iPad: After the dust settles
We are now a month post iPad launch and where are we? Some news sites are postulating the the use of iPad in the enterprise world. I can’t even fathom a use for it at home, much less putting it into the hands of corporate users. Let’s examine this platform more carefully to understand the reasons for its lack of viability in Enterprise, much less for simple home uses.
Multitasking
I know a lot of media outlets have harped endlessly on the lack of multitasking. Granted, it is a computing device and most computing devices do require some level of multitasking. I know that the iPod and the iPhone had very little internal memory (at least up to 3rd gen editions). So, it could only comfortably run one app. That was primarily a memory limitation. With the latest iPhone and iPod touch, that may have all changed. To be perfectly honest, I don’t keep up with Apple’s hardware spec details. Why? Because it’s not really that much of an interest. I mean, that’s the point. It shouldn’t be. Apple has always touted their devices ‘just work’. So, why should I need to dig inside one of their devices to find out the gritty details? I shouldn’t need to.
This issue is also what bites Apple many times over. They decide to under design the device by putting in not enough resources. So, they have to make concessions in the operating system by removing things like multitasking. Of course, with the iPod touch and the iPhone, we’re talking about very small devices that may not have the physical room to hold the amount of resources necessary to support multitasking.
The iPad’s physical size should no longer hinder their ability to put in the necessary resources to fully support multitasking (and then some). So, there is no reason why the iPad shouldn’t have supported multitasking out of the gate. But, it doesn’t. The iPhone 4.0 OS is supposed to address this issue, but not until the fall of 2010.
Multitasking and how it relates to computing
So, is it required that a PC support multitasking? Good question. It’s also a question not easily answered. In general, though, the answer should be ‘yes’. It should be ‘yes’ because the ability to run multiple apps is necessary to get things done. For example, to copy and paste between two different documents or to share information through application conduits. Even the simple act of embedding one app inside another requires multitasking. Quitting and restarting each app to move between them is cumbersome and time wasting.
In the end, yes, multitasking is required to make the computing experience be what we’ve come to expect. In the iPad, that computing experience isn’t there. So, for this reason, iPad won’t be fully accepted without multitasking. We’ll revisit this topic, however, once multitasking is (re) introduced in iPhone 4.0 OS.
Enterprise computing and the iPad
Is it ready for enterprise? I personally would say no. I’ve owned an iPod touch for several years and since the iPad really has no better selection in enterprise apps than does the iPod touch, the answer to this question is still no. Even though the screen on iPad is larger, it doesn’t offer the necessary productivity apps to fully work in a corporate enterprise. Yes, it does have a mail app. That’s a big part of what makes it work in Enterprise. Unfortunately, that mail app is so locked down and limited, that it may not fully work for the enterprise. That’s not to say that the mail app isn’t good in a pinch or to read a quick current email or two. But, don’t try to go searching for emails buried in your folders, that just doesn’t work well.
For enterprise computing, the current incarnation of the iPad is nowhere near ready.
What uses does the iPad offer?
Good question, once again. It isn’t a media PC, so that’s out. It isn’t good for enterprise level computing, that’s out. It can watch movies and read books, so coffee table literature, ok. Ignoring the touch screen and sleek design (which are just amenities, after all), it has to come down to the apps and features. The apps are limited, at this point, and I don’t really see much of that changing due to Apple’s app lockout situation.
Until Apple opens the platform up for general development, the platform will continue to be tightly controlled and, thus, limiting the applications that are available. Until this situation is resolved, this device may never end up anything more than a novelty.
HP’s slate cancelled
Looking back at history shows us that the tablet has had an extremely rocky past that always leads to failure. I’m not sure that even Apple can overcome this rocky past even with the success of the iPhone. The iPad is really too big and clunky to be truly portable. It’s too closed to allow open development. So, it’s no surprise that HP and other companies who had previously announced their intent to release a tablet are now reconsidering that release. In fact, HP announced the slate on the heels of Apple’s iPad announcement and has now cancelled the slate completely before it was even released.
Some people blame the ‘success’ of the iPad. Well, success is very much subjective. Putting 500,000 of the iPad into circulation is nothing to sneeze at. But, that doesn’t necessarily indicate success. The Newton comes to mind here. It was a hot new item that all but died in about two years. Where is the Newton now? Apple has a past history of deleting products rapidly and the iPad may be one of those items.
Apple’s past failures
If you really want an iPad, then get it now while it’s hot. Don’t wait. The reason I say this is that in 6-12 months, you could find yourself with a doorstop that Apple no longer supports. Apple has a history of killing off failing devices rapidly. So, with this particular device, don’t wait to buy it. If you wait until spring of 2011, you may find that the device is dead and buried. You could be holding a flat doorstop that iTunes no longer supports and with no active development. I can very easily see this device becoming one of Apple’s most recent failures.
Working while traveling
The tablet format has a questionable past anyway. The form factor isn’t pleasing to use. It isn’t easy to carry and, getting past the touch screen, it’s cumbersome to write text into it. So, it’s going to need a dock with a keyboard and mouse. A real keyboard and a real mouse. But, that takes the portability out of it. If you’re sitting on a plane, you’re locked into using the touch surface. Now consider that you can’t lay the device flat and work easily. I mean, you can lay it down, but then it’s not at the correct viewing angle. To get it into the correct viewing angle, you have to hold it in one hand, you have to balance it in your lap in a contorted way or you have to carry along a kickstand when you’re on a plane.
In this instance, a notebook, iphone, itouch or netbook works much better. For a netbook, the top pops open at the correct viewing angle and you have a real keyboard and mouse available. Granted, it’s not a touch surface, but that’s just a novelty anyway. Once the novelty of touch wears off, then you have to determine how to make use of this input method in an actual usable way.
Using an iPod touch or iPhone is also easy. It fits easily in one hand, is light in weight and works without the need for kickstands, contorted positions or clumsy positioning issues. Clearly, not a lot of usability was discussed when the iPad was designed. Usability is one of the things Apple usually prides itself in its designs. In the iPad, usability was clearly an afterthought.
3G iPad
This is the one and only one saving grace of the iPad. Internet everywhere is where we need to be. The supposed $29.95 monthly plan associated with the 3G version of the iPad is a reasonable price. Unfortunately, the iPad itself is marked up by an additional $130. So, instead of $499, it’s $629 (and that’s the smallest iPad). But, the iPad with 3G is the only version that I would personally consider. I already have an iPod touch and its uses are extremely limited unless you have WiFi handy (which isn’t very often). And, even when you do find a place that claims to have WiFi, 8 times out of 10, the connectivity is either slow or limited. So much for free WiFi. While 3G isn’t that fast, it’s at least always on pretty much anywhere you need it.
Form factor is the key to success
The problem with the current iPad is its size. This is the wrong form factor to release. It’s the wrong size and wrong weight. The size that the iPad should have been was about the size of a paperback book. Bigger than an iPod touch, small enough to fit in a pocket. This will take computing to the truly portable level. The screen will be bigger than a Sony PSP (which is a decent size to watch movies), but small enough to still be portable. Combine that with 3G and you have a device that people will want to use. The iPad is not that portable and still requires a case with handles. After all, you don’t really want to drop a $600+ device. But, a device the size of a paperback book at the cost of maybe $399, that’s in a price range that could work.
First Gen iPad
Remember that this is the first generation iPad. You really have to wait until the third gen of an Apple device to get to the features that make it worthwhile. The question remains, will the iPad even make it to a third incarnation? Only time will tell. Apple won’t abandon the iPhone OS on devices for quite some time. But, the form factor of the iPad is likely to change several times before it’s over. Like I said, if you want this thing, buy into it now. Otherwise, if you want to wait a year, you may not be able to get this form factor again and you may find that Apple has backtracked into smaller more portable devices.
Clickity Click – The Microsoft Dilemma
Once upon a time, the mouse didn’t exist. So, the keyboard drove the interface. Later, Xerox came along and changed all of that (with the help of Steve Jobs and Apple). Of course, as it always does, Microsoft absconded with the mouse functionality and built that into Windows… not that there was really much choice with this decision.
We flash a decade forward or so and we’re at Windows XP. A reasonably streamlined Windows operating system from Microsoft. In fact, this is probably and arguably the most streamlined that Microsoft’s Windows has ever been (and will likely ever be). Granted, security was a bit weak, but the user interface experience was about as good as it can get. With only a few clicks you could get to just about anything you needed.
Flash forward nearly another decade to see the release of the dog that was Windows Vista. Actually, Windows Vista’s look was not too bad. But, that’s pretty much where it ends. Microsoft must not have done much usability testing with Vista because what used to take one or two clicks of the mouse now adds 1-3 extra clicks. The reason, Microsoft has decided to open useless windows as launchpads to get to underlying components. Added layers that are pointless and unnecessary. For example, you used to be able to right click ‘My Network Places’, release on properties and get right to the lan adapters to set them up. No more. Now this same properties panel opens a launchpad interface that requires clicking ‘Change Adapter Settings’ just to get the adapters. Pointless. Why was this added layer necessary? And this is the best of the worst.
More than this, though, is that sometimes the labeling of the links to get to the underlying components is obscure or misleading. So, you’re not really sure what link to click to get to the thing you need. That means you end up clicking several things just to find the thing you need. Yes, you can use the help to find things, but that then means opening even more windows and clicking through even more time wasting events just to locate something that should have been one-click anyway.
Server Operating Systems
This issue is not limited to the desktop OS world. In the server world, such as Windows 2008 R2, these launch pads are now excessive and in-your-face. For example, when you first install Windows 2008 R2, two of these panels open as the first thing after you log in. So now, I’m already starting out having to click closed two windows that I didn’t even need to see at that point just so I can get to the desktop. Likely, if you’re installing a server operating system, you’re planning on hooking it into a domain controller. So, setting up anything on the local administrative user is pointless. That means I have to close out of these useless panels in order to get to the panel where I can import this machine into the domain. It would have been far more helpful to have the first thing open be the join-the-domain panel. I don’t need to set up anything else on that newly installed machine until it’s in the domain.
Desktop Systems
Most people are much more familiar with the desktop operating systems than the server versions. But, these added clicks are all throughout not only Vista, but now Windows 7. Because Windows 7 is effectively a refresh of Vista with added compatibility features, these extra clicks are still there and still annoying. Why Microsoft had to take a streamlined interface and make it less efficient for users, I’ll never know. But, these added clicks to get to standard operating system tools is a waste of time and productivity. It also requires a higher learning curve to teach people the new method.
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”
This motto needs to be ingrained into the engineering team at Microsoft because they clearly do not understand this. Added extra layers of windows does not make the OS more efficient. It makes it bloated, cumbersome and extremely inefficient. That extra click might only take an extra second, but those seconds add up when you’re doing a repetitive task that involves dealing with those windows as part of your job.
As another example, opening the default setup for control panel in XP shows the control panels themselves. In Vista / Windows 7, it now brings up a launch pad of abstract tasks. Tasks like ‘System and Security’ and ‘User accounts and family safety’. Clicking these leads to more sub concept tasks. So, instead of just showing the actual control panels, you have to click through a series of abstract task pages that ultimately lead you to a tool. No no no. Pointless and inefficient. Let’s go back to opening up the actual control panel view. I want to see the actual control panels. The abstract task idea is great for beginners. For advanced users, we want to turn this crap off. It’s pointless, slow and unnecessary. Power users do not need this.
Windows for beginners
Microsoft Bob is dead. Let’s not go there again. So, why is it that Microsoft insists on trying to spoon feed us an interface this dumbed down and with excessively clicky features? This interface would have been a great first step in 1990. But, not today. Taking this step today is a step backward in OS design. Anyone who has used Windows for more than 6 months doesn’t need these added inconveniences and inefficiencies. In fact, most average computer users don’t need this level of basics. Only the very beginner beginners need this level of spoon feeding.
Microsoft needs a to create new version (or, alternatively, a preference to turn ‘Newbie mode’ off). Simply put, they need Windows for the Power User. A stripped down design that gets back to basics. A design that eliminates these cumbersome beginner features and brings back the single click features that let us navigate the operating system fast and using the mouse efficiently (read, as few clicks as possible). Obviously, if you’re running ANY server edition, this automatically implies the power user interface. Let’s get rid of these helper panels on startup, mkay?
Microsoft, can we make this a priority for Windows 8?
Somebody denies wrongdoing
This question goes to news organizations. Is there any corporation on the planet that would actually ever admit wrongdoing in any legal entanglement with the goverment or otherwise? Seriously, is there? I mean, unless the company is flatly caught red-handed at whatever it is they shouldn’t have been doing, no company is going to admit guilt or wrongdoing. It just doesn’t happen. They would face too much potential civil and criminal liability. So, they don’t do it.
So then, why is this always a headline? Not admitting anything is not news. News is the article written surrounding the reasons behind the legal battle. It isn’t news that they denied wrongdoing. So, write headlines that actually draw the reader in. Don’t write headlines that are obvious and stupid. If you think that such silly and trite headlines grab attention, that thinking is just plain wrong. These types of headlines only serve to show just how trite and obvious your journalism actually is. If you like pointing out the blaring obviousness of the situation, fine. But, don’t call it news.
3D Television: Eye candy or eye strain?
For whatever reason, movie producers have decided that 3D is where it’s at. The entertainment industry has tried 3D technologies in film throughout the last 40 years and, to date, none have been all that successful. The simple reason, side effects that include eye strain and headaches. These are fairly hefty side effects to overcome. Yet, here we are again with a barrage of new 3D films hitting the big screen.
In answer to all of those new films actually filmed in 3D, television makers have decided to try their hand at producing home 3D technologies. The problem with any current 3D technology is that it’s based on a simplistic view of how 3D works. That being, each eye sees a different image. Yes, that’s true. However, it’s hard to provide a quality 3D experience using a flat screen with each eye getting a different image. There’s more to 3D then that. So, while the each-eye-sees-a-different-image 3D technology does work, it does not seem realistic and, in a lot of other ways, it doesn’t really work.
IMAX
Over the years, IMAX has had its fair share of 3D features. Part of the appeal of IMAX is its very large screen. You would think that watching 3D on that very large screen would be an astounding experience. The reality is far different. Once you don the special polarized 3D glasses, that huge screen is seemingly cut down to the size of a small TV. The 3D imagery takes care of that effect. I’m not sure why that effect happens, but 3D definitely makes very large screen seem quite small. So, even though the screen is huge, were you watching the imagery as flat the 3D kills the scale of the screen. Effectively, the screen seems about half or a quarter the size that it is when watching the same feature as flat.
Worse, transitions that work when the film is flat no longer work in 3D. For example, fades from one scene to another are actually very difficult to watch when in 3D. The reason is that while this transition is very natural in a flat film, this is a very unnatural type of transition in 3D. Part of the reason for this transition problem is that the 3D depth changes confuse the senses and worsen the strain. Basically, you’re wanting to watch 3D to make the entire film seem more real, but some creative elements don’t function properly when watching in 3D. So, that fade I mentioned makes the film appear strange and hard to watch. While that fade would work perfectly when flat, it just doesn’t work at all in 3D. Film makers need to take into account these subtle, but important differences.
Just like filmmakers have had to make some concessions to the HD format (every blemish and crease on clothing is seen), the same must be said of 3D features.
Velvet Elvis
Unfortunately, 3D features haven’t really come much farther along than the early adopters, like Jaws 3D. So, the film maker employs such unnecessary tactics as poking spears at the camera or having flying objects come towards the camera or hovering things close near the camera. It’s all playing to the 3D and not to the story. These such tactics are trite and cliched… much like a velvet Elvis painting. Film producers need to understand not to employ these silly and trite tactics to ‘take advantage’ of 3D film making. There is no need for any extra planning. Let the chips fall where they may and let the film’s 3D do the talking. You don’t need to add flying spears or having things thrown towards the camera. If you didn’t need to do this in 2D, you don’t need to do it in 3D.
Emerging technologies
Television manufacturers are now trying their hand at producing 3D TVs. So far, the technologies are limited to polarized screens or wearing glasses. While this does work to produce a 3D effect, it has the same drawbacks as the big screen: eye strain and headaches. So, I can’t see these technologies becoming common place in the home until a new technology emerges that requires no glasses and produces no eye strain. So, for now, these television makers are likely to end up sitting on many of these novelty devices. Worse, for the same reason the IMAX screen seems half the size, this effect is also present on Televisions. So, while you may have that 60″ TV in your living room, donning a pair of 3D glasses and watching a 3D feature will effectively turn that huge screen into about half (or less) of its current size. So, you may feel like you’re watching that 3D feature on a 20″ screen.
Going forward, we need a brand new paradigm shifting 3D technology. A new technology that does not rely on glasses or polarization. A new technology that can actually create 3D images in space rather than forcing the eyes to see something that isn’t really there. It would be preferable to actually create 3D imagery in space. Something that appears real and tangible, but isn’t. Holograms come to mind, but we haven’t been able to perfect that technology yet… especially not projected holograms. Once we have a technology on par with Star Trek’s Holodeck, then we might begin to have emersive 3D experiences that feel and seem real.
Overall
For me, the present state of 3D is novelty and produces too many negative effects. However, because it is new, it is something that will win some support, but overall I think that people will still prefer to watch flat TV and movies because it causes far less eyestrain. So, I fully expect that this resurgence of 3D will dwindle to nothing within the next 2 years. In fact, in 5 years time, I’d be surprised to see if any TV makers are still producing the current 3D TVs and film makers will have dropped back to flat features keying off of lack of support. Effectively, I see this 3D resurgence as similar to the failed quadrophonic technologies of 70s.
Newest Scam: Law enforcement agencies target unsuspecting motorists with bogus citations
I’ve long suspected that this is happening, but now I’ve been a victim of this exact situation. In the state of the economy, especially here in California, local law enforcement agencies are apparently under the budgetary microscope. As a result, it now appears that law enforcement agencies have now joined the ranks of the scam artists… with one exception, they are legally sanctioned entities. In my case, my car was stated to have been located near an expired parking meter and cited for this parking infraction when it was no where near the location on that date. I do drive near that parking structure. Near yes, but almost never closer than 2-3 miles near it. Close enough that a local cop could have written down my plate number, seen the make, model and color and then used that information to create the scam citation. Yes, I could have contested the ticket, but the main issue is that the citation had nearly every bit of information about my vehicle correct except the body style (which was conveniently absent from the notice to pay). On top of that, the citation was issued so late in the contest process, I basically didn’t have time to contest it. However, the license plate number was correct, plate expiration year correct, make correct, color correct. The only thing that wasn’t correct and, of course, wasn’t written on the notice to pay the citation was the body style… how convenient. The other two things that were conveniently missing from their ‘system’.. the VIN and the month of the plate expiration. Two bits of information that would have conclusively proven my vehicle wasn’t there, but this information was conveniently absent.
Worse, law enforcement agencies can dig through the state’s plate database and simply choose license plates at random, write a citation based on some random vehicle incident, throw the ticket away and collect the money. That is assuming you don’t contest. The issue, though, is that if the officer is thorough enough about the make, color and license specifics, then they have you regardless of what the body style says to be or where you claim to have been at the time. Of course, if you happen to have conclusive proof that your vehicle wasn’t where the officer claims it was on the citation.. like a date stamped photograph of your vehicle at that moment in time (and how likely is that to happen) or some other proof your vehicle was locked up, then you’re likely going to end up paying the scam citation. Even contesting it, you may still end up paying. As long as the vehicle is in your name and the citation is tied to your plate, you’re liable period.
Honestly though, would you actually be able to successfully contest this? I mean, you can, yes. But, is it worth the effort? Sure, you could retain a lawyer, but that would cost you much more than the $45-$90 just to pay the citation. You could do it yourself and go to court. Again, they know this is a hassle and they are apparently exploiting this fact. They know you’ll pay because the amount is too small for all that hassle.
Incidents like these are exactly what government and law enforcement don’t need or want right now. Setting up scams to bring in cash isn’t the answer. But yet, it is happening.. likely every day. Note that in my case and because my car actually wasn’t where the officer claimed it was, I never received an initial citation. The only notice I received was from the collection agency. One officer stated to me when I called about this issue. “It might have just blown away”. Uh-huh.. riiiight. Maybe I didn’t receive it because my vehicle wasn’t actually there. But, that doesn’t matter. As long as the officer is thorough enough to go through the license database or write down your vehicle as you drive around town, they can easily set up scam citations to collect between $45 and $90 for the city, county (or the University in this case). And worse, as long as it’s in your name and the majority of the information is correct, even a judge may still find you liable for the fine.
Government problems just beginning
These issues are the beginning of the end of the government as we know it. When cops are now involved in state legalized racketeering, then there’s really no hope that this government can continue to exist. We are about to head back to the old west of lawlessness. If the police can no longer be trusted not to scam individuals out of their hard earned money, the no one can be trusted. This is the era in which the US and local governments will collapse. It will collapse under its own weight and ungainly methodologies. By unscrupulously taking advantage of its own infrastructure for illicit monetary gain, the end of this government draws near. It’s only a matter of time.
Government was initially designed to serve the people. Unfortunately, now it’s just the opposite. It now looks like people are now forced to serve the government. As long as these scams continue unabated, there is no hope for law enforcement agencies to gain any respect or trust from the people, let alone the government. And then they wonder why people no longer trust cops. Hello? Looks like the lights are on but no one’s home.
Our governments were designed to help us (the people). Unfortunately, now government appears to be helping itself more than the people. Of course, this issue is not the beginning. In reality, we can consider sales tax, use taxes, income tax all forms of legalized monetary scams. Ways to part you from your money. Sure, it’s supposed to help us through programs, but the only thing it really does is help government remain in power. If the American people stood up and finally said no to paying government fees, taxes and assessments in mass, it would be all over for government agencies. They simply would not be able to function. But, that’s not going to happen. Too many Americans believe that government is still necessary. But, do we need a government like this? A government that is no better than your average street thug dealing dope?
I’m not saying that government deals in dope, but don’t they? Just look at the FDA. It’s supposed to help protect us. But then, big pharma companies just use the FDA to put their expensive and hazardous drugs onto the market. Some of these drugs make us highly addicted or, worse, the drugs become lethal. Again, it’s another ‘legalized’ form of controlled chaos. I guess it’s all really a point of view at this point. It can only be called protection, though, if people don’t die. When people begin to die because big pharma decides to push the latest pill, then that isn’t any better than the drugs being shipped in from outside the US. So, how is the FDA really any better than a big drug cartel?
Government rethink
I think it’s time to rethink our governmental system. It is now time to realize that what our forefathers put in place is now collapsing under its own weight. Is there a governmental system that could work? Good question. We already know that other governmental forms like socialism and communism don’t really work. A democracy could work, but I think we’ve put so many laws into place that it’s now simply collapsing. I think there’s a point at which there are too many laws and I think we’ve already reached and exceeded that number. Worse, our governments have bastardized the bill of rights to fit the criteria of their point of view instead of what they actually mean. So, for example, you can claim the right to bear arms as long as you’re in a state where it’s legal to do so. Huh? How is that possible? The right to bear arms is a given right and cannot be revoked by any state. Again, as for the fourth amendment, what’s actually considered an ‘unreasonable search and seizure’? Because our forefathers weren’t more specific on this aspect, it is left open to interpretation. Interpretation leads to modification. Modification leads to the law only being valid under specific conditions. These modifications were not sanctioned by the bill of rights. Of course, so when it comes down to whether or not it violates the Bill of Rights, then it has to go in front of the Supreme Court. And, oh yes, this court is appointed by the President. If that is not conflict of interest, I don’t know what is.
Yes, it’s time to consider a new government. One that goes back to our roots. One that doesn’t try to save every business in the US. One that focuses on the people as people, not as a business. Free enterprise and entrepreneurship will survive no matter what. Businesses can fend for themselves. We no longer need businesses putting politicians in their back pockets simply to help keep the revenue flowing. This isn’t a nanny state, yet I believe that’s where we are fast heading, if not already there. Businesses don’t need any government officials ‘on their team’. But, big business will always argue that it does. That’s only because they want laws passed that benefit their ability to continue to make money. Truth is, no one looks out for an individual. Why should any third party look out for a company?
Government has sewn the seeds of its own destruction with situations such as all of the above. It’s now time for us to find another fundamental way to continue our society (and the human species). In the grand scheme of things, the government is probably the least important thing we have today. What’s most important is Earth and ours, the human species. Clearly, where we are today isn’t the answer.
Noon lunch, 2:30 crash
Have you ever wondered why you get really sleepy around 2:30PM? What you eat at lunch has a lot to do with it. Most lunch menus serve you rice and/or bread with your meal. On top of this, you’re probably eating chips, fries or other starchy foods. You may even be eating too much. A lot of people don’t understand this fact about starch, but starch is basically long chains of sugar. The body knows how to easily break these chains turning them into glucose (blood sugar). So, while starch doesn’t taste sweet, that doesn’t really matter to the body. It processes starch just as though it were sugar.
With all of the heavy loads of starch eaten at lunch meals, the body’s reaction to that is by producing insulin to balance the high blood sugar levels. The downer you feel at 2:30PM is the body clearing the excess blood sugar from your body, but possibly even more than this. Insulin is a hormone released by the pancreas to stimulate the muscles and liver to metabolize the blood sugar thereby taking the excess blood sugar levels down. If too much insulin is released, you may end up slightly hypoglycemic (low blood sugar) which can make you sleepy (among other symptoms). Once the body releases glucagon, another hormone that raises blood sugar levels, the blood sugar levels should even out.
The body wants to keep blood sugar levels in check. But, after an excessively large starchy meal, the body may overcompensate by producing too much insulin which can cause sleepiness.
The takeaway from this is that you should limit how much starch and food you eat at lunch. You don’t need to stuff yourself to the max. You just need enough food to get you through till dinner. You should also try to limit the starchy foods in lunch meals. The idea is to keep the body’s blood glucose levels even throughout the day (especially if you are healthy). Heavy spikes in blood sugar (starch consumption) overtaxes the pancreas (that creates insulin) and, in some people, may eventually lead to diabetes. More than diabetes it is good to do this just to keep yourself feeling your best and avoid afternoon sleepiness.
For lunch meals, you can include some starch, just don’t make it the majority of your meal. Meat and vegetables don’t raise insulin much. Potatoes, bread, pasta, cakes, cookies and candies all raise blood sugar levels, so be careful eating these meals for lunch. If you limit your consumption of sweet and starchy foods during your lunch meal, you can avoid the sugar high and subsequent sugar low. If you can keep your insulin levels even throughout the day, you can avoid the afternoon sleepies.
iPad: Reflections of things to come?
While many critics are discussing the iPad’s lack of design and originality, I’ve come to another conclusion about this device and its ultimate vision. Jobs has always been a visionary among computing technologies. This device may seem unoriginal on the surface, but the one question that must be asked, “Is this device the first salvo to the death of the PC?” As much as you might consider that this is a PC, I believe that this device and its form factor may be the future of thin computing (like it or not).
Future
Some technologists predict that wireless technologies and broadband connections will get to the speed threshold that will render hard drives obsolete. There is some merit to this argument. Indeed, once the network speeds exceed hard drive speeds, what then is the need for the hard drive? So, why keep your data on flaky devices prone to failure? This is especially true when there’s plenty of cloud storage that can protect your data from loss.
With that in mind, once we unburden the computer from unstable storage technologies (ignoring the ramifications to Western Digital and Seagate), the need for portable always-connected devices like the iPad become amazingly clear.
iPad 1.0
The iPad is still firmly tied to storage technologies, albeit sans hard drive. Instead, it uses flash storage. Flash storage is silent and probably longer lasting than unstable mechanical drives. Flash can be placed into footprints that can make devices very small. As the size of flash memory increases and their subsequent footprint decreases, this memory offers unprecedented size possibilities. While the iPad is a clumsy design, one thing is clear… it may yet become the first viable cloud computing device.
Cloud Computing
This is the prediction from technologists that spell doom and gloom to the likes of Microsoft and Apple. Well, at least doom and gloom to the operating systems we know and love. With cloud computing, no longer will we have the need for local storage. Instead, all of our files will exist on servers in the cloud. Indeed, when broadband technologies get to gigabit speeds, it will far exceed the speed of slow, mechanical, loud and unreliable hard drive technologies. Flash storage will become the defacto standard for temporary local storage. With always-on computing at every place around the globe at gigabit speeds, there will be no need to for the hard drive. This means your files will always be online.
We are already heading in that direction rapidly. With sites like Flickr and Picasa, you can store all of your photos online. With Last.fm, you can listen to just about any music you want. With Hulu, you can watch all of the TV that you want. These are all perfect examples of cloud computing. With always-on cloud computing, you will eventually have access to anything you need immediately. For example, you want to watch a movie released to the theaters last Friday? Tune in and you’re watching.
The immediacy of any data you can possibly want will usher in cloud computing and possibly spell death to the PC.
Dumb Terminals
With the release of devices like the iPad and other solid state tablet devices, it’s clear we’re moving towards cloud computing. We just need our Internet speeds to become much faster. Data security issues need to be fully addressed, yes. Were cloud computing to become the defacto standard, and I believe it has a strong chance of that, smaller thinner devices with thin client softwares (lightweight operating systems) may spell the end to the likes of Windows and Mac OS X (at least for consumer devices). With thin client computing, devices can become very thin, sleek and very fast. Instead of shuttling around small SD cards from device to device, each consumer device will include a thin client to upload videos and audios directly to the cloud.
The immediacy of such consumer data will also user in a new wave of news reporting. An earthquake in Haiti? Cloud computing will ensure images appear on the web immediately by cloud users.
How do the business models work?
That’s dependent on businesses. With Google positioning itself as being the leader in cloud computing, it has already a substantial leap over other slow barge companies like Microsoft. Oracle’s Larry Ellison had predicted cloud computing years ago. While his prediction was years early and no where near ready for primetime, his prediction may actually be coming into reality.
Data Centers
Clearly, the hard drive will never go away entirely. Cloud computing requires massive data centers with lots of spindles holding data somewhere. So, the burden of storage will be firmly placed onto companies like Google. So, while consumer devices become smaller, more compact and offer cloud computing, business’ data centers will still require larger computers with hefty storage systems (the data has to exist somewhere). So, while thin computer may become commonplace in years to come for consumers, data centers will still be firmly entrenched in larger numbers of computers and the then fastest storage technologies. So, while Seagate and Western Digital may no longer be household words for consumers, they will still have a huge presence in the back ends that run the clouds.
Where we are now
Our Internet is still far too slow to be of real use in cloud computing today and, thus, not really ready for thin computing yet. But, as technology progresses, we will see much faster Internet speeds in the future. This will allow for always-on wireless anywhere computing. As devices become more portable and connected, it is inevitable that consumer technology become dumber to take advantage of remote storage. Right now, I see cloud computing as at least 10-20 years out for true viability. However, I believe that in hindsight, the iPad and iPod touch may be seen as the ‘father’ of thin computing devices.
Local Storage / Death of Windows?
For better or worse, thin client computing is coming. No longer will we need bloated operating systems like Windows. Once the immediacy of cloud storage becomes apparent, users will rapidly see the convenience of being able to get their files anywhere at anytime. Local storage traps your data in one computer that you only have access to at limited times. Cloud computing allows you to store your data in omnipresent storage that can be accessed 24/7 from anywhere. More than this, software as a service (SaaS) will ensure apps on the web rather than the need to be installed locally.
Standardized thin client computers will offer throw-away computers. Computers that, when broken, are simply tossed and you purchase another. No need to worry, “Oh, I’ve lost all my files”. Just simply buy a new thin client, login and all your files are immediately there. This is convenience and hassle-free computing at its simplest.
The iPad may be a considered a failure in our current local computing mentality, but it may actually be the perfect computer to usher in cloud computing. It just needs to overcome some hurdles like lack of Flash and Silverlight.
There may yet be method to Steve Jobs’ madness.
Apple’s iPad: 10 inch iPod Touch or iDisaster?
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!
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment