musings from here to there
Mobile
Tablets are Dead
2Tablets. Who knew that they would do so well (relatively speaking) after failing (at least in the mainstream marketplace) miserably so many times before? Both Apple and Samsung will have shipped several million units by the end of 2010, and many people across the world have a tablet device prominently on their Christmas gift list. Certainly many analysts are ready to declare the market for tablets a roaring success. Because the devices have been so popular with consumers, many retail outlets are featuring them to (and pushing them at) consumers. Additionally, the market will get even more crowded as a new iPad, the Blackberry Playbook, and several Android tablets come to market in early 2011.
But apart from all of the hype, news articles written, and plans to produce various new tablet models in the near term, I honestly believe the market is doomed to eventual failure as just another passing fad. A fad off of which manufacturers may make multiple billions of dollars, of course.
That’s a pretty bold statement, I know–and certainly not one which I make lightly. But my argument is this: while tablets may be fun to use and convenient at certain times, they don’t really evolve the personal computer much, if at all. It’s more like a step backward. (I feel like I’ve said that before…)
Let’s look briefly at the evolution of the mobile phone. We started with huge bricks whose single purpose and capability was making phone calls. Useful, no? Well, as time went on, we saw these phones get smaller while adding new and better features like text messaging and limited web surfing. At the same time, we had the PDA market offering apps, calendars, contacts storage, to-do lists, and again–limited web browsing. But then we realized that a PDA combined with a cell phone would be sweet! And thus, the smartphone was born, and now we’re activating hundreds of thousands of them every single day. It was a natural marriage.
On the PC side, we’ve gone from huge room-sized computers to desktop PCs to ultraportable laptops, and with each iteration things continue getting better. In my opinion, the so-called netbook (or perhaps ultraportable laptops) are probably one of the best mobile computing devices out there. It’s still technically a laptop, but made to be as thin and light as affordably possible. Netbooks are great productivity machines–you can run a full office suite, gain access to an unlimited number of web applications, and even (if you dare) probably run software like Adobe Suite, Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc (not all at once, of course). The full-size keyboard makes most of those activities rather effortless. That’s so much better than the virtual tap-a-type keyboards found on tablet machines. Those things are pretty useless when it comes to actually getting stuff done. Netbooks don’t stop at productivity though. They also make great multimedia machines and low-end gaming devices!
My point is this: nearly anything a tablet can do, a netbook can do better. Now, there’s certainly something to be said for having a touch screen. I have to admit that some applications are inherently more satisfying when you can physically manipulate a device by touching it. That’s certainly cool and useful, but most of the time a keyboard and pointer are insanely more useful than a finger pushing stuff around on a screen. I think tablets and netbooks should converge into mostly netbook with a little tablet thrown in (i.e. a touchscreen that can be collapsed overtop the keyboard. Dell, Lenovo, and some other PC manufacturers are doing this already, and from what I’ve seen, it works quite well. That’s exactly where mobile computing should be headed. Not with limited, touch-centric OSes like iOS, Android, and Blackberry OS–but with full OSes like Windows and Unix with some touch-based enhancements integrated in. It’s been done before, but perhaps imperfectly. It’ll improve with time.
Basically, I don’t care how much money corps think they can make with tablets. I’d much rather they innovate and create truly useful experiences rather than spend time and money on limited use toys like the iPad and Galaxy Tab.
Okay, rant over. Feel free to drop your own two-cents in the comments below…
The Future of Openness: Verizon 4G
0On November 15th, Verizon Wireless will launch the United States’ first nationwide 4G network. Not only is this new network faster than anything else out there, it’ll be much more robust than ever before! Without going into a ton of boring details (of which there are plenty), the network benefits largely from two things: 1) much newer and more advanced wireless technology on each cell tower, and 2) a range of spectrum in the 700mhz band that Verizon bought several years ago. There are several benefits from moving into the 700mhz space, but essentially lower band radio waves cover longer distances, consume less power, propagate in more directions, and provide better penetration of solid objects like buildings and people. That’s right–more bang for your buck!
But what does that have to do with “openness”?
When the federal government placed the 700mhz band on the auction block, they were approached by Google, who proposed that one very specific stipulation be attached to the spectrum, no matter who won the final bid. In a nutshell, this requirement stated that anyone who purchased a part of the 700mhz band would allow any device, for any purpose, from any manufacturer to connect to and utilize the network. In return, Google vowed that they would guarantee something like $4 billion in payment to the FCC if no other entity offered at least that much cash for the spectrum.
Initially, telcos didn’t like this idea at all, since (as we all know so very well) they prefer to maintain strict control over their networks. In fact, it’s my understanding that even Verizon was very much against all of this at the beginning; however, much has changed since then.
Fast forward to today and recognize that Verizon has both won the bid for the spectrum and also created the Verizon Wireless Open Development Initiative. This program is basically a set of guidelines that manufacturers and hardware designers must follow when creating devices targeted to Verizon’s 4G network. As long as those guidelines are followed, a device certification will be awarded and the device will operate on the Verizon network when paired with an active SIM card. All-in-all, it’s pretty cool stuff!
So what does that mean for end users?
Well, it’s definitely a great thing! It means that any company can create a Verizon-compatible device and offer it on the Verizon 4G network without actually partnering with Verizon. For example, Google could offer a new phone (say, the Nexus Two?) on LTE without a Verizon partnership. All they need is approval via the Open Development Initiative! In fact, with the proper infrastructure in place, a company could offer a full VoIP service over the Verizon 4G network and the only thing the consumer would have to pay to Verizon would be the data access charge. (Google Voice anyone?)
Whether or not all of this pans out from the economics side of things still remains to be seen. Generally, mobile devices are successful only when subsidized through a mobile carrier, but with the right following and business model, we could see smartphones and other mobile devices offered for a low price with no device-bound contract! Obviously any plan data or otherwise would still go through Verizon and you’d have to pay them their due, but I see a lot of creative possibilities beyond that.
In the end, I believe we’ll see an eventual explosion of smart devices both mobile and otherwise that are compatible with the Verizon 4G network (and any compatible LTE network in general). In fact, November 15th could be the beginning of the end of “mobile” as we know it! Think about the traditional wired broadband model applied to wireless. The main problem may lie in how Verizon prices and packages its data plans. If AT&T’s recent change is any indication, we’re all in trouble. Fingers crossed everyone!
As for the rest of it, color me excited!
Droid Incredible: It’s–Incredible!
0It’s Incredible and official, available only from Verizon Wireless: the HTC-built Droid Incredible. The replacement for the “aging” Droid Eris, the Incredible combines everything in the Nexus One with HTC Sense, an 8 megapixel camera, more RAM and ROM, and an optical joystick. There are NO moving parts in this device, which should add an additional level of robustness. I’m looking forward to getting my hands on his rather amazing smartphone. I just got my Droid Eris 2 months ago, but the high-res screen makes this worth the upgrade. I’d say this will easily beat anything Apple has planned for their summer iPhone refresh. Below are pics from the official Verizon site and full specs. Pretty sweet looking from any angle!
- Android 2.1 with HTC Sense experience
- 1GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon™ processor for maximum responsiveness
- Friend Stream for unified Flickr, Facebook and Twitter updates
- “Leap” view for quick access to all seven home screen panels
- 8 megapixel camera with dual LED flash for crisp, detailed images
- Razor-sharp 3.7 inch WVGA (480×800) AMOLED capacitive touch display
- Optical joystick for smooth navigation
- Dedicated, touch-sensitive Home, Menu, Back and Search keys
- Proximity sensor, light sensor and digital compass
- Integrated GPS
- Wi-Fi (802.11 b/g)
- 3.5 mm headset jack
It’s available on the nations largest 3G network on April 29th, but you can pre-order on April 19th.
Apple + iPad = Zero Steps Forward, Multiple Steps Back
2The world of computing has come a very long way since the ’90s. We’ve gone from extraordinarily closed and proprietary systems (where you had to buy RAM from your machine’s manufacturer in order to ensure compatibility) to largely open and interoperable systems where standards enable communication between processes and systems, flexible hardware specifications, and software packages that run on a variety of systems and configurations.
This is not the vision of Apple Computer.
In an unfortunate display of indelible defiance, they launched the iPad on April 3rd–a device that supports very, very few standards (or supports them in very proprietary ways). It’s connectors are proprietary. It’s operating system is proprietary. It is not expandable. It’s software is barely upgradeable. Peripherals must be Apple-approved. You cannot modify any portion of the core functionality. You cannot run multiple applications simultaneously. It’s a world of “can’t”!
No matter how cool you think this device is, or how innovative you feel that it is, or how awesome it’s going to be for your grandma–you should absolutely not buy this device. Why? Because it is in no way enhancing the computing industry. It isn’t bringing about good change. It is not encouraging the next-generation of evolutionary computing. It does not support a viable future.
Why?
Because it assumes that people are inherently stupid and should be limited by walled gardens and a host of iApps that must be developed on an Apple-constructed operating system and development environment. This is a terrible calamity. Instead, we should be encouraging users of all paths to explore the world of computing around them. We should be giving them the chance to try out new things, playing with the gears and inner workings. We need to help users improve themselves in a manner that will make them more computer-savvy. That’s the vision and future of computing in a very global sense. This is not the vision of Steve Jobs. His ultimate goals are control, power, and money.
I’m not saying that making money is wrong or a poor motivation. I have no problem with people that make money hand over fist on their products. I openly support companies like Google, RedHat, IBM, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Twitter that openly support the notion that their products should be adapted and expanded by avid fans and other users. Software for Windows isn’t required to go through a nasty approval process. Google enables users to quickly extract information, build on some of its services, and supports open-source communities and products. IBM is a huge force behind awesome open projects like Eclipse. Mozilla builds a browser that can be modified by anyone. Twitter allows 3rd party developers to tap into their API and build completely new web applications built around their infrastructure–but that are useful outside of the service.
Apple, with the iPad (and most of its other devices), does none of this.
In fact, the only really useful open technology Apple has produced in the past decade is the WebKit web browser engine. And that wasn’t even their idea–it’s the offspring of Konqueror’s KHTML engine.
Ridiculous.
Many of my admittedly critical comments of Apple are aimed in their direction simply because they pig-headedly use the “cool factor” to further their own proprietary means. It honestly scares me that this company has gained such a huge following even though they openly defy the rest of the computing world. They embrace exclusivity. They act as an island caring about no one but themselves. How selfish.
Apple makes some cool products–not even I can dispute that. But making cool products at the expense of evolutionary computing is indubitably short-sighted and could ultimately set the entire industry back by 5 to 10 years as other companies find themselves responding in order to save their marketshares. That’s like renting an apartment for the rest of your life because it’s cheaper this month alone; however, you end up spending far more on rent over your lifespan than you would buying a rather expensive house. The problem within Apple Computing and their almost forced competition response lies in that products on both sides of the fence are rarely truly innovative beyond their very limited scope. It becomes a question of picking the lesser of two evils (and the lesser is never Apple).
The iPhone was a pretty innovative product, but as it stands now is doomed to eventual failure because open-infrastructure systems like Android will ultimately crush it under foot. Oh, sure–the fanbois will always choose the iPhone over anything else because they always choose Apple over everything else. But in the end, there aren’t enough of those people to save the device (or the company).
Many people have compared the negative predictions regarding the iPad to those aimed at the iPod back in 2001. What those individuals fail to take into account is that the iPod is just a media player whereas the iPad attempts to position itself as a true computing device. It may have topped the original iPhone by selling 300k units in the first weekend of release. It may very well sell several million units before the end of the year. But, eventually people will realize that the device they hold in their hands is little more than a glorified calculator capable of surfing the web and reading email.
Naysayers of this article, say what you will, but the iPad is doomed to failure in the long run. Just watch…