Podcast #64: MacBook nano, Apple Laptops Over the Years and Ray Buys an eMate While Podcasting

This week we marvel at the workmanship of a Hackintosh netbook, share our thoughts on the best, and worst, Apple laptops and peer pressure Ray into buying an eMate off of eBay. Plus, we wish we all had a sweet name like Papermaster, we just don't want to be sued by Big Blue because of it. read more

Related News
Comments

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

Daniel Eran Dilger Today's broad array of smartphone operating system contenders are offering lots of potential answers to a problem that only requires one. It appears the market has two options ahead: either pool generic hardware makers behind a single operating system and deliver a smartphone marketplace that resembles the Windows PC market, or watch them fall to a dominant leader and have a smartphone market that resembles Apple's iPod ecosystem. This decision isn't going to be made by a class of intellectual elite, or by government mandate. it's going to be made by the market itself. Here are the factors that will influence the outcome, either marginalizing Apple's iPhone into a niche as the company has twice experienced previously at the hands of DOS in 1981 and Windows in 1991, or positioning it as the dominant leader as Apple has achieved for itself with the iPod since 2001. The third segment in this series looks at Google's Android and the Open Handset Alliance as a possible “DOS-attack” against Apple's iPhone. Subsequent segments will look at Nokia's newly opened Symbian and other mobile contenders challenging the iPhone. Will the iPhone Meet its Match from a Modern Day DOS? Will Windows Mobile Play DOS to Apple’s iPhone? Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Will Symbian Play DOS to Apple's iPhone? Google Acquires Android. In 2005, Google purchased a startup named Android, which had been in business for nearly two years. The secretive startup was known only to be working on software for mobile phones. It was being run by a who's who of mobile industry veterans, including Andy Rubin, the founder of Danger. Rubin had earlier worked at WebTV along with Chris White and Andy McFadden, both of whom had also joined Android. Richard Miner of Orange and Nick Sears of Tmobile also brought their mobile provider experience to Android. At the time of the acquisition, Google didn't announce any plans for Android and instead only told BusinessWeek, “We acquired Android because of the talented engineers and great technology. We're thrilled to have them here.” It appeared that Google was only going to be expanding its search services for mobile phone users, along the lines of the Google SMS answer system it had recently released. Google Buys Android for Its Mobile Arsenal - BusinessWeek Windows XP Media Center Edition vs Apple TV: The Fall of WebTV The GPhone Myth. As reports began to leak out about talks between Google and hardware makers throughout 2007, rumors began to fly about “the GPhone,” a competitive offering that was supposed to take on the iPhone. Some phone enthusiasts hoped Google would jump in to rescue the struggling OpenMoko project and turn it into a viable project that could attack Apple's new smartphone. In October 2007, I printed the Great Google GPhone Myth, taking apart the idea that Google would be directly competing against the iPhone, and describing that Google was really working on a free alternative to Windows Mobile as a conduit for getting its search and related services on a broader variety of mobiles. Google's services were already on the iPhone. In November, Google played its hand: it had organized a consortium of companies called the Open Handset Alliance to develop open standards for mobiles. The first product from the group would be Android, a mobile operating system built on the Linux kernel. Google wasn't getting into the phone handset business at all; it was only making sure that its mobile search products would not risk being marginalized by the threat of Windows Mobile on phones in the same way Microsoft had been working to leverage its PC monopoly to push Google search off the Windows desktop. The Great Google gPhone Myth Introducing Android: Leader of Linux. Two weeks later, Google released an early version of the Android software. On top of a Linux kernel, Android uses a specialized version of a Java Virtual Machine that takes Java language code and turns it into what Google calls “Dalvik bytecode” rather than Java bytecode as a standard JVM would. This allows Google to leverage existing and familiar Java language tools without paying Sun for a Java license. Like Mac OS X and its fraternal iPhone OS, Android includes a variety of open source libraries, including SQLite and WebKit. On top of that, Google developed a series of frameworks that handle the tasks Cocoa Touch does on the iPhone. Android also bundles a set of applications. While Apple adapted its existing Mac OS X to work in a mobile environment to create the iPhone OS, Android is more like a customized Java environment running on a specialized mobile Linux variant: elements of maturity in an otherwise experimental new platform. What is Android? -Google Android was by no means the first mobile OS using Linux. Both Palm and its amputated ACCESS software arm have Linux-based mobile platforms. Nokia has Maemo, which it uses in its Internet Tablets, and also recently acquired Trolltech and its Qtopia mobile Linux platform. Motorola has teamed up with MontaVista Software to use its Mobilinux. Intel created the Moblin project for mobile Linux, aimed at Internet devices. Google's OHA also isn't the first consortium to attempt to standardize a mobile Linux platform. The OSDL started the Mobile Linux Initiative to define requirements for hardware; the Consumer Electronics Linux Forum (CELF) then worked to define various phone profiles aimed at the Japanese market; the Linux Phone Standard (LiPS) Forum tried to do the same thing in Europe. In 2007, LiPS was folded into the new LiMo Foundation, along with the OSDL. All of these committees have had some overlap and some complementary features. Several of Google's OHA partners are also LiMo members, including NTT DoCoMo, Wind River, and Motorola. So why didn't Google just join LiMo? “LiMo, very candidly, wasn't moving fast enough,” OHA board member John Bruggeman told CNET. Google hopes to herd the Linux cats into a progressive, structured platform that can battle against Symbian and Windows Mobile to succeed as the new DOS of smartphones. Will Google fracture or unify mobile Linux? The Presumption of the Necessity of DOS. The previous segment examining Windows Mobile pointed out how the PC industry as a whole assumed that Microsoft's desktop Windows monopoly would easily take over dominance in the MP3 player market, pushing Apple into a niche position. This was expected because DOS had pushed Apple's early computers into a reduced role starting in 1981, and Microsoft had repeated this again in 1991 when the DOS world migrated to Windows, effectively pruning Apple's Macintosh into a Bonsai platform. The inability of one company to dominate any product category has been frequently repeated by PC industry pundits as a given, despite the fact that history is full of examples of this happening. Sony dominated personal music players for two decades under the Walkman brand even while equally large competitors tried to push it from this position; Nintendo has similarly owned handheld gaming despite ill-fated efforts to grab a piece of its pie by products running a generic platform such as Microsoft's WinCE (Gizmondo), Linux (GP32), and Symbian (N-Gage). In fact, outside of the Windows/DOS PC, there are actually few examples of a generic platform taking over an industry. Nearly every other consumer-facing product uses proprietary platforms: car makers, stereo equipment, appliances and so on typically all use designs custom to their maker. The paradox of the Windows PC market has been that Microsoft's broadly licensed software supposedly saves hardware makers from investing in software development while ensuring compatibility, when in reality it adds significant costs to PC makers while limiting their ability to differentiate themselves. That explains why PC makers have been perpetually merging together and going out of business while Microosft has rolled in money over the last two decades. Parallel efforts to copy Microsoft in broadly licensing an operating system have regularly failed: IBM's OS/2, Apple's Mac OS, Palm's PDA OS, even Microsoft's own efforts to duplicate Windows dominance in other markets, from copy machines to PDAs to smartphones to SPOT watches to music players. The closest copy may be Symbian, but its customers are partners, not simply consumers of a generic third party's operating system as Windows licensees are. That indicates it is not necessary to duplicate the dominance exercised by Microsoft over the PC industry in the smartphone market. Google's Android and Symbian exist more as technology sharing pacts among manufacturers, but both aspire to take Microsoft's DOS role among smartphones. However, the idea that Apple's iPhone must be dethroned by a modern-day DOS, whether Windows Mobile, Android, or Symbian, is not just debatable, but does not sync with the reality of more recent events. Apple's recent history of the iPod further refutes the idea that a software analog to Microsoft is needed. The iPod Emergence: Apple & Pixo vs IBM & Microsoft. Apple's iPod in 2001 made no effort to clone the DOS business model; it actually did the opposite. When Apple entered the market, there were a number of existing MP3 devices using custom software, hardware designs, and DRM codecs. The iPod used off the shelf components to deliver a custom MP3 player using third party software, but Apple also added its own technologies: easy to use sync with iTunes, a fast Firewire interface that made uploading music far faster than the prevailing USB 1.0, and an attractive industrial design. With the iPod, Apple played the role of IBM in 1981, using Pixo's embedded operating system to enter the market quickly, just as IBM had used DOS. The difference was that Apple didn't direct any market attention toward Pixo and added a lot of value on top of that core embedded OS. A modern day Compaq couldn't simply clone the hardware and license Pixo to run on it in order to compete against the iPod, because the iPod was much more than just generic hardware running Pixo software. As the iPod developed, Pixo's role diminished and was eventually displaced. Just like IBM, Apple jumped into a new market just as demand was beginning to explode. Apple made MP3 players far more attractive to a general audience by delivering greater playback capacity than most entry level devices offered, along with an ease of use that encouraged buyers to jump in at the higher end of the market. That left Apple with not only the lion's share of the market, but also by far the most profitable segments of the market. Two decades prior, IBM badly fumbled its play with the early PC and ended up irrelevant in the PC world by the late 80s, sideswiped by Microsoft's DOS and the cloners who were licensing it in parallel, notably Compaq and later HP and Dell. Steve Jobs had witnessed that happen, and was determined to not let it happen again to Apple. Rather than being manipulated by a software middleware vendor as IBM had, Apple worked to incrementally develop the iPod market itself. After consuming the hard drive-based player market, Apple took on the Flash RAM-based market with a tiny hard drive system used in the iPod Mini, and followed up with Flash-based devices of its own in the Nano and Shuffle. This allowed Apple to progressively serve an increasingly wider market, incrementally growing upon an established foundation. With the iPod, Apple became, in effect, an IBM with its own internal Microsoft. Microsoft's Failure Despite Features. In contrast, Microsoft entered the music player market by promoting music player hardware reference designs around WinCE. However, it was unable to ship a finished design until the iPod had become firmly established around 2005. Later branded as PlaysForSure, the devices were sold by various hardware makers and all purported to support the same DRM and the same music subscription services while also offering a broader array of hardware that presented video before the iPod did, supported wireless before the iPod, and so on. Despite these unique features, all of those PFS designs still failed. Microsoft blamed the failure of PFS upon its music store and hardware partners and decided to take Apple on itself in 2006. It relaunched a Toshiba PFS player as its own device under the Zune brand, adding WiFi music sharing features and a larger display than the current Pods had. It failed dramatically as well. Did Microsoft's attempts to float a new DOS among music players fail because of Apple's success, or due to Microsoft's own problems? The failure of the Zune, which followed the iPod model rather than the DOS model, seems to suggest that Microsoft itself was to blame. Consider too that Microsoft's Windows Mobile phones, which use the same underlying operating system as its failed PlaysForSure music players and the Zune, had similarly flopped even before Apple could release a charismatic phone equivalent to the iPod. Of course, when the iPhone was released, it hit Windows Mobile hardest. The iPhone made Windows Mobile Smartphones look ridiculous and underpowered, and made Windows Mobile Pocket PC phones look clumsy and awkward, despite the fact that they both supported a variety of features the iPhone didn't, including the ability to edit documents, capture video, send MMS, and so on. Simply adding on features did not enable Microsoft to compete against Apple. The only conclusion that can be drawn from all this is that competing against Apple requires more than just having a feature arsenal. Microsoft's failures in themselves do not necessarily mean that Google's Android will fail in its attempts to float its own smartphone platform. Why Microsoft’s Zune is Still Failing Microsoft’s Zune, Vista, and Windows Mobile 7 Strategy vs the iPhone Will Google Succeed where Microsoft Failed? Microsoft's demonstrated inability to successfully enter consumer markets for MP3 players and smartphones has given observers little faith that the company will somehow turn things around in late 2009 when its next generation of devices are expected to be released. However, prior to that the first fruits of Google's efforts to build its own smartphone operating environment will arrive. Will Google's Android take over Microsoft's crown as the “DOS vendor” among smartphones? Supporters of Google's Android project point to some parallels between Android for smartphones and Windows on the PC: Android will allow hardware makers to differentiate in ways that can offer features Apple can't (or doesn't want to); it should allow software developers to offer features Apple does not allow on the iPhone; it embraces open, hobbyist experimentation in ways that Apple currently isn't; and it opens the potential for content providers that Apple is not interested in allowing. Openness is Android's key competitive feature. Will all this openness allow Google to unseat the iPhone to become the primary platform developers want to participate in, and subsequently soak up the market for third party hardware makers that Windows Mobile serves? While Google currently has no market share due to the fact that no Android phones have yet shipped, it does have broad vocal support from a variety of the same kinds of hardware manufacturers that supported DOS and Windows and helped to make those platforms successful in the desktop PC market. HTC and Android. The first Android phone is expected to be the HTC Dream; Taiwan's HTC (High Tech Computer) also manufactures Palm's Treo Pro phone as well as many of the most visible Windows Mobile devices. In addition to models produced under its own name, HTC also sells Windows Mobile devices under the Dopod brand, as well as no-name phones branded by providers, such as AT&T, Orange, Sprint, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Vodafone, and others. HTC will also be building the XPERIA X1 Windows Mobile phone for Sony Ericsson. HTC was quick to throw its support behind Android despite its long term alliance with Windows Mobile. Why would it so enthusiastically support an unproven platform from a company that has no experience in consumer hardware platforms? One can only assume that HTC is not happy with the current state of Windows Mobile, and desperately wants another “DOS” to succeed where Microsoft's has so spectacularly failed. As an Original Design Manufacturer for Palm, HTC watched as Palm adopted Windows Mobile in place of the Palm OS and subsequently fell even deeper into crisis. Palm's only successful phone since has been its Palm OS-based Centro. HTC undoubtedly sees Android as its ticket to becoming the next Dell, but without a similar dependance upon Microsoft. Android for mobile phones is essentially playing the role of Linux for PCs, except that it has the backing of a major company behind it. Can Android Take on the iPhone with Openness as its Feature? As great as this sounds, it's important to consider that Linux on the desktop has made no significant progress in eating into Windows dominance after a decade of trying. Being open, free, flexible, and decentralized hasn't been enough of an advantage to get consumers to migrate from Windows to Linux in any fraction of significance. Similarly, in the music business, Linux-based MP3 players have had no impact on the iPod, despite offering more features, flexibility, support for additional codecs, and so on. In the mobile phone area, Linux enjoys a sizable portion of the smartphone market, but this is almost entirely due to phones sold by Motorola in China, where the advantages of Linux' openness are void. Motorola's Linux phones offer nothing to users in terms of openness or flexibility, and are really no different in terms of features than other appliance 'feature phones' based upon closed operating systems. And again, a key problem with assaulting Apple in a feature war is that neither the iPod nor the iPhone became popular by being “highly featured.” They both delivered perhaps 80% of the functionality found in all other devices in the market. Rather than trying to match every feature and cater to every niche as Microsoft had with Windows Mobile, Apple's devices did a few things very well at launch, and incrementally developed into full featured devices that still lack some of the more unique features of their competitors. Further, in terms of openness, the demographic that embraces Linux' characteristic freedoms is not the same as the demographic that buys smartphones in quantity and then pays for data service. This is a critical fact to consider because a big part of the iPhone's success stems from the fact that it is being pushed by mobile providers who want to capture the cream of the market willing to pay a premium for data services. The Frankenphone. Combining the fractured aesthetic of HTC's Windows Mobile phone hardware with Android's software, based upon Linux' perpetually unfinished DIY openness and Google's Java-like development platform, will not result in a product similar to the iPhone. Instead, it will look a lot like phones that have already failed in the market. Apple's advantage comes from slick hardware designs with a close attention to detail, combined with software that purposely does less so that it can do what it does better. Even Apple's own conservative attempts to broaden its software capabilities with iPhone 2.0 have resulted in instability problems that can be blamed upon both Apple's early releases of its phone operating system and software from inexperienced third party developers new to the platform. Would the current frustrations with iPhone 2.0 be somehow mitigated by additional openness that also embraced all kinds of variables from different hardware makers with less quality control than Apple, a loose committee of additional cooks working to serve up operating system features targeted at every possible conceived need, and a wider third party software group with fewer constraints on illegal behaviors? The Failure of Open. While it is politically unpopular to criticize the well meaning efforts of open source contributors, the failure of Linux on the desktop, the failure of the vaporware Indrema game console, and the failure of the OpenMoko project to deliver a workable phone within a year of its deadline all underline the serious problems open development faces in the world of consumer oriented devices. Open has simply failed to deliver on its promises in the world of consumer hardware. OpenMoko was supposed to release its first mobile phone to consumers for $250 several months in advance of the iPhone. When the iPhone shipped, the group then announced new plans to get its phone out by the end of 2007. Instead, this spring the group announced new plans to move to an entirely different development platform, and ship its phone mid year for $400 with limited functionality and incomplete software outside of basic GSM phone features. Linux's notable successes, from Motorola's Linux phones to the Tivo DVR to Linksys Routers, have often come without any associated openness or freedom, and were instead delivered simply to provide their manufacturer with a free kernel to build upon. This indicates that while Linux may find its way into an increasing number of smartphones, it will likely not be accompanied by the glorious freedom of an open development environment Google has said it would offer with Android. Apple iPhone vs the FIC Neo1973 OpenMoko Linux Smartphone Can Google Succeed Where Open Has Previously Failed? Despite “openness” being Android's strongest competitive feature compared to Apple's iPhone, Google recently revealed that its wide-open development model is intentionally gravitating towards a closed association of top tier partners due to practical considerations. In July, Google accidentally sent out a notice that revealed that it had been seeding private SDK updates to only a subset of its contributors, angering those who believed that Android would be as open as Linux on the desktop or the OpenMoko project. Further, Google has restricted initial development to higher level APIs just as Apple did, further indicating that Google itself realizes that being wildly open to impress a minority of hobbyists will not result in the commercial success of its new platform. That serves to neuter Android's primary advantage over the iPhone. Without delivering on the premise of being wide open, Android is really just a less mature set of Java libraries used to create a specialized binary that runs on a Linux foundation. Unlike Apple's iPhone, Android phones won't have a slick user interface developed by professional artists, nor the iPhone's legacy of mature software development frameworks crafted over the last thirty years, nor the iPhone's tightly integrated hardware with award winning industrial design, nor its marketing power tied into the iPod and Apple's retail stores. Android won't be an open iPhone, it will only be a Windows Mobile phone with a better kernel that runs specialized Java software instead of Win32 or .NET code. Don't expect consumers to be impressed by that. The Biggest Missing Feature. There is one remaining factor that strangles to death any last remaining hope that Android might assassinate the iPhone and assume the crown of the “DOS of smartphones.” That is: Android delivers zero price advantage to consumers. In 1981 and 1991, consumers who wanted Apple computers faced the sticker shock of a somewhat arrogant price tag. Apple sold its computers, as it still does, at the higher end of the market, but there was simply far more range in prices available. In 1981, that meant the Apple II was $2600 and the new Apple III was $3500, even before you added a monitor. On the low end, Commodore sold its far less powerful, but “still a computer” Vic-20 for $300, while IBM entered the market with the IBM PC at $3000. Over the next few years, Apple focused on delivering additional sophistication at the same price, releasing the $10,000 Lisa and then the $2,500 Macintosh. IBM continued selling PCs in the same $3,000 to $10,000 range, but other DOS PC vendors began selling machines at prices that ranged as low as $1500. That left Apple with a roughly $1000 price premium over low end PCs. The products weren't really comparable, but consumers only saw the huge price difference. In 1991, Apple was still selling moderate to high-end Macintoshes for $3,800 to $10,000; the crippled Mac LC was $2500, and obsolete-at-birth Mac Classic ranged from $999 to $1500. Windows allowed PC makers to ship a functional $1500 PC and claim a rough approximation to Apple's $2500 entry level system, maintaining that apparent $1000 price premium. Today, pundits are lucky to find a Dell or HP system that is even a couple hundred dollars less than a comparable Mac. However, in the smartphone business, the iPhone 3G is now the same price, if not less, than generic competing phones on the market. Even more significant is the fact that the price of the phone hardware is nearly nothing compared to the cost of the service plan. This fact simply eases any price premium that could cause buyers to flock to a smartphone running a generic operating system over buying the iPhone 3G, regardless of whether it runs Windows Mobile or Android. 1990-1995: Planting Software Seeds Android Partners Have Already Failed. That same pricing principle similarly prevented buyers from considering many of the alternatives to the iPod. While Apple's original iPod models were more expensive than many of the first MP3 players on the market, they were price competitive with models offering similar features. By 2004, it was Apple who was undercutting MP3 competitors on price. Microsoft offered zero price advantage when it began selling the Zune, a major factor in its failure, but Microsoft simply couldn't out-price the iPod; it was already losing money offering the Zune at the same price as the iPod. Apple now has tremendous market power in buying RAM and other components that will prevent any competitors from being able to offer a huge discount over the iPhone's $199 price tag. Even if competitors were to give their phones away, they would only offer a $200 discount to users who would then still need to pay the same mobile fees to use the phone. Android's other partners, including Samsung and LG, have already failed to capture any significant market share in the music player market. Are they going to maintain their position as smartphone makers now that they face similar competition from Apple, its iPod ecosystem, its iTunes Music and Apps Store, Apple's retail store experience, and other factors that are pushing the iPhone? If they can, it is not obvious how partnering with Android will help. Other Problems for Android. Android was announced in early November 2007 and was followed with an early preview SDK within a couple weeks, a month ahead of Apple's initial announcement of the iPhone 2.0 SDK. However, between March and July 2008, Apple delivered nine progressive releases of its SDK, opened its App Store, and sold 60 million apps, raising $30 million to support iPhone software development in just the first month. It has since released three more SDK updates to developers related to iPhone 2.1, which is expected next month. Android just published its first open SDK beta update earlier this week, warning developers that “applications developed with it may not quite be compatible with devices running the final Android 1.0.” Additionally, Android still has no phones available. By the time the HTC Dream is expected to launch, Apple will have an installed base of around ten million iPhone (and iPod touch) users supporting software development through iTunes. The business model for selling Android apps is no better than that for selling jailbreak iPhone apps: there is no iTunes Apps Store to promote them, so users will have to track them down on their own. Android developers also have no real freedom that jailbreak iPhone developers lack. The only difference is that there are ten million iPhones to sell jailbreak apps to, and currently zero Android phones. If selling a jailbreak iPhone app sounds like more trouble than its worth, imagine trying to sell Android apps to a non-existant audience. Now add the official iPhone App Store into the mix, where publicity, promotion and profits are booming. What platform is going to have the most applications? How many users will flock to a smartphone platform with no apps? The wisdom of releasing a desirable phone and achieving a significant installed base before releasing an SDK makes a lot more sense in retrospect. Additionally, while Apple has a decade of experience in shipping regular updates to Mac OS X and its Xcode developer tools, Google has only shipped a random assortment of web-oriented SDKs (a number of which have been abandoned) as a tangent to its core business of selling advertisements. When the Android SDK 1.0 is finished later this year, developers will not only lack an installed base to sell their apps to, but will also have no high profile market for selling their apps in, and subsequently no financial incentive to develop applications that add value to the Android platform, just like Linux on the PC desktop. Around the same time, possibly within the next month, Apple will be shipping its second major OS release: iPhone 2.1. Apple will also be upgrading its entire user base to the new software so that developers will have a cohesive platform to target. This mirrors the efforts Apple has taken to upgrade its Mac OS X users to the same reference release. Mobile developers will be seeing money pouring in via iTunes while crickets chirp in the Android section of various mobile online stores. Apple’s iPhone Vs. Other Mobile Hardware Makers: 5 Revenue Engines Same Same, But Different: DOS Model Problems. Android developers will also have a series of other problems to manage. Like Windows Mobile, Android is intended to support everything, from BlackBerry-style keypad phones with a small touchscreen to the simple Windows Mobile Smartphone form factor lacking a touch screen to iPhone-like full size touch screens. Also like Windows Mobile, Android phone makers will have the option to leave off Bluetooth, WiFi, GPS location services, graphics hardware acceleration, and so on. Each Android phone will also have unique camera hardware, support for different video and audio codecs, and varied support for other differentiating proprietary services demanded by mobile operators. This will force developers to to make complex decisions regarding the lowest common denominator they choose to support. So while the iPhone will have a cohesive feature set, a managed software environment, and a functional market, Android will be a loose federation of hardware makers selling the same random features found on Windows Mobile today, with a chaotic development environment that lacks any central market for users or developers. And it will be run as an experiment by a company with no experience in consumer hardware or platform development. The Missing Tap. One specific example of the “DOS model problem” is that Android currently does not support multitouch. It's not touched on in the API, and Google quietly tap dances around its omission. Why no multitouch? Because multitouch screens are expensive, and most OHA hardware members are more interested in making a profit in a competitive phone market rather than impressing consumers as Apple did with the iPhone. Most existing smartphones, even those trying to directly rival the iPhone, use a stylus driven, pressure sensitive tap screen or a simpler, cheaper touch technology that lacks support for sensing multitouch. The iPhone's screen can actually sense up to five fingers at once, but the primary feature multitouch offers on the iPhone is the two fingered tapping and the pinching effects everyone associates with it. Android could certainly support multitouch if there were a demand for it, but that's the point: Google knows that its hardware partners are cheap and unlikely to put out hardware that actually competes with the iPhone. Instead of using expensive technologies that deliver clever yet largely invisible functionality, OHA members, just like PC makers, are far more likely to add flashy, impractical gadgety fluff that's cheap to tack on, such as slide out keyboards, neon tubes, and scratch and sniff stickers. That's how you impress gullible nerds on the cheap. Google itself is blowing smoke and erecting mirrors to distract from the reality that it being a “DOS vendor” means supporting bargain basement hardware from penny pinching duplicators. Android has been demonstrating some “wow” features such as a Street Maps app that pans around based on an internal compass in the demonstration phone. The problem is that that kind of thing only makes for a fun demo. Nobody needs to twirl around their phone in the air to see a view of the other side of the street, but everyone who has used an iPhone will wonder why they can't pinch to zoom out. Even worse, most Android phones aren't going to have a compass built into them, so Google is demonstrating features most Android users won't be able to use. That Sounds Like Microsoft… Google's design decisions are beginning to look a lot like Windows Vista; rather than actually working to make laptops boot faster, Microsoft came up with the idea of adding a small screen to the back of Vista laptops so users could check their email without having to wake the system up. But this was a stupid idea for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that most users just want a laptop that boots up quickly. Few laptops got the mini screen, but every user who tries Vista on their laptop will wonder why it doesn't boot up as fast as Mac OS X Leopard. In the same way, Google is advertising features for Android that most users won't ever see in their actual phones while ignoring things people will expect based on their exposure to the iPhone. Android is simply selecting the wrong features. Android will offer the advantages of supporting MMS, recording video, and the list of other features Windows Mobile already supplies. Those features didn't stop Apple from firing past Microsoft in the smartphone arena however, just as the Zune's highly touted WiFi and screen didn't phase iPod buyers. Incidentally, just months after the Zune, Apple had not only demonstrated a larger display but a higher definition multitouch screen, and not only WiFi, but functional WiFi that could be used to browse the web or check email. This suggests that Apple, with its faster release schedule, won't stay behind any of the leading features potentially offered by Android for very long. Android partners, however, will find it as difficult to catch up with Apple's unique features, just as Microsoft has been stymied to keep up with Mac OS X, the iPod, and the iPhone. The underlying reason: both Google and Microosft are tasked with maintaing support for a huge variety of hardware options demanded by all their partners. Apple has the unique circumstances to do only what it needs to do itself. Android in Windows Mobile's Shoes. Like Windows Mobile, Android faces a difficult market. In the US, it competes against the popular BlackBerry in corporate markets and the iPhone among consumers. Worldwide, it competes against entrenched market leader Nokia. The difference is that Google, unlike Microsoft, has no in. Windows Mobile was adopted by Windows-bound IT shops despite its weaknesses. Nobody has any preexisting reason to try an Android phone apart from hobbyists and open software enthusiasts, a demographic that has done little to move Linux on the PC desktop. Google also lacks Microsoft's installed base; it's starting from zero. The smartphone industry initially doubted Apple's chances of making much progress with the iPhone, despite the company having the Mac platform, the iPod, retail stores, platform development experience, marketing savvy, industrial design prowess, and so on. Google doesn't have any of those things. Mobile Providers vs Android. Apple also started with an exclusive partnership with AT&T, a three legged race that demanded effort from both. Google is hoping that hardware makers handle the hardware details and that mobile providers will be excited to sell its Android phones. While hardware makers such as HTC clearly appreciate having found a free alternative to Windows Mobile, it's not obvious why providers would be excited about Android, as it promises an openness that most mobile providers strongly oppose. AT&T took a big risk in getting behind the iPhone, as the phone encouraged users to use email rather than fee-based SMS and MMS, it supported WiFi for data access, and it bypassed AT&T's MEdia Net services to plug into iTunes instead. Verizon refused to parter with Apple and grant it those kinds of concessions. Is AT&T going to take a similar risk to partner with a phone that is not exclusive to it, and is Verizon now going to open its arms to support phones that do not exclusively support BREW, VCast and its other proprietary services? While Android may well eat into Microsoft's Windows Mobile business by stealing away its hardware makers, it seems unlikely that Android will ever serve as more than free alternative to Windows Mobile in a market where Windows Mobile is increasingly irrelevant. Android may have the dubious distinction of swallowing Microsoft's mobile business the same way Microsoft ate up the Palm OS, but even if it accomplishes that goal, Google will likely find itself unsustainably hungry immediately afterward. It will also find itself swimming in a shark tank of hungry rivals, including Nokia's Symbian, RIM's BlackBerry, and Apple's iPhone. Symbian is the final generic platform vying for the opportunity to play DOS in the smartphone market. The next article will examine Nokia's chances in its bid to match Microsoft's PC dominance in the mobile market while setting out in a new venture to copy Android's open software model. Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
TUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010

Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Odds and ends, AppleIt's the end of another calendar year, which can mean only two things. First, every blog is going to be posting lists of 2009 retrospectives, and second, there are going to be a lot of posts filled with completely off-target predictions for 2010. So that we're not leaving our readership sitting in the dark wondering what the TUAW bloggers are prognosticating for the next year, here are our wild guesses well-researched and intelligent predictions for Apple in 2010. Enjoy 'em, and from all of us at TUAW, have a safe and happy New Year's Eve and Day. Steve Sande Big DUH! The Apple Tablet arrives. There are way too many hints flying around the blogosphere for this to be a non-product for another year. It's gotta happen! The Apple TV disappears from the Apple lineup. I hates it, I does. It just doesn't seem like an Apple product. iPhone moves to multiple US carriers, but not Verizon. Why? Wrong network for a world (read GSM) phone, and I think Apple is probably irritated with Verizon's Droid and their advertising. Apple closes some low-producing Apple Stores. The economy is still bad, and there have to be some locations with stores that aren't pulling their weight. Apple buys Dropbox, BackBlaze, and Evernote, makes MobileMe useful. Dropbox for better and faster folder syncing between devices, BackBlaze for external backups to the cloud, Evernote just because it's cool. Add 'em all together and what do you have? Something that's really worth paying $99 a year for. Apple definitely has the cash to buy these services. The Apple TV reappears in the Apple lineup as a high-quality autostereoscopic 3DTV with TiVo, Slingbox, and Boxee functionality built in. I can dream, can't I? Erica Sadun I'm hoping this will be the year of the tablet. Of course, I've been anticipating the year of the tablet since, oh say, around 1993 or so. Apple's future isn't about the hardware though, and it's not about their OS line: it's about their ability to deliver media. I'm thinking "iTunes gone large". Apple's Lala acquisiition, rumored TV deals, and possible textbook distribution agreements point to a renewed focus on content delivery devices. Admittedly, Apple TV has never really evolved into its promise, perhaps due to areas into which Apple was not able to expand due to licensing deals with companies with Cable/Broadband interests but the iPhone has gone above and beyond in the media realm. So do I see a tablet (or a line of tablet devices) as a natural extension of the Apple content store? Absolutely. Will we see it this year? Possibly. Will it be early this year? Hard to say. Ask me again in a month. Michael Rose The tablet, yes, there will be one, it will be spectacular, and about three months after introduction it will drop in price by $200. People who bought the original version would be annoyed except they're so giddy from having had a piece of the future in their knapsacks for three months. We'll see Apple get serious about cloud services by buying a company that's doing online storage right (Dropbox guys, don't make your numbers unlisted) and creating a capability that will actually rival some of the more effective platforms out there. Apple needs a Microsoft Mesh-like solution to really unlock the portable power of its devices. Then again, the tablet. 2010 will be the year that hackintoshes become more than a distraction and a legal burden. The Psystar battle shows that Apple knows there's risk, and sooner or later the netbooks-on-OS-X market will collide with the business realities of Apple's day to day operations. Then again, the tablet. We'll see a secondary carrier for the iPhone in the US (yay!). It will not be Verizon (darn!), it will be T-Mobile. The Verizon iPhone is a 2011 phenomenon, but by then the prevalence of portable Wi-Fi and VoIP solutions for mobile will start to scratch away at the cellphone market's power. Then again, the tablet. Mac OS X 10.7 will return us to 'new features' land; we'll learn about it at WWDC and see it by 2011. Mel Martin There will be a tablet. Even though Steve Jobs said Apple wasn't working on one, remember he also denied the iPhone was coming for a long time too. There seems to be a crescendo of stories about the tablet (i-Slate, i-Pad, whatever) and that's a pretty good indication something is on the way. Changes to MobileMe. Maybe cheaper, certainly some new features. The system has come a long way, but it can hardly be called reliable, and I think for the money it needs more features and/or a lower price. The notification system could use some improving as well. When things go down it seems to take an awfully long time for Apple support to post something about it. A new AppleTV. I think something is likely, something beyond the current hardware/software. I like my AppleTV, but it is still feature poor and very limited in sources for video. Apple should get something a bit more interesting out, or hang this product out to dry. Blu-ray. Originally Apple was a big proponent of this hi-rez video disc. Now, not so much. I expect Apple will have to start adding Blu-ray to desktops and laptops, maybe even to the AppleTV. Sure there have been some licensing cost issues, but others are getting past it and offering it on windows based hardware. Come on Apple, get with it. Apple will get 'Back to my Mac' working. It was a highly touted feature of MobileMe, but for a large population of Mac users, it simply doesn't work. Hard to get excited about a feature I pay for and can't use. Other applications seem to be able to solve these router and security issues. Back to my Mac should just work. A new iPhone. The easiest prediction of all to make. They seem to come out like clockwork, and force many of us to ditch our older models and re-up with our favorite carrier. Speaking of favorite carriers, I think Apple will finally end AT&T exclusivity. Apple's image has taken a beating over AT&T service and support. The world's best smartphone shouldn't be stuck on the world's worst network. I think Apple will change this. Apple market share will continue to increase. Apple users are generally happy users, and Apple users tend to be evangelical about their experiences. In both the U.S., and around the globe, I expect Apple to increase share of laptops, desktops, iPhones and following on that, OS share. Apple will move more services to the 'cloud'. MobileMe is certainly there, iWork looks like it is heading that direction as well. Microsoft and Google have ambitious cloud-based designs, so it's an easy prediction, and a likely outcome. Most predictions will be wrong. There's something about predicting the future. Things take unexpected turns and don't come out exactly as planned. The film '2001' is really dated, and 'Space 1999', well, it looks pretty silly today. My favorite bad prediction? The GM produced film [YouTube Video link] done for the 1939 World's Fair that predicted the sixties. My, what a miss. Michael Grothaus The iPod classic will be no more. By September 2010 the iPod touch will have a max capacity of 128GB, making the iPod classic look archaic and redundant. The iPod lineup will solely consist of 'iPod touch' and 'iPod' - the former 'iPod nano' that maxes out at 32GB. The iSlate is announced in January, followed by a mid-year product launch. The iSlate will make the iPhone look 2005. It will have multi-touch on front and back of the device. Sometime during the year there will be an interesting anecdote about Steve Jobs showing the iSlate to a famous industrial designer (no, not Johnny Ive) this past December whom Jobs then attempted to call a cab for when the designer was leaving Jobs' "modest" home. The industrial designer will tell how Jobs, the most creative tech genius on the planet, had trouble calling a cab from his home phone. Apple (AAPL) stock will hit $300 a share and the stock will do a 2-for-1 split. The iPhone will be the #1 smartphone in the world by a wide margin by December 2010. Blackberry will be #2, and the Google Phone will be a distant third. Palm isn't even a blip on the radar. 'The iSlate will bomb.' Or so will say numerous tech CEOs who will bemoan its 'limited appeal'. They will all be wrong. And though the iSlate won't kill it until 2011, the Kindle will be handed its hat at the door in 2010. Apple will partner with Visa and Mastercard for turning your iPhone into a swipe credit card using the 4th gen iPhone's RFID chip. iLife 2010 will replace iDVD with 'iLP'. iLP will allow users to easily created iTunes LP albums which they can instantly upload to MobileMe for download onto their friends and families new AppleTVs. The new AppleTV will have the cable companies quaking in their pants. Steve Jobs wants to do for the broadcast industry what he did for the music, movie, mobile, and publishing industries. 32" LED Cinema Display. iPhone: Two more US carriers, one of them Verizon. OLED screen and new industrial design that takes lessons from the iSlate. iPhone OS 4.0. Expect to see a multi-touch surface on the iPhone that is not part of the screen. iTunes Store: another late-year redesign to help facilitate making app search easier. Tabbed browsing. Apps top 200,000. Mike Schramm I think we'll finally see the iTablet this year, but it'll be much closer to an iPhone or a Kindle than a traditional tablet computer, with complete App Store integration and a relatively limited UI. The iPhone will finally be released to multiple carriers, T-Mobile first among them. And Apple will focus on cloud services -- they'll host your music and documents online whenever you want them, accessible from all your Apple devices and/or Apple software. What, those aren't out-on-a-limb enough for you? The Mac Pro will get a major update, possibly even a rebranding. The Apple TV will start running App Store apps. And the iPod touch will finally get a camera. Victor Agreda, Jr. Apparently the tablet is a forgone conclusion, so I'll just say that the tablet is just the beginning... I predict that Apple's tablet move will nearly cement its reign in the digital home of tomorrow. Apple will begin partnering with companies such as LG, KitchenAid and others to bring integration into the kitchen, the spare room, etc. The tablet ecosystem and 3rd-party markets will soon resemble the iPod ecosystems from just a few years ago. Remember the iPod dock with built-in toilet paper dispenser? Prepare yourself for a mirror with enough transparency so you can shave AND read your iTablet at the same time. Apple will also spend 2010 getting into the cloud like never before. iWork, iTunes and iLife will be the first to get online application, further hooks and functionality. But at WWDC Apple will announce 10.7 and some "really amazing" features that leverage the power of the internet with the power of their OS. Online backups? Yes, and probably something new and a little bit innovative to deal with what is now at least a decade for many of us with digital cameras... You didn't think iPhoto's crappy behavior when confronted by huge libraries would go on forever, did you? Speaking of data management, depending on which winds the wireless ones blow, Apple may tie ever more services from app makers to its own cloudy ambitions. Look for some ad-fueled functionality to be provided free to tablet and iPhone users, and for announcements regarding iPhone on other networks... Plus look for some needed upgrades to the iPhone OS itself. Apple isn't dumb enough to ignore the jailbreak community and many of the awesome, time-saving tweaks found there. PogoPlank is one example and Stacks is another. Why can't I see the weather without unlocking my phone? Fixing things like this will put an end to some of the "Droid Does" nonsense.TUAWTUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010 originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Thu, 31 Dec 2009 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments Apple - Steve Jobs - Microsoft - Apple Store - Apple Tablet
Hot Future Tech Coming to Your Mac, iPhone and iPad

Some seriously cutting-edge tech is cresting the horizon, ready to take your Apple devices and other gear to the next level of awesome. We’ve searched out the breakthroughs on the verge of becoming reality to discover how Macs, iDevices, and other tech are about to become even more impressive.�Illustrations by ArtBombersIf you’re a regular reader of Mac|Life, you know that every January we look at the fanciful future of Apple, ranging from the prototype cars to the VR goggles that might emerge from Cupertino one not-so-soon day. This is not that story. This story is about real tech that genuinely works--it’s visible on the horizon, and it could be in your Apple gear in a year or three. Think of this story as a preview of the near future.Of course, we can’t say for sure that all this technology will end up in future products (we’re good, but we’re not psychic). Some of it may never leave the lab. What you can rely on is that old standards will hit their technical limits, and progress will march on. But for a reasonable-guess preview of how Macs, iPhones, iPads, iPods, and other tech will grow, evolve, and improve in the coming years, continue reading.�The Display's the Thing�Since the original Macintosh, our screens have been passive windodws into Apple's machines. That's about to change.�3D in Your Home�Three-dimensional TV has been a glimmer in the eye of television and movie studios since House of Wax and other 3D features first popped out at audiences in the 1950s. But the gimmick never caught on, thanks in large part to clunky technology that sacrificed picture quality. As James Cameron would be happy to explain to you, times and tech have changed, and in 2010, 3D is making the jump from the big screen into our homes…and hands.Despite technological advances, the principles behind 3D haven’t changed much in 60 years. When a 3D image is displayed, two pictures of the same scene taken from different perspectives are shown. Those spiffy glasses make sure each is sent to only one eye, then our brain combines the two images into one, complete with the illusion of depth. A more mysterious part of the brain is responsible for deciding if it’s worth paying 10 bucks for popcorn at the multiplex.But really, we can’t picture Steve wearing those dorky glasses at the introduction of the iMac 3D (but when we do, it always puts us in a good mood). Simplicity is Apple’s mantra, and what’s simpler than 3D screens that do the filtering for you, providing a 3D picture while eliminating the need for special eyewear? Such screens--called autostereoscopic displays--exist today. Some are peppered by tiny lenses that direct images to each eye; others use a layer of fine slits to split the display’s light in two. One of these technologies is about to get a boost from Apple’s biggest mobile-gaming rival, Nintendo. Announced this March and due for release in spring 2011, the Nintendo 3DS will be nothing less than a shot from the House That Mario Built across Cupertino’s bow. This next-gen upgrade to the popular DS handheld will sport sophisticated dual touchscreens, motion control, and--mamma mia!--autostereoscopic 3D.Competition is another Apple mantra, and it’s no secret that Apple sees games as a big part of the success of its Multi Touch devices. Steve won’t sit still if competitors like Nintendo can gain an advantage that draws gamers away from Apple and back to the Mushroom Kingdom. If Cupertino can improve on the 3D experience offered by Nintendo’s next handheld, you can bet that App Store games--and maybe even the iPhone and iPad OS--will enter the third dimension too.�OLEDs...So Pretty!�Today we watch videos everywhere from the living room to the hotel room on our HD TVs, MacBooks, and iPads. As great as those devices are, couldn’t they all stand to have even thinner, brighter, and more energy efficient screens? Trick question--of course they could. The good news is they will, thanks to OLEDs, an acronym for organic light-emitting diodes.OLED screens aren’t grass-fed, free-range displays sold at Whole Foods, but they do use organic material (that is, material derived from the element carbon) to produce a picture. Unlike traditional LCD screens that require power-hogging backlights to project their images, OLEDs generate their own light when electricity passes through the organic polymers sandwiched between layers of film in the display. Because those layers are only about 500 nanometers thick (that’s even skinnier than a human hair) and don’t require much else besides a power source to work, OLED screens can be dramatically slimmer and lighter than conventional displays now on the market.Better still, large OLED displays are relatively easier to make than LCDs, and their gorgeous picture makes your spiffy plasma TV look like a 1950s Zenith. That’s because there’s no need to grow sheets of fragile crystals. Instead, organic molecules are sprayed onto film in a process much like inkjet printing, and that film can be transparent, flexible, or even foldable. An OLED screen’s flexibility and toughness make it suitable for use in a wide range of gadgets, most of which haven’t been invented yet. From giant HDTVs and miniaturized smartphones to futuristic heads-up displays in cars, OLEDs can potentially be incorporated into almost anything--potentially even woven into clothing. And because of their brightness, vibrant colors, and wide viewing angles, you’ll always look great in your 720p iSweatshirt Pro.But don’t camp out in front of your local Apple Store for certified-organic MacBooks or casual wear just yet. While OLED screens are popping up in more and more devices (perhaps most famously in Google’s Nexus One smartphone), the technology’s best days are yet to come. Manufacturing OLED screens is still an expensive proposition, leading to high prices and tepid consumer interest. But as OLED’s momentum builds and costs drop, expect to see a gradual shift in the computer and electronics world away from LCDs, much like the transition that phased out bulky, inefficient CRTs. And expect to see Apple jump on the OLED bandwagon when the time and money are right. With its combination of energy efficiency, size, and image quality, we think OLED has a bright future in Apple’s Macs and its growing line of sleek mobile devices.�E-Papers, Please�Popularized by e-readers like the Kindle, e-paper has plenty to offer a company focused on mobile devices. Its slim design is durable, lightweight, and legible in bright sunlight. The secret lies between the sheets--plastic sheets holding tiny wells filled with black and white particles suspended in liquid. When the wells are charged, the particles move to the screen to appear as text. No backlight is required, and because electricity is only used once to draw the contents of each page, e-paper sips power compared to the LCDs in Apple’s portable lineup. Color e-paper is so hot, you gotta wear gloves. Metaphorically speaking, that is. Photo: LG.Phillips LCD., LTD.But while e-paper does monochrome well, most of today’s e-readers use filters to colorize their black and white text with pictures--and they simply can’t compare to LCDs. That will change. Philips is working on new technology using colored particles in a process much like blending ink dots in traditional print. The results should finally make good on e-paper’s promise, but they’re still years away.Even then, will Steve subscribe to e-paper? The iPad’s LCD screen would seem to be the last word on the subject, but Apple could always use multiple displays in its devices. For instance, e-paper battery monitors could offer much more information than the little green lights they use today.�The Wireless War�If you’re like us, your living room entertainment setup is the second most precious collection of gear in your home (next to your beloved Mac, of course). Every night, you’re on the couch with a bowl of popcorn in front of an HD screen complete with a Blu-Ray player and 7.1 sound. Trouble is, that sweet setup means fistfuls of wire to fuss with. But those knots may not stay tangled much longer.As home entertainment setups get more complex, something has to give. If two competing wireless standards--WirelessHD and Wireless Home Digital Interface (WHDI)--have anything to say about it, that something will be our HDMI, DVI, and other AV cables. Both standards promise something like Wi-Fi for multimedia. Compatible devices (laptops, game consoles, and mobile phones) will use them to find your HDTV automagically over the air in a system that “just works”--and the whole idea of ditching all those cords works in a big way for us.WirelessHD devices may be available from Panasonic, LG, Vizio, and other manufacturers by the time you read this. WirelessHD delivers uncompressed video up to 1080p, multichannel audio, and other data--including Hollywood-approved DRM--at speeds up to 4Gbps, with a theoretical ceiling of 25Gbps. That’s a lot of data, but WirelessHD will only carry it up to 33 feet. The WHDI standard will move your movies as far as 100 feet, but at only up to 3Gbps. You’ll be able to compare how the two standards fare against each other when WHDI devices hit stores late this summer or early fall. Only time will tell which of these standards will be a hit with consumers or whether Apple will adopt one or play a waiting game. Let’s hope we’re not kept waiting for the release of Avatar 2 before we can stream movies, games, and more from our iPads to our televisions.» Future Apple Devices: iPad 3, iMac 3D, Cinema Display» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: HDTVs, handheld game consoles, displays» Future Awesomeness Rating: Deeply AwesomeNext page: Printers and Processors >>Powerful Prints�Yes, print and printers have a future in our networked world. No, they won't be like anything you've seen before.�Fab It Yourself�Teleporters and matter replicators may be the stuff of science fiction, but with 3D printers, you can create physical objects with your Mac out of thin air (and a lot of plastic). Apple hasn’t sold printers since 1997, but if anything could get them back into the game, 3D printing is it.For decades, 3D printers have been used to create “rapid prototypes” for manufacturers and architects. The idea is much the same as conventional printing--you design something on your computer, and the printer produces a hard copy. But these hard copies need time to cool. 3D printers take designs built in 3D modeling programs and melt plastic to “print” them with thin strands built up layer by layer into a finished product. The idea is about to get a big boost from HP, which will begin selling 3D printers this year at “bargain” prices expected to start under $15,000. So much for 3D printing for the rest of us, right?The MakerBot prints...in 3D! Want.Not quite! If you have a techie DIY streak, 3D printing can be yours today for under $1,000. MakerBot’s compact Cupcake printer is available as a kit that, once assembled, lets you manufacture objects up to 4x4x6 inches using Lego-quality ABS plastic. The idea is catching on, and other low-cost 3D printers (like the RepRap and Desktop Factory) are poised to slowly do what HP’s high-end offerings probably won’t--make 3D printing the desktop publishing of the next decade.Of course, it will take a while for 3D printing to catch on, but if it does, expect Apple to take note. After all, our Macs have helped us make things since 1984. There’s no reason to stop now.�An Inkless Job, But Someone Has to Do It�Let’s face it, next to Mafia Wars and Farmville, printing is one of the biggest energy hogs in an office. The paper and toner cartridges required by today’s printers consume a lot of energy to use and recycle. But greener workplaces may be one step closer to reality thanks to two new inkless, reusable printing technologies that are poised to send old-fashioned hard copies sailing on a one-way trip into the wastebasket of history.Late last year, Japan’s Sanwa Newtec company introduced the PrePeat 3100 II, a compact black-and-white printer that prints using heat instead of ink. The secret’s in the “paper”--flexible, waterproof, recycled plastic that reacts to the PrePeat’s thermal mechanism. Best of all, when you don’t need a page any longer, you can just feed it back into the PrePeat to erase it or print a new document as many as 1,000 times per page. Right now this green new world will cost you (the PrePeat retails for $5,600), but expect prices to drop if the technology becomes more widely adopted.Meanwhile, researchers at Xerox are using ultraviolet light to develop a technology called Erasable Paper. The process hits specially coated paper with a specific wavelength of UV rays to print your document to the page, and you can erase and reuse a sheet whenever you need to. If that sounds like a tanning bed for interoffice communications, you’re more right than you know. Like a tan, these printouts fade away over time, and within 24 hours, a UV-printed page will be blank again. While self-destructing Mission: Impossible documents are cool (and well-suited to sharing data with short lifespans), the limitation is one reason Erasable Paper is still being refined in Xerox laboratories.» Future Apple Devices: iLife '13» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: iLife '13» Future Awesomeness Rating: Fit To Print�Dueling Processors�Current technology can only take CPUs so far. But don't worry--tomorrow's breakthroughs are being designed today.�More Cores for Your Buck�Smaller processors offer greater speed and improved energy efficiency, but engineers racing to make the best chips possible are running afoul of the laws of physics. Conventional manufacturing methods can only make circuits so small, and even the power of Steve’s reality-distortion field can’t change that. But some amazing new technologies might.For years, multi-core technology has given us Apple chips that pack the power of multiple CPUs into a single chip. Intel’s Xeon, Core i7, and venerable Core 2 Duo processors deliver up to six cores, and eight-core machines are coming soon. We hate to break it to those processors, but a new prototype from Intel unveiled late last year promises that a lot more muscle is on the way to the Mac.Intel calls it the single-chip cloud computer (SCC), and it boasts a whopping 48 cores on one processor…with room to grow to over 100. Computers derived from the SCC will bring the brawn of today’s massive data centers (the “cloud” of the chip’s name) to desktop-sized machines, paving the way for smaller, greener clusters. Initially, Intel is planning to build only 100 of these experimental chips so engineers can figure out what to do with all that power before it lands on the market. Intel is just one of the companies now developing “many core” processors, but given its relationship with Apple, it’s a good bet that the first Mac with the power of the cloud will have Intel inside.�DNA Processors�Meanwhile, another company is taking a radically different approach to building tomorrow’s processors. Last year, researchers at IBM announced a chipmaking breakthrough that uses something called “DNA origami,” and it’s as cool as it sounds. The process arranges strands of DNA into shapes used as scaffolding for carbon nanotubes and silicon nanowires, the tiny structures that could one day move data through really, really small processors.DNA origami is a “bottom-up” approach to chipmaking that builds the chip’s circuits, as opposed to more conventional “top-down” methods that carve silicon away, and it has a promising future. DNA designs could potentially deliver chip circuits as small as 6 nanometers--that’s just dozens of atoms wide! So Apple has good reason to keep an eye on how its story unfolds. They’ll have to be patient. The technology is still evolving and likely won’t produce commercial chips for another five years at the soonest.» Future Apple Devices: MacPro Extreme» Expected Arrival Date: 2015» You'll Also See It In: Windows PCs, Skynet» Future Awesomeness Rating: Sheer GeniusNext page: New Wires and New Storage >>Magic Buses�Our future gadgets will do more wirelessly than ever before. But they'll be able to do even more with wires.�It's USB's World, We Just Live Here�Once an upstart newcomer, USB has become an elder statesman in the electronics world with a presence in almost every device on Earth. But USB’s data-transfer speeds, last boosted by USB 2.0’s introduction in 2001, haven’t aged gracefully. Thankfully, USB 3.0 is here to breathe new life into an old favorite.USB 3.0 cables definitely lose the beauty contest to Light Peak (below).At first glance, USB 3.0 (a.k.a. SuperSpeed USB) doesn’t seem like a radical departure from its predecessor, and that’s a good thing. It’s backward-compatible with USB 2.0 and even uses the same rectangular port we all know and love, so your old devices will work just fine with the new standard. So don’t worry, you won’t have to buy a new USB beverage warmer for your cubicle.But USB 3.0 brings two new tricks to the table. The first is speed--its transfer rates reach up to 5Gbps, or 10 times USB 2.0’s performance. The second is improved power management, which means reduced power consumption and more juice for devices that need it. USB 3.0 gear is already on the market, so it’s only a matter of time before Cupertino rolls out the first Macs with the SuperSpeed standard. We hope they come soon--we’ve got HD video to import!�One Wire to Rule Them All�Fiber optic cables, long used by telephone companies to connect landline phone calls, have numerous advantages over traditional copper wires. So why haven’t they made it to the desktop yet? Intel hopes to put that question to rest with a new technology called Light Peak.Light Peak is Intel’s answer to…well, just about every cable in use today. From HDMI to USB, if it carries data, Light Peak can replace it. That’s because Light Peak’s bandwidth starts at 10Gbps, and its theoretical ceiling is a whopping 100Gbps. And since Light Peak’s flexible fiber optic cables transmit light, not electricity, they can carry data up to 100 meters without a hitch. That’s plenty more meters than we need, but some room to grow can’t hurt, right?Light Peak brings fiber optic speed to computing. And pretty colors, too.However, despite a planned 2011 rollout, don’t expect to sync your 5G iPhone with Light Peak. Intel is still working out ways to combine power with Light Peak to charge devices while beaming data at warp speed. One thing’s for sure, though--when Light Peak finally strikes, it’ll be fast.» Future Apple Devices: Almost all of 'em» Expected Arrival Date: 2011» You'll Also See It In: Every gadget on Earth» Future Awesomeness Rating: Blazing Hot�Reading, Writing, Revolutionary�Say goodbye to your old drives. Say hello to a new world of speedy storage.�It's RAM! It's a Hard Drive! It's Both!�There’s nothing New Age about “universal memory,” but it could usher in a new age of computers and electronic devices. Universal memory is any next-gen storage that combines the speed and affordability of today’s DRAM with the permanence and capacity of flash memory. Two technologies are fighting to rewrite the rules, and the winner may be coming to the Mac sooner than you think.Phase-change memory (PCM) gets our vote, if only for its cool name, which is derived from the use of chalcogenide glass that changes from a crystalline to an amorphous state with heat. It’s the same material used to make rewritable optical discs, but in PCM, the two states represent different electrical charges, or a zero and a one. PCM represents a major leap in durability over flash memory, and can be written to up to 100 million times versus flash’s upper limit of just 100,000 read-write cycles. Samsung has already begun producing 512MB PCM modules for use in mobile phones, but 1GB modules are still on the way. Looks like phase-change doesn’t happen overnight.The race for better memory is run on a tiny field, though, and IBM’s racetrack memory may have the inside track. It uses something called spintronics--don’t you want to hear Steve say that at a keynote?--to manipulate electrons into moving magnetic bits down nanoscopic, U-shaped “racetracks” to read and write data at blazing speed. Yet racetrack memory’s biggest asset may be its scalability, theoretically allowing HDD-size capacity to be squeezed into a much smaller area than competing technologies allow. But until racetrack memory is ready to leave IBM’s labs, this dark-horse contender will be one to watch, not buy.�Kind of Blu�Steve famously quipped that bringing Blu-Ray to the Mac was “a bag of hurt,” but Sony’s multimedia power-platter is still rolling along after years of Cupertino’s cold shoulder. Movie lovers--and anyone who wants to share giant files--can take comfort that when Blu-Ray finally arrives on Macs, it’ll be better than ever. Having long shed its 25GB limit, Blu now boasts capacities of up to 400GB, and 1TB discs are coming in just a few years. The promise of this year’s 3D Blu-Ray players is just one more feature that will keep Mac fans gazing longingly--sigh--at Big Blu’s bag of tricks.» Future Apple Devices: MacBook nano, Apple TV Blu» Expected Arrival Date: 2013» You'll Also See It In: Smartphones, PCs» Future Awesomeness Rating: Memorably CoolNext page: Networking, Power, and Interaction >>Network It Out�Tomorrow's wireless communications will be more important than ever. Good thing our networks will be able to keep up.�4G or Not 4G?�Poor AT&T. Just as it’s getting the hang of supporting the iPhone on its 3G network, 4G networks will begin popping up from Sprint this year and from archrival Verizon in 2011. What does that mean for us, besides catty PR fights among the carriers? A blazing fast mobile internet with enough bandwidth for HD movies, video chats, and--we hope--fewer dropped calls.Like 3G wireless networks, 4G isn’t a single new technology. It’s a blanket term for a range of technologies and specifications that add up to the same thing: speed. Current 3G offers downloads of roughly 1.4Mbps. Compare that to 4G’s promised bandwidth of at least 100Mbps, and you’ll see what the fuss is about. 4G works its magic in part by using MIMO (Multiple In Multiple Out) technology to broadcast using several antennas simultaneously on multiple frequencies.4G’s strengths make its eventual adoption by Apple a no-brainer, no matter which carrier has the iPhone next year. Apple is serious about establishing the iPad as a mobile media device, and it’ll want a big pipe to carry movies and music to cellular customers. That’s just what 4G provides. As for the iPhone, who knows? Steve may decide to stick with AT&T and its 4G network expected to roll out alongside Verizon’s in 2011.�Crank Up the 802.11AC�Closer to home, we’ll use 802.11n Wi-Fi, but at faster speeds than we’ve seen before. Apple has sold 802.11n devices since 2007, but the protocol’s final standard was only approved in 2009. Happily, that means the business of making Wi-Fi as fast as possible can begin in earnest. Like 4G, 802.11n uses MIMO to improve performance, but manufacturers couldn’t take full advantage of the technology before the protocol was complete. Now that it is, devices can officially support maximum speeds between 400 and 600Mbps…if your hardware has the antennas to deliver the boost. Expect that hardware to start arriving in stores later this year.But the Mac life is never a simple march of progress, and there’s always something new on the horizon. Sweet! Work drafting the next Wi-Fi protocol, 802.11ac, has already begun. Devices supporting the new standard aren’t expected until 2012 at the earliest, but they’ll boast speeds of up to 1Gbps when they’re available. At press time, Ethernet’s agent was unavailable for comment.» Future Apple Devices: 2G iPad, Airport Express Plus» Expected Arrival Date: 2011» You'll Also See It In: Smartphones, netbooks» Future Awesomeness Rating: Wildly Wireless�More Power to You�Apple is going power mad. Its future devices will charge up almost anywhere.�Powered by the Sun�Solar power is overdue for a makeover, and if anyone can do it, it’s Apple. In 2008, it applied for a patent to slip solar cells beneath a device’s LCD screen, and early this year, it applied for another patent to cover portable devices with solar collectors.Solar-powered MacBooks? Yes please!�Wilder still, a March 2010 patent describes a MacBook with a solar panel that folds to collect sunlight or even to illuminate the LCD screen without drawing power from the battery. We’re still waiting for these designs to see the light of day--ha!--but it’s clear someone at Apple has spent a lot of time looking at the sun.�Go Wireless�Besides flying cars, wireless electricity is the ultimate in futuristic convenience. Today’s charging mats come close, but the magnetic induction they use keeps devices tethered to one spot. That’s why we hope Apple adopts WiTricity’s technology for truly wireless power up to several feet away from the base station. The science involved would baffle the DHARMA Initiative, but it involves something called sharply resonant strong coupling to generate an oscillating magnetic field that’s captured and converted to electricity by a sensor in your device. Or it will, anyway, when WiTricity-powered gear reaches stores sometime in the future.Wireless power? As in, electricity beamed through the air? Shocking.» Future Apple Devices: iPod solar, ElectroMagneto MacPro» Expected Arrival Date: 2015» You'll Also See It In: Nice weather, mad scientists' lairs» Future Awesomeness Rating: Simply Electrifying�Your Valuable Input�No matter how cool Apple’s upcoming products are, they’ll only be as good as what we can do with them. Here’s how we’ll interact with the future.�Touchier Mice�The mouse has plenty of life left, at least according to Microsoft. It’s produced some stellar mice over the years, but Redmond’s recent Multi Touch prototypes could be the best yet. The FTIR (Frustrated Total Internal Reflection) Mouse’s high-res camera tracks finger gestures through a curved piece of clear acrylic so you can scroll, swipe, and pinch around on the acrylic in order to manipulate onscreen objects. The Orb Mouse works on much the same principle, but offers a whole hemisphere to interact with in your hand.The shrunken Side Mouse looks more like a wrist rest than a traditional rodent--its tiny camera tracks your fingers as they move across your desk or whatever surface you happen to be working on. Best of all, these mice incorporate the Multi Touch equivalent of keyboard shortcuts to perform zooms and other common commands quickly. Cupertino, start your copiers!Microsoft's FTIR Mouse makes magic out of a high-res camera and a piece of acrylic that together create Multi Touch-style input.But the coolest input technology on the horizon for Apple’s gear lies in--big surprise--touchscreens. Future Multi Touch devices will sport haptic feedback, or the sort of physical response you’ve gotten for years from vibrating gamepads and cell phones, to help make input feel more natural. In 2011, Artificial Muscle is bringing to market its EPAM (Electroactive Polymer Artificial Muscle) technology, which tenses and relaxes touchscreens in response to input. That sounds pretty fascinating all by its lonesome, but Apple’s recent patent applications show it has something more subtle in mind--a layer inside the touchscreen that delivers vibrating feedback localized to specific onscreen buttons and switches. That level of fine-tuned feedback would make typing on the iPad’s large screen even more satisfying and could pave the way for MacBooks without physical keyboards.» Future Apple Devices: Majestic Mouse, MacBook Touch» Expected Arrival Date: 2012» You'll Also See It In: Microsoft's mice» Future Awesomeness Rating: Terrifically TactileNext page: Too Wild for Apple? >>Too Wild for Apple?�Some of these technologies may seem out there even for Apple, but yes--chuckles aside--they’re real. Besides, today’s head-scratchers could be tomorrow’s game-changers. Maybe.�Huff and Puff into the Mic�You’ve finally gotten your mind around Multi Touch, but are you ready for Multi Puff? Zyxio’s Sensawaft technology lets you control a mouse cursor, scroll through text, or do just about anything else with your electronic devices using only your breath. The assistive possibilities for disabled users are obvious and awesome, but breath control could have other, less practical uses, too. Imagine blowing into your earbuds’ microphone to control music playback, skipping an annoying voicemail with a hiss, or puffing on your iPhone to zoom in for a kill while playing your favorite shooter. Apple’s engineers could do so much with this, it’s breathtaking.�Keep Your Finger on the Pulse�An iPhone fingerprint scanner makes a lot of sense, especially considering that Apple has so many intriguing patents out on the idea. Sure, a fingerprint-savvy screen would simplify security--and make “slide to unlock” really mean something--but we like to think about the possibilities for everyday iPhone control hinted at in Apple’s patents. With the iPhone of tomorrow, specific fingers could be used for certain functions, letting you change settings without even looking at the screen. You could use your thumbprint to play a song, your index-finger print to rewind, and your middle-finger print to...er…emphatically skip a song for those tunes so bad that a one-star rating just doesn’t cut it.You might not be able to remember a passcode that unlocks your iPhone, but we're betting you'll be able to remember your fingerprint.�Project Your Ideas�Pico projectors--low-power, handheld projectors--are handy for quickie presentations or impromptu slideshows with the family. Some of them even project with RGB lasers instead of white light for a picture that’s always in focus. But the image of these mini projectors will really improve if Apple ever makes good on recent patents to integrate them into MacBooks and iPhones. Sure, you could strike up a Keynote presentation on the go with a MacBook Pico, but throwing up movies, music, iTunes visualizations, and photo albums anywhere sounds like a lot more fun.�Wii Want Our Apple TV�Motion control brought gamers flocking to the Nintendo Wii, but can it do the same for Apple TV? Someone in Cupertino must think so, judging by a patent for a Wii-like motion-controlled remote to go with Cupertino’s set-top box. Sounds good to us. Apple’s Remote iPhone app is great, but it’s always seemed very “un-Apple” to require another device to deliver a satisfying Apple TV experience. Motion control--especially with the enhanced precision and reliability brought by the floating magnetic compass noted in Apple’s patent--would be a slick solution, and not just for easier navigation. Apple’s patent also describes using the remote to draw on the screen and manipulate photos with the flick of a wrist. That could give Steve’s favorite hobby product some much-needed pizzazz to help it catch the public’s eye. After all, the day will come when Cupertino will update the Apple TV again, and when it finally does, you may not even recognize it. What can we say? We want to see the little guy make good.Next page: Patently Awesome >>Patently Awesome�Apple’s patents are tea leaves that portend what technology’s cutting edge will look like for years to come. Here are some of tomorrow’s ideas Cupertino thinks are worth protecting today.�Nine Lives, Three Dimensions�OS X is the big cat that makes Cupertino’s products tick, but it’s Apple’s hardware that usually captures the public’s attention. That oversight will finally be corrected if a patent for 3D OS X becomes a reality.The 3D in question depends on parallax, the effect by which objects appear to change their position relative to each other as a viewer’s perspective changes. By keeping tabs on your position (likely with a head tracking iSight camera), this “OS parallaX” would alter the appearance of onscreen objects to form a simulated 3D space in which you could interact with files, study 3D objects, and more. While this could open up exciting new ways to use your Mac, it would also require complex new hardware and software, so don’t count on peeking behind alert boxes anytime soon.�An iPhone Gamepad�Judging by a recent patent, the iPhone and iPod touch might have more than just high-tech improvements in their future. Thanks to a unique accessory, someday soon we may be gaming old-school--with a twist--on our Multi Touch devices.In a few years, near field communication will let your iPhone be the boss of your videogame console, TV, and even your sprinkler.We love playing games on the iPhone, but sometimes we pine for the 20th century simplicity of physical controls. Call Apple’s potential solution the “GameFrame,” a shell that fits around your iPhone to add a D-pad, buttons, and other handy moving parts to the iPhone experience. Too old-fashioned for you? The device could also communicate wirelessly with HDTVs, opening the door to big-screen App Store gaming on the go. Hero of Sparta 3 on a 40-inch flatscreen? We’re so there!�"Home Screen" Gets a New Meaning�The iPhone’s superpowers seem to be growing by the day, but you haven’t seen anything yet. In the future, you won’t think twice about using it to lock the door, turn on the lights, and even water the lawn of your personal fortress of solitude.Apple’s recent home-control patent hinges on a technology called near field communication (NFC), a short-range wireless technology that’s slower than Bluetooth while offering a much quicker pairing time. That’s just the thing to control the Xbox, DVD player, and garden-sprinkler system shown in the patent application. Unfortunately, this remote-control magic requires NFC-enabled devices that are, like the iPhone that will interact with them, years away.�Slice the Mac into Pieces�To create, sometimes you must destroy, and the most intriguing Apple patent we’ve come across yet takes apart the familiar Mac we’ve used for decades and scatters it into…well, something else. We’re not sure if what it describes is a portable computer, a desktop machine, or something in between, but we call it the “MultiMac.” And we want one.The "MultiMac" splits a Mac into its component parts, which live where you'll use them.If it was built today, MultiMac’s components--a projector display, input devices, and a CPU--would be separate components, each powered wirelessly and communicating with each other over the air from wherever you wanted them to be. You could tuck the CPU on a bookshelf, surf from the couch, and project a movie on the wall as if using one device. Apple’s focus (pardon the pun) seems to be on the projector, which would do more than just show vacation pictures. The patent describes it as a networked device with multiple sensors controlling focus, color, or even built-in cameras. What are the chances those cameras could power a 3D OS X? Hey, we can dream.Will MultiMac be a novel new computer that ties together exciting new technology, a sophisticated Keynote presentation system, or a hub to synchronize a home full of mobile devices? We’re not sure, but that’s half the fun of being a Mac fan. Only Apple knows what’s coming next, and they’re not telling…yet.�
★ The iPad

Back in December, here’s how I concluded my piece on what I expected from Apple’s then-still-unannounced tablet: If you’re thinking The Tablet is just a big iPhone, or just Apple’s take on the e-reader, or just a media player, or just anything, I say you’re thinking too small — the equivalent of thinking that the iPhone was going to be just a click wheel iPod that made phone calls. I think The Tablet is nothing short of Apple’s reconception of personal computing. After the iPad was announced, I got two types of emails from readers. The first group saying they were disappointed, because they had been hoping I was right that The Tablet would be Apple’s reconception of personal computing. The second group wrote to tell me how excited they were because I was right that The Tablet would be Apple’s reconception of personal computing. Count me in with the second group. Apple hasn’t thought of everything with iPad, but what they’ve thought about, they’ve thought about very deeply. I got mine Saturday morning, and I’ve been using it since — or at least as often as I could get it away from my son. Here are my thoughts. The Big Picture The whole thing feels fast fast fast. The only thing that feels slow overall, so far, is web page rendering. Not because it’s slower than the iPhone — it’s not, it’s definitely much faster — but because it’s so much slower than my MacBook Pro. It’s easy to forget on modern PC-class hardware just how computationally expensive HTML rendering is. The funny thing is, the iPad, in raw CPU terms, is a far slower machine than a modern Mac. But the iPad is running a lightweight OS and lightweight apps. It’s like a slower runner with a lighter backpack who can win a race against a faster runner wearing a heavier backpack. Thus, many of the things you do are faster, or at least feel faster (which is what matters), on the iPad than the Mac. Like, for example, launching applications. The built-in apps, and many of the third-party apps I’ve been using the most, are ready to use within a moment of launching them. (Games tend not to load instantly, but that’s true on high-power consoles like Xbox and PS3, too.) There’s something fundamentally strange about how fast the iPad feels considering how underpowered it is versus a modern PC or Mac. How can a computer with so much less CPU speed feel faster? What Apple has done is re-think several fundamental aspects. The iPad was designed from the ground up with a different set of priorities. I think Tim Bray summarizes it well: For a 1Ghz device with limited memory, the iPad is unreasonably fast. I suspect this accounts for a whole bunch of the “Wow!” reaction the iPad obviously provokes. Since there’s no free lunch, I think it’s really important that we understand what they sacrificed to get that performance. My bet would be on some combination of windowing and virtual memory. I tend to work on lots of things at once, but in fact I look at things in rapid succession, my eyes can really only focus on one thing at one time. Given sufficiently fast switching, maybe we all ought to be getting less WIMPy. The iPad (and iPhone OS across all devices) does indeed lack virtual memory. The only memory is honest-to-god RAM. RAM is fast, virtual memory is slow. The tradeoff is that without virtual memory, the iPad can do far less at once, but what it does do is never going to require hitting virtual memory. Without a windowing system, drawing is simpler and faster. Apple has made other significantly different tradeoffs as well. Battery life on the iPad is simply stunning. Reviewers across the board are getting real-life results that beat Apple’s promise of 10 hours of battery life. This is a function both of software (which does less and works hard to keep the CPU from drawing power while the iPad is being used) and hardware — iFixit’s teardown shows that, internally, the iPad looks more like a battery with a computer than a computer with a battery. The iPad, so far, never gets warm. Browse a bunch of web sites. Play some video. Play a game. It still feels as cool to the touch as when it’s turned off. It is also dead quiet — no fan, no humming, nada. This is the future of computing. The iPad was designed with an entirely different set of priorities than Macs or PCs. Someone may well produce a worthy iPad rival in the next year, but it’s not going to be something like HP’s Slate that runs Windows 7, an operating system that epitomizes the traditional set of computer design priorities. The iPad is also eminently affordable. $500 for this thing seems hard to believe. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it at double the price. But clearly there were tradeoffs involved to hit this price point. Build quality is not one — the thing feels perfect in hand. But it only has 256 MB of RAM — perhaps the single biggest hardware weakness of the device (see the section on Safari below). It is super high-quality, but clearly designed for the mass market. Anyone who thinks Apple only makes high-priced products has completely lost sense of reality. “Affordable luxury” is the sweet spot for mass market success today, and Apple keeps shooting bulls eyes. In fact, the only thing that makes my heart ache regarding the iPad is when I start imagining a hypothetical Pro model — imagine what Apple could put in an iPad that cost as much as a MacBook Pro. (My dream iPad Pro: double the display’s pixel resolution and include a gigabyte or two of RAM.) Affordability presents itself in other ways, too. Nothing is included in the box other than the power adaptor. The dock and case are separate SKUs, and it doesn’t even come with headphones. It’s like buying a Honda, not an Acura — the base model is not “well-equipped”. $500 is affordable but not cheap, and the iPad does not feel cheap in any regard. The build quality is outstanding. The brushed aluminum back makes my plastic iPhone 3GS feel cheap. The iPad takes more cues from the current iMacs than it does from the iPhone. The seam between the glass and the aluminum is nearly perfect. It’s just one piece of aluminum and a piece of glass — there is no superfluous chrome bezel between the glass and the backing as there is on all iPhones and iPod Touches to date. Even without turning it on it looks and feels a step beyond the iPhones and iPod Touches we’ve seen to date. The Killer App One thing that’s making it hard for some people to grasp the purpose of the iPad is that no one has an answer to what precisely it is for. This was not so for the iPhone. The answer to the question of what the original 2007 iPhone was meant for was right there at the bottom of the iPhone home screen, in the “dock”: phone, email, web, music and video. The other apps were icing on the cake. The four apps in the dock were what Apple designed the iPhone to do. The iPad also has a “dock” on the home screen, and the default apps in that dock are clearly important: Safari, Mail, Photos, iPod (which, on the iPad, is only for audio). But some are treating the iPad as, fundamentally, an e-reader. Others as a gaming device. Others as a movie player. None of those things are represented in the iPad’s default dock apps. The truth is that the App Store is the killer app. The iPad is meant for anything that can be represented on a 10-inch color touchscreen. Back in January when we were playing the “What’s Apple going to name the tablet?” game, my favorite, by far, was “Canvas”. I’m not saying here that Canvas would have been a better name than iPad, but the word conveys perfectly what the iPad is. Adam Engst captured this: The iPad becomes the app you’re using. That’s part of the magic. The hardware is so understated - it’s just a screen, really - and because you manipulate objects and interface elements so smoothly and directly on the screen, the fact that you’re using an iPad falls away. You’re using the app, whatever it may be, and while you’re doing so, the iPad is that app. Switch to another app and the iPad becomes that app. If that’s not magic, I don’t know what is. As did Cultured Code’s Jürgen Schweizer: Steve Jobs said about the iPod that “it is all about the music”. With the iPad, Apple has done the same for personal computing as it has done before with the iPod: it made technology go away. But if the device is gone, and the operating system is gone, what is left? The iPad is an empty canvas that invites us to imagine what is possible. It inspires our imagination and it makes us want to create, because never before were we able to create software that was so close to the user. The iPad hardware and OS are profoundly humble — they put all the focus on whatever app it is that is open. Out of Box Experience One thing that is very iPhone-like about iPad is that when you first take it out of the box, it wants to be plugged into your Mac or PC via USB and sync with iTunes. In some ways, that’s understandable. USB syncing is how you load your iPad with music and videos and transfer over stuff like your email accounts, and, if you’re not using MobileMe, your contacts and calendars. But, on the whole, it feels retrograde. It’s creates an impression that the iPad does not stand on its own. It’s a child that still needs a parent. But it’s not a young child. It’s more like a teenager. It’s close. So close that it feels like it ought to be able to stand on its own. Android devices do not have this problem. You can sync an Android device with a desktop computer via USB, for transferring things like music and videos, but you don’t have to. Out of the box, a Nexus One is ready to go. Google’s big advantage here is that they’re using online services as primary data stores. The Google Way is to use Gmail for email and contacts, and Google Calendar for events. You just tell your Android device your Google ID and password, and your email, contacts, and calendars start syncing over the air. Apple has MobileMe, but because it’s a paid service, they can’t (or at least won’t) assume that all iPad owners are going to use it. But then even those of us who do use MobileMe get stuck with a first-run iPad experience that involves a tethered USB connection to a computer. The Apple Way is to assume that your primary data stores for these things are locally stored on your Mac or PC — Address Book, iCal. At the very least, these things ought to be able to sync between iTunes (on your Mac or PC) and your iPad over your Wi-Fi network. Third-party iPhone OS apps like Things do a great job with this — there’s no reason iTunes and the iPhone OS shouldn’t too. Those Heart-Stopping ‘Scratches’ On the iPhone (and iPod Touch; assume from here out that when I say “iPhone” I’m referring to both), app icons on the home screen sit atop a plain black background. On the iPad, they’re spaced further apart, which is why I think Apple has added wallpaper — making the iPad home screen look a lot more like a Mac or Windows desktop. The default wallpaper shows a sunset skyline of a mountain range in front of a like. There’s a meteor shower in the sky. And the streaking meteors look, at a glance, like a series of severe scratches on the display. It’s a curious choice. The Touchscreen Keyboard It’s a lot like the iPhone’s, but, it’s different. Because it’s bigger, there are no pop-up indicators showing which key you hit as you type. They’re not necessary. The feel, overall, is pretty much like typing on a really big iPhone. If you’re in a position where you can set the iPad down on your lap or a table top, it’s not too hard at all to type with all your fingers when the iPad is in landscape (horizontal) orientation. Now, to me, it’s nowhere near as good as even the worst full- or nearly-full-size hardware keyboard I’ve ever used. You can’t just rest all eight of your fingers on the home row keys, and you can’t feel where the key cap edges are. You have to look at the keyboard a fair amount as you type. On a hardware keyboard, I hardly ever look at the keys. But for a touchscreen, it’s good. In portrait (vertical) orientation, I can type on the iPad using just my two thumbs, as I do on my iPhone. I have relatively large hands, though — I don’t think most people can do it. The keyboard in this layout is way too small for me to type with all of my fingers, though. In portrait orientation most people will type using one finger, I expect. Now, the funny thing is, in general, bigger keyboards are easier to type on than smaller ones. That’s why big laptops are easier to type on than compact ones, and, indeed, that’s why the landscape iPad keyboard on the iPad is easier to type on than the portrait one. But at a certain point, the curve flips around and smaller becomes faster. I type much faster on my iPhone using the smaller portrait orientation keyboard than the wider landscape keyboard. In both modes, I use just my two thumbs. With the smaller iPhone keyboard, my thumbs have to travel less from one key to the next. People who aren’t very proficient at the iPhone keyboard, or who have very large thumbs and therefore have trouble precisely tapping the smaller keys, may well prefer the iPhone’s wider landscape keyboard. But for me it’s not even close. I never type in landscape on my iPhone. And in fact (and this is the aforereferenced “funny part”), I type faster on my iPhone than I do on the iPad. That’s especially true for when the iPad is in portrait mode, which puts the keyboard size in a no-man’s land — too small to eight-finger-type, too big to thumb-type. But it’s also true for when the iPad is in landscape mode. I’m hopeful that this is just a factor of experience and muscle memory — I have nearly three years of experience typing on the iPhone, and only two days experience with the iPad. Last Friday I watched Andy Ihnatko eight-finger-type on his iPad — which he’d been using for over a week — and he was typing pretty goddamn fast. One problem I’ve run into is that Apple has subtly changed the layout of the keyboard from the iPhone’s. On the iPhone, the Delete key is on the lower right, above the Return key. On the iPad, it’s in the upper right corner, and the Return key is next to the L key. The iPad adds a right-side Shift key. �� The iPad layout makes perfect sense — both these keys are now where they reside on traditional hardware keyboards. Their weird positions on the iPhone are a compromise forced by the extreme lack of space on the iPhone display. Apple has also added a new key to the iPad keyboard’s numeric/punctuation mode: Undo. It’s a good idea — I have the feeling most iPhone users don’t know about the system-wide shake-to-undo gesture, and even for users who do, the iPad is harder to shake (and, when docked, downright silly to shake). But this new Undo key moves the period and comma keys over to the right by two positions. The iPhone keyboard layout is so firmly ingrained in my mind that these changes are problems for me — I keep hitting the (new to the iPad) right-side Shift key when I mean to hit Delete, and I keep hitting Undo when I mean to type a period. I’ll get used to it soon, I’m sure, but I find it interesting that my iPad typing muscle memory is based on the iPhone keyboard, not regular keyboards. I think this is because, overall, it really does feel like a big iPhone keyboard. Hardware Keyboard Support I don’t have (and did not order) the iPad keyboard dock, but I have been using an Apple Bluetooth keyboard. In fact, I’m using it to type this entire review. It works great. Pairing (via the iPad Settings app) is easy and quick. And it works great. Several essential text-editing shortcuts from the Mac OS work system-wide on the iPad: Command-Z, -X, -C, and -V work for Undo, Cut, Copy, and Paste. Command-A works for Select All. You can use the arrow keys to move the insertion point. Option-Arrow keys work to move the insertion point one word at a time. Command-Left/Right moves the insertion point the beginning/end of the current line; Command-Up/Down moves the insertion point the start/end of the current text field — which, in the case of something like Pages, is the beginning/end of the entire document. Holding down Shift extends the selection range, and works in conjunction with the Option and Command keys as expected. (Certain of Cocoa’s long-standing Emacs-style text editing shortcuts work too: like Control-K (kill) and Control-H (backspace).) Certain of the function keys on the Bluetooth keyboard are useful on the iPad. The brightness keys control the iPad’s display brightness. The volume (and mute) keys work. The playback buttons — play/pause, next, previous — all work to control the iPod app. By default, once you’ve started using a hardware keyboard, the on-screen keyboard no longer appears, which is great, because the full display is now available for displaying content. But if you want to use the on-screen keyboard while a hardware keyboard is active, you can toggle it using the hardware keyboard’s Eject key. The Esc key dismisses the auto-complete suggestion — it’s like tapping the little “x” next to the suggestion under the current word you’re typing. While a keyboard is connected, you can wake up the iPad by hitting any key — completely bypassing the iPad’s slide-to-unlock screen. Very nice. The iPad is fundamentally a touchscreen device. You absolutely do not need a hardware keyboard for it. But if you’re hoping to do any amount of serious writing with it (and, for obvious vocational reasons, I plan to), you’re going to want one. There are a few places in the iPad UI where I really wish the keyboard was useful but it isn’t. For example, Safari location field suggestions. On the Mac, you can use the up and down arrow keys to move through the list of suggestions. On the iPad, you must use touch to select from the list. Since you’re already typing if you’re entering a URL, this is just begging for arrow key support. (Ditto for suggested results from the Google search field in Safari.) The Esc key does not dismiss popovers, but that’s probably OK. It’s only possible to invoke popovers via touch, so it seems OK that you must dismiss them via touch as well. The Tab key can be used to switch between text fields; Shift-Tab goes in reverse order. (When using the hardware keyboard, I do find myself hitting Command-Tab, without thinking about it, when I want to switch to another app; it does nothing on the iPad.) Display The iPad display is, overall, wonderful. Colors are bright and (unlike the Nexus One’s OLED display) accurate. Photos and videos looks great. Touches seem precisely accurate. The glass feels good. Viewing angles are shockingly good. You can lay the iPad flat on a table while you eat or drink and it looks just fine at a decidedly skew angle — far more so than with the iPhone. This IPS stuff is the real deal; here’s to hoping for an IPS display in this year’s new iPhones. The only complaint I have about the display is that the pixel resolution isn’t all that dense. The iPad’s 1024 � 768 display has a resolution of 132 pixels per inch. The iPhone’s 640 � 320 display has a resolution of 163 pixels per inch. The difference isn’t huge, but it’s definitely noticeable. Type looks crisper on the iPhone than the iPad, and type rendering falls far short of even newspaper-caliber resolution, let alone glossy-magazine caliber. (Those of you who doubt that the pixels-per-inch resolution isn’t high enough, just wait until you see the type rendering on this summer’s new iPhones.) Safari The iPad is so good as a web reader, that, if you’re a web junkie, everything else the iPad does is just gravy. It’s good. I’m so used to Safari on the iPhone, though, where the toolbar is at the bottom, that I’m having a hard time getting adjusted to the toolbar at the top. I’m not saying it’s a bad decision on Apple’s part. In fact, the iPad HIG is quite explicit that iPad toolbars should go at the top, not bottom — which makes me think Apple thought about and tested this and has concluded that the top works better for the iPad form factor. It’s just that I use Safari on my iPhone a lot, and I am really used to the button placement. When you create a new page in Safari on iPad, text focus goes to the Google search field by default, rather than the URL location field. That’s a change from both desktop and iPhone Safari. I’m finding this hard to get used to, but I can see how this might be a better design for typical users. It makes the default search engine all the more essential to the web browsing experience, though. Zooming and flicking are essential to the experience, just like on the iPhone. Flicking is how you scroll, no surprise. The zooming, though, may come as a surprise. It wasn’t too long ago when 1024 � 768 was considered a large display for full-size web browsing. But: what matters on the iPad (and iPhone) is not the pixel count of the display, but the physical size. 9.7 inches diagonally is a bit small for non-zoomed web browser. But the action of zooming — whether through double-tapping or pinching — is so smooth, fast, and natural that it feels better, not worse, than old-school desktop web browsing. There’s one severe problem in Safari for iPad, though: memory crapping out. MobileSafari for iPhone has always allowed you to open up to eight pages at a time. It tries to keep them all truly open, in RAM, so that you can quickly switch between them. But when it runs out of memory it starts flushing some of the pages. It doesn’t forget the URL for those pages, and, in recent versions, it saves a static thumbnail image of the rendered page, but when you switch back to those purged pages, MobileSafari must reload the page — thus, you must wait both for the contents of the page to download and for the page to actually render (which — the rendering — often takes longer than the downloading). It’s very noticeable. Switching between unpurged Safari pages is instantaneous. Switching to a purged page takes as long as opening it from scratch. Wolf Rentzsch, linking to this complaint from Peter-Paul Koch, wrote a brief technical overview of why Apple might have designed MobileSafari this way. (Keep in mind that iPhone OS does not use virtual memory; thus RAM is severely constrained.) This purging problem got a lot better with the iPhone 3GS. The original iPhone and iPhone 3G only had 128 MB of RAM. The 3GS has 256. MobileSafari’s ability to keep more pages in memory is probably my single favorite aspect of the 3GS. The iPad also has 256 MB of RAM. But, in my use, iPad’s Safari isn’t able to keep nearly as many pages open as I can on my 3GS. In fact, sometimes it seems I can only have one, and every page I switch to gets completely reloaded. This is more than just annoying — it can lead to data loss if you have unsubmitted form data sitting in an “open” iPad Safari page. I’ve run into this posting items to DF from the iPad — my posting interface is a web page form. When I want to link to the current page, I invoke a bookmarklet which opens a new page with the title and URL fields of the posting form set to the title and URL of the page from which I invoked the bookmarklet. Often, though, I want to switch back to the page I’m linking to copy another URL or a bit of text to quote. Twice so far, when going back to the posting form, it’s been purged and must reload from scratch — in which case I lose anything I’ve already written. I never run into this problem on my iPhone 3GS when switching between just two open Safari pages. The problem is also severe for AJAX web apps, which tend not to be designed with full page refreshes in mind. I hope this can be improved significantly in an iPad software update, but I worry that it’s endemic — that because the iPad screen is so much larger than the iPhone’s, that MobileSafari must allocate significantly more memory per page for the framebuffers. 256 MB of RAM simply may not be enough for MobileSafari to keep more than two or three pages in memory. If so, Apple really needs to consider some sort of caching or serialization scheme rather than completely flushing away purged pages. Pages I wrote the entire 4,828-word first draft of this piece on my iPad using Pages.1 I didn’t use any of the formatting or layout tools — I used it as a text editor rather than a word processor. It’s quite serviceable. What I like best is that it opens very quickly. Switching between, say, Pages and Safari and back to copy-and-paste a URL feels more like switching than quitting, launching, quitting, relaunching. You don’t need to (and can’t) save manually. Whatever you do in a document simply persists automatically. When you go back to the list of documents, they’re presented as big thumbnails — very much like the list of open web pages in Safari. Pages’s toolbar and ruler are only visible when in portrait mode. In landscape mode, all of the chrome disappears. It’s just a full-screen editing view, a la WriteRoom. I’m writing this piece in this full-screen (landscape) mode, with my iPad propped up on a table in Apple’s iPad case. It’s a nice setup, and I can genuinely imagine leaving my MacBook at home for trips in the future, with the addition of few missing iPad apps (like, say, a good SFTP client). But when I say there’s no chrome in the landscape mode, I mean none. Pages has a decent simple little find and replace feature, but it’s only possible to invoke it in portrait mode. (I must have hit Command-F a dozen times so far, to no avail.) There are already complaints piling up that the iWork apps don’t support the complete feature set of their current Mac counterparts — open a file created in a Mac version of Pages/Numbers/Keynote on your iPad and certain document features may be removed. (The iPad apps prompt you with an alert telling you which aspects of the document have been changed or removed.) Another way of looking at it though, is that the iPad iWork apps are to their Mac counterparts what the iPad as a whole is to the Mac — simpler, more focused, but in some ways faster. Pages launches and is ready for input far quicker on my iPad than on my MacBook Pro. Writing this review, I’ve been switching back and forth between Pages and Safari. It doesn’t feel like quitting Pages, launching Safari, copying a URL, quitting Safari, and re-launching Pages. It feels more like switching — it only takes a moment after tapping the Pages icon on the home screen to be back where I was in my open document. (My only complaint is that you lose the insertion point when leaving and coming back to Pages — the document re-opens to where you left off, but you must tap the screen to place the insertion point. When switching several times, that becomes slightly tedious.) This is obviously not even close to a full review of Pages, but I can say without hesitation that it’s easily worth $10. Syncing There is, however, a severe shortcoming inherent to the iWork suite of iPad apps: document syncing between Mac and iPad. It’s a convoluted mess. In short, the only way to edit a document on your iPad that was created on your Mac, or vice versa, is to go through a convoluted multi-step process of exporting, copying, syncing or downloading, and importing. Ted Landau has copiously documented the entire situation in this article at The Mac Observer. Read it and weep. What it boils down to is that there is no syncing really. Real syncing is something like IMAP for email, or the way MobileMe handles calendars and contacts. When I read a bunch of new email messages using my iPad or iPhone, when I next sit down at my Mac, those messages are marked as read in my inbox. I don’t have to do anything on the Mac for that to happen. That’s just how IMAP works. I can add a new calendar event on my Mac, then walk away from my computer, take my iPhone out of my pocket, and the event is there. I can add a note to that event using my iPhone and a few moments later the note will be synced to the event on my Mac. Certain of my favorite iPad and iPhone apps sync like this too. When I read a bunch of RSS items using NetNewsWire on my iPad, they’re marked as read on my Mac. Sitting at my Mac in my office, I can send a long article to Instapaper. I go downstairs, pick up my iPad, sit on the couch, launch the Instapaper iPad app, and a few seconds later, there’s the article I just added to my Instapaper queue. This is the sort of data flow that makes me feel like I’m living in the future — using multiple hardware devices to view, edit, and modify the same data. I don’t worry about where separate copies of my data exist. Conceptually it’s just there in the apps, and the apps do all the hard work of pushing and pulling changes made on other clients. The data flow with these iWork apps isn’t like that at all, and needs to be for them to be truly useful. It doesn’t matter how good the user interface for viewing and editing spreadsheets is in Numbers for iPad if my spreadsheets aren’t there. Here’s an example. I keep the schedule for Daring Fireball RSS sponsorships in a Numbers document. What I’d like to be able to do on my iPad is launch Numbers and access the current version of that spreadsheet. But the only way I could possibly do that today would be if I went through the following steps every single time I made a change to the document on my Mac: Before opening the current version of the file on my Mac, check to make sure there isn’t a more recent version of it on my iPad. Open the file on my Mac and make changes. Save. Dock my iPad to my Mac via USB. Switch to iTunes and go to the Apps tab for my iPad. Add the newly-saved revision of the document to the file sharing list for the iPad’s Numbers app. Sync. Even after going through all of this, when I do want to open this file on my iPad, I have to remember not to open the last revision of it listed in the iPad Numbers app’s “My Documents” list, but instead remember first to import the latest revision from Numbers’s file sharing list to Numbers’ “My Documents”. And, again, it’s effectively up to me to keep track of which machine, Mac or iPad, has the most recent revision of the file. To say the least, this is a recipe for disaster, and even if you don’t make a mistake and inadvertantly make significant changes to an out-of-date version of the document on one of the two machines, you’re stuck with a preposterously, mind-bogglingly convoluted workflow each and every time you make a change to the document. The bottom line, obviously, is that there is no way that anyone is going to use these iPad apps in the way I describe above. As-is they’re only useful to me in two ways. First, I can imagine using Pages on the iPad to compose original new documents — posts for Daring Fireball — while I’m using my iPad. I’ll either finish them there and then copy-and-paste the result into the web-based posting interface for DF, or, I’ll send the draft to my Mac for further editing (which is what I did for the piece you’re reading right now). I can also imagine creating finished Keynote decks on my Mac and then moving them, once, to my iPad, and taking only my iPad with me to the presentation — i.e. using Keynote, Numbers, and Pages on the iPad as viewers for finished documents. (And, conveniently, they’re viewers that can make edits if you notice a mistake or want to make a last-minute change or addition.) But there’s no possible way to use these apps as clients alongside their Mac counterparts on an ongoing basis. The sort of over-the-air syncing I’m imagining for iWork is, admittedly, a difficult problem to solve. But the bad news for Apple is that their top competitor in this space has a solution: Google Documents. With Google Documents, there’s no making copies, importing/exporting, manually invoked syncing, or USB tethering involved if you want to edit a single instance of a spreadsheet from multiple machines. You just make changes on one machine, and when you next look at that document from another machine the changes are there. The workflow for iWork is downright antediluvian. It’s not just pre-Cloud, it’s pre-network. It’s effectively the “Who’s got the latest revision of this file?” workflow of the days when we moved files from one machine to another via floppy disks. What in the world is iWork.com for if not for solving this problem? At least iWork.com lets you avoid having to physically tether the two machines via USB to get a document from the Mac to the iPad (or vice versa), but it’s no better than file sharing through iTunes conceptually. When you send a file to iWork.com (from either Mac or iPad) you’re pushing a copy, a snapshot of the document from that moment. After making subsequent changes, you’ve got to push those changes to iWork.com all over again. And to get them on the other device, you must manually import — making just another copy. What you ought to be able to do is specify iWork.com as the canonical shared storage location for an iWork document. iWork.com doesn’t serve as any such purpose today. iPhone Apps I predicted it’d be crummy to run non-iPad-optimized iPhone apps on the iPad — like Classic apps running on Mac OS X — and I was right. It’s OK for games — they look jaggy, but jaggy games aren’t that uncommon. But regular (non-game) apps just look and feel weird. When you run them pixel-doubled text doesn’t scale dynamically — everything is pixel doubled. It’s a good way of proving that the iPad is not “just a big iPhone”, though. The only iPhone app I find myself using on my iPad is Simplenote, for copying and pasting bits of text to and from my Mac and iPhone. Needless to say, I’d love an iPad-optimized version of Simplenote. iBooks and Kindle The iBooks app is free, but doesn’t ship with the iPad by default — you have to download it from the App Store. Apple hasn’t explained why this is so, but there are several reasons I can think of. For one thing, e-book rights are managed on a country-by-country basis — it seems likely that the iBooks store won’t be available in every country where the iPad will soon be sold. Making it an App Store app will also allow Apple to update the app on its own schedule — built-in system apps only get updates along with the entire system. So in some ways, the iBooks app is on equal footing with other e-book readers available in the App Store, particularly Amazon’s Kindle app. But iBooks does get some special treatment — the first time I launched the App Store app on my iPad, it prompted me with a dialog box asking if I’d like to down the free iBooks app. It’s impossible to miss. The iBooks app also has display brightness controls that are not availble through public APIs. Winnie the Pooh is included as a free sample, and the choice is genius — it’s a beloved story, a good read, and best of all (from Apple’s perspective) it can’t be read properly on the Kindle because the color illustrations are a big part of the experience. No book on the Kindle will ever look this good. The Kindle has its own advantages — its books are generally cheaper, its selection bigger, and e-ink works better in bright sunlight — but Winnie the Pooh epitomizes the iPad’s advantages. iBooks’s page-turning animation is delightful — it doesn’t just track your finger-swipe precisely, but even renders the type faintly in reverse on the other side of the “sheet”. The practical minded can simply tap the right and left edges of the screen to turn pages. Amazon’s iPad-native Kindle app is good, too. Oddly, to my mind, it is superior to their recent Mac app in every way. It looks better, feels better, renders text better, and has more features. I say this is odd because the iPad was announced just two months ago; Mac OS X was announced over a decade ago. I suspect part of the reason the Mac version is so crippled is that they were more worried about keeping Mac users from un-DRMing Kindle content than they were about making the Mac app an actual good-to-use app. The Kindle doesn’t do animated page-turning, but that’s not a big deal. Reading is great. And the Kindle’s ace-in-the-hole, of course, is the far larger selection of e-books in its store — hundreds of thousands versus Apple’s tens of thousands. I bought When the Game Was Ours, a new book by Larry Bird and Magic Johnson. It is not available in the iBooks store. So Kindle’s advantage is library size (and, secondarily, price per title). iBooks’s advantage is the color display. I’d be shocked if every single piece of advertising Apple produces for iBooks doesn’t focus entirely on screenshots of books with color illustrations, photos, and video. I think it’s going to be easier for Apple to improve the iBooks store library than it will be for Amazon to create a Kindle hardware model with a color display. I think Amazon would do well to add color support to Kindle e-books for use on iPads and iPhones. Kindle has a better chance of long-term success as a software platform than a hardware one. Third-Party Apps in General Given that most iPad-native apps in the store right now were developed using only the simulator by developers without access to actual iPads, you might expect apps to be buggy and UIs to be awkward. I’ve found the bugginess to be true, but the UIs are actually good. I think the physical prototypes developers jury-rigged for themselves paid off, design-wise. There’s no question that UIs are going change rapidly in the coming weeks now that developers have the real deal to measure the feel of their apps against, but for the apps I’ve been using the most, they’re pretty damn good already. As for the bugginess, I’m not saying it’s inexcusable or even surprising — the SDK simulator is not a perfect simulation. Several of the bugs I’ve reported are only present when the apps are running on actual iPad hardware. On the whole, though, the quality of iPad apps on day one is better, by far, than I had expected considering that developers had to build them in the dark, as it were. Prices, so far, are significantly higher than for iPhone apps — but still far cheaper than category equivalent Mac apps. For example, NetNewsWire is $10 (and going to $15 in May); Things is $20; and OmniGraffle is $50. No doubt there are going to be wildly popular 99-cent iPad apps, but it’s also shaping up as serious platform for serious tools. Games are a bit more expensive, too, but, to me, reasonably so. The final word count is just short of 7,300, so admittedly I wound up writing quite a good chunk of it in BBEdit on my Mac.�↩
10 Things that Apple Could Unveil Tomorrow (That's Not a Tablet)

As everyone in the free world knows by now, Apple made its January 27 media event a reality at long last, complete with invites to the press. That means we’ve all been spending the days leading up the event like a bunch of kids waiting for Santa to fly down the chimney on Christmas, speculating on what wonderment our Techno-Santa (that would be Apple CEO Steve Jobs) will unveil.� MacLife.com would like to take a moment to throw out our own list of possibilities -- some more realistic than others, naturally, but that’s half the fun.iPhone OS 4.0It’s been quite awhile (in tech time) since Apple rolled out the modest iPhone OS 3.1.2 update -- so much time that folks much wiser than us have predicted that iPhone OS 4.0 must be right around the bend. The logic behind such assumptions is that the refreshed OS contains too much code that will spill the beans on Apple’s aforementioned tablet, and therefore the company has boxed itself into a corner by having to wait and introduce them both together.Of course, all of that assumes that Apple even plans to use iPhone OS for its tablet, essentially turning it into a larger, souped-up iPod touch instead of allowing it to run a full (or even pared down) version of Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6. For the past two years, Apple has waited until March to unleash iPhone OS updates to developers via their SDK, with a proper release coming closer to early summer when the new hardware is ready. But plenty of folks are placing bets that this third year will buck that trend, especially after the recent leak of a screenshot claiming to show a device using iPhone OS 4.0. Among the rumored features are some graphical and UI changes, new ways to run applications in the background (we’re guessing that means a form of multitasking) and even new syncing abilities for contacts & calendars.We’d venture a guess that won’t be all that iPhone OS 4.0 has in store for us: Our wish list includes improved push notifications (preferably a solution to the problem of only one being displayed at a time), a more efficient home screen and hey, while we’re at it, isn’t it about time for the ability to wirelessly sync media between iTunes and our devices? There are plenty of occasions where the dock connector umbilical cord makes sense (for instance, when you need to get a battery charge while you sync), but really, it’s 2010 already. Wireless is where it’s at!Bonus points to Apple if they give us push e-mail on any account (even the Palm Pre can do it!) and maybe 720p HD video recording -- the iPhone 3GS hardware has already shown it's capable of doing it, so why not enable it?New MacBook ProsWe realize there’s only so much Apple can do with the notebook form at this point, and they’ve made some good choices, such as the unibody designs of late. But a peek over at the world of Windows-equipped laptops shows that those folks are really working overtime to pile on the features, and they generally do it for a whole lot less than Apple’s notebooks.There are already standing rumors that the MacBook Pro is going to get a nice speed bump -- courtesy of Intel’s latest Core i5 processor -- while retaining current battery life. That would be welcome, but what about a Blu-ray enabled SuperDrive so we can watch HD discs on the go -- and of course, have the ability to burn them as well. PC laptops have been doing that almost forever (okay, a couple years now), while Apple continues to tiptoe around the fact that the world isn’t quite ready to totally abandon optical media in favor of iTunes downloads. (That’s the real “bag of hurt,” if you ask us.)So, we say: Apple, bring on some real innovation with these laptops again! If you’re really going to sell us on a multitouch tablet computer, why not add the same technology to the MacBook Pro so we have the best of both worlds? Or better yet, give us some of that sweet swivel-screen action like HP has done, so your notebooks can actually double as a tablet? We figure while you’re at it, it’s also time to make the iSight camera part of the actual screen, so you can extend the screen real estate all the way to the edges, too.And hey, bring back those Firewire and ExpressCard ports! What’s with this Van Helsing routine, trying to put a stake through the heart of your own Firewire innovation?! Sure, an SD card slot would have been nice a few years ago, but true MacBook “pros” would get better use out of those ports, especially for digital video & audio use.iLife ‘10The 2009 edition of iLife added some welcome new features, particularly with iPhoto and the inclusion of Faces, Places and Facebook integration. But some components of the software got less love than others -- primarily iDVD, which, like its pro cousin DVD Studio Pro, appears to be on the outs with Apple.Rumors abound that iDVD will gain some new tricks with the next iLife release, such as the ability to create iTunes LP media. Color us not so impressed. For starters, it’s downright silly in this day & age that the program can’t burn Blu-ray discs in addition to DVDs, especially as hard as Apple has pushed the whole “create your own HD content” with iMovie.Perhaps our biggest wish for iLife ‘10 is less on new features and more on speed: All of the components in the iLife bundle have a lot of old legacy code (and lack 64-bit optimization), which makes them sluggish at best. What’s the point of ramping up the processor speeds in their systems when these aging products can barely keep up?iTunes 10Please oh please, Apple gods: Hear our pathetic cries for a near-total revamp of iTunes! For all of its joys -- such as the iTunes Store and pretty decent media management (at least for music & apps) -- iTunes is an old dog that’s ready to be put out of its misery. It’s slow to open, frequently sluggish to scroll through windows and as we mentioned above, enough with the tethered syncing already. MobileMe wireless syncing for contacts & calendars is already a year and a half old, and it’s just made us want to sync our media the same way even more (at least for photos, music & apps).It’s sort of embarrassing that iTunes opens faster and runs more efficiently on Windows than it does under even Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 -- shame on you, Apple. (No wonder it was recently ranked number 46 on Forrester’s Consumer Experience Index.) There’s already speculation that Apple’s recent acquisition of Lala will push more of iTunes to the cloud -- we’re not big fans of that idea overall, unless it allows us to also keep our media on our computers at the same time (again, at least the smaller files such as photos, music & apps).iTunes is yet another Apple innovation that’s become a bit long in the tooth -- despite recent updates that have introduced features like Genius (which ultimately benefits Apple more than the user with their paid music suggestions), it’s taken way too long for truly inspired additions like the ability to manipulate the iPhone & iPod touch home screen from the app itself.Our biggest wish for iTunes 10 is to soup up the movies, television and, to a lesser degree, music video aspects of the program. Even with enormous hard drives in our computers, who wants to store gigantic HD video files inside their iTunes library? It’s like a noose around our necks. Apple needs to take a cue from Netflix here, with their excellent streaming video service to all kinds of content boxes -- or at the very least, make the downloading part of the equation at our discretion, particularly for times like traveling where Internet access may be spotty or simply unavailable. There will always be times when you want a TV show episode on your iPhone for when you’re traveling without data access. Freedom of choice, we say!MacPad (iPad?)There have been rampant rumors of late that Apple is trying to seize upon a trademark for the term “iPad,” which many tech bloggers are translating to mean that Cupertino intends to use it as the name of their tablet computer. But what if it was actually going to be a super-groovy combination of Magic Mouse and MacBook-style trackpad that could attach to any Mac via Bluetooth (or at the very least, USB 2.0)?The Magic Mouse was released last fall to plenty of anticipation, but if you ask us, it fell way short by delivering such a lackluster amount of multitouch fun. Sure, the third party developers have since stepped in with a multitude of choices to soup up the Magic Mouse, but we’re still left itching for more.We prefer to call it the “MacPad,” which is essentially a mouse replacement for your desktop that replicates a Mac notebook trackpad, complete with awesome multi-finger gestures assignable to most any task.You’ll recall, of course, that such technology once existed for the Mac courtesy of a small company called Fingerworks, who was subsequently purchased by Apple. Their website recently shut down after years of remaining live, leading many to speculate that Fingerworks technology will finally be implemented in the Apple tablet -- but we’d like to see it land in a small external pad that works with any Mac. Is that too much to ask? (Fingerworks image courtesy of MacRumors.com)Apple TV ReduxDon’t get us wrong: There’s nothing inherently wrong with Apple TV, especially if you buy into the entire iTunes ecosystem. But the mere fact that so many people buy the device with the intention of using ATV Flash or other methods to hack them should tell Apple something.That “something” is that they want more content choices besides the iTunes Store and YouTube. XBMC and Boxee are both widely used on hacked Apple TVs in order for users to watch their own home-brewed content -- be it ripped from their DVD collection or acquired by “other means.” (We wouldn’t endorse nor have any knowledge of that, however.) Netflix has made great strides to latch onto every conceivable kind of hardware with their streaming service (now including all three major gaming systems), yet it remains closed to Apple TV for the most obvious of reasons -- Apple’s greed (or rather, arrogance that the iTunes Store and its “pay per download” model is the best way).Expecting a new Apple TV may seem like a wildcard, but let’s not forget that the device hasn’t really, truly been refreshed in a looong time. It’s still running Tiger 10.4 Mac OS X, for God’s sake! Apple clearly wants to capture the living room and they’ve acknowledged that their first try didn’t quite cut it -- even dismissing the Apple TV as a “hobby” to the press. Entrenching themselves into customers’ living rooms should almost be a higher priority than that silly old tablet, we say.Macquarium, Featuring iFish OSSpeaking of the living room, messy aquariums and accidentally overfeeding your aquatic pets will soon become a thing of the past, thanks to Apple’s latest home entertainment wonder, Macquarium. If you’ve enjoyed the multitouch fun of the 99-cent App Store favorite Koi Pond, prepare to have Apple totally blow your mind with the first completely computer-driven fish tank -- no water required!Imagine a razor-thin, Jonathan Ive-designed, holographic fish tank that’s totally customizable thanks to its pared-down Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6 software interface. Fill Macquarium’s virtual tank with a wide variety of default "iFish" personally hand-picked by Steve Jobs himself, or use the included OceanMe software to customize the defaults and even create your own new fish -- whether they exist in real life or not! Of course, for the less-ambitious among us, additional fish will also be made available at the iFish Store, a new virtual market included as a feature of iTunes 10, with an SDK immediately available for download to all potential iFish OS developers.Of course, Macquarium includes accelerometers to allow your fish tank to stand vertically or horizontally (let’s see your real fish tank do that!) and the multitouch screen includes a new “multi-dimensional” feature that allows you to actually reach inside the device to play with or feed your iFish, all without ever getting wet. Amuse your friends by bumping the side of the tank and watch those iFish come running at chow time!Macquarium features a Mini DisplayPort jack so you can plug in your Apple laptop or desktop and use it as a convenient computer display when not in use, and includes a wireless 802.11 b/g/n network connection to sync with your iFish Store purchases. (Mac G4 Cube fish tank mod image courtesy of WalYou.com)iRumors.apple.comIn an effort to single-handedly kill the rumor-blogging community that’s made their products such a hit in the past, Apple Inc. will finally announce next week that they’re going public with all of their ideas under one easy-to-find shingle -- the ultimate “one more thing” for Apple CEO Steve Jobs.The Cupertino tech giant, finally backed into a corner by the Internet’s incessant digging for juicy trade secret nuggets to expose to the world prior to the launch of the Apple tablet, will launch the subdomain iRumors.apple.com as part of their strategy to give away all of their best (and worst!) future ideas, far in advance of the actual product launch and at long last, finally knock the wind out of our sails for all Apple events to come.Apple had “no comment” regarding speculation that unemployment lines would be overloaded with former tech journalists & bloggers as a result of next week’s move.iBabySure, Apple might have dropped “Computer” from their name back in 2007, but that doesn’t mean that a lifelike, computerized baby wouldn’t be in the cards. After all, in these tough economic times, both parents have to work just to eke out a living, so who has time for making babies the old-fashioned way? Enter Apple’s new iBaby.Your iBaby’s multitouch faux flesh will be perfect for tickling or stroking their lifelike hair, arriving complete with a pair of swanky new super-fast USB 3.0 ports for feeding your simulated baby with all the knowledge & dreams a real child would one day fail to retain (sorry, no Firewire here!). Also included is Mini DisplayPort for plugging iBaby into an external monitor (ideal for monitoring dreams and other brain activity that would cost thousands of dollars in real life) and of course, a standard headphone jack (which also doubles as an optical audio output) so you can enjoy your iPod playlists from the comfort of your stereo speakers. Of course, a Mute button comes standard with every iBaby, a must for all first-time parents.iBaby’s chest will include an iPhone/iPod dock connection built-in, so you can keep up with the latest news, sports scores and information while you rock your little bionic tot to sleep -- and if the charming lil’ tike won’t go to sleep on their own, you always have the easy Sleep menu option that you’ve come to know & love in Mac OS X to simply knock that sucker right out.Best of all, iBaby’s sleek unibody design has the option of giving a Steve Jobsian “Boom!” to take the guesswork out of those messy diaper changes, and the whole thing will run the latest & greatest Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6. Available as either male or female in Caucasian, African-American and Chinese models (with other races arriving in time for the holiday season in Q3 2010), your iBaby can easily swap personalities with a simple trip to the iTunes Store -- a handful of new ones will be available for only 99 cents each when the product hits stores in March.Apple AirAs if to hammer home the point that Apple fanatics will buy virtually anything the company makes and love it unconditionally, Steve Jobs will announce a tiny clear plastic box next week, similar to the current diminutive casing that the iPod nano comes in. The contents of this package will make even the iPod shuffle look positively obese.Called “Apple Air,” the packaging will contain absolutely nothing, save for the nitrogen and oxygen (aka, air) exhaled in the hallowed halls of the Apple Cupertino campus. The company will offer a variety of different Apple Air models, each indicated by the iPod nano-style color scheme of the packaging: One color for Steve Jobs’ office, another for the reception area, different colors for both Phil Schiller and Jonathan Ive’s offices -- the possibilities are endless.Prices will start at $199 with the equivalent of 8GB of air space. Remember, you heard it here first!*****Did we miss anything that you’d like to see? Make your own predictions heard in the comments!
BBC Prints Irresponsible Rubbish on Apple

Daniel Eran DilgerThe BBC has joined the London tabloid press in printing a series of articles skewering Apple over invented suppositions based entirely upon misinformed speculation and some outright lies. The worst part is that the BBC is being grossly hypocritical in its misinformation campaign against Apple, because the company is up to its eyeballs in the Microsoft-encrusted scandal surrounding its proprietary, Windows-only iPlayer imbroglio.[UK Tabloids Pick Up Zoon Awards for Technical Incompetence]Beyond Spin: Bill Thompson Wades Through BBC Hypocrisy to Spread False Information.It's bad enough that the BBC needs to bend facts to support fear, uncertainty and doubt about the iPhone. Now consider that the BBC--as a public corporation funded by British TV license taxes--is building its web video strategy on failed, proprietary technology propped up by an internationally convicted monopolist. At the same time, its publishing a uninformed rant based on speculation and conjecture that accuses Apple of doing things that approach the gravity of its own activities.This hypocrisy slows from the words of Bill Thompson, who followed the crowd in reporting that Microsoft's failed appeal in its EU monopoly case says less about Microsoft's established, anticompetitive practices spanning the last thirty years than it does about Apple's iPod popularity over the last five. Thompson weeps for Microsoft because "its every move is examined for evidence that it might be making life difficult for its rivals," while noting that "some of its competitors seem to get a very easy ride." One might expect the BBC to make excuses for the crimes of its iPlayer partner as it giggly walks lockstep with Microsoft in using the company’s proprietary and Windows-only DRM for video distribution of its publicly funded content.[BBC's iPlayer's Prospects Looking Bleak - Slashdot]Thompson's Specious Attack on Apple."The best example of this [easy ride] is Apple," Thompson announced, because the company got so much coverage for the iPhone despite it being "closed, locked down and restricted." Actually that's not a good example at all, because Apple doesn't have a market monopoly in mobiles. Apple has also never been convicted of monopolistic behaviors in the UK, the EU, or the US because it doesn't have a monopoly and doesn’t act to stop competition the way Microsoft has. Thompson admits that the iPhone doesn't leverage monopoly control among mobiles, but says "the situation is very different" in the area of music players and music downloads. What is this very different situation?"Apple has spent much time trying to ensure that anyone who buys an iPod is completely locked in to an Apple-centred world," Thompson wrote, "in which they use iTunes, buy from the iTunes Music Store, purchase only Apple-certified iPod accessories and, ideally, abandon their plans to migrate from Windows XP to Vista and instead purchase a shiny new iMac." Yes, Apple does want to sell Macs and serve its customers. However, it's simply a lie to say that iPod users are "locked into" anything, let alone being harmed by not being able to migrate to Vista, which Apple actually supports on the iPod and iTunes.Users are not locked into iTunes Music Store purchases; recall that the wags like to point out that a tiny minority of the music on iPods is purchased from iTunes and the vast majority comes from ripped CDs. Purchased tracks from iTunes can also be effortlessly burned to CD for use other other players, following the most liberal and open fair use rights in the industry. Thompson simply lied. Saying that iPod users are locked into Apple-certified iPod accessories is also not true at all. Apple tries to earn licensing revenue from putting a "made for iPod" logo on devices in the same way Nintendo puts its "seal of approval" on its games, but anyone can deliver iPod accessories, and there's no way for Apple to stop headphones and boomboxes from working with the iPod. Thompson lied again. His first idea was that iPod users are locked into iTunes. Yes, Apple sets up a system that's easy to use out of the box, but users aren't forced to use it. The iPod can be used with a variety of other applications, or even wiped clean and used with completely alternative firmware like RockBox. Again, Thompson just lied.[Time for Apple to face the music? - BBC NEWS]Thompson Lies Some More: Ringtones.In order to jump from lying about the iPod with generalities and get into specifics, Thompson announced, "the recent launch of the new range of iPods, including the video Nano and the iPod Touch, has shown just how far Apple is willing to go to make life difficult for its users in order to shore up its dominant position in the market for music players and downloads." He backed up his claim by browsing for some sensationalist headlines, doing zero fact checking, and then printing his findings with an enraptured spin that is simply shameful hypocrisy coming from anyone working for the BBC.First, Thompson complains, Apple now sells ringtones and doesn't support homebrew attempts to copy ringtones to the iPhone. Yes, this is unfortunate. Users shouldn't face limitations from using their own song clips, and they shouldn't have to pay extra to carve out a ringtone from songs they purchased or already own. However, this isn't entirely Apple's decision because it has to answer to the labels. It's not illegal, and it has nothing to do with anticompetitive monopoly dominance of the music industry. It's really the opposite: an opportunity for rivals to compete against the iPhone by offering a nicer way to play "My Humps" when their phones ring. So far, the US ringtone industry revolves around $2.50 - $3.00 clips that expire after several months. Thompson lied with a half story and a false premise that do nothing to support the idea that Apple has a monopoly.[Apple's iTunes Ringtones and the Complex World of Copyright Law]Thompsons Lies Some More: Video Output.His second proof that Apple is "shoring up its dominant position" is that "it seems that the new generation of iPods will not output video through cables or docks that aren't Apple authorized and have a specific 'authentication' chip." It seems? Why doesn't Thompson point out that he read some high pitched conspiracy theory about why older cables and docks don't work with the new models, and is presenting it as a proof of anticompetitive, monopolist behavior without even checking the claim out?The reality is that all the new iPods continue to support the same docks as they did, but their video output has changed due to using different hardware. The Nano and Classic continue to work with old docks and cables, while the Touch and the iPhone will require a new dock connector cable because they now output both composite and component video. They work differently; no conspiracy, no spy authentication chips. The iPhone and the latest generation of iPods will work via a dock connector cable without a dock unit, so there's no chip involved. Even if there were, it would not be illegal for Apple to sell proprietary cables such as those that come with the Xbox, the Zune, the Palm Pilot, and most every music player and mobile phone on the market. The only difference is that Apple has kept its dock connector the same over the last several years so that iPod customers can reuse their old cables. Even if Thompson doesn't understand the issues and didn't bother to look into it, presenting false information as facts to support an idea that they do not support is still a lie. [An in-depth iPod Touch review: Video output differences - AppleInsider]Thompsons Lies Some More: Linux Music Management."The nastiest little change is to the iTunes library itself," Thompson wrote. Apple made minor changes to the metadata database used on the iPod. When this change broke unauthorized music management software, some Linux advocates announced press releases saying Apple was persecuting them and trampling their rights to use the iPod. It turned out that the outcry was simply overwrought, and that a fix was easy to deliver. What Apple had really done was improve how the iPod stores its data so that it would be less susceptible to file corruption. Apple doesn't officially support the small minority of people who use the iPod with Linux or alternatives to iTunes on other platforms, so it bears no accountability for fixing their homebrew software when it makes changes to its products. It might be valid to complain that Apple should offer such support, but ignoring Linux has no relationship to establishing a monopoly or market dominance. If Apple was offering a locked in, anti-consumer product, it wouldn't have open source users buying its product in the first place. Unlike the Xbox and Zune, Apple doesn't stop users from installing Linux or RockBox on their iPods, a difference Thompson can’t seem to grasp. Thompson admitted that Apple "will not limit copying or restrict attempts to strip digital rights management code from tracks" and "will not stop people adding non-DRM files they have downloaded from the internet to their library," but then jumped at the opportunity to speculate that Apple is shutting out Linux users, as if Apple would prefer Linux users to either install Windows or buy a music player elsewhere. Which scenario helps Apple "maintain music dominance?" It's an inane argument.Irresponsible Open Source Mouths.Remember when the EFF irresponsibly announced its speculation that Apple was stuffing megabytes of personal information into iTunes tracks? It later recanted, but didn't apologize for the false accusation. The fact that open source advocates are quick to fire out accusations but commonly shrug off any accountability for what they say makes their comments very hard to take seriously. Thompson's uncritical, uninformed parroting of such accusations is not only stomach churning, but egregious given the BBC's wholehearted support for a video distribution system that unilaterally forces people to use Windows to access content that is not available elsewhere, as iTunes music is.Thompson keeps going, castigating Apple for stopping Real from selling its own flavor of DRM that promised support for the iPod, and impugning Apple for supposedly having "business practices do not stand up to scrutiny." Thompson added, "when it comes to music downloads it [Apple] is just as bad as Microsoft on servers."Oh really? Do you have to pay Apple client access licenses for the right to connect your iPod to iTunes or to access the Music Store? Does your music die after three plays or three days? Do you have no choice in the market for MP3 players apart from devices that run the iPod firmware or use Apple’s iTunes software? Equating Apple with Microsoft would be foolish for anyone to do, let alone some misinformed, generalizing, sensationalist wag writing for a public corporation that ties its video downloads to Microsoft's Windows-only DRM.Thompson's Faulty Conclusion to a Shoddy Article.The great model of interoperability, Thompson points out, is Microsoft's PowerPoint. That's because Apple was able to deliver Keynote with PowerPoint compatibility. "Apple can sell Keynote because it took PowerPoint apart and figured out how the files work," Thompson explained.Perhaps Thompson doesn't get it: Apple's ability to maintain compatibility with PowerPoint is just as tenuous as Linux users' ability to make iTunes-compatible song management software for the iPod. Microsoft doesn't support standards in PowerPoint. It uses a crufty, weird, undocumented, proprietary format that changes with every release. That's why the industry is aligning behind Open Document as an international standard, and why Microsoft stuffed ballots in Cuba, Azerbaijan, and Sweden to fast track the establishment of its own proprietary formats as a false "standard" without having to answer the concerns of worldwide standards organizations who overwhelmingly determined that Microsoft's OOXML format was problematic and technically inferior.Oblivious to all this, Thompson announced, "had Apple been unable to do so [reverse engineer the proprietary PowerPoint format], or found that every time it figured out what was happening Microsoft changed the format, it would have complained loudly." Apparently Thompson has been paying no attention to technology over the last two decades as the world community has complained about Microsoft's doing just that.[Office Wars 3 - How Microsoft Got Its Office Monopoly][Office Wars 4 - Microsoft’s Assault on Lotus, IBM][Myth 4: The iTunes Monopoly Myth]The reason Microsoft was on trial in the EU dates back to complaints filed in 1998. The independent US monopoly trial followed up on earlier complaints from the FTC and Department of Justice. Similar complaints haven't ever been filed about Apple's iPod business, but rather only about the arcane, territorial pricing of music established by the big labels, most of whom are owned and managed by European companies.The EU certainly should fix the problems of the music business in its countries, and demand fair use provisions from music and media providers. However, trying to spin the complex situation off as proof that Apple is anything like Microsoft is not only disingenuous, it's an outright lie. Using a bunch of half-baked, ignorant web rumors to support a position that Apple should just allow anything and everything is also dishonest. Doing all of this speciously false complaining while standing on the Microsoft-enamored soapbox of the BBC just makes Thompson look even more incompetent and clueless about the reality around him. What do you think? I really like to hear from readers. Comment in the Forum or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast! Submit to Reddit or Slashdot, or consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!
PCMag offers "best" alternatives to Apple products, redefines "best" in process

Filed under: Odds and endsPCMag.com's recent article The Best Apple Product Alternatives couldn't smell any more like "bait" without being covered in worms. Hoping to appeal to those who have some innate desire to not buy from Apple due to "a limited budget or an anti-Apple stance," PCMag put together a list of "alternative" products to Apple gear like the iPhone, iPod touch & iPod shuffle. The headline will surely grab attention, but as a friend of mine used to say, "Is there any meat in that sandwich?" They start out comparing the iPhone 3GS to the Google Nexus One. The Nexus One will save you $20, but even PCMag rates the Nexus One 3.5/5 stars while the iPhone gets 4/5. The Samsung Mythic SGH-a897 will save you $70 and gets 4/5 stars. Only one catch: it's not a smartphone. It has "Web-based widgets" and apparently shows broadcast TV. Oh, and it's on AT&T too, so if you're turning down the iPhone because of the network, this isn't for you. So far this sounds like comparing my car to my bike and telling me the bike is better because it doesn't require gas. Next is the iPod touch, listed in the category of "Portable Media Players," and here even PCMag can't keep a straight face: "We won't lie: You won't find a PMP that outperforms the iPod touch. Name another player that's basically an iPhone without the phone, and, well...you can't." They give the iPod touch a 5/5 rating. Their "ideal alternative" is the Sony X Series Walkman NWZ-X1051 (who names these things?) which will cost you $299.95. Oh, remember how the "hook" to this story was lower prices? This one is actually more expensive than the iPod touch. PCMag does offer one other suggestion: you could get a Zune. Sadly, it gets worse. Read on. [hat tip to Shibani Joshi] Statistically insignificant anecdotal side note: I know exactly one person who bought a Zune. He went to Best Buy to buy an iPod and they were sold out, and the salesman talked him into the Zune. One day after he bought it, he was asking me to help him figure it out. A few months later he was cussing at the Best Buy salesperson and himself for not buying the iPod. Also, it was brown. Let's move on the the iPod nano, which PCMag says has "gone through several iterations, getting better every time" and "is the best player in its price range," which explains the 4.5/5 rating. The Samsung Q2 is $70 cheaper, but only gets a 3.5/5 rating, and PCMag can barely muster two sentences about it. Their third option, the $50 Coby MP705, gets only one run-on sentence which ends by telling you it has "earbuds that won't fall out of your ears." Oh, and it has a 3/5 rating. Skipping down a bit, they compare the MacBook Air with the Sony VAIO VPC-Z116GXS which they rate 4/5 ahead of the MacBook Air's 3/5 stars, but the price is $1 more than the MacBook. There goes the old "Macs are more expensive" myth again. What about the MacBook Pro? I was interested in this because the article starts off with this teaser: "Whether it's a limited budget or an anti-Apple stance that stops you from shelling out, say, $2,500 for a MacBook Pro, take solace in the fact that you'll find plenty of competing PC laptops that will serve you just as well." First of all, $2,500 is more than double the starting price of a MacBook Pro. "The MacBook Pro, on the other hand, to many, is laptop perfection" says PCMag. (Is Mr. Gideon channeling Captain Kirk or Christopher Walken?) They compare a $1700 MacBook Pro to a "Dell Studio XPS 16" (seriously, again with the names) which comes in at $1,804. To recap: the article begins by grossly exaggerating the price of a MacBook Pro, then goes on to call the $1700 MacBook Pro "laptop perfection" but suggests that you spend over $100 more on an alternative. It gets better. They describe a $1200 iMac as "basically a flat-panel HD monitor with a top-notch computer built-in. If you're a Windows person, however, this does you little good." Could someone visit PCMag's offices and drop off some brochures about Boot Camp, Parallels, and VMware Fusion? Before you bring up the additional cost of buying Windows, let me point out that their alternative, the "HP TouchSmart 600-1055 PC" (I'm not even going to comment on that name) costs four hundred dollars more than the iMac. They also say that this computer "shows how touch screen interfaces are going mainstream." Call me back in two years, PCMag, and tell me how great the touch screen interfaces are going on desktop computers. For a "less-expensive alternative" they offer the $700 Lenovo IdeaCentre A600: "With a love-it-or-hate-it design, the Lenovo IdeaCentre A600 gives the value PC buyer an all-in-one option that's more powerful than a cheap nettop, though power users will want more." Really? That's what you're comparing to the iMac? I can't even look at you anymore, PCMag. Look, there's more... they talk about the Mac Mini and suggest the "Dell Inspiron Zino HD" (ugh). They look at the AppleTV and suggest that you get an Xbox 360 for $70 more. But honestly, the "meat" of this article is intellectual tofu. You can shape it like a turkey, but you're not going to fool anyone. You've got to have a heavy layer of Apple-hatin' mouth froth to seriously consider more expensive or lower-rated alternatives as better than what Apple has to offer. Two things bother me the most about this piece. First, the dishonesty in describing the MacBook Pro as a $2,500 computer; not that you can't configure one for that much, but the way it's presented is deceptive. Second, praising the iMac and then saying it isn't something a Windows person can use. There are several perfectly good ways for people to run Windows on their Macs, and those approaches have been available for years.TUAWPCMag offers "best" alternatives to Apple products, redefines "best" in process originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Read�|�Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments Apple - iPhone - Mac Mini - MacbookPro - iMac
Macworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog

Filed under: Macworld, Hardware, Blogging, iPad We are live from the floor of Macworld 2010, where they're be talking about the iPad in a special event feature Jason Snell, Macworld editor-in-chief, and a panel of industry experts. We have heard that won't be an actual iPad on the show floor, so it's not clear whether we'll get to see the device, but we will hear commentary and insight on what the iPad means for Apple and the world at large. After the break, find an updating liveblog of the event as it happens, straight from Moscone Center in San Francisco.2:04PM Ted: I would like to see 1) if there will be iPhone OS changes brought back from the iPad, and what hidden features we'll see there. And 2) what options are available for printing. Dan: Can I use it as a phone? Or a camera? (laughter) No, when we saw it, we said, the screen looks kind of empty, doesn't it? You can put about six apps in the dock, so I think we'll see a newer design for the homescreen, something that takes more advantage of the extra space. Something more appropriate for the product rather than just a large iPhone.2:02PM Jason: Frasier Spiers said do you realize how amazing this will be in education? And yes, you'll see a real change there. One last question: what is your biggest unanswered question about the iPad?2:01PM Andy: It will lend credibility to the idea of computing via tablet, and Android and others will follow that path in another year or so as well. It'll finally break us free from the "type on this, look at this" paradigm we've been stuck with.2:00PM Andy: We'll also see a halo effect. Star Wars didn't invent the sci-fi movie, but it showed that sci-fi wasn't the problem, bad movies were. So tablets aren't the problem, bad tablets are, and the iPad will remind people of that.2:00PM Andy: iPad won't be a big hit until 2011 -- it will take a while after the people in this room buy them to show them off to the normal civilian, and the next time they need a portable computer, they'll remember the iPad they saw on the airplane or in the classroom.1:59PM Ted: I also think we'll be surprised. Third-party developers will surprise us. Jason: Right, apps are front and center on iPad, and we only had web apps when the iPhone came out. Andy: I don't believe that tablets have been tried and failed, I don't believe they've ever been tried. No tablet I've seen compares to the iPad -- tablets I've seen are a desktop computer in tablet form, the iPad is an actual tablet.1:58PM Ted: This is also the ultimate remote control. We'll see it controlling a more digital home in the next few years, and the iPad is the way to control it. Turn on stereo, run lights, control thermostat, the iPad is made for that.1:57PM Jason: What about people who use only a fraction of a computer -- only email or only web browsing? Ryan: Sure, it's fine if netbooks get assassinated by the iPad -- around the house computer. But it's still not going to take the place of productivity or when I need to go on the road. In addition to, but not a replacement for. Ted: Agreed, around the house computer instead of a laptop. I'm optimistic about the long-term as well -- it's not there today, but things will change. Majority of people with a computer today don't really utilize it to the full extent, and the iPad will satisfy those folks.1:55PM Ryan: I'm not so sure -- you need feedback, you need tactility, you can type fast because you need the keys and you need to know where they are. Apple did release a keyboard dock -- the tech may change, but we're not there now, and it's going to be a while before we abandon the keyboard or the traditional computer. Steve even acknowledged that it was an in-between device.1:54PM Dan: Younger people will be the one to watch. When this becomes an option, will people not bother to learn or use the traditional mouse and keyboard? We're used to it, but if you look at someone learning, you realize the challenges behind the mouse and the cursor and the traditional interface. There's a huge disconnect, and especially for kids, we'll have to see if they prefer the iPad to the exclusion of traditional computing. Their intial reaction is to touch.. which is why you don't take them to museums (laughter). When kids grow up with this, will they wonder what's wrong with us for using archaic keyboards and mice?1:52PM Jason: Time to talk about the future. What impact will the iPad have in the next five years? What about the tablet market? MS said a while ago that tablets were the future, and they're a flop so far, basically. Will we see a significant change in tablet computing or how we use them?1:52PM Jason: Some people don't mind reading on screens like the iPad, some people do. There will be options no matter what. Kindle is for reading books, iPad has more functionality. Please no, Amazon, put in an API for apps -- its strength is reading books. Ted: Will you feel that way when you have to carry two devices? Dan: I still carry an iPhone and an iPod, but then again I'm really strange.1:50PM Andy: We already have an iPad nano, it's the iPhone. If you want something with less or more functionality, you've got choices.1:50PM Dan: They can totally coexist, just like the original iPod was still around after the iPod touch. The iPad won't kill the Kindle any more than the Kindle killed the book.1:50PM Andy: The $500 price point is now radioactive if you're an ereader. But you can do very well at a lower price point. Ted: I also think there will be a cheaper iPad, just as the iPhone dropped in price after it came out. Jason: I can see a day when the Kindle is free. Ryan: Absolutely. That's the future of Amazon's business model. It's not going away.1:48PM Ryan: The question is: are you going to want to read on the iPad. Comic books make a ton of sense, but I didn't want to read a book on the iPad -- too bright, colors too vivid, I feel like the contrast on the Kindle is better for certain reading. Books will still be best read on e-Ink. Jason: I agree that even with the iPad, there's a future for something like the kindle or a more traditional ereader. Ted: I've read books on my iPhone and it's not painful by any means. I think from a price perspective, the Kindle is a hard sell. Dan: Ha, well the large Kindle is a bad investment anyway.1:46PM Dan: Bookstore wasn't even active in the iPads we used -- the icon was there, but it didn't work, we haven't even seen it yet. Jason: A Kindle app for the iPad will be interesting, too. Comic books, thanks for mentioning those, because comics on the iPad's bigger screen will be a big deal.1:45PM Andy: I'm co-authoring an app that will work as my printing press -- once the press gets built, then it's just making the content. There's always an outlet, as opposed to a third-party where you have to wait for approval.1:44PM Andy: Application-based content is here to stay -- designing your own app can help you release content your own way. Jason: Except that costs more money. Build your own app is great, but some devs can't do that. Maybe a third-party will, but not everyone can do their own.1:43PM Andy: iBooks won't be the most signficant part of the periodical delivery mechanism on the iPad -- even comic book and periodical publishers aren't supporting the iPad so much as tablet devices in general. They're using Webkit -- not platform specific, but iPad included.1:42PM Andy: The iBooks app is a quiet piece of news, but that's an incredibly significant announcement. That app that we tried that day was probably the least functional of all the apps on there -- will it freeze up, will it slow down? It's downloadable because it's not ready in time for shipping, and Apple understands that the app will have to evolve quickly and update often.1:41PM Ted: A semester's worth of books on the iPad at (hopefully) a fraction of the cost, not to mention that the used market could possibly be gone for good, a good thing in publisher's eyes. Jason: Lower the price of the new textbook, make more money back on the lost used market. If they'll agree to that, which they probably won't.1:40PM Ted: I want to get back to books for a second. Textbooks will change thanks to the iPad for sure.1:39PM Jason: There will be apps for newspapers or magazines, but it'll have to be someone else or they'll have to make their own, and that's a fractured space. Ryan: Apple could have changed the game on that, but they aren't doing that now.1:38PM Ryan: Except that book aspect here is books. There's no periodicals for the iPad right now, no iMagazines. If Apple had created a standard or introduced an app like the Kindle, maybe revolutionary. But all they're talking about right now is books. There's no solution for the industries that are having trouble.1:37PM Dan: Still, the music industry lost the battle for DRM, will that happen to book publishers? Andy: The web was an experiment that absolutely failed for books and magazines, and what it did was train the average consumer that a web browser is free -- charging for web content isn't right. But the Kindle taught that produced content by professionals does cost money, and the iPad can run that same market.1:36PM Andy: It's a computer, so it can do whatever devs and content publishers want it to do. Apple is using epub, which is remarkably flexible for sharing and lending books and licenses, even to libraries. So it could make it easier to share and borrow books -- your local public library as a version of Amazon.com. "There's a license available for Tom Clancy's book, I'll sign that out." Dan: Sure, libraries may have applications even -- if they can find the money.1:35PM Dan: It seems like the early days of the music industry's digital revolution, where publishers want to lock things down. It's a good idea for convenience -- a whole library in a device. But losing that freedom to content and sharing worries me.1:34PM Jason: When this product was rumored for months... Ryan: Years... Decades.... Jason: When Nostradamus predicted the iPad (laughter), ebooks were a big deal. What does this mean for books and newspapers and magazines?1:33PM Ryan: It's not as intimate of an experience on a laptop, but it's a little more convenient. Jason: Accessories will be key -- cradles, docks, stands. Ted: Two different modes -- primarily a consumption device, like a book. But more serious work will require a keyboard, stand, different environment.1:32PM Jason: In the testing area at the event, iPads were on raised platforms, with each one having an Apple employee told "if you let this thing out of your sight, we won't just fire you, your family will end up wondering what happened to you." Andy: Glossy front. Not a problem with a notebook, but what about a tablet? We'll see. Dan: It's easier, I can tilt the iPad anyway I want. Ryan: You also don't have to be holding your laptop at all times, but the iPad will have to be held up most of the time.1:30PM Andy: That'll be interesting to see what happens in real life though. Apple events are magic acts -- they're planned. When Steve was using that book on stage, was the chair even designed for him to hold the iPad in the right place? What will it be like to hold an iPad (1.5 lbs) while standing or trying to do something in a weird position? What about when people see what you're doing in a coffeeshop, or at a table? We will have to see.1:29PM Ted: People that are happy with an iPad today will be happy with a laptop in three or four years. Dan: That's a bold statement. There's a duality between iPad today vs. iPad in three or four years. But there is a ubiquity to computers today, and we've all adapted quickly to having them around in the same places the iPad will be -- on the couch, in the kitchen, and so on. It's nice to have something that doesn't make you feel like you have to match to it, but it matches to you.1:27PM Ted: The iPad can't do everything that a Mac can do, but the release of the iWork software was an opening salvo. You can start using this as a productivity machine -- you can't use it tomorrow, but look how far the iPhone has come thus far.1:27PM Andy: There are two checkboxes for me as a user -- I need to write a lot at any given moment, and I need to transfer files on and off of it, and the iPad meets both needs just fine for me. This will be as transformative a product as the original Mac was.1:26PM Jason: Is it right to say that Apple is taking another crack at what computers are, and is it the right approach? Andy: Yes, I think so. Computers don't have to have file systems or browsers, they just have to solve problems, and the iPad still does that.1:25PM Andy: I agree -- if you have a system level switch, it even solves the problem of support. If something breaks, make sure that override on third-party apps is turned off, and you're back to working paradise.1:24PM Dan: I'm playing devil's advocate, because I agree with you, but Apple's philsophy is that. They don't want you to be a tinkerer, because they aren't aimed at tinkerers. We don't agree with that, but it's their product, even if we're buying it. You can do what you want, if you go down the jailbreak road, and people will always find a way. But it is a lot harder than it needs to be, even if I understand why Apple is doing that.1:23PM Jason: Yeah I think there's room for non-App Store apps, but App Store apps would get preference. Ryan: Yes, the App Store is literally a revolution in software distribution. But Apple is not bugding on their philsophy at all. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to set the override switch and do what you want.1:22PM Ryan: 3rd party apps are dangerous, but as long as you warn users, what's the problem? It is my toaster oven, right?1:21PM Jason: App Store -- will it work the same on the iPad, will we see the same iPhone issues? Andy: If it works, then great. If not, the weaknesses will be more clear. I want a computer that will potentially will always work, never crash, will always run software. The win from the App Store concept is that you get a more stable machine at the expense of freedom that you might not excercise anyway. Steve Jobs is a benevolent tyrant -- he'll give you everything you want, all he demands is absolute obedience, and you'll be fine.1:20PM Ted: What do you care, I said? And no, they say, it will degrade the experience of using the toaster oven. And one more thing, they said -- those poptarts in your pantry won't work with your toaster oven either -- you didn't buy them directly from our CuisineArts store. Plus, they'd actually rejected Poptarts from the Art Store. Extended metaphor -- if the iPhone was a toaster, Ted would have issues getting it to do what he wanted.1:18PM Ted: All of the closed things concern me as they apply to the iPad. He's telling a story about how the lower story of his house is very cold downstairs, so he decided to rig up a toaster oven to serve as a space heater. He rigged it up with an extension cord, and it didn't work. He called tech support, and said he was using an extension cord, and they asked if it had a "Made for Cuisinart" sticker on it. It didn't, so he bought a special Cuisinart cord, but it still didn't work. Called back tech support for the toaster, and finally had to admit he was using the toaster oven as a space heater. "No," they said, "you're not authorized to do that." Terms of purchase actually prohibit "jailbaking" (laughs from the audience).1:15PM Ted: On the record, I think the iPad will be a great success, so I like it, I'm buying one. But I expect the iPad is still a closed platform, and it will not replace laptops and more complex computers.1:14PM Jason: Ted is here, even though he didn't use the iPhone, because this seems like Apple saying "we're moving the ball forward" in computing. This is a new paradigm -- touchscreen, direct interaction. iWork is going from Mac straight to the iPad -- is this a netbook/laptop replacement or not?1:13PM Dan: Yeah without the bezel, there's no place to put your thumb - we're so accustomed to the iPhone that it seems like wasted space, but once you use it, it'll fade into the background like everything else.1:12PM Jason: The bezel got complaints, but we have thumbs and you need that extra not-screen space to actually hold it. Ryan disagrees -- he says the iPhone has no bezel and people hold it just find. Andy: This one I really need a grip on, though -- people may even put grip tape on the back to help you not drop it. In the tub for example. (laughs)1:11PM Ihnatko: We could probably charge $499 for these foam iPads though. If anyone wants some blog hits, just take one of these and get some blurry shots of it, you'll get thousands of hits in a few seconds.1:10PM Andy's first impression: build was high quality. It feels like a premium product -- no gaps, it really does disappear in your hand. The device itself disappears within the first five seconds -- it's all experience. Holding it is not the same as seeing it, which most of the complainers have only done.1:08PM Jason: The screen is 4:3, not 16:9 -- even when they showed Star Trek, it was a little weird, but a 16:9 device would be more uncomfortable to hold. Ryan: Right, you can't have both. Either be really wide or more traditional, and they went 4:3, and I kind of prefer it.1:08PM Ryan: Also slightly less foamy than these foam prototypes on stage. It feels really well constructed, a bit heavier than it should feel, but still portable. I do have complaints, but we'll get to that.1:07PM Jason: It helps that we've seen the iPhone interface. Ryan: Everything serves the screen. As a browser, it's nice to go in and see nothing but the content.1:06PM Dan Warren: It's suprising how natural it feels. There's something about it that feels very intuitive. Like a book, you don't pick it up and think "how can I use this?" It makes sense.1:06PM Ted is the only one who hasn't touched the iPad, but everyone else was at the event. What were your first impressions?1:05PM Panels are coming up on stage. Jason says "We don't have a real one, Apple's not here." Four of the five people on stage have used an iPad, however. Dan Warren of Macworld, Ted Landau, Mac Observer and Macfixit. Ryan Block of GDGT and our old Engadget colleague, and Andy Ihnatko.1:04PM Paul introducing Jason Snell, finishes with "We'll see you next year, right?" Hope so!1:03PM The person holding one of the balls that was bouncing around? She just won an iPad from Macworld -- they're going to give her one when the iPad actually ships. Congrats! Maybe we should have participated in the ball bouncing.1:02PM Here's Paul Kent. "Welcome to our iPad special event." He's got an iPad mockup, but it's not the real thing. "You know that this is not shipping yet?" He just dropped it as a joke.1:01PM The lights are going down.12:59PM "Ladies and gentlemen, we need to fill every seat." The hall is practically full, and still more are coming in the door. Someone behind us thinks there will be an iPad here, but we'll see. 12:57PM Four minutes out -- even the press corps is really batting these balls around. I just got hit in the head. That's what we go through for you readers. 12:54PM The crowd is bouncing around a big ball and they seem excited about the iPad. Good thing they probably don't have one -- if one showed up in the hall here, they might get mobbed. 12:50PM Once again, word direct from Jason Snell this morning is that we will not see an actual iPad at this event. But of course, you never know. 12:49PM They're showing the promotional video that's been playing all week here at Macworld. The public has just been allowed in to see the show, and seats are filling up.TUAWMacworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Sat, 13 Feb 2010 15:55:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.Permalink�|�Email this�|�Comments Apple - San Francisco - Moscone Center - Jason Snell - Macworld
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

Skype to get new owner. eBay (EBAY) is expected to announce this morning that it has reached a deal to sell its Skype unit to a group of private investors. The investment group likely includes new venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, as well as early Skype investor Index Ventures and private-equity firm Silver Lake Partners. The price of the deal is still unknown, but eBay has said previously that it wants around $2B for Skype. Shares +2% premarket (7:00 ET). BoA ready to repay? Bank of America (BAC) is reportedly offering to repay part of its bailout money, and the U.S. is pressuring the bank to pay at least $500M to cancel a potential loss-share deal with the government. Sources said both sets of discussions relate to extra aid Bank of America received to complete its acquisition of Merrill Lynch. If Bank of America repays the additional $20B it was given in January, it will no longer be considered an 'exceptional' aid recipient and therefore won't be subject to the intense scrutiny of Congress and pay czar Kenneth Feinberg. Shares -2.4% premarket (7:00 ET). Disney's marvelous acquisition. Disney (DIS) agreed to acquire Marvel Entertainment (MRVL) in a stock-cash transaction worth around $4B, a 29% premium for Marvel shareholders. Disney will begin to feature Marvel's portfolio of over 5,000 characters in Disney movies, theme park rides, TV shows and merchandise, a move which may help Disney better target the demographic of boys from their preteen years into young adulthood. S&P warned it may downgrade Disney because the relatively expensive acquisition, combined with stock buyback plans and the potential for continued recession-related declines, could lead to "debt leverage remaining above our threshold for an extended period." The deal is a setback for Paramount (VIA), which will be able to complete but not extend a recent distribution deal with Marvel, and for Electronic Arts (ERTS), which some analysts had thought might be acquired by Disney, a deal that no longer seems likely in the short term. (Read Disney's press release) AIG loses Starr case. A federal judge ruled against AIG (AIG) in its efforts to win $4.3B in damages from Starr International, the company run by former AIG chief Hank Greenberg. The judge affirmed a jury verdict that found no breach of trust by Starr for selling AIG stock rather than using its AIG shares to fund an executive retirement program for generations of the insurer's employees. Separately, AIG, Greenberg and former CFO Howard Smith agreed to enter binding arbitration by October 15 to settle various outstanding legal disputes. Shares -6.9% premarket (7:00 ET). Citi sheds credit card portfolios. As part of its effort to shed weak businesses, Citigroup (C) said it sold three credit card portfolios representing $1.3B in managed assets, but didn't disclose the terms of the deal. Though the sale is relatively small, the lack of transparency didn't sit well with critics, who noted the taxpayer-funded bank "said it had sold undisclosed assets to an undisclosed buyer for an undisclosed price, resulting in an undisclosed profit or loss." Sources said the buyer is likely U.S. Bancorp (USB). C -3.6% premarket (7:00 ET). PetroChina buys Canadian oil stake. PetroChina (PTR) moved forward in its quest for overseas expansion, agreeing to pay C$1.9B ($1.7B) to closely-held Athabasca Oil Sands Corp. for a stake in a Canadian oil sands project. PetroChina's deals represent around 20% of China's $17B in spending on overseas energy assets since December, and this is PetroChina's largest North American acquisition to date. Icahn offloads Yahoo shares. Activist investor Carl Icahn disclosed in a regulatory filing that he sold 12.7M shares of Yahoo (YHOO) at the end of August, bringing his stake down to 4.48%. Icahn said he remains 'optimistic' about Yahoo's long-term outlook and the sales were only meant to 'provide a more desired balance' in his portfolios. Sony goes Chrome. Sony (SNE) plans to put Google's (GOOG) Chrome browser on Vaio laptops in the U.S., the first such deal for Chrome since it was announced last year. Google declined to disclose details of the deal, which went into effect this summer, and said it's looking to reach similar arrangements with other computer makers. Without those partnerships, Google's Sony deal may be too small to matter. Apple may opt for more carriers, face SEC probe. Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster wrote in a research note that Apple (AAPL) is likely to add new U.S. carriers for its iPhone within a year. Repeated speculation points to Verizon (VZ) as a likely addition, while AT&T (T) faces questions about how much it really gained from its role as exclusive carrier. Separately, the Huffington Post reported the SEC is investigating possible insider-trading offenses in shares of Apple, including whether anyone was given enhanced insight into Steve Jobs' health condition or if some investors had advanced notice of iPod sales results. Both Apple and the SEC declined to comment. AAPL -1.3% premarket (7:00 ET). JetBlue, Lufthansa to share codes. JetBlue (JBLU) and Lufthansa announced a code-sharing agreement allowing the airliners to expand their networks through connecting flights. Lufthansa holds a 19% stake in JetBlue, but the relationship has raised some concerns among rivals and this latest move will likely exacerbate those concerns. The deal must be approved by the Department of Transportation. Big Tobacco files free speech suit. Tobacco company R.J. Reynolds (RAI) joined other tobacco makers in suing the FDA, challenging the regulator's new authority over tobacco. The companies say their First Amendment rights to free speech have been violated and the law's provisions "severely restrict the few remaining channels we have to communicate with adult tobacco consumers." Charities scammed by Madoff face clawbacks. Madoff liquidator Irving Picard said he may sue charities that were Madoff clients to reclaim the fake profits they withdrew. By law, Picard must file clawback suits against investors that profited from Madoff's scam, even if they did so unknowingly. Picard, who until now hadn't outlined his strategy for dealing with charities, said charitable organizations aren't exempt from such 'avoidance actions.' Cities are gloomy on shrinking revenues. City revenues fell in FY '09 for the first time in seven years, according to a report by the National League of Cities to be released later today. Weak growth in property taxes and sharp declines in sales taxes, income taxes and state aid contributed to a 0.4% decline in city revenues even as expenses rose 2.5%, creating the worst outlook in the 24 years since surveying began. Nor is relief in sight, as tax revenue is expected to lag any economic recovery. European leaders target bank pay. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy promised to fight excessive pay in financial firms and to toughen regulation of the financial sector. The U.K.'s Gordon Brown echoed those sentiments, saying excessive pay must be reined in and compensation should be based on long-term success rather than short-term speculative gains. The comments come ahead of a G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24-25. Commercial mortgage defaults rising. The commercial mortgage default rate more than doubled in Q2 as compared to the year before, reaching 2.88% of outstanding balances. Commercial mortgage-backed securities [CMBS] account for 22% of the $3.4T in commercial real estate debt, and researchers believe defaults on CMBS could pass 7% by the end of the year. Chicago business activity improves (.pdf). The Chicago Purchasing Managers Index registered at 50 in August, better than the consensus of 48 and up from 43.4 in July. This is the index's highest level since September 2008. New orders were up 4.5 to 52.5, while prices paid jumped 15 points to 50. European joblessness climbs (.pdf). Unemployment in the 16-nation eurozone climbed to a new ten-year high of 9.5% in July even as the economy began to signal a recovery. Across the entire 27-nation European Union, unemployment rose to 9% in July. Spain leads the bloc in joblessness, with nearly one in five workers without a job. Earnings: Monday After Close Benihana (BNHN): FQ1 EPS of $0.05 misses by $0.05. Revenue of $96M (+2%) vs. $97M. Sees full-year EPS of $0.40-0.45 vs. $0.46, and full-year revenue of $305M-310M vs. $323M. (PR) Culp (CFI): FQ1 EPS of $0.15 beats by $0.03. Revenue of $46M (-23%) vs. $45M. Sees Q2 revenue down 5%. (PR) Sina (SINA): Q2 EPS of $0.29 in-line. Revenue of $90M (-1%) vs. $88M. Sees Q3 revenue of $91M-94M vs. $96M. (PR) Today's MarketsIn Asia, stocks managed to pull back into positive territory after yesterday's selloff. European markets and U.S. futures are slipping.
What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

Daniel Eran Dilger Kevin Rose has been trying his hand at making broad sweeping generalizations about the next generation of iPods, but sorry, no digg. Most of his predictions are not even original, and those that are are so vague that they're really just worthless. Here's what you can really expect. Rose likes to suggest what's next from Apple, but his guesses only approach reality when they're based on leaks that occur days prior to an announcement. His flat out guesswork tends to be yet far further removed from reality, indicating that he has no special inside track on things at Apple, nor much of an imagination tempered by realistic appraisal. A month before the iPhone was unveiled, Rose predicted it would be available from CDMA providers, have a pull out keyboard, and sport two batteries, one for music and one for the phone. Of course, splitting a battery in half is not really a brilliant solution to prevent music playback from running down your phone, but the simple fact that Rose didn't know about the exclusive deal with Cingular (come on, it was Apple's only mobile partner to date) and the unlikelihood of Apple tacking on an HTC-esque keyboard makes his guesswork easy to dismiss. I had imagineered the iPhone as a web browsing iPod (“based on Nokia’s mobile contributions to Safari”) with SMS messaging features, contacts, calendar, and a camera… six months earlier. And CDMA? I recommended Apple “leave Verizon alone and partner with Cingular, TMobile, and MetroPCS using GSM technology.” The difference between my ideas and those from Rose, apart from mine being six months earlier, is that I presented mine as only reasonable ideas with some rationale behind them; Rose insisted he had special knowledge from reliable sources. Generation 6 iPods An iPhone Worth Talking About The Real iPod touch Deets. Now he's predicting new iPods. The iPod touch is supposed to get “fairly large price drops to distance itself from the $199 iPhone.” Sorry, wrong. The iPhone is only $199 in the minds of consumers. It gets a subsidy from AT&T, which is why you can't just buy one for $199 and walk out the door without signing a phone contract. The iPhone's $2,000 service contract offers plenty of distance between it and the iPod touch. The iPod touch is not possibly going to get cheaper than the iPhone for a couple reasons. First, obviously, it costs nearly as much to make. The lack of a subsidy pretty much balances out its lack of mobile radio components. Second, Apple isn't desperately trying to sell the iPod touch. It exists as a product to sell to users who can't or won't buy an iPhone because they're tied to Verizon or don't want a phone. Rose worries that the iPhone is “cannibalizing sales of the iPod,” but there's nothing more Apple would like to do than to feed every iPod user an iPhone. Sure the bonehead analysts will have another field day complaining about how there's only minor growth among iPod sales while they ignore iPhone numbers, but these guys aren't easy to reach with basic facts. Apple has been giving away the $300 iPod touch to students buying a laptop; that looks like an effort to broaden the iPhone platform. Apple wants college kids playing iPhone games and interested in creating their own iPhone software. Left to their own devices, most kids would buy the old hard drive iPod Classic because they think they need to walk around with their entire torrent library of stolen music. (Get off my lawn!) In any case, we all knew the iPod refresh was coming. I'm pretty sure they're coming on September 22. I'm also pretty sure that the 8GB iPod touch is going away, making the 16GB model the new $199 version. That outrageous price drop, facilitated by today's cheaper Flash RAM, would kill the remaining market for the hard drive-based iPod Classic, converting Apple's entire lineup to Flash RAM. Additionally, it would migrate even more iPod buyers into the installed base of iPhone App Store users and hasten the cannibalization food chain that leads toward the iPhone. The 16GB iPod touch will be sold next to the existing 32GB model, which was just released earlier this year. For that reason, I don't see a larger capacity model being introduced now. I don't see tremendous demand for carrying 64GB of music from people who are also ready to pay for 64GB of Flash. Nano 4: Zune 2007? Rose says the Nano will get a redesign that makes it look like last year's Flash RAM Zune; iLounge already predicted this a month ago, although Rose embellished his version with the idea that “the actual plastic on the outside will be curved,” presumably like a TV from the 80s. How nostalgic! I miss having a wildly distorted tube picture, almost as much as a scratchable plastic iPod screen. Oh the good ol' days. Will Apple expend significant resources to make the Nano 4 into a widescreen tall/long player and define a new 4GB hardware model to fit into a niche that is only $50 less than the new 16GB $199 iPod touch? How much room for differentiation is there under $200? Seems more likely that Apple will instead only release a cheaper version of the existing 4GB Nano that's closer to $99, leaving room for a $149 8GB Nano in between. That will pull Shuffle buyers up into splurging on a full video Nano. If you want to watch video sideways, you can get an iPod touch for $199. What kind of widescreen cinematic experience can you get with a long/tall Nano/Zune? When I reviewed the Flash Zune, one of the complaints was that half (but only half) of the controls reconfigure when you hold it sideways. Plus, existing iPod Games wouldn't work in the widescreen orientation; both the display and the controls would be messed up. On top of that, regular video playback would be forced to play back wide, and/or look bad because its stretched. Microsoft has no qualms with playing video in an odd aspect radio, but the iPod is made by Apple, which has some aesthetic boundaries that constrain its behavior. Winter 2007 Buyer’s Guide: Microsoft Zune 8 vs iPod Nano iPhone 2.1 Rose says Apple will also release “iPod touch 2.1 software, iPhone to get update very soon after.” We already all knew the iPhone 2.1 update was coming, and that it's going to be significant, and that it is due for release around the same time as the new iPods. Whether the new iPod touch will ship with it in advance of the iPhone would depend on whether iPhone-only features in the release hold it up, but Rose doesn't suggest any special knowledge or rationale behind this claim. iPhone 2.1 is supposed to usher in new GPS features and the push Notification system, but the real demand for downloading it will be that it fixes a major problem that currently causes third party iPhone apps to crash on launch and randomly when running. Apple needs to get this out quick before it blows the reputation of iPhone software stability in the minds of users. That's reason to believe that iPhone 2.1 might ship even before the new iPods, rather than the other way around. Because software developed using the iPhone 2.1 SDK won't run on iPhone 2.0.x, expect everyone to need to update their software to download a new generation of 2.1-only apps. This will be free for iPhone users, but might incur a nominal fee for iPod touch users due to accounting rules. Myths of Snow Leopard 3: Mac Sidelined for iPhone Ten Big New Features in Mac OS X Snow Leopard iTunes 8.0 Rose says iTunes 8.0 “it's a big update with new features,” but doesn't say what they are. He also says it will be “a real point upgrade” deserving the 8.0 name. However, there is little rhyme or reason to Apple's iTunes version numbering, and no real correlation between the amount features introduced and the version number increment. iTunes 2.0 added iPod support after ten months of iTunes 1.0, but iTunes 3.0 only added minor features the next year. It was replaced by iTunes 4.0 a year later, which added the Music Store and AAC support. Two years later, iTunes 5 introduced some cosmetic changes and was immediately replaced with iTunes 6.0 only a month later, without any major new features. Another year later, iTunes 7.0 arrived with a new look, video game support, and Coverflow. It has since seen loads of new features, from support for Apple TV to the iPhone to new iPods and new movie rentals, all of which were only numbered as minor updates. We've had iTunes 7.x for two years now, so iTunes 8.0 is not really ballsy prediction at this point. Of course, Apple is just as likely to skip ahead and release iTunes X. And if iTunes X isn't ready, we can might even get iTunes 7.8 and 7.9 over the next couple years. Oh my sides. With the likelihood of entirely new iPod touch or Nano models being quite low (after all, the Zune isn't going to get a refresh until late next year, and Apple isn't facing any tough competition at the moment), Apple's iPod announcement might end up more about a new iTunes than the iPod. Rose doesn't make any iTunes 8.0 feature predictions, instead jumping ahead to suggest that Apple is working to make sure Mac OS X 10.5.6 will provide support for Sony's BluRay, the competition to iTunes that nobody cares about. Hmm. Steve Jobs has so little regard for optical discs that he basically shunned iDVD last year when showing off iLife 08, but now he's going to resurrect BluRay and excite customers by including it on the company's laptops, where any resolution advantage it offers over DVD would be nearly invisible? Oh ho ho my sides. iTunes Unlimited? The rumor mill is talking about subscription music in the next iTunes. Steve Jobs has opposed subscription music since iTunes got started. He worked for years to convince the labels to let go of the dream of billing users to essentially listen to the radio. Subscription music has always revolved around outrageous DRM that requires the (historically Microsoft PlaysForSure) player to sync up and check in every month or lose its music. I've written up lots of reasons why subscription music was an awful idea that wouldn't fly. I doubt Apple will actually float it as rumored (“iTunes Unlimited” for $129 sounds awful). However, enough has changed in the last two years to reconsider how subscription music could be delivered. For starters, the iPhone and iPod touch are now wireless, so they can both stream and verify exploding media DRM. Apple's iTunes, modern iPods, Apple TV, and the iPhone also now already handle exploding DRM for movie rentals, which blew over last year without any complaint, although it doesn't look like iTunes' movie rentals have had a massive impact on the world due to their relatively high price point. Offering movie rentals appeared to be a requisite concession leading up to convincing the movie studios to agree to movie sales in iTunes. Apple could sell access to subscription music directly from the iPhone and iPod touch that worked similar to movie rentals, and the labels might even allow users to freely copy rental tracks between computers linked to the same iTunes account. Such an arrangement hasn't found mainstream popularity elsewhere, but nobody else had been able to sell music prior to iTunes either. While the rumors suggest there could be a discount for MobileMe users, it would be a lot smarter to make it part of MobileMe instead. That would limit subscribers to Apple's loyal base, easing in the system rather than exposing a brand new subscription service to ten million handheld users and 150 million iTunes users and all but promising another meltdown. At least by making it part of MobileMe, Apple could add lots of subscribers and upgrade existing subscribers to a $99 “unlimited music” additional fee. Keep in mind that all this is highly speculative. I doubt “unlimited iTunes” will fly, as the idea was not leaked but rather simply invented. How Apple Could Deliver Workable iTunes Rentals The Online Music and Movie Rental Myth Rise of the iTunes Killers Myth As Long As We're Speculating… If Apple does convert its entire iPod line to Flash players, it would make sense to incorporate a new audio codec setting that maximized the amount of songs you could copy into an 8GB player. For years, Apple's major selling point on the iPod what that it offered massive hard drive storage capacity. Now it's migrating to Flash, which is more expensive but considerably more shock resistant and suitable for a handheld computer device like the iPod touch. Working to cram more music into tighter spaces would allow Apple to make the iPod touch and iPhone more competitive against a hard drive player. AAC is already optimized for low-bitrate playback. Apple also needs to add remote functionality for controlling Apple TV to iTunes, just as you can already do via the free iPhone app. And how about direct streaming of content between iTunes, Apple TV, and the iPhone, such as for movie rentals. Currently, to get a rented movie from an iPhone to Apple TV you have to do two syncs involving a middleman iTunes PC. iTunes also needs to expand on the options for syncing media to the iPod and iPhone. In addition to syncing specific playlists, it should be able to automatically sync over a smart “Party Shuffle” mix of music that fills a specific proportion of the device, such as 50% music, 10% podcasts, and then the specific movies, TV, and audio books the user selects. Then shuffle out the listened to tracks and add new music every time it's synced. Allow users to hide songs from iTunes just as you can hide photos from your iPhoto album to simplify the view without deleting anything. Add Time Machine support so you can go back to see earlier play counts and browse your media library as it appeared in the past. Add integrated support for viewing PDFs and other QuickView document types, so you could use iTunes as a metadata-rich document browser with search and playlist features. Or give Preview an iTunes metadata document database interface. More Music Deals. Add other corporate sponsors to the Starbucks deal, so you can discover their playing music and buy tunes over their WiFi link. And isn't it about time Apple and AT&T got together and hammered out that plan to open iPhones to AT&T's hotspots? I'd debit a 99 cent WiFi access fee from my iTunes account if it were necessary. What's the point of setting up $8 per hour WiFi services for the zero people who use them? And on that tangent, how about rolling out my Ubiquitous WiFi idea for allowing other mobile users to borrow your AirPort's WiFi signal? I'd also like to see Apple get AT&T to allow users to place calls over their WiFi link as a concession for not having a functional 3G network in place yet. I also think AT&T should sell or rent AirPort base stations to its millions of broadband users, with all of them open to WiFi sharing so that iPhone users could place a freaking call and access the web at faster than EDGE speeds between now and whenever AT&T actually gets 3G rolled out. Apple also really needs to deliver some sort of central media server, possibly tacked onto Apple TV. Just add a USB hard drive and have it serve up the contents as a Bonjour-discoverable iTunes library to your local network. This would allows users to dump all the media off their laptop. And then allow WiFi sync to optionally copy fresh media to the iPhone from the central media server library. There's plenty that could be tacked onto iTunes, but the biggest new thing in the iPod announcement actually might be something entirely different than last year's iPods for cheaper and a new rev to iTunes. I'll spill that in the next article. Ten Big Predictions for Apple in 2008 Did you like this article? Let me know. Comment here, in the Forum, or email me with your ideas. Like reading RoughlyDrafted? Share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to my podcast (oh wait, I have to fix that first). It's also cool to submit my articles to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot where more people will see them. Consider making a small donation supporting this site. Thanks!

The Comments Go Here

MacDiner -- All You Can Eat Apple and Macintosh News and Information

Podcast #64: MacBook nano, Apple Laptops Over the Years and Ray Buys an eMate While Podcasting

Will Google's Android Play DOS to Apple's iPhone?

TUAW bloggers post their Apple predictions for 2010

Hot Future Tech Coming to Your Mac, iPhone and iPad

★ The iPad

10 Things that Apple Could Unveil Tomorrow (That's Not a Tablet)

BBC Prints Irresponsible Rubbish on Apple

PCMag offers "best" alternatives to Apple products, redefines "best" in process

Macworld 2010 special iPad event liveblog

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

What's Next from Apple: New iPods Sept 22, iPhone OS 2.1, iTunes 8.0

Software Releases

Site design and software engineering by August Trometer

FoggyNoggin Software -- Cool Mac Apps