Random Thoughts – Randocity!

Apple’s iPad: 10 inch iPod Touch or iDisaster?

Posted in Apple, ipod, itunes by commorancy on January 28, 2010

Recently, I wrote the article “What is it about tablets?”.  In that article, I discussed what Apple must do to make the newly announced iPad (tablet computer) successful.  Apple needs a paradigm shifting technology embedded in the iPad that would make the usability of such a tablet go leaps ahead of previous tablet attempts.  Unfortunately, that did not happen.

Failure to launch (and type!)

The iPad may look like a pad, but it functions nothing like a pad.  In fact, this device looks and acts like an iPod touch on steroids.  But, Apple failed this device on so many levels.  First, let’s start with the design.  The iPad back is not flat (which is just like the newest thin iPod touch).  The back is curved. So, laying the iPad on a flat surface leads to wobbly typing or surfing.  This forces you to put it on a soft surface or hold it in your hand.  Not an optimal or convenient design.

Typing input

On the touch, however, it was small enough to hold in one hand and type with the other.  In fact, you could hold it with two hands and thumb type.  With a 10 inch sized device, one hand typing isn’t really an option.  But, this whole typing issue just goes back to the fundamental input problem with tablets.  How do you reliably get input into a tablet computer?  The options are voice, handwriting recognition and touch typing.  None of these input styles make for a truly usable computer experience.  So, on this level, Apple has failed.  Funny too, because Apple is usually the leader when it comes to innovative ways to improve user interface experience.

Finger Friendly?

I’d like to point out another possible problem.  On the iPod Touch, the touch screen surface only works with an actual finger touch.  It doesn’t work with gloves on or by using your fingernail.  As a result, this makes the touch surface a problem in the winter or for women with long nails.  I do not presently know that the iPad uses this same touch screen technology, but it’s very probable.  Therefore, this could make the iPad not friendly for glove wearers or women with long nails.

Lack of ports

Most computers today need to support the latest in port technology.  More and more, however, Apple seems to shun standards and try for their own proprietary connectors.  Sometimes it works.  More often than not, it fails.  In this case with this device, it adds to the design failure.  With the iPad, Apple should have added standard ports like HDMI and a Secure Digital slot.  Unfortunately, they didn’t do this and this device suffers as a result.  This is especially bad considering most Netbooks offer most of these ports.  Yes, some Netbooks even offer HDMI ports.

iPod Touch Clone

Unfortunately for the iPad, it appears to be a 10 inch iPod touch.  The interface is, of course, 10 inches.  This means it uses the same interface that’s on the iPhone and iPod touch.  On a small handheld device, that interface works well.  On a 10 inch screen, the oddness of it all is quite apparent.  The resolution is higher on the 10 inch screen and, thus, the iPad scales up most apps to accommodate.  The problem is the scaling.  Some apps look fine scaled.  Some can actually take advantage of the larger screen (mapping softwares).  With low res apps, the iPad scales up the app window to fill the 10 inch screen which looks quite lame.  Granted, all of this can be fixed by developers reworking their apps.  But, for now, it makes this device all the more clumsy.

App Store Tie-In

This is yet another in a series of devices that Apple is requiring the user to use solely with iTunes and the App store.  Inevitably, the iPad will be jailbroken.  Until then, the audience is captive to the Apple store.  So, if you want apps or media, that’s where you must go.  Of course, you can import media into iTunes app and sync that, but you cannot load any apps other than those that come from Apple’s app store until it is jailbroken (probably the day after it gets released).

This also means that tried and tested apps you’ve come to know on Windows or even Mac OS X may never become available on the iPad due to iTunes App Store restrictions.

A must have? No.  Not yet anyway.

Apple has yet to convince me (and many others) of the necessity of this device.  There’s no wow-factor here or anything compelling to make the iPad stand out as must have.  There’s nothing here to say that it is even useful for anything beyond what a Netbook can accomplish for less money.  The iPod touch is still much more useful due to its size.  The iPad is sitting in a cost space near Netbook pricing (the iPad is more costly), but Netbooks still have much more functionality due to a real keyboard and better use of the screen (not to mention, full fledged apps).

At the entry level pricing of $499, which will mean a bare bones model, you’re sure to get as little as possible.   To get all the bells and whistles, you’re likely to pay well over $1000 for the equivalent of a large iPod touch.

In other words, Apple did not provide a paradigm shifting technology necessary to make the iPad absolutely compelling.  In fact, the whole big clumsy nature of this tablet is quite apparent even from the image of Steve Jobs holding it.

This is a 1.0 device that feels like a 0.5 device with poorly thought out software.  The iPod/iPhone interface and its apps were designed to be used on handheld small screen devices.  Putting this interface onto a 10 inch sized display and expecting full fledged computing out of portable apps is stretching this device to its limits.  Granted, Apple can generally get the kinks out of new devices.  But, the tablet has such a long history of failure going back to Grid Computers in the early 90s that Apple has a steep bank to climb to get out of this trench they’ve dug themselves into.

Overall, I’m still underwhelmed and I’ve seen nothing yet that screams, must have.  An iPod touch screams that due to its sheer size and portability.  The iPad definitely does not!

Ruby

Posted in art, render by commorancy on January 22, 2010
Tagged with: , , , , ,

What is it about tablets?

Posted in Apple, botch, business, california, computers, microsoft by commorancy on January 15, 2010

Ok, I’m stumped.  I’ve tried to understand this manufacturing trend, but I simply can’t.  We have to be heading towards the fourth or maybe fifth generation of tablet PCs, yet each time they bring tablets back to the the market, this technology fails miserably.  Perhaps it’s the timing, but I don’t think so.  I think the market has spoken time and time again.  So, what is it about this technology that make manufacturers try and try again to foist these lead balloons onto us about every 6 years?

Wayback machine

It was in the early 90’s that Grid Computers arguably released the first tablet (or at least, one of the very first tablets).  Granted, it used a monochrome plasma screen and I believe that it ran DOS and Windows 3.1 (that I recall), but these things flopped badly for many different reasons.  Ultimately, the market spoke and no one wanted them.  It’s no wonder why, too.  The lack of keyboard combined with the size and weight of the unit, the need for a pen and the lack of a truly viable input method doomed this device to the halls of flopdom.  Into obscurity this device went along with Grid Computers (the company).

In the early 2000s, Microsoft+Manufacturers tried again to resurrect this computer format with XP Tablet edition.  This time they tried making the devices more like notebooks where the screen could detach from a keyboard and become a tablet.  So, when it was attached, it looked and felt like a notebook.  When detached, it was a tablet.  Again, there was no viable input method without keyboard even though they were touch screen.  The handwriting recognition was poor at best and if it had voice input, it failed to work.   XP Tablet edition was not enough to make the tablet succeed.  Yet again, the tablet rolled into obscurity… mostly.  You can still buy tablets, but they aren’t that easy to find and few manufacturers make them.  They also ship with hefty price tags.

Origami

Then, later in the mid 2000’s came Microsoft with Origami.  At this time, Origami was supposed to be a compact OS, like Windows CE (although CE would have worked just fine for this, don’t know why Origami really came about).  A few tablets came out using Origami, but most computers that loaded this version of Windows used it in the microPC format.  Since the Origami version of Windows was a full version (unlike CE), it was a lot more powerful than computers of that size really needed and the price tag showed that.  Sony and a few other manufacturers made these microPCs, but they sold at expensive prices (like $1999 or more) for a computer the size of a PDA.  Again, no viable input method could suffice on the microPC tablets and so these died yet another death… although, the microPC hung around a bit longer than the tablet.  You might even still be able to buy one in 2010, if you look hard enough.

Netbook

Then came the Netbook.  The $199-299 priced scaled down notebook using the Atom processor.  This format took off dramatically and has been a resounding success.  The reason, price.  Who wouldn’t want a full fledged portable computer for $199-299?  You can barely buy an iPod or even a cell phone… let alone a desktop PC for that price.  The Netbook price point is the perfect price point for a low end notebook computer.  But, what does a Netbook have to do with a tablet?  It doesn’t, but it is here to illustrate why tablets will continue to fail.

Tablet resurrection

Once again, we are in the middle of yet another possible tablet resurrection attempt.  Rumor has it that Apple will release a tablet.  HP is now also pushing yet another tablet loaded with Windows.  Yet, from past failures, we already know this format is dead on arrival.  What can Apple possibly bring to the tablet format that Microsoft and PCs haven’t?  Nothing.  That’s the problem.  The only possible selling point for a tablet has to be in price alone.  Tablets have to get down to the $199-299 price tag to have any hope of gaining any popularity.  Yet, Apple is not known to make budget computers, so we know that that price point is out.  Assuming Apple does release a tablet, it will likely price it somewhere between $899 and $1599.  Likely, they will offer 3 different versions with the lowest version starting at $899.  Worse, at the lowest price point it will be hobbled lacking most bells and whistles.

Even if Apple loads up the tablet with all of the bells and whistles (i.e., Bluetooth, 3G, GSM, OLED Display, iTunes app capable, handwriting recognition, voice recognition, WiFi, wireless USB, a sleek case design, etc etc) the only thing those bells and whistles will do is raise the cost to produce the unit.  The basic problems with a tablet are portability (too big), lack of a viable input device, weight and fragility (not to mention, battery life).  Adding on a hefty price tag ensures that people won’t buy it.  Of course, the Apple fan boys will buy anything branded with a half bitten Apple logo.  But, for the general masses, no.  This device cannot hope to succeed on Apple fan boy income alone.

Compelling Reasons

Apple has to provide some kind of paradigm shifting technology that makes such a failure of a device like the tablet become successful (or whatever Apple cleverly names its tablet device).  If the tablet is over 7 inches in size, it will be too large to be portable.  Utilizing OLED technology ensures the cost is extremely high.  Putting a thin case on it like the MacBook Air ensures that it’s overly fragile.  We’ve  yet to find out the battery life expectancy.  So far, this is not yet a winning combination.

So, what kind of technology would make such a paradigm shift?  The only such technology I can think of would have to be a new input device technology.  A way to get commands into the notebook and a way to drive the interface easily.  Clearly, a multi-touch screen will help.  The iPod is good in that regard (except that you can’t use it with gloves).  But, if you want to write email, how do you do that on a tablet? Do you hand peck the letters on that silly on-screen thing that Apple calls a keyboard?  No.  That’s not enough.  Apple needs a fully phonetic speech input technology that’s 100% flawless without any training.  That means, you speak the email in and it converts it perfectly to text.  Also, you speak in any conversational command and the computer figures out what you mean flawlessly.  This is the only technology that makes any sense on a tablet.  Of course, it will need to support multiple languages (a tall order) and it needs to be flawless and perfect (an extremely tall order).  It will also need to work in a noisy room (not likely).

Can Apple make such a shift?  I don’t know.  The hardware technology is there to support such a system.  The issue, is the software ready?  Well, let’s hope Apple thinks so.  Otherwise, if Apple does release its rumored tablet without such a paradigm shift, it could be the worst stumble that Apple has made since the Lisa.

Eat To Live or Live to Eat?

Posted in Health by commorancy on January 14, 2010

If you’ve set your New Year’s resolutions to embrace fat loss, you’re probably asking yourself this question.  Or, further, you might be asking yourself what does this question mean?  The answer is pretty straight forward.  Do you eat food to survive or do you live to eat food?  The answer may surprise you, but you have to be willing to take a hard look at yourself to uncover the answer.  Let’s explore.

Trust

In America, food is very abundant and in a lot of cases, very cheap.  From fast food that’s 99 cents for a meal to expensive dine-in meals.  It’s your choice how you wish to dine.  The main difference between cheap and expensive food is in where the food originated and how or if it’s processed.  For example, foods that come from organic farms or from farms that don’t use hormones on their livestock may be better for you than those foods that do use these chemicals (depending on the farm).  Foods not refined are also better for you.  The one question you need to ask yourself is, “How was the food produced?”  The only answer that I can offer here is to tell you to buy foods from sources that you trust.

Can you trust Safeway?  Can you trust Lucky or Albertson’s?  Can you trust the corner grocer?  Can you trust Campbell’s soup or Kellogg’s Cornflakes?  Only you can determine which stores and which brands you trust.

There are many problems when purchasing from chain grocers.  They buy from many farmers and manufacturers in such bulk that it’s difficult for them to always offer you healthy choices in foods.  So, you may need to opt for more local grocer choices. If you purchase from local farms, you may find a lot more information on how the food was raised.  Once you establish your immediate trusts, you can then find the foods that work for your dietary needs.  Note, though, that trusts change over time.  Brands get acquired or disappear from the shelves, formulations change, etc.  So, even when you’ve had a trust with a specific brand or grocer, you should re-evaluate that trust from time to time to ensure the food is living up to your quality expectations.

Does all of this really matter?

That depends on you.  If you think it matters, then it matters.  Once it does matter, then you need to seek food choices that fit your needs.  The less picky you are, the more choices you have when shopping.  But, you may also be compromising your health by being less picky.  Also, if you have health issues that must be addressed by using specific foods, food choices do matter.

Five Star Dining

Let’s start by examining the expensive dining options first.  If you choose to dine at a 5 star restaurant, along with your excessively large bill, you may find that your food seems more fresh and tasty.  You may be correct in that assessment.  Generally, 5 star restaurants buy foods from the best quality growers and grocers.  In some cases, the chefs may even personally hand pick the meats and produce they want to use.  With lesser quality restaurants, the foods may come from a commissary (a centralized store distribution facility for that restaurant chain) or from a food distribution service like Sysco.  Where the 5 star restaurant is looking for grade A+ ingredients, lesser star restaurants may opt for grade C or even D foods (because they cost less).  Depending on the type of lesser restaurant, they may even serve you pre-prepared canned foods (like Pace Picante sauce). So, what you may be served in a 2 or 3 star restaurant may be no better than what you can buy and serve yourself from Safeway.  In some cases, it may be worse.

Secondarily, when you eat at a 5 star restaurant, you should find that each and every food is fresh made from scratch.  In fact, most of these level restaurants make your food immediately when you order.  So, there’s nothing pre-prepared.  It’s all made fresh (other than the prep work to cut up veggies earlier that day).  Even the deserts are prepared and baked fresh (or should be).  That’s the difference between Chili’s (a 3 star Bistro) and a 5 star restaurant.

Does 5 star dining make the food healthier?  Not necessarily.  True, the food should be made fresh.  True, the food is probably grade A+, but that doesn’t lessen the caloric value of the food.  In fact, many 5 star restaurants prefer rich foods with a high fat content (creams, butters and oils) because they make food taste more luxurious.  So, even though you may be consuming fresh foods prepared from fresh ingredients, you are not likely eating to lose weight.  One thing, though, that you will find in 5 star restaurants are smaller portion sizes.  Where Chili’s might overload your plate with a ton of food, you may find a 5 star restaurant serving your dinner in a small portion in the center of a big plate.  Yes, it’s very pretty and presentation is a big deal in a 5 star place, but the size doesn’t necessarily lessen the amount of calories in the meal.  If you’re concerned with calories, you should always ask before you dine (preferably on the phone before making a reservation).

Commitment

In order to make fat loss a reality, you have to both want to lose fat and commit yourself to change.  Commitment is the key.  With so many food choices out there and a lot of pressure to eat tons of food (especially by friends, relatives and co-workers.. not to mention the huge portions in restaurants), you need to distance yourself from that influence.  That means you need to consider creating your own foods from scratch in the portions that fit your needs.  You can opt to use pre-prepared meals that are frozen or even foods that come from Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Lean Cuisine or Nutrisystems.  However, you can certainly lose the fat without the need for any specialty meals.  Let’s explore fat loss clinics…

Commercial Fat Loss Organizations

Companies like Jenny Craig, NutriSystems and Weight Watchers are good at what they do.  The trouble with these organizations isn’t that they help you to lose weight.  No. They definitely help you shed the pounds.  The trouble is, how do you keep the weight off once you leave their program?  None of these organizations offer proper weight management techniques after you depart.  They hook you into their ‘system’ using their packaged foods.  After you leave, they make it reasonably difficult to use external foods that are not part of their program. This is unfortunate, but it’s also a way for these systems to entice you back only to spend more money. Remember, these are commercial outfits in it to make money.  So, their goal is to get you hooked onto their program and then keep you coming back to spend more and more money.  As long as you are willing to do this, you can keep the weight off.

When using their food offerings, they use points systems or exchanges.  That’s great, as long as you are eating foods where you can easily determine those numbers.  If you start eating whole real foods from the store or a restaurant, you may not easily be able to determine points.  So, you’re stuck.  When you can’t determine the values, you don’t.  Because you can’t, you can’t easily determine how much of it you should be eating.  You then slip back into eating ‘real food’. So, it ends up in a vicious cycle that leads to fat gain.  This is the cycle that you want to avoid.  You need to understand foods at a more basic level that can be applied to any meal, not just those meals created by Jenny Craig.

Of course, this is not meant to berate these programs.  They are good at what they do.  If you have the means and are willing to stick with their programs, then you can lose the weight and keep it off.  But, you also need to determine a way to ween yourself from their program and use home made foods as a substitute or even meals at a restaurant and still keep the weight off.  How do you do that?

Knowledge

You need to empower yourself by understanding foods, understand how they act on the body and understand how to easily identify healthier foods from unhealthy foods.  So, what exactly does ‘healthy food’ mean?  That’s a really good question, let’s explore…

Healthy Foods

What is a healthy food?  We hear the term ‘healthy foods’ all the time.  As an example, a study has said that drinking Welch’s grape juice is healthy for you because the dark purple juice is now classed as an antioxidant.  So, there are now claims you need to drink more.  But, is grape juice really that healthy?  Antioxidants may be important to help cleanse the body of toxins, but grape juice is also concentrated and processed. Anything that is processed is not as healthy as the whole real thing.  For example, eating dark red table grapes provides the same antioxidant properties as drinking concentrated grape juice.  Additionally, eating the whole fruit provides you with fiber.  Note, however, that fruit is primarily sugar (fructose and sucrose) and fiber.  Processed juice is devoid of fiber, so the sugar in juice is digested almost immediately. Eating table grapes requires less immediate insulin release due to the time it takes to process the sugar out of the fiber.  Drinking grape juice, on the other hand, is akin to drinking a soft drink.  Granted, the soft drink has no antioxidant properties, but the sugar high is the same drinking both drinks.

Secondarily, is all grape juice created equal?  This goes back to the issue of trust.  Some juices are sweetened only with the juice from the fruit.  Others add additional sugars or sweeten with concentrated mixtures of sugars from the fruit.  So, they might extract a juice concentrated version and then extract a second version that’s a concentrated sweetener version.  They then mix the juice concentrate version with the sugar version to make the whole batch sweeter.  They can say it is 100% real grape juice, but that doesn’t mean they didn’t play games to get it sweeter.  Again, trust.  You need to trust how a company processes their foods.

Eating whole grapes does the same trick as drinking the juice.  However, when eating the whole fruit, you are less likely to eat as much (the fiber fills you up).  Because the fiber fills you, you are also less likely to eat as many calories in one sitting than you would drinking a glass of fiberless juice.  Reducing calories below the RMR is the key to losing fat, so that’s the goal here.

So, which is healthy in this example?  Clearly, vitamins and minerals are important.  You get the most vitamins and minerals by eating the whole fruit rather than concentrated and processed foods.  Many vitamins and minerals are destroyed during processing. This is why so many processed foods must be fortified (they add external vitamins) to make up for the destroyed vitamins and minerals.  In this case, eating the whole grape is more healthy than drinking heavily concentrated and processed juice.  This goes for any foods that are processed.

Steps Removed From Nature

Think of healthy foods in terms of how far they are removed from their natural state.  Clearly, a grape is the most natural state of this fruit.  Therefore, it is the most healthy form of this fruit.  As it is processed, each step away from its most basic natural state makes it one step less healthy for the human body.   So, the steps might look something like the following:

grape -> grape juice fresh squeezed -> grape juice boiled down (concentrated) -> grape juice syrup / grape juice sugars -> grape juice powder (dried) or flavoring ->  grape jelly fruit snacks or grape popsicles

So, the fruit starts first and everything else is derived from some processing step after the initial fruit.  For each step after the initial fruit, that reduces the healthy nature of the food.  For each step removed from nature, then, that determines how less healthy it is for the human body.

Food Processing

What exactly is food processing?  At home you think of a Cuisinart for food processing.  However, processing foods in manufacturing is a way to concentrate the foods into usable constituent components (sugars, starches, salts, flavorings, etc).  The idea is to take an initial natural food and distill it down into its constituent components for later reintegration into another food product.  For example, Pringles chips are made from potatoes.  But, they aren’t whole potatoes.  Instead, they are made from ground and processed potatoes (and other ingredients), then they use a special process to form the chip into that familiar Pringles shape and bake it in place.  While the potato may have started whole, once it’s in a chip form coated with salt, it is no longer whole and is now removed from nature at least 2, 3 or more times.

(To be continued in Part II: Eat to Live)

Disclaimer:  This information is not intended to be used as a diagnosis, to diagnose or as a diet.  It is strictly to be used for information purposes. You will need to find your own way to lose the weight.  These suggestions may work to help you understand the body’s processes, but you will need to choose the foods that keep you healthy and let you lose the fat.  Everybody’s body is different, so this information may not work for you. You should also consult with a doctor before launching any calorie restricted diet to determine any pre-existing conditions prior to dieting. This information is provided as is.  All risk of use of this information is assumed by the reader.  This information is copyright 2010 Randosity.  All rights reserved.
%d bloggers like this: