Out of the Box

At Paul Thurott’s Supersite for Windows, Paul Thurott agrees with a recent John Dvorak column noting that Microsoft is losing the PR war by being quiet, that it should be raising the volume now in advance of Windows 8, that the successful response to the relatively quiet launch of Windows 7 happened only because Vista was a disappointment, that not every product should be kept secret until just before its launch in the way Apple launches products, and that not every product should be launched the way Windows 7 was launched.

I agree with Thurrott that Microsoft has turned down the bombast and advance exposure to many of its key products, some good recent example being Windows Phone 7 and Kin devices, but not that it is out of the conversation. It is difficult to say if the “new humility” – or a convincing impersonation of it — has resulted in warmer receptions by the media, but I believe it has. More significantly, Microsoft is paying more attention to the user experience across its products in general. This doesn’t mean that Microsoft is trying to emulate Apple, although like Apple Microsoft is increasingly speaking through its products. Putting up and shutting up are not mutually exclusive.

Incidentally, it is quite amusing to read in the piece that, when it comes to promoting Apple’s products such as the iPad, according to Thurrott, “the press markets it for them, and makes people believe that this is somehow a big deal. It’s a self-replicating back-patting, buddy system, plain and simple.” A few dozen pixels to the right of that statement is the site’s tag cloud, which includes, among the most frequent terms, “Apple” and “iPhone.”

If you’re asking whether Apple implemented multitasking in iPhone 4.0 (and you’re not a developer), then you’re asking the wrong question. Multitasking headlined the seven “tentpoles” that made up the major new features of iPhone OS 4.0. Apple is bringing the benefits of multitasking through a clever mix of new system features that extend the benefits of multitasking that Apple pursued with push notifications.

Covering such major bases as background location tracking and extending background music playback from the iPod app to Internet services such as Pandora, there are now very few multitasking needs that won’t be met with Apple’s approach that, according to the company, preserves the keys of security – an approach that Apple maintains will preserve the keys of security, simplicity, performance and battery life.

The task switching in iPhone 4.0 complement other changes that used to require a seemingly endless series of swipes to get at information. These include a unified inbox and folders for grouping apps. (It would be great if the app store let you designate an app upon downloading). indeed, these should even free up more screen real estate for another new feature – custom wallpapers beyond the lock screen.

In the Q&A following the announcement, Apple was asked about widgets, a feature available on the Mac and on Android, but not on the iPhone. Apple seemed open to implementation at some future time, particularly with the iPad and took a step toward more lock screen functionality with music playback controls. All in all, the update should go a long way toward removing many user interface inefficiencies that Apple had begun to attack in the platform, as well as make using the iPhone a smoother and less frustrating experience on a daily basis. But since at least some of these features – especially the headlining multitasking – have been available from major competitors, it begs the question whether iPhone OS 4.0 is enough to beat back not only the imrovements of the core Android operating system, but what others are building on top of it.

The iPhone was really something of a talking dog. It was so amazing that Apple had brought such functionality to something that was so omnipresent that it was relatively easy to forgive the cramped interface and incessant swiping that sometimes seemed required to get things done. In a form of geek noblesse oblige, advanced users accepted these limitations understanding that it was part of the platform’s overall gestalt that brought new users into the smartphone ecosystem.

But you’ll find less of that feeling of compromise with the iPad. Yes, technically the iPad is very similar to a large iPod touch. But it is also an unbound iPod touch – unbound by the constraints of screen size, limited battery life, cramped keyboard, and a user interface that lacks some of the efficiencly boosters Apple has now implemented.

As I noted in a recent Laptop Magazine article, I put the iPad closer to a notebook on the smartphone-notebook continuum in terms of functionality and usage scenarios. And yet, the iPad is not a netbook, nor do I think it aspires to be one even though at least some of the tasks — most notably, e-mail and Web access — can be managed pretty well on it. But a BlackBerry handles e-mail pretty well, too. Furthermore, I think it would be the wrong path for Apple to try to make the iPad more netbook-like; this would work to the detriment of the device experience and would of course risk cannibalizing Apple’s Mac business. So far, the lack of multitasking is even less of an issue on the iPad than on the iPhone as you’re far more likely to be engaged with the device as you use it, and there is less need to have geolocation apps running in the background. Lack of Flash is being addressed by video providers — perhaps even Hulu — working on their own iPad apps.

Read the rest of this entry »

It looks as though my early skepticism about the CrunchPad has been validated. The device has been declared dead due to some bizarre wrangling over intellectual property and freezing out a partner.

Michael Arrington describes Fusion Garage’s gall in trying to sell the CrunchPad without his involvement:

This is the equivalent of Foxconn, who build the iPhone, notifiying (sic) Apple a couple of days before launch that they’d be moving ahead and selling the iPhone directly without any involvement from Apple.

Yet, three paragraphs later, he admits, “Neither we nor Fusion Garage own the intellectual property of the CrunchPad outright.”

I can assure you that there is no confusion at Foxconn about who owns the intellectual property behind the iPhone.

That’s not the only strange paradox. Arrington downplays the financial aspects of the CrunchPad, saying he never expected it to be “a huge business” and that it wasn’t “really about money.”. But he had hired accomplished Silicon Valley talent that had assembled a team, and was clearly cavorting with some big potential partners. These included Intel, possibly Google, and an unnamed national electronics retailer that sounds like it might offer consumers a buy that is best.

Even contracts that are thought to be ironclad are challenged. But the most surprising part is that Arrington, an attorney by trade, would be so careless as to leave so much of the IP in a gray area as to produce the squabbles that took down the CrunchPad — and yet so determined to file lawsuits regarding a product that will never ship and was not expected to drive much revenue. I’m certainly no attorney, but any episode of Judge Judy will teach you in a hurry to make sure you iron out details of any business relationship.

If this is such a dream, why no just find another design and manufacturing partner? There are plenty out there that create products instead of drama.

Comedian George Carlin recognized that necessity is the mother of invention in a comedy routine (Warning: adult language) on the origin of flamethrowers:

“[A]t some point, some person said to himself, ‘Gee, I’d sure like to set those people on fire over there, but I’m way too far away to get the job done. If only I had something that would throw flame on them.. .””

The observation applies to less violent tasks that have driven home technology since the advent of the TV remote control . Indeed, the Windows 7 feature that probably received the most attention at the launch event was Play To. Play To simply enables one to “push” content such as music as photos to compatible DLNA receivers, and Microsoft used it to show how Windows 7 could simultaneously serve ten video streams (over wired gigabit Ethernet,)

But with Play To, unlike as with a flamethrower,  it’s far more likely that you want to “pull” the output from a source than push it. Any serious media receiver around the home such as Sonos, a Logitech SqueezeBox or Apple TV provides a way to navigate sources remotely. This was a usage problem when Apple introduced AirTunes. Another shoe needed to drop and finally did once Apple finally released the Remote software for the iPod touch and iPhone years later.

Microsoft or its partners need to plug the Play To remote hold in similar fashion via iPhone software, Windows Mobile software, or some dedicated device because, in the world of DLNA, the same device can serve as server, renderer and controller, making things very confusing for the consumer. I’ll have more to say on the demands of this level of remote control in the near future.

The adoption of the “app store concept” has now begun to reach far beyond the smartphone. Recently,, both Oooma and Logitech made some terminology changes to capitalize on the app phenomenon. Ooma renamed its Ooma Lounge device management portal “my.ooma.com” and is referring to new functions as apps. Similarly,Logitech renamed its SqueezeNetwork to mysqueezebox.com and is now featuring an “app gallery” on that page in place of what it used to call xxx. Those changes are effective in Version 7.4 of what it now calls its Squeezebox Server, formerly SqueezeCenter. Most of the Logitech “apps” are merely audio content sources but, then again, so are a number of iPhone apps. Even Peek, which has crusaded against the smartphone, has recently rolled out apps for its e-mail device.

Of course, not every device with app ambitions makes it, and Verizon’s recent withdrawal of the Verizon Hub shows that apps can blossom only if a company is committed to continuing and advancing a platform. A value proposition must be established before it can be augmented. But the rewards can be great. Were it not for the iPod touch’s vast app library, Microsoft’s Zune HD would be a stronger competitor.

Watching the camp Second City Television show in my youth, I laughed at the show’s Monster Chiller Horror Theatre segments, in which John Candy, as the evil Dr. Tongue, would create “3D” by swaying a cat cradled in his arms toward and away from the camera — a high technological bar indeed.

Nevertheless, at the IFA conference in Berlin last week, Sony and Panasonic emerged as leading advocates for the adoption of 3D television based on a more modern approach; each had its own spin. Sony relied on its knowledge of movie making via Sony Pictures (now integrated into its “make.believe” corporate branding along with Sony Ericsson) whereas Panasonic noted that it had a production facility in Hollywood for mastering Blu-ray.

Sony also won showmanship points by distributing RealD glasses and showing 3D clips during its press conference. That’s fair game in my book even though the technology it plans to introduce in the home is actually the same as Panasonic’s, which uses active shutter glasses that Panasonic was showing behind closed doors on its 150″ plasma. Passing through those doors, I noticed the impact of the 3D effect when there is high contrast between foreground and background, lending credibility to its claim that plasma is well-suited to 3D. (It also bodes well for OLED, which both Sony and Panasonic are pursuing.) While the Avatar clip actually fell a bit flat (pun unintended), there was a confetti scene so realistic that I felt I could reach out and grab it. Panasonic also answered Sony’s eye-popping Gran Turismo cockpit scene from its press conference with its own impressive driver’s-eye footage.

Sony and Panasonic are also driving forces behind Blu-ray, and another piece of the puzzle to roll out at IFA was that the Blu-ray 3D spec is coming soon. Indeed, 3D will absolutely need content, and as was noted during the Blu-ray Disc Association press conference, 3D content will be distributed in many ways. But even that may not be enough to overcome some of the hurdles such as wearing glasses. That is why Philips has decided to sit back and sell 21:9 TVs that I can’t believe wouldn’t find an audience in at least the custom installer market in the U.S.

As my colleague Paul Gray at DisplaySearch (whom I ran into on the show floor) notes, 3D  may not close the gap in TV pricing declines, but I still see the question of Blu-ray’s arrival is more of a when (and certainly within the time frame of seeing the effect without the glasses) than if. 3D has particular value for movies and sports, two TV genres that helped drive HD adoption.

But one area that 3D could enhance that hasn’t seen much attention but where it could provide much value is in the oft-neglected user interface, where it could help in swimming through the overwhelming flood of metadata that consumers will need to navigate. Hillcrest Labs has already shown a quasi-3D user interface using its Loop remote dubbed HoME, but it strikes me as the tip of the iceberg as to what companies could do with real 3D capabiliies. Without significant redesign, the prospects of finding personal relevant video in the age of broadband video are frightening, even more so than Count Floyd.

Despite being a member of the Blu-ray Disc Association since 2005, Apple has lagged on integrating Blu-ray into Macs, pinning the blame on licensing issues and not being coy about iTunes’ competition with physical media. But if Toshiba has come to the point that it feels it needs Blu-ray to be competitive, than those licensing issues must be more like a landfill full of hurt than just a bag for Apple to continue abstaining.

True, Toshiba plays in the traditional CE deck business, something Apple’s not going to do, and Blu-ray becomes much more interesting in the PC market as a data archiving medium offering greater capacity than rewriteable DVD. Media prices will need to come down considerably for that to happen.. But even until then, many Mac users would probably benefit from Apple supporting Blu-ray even if they had no interest in the latest high-definition discs from Hollywood.

This is because Mac OS X (even, unfortunately, Snow Leopard, as I’ve learned) cannot natively handle AVCHD, in particular the MPEG Transport Stream (.MTS) file format. This is a significant disappointment given that it is used by major camcorder manufacturers such as Sony, Canon and Panasonic as the way video is stored on hard drives and flash memory. It is also surprising given that Apple is touting how QuickTime X is built on such a modern foundation and the role that Apple and QuickTime had in the development of H.264. And, finally, it puts Apple at a competitive disadvantage versus Windows 7, which includes native file format support for MTS.

MTS has been a headache for many users frustrated by its lack of support. Just (Disclosure: this verb sponsored by Microsoft) Bing it and you’ll see that many of the references to it are pleas for file format converters. Frankly, I don’t know how someone without an Elgato Turbo H.264 deals with a modern camcorder on a Mac (but Elgato, please add support for AVCHD Lite)..

So what’s the bugaboo around MTS? It comes down to companies being unwilling to spend the dollars to license officially or use some of the open source options. While I’m not familiar with all the details, it seems that to support MTS you need to license at least some portion of the technology needed to play back Blu-ray. Ergo, if Apple supported Blu-ray, it would probably have the IP needed to support MTS natively. If rumors about future versions of iTunes supporting Blu-ray turn out to be false, any Mac users hoping to deal with files from their modern camcorders as naturally as they do JPEGs should hope for Blu-ray Macs.

Exposé has been one of my favorite Mac OS features since its debut. After spending some time with the Snow Leopard team yesterday, I’m excited about the improvements Apple is making to it in Snow Leopard. Among them, window previews are now arranged in a grid, making them easier to track down, and you can even sort windows alphabetically as well as by app within Exposé. You can also zoom in on windows in Exposé Quick Look-style.

But the biggest change marries Exposé to the Dock to produce Dock Exposé, Apple’s answer to Microsoft’s Aero Peek feature in Windows 7, Dock Exposé. has a number of advantages versus Aero Peek such as using the entire screen for window preview.

However, one important feature where Aero Peek beats Dock Exposé is being able to show previews of multiple tabs in a Web browser. This is a serious omission since my browsers tend to accumulate a lot of tabs spread across multiple windows. It’s a mess and something like Exposé could really help with it. And so, browser tab support in Dock Exposé moves high on Ross’s Quite Reasonable List of Windows Features Apple Could Implement Without Compromising Usability.

Earlier this month, I wrote a Switched On column for Engadget that discussed how Windows 7 Starter Edition’s three-app limit left Microsoft wide open for jibes from Apple and detractors. Today, the company announced that it is lifting the three-app limit. Instead, it will rely on features such as personalization and streaming music support to distinguish the Starter Edition from Windows 7 Home Premium, which will be the default edition for developed economies.

Removing the three-app limit, which was arbitrary in this day of Web applications that Google Wave has so aptly demonstrated, will remove potential frustrations that consumers of value-targeted PCs would have experienced while still providing enough of an incentive to induce consumers to upgrade. The losers here are Apple’s commercial writers, who will now have to dig a little harder to find something to ding Windows 7 on, and Linux, which, as I’ve noted, has increasingly had trouble justifying its presence in netbooks. But the potential of other “gaptop” devices such as Qualcomm’s SmartBook initiative, may offer new hope, It’s starting to look, though, that the opportunity is more around the smaller screen size than a lower price point.