Tablets And Smartphones Might Not Be So Hot If These Devices Came Out A Decade Or Two Earlier

If tablets had come out a decade or two earlier, I doubt people would care!  How come?  I imagined at that time, tablets would be near useless since modern apps, processors, and plethora of computing options that are now being able to be packaged nicely into a tiny tablet were the stuffs of imagination then.  After all, personal computers back then were still so new and incapable if we are comparing the then personal computers against the current ones.  In a way, I think I’d read somewhere that had mentioned that Steve Jobs might get the tablet idea from Star Trek, whether this piece of information is wrong or not, even if Steve Jobs had come out the tablets then, nobody would care.  With perfect hindsight, now we know why, right?  In fact, I think I’d read that Microsoft had come out with certain tablet form factors way earlier than the first wave of popular iPads, but even though at the time laptops and PCs were the norm Microsoft’s tablet form factors failed to pick up steam.  In fact, nobody had cared about Microsoft’s tablet form factors then!

With hindsight, we now clearly know why tablets are only matter now, but not back then.  Nonetheless, even now, without the hindsight, I think tablets won’t be all that important and cool as to how the current media would like us all to think.  In fact, tablets are something that people want to use in very unique circumstances.  Let say, smartphones are definitely the better device form factors to carry around since the biggest smartphones might still be a lot smaller and lighter than the smallest and lightest tablets.  You get the picture!  Smartphones obviously are more convenient and easier to pocket, therefore people feel more personal about their smartphones.  The usage of tablets are for the people who have the patience to carry more than one electronic devices when they are out and about.  I don’t think there are more folks in that camp than the camp of let carry only all in one small but powerful electronic device (such as smartphone).  I can see how awesome a tablet might be as a remote control for a big screen TV.  I can see how awesome a tablet might be for reading electronic books and magazines.  Nonetheless, I still think people prefer to do all of that on smartphones if they’re out and about.

With the current electronic trend, people are buying more tablets than personal computers.  With the current electronic trend, people are definitely buying more smartphones than personal computers.  Does this electronic trend tell us that personal computers are about to die a slow death?  I doubt so!  Nonetheless, I can see why people are buying more smaller electronic device form factors.  I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to see the benefits of carrying something so small and yet so useful as a smartphone or a tablet.  For an example, to be able to store thousands of electronic books in a smartphone is definitely a big plus over to how things were done traditionally when it comes down to books.  Basically, convenient, useful, and powerful are the three terms that immediately come to mind whenever I think about small electronic device form factors.  Smartphones and tablets allow us to feel the power of being productive while on the go.  In a sense, the productiveness that radiates from today small electronic device form factors is something that the older generations of homo sapiens had never ever seen before.  These small electronic device form factors that set the trend which can be comparable to the older trendsetters such as the bring about of automobiles, planes, and so on.

So, people are buying up more small electronic device form factors, does it mean that the personal computer trend is on a life support system?  No, because people still need to be content creators first before there will be content consumers.  Without personal computers that are powerful enough to churn out creative works, I doubt there will be much of contents to be consumed on small electronic device form factors.  So, I think personal computers are safe for now, because there aren’t any tablet or smartphone out there that can upheave this personal computer reign just yet.

Sure, personal computers are more powerful and come with more choices than ever before, but why people are not thinking or talking about them as much as they used to?  Perhaps, personal computers are so normal that we can only see them when we’re actually using them?  They’re not exotic as tablets and smartphones.  Nonetheless, asking most gamers out there which device or machine they prefer to play latest games on, I would bet personal computer with a humongous display would be the preferable choice, always!

In short, personal computer technology has came a long way and has matured to a point of it’s no longer needing to be talked about constantly in order for it to be attractive.  Plus, as personal computer technology improved, so the lifespan of personal computer machines.  With so many households are already teaming with personal computers and most mid-end to high-end personal computers are more expensive than smartphones and tablets, therefore I don’t think people want to think or buy personal computers in the same light as how they might want to do so for smartphones and tablets.

In conclusion, I think the three terms I describe earlier — convient, useful, and powerful — are some of the most important factors that dictate why people have been buying so much smartphones and tablets.  Nonetheless, if these smartphones and tablets had come out a decade or two earlier, I highly doubt that people would care!  In a sense, people are now finding these small electronic device form factors quite useful thanks to the advance of personal computer technology first.  In a sense, personal computer technology isn’t a trendsetter anymore showing that personal computer technology had been so matured.  Nonetheless, don’t think for a second that personal computer technology is dying, because it’s still the trendsetter when it comes to content producing.  So, until the small electronic device form factors get more capable, actually be as capable or better than personal computers, I don’t see how personal computers will be outdated.  With that being said, technology usually moves at the speed of light, therefore I’m not sure how relevant my saying, in regarding to personal computer popularity, will be in a near future (i.e., five years down the road).

About these ads

Is It Truly Necessary To Actually Own Digital Books?

English: A Picture of a eBook Español: Foto de...

English: A Picture of a eBook Español: Foto de eBook Беларуская: Фотаздымак электроннай кнігі Русский: Фотография электронной книги (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When a piece of software is being updated often enough so newer features can enhance a user experience, people tend to care little about the terms of the agreement which came with the software .  Perhaps, the terms of the agreement for different software are varied in terms, and some might allow the buyers of the software to actually own the software.  Other software might come under the terms of licensing only, and by these terms the buyers of the software might not even know that the software they had purchased are not truly theirs.  This is understandable, because most people would gloss over the terms of agreement when there is a big ooO button which says click here to agree with the terms before you can install the software.  Have you ever purchased a software that would present you the terms of agreement first before you pay up?  To the best of my knowledge, I don’t remember any software purchase I had made over the Internet (i.e., digital download) would ever present me the terms of agreement before I already had paid up with a credit card.  Has common sense told us that we should have only agreed to something first before we purchase anything?

The digital age is rather convenient but senseless as hell.  Why is that?  Not only software front is unclear about who own what when a transaction has made, other digital types of purchase are being challenged in the same sense.  NBC News came out with a piece with the title “You don’t own your Kindle books, Amazon reminds customer,” and as I read this an anger simmers inside.  I’m not angry at a particular entity or a person, but I’m angry at how we, the consumers, have allowing the murky water to darken otherwise a pretty clean understanding of what a purchase really means.  When people are forking over money for any good, whether it would be digital or not, people should have a guaranty of some sort that their purchase would not end up be meaningless when the meaningless is not of their own fault.  This means, as long a buyer of something isn’t breaking something on purpose after he or she had purchased the product (digital or not), this very person should not bear the brunt of a complicit understanding that the access to a purchase isn’t in the control of the eventual owner (i.e., a buyer of a product ).

I love books, and sometimes I have to admit I purchase books for the thinking that I will read them later on.  Sometimes I do read some of the books that I’ve purchased on a moment of temptation, and sometimes I forget about them completely.  Then there is that time that I pat myself for purchasing a book early on, because such a time inspires me to go on and read and not have to go on and ponder on the prospect of owning such a book.  As a book lover and a reader with a small brain that can hardly contain much after a reading, I think highly of a book purchase.  I want to know that whatever book that I want to purchase will be able to allow me to have access to it for its entire lifespan.  With a physical book, physical damages can definitely shorten a lifespan of a book.  With a digital book, a file corruption can just be as lethal.

Since digital books have become so prevalent today, it’s in our interest to ponder on the meaning of purchasing a digital book.  Is it truly necessary to actually own digital books?  The prevalence of digital books have upended the possibility of actually owning a book as the case in which NBC News had reported, and knowing this is truly saddening me.  It’s saddening me not because I might not be able to revisit the same book decades later, but it’s more of a case of knowing a digital book outlet can turn off one’s account to prevent one from having any access to a digital library that supposedly being owned by…  Perhaps, owning a digital library is not actually owning?  When one cannot truly own a copy of a digital book, is it worse than a book burning?  Of course not, because a book burning equates to eradicate all copies of a book from the existence, thus some important knowledge might as well be lost.  With having said blocking one from his or her digital book library isn’t as bad as book burning, this is still pretty serious.  This begs us to ask, isn’t digital-information age is all about spreading more knowledge and not about having barriers between a woman and her books or a man and his books?

It’s understandable that some degree of greed is tolerable.  A good example of this would be a software which gets update often with newer features… and the buyers don’t have to actually outright owned this software as they’re more of renting it even though they are actually buying it.  I think it’s intolerable for digital books to be treated just the same as software.  Even a technical, digital book that gets update often with newer knowledge, the buyers still have to purchase the updated version of the book with the same or even at a higher price.  There is no guaranty that any software that is being updated will have a cheaper upgrade price, but it’s mostly the case that we see newer versions of many software get cheaper upgrade prices.  The same thing cannot be said for most books, digital or not.  With this understanding, I think vastly different digital products should be purchased and owned in different manners.  Personally, I think the acts of buying and owning digital books should equate to  the acts of buying and actually owning digital books.  How come I didn’t compare the acts of buying and owning of digital books to the acts of buying and owning of physical books?  It’s because I think the acts of purchasing and owning digital books should speak for themselves.  For an example, nobody should have to ever again fear that one cannot have access to her or his digital book library just because he or she might anger a digital book outlet overlord for whatever reasons.  Sure, a person can just go to another digital book outlet to purchase the same books to build a digital library again, but this means this person has to spend more money for the same things.  One has to wonder though, what if several specific books would only be carried by the digital book outlet which had banned a person’s access to his or her digital book library?

In conclusion, it might be wrong of me to think that it’s almost OK for one to complicit in renting a software even though one actually is purchasing a software.  It also might be wrong of me to almost compare the case of being banned from a (paid for and owned by) digital content library as to a case of book burning.  Nonetheless, I think we have to admit that having a common sense on owning digital contents is really really important.  Furthermore, to narrow down our focus, I think it’s super important for us to have a common sense on owning digital books.  After all, digital books have become so prevalent!  Digital books are so prevalent in a sense that people tend to reach out for them more than otherwise.  Whether people want to acquire knowledge conveniently or not through the mean of digital books, digital books are so ready to be purchased on a moment of temptation.  Perhaps, digital books will become one of the few preferable ways for people to acquire knowledge fast and cheaply.  As digital books may become even more prevalent than how they already are, it’s in our interest to know and question our digital book consuming behaviors (i.e., buying and owning digital contents).  Thus, I wonder is it truly necessary to actually own digital books?

Source:  http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/you-dont-own-your-kindle-books-amazon-reminds-customer-1C6626211

Awesome Video Capture Of Thieves Who Broke Into Apple Store In Temecula

Apple Inc.

Apple Inc. (Photo credit: marcopako )

Don’t know if the BMW was stolen or not!  If it was not, then the thieves were rather not too bright.  After all, they couldn’t drive their BMW away as the BMW was blocked in by the security gate that they wrecked.  Obviously, the cops would figure out who owned the BMW with the license plate right?  Of course, if they were smart, they would also remove their license plate too, but I doubted so as they plunged into the Apple store with their beautiful BMW for some certain outdated iPhones.

How come I assume they stole iPhones?  Cnet’s “Thief drives straight through Apple Store window” article reported that one of the thieves stole small items in Apple store, and I assumed the smallest items of them all gadgets in Apple store had to be iPhones (we clearly see one of the thieves left iPads alone on the tables as iPads were bulkier and bigger than iPhones in the video below).  They weren’t too bright, because Apple had yet to release iPhone 5 (the latest iPhone model as we speak) to be sold in Apple store on the day the they stole them iPhones.  This means, the thieves stole items from Apple store that might not be sold for the best value in term of getting the bang for the buck out of a brazen heist.

As reported, one of the alleged thieves is now apprehended by the police.  In the end, one of the thieves didn’t get the bang for the buck and yet the thief could be in jail for however long a judge would sentence the thief to be behind bars.  Check out the video right after the break which captured the thieves in action at Apple store.

According to the information of the video above, the thieves hit the Apple store at Temecula.  Sad and embarrassed, I don’t know where is on earth Temecula.  Nonetheless, it seems that the information of the video above also stated that one of the thieves is a man of Los Angeles, therefore I think the Apple store that the thieves had brazenly broke into is actually located in Temecula of California.  Hint, Los Angeles is in California too.  Nonetheless, I could be wrong, because I do know one thing, even cities, towns, or counties of whatever states in the United States can have the same name.  One example would be, Greenville of Alabama and Greenville of Arkansas, because Greenville is the city name for both cities of both states.

Source:  http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57513669-71/thief-drives-straight-through-apple-store-window/?part=rss&subj=news&tag=title

Winner Takes All In Term Of Media Will Have To Fully Support And Simplify The Internet In The Living Room

Living room 01335

Living room 01335 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

How ironic this is!  I’d moved away from watching TV to watching the Internet through computers and laptops, but now I’m moving back to watching TV more than ever.  OK, before the folks who support the traditional media such as Cable companies and the folks who support the new media such as the Internet get the wrong idea of what I had said, let me clear this up right now.  Instead of watching more TV in a normal and traditional sense, I hug the TV only when Apple TV and iPad 2 are humming in symphony.  Thanks to Airplay, iPad 2 has became a remote control for the Internet, and the TV has once again became my gateway to entertainment, politics, learning, gasping moments, laughing moments, and host of other senses.  As more people are changing their behaviors in term of accessing media as I have been doing so in the living room, we are going to see the landscape of the media will evermore be drastically changed for some time to come.

Questions arise when we question what will happen to the traditional media if people are demanding for the Internet to be streamed to their devices evermore, especially to devices that anchor in the living room.  Such questions are:

  • Will traditional Cable companies survive if more people like me don’t use the traditional media more and more?
  • What changes the traditional Cable companies have to adopt in order for them to find hope for their future?
  • How come smart TV isn’t yet a big of a deal even though people are demanding for the Internet to be streamed evermore?
  • Can tablets such as iPad be a more favorable form of remote control than the standard stick-like TV remote control for the TV of the future?
  • Will the Internet has to be faster, cheaper, and bigger (in term of bandwidth) in order for people to be able to enjoy the Internet as their TV media?
  • Will advertisement programs be weaved in a way that do not obstruct the enjoyment of having the Internet as the TV media in the near future?
  • Will the tablet form factor be more important in term of TV computing than general computing for the consumers in the near future?
  • If the tablets will be evermore important to the living room, what will become of the suggestion that the tablet form factor will kill off the desktop form factor?
  • Will the average people get to be evermore informed if the Internet will constantly be watched in the living room in the near future?
  • Will the media industry come up with simpler Internet TV technology so average folks can connect to the Internet through TV, 24/7, easier?
  • Should the sectors within the media industry of today that embrace the Internet in the living room think about promoting less on wonder TV techs and just promote the simplification of any technology which deals with having the Internet in the living room?
  • Will culture in whatever country change dramatically as the Internet overtakes the living room?
  • Will live Internet (such as live stream of whatever) be the revolution of live TV?
  • How will the people of the future define their particular trustworthy sources when the Internet overtakes the living room in the near future?

Of course, if I think harder, I might come up with more questions in regarding to what if and how the Internet will change people/consumers’ lives and behaviors when the Internet overtakes the TV in the living room of most Americans and elsewhere.  Nonetheless, no matter what will become of the TV of the future, right now I feel that the iPad that supports Airplay feature is just an amazing technology which has me crazily hug my TV again.  Before, I prefer to watch the Internet whatever from a small, computer monitor or a tiny, laptop monitor.  Now, thanks to Apple TV device, I prefer the big screen TV as the Internet is streaming to it.  YouTube has been so far my go to place for most stream videos in my living room.  With extremely satisfactory personal experience from watching the Internet in my living room, I predict (rolling my eyes when I use the word predict) that whoever or whatever can make the Internet easier in the living room will be the victor of the next media in term of entertainment and technology industries.  What do you think?

Apple TV & Airplay In Action

Check out Apple TV and Airplay in action.  The video right after the break makes me want to actually get a real camcorder or something similar.  The video was shot with iPhone 4 and it was somewhat shaky.  Unprofessional, I hear ya!  Yep, no good light setup too.  I guess, the Internet is a lot more tolerant for unprofessional videos like mine.  Thanks to that!  Anyhow, enjoy the video right after the break!!!

Airplay Made Apple TV

Apple TV

Apple TV

In case you don’t know, the latest Apple TV’s Airplay feature doesn’t work with some Apple devices.  Correct me if I’m completely wrong, I think MacBook Pro and Air laptops that debuted before 2011 cannot use Airplay.  Can’t talk about Mac Pro, because I don’t have one.  Furthermore, Airplay isn’t compatible with iPad 1 and iPhone versions that came out before iPhone 4.  Specifically, I had said Airplay would not be compatible with MacBook Pro and Air that debuted before 2011, but I’ve found out that Airplay can be used with iTunes regardless how Airplay isn’t compatible with Mac laptops that came out before 2011.  There is a catch though, Airplay can only work with iTunes on older Mac laptops if you’re running the latest Mac OS X Mountain Lion operating system.

I had to scratch my head when I played around with Apple TV, because I couldn’t fathom Apple’s refusal in making Airplay to work with older MacBook whatever (i.e., the ones that came out before 2011).  With older MacBook whatever, it would be that you lied if you told me about how you could find the Airplay icon on the menu bar.  Anyhow, my curiosity caught fire when I had iTunes on mid 2010 MacBook Pro used Airplay to stream videos onto Apple TV.  So, I was rather frustrated to see that Apple allowed iTunes on older hardware to use Airplay as long the older hardware could run the latest Mac OS X Mountain Lion operating system and yet refused to let anything else to work with Airplay.

Luckily, I got iPad 2, and it worked just fine with Airplay.  So, if you have iPad 1, you would be out of luck!  As I explored Apple TV a little more, I found out that iPhone 4 would work with Airplay just fine too.  I concluded that Airplay made Apple TV.  Sure, Apple TV did have other features such as Home Sharing, but these other features could be found on any Mac.  Home Sharing required iTunes to stream from Mac to Apple TV, and so Apple users would be limited to iTunes content only.  Airplay changed the game as users could just either mirroring or stream 1080p resolution videos from Apple devices to Apple TV, consequently pretty pictures would fly on whatever big screen TV.

To tell the truth, if your big screen TV can be just as smart as a computer, you probably have no need for Apple TV unless you’ve really wanted to stream some videos from iPad 2 or so.  For me personally, Apple TV has saved my dumb TV as it got no brainiac features as other smart big screen TVs.  Nonetheless, I don’t care how smart my TV can get if I can’t use Airplay, therefore I have to say Airplay is the only feature I like most on Apple TV.  Oh, I forgot to tell you that you can definitely play video games on a dumb big screen TV through Apple TV’s Airplay.  Cool?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 959 other followers