Will the iPad blend? Now we know
With all of the iPad excitement that there has been for the past week, there has also been a lot of people wondering if the iPad will blend as easily as the iPhone did. Thanks to Blendtec, we now have out answer...
Apple’s 9-9-09 event thoughts…nap time!
Greetings readers!
Now that I have woken up from the sleep that Apple put me in, I figure I should comment on the very underwhelming event where Apple launched a couple of new iPods, changes some prices and launched iTunes 9.
Lets start off with the big news, Steve Jobs is back! It is great to see that Jobs is back and acknowledging his liver transplant which apparently came from an organ donor that was killed in a car accident. That said, either his shirt is really large or his is skin and bones with saggy man boobs which you can see in the picture below from gdgt. I would say he really needs to gain some weight. Less vegan food and a few more Big Macs would do him good. Anyway, he gave us some impressive numbers about 30 million iPhones being sold, 20 million iPod touches, and 1.8 billion apps have been downloaded.
Steve Jobs presenting at Apple's 9-9-09 event. Credit: gdgt
On to iTunes! It seems Apple is jumping on the ringtone movement that died out long ago by selling over 30,000 ringtones for $1.29. Nice job at keeping up with current trends Apple! Next time, I recommend jumping on the bandwagon before the wagon has been abandoned in a field with only one wheel left. That said, I do like the look of the new iTunes as it has more of a Zune Marketplace kind of feel in some areas. The ability to manage apps directly from iTunes looks to be a great feature as well as bringing the Genius technology used to bring you the music you like to apps to help you find apps you might like. Finally, the iTunes LP stuff looks pretty impressive, especially if you are a music fan who likes pictures. Now onto the iPod news!
The first part of the iPod news talking about how it is a great gaming platform and such was real snooze of the show. While I do enjoy a couple of the games on my iPod Touch, they are trying to make it sounds far superior in nearly every way to the Nintendo DS and the Sony PSP. IT IS NOT! I will admit it has potential as a gaming device, but a touch screen will never beat the controls you will find on any handheld gaming device going all the way back to the Gameboy. Actually, I feel like ranting on this more, so that will be the focus of my next post, but I will let it go for now so we can focus on other iPod related news. Apparently Apple thinks that at the low price of $200, people will want to get an 8GB iPod Touch. 8GB Isn't enough to take most people's music collections, rather less video and apps. This was done purely to undercut the Zune HD who's 16GB version (the smallest size) is $220. Personally, I would prefer the far better audio experience and double the size for the extra $20. Apple can play the price war all it wants, but value speaks volumes. Speaking of the iPod Touch, the new 64GB version sounds nice but it needs more features, like maybe the camera everybody was expecting which came in the iPod Nano.
Before I talk about the Nano, the iPod classic has been upped to 160GB which I think is a bit too big. Not too big for a large music collection but who really needs to carry around 400,000 songs with them? I would call that overkill. Anyway, back to the Nano. It seems the Nano is getting the rumored camera that everybody figured the iPod Touch would get too. They didn't say much about the camera other than it could do video and had a mic. I would say its certainly a good update and a good play against the Flip camcorder but I wanted to see it on the iPod Touch as well since it is far more capable than the nano and would have some real uses for it. Oh, and both the nano and the shuffle have a bunch of new colors for those that care about about fashion. I have always found the many colors idea of gadgets kind of pointless but I guess I am not the average person. I am a proud owner of a poop brown Zune, so clearly I have no fashion taste. The only other noteworthy thing in relation to the Nano is the fact that it is getting an FM radio. For my opinion on that, scroll back up to the bandwagon comment since the Zune had this from day one as well as a good number of other portable media devices. If they really wanted to impress me, they would put in an AM radio.
That was pretty much the event. No Beatles, no camera in the iPod Touch, no Rolling Stones and no Mac tablet. The event was pretty much a big snooze and I am amazed that the stock didn't drop more than a whole 1% considering it usually plunges on even good release events like this. There is one image that they showed that I think speaks volumes about the idea of an Apple netbook. They talked about how the iPod Touch/iPhone are basically portable computers and showed an image (seen below) of some body trying to shove a Dell netbook into their back pocket. I think this is a good indication that a netbook isn't coming and that the closest thing you are going to get to one is and iPod Touch.
Apple tries to put a Dell netbook in its pocket. Credit: gdgt
What did you think of the event? Exciting? Boring? Did Steve Jobs look healthy to you? Share your thoughts in the comments!
iTunes 9 breaks Palm Pre syncing
Greetings Readers!
From what I have seen, today's Apple event was largely a snooze. I did find one interested tidbit though, it seems that iTunes 9 (which I will be upgrading too as soon as I get home) has broken the syncing feature on the Palm Pre...again!
I predicted this would happen when the sync feature was announced. I generally like to compare this to Sony's fight with the PSP Homebrew scene since that is the best game of cat and mouse I can think of when it comes to hardware doing what it wasn't meant to do. It will be interesting to see if Palm can fix the problem with the WebOS 1.2 update that was due out yesterday but delayed.
If you have a workaround for Palm Pre owners, post it in the comments!
Amazon’s VOD success depends on distribution deals
Greetings Readers!
The streaming video market has become rather crowded in the last couple of years with services like Hulu and YouTube, but the video service with the most potential is Amazon's VOD service.
Amazon's VOD (Video On Demand) service has been around for a while and has a huge library of tv shows and movies including some of the newest releases yet it has never gained much traction in a world dominated by Netflix. If Amazon hopes to really compete in this market, it needs to do more than advertise its service (which it doesn't do a very good job at anyway). Amazon needs to through its weight behind the service and make sure that everybody is aware of it and it is accessible as possible. How can they make it accessible? Amazon needs more distribution deals with hardware manufactures.
Amazon currently has deals which allow its service to be accessed on Roku boxes, Panasonic Blu-ray players, TiVo DVRs and Sony Bravia TVs, but they have to do much better than that. Amazon needs to push for a deal with every TV manufacture instead of just Sony and their Bravia line. With many people upgrading to new and better TVs after the DTV transition to take advantage of the new HD content, there is a huge opportunity for Amazon if they work to put themselves on all internet connected TVs. Same thing with Blu-ray players, Blu-ray is starting to gain traction and Amazon needs to do its best to get on more than just Panasonic players if it wants to get in on the ground floor before the mass exodus from DVD to Blu-ray begins. As far as TiVo goes, that is a great move for them but they should also work towards being on the DVRs offered by cable and satellite providers.
Amazon has the huge opportunity to grab a huge chunk of the streaming video market if they are willing to do what is necessary to put their service in front of as many people as possible. They have started moving in this direction, but so as Netflix and others, so if they want to put themselves in a dominant position, they must act now!
Finally, I think they need to go mobile with their video on demand service. Apps for the iPhone, Android, Windows Mobile and such should be coming too. Many people like to watch videos on their phones, so if you have a way to stream videos to a phone, even if it is over wifi, you are ahead of the competition.
The competition in this space is in its very early stages and Amazon is on the position of either being left behind or taking the lead. The potential for profit is there, will they strike before its too late?
For Android to thrive, Google must do more
For months, I have been toying around with the Android SDK. There are a number of reasons that I have decided to being creating Android applications that range from the potential money I could make to the fact that it is an open source OS and I don't have the money or time to invest in a Mac and learning Obj-C just so I can make iPhone apps. Along the way, I have come to realize just why android isn't an iPhone killer or at least not at this stage in the game and that reason is Google.
I will admit that for the most part, I am a big Google fan (not a fanboy), I believe that they aren't doing what they could be to really help their products, specifically, Android. As I am sure you are aware by this point, Android is Google's mobile operating system. While it certainly has its its drawbacks, I am sticking to my belief that in the end, it will wipe the floor with the iPhone OS primarily because it is open and designed to work on many different phones. There are supposed to be at least 20 android phones available by the end of this year alone (the main reason I think it will eventually beat the iPhone). Unfortunately, the biggest obstacle to achieving this goal is android's creators, Google.
There are a couple of big obstacles that Google is creating that aren't making things better for them. The main obstacle is applications. There are some amazing applications for android that are far and above many iPhone applications but there is a big problem, there aren't very many of them. Last I heard, the iPhone had over 50,000 apps and growing rapidly. How many apps does Android have? The last I heard was around 5000. Unfortunately, I believe that is Google's fault. Why is that Google's fault? One word: documentation.
In my months of playing with the Android SDK, I have discovered the documentation in many places are terrible! In many places, there are examples using code that has long since been removed from the SDK, other lines of code that just don't work and even some that are not necessary. This is especially true if you want to do anything with multimedia. Want to record audio? You are in for many hours of headaches if you are going by the examples in the android dev guide (trust me on this). The bottom line is that if Google expects to have more applications and be a real competitor for the iPhone, it needs to do all it can for developers and that includes keeping documentation up to date.
The one other big issues I have is with advertising. It wasn't until recently that Google finally announced the ability to put ads in mobile applications and even that is reserved for a select few that meet the various requirements including 100,000 impressions. Having such a small group of people able to take advantage of it is bad, especially for those that want ad supported applications so they can give away their applications. Free applications attract far more customers than paid ones, but developers still need to make money for their time and effort. Without advertising, this won't happen like it should. Considering the fact that Google is in the ad business, you would think that they would have had this out and ready to go the second android launched. Clearly, Google lacks focus and dedication to Android.
If Google became truly focused and dedicated to Android, I think that within a year, it could be ahead of the iPhone, but until that happens, the only advantage they have is the ability to put their OS on many phones. Wake up Google!
Microsoft finally advertises its biggest advantage over the iPod, cost
Greetings Readers!
Microsoft has unveiled their latest attack on Apple, but this time it doesn't involve anybody going to a retail store and purchasing a laptop. This time Microsoft is setting its sights on the iPod. The latest commercial attacks Apple for not having a subscription service on iTunes for music downloads. Without a subscription service, they claim it will cost $30,000 to fill a 120GB iPod with mp3s. Microsoft's Zune on the other hand, has an unlimited music service that is $15/mo for unlimited music downloads. It would take over 166 years of a Zune Pass subscription to equal what it would cost if you were to fill a 120GB iPod from iTunes. I believe that this is a great move from Microsoft. When you talk saving money during hard economic times, people are going to listen. Much like the Windows ads, I think that they can do the most damage to Apple if they push the issue of cost.
Of course the commercial doesn't give you the whole story, otherwise you might not be compelled to switch. All music downloaded with a Zune Pass comes with that dreaded DRM garbage that the rest of the world is moving away from. Without the pass, you can get DRM free music but not with it. The subscription has DRM so that you continue to subscribe to the Zune Pass. If you don't keep your subscription renewed, you will end up with a bunch of music that won't play. That is the downside of the Zune Pass. You get to keep 10 songs a month I believe for free but everything else will die if you don't renew. Microsoft paints a pretty picture with the commercial, but everything has a downside and this is one they hope you won't notice. Of course you could crack the DRM and eliminate that downside, but that is not legal. As much as my pirate nature would like to share information with you on how to do that, I am not looking to piss off Microsoft, especially when I have the desire to work for them at some point. Anyway, below is the new Zune ad that attacks the idea that it would cost $30,000 to fill an iPod.
Why must Windows take forever to shut down?
Greetings Readers!
First off, I want to apologize for not blogging much lately. Life has been very busy and I have been rather uninspired until a day or two ago. Also, the Global Geek News Podcast will return next week. Now that that is out of th way...
Have you ever noticed how terribly long it takes for virtually any version of windows to shut down? Unless it is a completely fresh install, it often can take 5-10 minutes. In my case, its usually closer to 10 minutes. For a shutdown time, that is pathetic. We don't put up with it from other devices such as our tvs or game consoles, why do we have to put up with it from Windows?
I have noticed this problem for many years. Whether it is with XP, Vista, or to a slightly lesser extent, Windows 7, it seems like it takes forever for Windows to shut down. If you have to reboot, you might as well go to the movies because the bootup times are typically as bad or worse. What is windows doing that it is taking it so long to shut down? I have tried many things but nothing seems to help. I have tried killing every application and process I have running before shutting down but it seems to make no difference. What could the problem possibly be and why hasn't it been fixed in all these years?
In my fairly limited Linux experience, I never had this issue. I don't know if this problem affects Macs or not but I certainly never hear of it having this issue. If it does or you have an experience you would like to share, please do so in the comments.
Microsoft really needs to address this issue as it is a huge productivity killer and electricity user. I can't say I have gone looking much lately but I have never heard any comment on this. Occasionally I come accross some guides that supposedly help with the problem but still don't solve it. I think its time we put pressure on Microsoft to fix this issue that is a plague on all Windows users. We must demand a higher standard from the company we have come to depend upon.
What has your experience been with this? Post it in th comments as well as tips or links to tips to help this problem.
-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray
Is Microsoft repeating its Vista version mistakes with Windows 7?
Greetings Readers!
Have you or somebody you know experienced confusion with Windows Vista because of the large number of versions? While I admit that I was never confused by the version differences other than the fact that I found the whole idea stupid, it seems that Microsoft wants to create more confusion yet again with 5 versions of Windows 7.
Late last week, a screenshot surfaced from what is supposedly build 7025 of Windows 7 showing 5 different versions of Windows 7. Apparently Microsoft didn't get the memo that having so many versions is confusing to the average consumer. The average consumer doesn't understand the differences between Home Basic, Home Premium, or Ultimate, rather less business or anything else. Few consumers know what the different features are at the time of purchase rather less if they will use it. The average Joe doesn't understand things like full drive encryption or some of the media capabilities that come with Windows. Unfortunately, Microsoft has taken the route of confusion instead of making things easy on the consumer.
Of course this is better for Microsoft than it is the consumer. Rather than trying to limit customer confusion and be the customer friendly operating system, they try to make money by making people think that premium is better than basic and ultimate is better than both and trying to get consumers to purchase them whether they need it or not based on the fact that it sounds better. After reading the book Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions
Windows 7 Starter is likely the most stripped down piece of crap version of Windows 7 there is (I am not saying that Windows 7 is crap, I actually love it, I am just comparing it based on the names of the other SKUs). Assuming this isn't a completely stripped down version for Netbooks (the beta which is Ultimate runs quite well on netbooks), Microsoft actually expects to sell few if any of this version. Why have this version you ask? To make the others look better. If the price difference isn't that huge, the average person is going to go for the version that sounds better. Microsoft is simply trying to capitalize on this.
The bad part about this strategy is that it leads to confusion. What is the difference between the versions? What is the best bang for my buck? What features do they have? Will I ever use these features? Are there better third party alternatives to what is offered built in? These are only some of the bigger questions that the average consumer is stuck with when you have so many different versions. If you want to be seen as the most consumer friendly version, especially with companies such as Apple gaining strength, confusion should be your enemy.
I will admit that just having a single version of Windows isn't necessarily the best answer. I believe that there should only be 2 versions of Windows, a business version and a home version for everybody else. Much like the business version of Vista, the Business version of Windows 7 should have things such as full hard drive encryption, more protection against hardware failure, remoting support among other things that the average consumer doesn't really need. Of course there are plenty of other vendors that sell such software, so if there are any power users out there that need this functionality, they can easily get it. Business should also be stripped of some of the media capabilities since it is usually better to have employees working rather than streaming movies to their Xbox. The consumer version on the other hand should have a plethora of media capabilities and the stuff that the consumers might want to do.
That said, I know there are some consumers that want some of the business features such as the hard drive encryption but don't want to use other software such as TrueCrypt. I also understand that some businesses are very media focused. My solution to this is to have a store where you can buy certain features of the other version if necessary. By using a method such as this, people will get what they want on their machine without all of the other crap. This would greatly simplify things and make it much easier for consumers to determine what they need and get it instead of being up-sold to the Ultimate or whatever version so you can have the features of everything even if you don't need it.
Get rid of the Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium and Ultimate versions and just call it Windows 7 Home and then the Windows 7 Business version. Two versions is all you need. Anything more and it causes confusion. If Microsoft wants to put Vista behind them, they need to fix the mistakes they made with Vista and I believe this is probably the biggest one.
Follow me on Twitter and Friendfeed!
-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray
Apple’s Keynote Disappoints Yet Again, Secrecy to Blame
Greetings Readers!
Much like everybody else, I was glued to my laptop yesterday for yesterday's Macworld keynote from Apple (I even live blogged the event), only to be disappointed. While there were a few decent announcements (DRM-free music on iTunes and new prices), the event was almost entirely a snooze-fest.
There are many reasons that could be used for why the event was so boring, everything from the lack of Steve Jobs to the fact that most of the rumored items that people had been hoping for didn't show up, but I believe the main reason is Apple's constant secrecy surrounding all of its events.
Apple has a history of being secretive about everything until the moment it is announced. Sure, there is the occasional leak, but on the whole, nobody really knows anything for sure until its announced. This can certainly give Apple the shock factor when something big is announced, but ultimately, I believe they are shooting themselves in the foot with this strategy.
The secrecy that surrounds the events leads to two things, over-hype and rumors. These are the two largest causes for disappointment at any Apple event. The rumor mill usually starts working overtime around a month or so before an announcement, spinning off every wild idea from the retirement of Steve Jobs to an iPhone Nano (which I still believe is an idea that is beyond stupid) only to end up leaving people with higher expectations than they should have. No company can make everything and hit a home run with every press event, but thanks to the rumor mill, it is expected of Apple. If Apple would reveal what its events were about before hand, it would largely kill the over-hype caused by expectations created from the wild internet rumors. Opening up about the events would allow the hype to be adjusted down to a reasonable level.
The over-hype is really a big problem. Thanks to the rumors and crazed Apple fans, Apple events become over-hyped which leads to a feeling of under-delivery. Asking people, mainly journalists, to come from around the world to cover your products when you tell them nothing about what you are going to talk about is a bit much. If people knew beforehand what is going to be discussed, they would determine if their presence is required and ultimately the expectations and hype around the event that bring people from around the globe would be at a more manageable level.
While any coverage is good coverage for most companies, if Apple expects to have happy customers and stock holders, they need to kill the rumors and over-hype by being less secretive. Apple's stock tends to swing quite a bit around announcements and I think that if Apple wasn't so secretive, these huge swings would not exist. Secrecy might be warrented in some cases, but unless there is a major shift in company strategy, being open and letting people know what they are in for is the best way to control reactions from events such as this.
-Jeremy "pcnerd37" Bray
Loading ...Blogroll
Buy me a Pizza!
Archives
- April 2010 (5)
- March 2010 (11)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (3)
- November 2009 (5)
- October 2009 (4)
- September 2009 (7)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (4)
- June 2009 (17)
- May 2009 (8)
- April 2009 (3)
- March 2009 (3)
- February 2009 (1)
- January 2009 (6)
- December 2008 (10)
- November 2008 (11)
- October 2008 (7)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (2)
- July 2008 (6)
- June 2008 (13)
- May 2008 (6)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (8)
- January 2008 (1)
- December 2007 (1)
- October 2007 (2)
- August 2007 (1)
- September 2006 (1)
- July 2006 (4)
- June 2006 (1)
Categories
- Advertising (4)
- Apple (11)
- blogging (29)
- Blu-ray (7)
- computers (4)
- Consumer Electronics (17)
- Desktop (2)
- DVD (3)
- E-mail (1)
- Education (1)
- format wars (1)
- gadgets (6)
- Gaming (21)
- Global Geek News (9)
- Google (1)
- HD-DVD (1)
- high-def (2)
- Hulu (1)
- Internet (35)
- Invites (1)
- Kindle (2)
- Linux (1)
- Microsoft (31)
- MIX 2010 (7)
- mobile OS (3)
- Net Neutrality (1)
- New Media (5)
- Nintendo (4)
- Old Media (2)
- online video (4)
- PDC 2009 (2)
- Personal Branding (5)
- piracy (3)
- Podcasting (5)
- Portable Media (8)
- Productivity (2)
- Red Hat (1)
- retail (7)
- Reviews (1)
- search (3)
- security (4)
- social networking (7)
- Software Development (1)
- Sony (7)
- storage (2)
- Student Insiders (1)
- Tech Tips (2)
- TechCrunch50 (6)
- The Cloud (2)
- Twitter (15)
- Ubuntu (1)
- Uncategorized (21)
- User Experience (3)
- Viral Videos (1)
- Windows (6)