Tablet Fever

Apparently at CES this year, some 100 or more tablets were announced or introduced.

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.

On the iPhone, pt2

Previously, I've spoken a little bit about the iPhone, its place in history and impact on modern communication, which can be found here. To get all my ideas out about the iPhone and why I’m a complete fanboy of the device (and to be honest, of most Apple products), I hope to expand a little here and possibly more down the line along the device’s evolution with this segment simply titled, “On the iPhone.”

Tech isn’t so “techy” anymore

You geeky son-of-a-bitch. Yeah, you know you love your phone. It’s okay; we do too. The thing is, tech isn’t so geeky anymore, so be proud of it. The 21st century Fonzie uses an iPhone -- style, fashion and social status today include both the devices you carry and the brands that define you. Are you a Mac or PC? Android or Blackberry? Playstation or Xbox?

Modern geekism, as I see it, has more to do with phones than anything, as phones are everyone's device and the most personal tech we own. And Apple, having always considered beauty and style in their products, are responsible for the new age of stylish gadgetry with the introduction of the iPhone in 2007.

Revolution

Smartphones have evolved. Initially created for business professionals, the smartphone was nothing more than an excuse for guys in suits to carry around expensive, complicated-looking gadgets.

Well, that may be an exaggeration, but in all honesty, having used Windows Mobile devices from the early 2000s, I can vouch for smartphone uselessness beyond fancy contacts management a digital calendar. Mobile internet, which was finally starting to mature in devices like Blackberrys and the Palm Treo, was essentially still a baby. The Treo, Blackberry and a few Nokia products were certainly key devices in a pre-iPhone world, but until the platforms could be rethought and reinvented for use by mere mortals, nobody cared.

But why prop up the iPhone?


Well, because, if it wasn’t for the iPhone, your Motorola Droid simply wouldn't exist.

Android, Palm and now Windows Phone 7 -- platforms based on the touch-experience -- are all reaching full maturity and offer plenty competitive alternatives. But regardless of whether you believe the iPhone is still king or have instead found a better fit for you, no one can deny that Apple truly catalyzed a new generation of really personal, really smart mobile devices and software. Facing many obstacles, they created something so radically different and did it so well, that the iPhone introduction will go down as a historical upward shift in portable computing (not to mention that the MacWorld 2007 keynote given by Steve Jobs was awesome and sure to be talked about for decades among us Apple nerds. Gotta give kudos when kudos is due (what is a kudo, btw?)).

The iPhone’s backstory is really the most compelling part of its introduction. And though Jobs likes to claim revolution for the products he introduces, for the people that own iPhones, use them and love them, the overall consensus on whether or not the iPhone is truly revolutionary amounts to an assertive “hell yes.”

Read this piece from Wired magazine, The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry. This is the best piece I’ve found on the device, the landscape of the mobile industry and how it was flipped upside down in 2007.

It’s all about emotion

Talk with iPhone users. They love it. They make sure to use the word.

It’s just a phone -- an electronic gadget. So why the emotional connection? How can a person become so floored with a phone, of all things?

Well, making calls isn't it. The phone part of your iPhone doesn't make you fall in love. Especially if you have lots of dropped calls, sometimes you might be inclined to throw it across the room. However, the process of making the call, the fluidity and ease involved can overall make for a relatively enjoyable experience. That is what it's all about: the experience, the enjoyment one receives in its use with minimal frustrations.

Emotional connectivity with a phone comes in the sense that the device simply fulfills and need. Or more appropriately, it creates need, whereas technology, in its nature, broadens connectivity with the world by providing new avenues for information and entertainment, and then fulfills it. The iPhone platform, in form and function, exists to satisfy that need and, in turn, influences the "bond" a person will perceive from its use.

Just as an interesting side-note, we are only talking about a phone, in case we need to be reminded. We talk about the iPhone experience like one might talk about a religious experience. But I'm sure one's choice of technology might come close to a religion. They call 'em fanboys for a reason.

So, let's first discuss design. It's no secret that Apple has a great design team; they've won awards and sold enough product to prove it. Apple stuff is often described as "pretty" or even "beautiful." But why? It's nothing by a hunk of shiny metals and glass. To answer, you might look at these objects in comparison to what others manufacture. Take, for example, any slew of Nokia handsets or Windows Mobile phones from last year. Other than, in my opinion, the Palm Pre and a few HTC handsets which are on par with the iPhone as far as physical design, the iPhone trumps most in outward attractiveness. Being shiny certainly has an eye-catching allure and makes you wanna reach out and touch it -- or even lick it.

Handsets. You hold them -- yes, in your hand, if you had to guess. So, the feel of the device must conform to the hand or be ergonomically sound for constant touching and manipulation. The slickness of the iPhone (still speaking of the original) -- the rounded-off sides and smooth edges that fit nicely in the creases of one's fingers, the serene physicality of having only one button, the weight and feel of the device -- all adds to the proverbial "experience" we like to adorn it with.

Physical beauty is nice, and Apple has always made really nice hardware, but as Steve Jobs had said in The Wall Street Journal's D5 conference in 2007, he really considered Apple a software company more than anything. Software is what sets a company like Apple apart and drives the identity of their products. The software in the original iPhone was revolutionary (okay, I'll reuse the word). During the MacWorld 2007 keynote, Jobs threw the phrase "desktop-class applications" around to describe the new era of portable computing. The iPhone was the initiator and proof of that concept. Now with the App Store and over 300,000 (as of this writing) applications for iOS devices, uncertainty over software utility in the mobile space can be easily put to rest. However, while the capabilities are there, pure functionality of the iPhone is not what creates the bond between it and the user. Design, again, must creep into the conversation, because the way we see, feel and hear -- all ways we interact -- must, beyond all, be easy and fun to do. The designers at Apple have nearly perfected user interface design.

It works well. Like, for real. As long as the hardware is keeping up with the software (because the hardware should be able to handle what interface and general computations the applications need), the interface, its animated aspects, the types of buttons and controls, the graphics, the layout of information all in a tightly-wound, polished and responsive package make for a fluid and extremely satisfying experience.

It's late, and this post has run long. To be continued...

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

New Apple goodies aren't that goody Pt.1 -- The iPod nano-er

Is it just me, or was the recent Sept. 1, 2010 Apple event kinda hit and miss? The new shuffle? We appreciate that buttons are back. The new iPod touch? Thats cool -- Apple’s fully embracing the front-facing camera and pushing Facetime (which we’re still waiting to see on the iPad). The new iTunes 10? It’s okay. But did anyone else shrug when Steve Jobs introduced this year’s Apple TV and iPod nano?

I’ll start with the nano. I understand that Apple, as well as any modern devices company, feel the need to go more compact. But I’m pretty sure that a product already described as “nano” is probably tiny enough. Even so, I applaud Apple for trying even harder to finish ahead in the race for smaller form-factors: engineering in such a tiny space is mind boggling and can only be appreciated when you hold something like the iPod nano in your hands and think, “Wow, how did they do this?” But come on! The nano was already measured in millimeters! It could have already easily been lost amongst seat cushions or swallowed. As of today, however, Apple made it even smaller.

Steve Jobs came out on stage and said that they at Apple had pondered how to make the iPod nano even better. With a healthy respect for the engineering talent at Apple, I have wondered on many occasions just how anything so finely detailed like an iPhone or iPod could get any better. Steve’s answer to that was, as usually always is, that it has to be smaller. Smaller, huh? Did I mention that I’d lost one in the couch cushion already? In order to replace that one, now I have to buy one even smaller? I wouldn’t mind as long as I could still count on the same functionality of the previous generation. And like any sane person would assume, an updated product would undoubtedly pack new functionality to accent previous features, right? However, it seems the tiny square touchscreen that is the new nano is missing a few things.

Apparently, this little beauty (they always are at least beautiful) does not do video. 

For a few years now, from the introduction of the iPod Video, mobile video has been a mainstay in the promotion of mobile digital media devices. iPhones and iPod touches, Sony Walkmans, and Microsoft Zunes now all support high-quality video playback. And as of yesterday, so did the iPod nano. But the tiny touch-screen square they call the iPod nano today has been stripped of those previously touted features: not only video playback but also video recording. Last year, September 2009, Steve Job’s pulled the ol’ “one more thing...” trick out of the hat to introduce video recording on the iPod nano. And though last years event was relatively uninspiring, I believe that was and still is the epitome of the nano’s engineering, not to mention its domination in market-share. But now it’s gone, with only a new glossy square touchscreen to shine back in our disbelieving faces. Really though, I don’t mind the touchscreen on the nano; in fact, I believe going touch is the most logical next step. The entire time I was watching today’s unveiling, however, I couldn’t help but scream that it should have been at least twice the size -- a rectangular shape the same dimensions as last year’s screen. Take the previous nano, get rid of the click-wheel, make the screen multitouch so that at least three rows of icons could be displayed, and then put video playback on the device so we can turn the thing sideways and watch a movie! But what do I know? I’m no engineer.

The bottom line: the new nano looks like an updated iPod shuffle. It has lost too many features -- video capabilities and screen real-estate -- to be declared “better” than its previous generation. I appreciate the more technologically advanced and versatile user interface that a touchscreen provides, but on this device it comes at a higher cost than I’d be willing to pay.