Don't mean to make this blog seem like another anti-Apple rant site, but today I noticed something interesting. In my tech lab, it's like every single one of my teachers is incredibly pro-Apple. I swear, my ITGS teacher was practically a salesman for Apple. Does Apple pay people to try to convert us young 'uns into Apple-peons?
Of course, the idea behind that is understandable. If you can get the young generation to think that your product is superior to Windows, then they'll be sticking to Apple for the rest of their life. But isn't that what Justin Long is supposed to do? Not my teachers.
Anyways, Mac Mini! Free shipping! Only $499, and it comes with a free iPod Touch! JOIN US. WE ARE ONE. WE ARE APPLE.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Thursday, October 1, 2009
The Problem With Tablets
On Giz, Engadget, and countless other tech sites, I've been seeing more and more updates on the rumors of an Apple Tablet. And as they report on this, many people are wondering, "Why doesn't Apple just make a tablet already?" Logically, it would make sense. Apple is trying to cater to the media niche with their dumbed-down, aesthetic, clean, easy to use OS with all their iSuite (Final Cut Pro, Garageband, etc.). Nearly every professional graphics artist will swear by Macs over anything else. And said graphics artists love using pen tablets. Adding in the latest craze with touch screens (especially because of Apple's iPhone/iTouch), and it's almost insane that Apple hasn't already jumped into the tablet computer market.
But in my opinion, what Apple is doing right now is waiting and developing more. And frankly, that's a good thing. I don't think the tablet ideal has yet reached its fruition, and ostensibly, neither does Apple. There is a problem right now with tablet laptops. It's apparent with nearly every tablet laptop that's out in the market currently.
The really weak point in tablet computers is the keyboard problem. When Apple made the iPhone sans keyboard, a lot of people objected (and rightly so; the software keyboard is horrible). But if Apple had made the iPhone with a physical keyboard, a lot of people would still object. The problem lies in the fact that with a touchscreen, the computer has completely separated the pointer input and the keyboard input. With a touchscreen, the physical keyboard is suddenly made useless. It could be argued that Apple removed the keyboard for aesthetic purposes, but that's the issue.
On the other hand, the problem with software keyboards lies in the fact that they're completely gimmicked, uncomfortable, and error-prone. Especially with a single large screen. If the keyboard is placed on the screen, then how is the user going to type? His wrists will be parallel to what he's looking at. Imagine hunching over your lap, wrists bent at a 90ยบ while you're struggling to look behind your hands which cover up the screen. That's not exactly the most user-friendly experience ever.
The other problem is that, frankly, the modern OS is not designed for a touchscreen. Even if Apple creates some sort of hybridized version of OS X and iPhone OS, the iPhone OS brings too many shortcomings coupled with the touchscreen. A modern OS, like Windows or Mac OS X, gives both pointer input and keyboard input, and the two are strung together for the user without having to switch between inputs much. (Incidentally, that's why I prefer touchpads to computer mice) Bring in a touchscreen to replace the mouse, and suddenly, the user needs to move from screen to keyboard (if physical); or worse, he needs to switch between pointer input and typing on the screen (if software). The iPhone OS brought us closer to a 'decently capable' touch interface with tons of icons, as-little-as-possible keyboard usage, and multi-touch functions and gestures that helped to remove the need for more buttons; however, it's definitely not where touchscreen OSes need to be in order to become the most user friendly interfaces as they possibly can.
In my opinion, the only way tablets will ever replace the normal laptop computer would be if the keyboard became obsolete. But right now, there's no way to efficiently type without using the keyboard. Speech recognition will never become any more useful than it currently is, even with major overhauls and improvements.
I'm sure Apple's hard at work figuring out how to mitigate these issues, but until they do, I don't expect them to release a tablet product.
But in my opinion, what Apple is doing right now is waiting and developing more. And frankly, that's a good thing. I don't think the tablet ideal has yet reached its fruition, and ostensibly, neither does Apple. There is a problem right now with tablet laptops. It's apparent with nearly every tablet laptop that's out in the market currently.
The really weak point in tablet computers is the keyboard problem. When Apple made the iPhone sans keyboard, a lot of people objected (and rightly so; the software keyboard is horrible). But if Apple had made the iPhone with a physical keyboard, a lot of people would still object. The problem lies in the fact that with a touchscreen, the computer has completely separated the pointer input and the keyboard input. With a touchscreen, the physical keyboard is suddenly made useless. It could be argued that Apple removed the keyboard for aesthetic purposes, but that's the issue.
On the other hand, the problem with software keyboards lies in the fact that they're completely gimmicked, uncomfortable, and error-prone. Especially with a single large screen. If the keyboard is placed on the screen, then how is the user going to type? His wrists will be parallel to what he's looking at. Imagine hunching over your lap, wrists bent at a 90ยบ while you're struggling to look behind your hands which cover up the screen. That's not exactly the most user-friendly experience ever.
The other problem is that, frankly, the modern OS is not designed for a touchscreen. Even if Apple creates some sort of hybridized version of OS X and iPhone OS, the iPhone OS brings too many shortcomings coupled with the touchscreen. A modern OS, like Windows or Mac OS X, gives both pointer input and keyboard input, and the two are strung together for the user without having to switch between inputs much. (Incidentally, that's why I prefer touchpads to computer mice) Bring in a touchscreen to replace the mouse, and suddenly, the user needs to move from screen to keyboard (if physical); or worse, he needs to switch between pointer input and typing on the screen (if software). The iPhone OS brought us closer to a 'decently capable' touch interface with tons of icons, as-little-as-possible keyboard usage, and multi-touch functions and gestures that helped to remove the need for more buttons; however, it's definitely not where touchscreen OSes need to be in order to become the most user friendly interfaces as they possibly can.
In my opinion, the only way tablets will ever replace the normal laptop computer would be if the keyboard became obsolete. But right now, there's no way to efficiently type without using the keyboard. Speech recognition will never become any more useful than it currently is, even with major overhauls and improvements.
I'm sure Apple's hard at work figuring out how to mitigate these issues, but until they do, I don't expect them to release a tablet product.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
That 'Cloud Computing' Thing
Lately, I've been hearing the phrase 'cloud computing' pop up more and more often, with many companies practically capitalizing on the term's almost viral success. The Palm Pre boasts a 'WebOS'. Google plans to release a 'cloud OS'. OnLive streams games from the 'cloud' to your computer. With so much hype surrounding the phrase, one might think there's a new religion forming around it.
I am, of course, also interested in this. Cloud computing is an interesting, efficient, and powerful concept. In a nutshell, it means having a server hold storage, run programs, et cetera, said server being accessible from a portable, less powerful computer. Who doesn't like the idea of having massive amounts of storage for media and reliable programs from a cheap, portable computer (such as a netbook, or even an Internet-powered phone). I just don't like how it's being implemented currently.
There are benefits of cloud services. Because there is a company maintaining the services for the customers, it means that bugs can be patched quickly with no interaction necessary from the user. Viruses would be nonexistant. Even if your computer is completely obliterated, you can still access your data from any computer with Internet access. The list goes on and on. But every cloud has a silver lining (and I apologize for such an obvious pun).
Every cloud service is exactly that: a service. You pay a subscription fee to use the server, with only a legal agreement that they will leave your data private. Which they don't fully, by the way. Want proof? Open up an email on your Gmail account, and look at the ads. Then look at the context of the message. Tell me how private you think your messages are.
The main problem is that cloud computing requires people to give up control of their data to a third party; the company that you're paying the service for has total control over the usage of the data you upload to their servers.
On the Internet, privacy is hard to come by. We are tracked by cookies from marketing companies, by IP addresses logged by every website you visit, and 'cloud computing' takes even more privacy away. How willing are you to let your privacy be siphoned off? Is the accessibility of cloud computing worth the lack of privacy for you?
I am, of course, also interested in this. Cloud computing is an interesting, efficient, and powerful concept. In a nutshell, it means having a server hold storage, run programs, et cetera, said server being accessible from a portable, less powerful computer. Who doesn't like the idea of having massive amounts of storage for media and reliable programs from a cheap, portable computer (such as a netbook, or even an Internet-powered phone). I just don't like how it's being implemented currently.
There are benefits of cloud services. Because there is a company maintaining the services for the customers, it means that bugs can be patched quickly with no interaction necessary from the user. Viruses would be nonexistant. Even if your computer is completely obliterated, you can still access your data from any computer with Internet access. The list goes on and on. But every cloud has a silver lining (and I apologize for such an obvious pun).
Every cloud service is exactly that: a service. You pay a subscription fee to use the server, with only a legal agreement that they will leave your data private. Which they don't fully, by the way. Want proof? Open up an email on your Gmail account, and look at the ads. Then look at the context of the message. Tell me how private you think your messages are.
The main problem is that cloud computing requires people to give up control of their data to a third party; the company that you're paying the service for has total control over the usage of the data you upload to their servers.
On the Internet, privacy is hard to come by. We are tracked by cookies from marketing companies, by IP addresses logged by every website you visit, and 'cloud computing' takes even more privacy away. How willing are you to let your privacy be siphoned off? Is the accessibility of cloud computing worth the lack of privacy for you?
Monday, September 21, 2009
Why Can't Apple Write Decent Windows Programs?
If there's one thing that I hate on my Windows machine, it's iTunes. It's slow. It's bloated. It has a mismatched theme and an often-glitching interface. The only reason I have it on my system in the first place is because that's the only way I'm able to put music on my iPod Touch.
Yet.
On my school's iMacs, iTunes is zippy. The music management system is easy to use, simple, and has very aesthetically-pleasing animation/graphics. It looks amazing accompanying the rest of the Mac theme of brushed metal.
The same rings true with another Apple-to-Windows program, Safari. On Windows, Safari runs far, far slower than even Internet Explorer 8 (LifeHacker Link: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/lifehacker/2009/06/cold__warm_starts.png). On a Mac, the new features render beautifully and speedily, such as that tab overlook tool. I mean, the scaling renders nearly instantaneously.
So what's the big deal, Apple?
I can reason it down into three things; Accidental, Apathetic, and Designed, respectively:
Not to be cynical, but damn. That's a good business strategy. Much unlike Microsoft's blunder to sell Microsoft Office on Apple computers, something that I'll touch upon in a later post.
Yet.
On my school's iMacs, iTunes is zippy. The music management system is easy to use, simple, and has very aesthetically-pleasing animation/graphics. It looks amazing accompanying the rest of the Mac theme of brushed metal.
The same rings true with another Apple-to-Windows program, Safari. On Windows, Safari runs far, far slower than even Internet Explorer 8 (LifeHacker Link: http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/lifehacker/2009/06/cold__warm_starts.png). On a Mac, the new features render beautifully and speedily, such as that tab overlook tool. I mean, the scaling renders nearly instantaneously.
So what's the big deal, Apple?
I can reason it down into three things; Accidental, Apathetic, and Designed, respectively:
- The porting of code from Mac OS X to Windows deteriorated the quality of the program.
- The programmers decided that it wasn't worth their time to make sure the program worked as well under Windows as it does under Mac OS X.
- Apple makes the Windows versions run worse so that people think that Mac OS X just runs better.
Not to be cynical, but damn. That's a good business strategy. Much unlike Microsoft's blunder to sell Microsoft Office on Apple computers, something that I'll touch upon in a later post.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Hello World
So my tech teacher in school said that I should make a blog. On technology. And politics. Even though they kinda sound like they'd get along together about as well as oil and water, or environmentalists and nuclear power. I suppose I'd be jumping back and forth between the two.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)