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).

Advertisements

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

Book Exclusivity Trend Might Be The New Rise Of Book Publishing, But It Might Be Expensive For Customers To Buy eBooks

English: TCU's Barnes and Noble Bookstore.

Image via Wikipedia

Engadget’s Barnes & Noble to pull Amazon Publishing titles from shelves over exclusivity concerns article suggests Barnes & Noble has turned up the heat as the two go on competing each other for a book market domination.  Of course, Barnes & Noble is worrying that Amazon will eventually kick them out of their own game.  Meanwhile, Amazon continues to do the impossible even though Amazon is relatively new player in the book world when one compares Amazon against Barnes & Noble.  Seniority doesn’t secure a permanent establishment since we have seen how Borders had filed for bankruptcy from Chapter 11 which eventually turned into Chapter 7 (Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borders_Group).  The argument which Barnes & Noble has against Amazon is clear to me, but might not be true since I’m not an expert in the operation of the book business, is that Amazon is too pushy in term of demanding for more exclusivity with various book publishers.  I have to wonder though, would this be a good thing for book publishers?

Why?  If book publishers can negotiate with particular distributors for exclusivity deal, it might in the end raising the value of the book publishers who go for exclusive deals since exclusivity means rarity.  We know most things that are rare might be more valuable, right?  What if we take a look at a much bigger picture, how would the book world fare if only big players such as Amazon would be able to acquire exclusivities from popular book publishing companies?  I’m not sure but I think with more exclusive deals go around the book world, book business might change even more than it’s already has.

The book world already has changed so much in term of how ebook technology has totally changed how consumers read their books, pushing more consumers only to buy ebooks and abandon their traditional books (i.e., books made of papers).  Exclusive deals within the book world might push the change further by having small book stores to go out of business.  These small book stores usually are local book stores.  Of course, the trend seems to head in this particular route anyway since ebook technology has made it so easy for consumers to buy books online.  It means people don’t really have to go to a local book store to buy their books.

To knit the fragments of the big picture together, in my opinion, the trend of pushing for exclusivity isn’t meant the death of book publishing, but it might be the new rise of book publishing.  If Barnes & Noble wants to beat Amazon in book publishing exclusivity trend, I think Barnes & Noble has to figure out how to offer the book publishing companies better deals than what Amazon is currently offering these book publishing companies.

Will the consumers be beneficial to book exclusivity trend?  Probably not in the long run, because I think once a giant book distributor has began to dominate the book exclusivity trend, such entity tends to raise the prices of the books since the competitors aren’t going to have such titles for sale anyway.  The outlook might not be good for book customers if the Amazon defeats Barnes & Noble in book exclusivity trend, because one less competitor will give one less reason for Amazon to sell ebooks at the cheapest prices as possible.  Of course, my speculation on this might not pan out the way I speculate at all, because I’m not an expert in book business anyway.  I guess you just have to take my words with a grain of salt!