the doors open on downloadable content, and once again redefined a market, now being emulated by contenders.

The console market is nothing like the portable music or cell phone markets were before got involved. The console market consist of only three key players, all of whom do a great job at building systems, and all of whom have significant industry backing in the form of third-party titles. Plus, all have an indy developer component, and significant mindshare among consumers.

That’s not to say that couldn’t be successful by entering the console wars, but their timing would be way off. Releasing a console before circa 2013, when , , and will reveal their latest offerings, would be dooming an console to irrelevance in only four years time. Furthermore, would fight an uphill battle, akin to what dealt with when they unveiled the original . Only, ’s experience with the mainstream gaming market ( had years of experience dealing with PC gaming), is virtually null prior to the proliferation of games. Simply put, the console marketplace is too volatile a place for to push itself into – the competition is too fierce, so why take an unnecessary risk? is better suited to define a market with much less competition, and the handheld gaming market is a prime target.

The accidental success.

We’re not so sure that expected to be successful with gaming. Surely, expected to find games developed for the , but titles from big-name publishers using big-name IP? Maybe even built the to be capable of running games with decent graphics and framerates, but the very lack of input options makes us question ’s expectations that the might become a veritable Gameboy and competitor. But here we are: leveraging the AppStore’s framework, the is able to market pretty amazing games via a convenient, cutting-edge distribution model, all for a much cheaper price than games released for the Gameboy or . Like the proliferation of the Wii, gaming is build on a solid foundation of more casual titles, but as time goes on, we’re now seeing more and more “mature” titles requiring more of a user’s focus. It’s one thing for to have given Mac gaming a mere head-nod in the past, it’s another for to dismiss a clearly growing phenomenon. So, will continue embracing gaming, and that’s at the heart of Sherman’s observations.

The acquisition of Bob Dreblin, Raka Koduri, Mark Papermaster, and Richard Teversham, might not even indicate assembling a “dream team” for the gaming market, but let’s assume this to be true. Dreblin’s contribution to the Gamecube CPU may be most telling: the Gamecube was underpowered compared to offerings from and , but the thing was admittedly compact. If anything, the rest of the team would play into embedded gaming just as easily as they would in traditional console gaming, not to mention ’s acquisition of PA Semi and their investment in PowerVR. If ’s going to be serious about gaming, they’ll want to develop specific for that purpose, especially since this kind of specialized will still be able to power the thousands of non-gaming applications. By controlling the supply chain specifically, ensures that the competition won’t be building similar products, and furthermore, secures its from additional vulnerabilities.

Sherman makes some good observations about ’s patent filings. If anything, it should be pretty clear that is looking to link gaming and outside media. Much as iTunes can suggest music based on one’s existing music library, application 20080076495 proposes similar functionality, only rather than just making recommendations, games could identify appropriate music to play based on a user’s preference. For example, a scene in a game calling for fast-paced, action-packed combat, may query a user’s music library for metal or hard rock music, and based on the user’s ratings, will play a top song in that category. In other words, games will be minimally tailored to suit the user’s tastes based on other media they own. The patent application, at absolute minimum, forms an extension to the iTunes store, in that games may be recommended based on songs a user owns: lots of metal songs may mean a user prefers more action-oriented games, for instance.

The other patent applications Sherman identifies give further insight into ’s direction with games, but it should be pretty clear by now that is looking at solidifying the game user-base. Arguably, is already ahead of the game with their application distribution model, as and are now moving ahead with their own online stores. The difference is that the is a more flexible system, is nearly always connected to the internet, and meets an application price-point easily suited for growth. By the time the AppStore starts including games costing $20 or higher, the handheld gaming market will be a shitstorm of competition, because will have become a major contender well before that, assuming the next version further advances a long-term gaming plan (and the 3GS appears to herald this). At that time, and better have stepped up their game, because unlike with the traditional console market, the handheld market is far more malleable, especially when the ’s chief gaming success is drawing spontaneous buyers into a web of easily-accessible, easily-downloadable content.

So for those longing for an console, look no further than your . While it’s already successfully integrated the and cell phone, it’s now looking to devour your friendly neighborhood Gameboy, too.Similar Posts:

]]> http://mendax.org/2009/08/06/apple-to-advance-iphone-gaming-not-join-console-fray/feed/ 1