Pending all the necessary government approvals, AT&T announced today their plans to buy US GSM competitor T-Mobile for $39 billion. Without going into all the politics as to whether or not this is overall a good idea or benefit to consumers, I felt it was worth mentioning just what $39 billion dollars can actually purchase.
Though a follower of all things tech, I have a not-so-unique fascination with Apple, that company which sells those i-Thingies. Pretty much everyone is just as fascinated as I when Apple steals headlines for each shiny new toy. And one thing that most people know as of late is just how quickly Apple's cash reserves seem to continuously build. Last reports have their cash piles weighed in at a cool $51 billion. That's a heck of a lot of money. What drives journalists even crazier than the mind-boggling number alone is that nobody knows for sure what Apple plans to do with it. There have been some guesses; however, most of us sit and wait for them to take over the world.
But let's take another look at that number: $51 billion. In pure cash. No debt. A market valuation soon to pass Exxon to be the most valuable company in the world. And unlike the animosity most have toward Exxon, Apple and Steve Jobs have been named the most admired and loved company and CEO of last decade. What does all this mean? It means that that pile will continue to grow, and all the while Apple seems to have the highest restraint not to impulse-buy any thing they like, say, a leading wireless provider...
Of course, that's not their bag, being a carrier, but it does offer some perspective as to just what they're capable of doing with that money. Maybe they could buy Microsoft?
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Showing posts with label future. Show all posts
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
4G to replace cable and DSL?
4G. The next generation of wireless telecommunication. Carriers are in a mad rush to get new, faster tech radiating our airwaves, whether it means rolling out entirely new spectrum, namely LTE, or adding bolt-on tech like HSPA+ to GSM standards, which is debatable as to its branding as true 4G. Either way, in order to compete, consumers, aware of the the technology or not, want to hear "4G" next time they're due for a new phone.
However, amid the branding wars and eventual mass rollout by all carriers a version of 4G, I question it's usefulness and real impact for mobile phones, 4G's primary focus.
Let me explain.
Greater bandwidth in any case at any time is always a good thing. So, just as the competition is heating of for 4G, in the virtuous nature of capitalism, the carriers are pushing full-steam ahead here in the US for the fastest speeds they can manage. That way somebody can claim alpha-dog status and gain a bunch more customers. Hooray for all that.
The only issue I see with the whole thing is that everyone is touting 4G availablity solely as a faster network for your phone's data. I don't know about you, the amount of data I consume on my phone is but a pittance of the gigabytes upon gigabytes of data I consume on my home network.
I have an iPhone 4 and a contract with AT&T for my 3G data. But to be honest, the speeds I get with that, which can sometime get up to 3Mbps here on the outskirts in Atlanta, is entirely sufficient for any phone. That's plenty for streaming Netflix on the go, but almost everywhere else you'll use your smartphone probably has WiFi access. So, my question is, when is 4G, or later on, 5G, wireless data going to eventually replace my home broadband connection?
With WiMax, the idea is already there, except that is a data-only connection, meaning all voice calls mean VOIP, which is great, but there's no streamlined VOIP integration for cellphones quite yet. I assume because carriers make tons of money selling "minutes" and texting plans.
LTE and 4G technologies of the like should at some point be everyone's main broadband connections, both at-home and on the go, consolidating our telecom bills into one.
For the savvy tech user, maybe there are a few people that use 3G hotspots for all their data at home, but two problems exist there. For one, 3G is too slow for home use and external network devices are required, i.e. tethered cellphones, MiFi hotspots, or USB network dongles/adapters. And there lies the problem for at-home wireless access today: you have to pay for both the network modem or router for your home connection as well as the extra costs for a non-subsidized non-cellphone plan.
This may be pipe dream, but once LTE becomes widely available, I'd want a Verizon plan that allows me an iPhone 5 with 4G access along with a subsidized at-home router, effectively replacing my current setup of two bills, one for mobile 3G, the other for DSL.
Sounds good. Now let's just hope we can do all that with low latency and speeds around a consistent 5Mbps+.
Lol.
However, amid the branding wars and eventual mass rollout by all carriers a version of 4G, I question it's usefulness and real impact for mobile phones, 4G's primary focus.
Let me explain.
Greater bandwidth in any case at any time is always a good thing. So, just as the competition is heating of for 4G, in the virtuous nature of capitalism, the carriers are pushing full-steam ahead here in the US for the fastest speeds they can manage. That way somebody can claim alpha-dog status and gain a bunch more customers. Hooray for all that.
The only issue I see with the whole thing is that everyone is touting 4G availablity solely as a faster network for your phone's data. I don't know about you, the amount of data I consume on my phone is but a pittance of the gigabytes upon gigabytes of data I consume on my home network.
I have an iPhone 4 and a contract with AT&T for my 3G data. But to be honest, the speeds I get with that, which can sometime get up to 3Mbps here on the outskirts in Atlanta, is entirely sufficient for any phone. That's plenty for streaming Netflix on the go, but almost everywhere else you'll use your smartphone probably has WiFi access. So, my question is, when is 4G, or later on, 5G, wireless data going to eventually replace my home broadband connection?
With WiMax, the idea is already there, except that is a data-only connection, meaning all voice calls mean VOIP, which is great, but there's no streamlined VOIP integration for cellphones quite yet. I assume because carriers make tons of money selling "minutes" and texting plans.
LTE and 4G technologies of the like should at some point be everyone's main broadband connections, both at-home and on the go, consolidating our telecom bills into one.
For the savvy tech user, maybe there are a few people that use 3G hotspots for all their data at home, but two problems exist there. For one, 3G is too slow for home use and external network devices are required, i.e. tethered cellphones, MiFi hotspots, or USB network dongles/adapters. And there lies the problem for at-home wireless access today: you have to pay for both the network modem or router for your home connection as well as the extra costs for a non-subsidized non-cellphone plan.
This may be pipe dream, but once LTE becomes widely available, I'd want a Verizon plan that allows me an iPhone 5 with 4G access along with a subsidized at-home router, effectively replacing my current setup of two bills, one for mobile 3G, the other for DSL.
Sounds good. Now let's just hope we can do all that with low latency and speeds around a consistent 5Mbps+.
Lol.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Tablet Fever
That's crazy.
Just one year ago, right before the iPad was announced, Steve Ballmer got up on stage to announce a few tablets, highlighting one -- the HP Slate -- that wouldn't even go into production. Why? Because once again, the ideas and concept products from manufacturers all had to be re-thought and redesigned in order to compete.
The iPad. When it was announced January 2010, most tech journalists screamed disappointment, their favorite word to describe it being "underwhelming." Oh, it was "just a big iPod Touch." And most people wrote it off as unimportant nearly instantaneously. The problem wasn't with the device at all. The problem was with people's expectations. If the iPad cured cancer, it still wouldn't have satisfied those people. What, with all the hype and speculation the Apple Tablet had garnered for more than a decade?
But it turns out that being just a big iPod Touch is freaking awesome. As soon as I saw the iPad and then heard its "big iPod Touch" description, I thought, "Alright! A big iPod Touch! That's great!" What else could it have been? It seems that being just a larger iPod is still better than what any manufacturer could come up with for the past year and possibly even another year.
So the tablet hype is in full swing, and opinions about the iPad have come full circle. As soon as a few other manufacturers started seriously trying to ship Windows 7 tablets, we then had a more telling look at the devices when we could see them in action side-by-side. And the iPad won, over and over again.
Since then, Samsung recently has been the most direct competition for Apple with the release of the Samsung Galaxy Tab. It is built by using the phone Android OS, with Samsung doing what it can to make it more tablet-y. But after having high hopes for what it was and what it could do, after using it I was sadly disappointed. Samsung seemed to rush this thing into market, as it lacked real polish (as does most Android phones). And in many instances across the OS, there were too many references to the "phone" the OS thought is was running on. Looks like they forgot to erase the term "phone" and switch it to "tablet" or "tab." As an example, using a demo model, the Galaxy Tab told me that the phone was missing its card-storage.
However, now Android is finally out to compete is better products, and with the Android 3.0 "Honeycomb" OS coming on a bunch of new devices, we might finally see some actual competition for another market that Apple has once again dramatically influenced and/or dominated.
And as for Windows tablets? God, if they don't soon make the Windows Phone 7 OS over to a tablet form and call it Windows Tab 7 -- or something -- then they have no hope in this catagory. Somebody over there has got to get it together and realize that Windows 7 wont make it in the current market landscape. At CES, Microsoft announced that Windows will make it over to support an ARM-based infrastructure, which just means that they plan on making their desktop OS more fit for tablets. Get you heads out of your ass, Microsoft. Put all your resources in to Windows Phone 7 OS on tablets. It's good. You did great on that software. As soon as you join the pack with a real offering -- an OS with real simplicity, tight underpinnings, and a re-worked UI that's as fluid and seamless as your great new phone OS, then you might have a chance.
Here's just a sample of the tablets that were announced at CES, with more on the way.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
How to touch a Lion: OS X
To be quite honest, I'm a little worried about Apple's position on touch in their desktop platform, OS X.
Currently, touch on OS X is employed using Apple's proprietary blend of gesture-based devices: the Magic TrackPad, Magic Mouse, and of course the MacBook trackpad. That's all great, but, looking toward the future, the point-and-click method of input, while effective at its job, is beginning to look a little antiquated in the face of touch-based devices like the iPad. I'd only hope that when the next thing comes around -- when we do figure out what the paradigm shift would be in desktop computing -- that Apple will be on top of it.
In the October 2010 keynote, Steve Jobs spoke a little about Apple's position on touch interfaces in the desktop/notebook category. He said basically that those vertical display orientations don't work well with extended use. "It gives great demo," Jobs claimed. But he then went on to describe the problems concerning arm fatigue and extended use problems associated with that design. "It's ergonomically terrible," he said.
That all makes sense, and I admire Apple's ability to deny the status-quo in desktop touch interfaces, and that's not what worries me. Instead, I'm curious about the integrity of their current interfaces for touch on OS X. The MacBook trackpad, Magic TrackPad and Magic Mouse are great devices, but they are in no way comparable to interacting with the touchscreen on the iPhone or iPad. Apple says the best way they've found to get touch on the Mac is not through the display, all which orient vertically, but rather through those horizontal devices they already ship.
I wanna touch me some OS X
While the trackpads and the Magic Mouse that Apple ship do make use of "gestures," they are not "touch" interfaces like touchscreen displays. The software in OS X is still based on a point-and-click mechanism of interaction. So, I guess the argument should be whether Apple should rewrite the desktop OS for fingers. Well, if you look at the recently previewed OS X Lion, they are already taking steps in that direction. With the LaunchPad, which uses the entire screen to display app icons, its use of folders like iOS 4, and also the introduction of more intuitive fullscreen apps (doing away with windows and the tiny toolbar controls), the desktop OS is gradually gaining the user interface necessary for finger-to-display interaction.
I wonder if the desktop OS, in its current form, will ever use touch as efficiently as any of the iOS or Android handsets on the market now. For example, straight from the horses mouth, check out this patent from Apple describing an iMac that has the capability to flip down horizontally, presumably to solve the whole "vertical orientation" problem.
My, how we've grown
Also, while always pondering the next best thing, I simply wonder when the traditional point-and-click style of desktop navigation will eventually go away. First there was command-line interfaces which included nothing but a black screen and a prompt. You would then enter commands to navigate and launch programs. From there, the paradigm shift in computing came with graphical user interfaces, or GUI. Xerox had initially invented GUI, but it wasn't until the Apple Lisa computer was released that it had made its way to the mass-market. From there, the Macintosh perfected the modern desktop operating system, and every other OS and software manufacturer, like Microsoft, jumped on the bandwagon.
More than thirty years later, we've since grown into our modern OS's and coincidentally seemingly grown too used to the same interfaces we use to interact with our data. It didn't take long to realize that command prompts were antiquated, but now we're slowly realizing that touch, along with wireless mobility, is the way of the future.
And in that aspect, the future is already here. With the introduction of the iPhone, we witnessed touch, wireless and mobile culminate with a product that not only revolutionized the cellular industry, but also energized new ideas and catalyzed a new category of mobile devices like the iPad. Tablet computing is the new rage, and we may see that form-factor take as the reigning personal device after the PC.
Bring it 'Back to the Mac'
I have to agree with Jobs on the iPad. There is something "magical" about it. The iPad brings a degree of intimacy with the internet and your digital content that other devices simply don't quite offer yet, all of which is because of the touch interface, its simplicity, design and ease of use. So, how do you bring some of that intimacy to the Mac? Laptops, in their current form, definitely don't work for vertical touch, because the displays are too flimsy and have no support for the pressure required someone to press against it. Hmmmm...
However, with the new MacBook Air, they've taken design cues from the iPad hardware, so I guess that's a good first step. It's easier to, say, just throw in flash storage rather than a hard drive, giving your laptop a new "instant on" feature resembling the iPad. But it's much more to try and reinvent the OS. Although OS X Lion seems to promote a more app-friendly, iPad-like experience with the new Mac App Store, the LaunchPad and fullscreen apps, in the meantime we're stuck with the Magic Mouse to provide our desktop "touch" experience.
We'll have to wait and see what the industry will make of this, because I certainly don't have the answers.
Currently, touch on OS X is employed using Apple's proprietary blend of gesture-based devices: the Magic TrackPad, Magic Mouse, and of course the MacBook trackpad. That's all great, but, looking toward the future, the point-and-click method of input, while effective at its job, is beginning to look a little antiquated in the face of touch-based devices like the iPad. I'd only hope that when the next thing comes around -- when we do figure out what the paradigm shift would be in desktop computing -- that Apple will be on top of it.
In the October 2010 keynote, Steve Jobs spoke a little about Apple's position on touch interfaces in the desktop/notebook category. He said basically that those vertical display orientations don't work well with extended use. "It gives great demo," Jobs claimed. But he then went on to describe the problems concerning arm fatigue and extended use problems associated with that design. "It's ergonomically terrible," he said.
That all makes sense, and I admire Apple's ability to deny the status-quo in desktop touch interfaces, and that's not what worries me. Instead, I'm curious about the integrity of their current interfaces for touch on OS X. The MacBook trackpad, Magic TrackPad and Magic Mouse are great devices, but they are in no way comparable to interacting with the touchscreen on the iPhone or iPad. Apple says the best way they've found to get touch on the Mac is not through the display, all which orient vertically, but rather through those horizontal devices they already ship.
I wanna touch me some OS X
While the trackpads and the Magic Mouse that Apple ship do make use of "gestures," they are not "touch" interfaces like touchscreen displays. The software in OS X is still based on a point-and-click mechanism of interaction. So, I guess the argument should be whether Apple should rewrite the desktop OS for fingers. Well, if you look at the recently previewed OS X Lion, they are already taking steps in that direction. With the LaunchPad, which uses the entire screen to display app icons, its use of folders like iOS 4, and also the introduction of more intuitive fullscreen apps (doing away with windows and the tiny toolbar controls), the desktop OS is gradually gaining the user interface necessary for finger-to-display interaction.
My, how we've grown
Also, while always pondering the next best thing, I simply wonder when the traditional point-and-click style of desktop navigation will eventually go away. First there was command-line interfaces which included nothing but a black screen and a prompt. You would then enter commands to navigate and launch programs. From there, the paradigm shift in computing came with graphical user interfaces, or GUI. Xerox had initially invented GUI, but it wasn't until the Apple Lisa computer was released that it had made its way to the mass-market. From there, the Macintosh perfected the modern desktop operating system, and every other OS and software manufacturer, like Microsoft, jumped on the bandwagon.
More than thirty years later, we've since grown into our modern OS's and coincidentally seemingly grown too used to the same interfaces we use to interact with our data. It didn't take long to realize that command prompts were antiquated, but now we're slowly realizing that touch, along with wireless mobility, is the way of the future.
And in that aspect, the future is already here. With the introduction of the iPhone, we witnessed touch, wireless and mobile culminate with a product that not only revolutionized the cellular industry, but also energized new ideas and catalyzed a new category of mobile devices like the iPad. Tablet computing is the new rage, and we may see that form-factor take as the reigning personal device after the PC.
Bring it 'Back to the Mac'
I have to agree with Jobs on the iPad. There is something "magical" about it. The iPad brings a degree of intimacy with the internet and your digital content that other devices simply don't quite offer yet, all of which is because of the touch interface, its simplicity, design and ease of use. So, how do you bring some of that intimacy to the Mac? Laptops, in their current form, definitely don't work for vertical touch, because the displays are too flimsy and have no support for the pressure required someone to press against it. Hmmmm...
However, with the new MacBook Air, they've taken design cues from the iPad hardware, so I guess that's a good first step. It's easier to, say, just throw in flash storage rather than a hard drive, giving your laptop a new "instant on" feature resembling the iPad. But it's much more to try and reinvent the OS. Although OS X Lion seems to promote a more app-friendly, iPad-like experience with the new Mac App Store, the LaunchPad and fullscreen apps, in the meantime we're stuck with the Magic Mouse to provide our desktop "touch" experience.
We'll have to wait and see what the industry will make of this, because I certainly don't have the answers.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
New Apple goodies aren't that goody Pt.2 -- The new Apple TV
For those that were hoping to finally cancel their cable or satellite subscriptions on the hopes that Apple's new Apple TV would revolutionize your home entertainment system, think again. Apple unveiled, along with its new iPod lineup, a tiny black box they call the new Apple TV. With many expectations and rumors about what exactly the updated Apple TV was supposed to be, I can comfortably say that what they announced this past Wednesday, Sept. 1 will be considered underwhelming at most.
The former Apple TV was already a slick device. Super slim, compared to other set top boxes with similar capability in the market, the ATV already had a gorgeous design that made anything else look cheap and dated. The new one, however, has dropped even more heft (and consequently more features), leaving something resembling a hockey puck one-fourth the size. On the back is a power jack, HDMI, digital audio out, and Ethernet, along with internal Wi-Fi for networking. Gone is the internal hard drive for storage, which eliminates the need to sync with your computer, rather being a completely streaming solution. Of course, the previous generation could receive streaming content just as well.
Besides physical design, the new Apple TV is not much different than what it replaces in terms of features. It adds only two: Netflix access for Netflix subscribers and AirPlay, which lets you stream media from other iDevices like the iPad. Other than that, the only thing Apple announced along with the new set top box is a different pricing scheme for movie and TV show rentals ($0.99 per HD TV episode, $4.99 per HD movie). The point is, nothing revolutionary here. And we've had a good three years since the first Apple TV to imagine all the great things this little box could bring to our TV sets.
I own an Apple TV -- the previous generation -- and must agree with Mr. Jobs when he says that customers love it. It’s definitely a great accessory to add to your home entertainment system, but I have always known it was underpowered and extremely limited in features. Apple knows that the only thing keeping the Apple TV selling and distinguished as a separate product than, say, a Mac Mini, is the remote-accessible front to the iTunes Store that can’t be found in any other Mac’s Front Row software. Front Row is the remote-based media navigation software included in every Mac, very similar to Windows Media Center in functionality. However, Front Row cannot access the Internet for content other than streaming iTunes Movie Previews from Apple’s website. Unfortunately there have been no reliable solutions to putting the Apple TV’s software on a Mac and also no real solutions to bringing the multi-functionality of a Mac to an Apple TV. However, with a few third-party solutions (ATV-Flash, Boxee), I've been able to squeeze a little more fun out of my set top box.
But even through these solutions, there has yet to be a Netflix app for the Apple TV. The only reason I can surmise that Netflix wasn't allowed on Boxee for the Apple TV would probably be for legal issues, but that I'm not sure about. So, with the advent of Netflix for the new Apple TV, its an enticing offer for customers that pay for it, but again, this is not revolutionary. In fact, this would be so very simple to bring to the previous gen. Apple TV with a simple software update. But I'm not sure that's going to happen.
I understand why Apple has made this new device. While admittedly a hobby to the execs at Apple, unlike the iPhone and iPad, the Apple TV wasn't meant for revolution. It was meant to get iTunes on your TV at a cheaper entry price of $99 instead of the previous $229. Granted, to accomplish that, some sacrifices had to be made. But given that the Apple TV hasn't seen anything real changes since it was released, I think most people were expecting a little bit more. I actually believed the rumors that the new Apple TV would run iOS and be able to run a lot of the different apps you find of iPhones and iPads. Amongst those: Hulu Plus, Netflix, Joost, and maybe even Facebook or Safari. I was expecting a complete revamp in the way Apple TV would be presented to the user: new UI and much more capability that could bring everything the internet had to offer to the "lean back experience" -- living room entertainment -- like how Google is trying to do with Google TV.
So what are we left with? Well, the new Apple TV is no show-stopper. It's smaller and cheaper, bringing a little more accessibility to internet content, but the emergence of a full-fledged online TV service is still far off. For now, we'll just have to sit and wait for the next guy to try their luck. Google's up next; maybe the Google TV platform can help bring this dream to fruition.
So what are we left with? Well, the new Apple TV is no show-stopper. It's smaller and cheaper, bringing a little more accessibility to internet content, but the emergence of a full-fledged online TV service is still far off. For now, we'll just have to sit and wait for the next guy to try their luck. Google's up next; maybe the Google TV platform can help bring this dream to fruition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)