Technology, Philosophy, and Art Tidbits

MPAA vs RealDVD: Evil Big Media strikes again!

2009-09-15T15:40:00.001-07:00

Well, things haven't changed since last year, so it's time for another of my long-winded rants on the wide-ranging evils inflicted on us by Big Media. They are at it again, so I'm stepping up on my soap box to spout my opinions about their behavior again.

Judge Marilyn Hall Patel recently granted the evil MPAA a preliminary injunction against RealDVD who created software which allowed consumers to copy their DVD collection onto their computers without removing the copy protection. This is a blow to consumers everywhere because it potentially eliminates one route to an amazing digital future where you could legally carry your entire movie collection around with you just like you carry your CD collection now.

But this decision isn't Judge Patel's fault. Her hands were tied by the actions of a Congress that is apparently wholly owned by rich "Big Media." The blame lies squarely with "Big Media" companies who essentially bribed and cajoled Congress into passing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) under the guise of protecting their copyrights. The law was passed with zero regard for how it would affect consumer rights, because that is exactly what Big Media wanted.

With the DMCA, Congress destroyed consumer rights. We already have the legal right to make a copy of media we buy (just Google "Fair Use"), but the DMCA made it illegal to remove copy protection from media. SO, the evil media companies just put copy protection on everything, which conveniently bypasses our right to copy our media. Sneaky, right?

Well, RealDVD figured out a way to copy the media to your hard drive and play it without removing the copy protection. The copy protection is still intact, so technically it doesn't break the DMCA. Making a copy is protected by Fair Use. So, this is completely legal. Yet, Big Media still went ballistic. They ostensibly sued RealDVD for breach of contract (which RealDVD technically DID do), but they sued with the main intent of preventing RealDVD from helping us exercise our Fair Use rights to copy our media. Big Media paid good money to get the DMCA passed. They don't want anyone finding a way around it and messing with their cash cow.

What should really happen is that somebody should challenge the legality of putting copy protection (Digital Rights Management - DRM) on media to begin with. It inhibits our Fair Use rights. After all, if they can't legally put the DRM on, then it doesn't matter if it's illegal to remove it. But that probably won't come out of this case. This case is about evil companies squeezing more money from paying consumers.

So why would Congress basically make it illegal to exercise a right we've had for a long time? Because they are crooks. Our lawmakers are bought and paid for by Big Media companies with deep pockets. Despite being OUR elected representatives, and working in a government we finance with our taxes, lawmakers care ZERO about consumers. That's because they get far more money from lobbyists than what we pay them. Yes, our system is severely messed up. Further, any time somebody proposes that we outlaw lobbyists, it gets voted down by Congress, who coincidentally are the primary people benefiting from the current arrangement. Big surprise.

If ANY of our lawmakers actually cared about voters, they would introduce a Digital Media Consumers Bill of Rights. That law would protect our right to use any piece of media we buy on any piece of equipment we own. It would make it illegal for ANYONE to infringe upon that right by using DRM or by tying media to specific hardware. Of course, if any of our lawmakers cared about voters, they would outlaw lobbying by special interests. That's not going to happen anytime soon. So, what can we do?

Big Media companies are squarely at the root of this evil being enacted upon consumers. The RIAA and the MPAA are organizations populated by evil companies who abuse the legal rights of their paying customers in a quest to milk more cash from us regardless of the morality of their tactics. DRM does NOT stop piracy. Piracy has escalated even as DRM has become more strict and more common. DRM only hurts legitimate paying customers. Yet, they continue to use DRM. It's obvious why they really use it and it has nothing to do with piracy. That's just a cover.

They use DRM (and the DMCA) to support a business model which makes zero sense in a digital world by turning our government into a media-owned private police force. They bypass our previously established "Fair Use" right to make a copy of media we already bought for our own personal use. Fair Use predates the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't even outlaw Fair Use. It just creates a sweet loophole for Big Media to screw law-abiding consumers. The DMCA makes it illegal to remove DRM. So, the evil studios simply put DRM on everything, which conveniently sidesteps our Fair Use rights. I believe that was their real intent from the start. In my opinion, their act of pushing through the DMCA never had anything to do with stopping piracy. That was just the reason they had to give publicly in order to push it through. The law was designed to sustain their failing business model and generate revenue through legislation.

How does the DMCA (and DRM) support Big Media's business model?

I'll explain. If we want to use our purchased media on more than one device, Big Media bought enough legislators to force us to buy multiple copies of the same product, when we already have the legal right to make a copy. They did this by basically authoring the DMCA without any input from consumer rights groups and pushing it through Congress by buying votes through their lobbyists. It is an evil and backhanded way to force legal, paying customers to give them more money for something we already bought. The DMCA is written to help them rip off paying customers by sidestepping our rights and has zero impact on real world piracy. DRM and the DMCA don't stop piracy and never have. Only the simple-minded would think this is about copyright theft.

This case is all about Big Media continuing to use the DMCA to obstruct our previously established right to make a copy of media, all so they can continue to milk us for far more cash than they should legally be entitled to get. RealDVD breached their contract because they believe the restrictions the MPAA placed on them should be illegal. I agree with them. RealDVD tried in good faith to obey the law, as it is written. They required your original copy-protected media in order to copy it to your hard drive. They also kept the copy protection intact, which means you can't just give copies to all your friends or sell copies on a street corner. So, any notion that this case is about preventing piracy is nuts.

It's about Big Media bypassing our Fair Use rights on media we already bought. It's about milking their paying customers, not inhibiting thieves. The fact that the MPAA is even pursuing this case shows they hate their paying customers. They abuse our rights only so they can rip us off. They put restrictions on RealDVD which should be illegal. That's why RealDVD is fighting and I support them in their fight.

My suggestion? I hate to say it, because I've bought more media than just about anybody I know (850+ movies, 600+ CDs, hundreds of books, hundreds of pieces of software), but the only solution that will work is we just need to stop buying their products. I've given these companies the benefit of the doubt for far too long. Do we really want these companies to keep doing this to us indefinitely? Do we really want to keep paying $14 for a CD which costs 18 cents to make? Do we really want to keep paying $20-25 for a DVD that costs $1.50 to make? Do we really want to buy 4 copies of a movie so we can put it on 3 iPods and watch one copy at home? Do we really want to give them more cash so they can buy more politicians and eliminate more of our rights? I sure don't.

These companies are doing things the same way they have for many decades. They don't want to move into the future. They like the huge money machine they have now. They are fat, lazy, bitter old men who hate change and want no part of it. These companies are the only thing holding us back from quickly moving into a far better future for all digital media. These companies are the real problem. The RIAA should be killed off first, with the MPAA to follow if they don't change their ways.

We need to replace these dinosaur companies with modern digital-age companies who put customers needs and desires first. If Google or Amazon were running these companies, we would see a total change in how we watch movies or listen to music within a very short time. Our media collection would be stored in a virtual library online, easily accessible anytime, anywhere, and on any device we own. The media would cost less to purchase and be far more versatile. Progress and innovation would be enhanced, not hindered. Old distribution models would be dumped in favor of purely digital transmissions. Every aspect of the industry would be better for consumers if Google or Amazon replaced Big Media companies. What we need are companies who can turn that dream into a reality.

Just as an example, can anyone explain to me why music CDs are EVER made in advance and shipped on trucks to a store? It's a freaking digital file. Transmit the CD to the store over the Internet, store it on a hard drive, and only burn it when customers actually buy it. At a minimum, this would save manufacturing and shipping all those really crappy CDs which never actually sell. It also saves tons of shipping costs for the ones which DO sell. It could also allow people the option of putting the CD on an SD card, iPod, or thumb drive instead of a disk.

Who needs CDs anyway? I bought CDs to avoid DRM. I also bought CDs so I had control over the quality of the digital file. But, want to know where all my CDs are now? They're stored. I put the files on my computer, threw away the bulky CD cases, and then stored the disks in binders. Every one of them was pressed in a factory, packaged, warehoused, and shipped through multiple distribution points to end up on a store shelf. Then, I bought it and drove it home where I copied the files onto my hard drive, threw the case in a landfill, and put the CD in storage never to be used again.

That's a huge waste of resources and money just to support an ancient distribution model that a bunch of old geezers at big media companies simply refuse to abandon. The CD started as digital files on hard drives and ended as digital files on my hard drive with a bunch of expensive, wasteful stupidity in between. All of it created just so those Big Media idiots could stay rich. My suggestion? Cut out all of that middle crap and pass the huge savings on to me and the original artist. I'd buy a lot more.

What about iTunes or Amazon, you ask? Well, one thing I hate is that I lose control over the quality. Yes, iTunes does let you cut out the middle distribution part (mostly), but instead of it being a lot cheaper, it's even more of a rip off than the CDs. There is no way that copying a dozen digital files from a server should cost nearly as much as pressing, shipping, warehousing, merchandising, and selling a real CD. Yet, they are priced far too similarly. Plus, the quality of what you get is worse.

This is because evil Big Media is inflating the price far beyond reasonable. Selling 50,000 copies of a digital file on a server costs only a tiny bit more than selling 1 copy. Their markup is insane, even if you spread out the initial production costs. There is no manufacturing, shipping, warehousing, or distribution channel. Plus, even with the vastly inflated price and vastly reduced cost to distribute, the original artist doesn't get any more money at all. I'm guessing it all goes into the pockets of Big Media, so they can buy more Congressmen.

Remember, I said they need to cut out the middle processes and pass the savings on to me and the artist, not hoard the savings. Using the immense cost savings of digital distribution to make themselves far richer isn't any better than keeping the price of new release CDs at $14 for the past 25 years despite the fact that the cost of making them has dropped to pennies compared to the high original cost decades ago (about $8 each originally?). Both practices are just plain wrong, but when you have an entire industry colluding on product pricing, and Congress in their pocket protecting them, the consumer gets hosed.

If the HUGE savings of digital distribution of media files was actually passed along to the consumer, media would become so cheap that piracy would simply disappear. If it's dirt cheap and extremely easy to obey the law, why break it? Plus, everyone would own more media. The door might even be open to keeping all of our media securely online and easily accessing it from all of the devices we own. All of the media files could be stored once and anyone who owns it could point to that same file, just like on Amazon's Kindle service for books. But if the Big Media companies have their way, this bright future will never happen. They want things to stay the way they've always been.

We basically need to kill off the root source of all these problems. If you don't kill the root, the wart just keeps coming back. "Big Media" is a major blight upon our digital media future. They are the worst sort of wart that just won't go away. We just need to put them out of business. So, think very carefully before you give them another dime of your money for ANY of their products. The only way things will change is if WE change them. If we stop buying, perhaps fear of bankruptcy will bring them to their senses before they die off completely. If not, then good riddance.

So, maybe it's time to stop buying their products. Personally, I think we should all hold hands and loudly wish every single one of those evil studio execs and their vast number of lawyers the worst possible life followed by a slow and painful death. What they are doing to their once loyal customers is just plain wrong and I can only hope karma makes it right.

For more information about evil Big Media companies see:
http://www.boycott-riaa.com
http://riaasucks.com/
http://gizmodo.com/241595/even-foxtrot-thinks-the-riaa-sucks
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/09/10/riaa_keeps_12yearold_quiet/
http://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/MPAA_v_ThePeople/
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/05/reminder-from-the-mpaa-drm-trumps-your-fair-use-rights.ars
http://kirksigmon.com/2009/05/thoughts-on-the-mpaa-lawsuits/

Technorati Tags: RIAA,MPAA,DMCA,DRM,Big Media,copyright,Fair Use,First Sale

It's time for a 21st century OS!

2009-07-16T13:21:00.001-07:00

I was reading one of the many arguments between Windows, OS X, and Linux fans online the other day and came to the realization that all of the current crop of desktop operating systems basically suck in one way or another. None of them are truly secure. None of them have file systems which are bullet proof. None of them can recover gracefully from power loss, hard drive failure, or other modern calamities. All of them suffer from hardware compatibility issues. None of them support multiple processor cores or even multiple threads of execution in any really meaningful way. They are all based on ideas, technologies, and even code bases that are literally decades old now.

Sure, most modern desktop operating systems have been updated regularly. Most have been patched up to support modern hardware as it appears. Most allow drivers to be created which give new hardware access to the system. Most have added on support for modern communication protocols and modern storage systems. But all of the current operating systems have had to add this functionality by tacking new code onto old sub-systems in ever more creative ways.

Perhaps it's time to cut our software links to the 70's and 80's and truly start over. Maybe it's time for a clean slate approach to a modern operating system. In a nutshell, we're still using 20th century desktop operating systems and it's time for a drastic change. Somebody needs to develop a completely new desktop operating system to take us well into the 21st century. It's time for a 21st century OS.

How would one start this process? What should it include?

I say, start with a clean slate. Cast a tiny kernel in stone. Make it read-only to everything. Hell, go one step further and put it in a quick-boot ROM. Boot speeds should never exceed 15 seconds. It's ridiculous to have 8 core processors running at 3+ GHz in modern computers and yet they take 2 full minutes to start up.

Next, virtualize and sandbox every non-kernel process in the entire system. Don't let ANYTHING at any level make changes to the core operating system. Ever. Also, don't let any process change the code or data of any other process. Both should just plain be forbidden and prevented. It should be impossible for little Bobby to do something to the computer that would require reinstalling or reconfiguring anything.

Weave in a secured version of a self-healing file system like ZFS from Sun. Build-in IPv6 with DES-level security from the ground up. Make file, hardware, system, and communications security a required part of the operating system rather than an optional add on. The only way somebody should be able to gain access to the computer is by having the security key in advance. In fact, maybe it's time to put our security keys into hardware, just like our house keys or car keys. Having your key should grant you secured access to your own system whether you are sitting in front of it or sitting at a public computer on the other side of the world.

Next, define a few very strict hardware device protocols, build in support for those few, and frankly don't allow any hardware which does not conform to the specification fully. The era of adding registry keys, installing drivers, and trying to get your devices to work is OVER. Develop one way to talk to devices and if a device doesn't follow the rules, just don't support it period. No drivers. No hacks. No way.

Make the OS both massively parallel and multi-threaded. Create tools which embrace and incorporate both ideas so our future generation 10,000 core CPUs just work from the start. Treat both, GPUs and CPUs as computing resources with a generic way of describing their capabilities to the operating system so that it can route tasks to whatever processor is available which can do the work. The kernel should simply use processors as processors. If you add another one, it should just use it.

Make the OS lean and fast. Make it boot in under 10 seconds, 15 maximum. Give the OS a hardware accelerated GUI and hardware accelerated media capabilities from the start. All media encoding and decoding should be open source and specified in hardware. Keep the GUI SIMPLE and intuitive. It shouldn't require tweaking to make things work. There should be no command line. There shouldn't NEED to be.

Make the OS dirt cheap or free by selling vendors a secure key, development kit, or license for developing compatible hardware. Maybe charge for software development kits. Either way, it needs to be free to end users and perhaps even free to computer makers for it to get adopted or offered as an option as quickly as possible. To ensure that the OS can be given away for free, avoid licensing old crap from the current crop of patent trolls who now sell 20th century OSes. There are great alternatives for everything, even media formats, from open, license-free sources.

Basically, write us a brand-new 21st century OS so we can all stop using the wide variety of crappy, antique, hacked-together, 20th century OSes we are currently stuck with. There really isn't a great OS to be found right now. They all have security issues. They all have hardware problems. They all have kernel panics, system crashes, malware, viruses, and more. A lot of people like me are ready for something totally different and brand new. It's time for a change.

Maybe there needs to be a 21sth Century OS X-Prize! Offer a million dollars to the first person, university, or company to develop an OS and C/C++ compiler which meets all the criteria I listed above. We badly need to find the Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Steve Wozniak of THIS generation. We're in a new century. We need the OS of the future and we need it now.

Technorati Tags: OS,OS X,Windows,Linux,operating systems,future technology,CPU,GPU,multiprocessor,graphics processor

iPhone 3: What to expect and when.

2009-06-04T15:40:00.001-07:00

The next version of the iPhone is receiving quite a "buzz" in the media. I think this is because it is rumored to finally fix some of the major omissions that have plagued the iPhone since version 1.0. Users are getting excited that the iPhone will finally live up to the promises made at the original introduction 2 years ago.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I've been quite vocal about the many shortcomings of the original iPhone. These opinions come from a person who has been using the iPhone as his only phone since day one of its original introduction. I like the phone a lot, but it always fell short of the Apple hype engine claims. It has never for a moment been a "revolutionary" communication device. Every feature the iPhone had at its introduction had been available for years from other smart phone makers. In fact, there were/still are a lot of basic features missing which those other phones have had for years. The primary difference was always the simple user interface. Apple made it easier to use those myriad functions. That's evolutionary progress, not revolutionary.

Fast forward two years from that over-hyped introduction and we're now looking forward to the release of the third version of the iPhone. It took two years, but it seems Apple has finally listened to owners and filled in the many missing features we've been requesting literally since day one. In my mind, this latest release finally makes the iPhone equal in features with all of the other smart phones on the market. The easy user interface pushes it over the top. If the rumored feature set of this third iPhone is true, I can finally put away my soap box and agree that this new iPhone will be the best smart phone out there. So, here are the details of what I have seen rumored. (mockup photo from http://www.iphone-ticker.de)

What can we reasonably expect in the third iPhone?

Increased RAM size. The RAM used for executing programs in the current iPhone is 128MB. This is expected to be doubled to 256MB for the new version. That's a huge improvement.
Increased performance. The main CPU in the new iPhone is expected to jump to 600MHz clock speed from 400MHz in the current version. There are also other optimizations which might give it an additional boost, so that the total performance gain will be more than 50%.
Wider range of storage capacities. The new iPhone is expected to come in as many as 4 different storage capacities. They are 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB. Folks like me with large audio libraries will finally be able to put their music collection on their iPhone! People who only use the phone for email and browsing will get a price break by buying the smallest capacity unit. Everyone wins.
Cut and paste. This is a big one that has been missing and requested loudly since the beginning.
MMS support. This is another one of the most requested missing features. Owners of the new iPhone will finally be able to exchange basic audio/video/photo messages with nearly every other cell phone owner out there. No more logging onto a web site to type in a bizarre code so you can view a message sent to you from a $29 phone. No more embarrassment that those $29 phones can do something your expensive phone can't do.
Improved Bluetooth support. I think we'll finally see stereo headset support. I also think we'll see Bluetooth keyboard support and possibly Bluetooth printing. I think we'll likely also see tethering support with some artificial limitation attached. Probably the limitation will be that you pay extra for a tether-friendly data plan from AT&T.
Video recording and simple editing. In order to fully-implement MMS, they needed to be able to record video. So, they wrapped this feature in a simple application to use any time.
Audio recording. The same note applies for MMS audio recordings. They had to implement it anyway, so they made it available as a new application.
Improved camera image quality. This comes in the form of better light sensitivity and auto focus functionality built-in. The camera will be less prone to image blur. I wonder if digital image stabilization isn't also an element of this equation. I'm betting on simple face recognition, as well.
Improved camera resolution. This rumor is still the subject of debate. Many say the new camera will be 3.2MP. I'm not holding my breath on this one, but it does make sense. Frankly, if they just improve the quality of the images from the existing camera, that will go a long way toward making people happy.
Digital compass. Being able to orient the device in 3D space will be a useful enhancement to GPS positioning abilities. The digital compass application looks pretty cool, too.
Turn-by-turn navigation. With the digital compass added, all of the hardware is there to do real turn-by-turn navigation. If they use Google Maps, it should be fairly straightforward to implement this. I believe this rumor is true.
Percentage indicator for battery life. This is a small thing that will be very handy. The existing indicator just isn't accurate enough to be useful. I really hope this one is true.
Nike+ support and a built-in Nike+ application. This rumor looks like it may be true. I could easily see Nike making a deal with Apple to include it. It's a cool application and it could be a beneficial partnership - selling more product for both companies.
Downloadable iTunes TV/Movies. This one is a tough call. On the one hand, you have AT&T whining about bandwidth usage. On the other, you have Apple trying to further pump up their highly-profitable iTunes sales. IF this happens, it will likely be limited to WiFi downloads only for a long time.
Pseudo background application support. This will come in the form of push notifications being available to most applications. It will give applications the feel of background execution, without actually sucking up CPU and battery time. We'll have to wait and see how well this works in reality.
Further enhancements to Exchange Server compatibility. By this, I mean slight tweaks, not drastic improvements. The iPhone will still lack the extensive configuration capabilities that the Blackberry enjoys, but for most people the iPhone will be more than adequate. Just don't try to change your auto-responder from your iPhone.
Global search. This was another feature requested by many, but ignored by Steve Jobs. The iPhone owner will finally be able to do what Palm's have done for well over a decade - search through everything on the device from a single search box. It's about time.
Positioning information will now be available within the browser, in the form of JavaScript classes. This will open up all kinds of cool online services based on where you are standing at that moment. Expect to hear about a lot of cool web sites which take advantage of this shortly after introduction. For example, you could watch your friends move around town in real time on a map at a social networking site. I think Google has already been working on exactly this type of thing.
Apple logo that lights up. Seriously? Why waste the battery power? Perhaps they plan to simply let the LCD back light bleed through to the logo on the back, but it's supposedly a true rumor. We'll see.

What rumors are probably not true?

Improved battery life. I'll believe this one when I see it. I don't see how they can add so much functionality, as well as new hardware, while reducing the battery load at the same time. They may claim longer battery life, but I don't think any of us will see it in real world usage. I'd be mostly happy if it just doesn't get any worse.
Adobe Flash support. As much as people have been asking for this, I think Adobe would tell us if they were ready to introduce it. They haven't said a word. So, I don't think it's coming any time soon. It's a shame because so many web sites don't offer an alternative to their Flash menus. I'm sure not having Flash support will be the main thing I still complain about on this new iPhone.
Apple TV functionality with HD video support. While I think they will take a stab at letting people download videos and TV to their iPhones using iTunes, I don't think the iPhone will support HD content. It's really pointless to do this until the display can at least come close to rendering it fully. I don't see HD or Apple TV functionality coming to the iPhone for at least a year, if not two.
Built-in uploading of recorded videos to YouTube. I really think Apple only tolerates YouTube. If there is ANY built-in uploading of videos, it will probably be set to work exclusively with Apple's own (lame) online service. Apple is very inbred when it comes to forcing its products to only work with its services. I do think this ability will appear on the iPhone, just not from Apple.
HD or FM radio receiver. I can't imagine Apple letting people listen to the radio instead of forcing them to buy songs from iTunes.
Matte black and matte white finishes. Apple has always been tilted toward glossy and shiny, so I can't imagine they would offer anything in a matte finish. Then again, this is a phone. Maybe they will listen to the complaints of users about scratches and fingerprints and coat it with a protective finish of some sort. We can hope, but I'm not very optimistic about this one.
Enhanced "super" 3G support. Some are calling it 3.5G+ or 3.75G. I don't think it will make it into this generation of iPhone, but all bets are off on the next version. AT&T is finally beefing up their high speed cellular support and the future looks brighter than it ever has. Now, if only we could get them to lighten up on bandwidth restrictions, we might see mobile to mobile video chat (which has existed forever in the Orient) in our lifetimes. Our communications systems in this country are so primitive in comparison to the rest of the world. It's sad, really.

What rumors are definitely not true?

Full iChat support integrated. Sure this would be nice, but I doubt we'll see it anytime soon. AT&T has us all by the short hairs when it comes to guarding their bandwidth.
WiFi draft N support. I don't believe we'll see this. They have only recently embraced draft N support in their desktops and laptops. I'm sure they don't think it's important enough for the iPhone.
Built-in FM transmitter. Not likely either. There isn't enough space inside the device and it would eat up the battery quicker.
Front facing camera for video chatting. Not happening because of bandwidth limitations set by AT&T. Maybe in two years, but no way it's happening in this version.
OLED screen. That would push the price too high and this is one of their few devices where Apple grudgingly acknowledges that price is somewhat important. Until OLEDs are cheaper and being manufactured in sufficient quantities, we won't see them on iPhones. It just isn't realistic. We might see LED backlighting for the LCD display, though. That, I could see happening.
Any drastic changes to the form factor. The 3rd iPhone will only have minor cosmetic tweaks if anything. It will retain the same basic layout, shape, and dimensions as prior versions.
Carbon fiber casing. I can't see anyone using carbon fiber for a telephone casing. It is too brittle. The first drop would bust it open. I think the new iPhone will use the same plastic as the 3G with little change to anything.
Editing of Word and Excel files. With third parties jumping in to fill this void, I don't see Apple wasting the resources to add this ability. There are already a couple of good applications for this task available from iTunes, so they'll make their money that way.

When will we see the new iPhone?

Some of the features mentioned above will appear in version 3.0 of the operating system, which is supposed to be introduced for existing iPhones on June 8, 2009. There are rumors that this upgrade will be sold, not free. Because some of the functions depend on new hardware, users of older iPhones simply won't see some of the new features.

The new iPhone device will appear over a month later, on July 17th, 2009. I'm sure we'll be able to tell what hardware/software made the final cut during the weeks between those two dates. I expect to hear about a lot of first generation iPhone owners finally trading in their phones once the new one hits the shelves. I'm certainly in that category.

Yes, it's a great update. The feature set will finally be mostly complete. But before you start thinking I'm completely content with the rumored abilities of this new iPhone, let me reassure you with the following section:

What would I like to see added next?

Flash support is the one blindingly obvious item which needs to happen sooner rather than later. Flash may not be an open standard, but it is a de facto standard used on a large number of commercial web sites. Deal with it Apple! Help Adobe create it.
LED backlighting on the display. It's brighter for sunny days and displays much better color. Even OLED wouldn't be a big improvement if they put LED backlighting on the display.
WiFi draft N. If they are going to keep limiting large downloads to WiFi only, at least give us decent speed on the WiFi.
Increased display resolution - but only if it doesn't make everything harder to read for those of us who are getting old. In other words, give us a way to keep the font sizes big enough to see while displaying images or video at the increased resolution.
Higher resolution camera - but only if the picture quality doesn't suffer in the process. More pixels are useless if the picture is blurry.
Switch-able LED lighting for video and photo recording in darkened rooms like clubs or restaurants.
HD video playback. Sure, 720p would be the logical first step, but eventually I'd like to see full 1080p output. Of course, this is probably a long-term goal. More and more hotel rooms have flat panels with HDMI connections. Just add a micro-HDMI port and let me watch my iPhone videos on my hotel room TV in full high definition. Let me display presentations on conference room flat panels, too. Is that a presentation in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?
An SD or even micro SD expansion slot. Sometimes you just want more space for your stuff. Downloading videos will make that even more critical.
A user-replaceable battery. Even if it's just a back that opens more easily and a battery cable which unplugs, make it replaceable by the end user damn it. NOBODY wants to be without their phone while it gets shipped in for a new battery to be installed. That's retarded.
Add the ability to edit calendar events, alarms, and contacts from inside iTunes. This is another thing Palm's have had for over a decade. Get with the program Apple.
Add the ability to drag songs or albums onto your iPhone without creating a damned play list first. Sometimes I just want the music on there to listen to on a whim. I don't need it to be part of a play list.

Yes, you're right. I'm a picky bloke who can always come up with a wish list for any device. The new iPhone will absolutely be a big improvement over previous generations. In fact, if the rumors are true, this could be the best phone out there. But there is always room for improvement.

Summing it up.

In a nutshell, the 3rd iPhone version looks like it will finally fulfill the promise of the original iPhone introduction two years ago. The wide variety of feature shortcomings which held the device back from widespread acceptance will finally be addressed. With these feature and hardware additions, the feature set required to call itself a modern smart phone will finally be nearly complete. Unlike the 3G introduction, which only increased download speed and added a GPS radio, this third version looks like the real "second coming" of the iPhone. It actually looks to be an upgrade worth buying for those of us with first generation iPhones. I'm excited to see how the rumors pan out.

I fully expect iPhone 3 will take off like a rocket after introduction. By this time next year, I'm predicting the already large installed base of iPhones will have tripled and Apple will be doing quite well, indeed, thanks to iPhone and iTunes sales. Currently, if you remove the iPhone, iPod Touch, and their associated iTunes sales increases from Apple's financial numbers, Apple would have done as poorly as the rest of the tech sector or worse. Instead, they have been relatively untouched by the floundering economy. This new version of the iPhone looks like it will further boost Apple's numbers to amazing levels of health. If you have Apple stock, hold onto it. The iPhone's future looks very bright.

Technorati Tags: iPhone 3.0,iPhone,Apple

X-REVs: The future of automobiles.

2009-06-01T13:57:00.001-07:00

Hybrids are currently about 1% of the total market in the U.S. I've seen predictions that say hybrids will reach about 10% within 10 years. I personally don't agree with those predictions. In fact, I see hybrids being completely replaced by Extended Range Electric Vehicles (X-REVs) within that same time period. Let me explain why.

First, why do we need to switch from gasoline at all? Most experts will agree that in the long term, we are headed for purely electric drive cars. One big reason is, we have a limited supply of petroleum and it is used in MANY other products (plastics, for example) which we really need to keep making because we don't have good replacements. Another reason is the fact that burning petroleum is just a horrible thing to do to the planet we live on. Plus, electricity can (and should) be generated from renewable sources. The bottom line is, switching to electric drive for our vehicles is really an eventuality, not simply a possibility.

So, let's just agree we're eventually headed for purely electric vehicles. Why can't we just start switching now and get it over with? Why not make all new cars electric? Well, we can't. The reason is simple. The technology just isn't there, and won't be for a very long time to come.

Sure, we have decent electric motors already. In fact, electric motors are really powerful and produce instantaneous, flat, and extreme levels of torque. Freight trains have been pulled by electric motors running off diesel generators for many years. One of the fastest and most responsive cars on the market is a pure electric vehicle called the Tesla Roadster. It goes from 0-60 in 3.9 seconds. The electric motor is also much more energy efficient than the gasoline engine. More of the energy consumed actually makes it to the pavement. You get more power for less energy. The bottom line is, the electric motor is really great for driving the wheels on a car.

The reason we can't all switch to electric cars now is the batteries. While every other technology has advanced very quickly, batteries have proceeded at a virtual snail's pace. Batteries have always been and still are a horrible way to store energy. You get far less out than you put in. Further, there is only so much space available for batteries in a vehicle, in order to still leave room for passengers and their stuff.

Unfortunately, filling the available space with even our best current battery technology stores only enough energy to take a car about 40-60 miles on a charge. If you have a 20 mile commute, one way, that means you MUST remember to plug in your car every single night or it will be dead and useless in the morning. Plus, our current battery technology generates a lot of heat (wasted energy) and takes much too long to charge after it is drained.

Then there is the fact that almost nobody wants a purely electric car. Yeah, I said it. I'm sure I'll hear from the few who NEVER take a trip longer than 20 miles, and who have the discipline to plug it in every night, but the vast majority of us aren't like those people. We are forgetful people who like flexibility and dependability because our lives are chaos and our transportation needs change daily.

The hard reality is, mass acceptance of purely electric vehicles is a LONG way off. Maybe 30 years or more. Why? Two reasons - People are far more afraid of their batteries going dead than they ever were of running out of gas. This because a battery recharge takes HOURS of sitting at a few specific locations and filling the tank takes minutes at tons of convenient locations. What if you forget to plug your car in overnight? You have no car. That's unacceptable.

People also want to be able to take long driving trips without stopping for many hours of recharge sessions every 40 miles. You can't do that with current purely electric cars, and it doesn't look like that level of technology is going to appear for a very long time. Purely electric vehicles will not become the norm until the battery technology allows people to drive all day (or commute all week), only stopping for quickie food, fuel, and restroom breaks. People can do that now with gasoline cars. They won't give it up without a fight.

Hybrids are really the first of two steps needed to get us from petroleum to electric. Hybrids still drive the wheels with a gasoline motor and use the electric motor as a performance "boost" when needed. For this reason, they only need a small amount of battery capacity. Because they still use a gasoline engine as the primary motive power, they operate and refuel just like the cars people use now. They require no change in behavior.

I believe the next step in this evolution is extended range electric vehicles (X-REVs). In an X-REV, the small gasoline motor always idles. It only drives a generator. The gas generator basically charges the batteries constantly in what is essentially an electric car. The X-REV's wheels are driven by an electric motor. There is no kinetic connection at all between the gas motor and the wheels. Yes, you can still plug X-REVs in every night to charge it and save a fortune on fuel, but it won't make the car unusable if you forget occasionally.

That's really a key feature. X-REVs are the next step because they provide that one critical ability. Your battery can run out after 40 miles and you can keep on driving for as long as your conventional fuel allows - 300 miles or even more. Fill your tank whenever it's low and keep driving. You could forget to plug it in half the time and still get to work every day just fine. That's peace of mind people absolutely need when making the transition.

Plus, swapping to better batteries as technology progresses will also improve your fuel savings allowing you to travel further before using any gas at all. If replacement batteries get good enough sooner than expected, you might eventually stop putting gas into the car at all. That makes it the perfect transition vehicle. You can slowly shift into the habit of charging your car regularly without being severely punished if you forget.

Plus, the conventional fuel used to extend the range could be nearly anything, from gasoline, to compressed natural gas, to hydrogen or diesel. Anything that can run the generator, works. In fact, if the manufacturers design the generator and fuel storage in a modular way, the fuel you use to extend the range could even change over the years without replacing your vehicle. This is yet another advantage.

Imagine when gasoline hits $10 a gallon in 5 years. You simply pop in a compressed natural gas (CNG) generator module which you refill from a compressor installed in your garage. Hook the compressor to your natural gas line and bingo, you can fill your own tank at home. If you are running low, you could use the CNG compressors at friends' or relatives' houses. Even gas stations would start installing CNG pumps.

Or imagine something drastic happens which suddenly cuts off our oil supply. (Can you say "embargo?") If the only fuel available is an electrical outlet and you are one of the smart ones who drives an X-REV, you can still use your car for 40 miles a day while all those gasoline cars sit around useless or wait in long lines for gasoline. You win!

In fact, if we develop future-fuel generators which put out more energy than needed by the electric drive motor, you wouldn't even need the batteries. That would mean your X-REV is suddenly a fully electric car with minimal modification. Replace the generator "module" and it's an electric car. Keep the car you love longer and just swap out one module.

Heck, imagine someday eventually putting in a tiny nuclear generator that would allow you to drive non-stop for 5,000 years without ever recharging. You could drive it until it is a pile of dust and never refuel again. At the rate we're going with batteries we might have tiny reactors long before we have decent batteries, anyway. Even glacial-paced solar technology is progressing faster than batteries and that's just plain sad.

So, for long-term flexibility and dependability, the X-REV would be the perfect choice as our long term transition vehicle to get us off our addiction to oil and move us toward an electric future. In an oil crisis, X-REVs could save us. If fuel technology changes quickly, they could save us. If we forget to plug it in, they could save us. For those long drives to grandma's house, they could save us. X-REVs are the best of all worlds. So in my opinion, they really should replace hybrids as the car of choice while we wait for the distant promise of purely electric vehicles. They deliver the benefits of electric for your daily commute while giving you the flexibility of gasoline cars for any other situation that comes up.

If you want to see what I'm talking about, the Chevy Volt is the first shining star in what I hope will be a very bright future for X-REVs. "TIME.com" was very impressed with this technology. Personally, I can't wait to see what other car companies come out with to compete with the Volt. If the development rumors are true, our automotive future looks brighter than ever. In these times of rampant bad news, it's nice to realize we might have a better future just around the bend.

Technorati Tags: Chevy Volt,X-REV,extended range electric,future vehicles,alternative fuels

Bloat: Where has all my memory gone?

2009-04-23T15:01:00.001-07:00

I'm an old fart, technologically speaking. The first computer I ever got to use was a desk-sized monstrosity which was programmed in hex codes using a numeric keypad and displayed the results on paper tape. It had a massive 4K of RAM. Despite this incredible limitation, we were able to make it do useful work.

That was way back in 1976. The PC didn't exist yet. Even the original Apple-1 was just appearing. The few arcades were filled with purely mechanical pinball machines. Even the vector graphics arcade game, "Space Wars" hadn't made it's way into arcades, yet. Magazines like the Popular Science published articles about cool kit computers you could assemble yourself. It was really the dawn of computers as we know them today.

Having used computers for this long gives one a lot of perspective on the current state of computer technology. I was thinking about all of this the other day and realized, we did most of the same things in the early days of computers that we do now. In fact, I used a graphics-based word processor with multiple fonts on a hacked up TRS-80 Color Computer running OS-9 back in late 1982. I ran spreadsheets. I played games. I logged onto CompuServe as a gateway into the text-based Internet before most modern ISP's or the World Wide Web existed. I did all of that in only 64KB of RAM. Yes, it was slower. But it worked.

So, why am I sitting here typing on a machine with 12GB of RAM now and noticing the memory is already half full? I have 187,500 times as much memory on this machine as I had then and somehow I'm still in the position of sitting here wondering if I have enough. Granted, I have two browsers running with lots of tabs open, Windows Mail, Windows Live Writer, Vista Sidebar with half a dozen gadgets, and a couple of smaller programs all running at once, but holy crap. How did those things eat up half of my RAM when I have 187,500 times as much RAM? In those days, I wrote a lot. I programmed. I emailed. I worked on spreadsheets. I chatted online. I played games. The basic tasks I do haven't changed all that much over the years.

Yes, the applications have become fancier, more capable applications, but are they 187,500 times as fancy and capable? What has changed about those programs that requires so much RAM? True, rendering imagery is RAM intensive, but even at 2560x1680, that's only 16MB of RAM to bitmap my entire screen display at 32 bits per pixel. Each of my graphics cards has 1GB of RAM to hold that display, so there should be plenty of overkill there and it shouldn't be eating up my RAM. So, if it's not the display eating up my RAM, what could it be?

I guess the real question I'm asking is, what additional functions are being performed on this machine that weren't being performed in my 64KB machine booting OS-9 back then? And why are those additional functions using 187,500 times as much RAM?

It's not just the multi-tasking, because OS-9 was a multi-tasking OS, too. I often ran a few programs at once. It's not just the fact that I'm running a lot more applications and services at once now, either. Even if I ran 1,000 applications at once on that old system, I still would have been far under the 187,500 times as much RAM I'm using now. So, what's going on here?

Well, for one thing, each computer operation and data chunk are bigger. The computer I was using back then had a 16 bit processor. A few years later, they advanced to 32 bit (double the size). Now, I'm running a 64 bit CPU and OS. So, that quadruples the RAM size of running the same sequence of instructions. I'll oversimplify it a little to explain what I mean. If it took 200 operations to complete a process back then, let's say the sequence took up 200 x 2 bytes (16 bits), which was 400 bytes. Under 32 bit, the same 200 operations took up 200 x 4 bytes (32 bits) 800 bytes. Under 64 bit, it would expand to 200 x 8 bytes or 1600 bytes. So, the same 200 operations went from 400 to 1600 bytes in size. If you multiplied this out for programs with hundreds of thousands of operations, the difference becomes big.

But quadrupling the program code size still doesn't come close to explaining a difference of 187,500 times as much. Given the same 64KB of original space, that should only mean you would need 256KB to move to 64 bit computing with that same OS, right? And remember, we're still talking about KB here. We haven't even made it up to MB yet in our discussion, much less the many GB available in modern PCs. The main people really aware of this massive code-bloat trend are folks like me who have used computers at home for decades, people who also use a few of the leaner operating systems now, and computer programmers. Considering that until a few years ago I fell into all of those categories (I only do non-profit web programming now), it is trebly apparent to me that something is going drastically wrong somewhere.

Perhaps it's the data? Well, yeah some data is truly huge. Video files. Image files. Music. Databases. Our data files have definitely grown much larger over the years and that is a legitimate reason to need more RAM. BUT - Even if you load a program like Word into memory without opening ANY data files, it still takes up massive amounts of RAM. In fact, just starting the computer up in the operating system uses up a huge chunk of RAM. That's without running any programs at all. The OS is one of the biggest code-bloat offenders.

Back in the old days, (LOL) OS-9 ran the entire operating system in perhaps 20-30KB of RAM, leaving up to 2/3 of my 64KB for my programs and data. By the time Windows Vista 64 Ultimate finally gets me to the desktop, my RAM display shows that 20% of my 12GB of RAM is already used. That's 2.4GB being taken away by the OS. We're talking gigabytes here. That's 120,000 times as much RAM as OS-9 used! Granted, some of that is being used for cache. And yes, a graphics user interface uses more RAM, but holy crap Batman! Even if half of that amount is cache and GUI functions, that's still 60,000 times as much RAM for the OS. Does it do 60,000 times as much? I don't think so. It does maybe 20 or even 100 times as much, but not 60,000. That's just nuts.

So what do I think is going on?

To be honest, I think programmers don't care about craftsmanship in coding anymore. They know RAM space is relatively cheap, so they don't pay any attention to how much they use. They don't spend time designing the code to be compact and efficient. They don't work to break the code up into smaller reusable pieces in order to avoid duplication of functionality. They keep devising new ways to do things, but they also retain the full code from all of the old ways within the OS, just in case somebody doesn't want to do it the new way. They layer on feature after feature without reusing or adjusting any of the stuff previously written. The code turns into what I call "a rotten onion." Something with lots of layers that nobody wants to touch.

Before you think I'm just pounding on programmers, let me tell you why they don't care. Managers force it on them. The buck really does stop there. It all trickles down from upper management who have an accountant on one shoulder and a marketing head on the other. These two devils are constantly whispering enticing projections of the profits they could make by pushing up release dates, maintaining backward compatibility, and reducing costs. Dreams of large bonuses drive management to ride the programmers until they have to cut corners in every way possible in order to meet unrealistic deadlines. This means programmers NEVER get the opportunity to revisit or eliminate old code. They don't get proper time to design and craft their new code. They barely even have time to write the code.

In other words, programmers don't care because they don't have time to care. They're already working far more hours than they want. There is always a fast approaching deadline they have to meet, so they add more layers of code and pray the existing code doesn't break. When the existing code does break, it takes forever to find the problem because there is layer after layer of crap piled on other crap. It's a nightmare to sift through, particularly when you didn't write any of it. Eventually, after numerous development cycles and patches, you end up with a vast mess of code which is held together with string and duct tape and is at least 500 times larger than it needs to be in order to perform the functions it does. You end up with code-bloat. Function creep, backward compatibility, and poor management are directly to blame for the bloated masses of buggy code we are now running in our machines.

Does it ever stop? Yes, but it's never pretty or pleasant when it does.

Like any continuously growing object, there comes a time when an OS or program collapses under its own weight. Eventually, the massive bloated mess becomes so buggy, that people start avoiding it by droves. Sales plummet. Programmer scapegoats are found. Heads roll. Then, they start over. Smart companies start development on a replacement before the bloated mess gets completely out of control. For example, by the time the original Mac OS was starting to fall apart under its own weight, they had a nice, lean, well-engineered replacement waiting on a shelf in the form of OS X. Sure, it had some bugs initially (like any software), but it was a solid foundation to rebuild on. It was also a painful transition for users, because it wasn't compatible with older stuff, but it was the right thing to do, and kudos to Apple for doing it. If only Microsoft had the balls to do the same.

When your OS or software finally does collapse, I guess the trick is to learn from the previous bloat cycle. When you start up your replacement, design new processes, as well. Create ways to make smaller portions completely replaceable. Change practices so that each of the parts is evaluated and rewritten in an ongoing fashion. Put standards in place to make debugging easier down the road.

But most importantly, give the programmers the opportunity to bring craftsmanship back to software development. Give them the time to produce something of which they can be proud. Allow them to engineer a set of code which is leaner, more modular, and less resource intensive. Reward them when they do. Set the planned features in stone prior to development. Don't ask them to hit a moving target. There are lots of things that can be done to reduce software bloat, but it all has to come from the management at software development companies. The programmers are completely at their mercy.

Wouldn't it be great to hear about a new word processor that does everything Word does and takes up 95% less RAM? Or what about an OS that only uses 10MB of your RAM, leaving the rest usable by your software and data? The reality is, good programmers can create immense amounts of functionality in only 10MB of RAM, if they are given a clean slate and the time to do it right. If you don't believe me, just look at what they had running in under 20KB in the early days of personal computers. The word processor I used then could easily do 85% of what Open Office does now. Thinking about it now, I'm just amazed at what we did in those days with such limited hardware. Even the Gemini Guidance Computer had less RAM and CPU power than a modern digital wristwatch.

The bottom line? If we're going to be forced to buy more RAM, it should be for the right reasons. It should be because our data is larger, we want to run more tasks, or we need more speed while running more tasks. It shouldn't be because the OS and software we use on our systems have expanded far beyond the point where they should have been killed off and replaced. Let's start to recognize efficient code when we see it and reward those who write it. Just say "No!" to code bloat. Let's throw out the rotten onions of the software world.

Web site updated!

2009-04-10T15:34:00.001-07:00

My blog site now located here at www.oilpainterbill.com!

Welcome to my new combined web site!

I previously had my paintings located at this web site. Now, it is a combined site, displaying both my blog and my paintings. Development will continue on this new site in the future so be sure to bookmark this location. Thanks for stopping by!

NetSlate: A dream future for human knowledge.

2009-04-06T14:50:00.001-07:00

Google recently swung a deal where old orphaned works would be scanned onto its servers and made accessible via the Internet. This could make millions of previously out-of-print works instantly accessible to the entire world via web browsers. The works would comprise every type of creative work man produces, from the written word to recordings and films. This may not sound like an Earth-shaking deal to many, but it stirred up an old dream I had about the future of human knowledge on planet Earth.

In the future, I always saw the world using NetSlates. What is a NetSlate? Imagine this. Your personal NetSlate can run for weeks without charging. It has virtually unlimited bandwidth for displaying any type of media. The connection is bi-directional allowing interaction between an unlimited number of these devices in real-time. It has an ultra-high resolution, wide-color gamut display. It has incredible audio capabilities built-in, too. Perhaps it can even project full-color imagery or interfaces in 3 dimensions when it lies flat on a table surface. The device is incredibly thin, perhaps even flexible and weighs next-to-nothing.

Sounds great right? It's like a cross between the most powerful supercomputers, the best graphics workstations, and the lightest, thinnest, tablet PC's available today. Think nuclear-powered Kindle on steroids. Also, think unlimited cheap wireless bandwidth. Ok got the picture?

Now, imagine literally everyone can own a NetSlate because they are dirt cheap. In fact, they're free in many cases because advertisers give ad-supported versions away constantly. They all display basically the same information and media. Our NetSlates are totally compatible with one another because they all feed from open format, world-standard files stored on insanely fast servers connected to the wireless super Internet of the future. This is an idealist future I've babbled on about for a couple of decades to my wife, family, and friends (started thinking about this device back in the pre-WWW "CompuServe" days). I believe this is where we are finally headed now.

For proof, simply put that Google media-scanning deal in the early development context of that not-too-distant future vision of NetSlates. Everyone owns a NetSlate and all the information ever created by mankind is available instantly to all of us. These early scanning efforts and other efforts by Google to put literally everything online are the baby steps needed to reach that admittedly idealistic NetSlate future.

In fact, the Amazon Kindle could be seen as another of those baby steps toward ubiquitous access to knowledge and the ideal of a futuristic NetSlate. Amazon has 250,000 publications available for the Kindle. Imagine if the device were also a high-speed, non-DRM, unlimited-bandwidth, browsing device pointed directly at Google's scanned-information storehouses. Adding millions more creative works which are currently out of print would make the Kindle vastly more useful than it already is. If Google and Amazon were to combine their future efforts and stick to open worldwide standards, the significance of their separate baby steps would become even more important toward the long-term future of human knowledge.

Imagine a future where bulky books, magazines, cables, and plastic discs are replaced by slim personal devices with always-on, unlimited, wireless connections to limitless media and information. Imagine there literally being no limitations to the information you could explore on your device. The barriers between us would fade as we all gain equal access to all knowledge and information. Now, that's an exciting future, right? We will absolutely have the technology to do all of this in the not-too-distant future.

Unfortunately, my NetSlate dream will likely never fully happen. Why not? Didn't I just say we'll have the technology? Yes, I did. But technology won't be the limiting aspect of this ideal future. The NetSlate future won't happen because we'll never be given access to the total of human knowledge, no matter how far technology progresses. Knowledge is power, so it just won't happen.

The rich and powerful control the masses by throttling information. They monitor and control the sources, the quantity, the quality, and the accessibility of all information and that is largely how they maintain their power over the middle and lower classes who far out-number them. The NSA and HSA now routinely monitor all information flow, thanks to the laws passed by the scared old men sitting in Congress. Their regular efforts to regulate the Internet are another demonstration. If literally everyone had access to all human knowledge, the most powerful would lose one of their best tools in controlling us. So they will do their best to prevent this ideal future from ever happening. Just watch the news and you'll see it.

For example, those same scared old men in Congress created laws which legalize the extortion of children and grandmothers by rich media companies (like Sony, EMI, Universal, Warner, Disney, Viacom, and others). Those rich media companies now get insane amounts of control over what we do with the products we purchase from them. They take gestapo-like actions against completely innocent individuals and then are not held accountable for their extortion attempts. They aren't even required to provide proof that a law was broken before they begin their extortion and harassment process. In this way, they have more power than the local police.

These rich media companies amuse themselves by bankrupting poor college students who didn't cost them a dime of profit because they couldn't afford the media product to begin with. This tactic often takes a potential college graduate, who would have later purchased products from them for decades, bankrupts them, and puts them out on the street. So, in place of a high-earning college graduate, the rich media companies create a college dropout who hates them and will never purchase another product from them. Why would these media companies do something so stupid? It's all about control. They are blinded by their hunger for power and control, so they shoot themselves in the foot over and over.

Yes, the technology will someday exist to create NetSlates we can all afford. The technology will someday exist to create high-bandwidth wireless connections for those NetSlates which will allow all of us equal access to vast stores of online information. The question is: What information will be available to us when that full-blown technology finally arrives? That's where the bright future of the "NetSlates ideology" falls apart.

It will be the rich and powerful who will kill my dream of "widespread access to all knowledge via NetSlates." It will be the evil efforts of greedy media companies which will kill our future ubiquitous wireless knowledge and media access. Yes, we may get some useful subset of my NetSlate dream, but we will never realize its full-blown potential. We will never be allowed full access to all of human knowledge and creative works. That is the bittersweet reality we live in. Those in power will always control our access.

Technorati Tags: NetSlate,Congress,DMCA,EFF,Fair Use,MPAA,Music,technology,tablet PC,broadband wireless,Kindle,RIAA,future,predictions

Quick Look: Silver-Oxide/Silver-Zinc - batteries of the future?

2009-02-09T16:05:00.001-08:00

Everyone who uses laptops or cell-phones these days is at least partially aware of the battery technology everybody uses in those devices. Lithium-ion and lithium-polymer batteries have literally changed the world of portable devices, making them lighter, while also extending useful battery life. They have become the most common type of battery used in consumer rechargeable devices.

Their drawbacks? They generate a lot of heat and are prone to catch fire or even explode in some instances. They are also not very environmentally friendly. Because of these drawbacks, at least one company saw an opportunity to create a safer, greener alternative.

The alternative comes in the form of silver-oxide or silver-zinc technology. Silver-zinc batteries can run up to 40% longer than the equivalent lithium-ion battery. Over 95% of the primary elements in the battery can be recycled. There are no heavy metals or toxic chemicals in modern silver-zinc batteries. Plus, their water-based chemistry make them free from the risk of thermal runaway, fire, and explosion. The primary drawback? Cost. These batteries will cost significantly more than equivalently-sized lithium-ion. Silver, after all, isn't cheap.

There is little doubt that these batteries are a safer, greener, longer-running choice for laptops and cell-phones. With a little more development, their future looks very bright. The technology has the backing of some heavy hitters, as well. For example, Intel Capital has invested in a silver-zinc battery manufacturer named Zinc Matrix Power (ZMP). The only question seems to be, when will we see them in widespread use?

From my quick search on the web, it looks like several laptop manufacturers are in the process of examining silver-zinc batteries for use. ZMP claims at least one laptop maker already has designs in the queue with an eye toward introduction in their high-end laptops in mid 2009. Eventually, we may even see after-market, drop-in replacement batteries engineered to retrofit older laptops with this safer technology. Expect advertising to tout extended run times and the "green" aspects as major selling points, but also expect to pay a hefty premium for those features. Are the extra safety and green features worth the price? That's for you to decide.

I'll keep you posted as I find out more.

Technorati Tags: silver-zinc,silver-oxide,batteries

Windows 7 cripple-ware: Five crippled versions add insult to Vista injury.

2009-02-06T16:26:00.001-08:00

In case you haven't already heard the uproar, Microsoft has made yet another decision nobody understands. As a follow-on to their largely-ignored Windows Vista, Windows 7 is working its way toward store shelves sometime later this year. Unfortunately, Microsoft has chosen to ignore the public outcry surrounding their Vista version madness. In a decision that shocked many, they announced that they plan to release 6, yes SIX, versions of Windows 7. For those keeping score, that amounts to 5 crippled versions and 1 complete version.

If that marketing department insanity weren't bad enough, the announcement of the most severely crippled version is, in my opinion, specifically-geared toward insulting folks living in less-fortunate countries. Even worse, we lowly consumers won't be allowed to buy the complete version in any store. More on this odd twist later.

Here are the announced versions of Windows 7:

Windows 7 Starter Edition (for emerging market and netbook users)
Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging market customers only)
Windows 7 Home Premium (the main “Media Center” equivalent)
Windows 7 Professional (the business SKU for home users and non-enterprise licensees)
Windows 7 Enterprise (for volume licensees)
Windows 7 Ultimate (for consumers who want/need business features)

Microsoft says that this lineup was created based on input from users. (Seriously? Anyone believe that?) As proof, they say they came up with a great solution for the many who think there are too many versions. They will only allow you to buy two out of the six versions at retail.

I'm not making that up. That was their "brilliant" solution. The two versions that will be sold at retail are Home Premium and Professional. This means the complete OS (Ultimate) is only available as an upgrade after you buy a crippled version. They seemed so proud of themselves for thinking of this solution, it almost makes me feel guilty, like I'm poking fun at the mentally-impaired, to point out the complete absurdity of it.

Frankly, it sounds to me like somebody with a lot of "pull" at Microsoft is heavily-vested in the "purchase-then-upgrade" model and simply refuses to let it go, no matter how stupid it is. I'd love to know who that idiot is, so I could post the name everywhere. Bill Veghte, Senior Vice President of the Windows business has come out in defense of this plan, so perhaps the buck stops there? Somebody should ask him where the obsession with selling upgrades started.

As you can tell, I have numerous problems and more than a little bitterness regarding this obvious profit-pumping ploy. Perhaps, I should take a moment to elaborate on what bugs me about it.

Here are the top 10 things I hate about this announcement:

They are asking consumers who want the complete OS to pay twice in order to get it. That's worse than simply inconvenient.
They are starting with a complete OS and removing ever larger portions of it to arbitrarily create half a dozen crippled versions of that OS for the sole purpose of pumping more money out of us later with upgrades.
The most heavily-crippled version is an insult to the intended market, considering that even the complete OS will run on the intended equipment without any problem whatsoever.
They could sell us the entire complete OS for exactly the same price as the cheapest crippled version and STILL make a hefty profit by reducing the numerous costs associated with selling so many crippled versions.
I am insulted by their assumption that all home users do not need encryption or the ability to log onto a domain.
I am annoyed by the fact that they feel they can choose which features I need installed on my systems better than I can. Give me everything and I'll make the choices while installing.
I am sensitive to manipulation by marketing morons and alarm bells go off when I see somebody intentionally crippling their product to artificially create the "option" of upgrading it later.
The assumption that one billion users can be perfectly served by releasing 6 versions is as ridiculous as saying the vast majority of the public can be served by 2. A complete OS will serve more users than either 2 or 6 versions. If their intention really is to serve the needs of the most people, they would be selling one version and letting the individuals decide what to remove.
They are lying to my face and I don't like it. Their press release said they listened to users and came up with this solution. I've seen and heard a LOT of users complaining very publicly about the Vista version-overload fiasco. Microsoft ignored us all. Windows 7 is simply Vista marketing mistakes, take two.
I am really annoyed that they learned nothing despite the efforts of so many to inform them of the things they did wrong with Vista. I feel like we wasted our collective breath trying to convert a cash-obsessed company run by their marketing department into a modern, consumer-oriented technology company.
BONUS reason: Their rip-off approach makes me feel like I walked into one of those cult-like buyers' clubs where high-pressure salespeople continue to insist their prices are better even when you hand them reams of proof that the equipment they sell is both out-of-date and overpriced.

Truth be told, I'm disappointed, frustrated, and angry with Microsoft. I've purchased and used their products for as long as they've existed as a company, including all prior versions of Windows. (Yes, even 1.0 - yuck!) I've owned numerous copies of their developer tools and Office products. I was using Word and Multiplan on MS-DOS before there was an Excel or even Windows. Before Vista came along, their products were always worth the price to me. That has changed. With their rip-off marketing approach to Vista, and now Windows 7, my respect for Microsoft is gone.

Many are asking the question, "What can we really do about big companies like Microsoft who rip us off like this?" Well, there is really only one thing we can do. Don't buy their products. Companies like Microsoft have stockholders. Stockholders get annoyed when the company doesn't make any money. If profits tank, the stockholders and Board of Directors get involved. Then, heads start rolling and drastic changes are made.

Before Vista, Microsoft was a very profitable, steadily-growing company. When Vista was released after 6 years of development, the cold reception it received killed their momentum and created a lot of internal tension. When stockholders started asking for explanations, the quick-thinking management explained it all away as being solely due to 3rd party driver issues.

However, Microsoft completely ignored the second source of public irritation with Vista. They didn't address version madness and the resulting feeling among consumers that Microsoft is trying to rip us off by selling us cripple-ware and then pushing upgrades on us to get the features we really need.

Sure, Windows 7 has the drivers mostly working now, and it includes some great fixes to many Vista shortcomings, but Microsoft still didn't address the version madness. In fact, they made it worse. Not only do they plan to release a bunch of crippled versions, but we can't even buy the complete version. We are forced to buy a crippled version and then pay for an upgrade later. Every time I say that, I shake my head in amazement at their stupidity in coming up with that "solution."

So, why do they have so many versions to begin with? The reality is, it costs them far more to press, package, distribute, maintain, and support 6 different versions of Windows than one. So, why do it? The answer is, they believe they will make more money on the upgrades they sell later. They removed just enough features in each crippled version that they believe everyone will be forced to buy an upgrade at some point in the future.

Personally, I don't believe that's what will actually happen. It didn't happen with Vista. Using that tactic to squeeze a few more dollars from us just pisses people off and makes them look even harder at the variety of excellent modern alternatives to Microsoft's OS.

Here is what I, and many others, believe: If Microsoft sold one complete version, they could charge substantially less for that single version. In fact, if they sold the complete version for the price of the cheapest crippled version, they would likely make more money than they will by pissing people off with their buy-then-upgrade tactics. More people would buy Windows 7. They would buy it sooner. They would buy it at a faster pace. Combine that with the reduced costs of a single version, and you get larger cash flows, bigger profits, and happier stockholders. Unfortunately, they don't see this and are continuing down their obsessive path to nowhere.

While Windows 7 might do better sales numbers than Vista eventually, I still don't see it taking off like it could if they took a more consumer-friendly approach. Think about it. People are now very apprehensive about buying Windows after the way they were treated by Microsoft with Vista. Treating them like that a second time will be far more difficult to repair. Word of mouth killed Vista's momentum. By continuing the version madness of Vista, they have already created a lot of negative buzz before Windows 7 is even released. I feel this is a mistake they may live to regret.

On a more positive note for some consumers, Apple sells one complete version of their OS for one reasonable price, which is what people really want. We all want more for less. With Windows 7 being mostly internal fixes to Vista, and continuing the rip-off, crippled-version, insanity of Vista, I don't see anything at all to stand in the way of Apple's continued climb in market share. More people jumping to Apple's platform, will mean more software and hardware developed for that platform, which will draw even more Apple converts.

So, if you own Apple stock, rejoice. Your future looks bright! With this Windows 7 announcement, Microsoft has, once-again, made it much easier to take away their market share.

del.icio.us Tags: Windows 7,Windows,Vista,Microsoft,Apple

Windows 7 Beta, Hot or Not? Part 1: First Look

2009-01-26T13:48:00.001-08:00

To say there is some hype surrounding the Microsoft's upcoming Vista replacement would be an incredible understatement. While the reasons for this hype range from "disappointment with Vista" to "slow news season," everyone can agree on one thing. Windows 7 will be Microsoft's best chance at redemption after a mostly dismal Vista run.

Since Microsoft released Windows 7 Beta, I thought it would be a great idea to post my own experience with installing, configuring, and using the Windows 7 Beta on my own Vista-compatible hardware. So, to start things off, I went online and downloaded the ISO of Windows 7 Ultimate Beta 64 bit. I'll just call it W7 for the remainder of this article. Then, I used Nero to burn the ISO file to a DVD.

Installation:

Because of my requirements, I performed a slightly different than usual installation process. Since I'm testing W7B on my primary computer, which I use to do other things, I decided to put it on its own drive and dual-boot my system. I grabbed an old Maxtor 500GB drive I had on a shelf and bolted it into my case. Inside Vista, I partitioned the second drive, set it active, and formatted it as NTFS. Then, I rebooted from the DVD and selected that second drive when prompted for the location. In total, the install took maybe 30 minutes tops. It probably would have gone quicker if I wasn't using an older (slower) drive. I had to answer perhaps 5 questions in total during the process before the system finally rebooted into W7 for the first time.

First run:

The first thing I noticed after getting into W7 was the landscape of the slightly-tweaked desktop. Even to folks like me who used a double-height taskbar in both XP and Vista, this new taskbar is obviously different from the previous generations. The Start button is there, but next to it are big icons for quick launch. The standard icon tray is next, followed by the clock and one more oddity. There is what looks like a skinny button with no label or icon on the far right end of the taskbar.

Moving my mouse over this skinny button, the windows on the screen turned into transparent window frames so that I could see my desktop. I'm not sure what purpose is served by turning ALL of my windows transparent. I could see turning the top window transparent so that I can see the window underneath, but a button to let me quickly look at my wallpaper? My guess is that it might allow you to view Sidebar gadgets on the desktop, but that isn't clear with no label on the button. I'll let you know what I figure out on that one when I setup the gadgets in part 2.

Next, I clicked the Start button to see what was different. The look of the menu is familiar, but the contents have changed. Search seems to be more prominent somehow. The menu seems simplified, maybe too much so for my tastes. There is still no Videos folder listed with Pictures and Music. The first item on the left is a link to that Welcome dialog. Other than that, it doesn't look much different at first glance.

Bringing up Windows Explorer, I see libraries. This seems to be a system-wide addition. It probably even shows up in file open dialogs. If you are familiar with iTunes, you know that you can have two songs in your music library that are actually located in two different folders on your hard drive. This is the difference between the "library" and the "folders" in W7, too. You can have songs all over your hard drive and have them all show up in one folder in your music library. In fact, I suspect they could be on different physical drives and be in the same library folder. I'll test this later.

As I poked around using the new Windows Explorer, I noticed something annoying. I didn't see any filename extensions or hidden directories or files. So, I searched for the option to turn those back on. Nothing. As far as I've been able to find so far, there isn't a way to make Windows Explorer display hidden items anymore. Perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place, but I find this really annoying.

I decided it was time to install my favorite browser (Firefox) so I opened Internet Explorer to jump online to download the 64 bit version. Looks like they shipped the Beta of Internet Explorer 8 with W7. I typed "64 bit Firefox" into the search field, hit enter, and boom. Internet Explorer 8 crashed. I closed it and tried again with better results, but it continued to behave oddly with delayed responses to clicks and scrolling. IE8 doesn't seem like a Beta to me. More like pre-Alpha. It eventually worked long enough to (slowly) download Firefox 64 onto my computer, which is all I needed it to do.

After telling Firefox to install, a UAC prompt popped up asking me if it was ok to allow this program to install. I clicked the first prompt, fully expecting more to pop up as it progressed, but nothing happened. It installed and was done. Wow, UAC has changed! That's when I realized I had been poking around at stuff for quite a while without ever seeing a UAC prompt pop up. It only appeared when I was actually installing something. Nice change! I looked at the settings on this and immediately discovered there are multiple levels of prompting you can set or you can turn it completely off. I'm thrilled with this.

So what is the score at this point?

Install: The install process has definitely improved. Seemed faster and less annoying. Fewer reboots, for me at least, and less user involvement aside from basic information. Networking already worked when the OS came up.

Taskbar: This is different, but it isn't clear whether this is better or worse yet, so I'll call that one a wash at this point.

Windows Explorer: This is both better and worse. It's probably better for new users because it hides things that could hurt them and simplifies finding things. It's worse for advanced users who want to be able to view ALL the information and files on their systems.

Internet Explorer: This is decidedly worse at this point, largely due to the extreme instability and flakiness of what they floated as a beta release.

User Access Control (UAC): This is VASTLY improved. The default setting out of the box warns of drastic actions without being the annoying pain in the ass which prompted most power users to turn it off entirely in Vista. Big plus on this one.

Stability: I'll update on this as I use it longer. So far, not a single OS crash, hang, or reboot. This OS is really solid for a Beta release. It's the polar opposite of the IE8 Beta, in my experience so far.

So the score after my first look is a mixed bag. Overall, I think it looks much improved for average users, but power users may get annoyed by some of the walls they have built around parts of the OS. Just avoid using IE8.

In my next post, I'll take a closer look at some of the improvements and annoyances I discover about this new OS as I continue to use it.

Technorati Tags: Windows 7 Beta,Microsoft,Windows 7,Windows,UAC,IE8

Apple iPad Touch netbook coming in July 2009?

2009-01-12T12:28:00.001-08:00

I’ve been hearing a lot of rumors about Apple possibly introducing a netbook in 2009. After listening to all of the rumors and putting a little intuition and imagination to work, I’ve come up with what I think may be part of that Apple netbook package. I’ll go through the components one by one. (mockup photo by artist Edwin Tofslie)

The GPU: The widely accepted rumor is that the newly-released Imagination Technologies four core PowerVR GPU will be used in the next iPhone. I believe it may actually be targeted at an Apple netbook in order to drive a significantly larger display than what is in the iPhone and iPod Touch while maintaining very low power drain. Plus, it will have plenty of horsepower to view HD iTunes content when being used as a multimedia device.

The CPU: ARM Cortex A9. Again, the chip is something everyone else is targeting as an iPhone candidate. I believe it is headed for an Apple netbook. I believe Apple wants to squeeze amazing battery life from a slim tablet-style netbook and this multi-core chip is powerful enough to do the job while maintaining much better energy efficiency than an Intel Atom.

The OS: Ok, it is a given that it will be OS X based, but I believe it will be a scaled-up version of the iPhone operating system rather than a scaled-down version of the desktop OS. The new OS will possibly be a superset of firmware 3.0. It may even run most of the same applications, considering the CPU and GPU being used. It may have a launcher screen similar to the iPhone/iPod Touch, as well.

The SCREEN: I believe it will be a full-screen multi-touch device, just like the iPhone and iPod Touch, only larger. It may be about the same thickness, while being wider and longer. The keyboard will be software-based with new support for copy/paste and other functions introduced in firmware 3.0. The screen will likely be in the 7-9 inch range with high DPI rating for beautiful images and multimedia content. It won’t be much larger, because thumb typing on a larger screen in landscape mode would prevent you from reaching the middle keys with your thumbs.

The AUDIO: It will have stereo speakers, but primarily be intended for use with headphones or audio out. It will also have a built-in microphone for use with iChat and when using the device as a speakerphone.

The VIDEO: Like the next generation iPhone coming in June, it will have a forward-facing camera hidden behind the screen for use with iChat. It will be able to do high-resolution video chat over a wireless network or lower-resolution video chat over 3G. It will also provide a mini Display Port interface.

The NETWORKING: This machine will have built-in wireless-N networking as well as a built-in, always-on 3G voice and data connection through another Apple contract with ATT.

The BATTERY: Following the trend in all Apple devices, it will not be user swappable. I feel like Apple will shoot for 8+ hours of battery life. It will be lithium-ion based rather than using the newer silver-zinc technology.

The STORAGE: It will probably have 32 GB of memory/storage, like the highest-end iPhone. Much to the irritation of many folks, it may not include USB ports. Their reasoning for not including it will be that the device would be open to easier cracking of the 3G network link if they included USB ports. If you see USB ports, you probably won’t see built-in 3G. Either that, or the 3G won’t be tied to a single vendor.

The REST: Also included will be an accelerometer, GPS, and ambient light sensors. The App Store and iTunes Store will be there. It will sync with Mobile Me. A cloud-based set of simple productivity and media applications will also be included, perhaps iLife Mobile.

The PRICE: This is where folks will likely be most disappointed. I don’t see Apple introducing this machine for any less than $799. It may even be as high as $1199. The large capacitive touch screen, multi-core processors, and lithium-ion battery will keep the price higher than most people want to pay for a netbook. Some will buy it anyway, because it will look great and be very easy to use.

I see this device being called something like “iPad,” “iTouch,” or perhaps “iPad Touch” and being available in late summer for their back-to-school sales push. You heard it here first.

Technorati Tags: Apple,iPad,iTouch,netbook,predictions

The Palm Pre: iPhone killer?

2009-01-08T18:44:00.001-08:00

One of the most impressive devices shown at this year's CES was introduced by Palm in the form of the new "Pre." I know - the name leaves a lot to be desired, but the device looks to be pretty amazing. In the Pre, Palm has created a device which addresses a lot of the long-time complaints of iPhone users. Could this be the device which finally shows Apple how to make a decent phone?

First of all, let's look at the raw specs on this phone (copied from Palm's site):

Operating system: Palm® webOS™
Network specs: 3G EVDO Rev A (Sprint)
Display: 3.1-inch touch screen with a vibrant 24-bit color 320x480 resolution HVGA display
Keyboard: Physical QWERTY keyboard
Email: Microsoft Outlook® email with Microsoft® Direct Push Technology
POP3/IMAP (Yahoo, Gmail, AOL, etc).
Messaging: Integrated IM, SMS, and MMS
GPS: Built-in GPS
Digital camera: 3 megapixel camera with LED flash and extended depth of field
Sensors: Ambient light, accelerometer, and proximity
Media formats supported: Audio Formats: MP3, AAC, AAC+, AMR, QCELP, WAV
Video Formats: MPEG-4, H.263, H.264
Image Formats: GIF, Animated GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP
Wireless connectivity: Wi-Fi 802.11b/g with WPA, WPA2, 801.1x authentication
Bluetooth® 2.1 + EDR with A2DP stereo Bluetooth support
Memory: 8GB of user storage (~7.4GB user available) also USB mass storage support
Phone as laptop modem: Bluetooth tethering supported
Connector: MicroUSB connector with USB 2.0 Hi-Speed, Headphone jack is 3.5mm stereo
Charger: Palm^® Touchstone^™charging dock
Dimensions
Width: 59.5mm (2.3 inches)
Height: 100.5mm (3.9 inches)
Thickness: 16.95mm (0.67 inches)
Weight: 135 grams (4.76 ounces)

As you can see, the Pre includes many features which still haven't materialized on the iPhone after two generations and years of development. For example, the Pre includes MMS messaging. Users have been asking for that feature on the iPhone since the release of the original. The Pre also works with Microsoft Outlook's Direct Push (and ActiveSync) right out of the box.

There are are many other features you won't find on an iPhone which weren't listed in the spec sheet above. The Pre will sync with your Outlook, Google, and Facebook calendars simultaneously. The Pre will let you cross-link Contact records which were synced from a number of different sources, including buddy lists, Gmail contacts, Outlook, and others. The Pre also combines messages sent by the same person across multiple sources based on your contact cross-links. This makes it easier to track ongoing conversations with the same contact even when it starts in IM and ends with an email.

The Pre will let you open multiple applications at once. There is turn-by-turn navigation using the built-in GPS. The camera has much higher resolution and a built-in LED flash. It supports non-Apple standard file formats for a wider variety of media. It supports stereo Bluetooth headsets. The battery is removable. It even allows modem tethering for laptops right out of the box.

Another cool new feature is the Touchstone charging dock. To charge the Pre, you simply lay it on the cylindrical block. There are no wires to connect to your phone. When you're ready to leave, you just pick the phone up and go.

Like the iPhone, the Pre has a built-in WiFi b/g chip which speeds up your Internet browsing when you are near a hot spot. It supports the standard multi-touch gestures, just like the iPhone, including "pinch," "spread," and "flip." There are built-in chat functions, but unlike the iPhone, it lets you track the online status of your buddy lists, as well. Also like the iPhone, it can be operated in landscape mode.

Most importantly, to some users, the Pre has a slide-out QWERTY keyboard. So you don't have to worry about precisely placing your fat fingers on small areas of a touch screen any longer. Only time will tell how good this keyboard feels, but it looks to be about as good as a crackberry keyboard, which is to say, usable.

One down side I can see with the device is the "holy crap, I'm a fat-boy" design. This thing won't win any beauty contests with a figure like that. It is a pudgy little gadget with far too much roundness for my tastes. Your mileage will vary, of course, and you might well find it appealing.

Another potential down side is that it is tied to Sprint only at this time. Granted, this may be a benefit for some customers. The majority of us are with other carriers, though, so we will just have to wait patiently for Palm to release version for other 3G networks.

Overall, the Pre looks to be a worthy challenger to the iPhone. One might even say the first worthy challenger, as other efforts to date have been rather disappointing. As I find out more about this interesting device, I will keep you updated. Stay tuned.

Technorati Tags: Palm,iPhone 3G,Pre,Phones,Technology,CES

2018: 20 Predictions for the coming decade.

2008-10-15T09:43:00.001-07:00

1. In 2018, Intel introduces the first 128 core desktop processors using the new VCore 256 bit low power architecture based on an 18nm chip fabrication process. The processor has 32 MB of L2 cache per core and starts at 2.4 GHz. Pricing starts at $210 each in lots of 1,000.

2. In 2018, mainstream games and applications finally begin to fully-utilize 4 of the CPU cores and set their sights on using 8 cores in another decade.

3. In 2018, despite lack of progress on CPU utilization, games now routinely require graphic cards with at least 4096 cores, 64 GB of RAM, their own external power supplies, refrigerant cooling systems, and special purpose optical bus connections. Users complain about the extreme prices, and the massive noise the compressors make while the units are running. They also complain about the 40% rise in their electric bills, and lack of widespread game support, but they keep buying the new cards because the hardware demonstration animations look so cool. Quake 6 now routinely runs at over 2,000 FPS in photo-realistic mode but the new QED Crystalline-Lattice displays still only update at 60 Hz.

4. The Torvalds Foundation announces core-level native support for the new 256 bit CPUs in it's next kernel release. Linux users worldwide immediately begin to argue publicly about which of the approximately 342,000 distributions will make the best use of this new kernel.

5. Apple announces a 256 bit native version of OS XV with full support for up to 8192 cores and warns of future plans to phase out 128 bit support in the next full point release. Their share of the installed base in the US reaches 20%. Their worldwide share remains steady at 9% as Ubuntu Peter Piper gains even more ground in the world PC market.

6. Microsoft proudly announces that the 64 bit version of the upcoming Windows X (10) will finally be the default version installed on all new systems. Then, they quietly announce they will continue to maintain a 32 bit version for volume corporate customers still using 30 year old custom applications. When asked if they have future plans to support 128 bit or the newest 256 bit CPUs, they say, "we don't comment on future development plans." Huge corporations applaud the backward compatibility of the available 32 bit version and promptly ignore the 64 bit version. Consumers, 85% of whom now have 128 bit CPUs and 64-256 GB of RAM in their PCs, again consider the burning question of why they still use Windows after nearly half a century of Microsoft's OS trailing new technology by years.

7. Apple introduces the iScape(tm) Virtual Landscape Projection system. It uses technology licensed from recently-purchased Imax to project realistic environments in three dimensions in your living room. It allows you to listen to music from your iTunes library while lying in a garden meadow on a mountainside in Switzerland. It allows you to dance to techno in a club in Miami, or sit at the 50 yard line every time your favorite team plays football. Best of all, it looks like a shiny aluminum modern art sculpture sitting in the middle of your living room.

8. The first molecular duplication of a living organism is performed in a laboratory in Europe. Using direct atomic manipulation, scientists are able to assemble the basic molecular building blocks to perfectly duplicate a single-celled organism. When it is finished, it immediately springs to life causing scientific celebration as well as incredible philosophical and religious controversy. Two weeks later, the lead scientist for the project is bludgeoned to death with a 5 iron on live TV by a frenzied Christian minister screaming about the sanctity of life.

9. Construction is proceeding briskly in New Manhattan, NJ. Many corporations who once operated in the now-flooded city of Manhattan are finally reopening in their new facilities. The huge number of ex-Floridians who were displaced as most of the state was overrun by the rising water tables are finally getting settled into their new cities nationwide. A steady stream of hurricanes now runs non-stop throughout the entire year with the largest covering an area roughly half the size of the U.S.

10. After decades of battling earthquakes, mudslides, and quickly-rising sea levels, ironic horror grips the nation as Malibu is completely destroyed on live TV by the first category 5 Pacific hurricane to hit the greater Los Angeles area. It results in the deaths of thousands of has-been movie stars, causes $240 billion in property damage, and results in the total collapse of the plastic surgery market in California. Hollywood Squares goes off the air for 6 months as they scramble to find stars to fill all of the empty squares. In other news, the city of Toronto is renamed "New Hollywood" by the Canadian government and yet another horribly stupid remake of "Knight Rider" appears on TV.

11. After their grandchildren show them videos on YouTube showing that Antarctica is now covered with mud instead of ice, the US Congress spends 8 months carefully creating legislation to begin funding a 20 year study to see if global climate change might be a real problem they need to address someday. Unfortunately, they tack on $800 billion in unrelated pet project spending causing it to be vetoed when it reaches the White House. As a result, the government still does nothing and the coastlines continue to disappear under rising sea levels. Poor folks along the recently-created Southern Gulf Coast of Georgia begin to make plans to move further inland to reach higher ground.

12. The first general purpose android household servants begin to appear from several manufacturers. They cost $130,000-$200,000 each initially, but the wealthy buy them like crazy so they can fire their illegal-alien housekeepers and nannies who they believe are stealing from them. Japanese toy companies release simplified high-impact plastic versions a year later for $129.95 and even cheaper copies from Taiwan appear on eBay for as little as $34.95.

13. In 2012, an alien race detected the small space/time distortions we were creating with our Large Hadron Collider experiments and decided we were finally advanced enough to announce their presence to our world. After first contact was made in late 2012, our governments spent the next 6 years bickering over who should represent the world when negotiating treaties and technology-exchange agreements. No significant progress was made during the previous 6 years, so the visitors decide to leave in disgust partway through 2018. A significant number of our most intelligent people choose to go with them, setting back most active research projects on Earth by several decades and causing a technological Dark Age to arrive.

14. George Foreman releases an updated version of his grill which stands completely vertical while cooking, uses high-tech, instant-on, ceramic elements to cook the meat evenly, and has a touch screen interface which can also browse the Internet. The stainless steel version sells like crazy at $499.

15. The PlayStation 6 is announced in time for Christmas. It will sell for $1299. The lack of advance development units for game companies means it will have zero software available for at least 18 months after launch. But the specs look amazing on paper, so kids start begging their parents to buy one anyway.

16. Bose releases the first ZERO speaker surround sound system which uses high energy electromagnetic pulses to scramble your brain into thinking you are hearing sound all around you. In response to widespread concern about potential brain damage, Bose later adds a filter to prevent the playing of German opera and anything by the Jonas Brothers.

17. The electoral college is finally eliminated in 2017 when, after a record election turnout in November 2016, 87% of the population votes for one candidate and the other candidate somehow still becomes President. After careful thought about ways they could improve on our current election system, it is replaced by Girl Scouts selling raffle tickets for a random drawing with the Presidency as the prize. The move is applauded as an infinitely more accurate representation of the will of the people than the electoral college.

18. The host of the Today Show suddenly pops into another dimension in mid-sentence during a special live broadcast causing quantum theorists to run through offices all over the world yelling, "I told everyone that could happen!" The host later reappears in a Turkish bath house holding a potted plant and finishes his sentence.

19. The NSA, while routinely monitoring the communications of all Americans, learns that the Democratic Senator from California is about to propose legislation outlawing their covert activities against Americans. The next morning, the Senator's car coincidentally explodes as he is driving to work. The NSA quickly releases "evidence" that terrorists were to blame and calls for additional powers to help them fight terrorism. There is public outcry about the country not being safe enough and the President, at the urging of Congress, signs an executive order allowing the NSA to implant chips in all Americans' brains which allow them to monitor our thoughts.

20. The Coca Cola Bottling Company spends 173 million dollars developing and advertising a new flavor of Coke called Coke Ultimate. The public promptly ignores it and continues drinking the same old Coke they've always been drinking.

Those are just a few of my predictions for the next decade. I hope you enjoyed them.

Time for an Energy Revolution!

2008-10-06T14:44:00.001-07:00

Even if you are one of the very few who don't agree with the many thousands of climate scientists who say we are on the brink of a disastrous change in world climate, there are still many other strong incentives for us to shift to clean and renewable energy sources.

For example, the instability of foreign oil supplies has caused our gasoline prices to virtually triple in the past 8 years. Oil is also the reason we are fighting and dying in a war to stabilize the middle east. We literally pay $700 billion per year to other countries to feed our oil addiction and that figure is growing quickly. In some cases we are giving money to governments who use it to fund armies who then shoot at us.

If we were energy independent, that would be $700 billion feeding into our own economy and $700 billion less pumped into the economies of countries who are quickly becoming global threats. Removing our dependence on unstable regions of the world would go a long way to stabilizing our economy. Pumping less money into their economies would also make it more difficult for them to build armies.

Another great reason to achieve energy independence using clean energy is that it will create a lot of "green collar" jobs. These are semi-skilled jobs created in the production, installation, and maintenance of renewable energy equipment. This would allow many of the folks displaced from assembly line or construction jobs to find new work with minimal training. It would be a boon to the lower and middle class. In fact, a massive shift toward wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy would likely create millions of new jobs that pay pretty well. High unemployment is one of many things contributing to our current financial crisis and green energy industries could help solve it.

Many ask, "If we are trying to break our addiction to oil, what will we use for our vehicles?" That's a great question. What if I told you we already have an abundant supply of a clean transportation fuel which costs about half as much as gasoline at the pump? I'm talking about compressed natural gas (CNG). A nationwide switch to CNG for transportation could break our addiction to oil very quickly. When I say quickly, I mean a matter of years, not decades.

Why CNG? We have a lot more domestic natural gas reserves than oil. It also works perfectly as a transportation fuel. In fact, 8 million vehicles already use it worldwide. It burns clean, so it is much better for the environment. You can convert existing vehicles to use it. The conversion cost would be low enough that the government could pay the vehicle conversion cost rather than sending us a $1500 check to buy our votes this year. It is even being used to generate electricity.

So why haven't we all switched to CNG already? Good question. Perhaps we should ask our leaders, the auto makers, and most importantly, the oil companies who also happen to own most of the natural gas reserves. All three are guilty to some extent, but the oil companies are the ones who control both the fuel supply and our leaders. It is the oil companies who spend many millions lobbying our leaders in order to influence legislation, regulations, and the adoption of clean air standards. It is the oil companies that keep our nation from following CO2 emission standards endorsed by most of the rest of the world. It is the oil companies who originated the "drill baby drill" chant.

If you think about it, "Big Oil" has become the "Big Tobacco" of this century. They know in their hearts they are killing our planet. We also know they are killing our planet. But just like the tobacco companies in the 80's and 90's, the general population hasn't tried to fight "Big Oil" because we have simply been too addicted to their products. It's high time for that to change. It's time to kick the oil habit. We have the alternatives available.

With all of the technological progress which has been made in the past 150 years, and our ever-increasing demand for energy, it is hard to believe that we are still using the same few fossil fuels we used at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Solar and wind technologies have existed for decades, yet we have put little money or effort into refining them. Geothermal and tidal forces still remain nearly untapped. We are generating our energy as if we still live in 1900.

The time for renewable, clean energy sources has arrived. Now is the time to put them all to use. Now is the time to bring our money home to rebuild our own future. Now is the time to stop letting the radical leaders of a few tiny nations dictate the future of the most powerful nation on Earth. Now is the time to create millions of new jobs while creating a brighter, cleaner future for our descendants. The stability of our economy and the future of our planet depend on making some significant changes in how we produce the energy we need. In short, it is time for an energy revolution.

Energy Independence: Our next great "Space Race." An open letter to our next President.

2008-08-25T17:33:00.001-07:00

To our next President,

Please make the hard choices needed to wean this country off of oil, and in particular, foreign oil. Our dependence on foreign oil is the cause of many of our current economic problems. We all know resource stability is the real reason our military men and women are dying in the desert so far from home. The massive money we pump into the economy of that region is a big part of the reason why radical Middle-Eastern leaders can afford to fight these wars. Our $700,000,000,000 worth of foreign oil purchases every year is killing the economy of our nation and turning the Middle East into a bloody, war-scarred, wasteland.

Our excessive oil addiction is also helping to kill our planet. It is contributing to global climate change. Our use of oil is a primary cause of poor air quality and widespread respiratory problems in our cities. It is depleting the ozone. It is destroying our fresh water supply by melting our worldwide ice reserves. It is creating toxic chemical waste. It is polluting our once-pristine oceans and killing the foundations of the entire food chain. We are killing ourselves in order to maintain our addiction to oil. It really has to end.

We seriously need to stop paying the radical leaders of Middle Eastern countries hundreds of billions of dollars of our money for their oil just so they can turn around and use the money to build more bombs to throw back at us. We need to stop funding their armies with our massive oil purchases and bring that oil money back home where we can use it to solve our own problems. We need to stop buying foreign oil.

Mr. T. Boone Pickens' Plan would certainly help move us toward this goal, but please don't stop there. We need to do much more. In fact, we need to do everything we possibly can to stop buying foreign oil. Let's make it our national goal to completely eliminate our use of oil as a transportation fuel. Use every resource at your disposal to make it happen. It can even be done quickly, if we pull together as a nation.

Here are my specific suggestions:

First, pull our troops out of all those foreign countries and put them to work helping us here at home. Let the Army Corps of Engineers use some of these returning troops to design and build the infrastructure for a vast new solar, geothermal, and wind enhanced power grid. Focus solely on renewable sources of energy to create this new power grid. Offer jobs and training to our unemployed masses as part of this effort. Let engineering students work on it for intern credit, as well.

Get the media and volunteers involved publicizing and helping wherever possible. Use the Internet and mass media to inspire and motivate every citizen to replace all incandescent bulbs with free compact fluorescent bulbs distributed at government centers. This will reduce overall power consumption immensely to take some load off of older non-renewable power facilities. Make this project a heavily-publicized nationwide goal and get everyone at every level involved.

Second, use the rest of our troops to build the beginnings of the refueling infrastructure needed to support a nationwide switch to natural gas, fuel cell, and electricity-based transportation. Add one or two natural gas pumps to every gasoline station nationwide to get the process started. Offer assistance in construction of hydrogen production facilities for fuel cells, too. Let the oil companies take it from there, but we need to get them started to guarantee a base distribution infrastructure. Perhaps install emergency charging outlets at motorist emergency call boxes on highways across the nation for electric cars. Do whatever it takes.

The switch away from gasoline is a chicken and egg (refueling infrastructure versus widely available vehicles) scenario which needs a painful first step to be taken. Use the military to help this nation take that first step together. People would love to see our troops here at home solving American problems for a change. If we can get the basic refueling infrastructure put in place, the vehicles will follow quickly.

Third, shift all possible transportation away from oil to natural gas and electric. Force the auto companies to lead the way to a natural gas and electric future by eliminating the production of petroleum engine-based transportation. Supplement the conversion of all existing gasoline engines to natural gas power. Set up conversion centers in every municipality with trained military personnel doing the conversions for free or the price of the parts. Set a deadline for everyone to have it done.

Fourth, encourage the oil companies to further tap our massive resources of natural gas and quickly make it available for sale nationwide. Help them further flesh out the infrastructure for refueling in a nationwide shift to natural gas. Severely restrict any further gasoline distribution for passenger vehicle use. Make it extremely difficult to get gasoline in order to force folks to convert their vehicles.

From now on, strongly encourage the manufacture and purchase of electric vehicles which use natural gas engines or fuel cells(but not petroleum) only to boost their range. The switch to these vehicles will allow us to drastically reduce our oil imports so we really only need the oil we already produce. We may even be able to export some of the oil we have left over. It would be nice to have money coming into this country for a change.

Why use natural gas? It just makes the most sense as the transitional step we need in order to move forward toward an independent, sustainable, cleaner energy future. We have extensive reserves of natural gas available here at home. It's cheaper than oil. The oil companies are already invested heavily in it. It's proven as a transportation fuel with over 8 million vehicles already on the roads. Also, the transportation infrastructure and currently-owned vehicles can be converted to it fairly easily and cheaply. Best of all, it burns much cleaner than petroleum, so it's a responsible choice for easy conversion of existing combustion engines.

It will also help us ease the complete transition over the longer term to purely electric (or fuel cell) vehicles. The natural gas-based extended-range electric vehicles will eventually completely replace the current crop of converted gasoline vehicles. Then, purely electric or even fuel cell vehicles will eventually replace the extended-range electric vehicles once the technology finally develops fully. Electric vehicles can be charged using a wide variety of renewable resources, making them ideal for the long-term future. But natural gas is the in-between step we need to get us there.

In addition, our power grid will be slowly converting to renewable sources over the same time period for enhanced long-term stability in our electrical supply. This will spur investment and faster development in those fields, creating massive new energy industries to add to our economy. This path to energy independence is simple and follows a logical progression which people can grasp and best of all, the necessary studies have already been done. We already know where the best wind and solar power are located. We already know how to convert vehicles to run on natural gas. We can begin to do this immediately using technology we already have.

Why use the military for these projects? It's simple. We have the manpower to make huge changes in a very short time if we use the military. Plus, the President has complete control over military operations as Commander-in-Chief. Rather than paying our troops to solve (or interfere with?) the problems of every other country in the world, let the U.N. take care of that. Let's put our troops to work here at home to create our own nation's long-term energy future. Only by assuring our own future can we make certain we are around to help others over the long term. Only by becoming more resource-independent can we become truly economically stable over the long term.

People are fed up with our massive dependence on foreign oil ruining their lives and putting us at the mercy of overpowered radical Middle-Eastern leaders. Even worse, our Earth is quickly being destroyed by our addiction to oil. We want a strong leader to fire us up to work toward a common goal like Kennedy did with the space program. This is the single goal that can pull this nation together like never before.

Mr. President, YOU could go down in history as the American President who led this nation in solving one of the biggest challenges we ever faced. With inspired national focus and enthusiasm, you could even do all of this within your first term by using the military, volunteers, students, and the millions of jobless folks.

This project could make the national accomplishments of the space program and the "new deal" look small by comparison. Inspire us in this fight. Make national pride a big part of our national culture again. Lead us and the world into a stable energy future. Step up and help us proudly declare our Energy Independence!

Respectfully yours,

Bill Dempsey

The Pickens Plan: Stop paying $700 billion a year for foreign oil!

2008-07-31T17:56:00.001-07:00

Wind power will allow us to purchase $300 billion less in foreign oil every year. That's the upshot of an amazing plan presented by T. Boone Pickens. The plan, known as "The Pickens Plan," may really be the salvation for our ever growing dependence on foreign oil. He has found a way for us to replace oil imports with wind!

According to Pickens, we now import about 70% of the oil we use in the United States. This figure is nearly triple the percentage we were importing in 1970. But the real kicker is that the foreign oil costs us a whopping $700 billion a year! That's money taken straight out of our pockets and sent overseas.

Pickens is working to help us stop sending so much of our own money to foreign interests, while creating more jobs, saving us money on fuel costs, and reducing our environmental impact. To accomplish this, Pickens wants us to utilize our wind power. What is odd about his enthusiasm for wind power, is that Pickens made his fortune in oil.

You may wonder how building wind farms will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reduce transportation costs. Oil is used primarily for transportation, while wind is used to generate electricity. You may be thinking, "he's pushing electric cars." You would be wrong. If he's not suggesting we drive electric cars, then how are we going to make transportation costs cheaper at the same time? Oil is going up in price. How does all of this fit together?

This is where the genius of his plan really becomes evident. Pickens says we should use wind power to replace natural gas for generating electricity and then use that extra natural gas to power our transportation. This is one of those ideas that is so simple it's brilliant. It makes one wonder why nobody thought of this before. There are already 8 million natural gas vehicles on the road, so we know it works well as a transportation fuel. But can we really reduce that $700 billion number by using natural gas? And if so, by how much?

Currently, we generate 22% of our electricity using natural gas. If we were to generate that 22% using wind power, we could apply all of that natural gas toward transportation. According to Pickens that would reduce our oil imports by 38%, to the tune of around $300 billion.

So the next question becomes, "can we generate enough electricity to replace the natural gas?" The Department of Energy released the results of a study last April which seem to verify that it is indeed possible. Take a look at the Department of Energy wind map, and you will notice that the United States has more land area with usable levels of wind than anyone else in the world. Best of all, we have a huge "wind corridor" running straight down the middle of the rural portions of our nation, which will make for easier east-west distribution of the electricity.

The location of the "wind corridor" also means we'll be utilizing lots of wide open fields surrounding small communities that have been hit hard by changes in agriculture over the past few decades. Putting wind farms on all of that land will not only generate the electricity we need, but it will revitalize those ravaged rural communities. Farm owners will have an additional source of income by becoming wind generation sites.

There are other benefits from the Pickens plan, too. Additional jobs will be created from the manufacture, operation, and maintenance of the wind generation facilities and equipment. A larger percentage of the nation's vehicles will burn natural gas, which burns much cleaner than gasoline, with fewer emissions. The Honda Civic GX Natural Gas Vehicle pictured is the cleanest internal-combustion vehicle in the world, according to the EPA. Further, natural gas is cheaper than gasoline, which will save us all money. Plus, I personally feel better knowing we wouldn't be handing as much of our cash over to nations that despise us and our way of life.

One of the things I like most about the Pickens plan is that it can be implemented fairly quickly. I saw Senate hearings where numbers were tossed around about costs and timetable. It was stated that this plan could be fully implemented within 10 years at a cost of about $17 billion per year of private industry investment. Compare that cost with the (constantly rising) $700 billion per year we are already handing to other nations to purchase oil, and it seems trivial. Put another way, spending $17 billion per year for 10 years could save us $300 billion a year forever. That's less than half the amount we are spending each year on the war in Iraq!

At this point, I can't see any logical reason why both Presidential candidates and all of Congress shouldn't be jumping up and down to implement this plan. In fact, I don't see why we need to wait for private industry to make that $17 billion per year investment. This should be an infrastructure expenditure like the national highway system or the Hoover dam.

In a nutshell, we should just do it! If we need to, bring the troops home and put THEM to work helping to build it. If we as Americans pull together to make a change, it can happen much faster. Let's put some pressure on our elected officials to make this happen quickly. The quicker it happens, the quicker we can stop pumping our own cash into the hands of other countries.

del.icio.us Tags: Pickens Plan,wind power,natural gas,foreign oil,environment,electricity

Documented: RIAA Abuses American Court System

2008-07-30T14:10:00.001-07:00

In the current edition of the Judge's Journal, lawyer and blogger Ray Beckerman has an extensive article outlining the wide variety of ways the RIAA abuses the American court system.

All I can say is, it's about time somebody created a one-stop document outlining and documenting the illegal practices the RIAA is using in their irrational witch hunt against all of their once-loyal customers. My hat goes off to Mr. Beckerman for doing the leg work that should have been done by our court system before allowing any action brought by the RIAA to proceed. Any intelligent judge reading this carefully-documented article could only reach one conclusion. The RIAA is consistently abusing our court system, and this behavior must be stopped.

Kudos to Mr. Ray Beckerman!

del.icio.us Tags: DMCA,Pro IP,RIAA,MPAA,Fair Use,Judge's Journal,Ray Beckerman

Will we soon see an iPod Nano Touch?

2008-07-18T14:49:00.000-07:00

I saw a news story on the iLounge some time ago which showed a couple of new capacitive touch screens that available from a company named Host Optical. The 3.2 inch version was destined for the new iPhone 3G, which still left the 2.8 inch screen version unexplained.

My question: Will it be used on a smaller iPod Touch?

Using a 2.8 inch screen on the existing iPhone or iPod Touch would be a bit of a problem because they both include a lot of data capabilities like E-mail and Internet access. This requires the extensive use of an on-screen keyboard. Making such a keyboard significantly smaller would render it fairly useless. So, a simple scaled-down iPhone or iPod Touch seems like a bad idea.

What about a middle device like an iPod Nano Touch?

A Touch version of the Nano would be a different machine than a scaled down Touch. If you think about it, the interface for the Nano is somewhat different than the normal iPod. Its design caters to the limitations of of a much smaller screen. Since a Nano version of the Touch would have a smaller screen, it would also need to deal with those limitations.

So what would be missing in a Nano Touch?

I'm guessing the onscreen keyboard would be absent. I also think the Internet browser, email, and related functionality might be gone. Below a certain screen size, it just becomes ridiculous to try to type or scroll all over a web page. Older generation cell phones proved this. That doesn't mean Apple would eliminate the wireless connection, however. There is a much better use for that.

Some are speculating that the next generation of Touch will be able to sync to your PC wirelessly using Bonjour. Perhaps a Nano Touch would be able to perform this task, as well. It would certainly add to its value and appeal. So if we are correct, this gives us a Nano with a 2.8 inch wide touch screen and wireless sync abilities.

What else might be different about a Nano Touch?

Well, it's the Nano Touch, so it should be priced much lower than a Touch. But unlike the previous Nano, the Nano Touch will almost certainly play video. BAM! That's the defining application for a Nano Touch. This 2.8 inch wide screen display will be perfect for that task and the interface for playing video will fit on a display like that quite nicely. I'm sure it would also make use of "Cover Flow" for selecting media, just like its big brother.

It's a perfect fit and it makes business sense for Apple to do it. Why do I say that?

One big benefit for Apple in making a video-capable Nano is that it provides a lot more potential clients for the iTunes video rental service. If they can keep the price low enough to build a large Nano Touch base, their potential for video rental revenue could skyrocket. Currently, their rental service is still in the early stages of growth. Launching a Nano Touch could make video rentals a real profit center.

This also makes sense from a device limitations standpoint. Any Nano device typically has much less memory than its full-sized brethren. A device with limited memory won't be storing much content locally. This makes a wireless-enabled, wide screen iPod Nano the perfect client for a rental service. It could be wireless, easily pocket-able, cheap, and incredibly easy to use with easy access to any movie you care to watch. At least that's my theory.

SO - Look for the iPod Nano Touch (or Touch Nano?) to appear at Apple retailers sometime before Christmas. :) Tell them Oil Painter Bill sent you to buy one. Maybe they'll give me a commission. LOL

Technorati Tags: iPhone,iPod Touch,Apple,iPod,iPod Nano,iPod Touch Nano,iTunes

del.icio.us Tags: iPod,Apple,iPod Nano,iPod Touch,iTunes,iPod Nano Touch

iPhone 3G: To upgrade or not?

2008-07-17T14:00:00.001-07:00

I bought a first generation iPhone on the first day of release. Yes, I was one of the poor saps who waited in line for it. Although I like the user interface a lot, many of my old blog readers have seen my reviews listing all of its many shortcomings. Well, Apple has released the new iPhone 3G so it's time to take a look at whether they corrected the biggest problems I found with their first generation. Here is a quick rundown of some of the features I found missing on the original iPhone:

1. No cut/copy/paste. No change on the 3G. It's still missing.

2. No MMS support. No change. Nothing in App Store, either.

3. No JAVA support. Again, no change on either phone.

4. No FLASH support. No change, but there are rumors of it coming out later for both phones.

5. No audio record. Nothing built-in. A third party application is now available for both phones.

6. No video record. Nothing built-in. Third party app coming?

7. Still 16 GB maximum. The 3G has the same capacity as Gen 1. Can you say, "yawn?"

8. No user-replaceable battery. Still must buy an emergency external dongle battery or find another way to recharge it.

9. No memory card slot for expansion. Yet another no-show feature.

10. No stereo Bluetooth. That's right! Bluetooth is still mono on the 3G! It still won't use stereo Bluetooth headsets or even external Bluetooth keyboards.

11. No tethering to laptops. You still can't use the iPhone 3G as a high-speed wireless modem for your laptop. They charge more for the new 3G data connection, but they still limit how you can use it.

12. No To-Do lists. This, and many other handy applications, are now available for both phones in the App Store.

13. No email forwarded as attachments. I haven't tested this one yet, but on the old phone, if somebody forwarded an email from a service like AOL, it was sent as an attachment. The iPhone could not display that attached email. Has anyone tested this yet?

14. No moving you snapped photos into albums/folders. When you take a photo, it goes into "Camera Roll" and there it stays. When you receive a photo in an email, it's the same. You can't move photos you want to keep into a different folder unless you put them on a computer first. It is awkward at best and annoying for certain.

15. Exchange Server access. This was finally added for both phones and I'm pretty happy about it. Unfortunately, they overwrite your personal data with Exchange data when you sync (except for email). The one exception is information you store on a Mobile Me account (for $99 more per year - OUCH!).

16. Contacts search. This was added to both.

17. Desktop icon for Contacts. This was added to both.

18. No voice dialing. Still missing in both phones.

19. No native chat client. Both have this covered now via third party applications.

As you can see, a large number of missing features were still not resolved on the 3G. The few that were resolved, were resolved on both the new phone and the old, and many of those were actually resolved by third parties, not Apple. There are far too many basic cell phone features that are still missing which really should have been included in the original iPhone a year ago. Plus, the 3G service and using Exchange side-by-side with your personal data will cost you lots of extra money every year.

In a nutshell, you get a real GPS and a 3G radio in the new iPhone 3G versus just updating to 2.0 firmware in the the old iPhone. Those are virtually the only differences between a 3G and a Gen 1 iPhone. Tons of basic cell phone features are still missing from both, despite the update. Even worse, if you use the 3G radio, the battery life is significantly shorter than a Gen 1, and that 3G radio is really the main reason you would want to upgrade.

Further, you still can't swap batteries to overcome the new shorter battery life. I don't know about most of you, but the first thing I always did with my previous cell phones was buy a bigger extended-life battery. Even with the new iPhone 3G, this still isn't possible.

Granted, the battery life on the iPhone 3G is better than most 3G phones, but when considering whether to upgrade from a Gen 1 iPhone to a 3G iPhone, you don't really care about other phones. You look at how it compares to what you've been using. The reality is, if you use 3G, your battery life goes down.

It also costs you $10 more per month for the 3G data plan, ($15 if you send and receive under 200 text messages, which most of us do) and you still can't use the 3G iPhone as a modem. Add that $180 per year to the extra $99 per year for Mobile Me if you want separate Exchange Server information and personal information on your device. That extra $279 per year is why many folks say the iPhone is now far more expensive than ever before and far too expensive to be justified. Even if we stay with our Gen 1 iPhones, we have to pay $99 more per year to get the Exchange Server working without overwriting our separate personal data.

To be completely honest, the biggest news for both iPhones is the App Store. Third party software is now easily added to either phone. This fast growing library of software promises to be the real reason for new iPhone owners to pick up an iPhone 3G. On the other hand, the addition of the App Store offers no real incentive for Gen 1 users to upgrade to the new phones. This is because our Gen 1 iPhones can use the same software. There are literally hundreds of applications already available and many more are in the works.

The App Store is, by far, the most exciting thing about owning or purchasing any iPhone right now.

So, getting back to the original question. To upgrade or not? For people like me, who already have a first generation iPhone, I don't see enough justification for the total price of the upgrade. Paying significantly more per month simply to get a faster connection speed and more precise positioning seems just silly to me. Some folks will always buy the latest and greatest, regardless of cost or lack of features. But for me, until I see a lot more storage space added and/or the elimination of the insanely-high monthly price premium, I'll be staying with my trusty old Gen 1 iPhone.

To upgrade or not? For me, the answer is currently "not."

For a bit of fun, check out these C|Net TV video links for the top 5 reasons to love or hate the iPhone 3G.

del.icio.us Tags: Apple,iPhone 3G,iPhone

Today's Painting

2008-06-04T11:58:00.001-07:00

Here is another one of my paintings. Enjoy.

Linux = Ubuntu?: Just let them think it's true.

2008-06-04T11:46:00.001-07:00

I recently read an article by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes about Ubuntu application replacements for folks thinking about making the switch from Windows. The title of the article unfortunately used the word "Linux" although the article was specifically about Ubuntu. Of course, this immediately got Linux users upset. In fact, a large number of the article comments centered around why Linux does not equal Ubuntu and why dozens of other distributions are better.

Being somewhat OS-agnostic myself (I dual boot Vista and Ubuntu, but I really like OSX), I see both sides of the "Linux doesn't equal Ubuntu" argument. I don't, however, understand the zealotry and jealousy demonstrated by the Linux users who don't use Ubuntu. True, Ubuntu gets all the press, but that's largely because they have focused a lot of effort on simplifying and smoothing out the entire end user experience for folks considering a move from another OS. Plus, when all is said and done, it is still Linux. In the words of Rodney King, "Why can't we all just get along?"

The truth is, for the majority of people Linux does equal Ubuntu. It is fairly safe to say that Ubuntu is the most heavily-publicized version of Linux in history. Ubuntu is the "media darling" of the Linux world. More non-Linux users know about Ubuntu than any other Linux distribution. They only know about Linux because they know about Ubuntu. In their minds, Linux and Ubuntu are interchangeable terms.

In my opinion, we should just let them think Linux equals Ubuntu. Perhaps we should even encourage it. Before I get any angry comments laced with zealotry, let me explain why I say that.

The masses want simplicity. Distributions add a level of complexity they don't like. The masses don't want to keep track of 100 different distributions to figure out whether a specific program runs on a specific distribution (or specific window manager). Even now, average users don't say, "I use Windows Vista SP1" or "Windows XP SP3." They say, "I use Windows." They want that same level of simplicity when referring to any OS they consider as a replacement for Windows.

To oversimplify, think about it this way. People say they are "Xeroxing" something even when they use other brands of copiers. "Xerox" has become a generic term for photocopying and everyone understands that it doesn't necessarily mean they are using a Xerox copier. When they go to buy accessories for the copier, the salesman may be able to extract more specific details about which brand, but the users really don't care if it is Sharp, Xerox, or Canon. They just call it the "Xerox machine."

Similarly, if the general public uses "Linux" as a generic term when they mean "Ubuntu," we should all just agree to let them do it, because it will benefit us in the long run for one major reason. If we can get lots more folks using Ubuntu, our future chances of getting Linux drivers included in the box with any new hardware purchase will increase dramatically. Getting better drivers quicker is a benefit to all distributions of Linux.

On the other hand, if you push all of those masses away from Linux, the new hardware driver problem will continue forever. If we don't create a much larger installed user base, manufacturers will always develop hardware drivers for Linux as an afterthought (if they develop them at all). I don't think any Linux user wants that to happen, no matter what distribution they prefer.

Let's be honest here. The way the Linux community is currently divided, a seemingly simple statement like "I know a great Linux application" incites a lecture about stating which precise distribution you mean. That lecture is usually followed with a dozen different people arguing about why your distribution isn't as good as the one they use. Another dozen start arguing about why one windowing system is better than another. Eventually no relevant information is being shared at all. It becomes nothing but opinion warfare.

Passionate division like that drives many potential users away. They have too much confrontation in their lives already to use an OS that provokes confrontation from others using a different flavor of the same OS. We should also realize that making fun of people for saying "Linux" when they mean "Ubuntu" drives them away even quicker than bickering amongst ourselves. Who wants to join a group that makes fun of you?

All of which leads me to restate my main point. I believe we should all just agree to let the masses think Linux equals Ubuntu. Call Ubuntu "Linux for the masses" and let them be happy. We should do it for the benefit of all of us. The users get their simplicity. All of us get our quick driver releases. In fact, the only folks who really lose anything will be those who live for anal-retentive semantics.

Technorati Tags: Linux,Ubuntu,OS,Operating Systems

Painting of the Day

2008-05-29T12:30:00.001-07:00

Another one of my paintings...

Project Looking Glass: Leopard UI created years earlier by Sun?

2008-05-29T11:39:00.001-07:00

As soon as Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer publicly demonstrated some UI concepts for the upcoming Windows 7, I saw comments all over the Internet about how Microsoft had copied the Mac OSX 3D dock. It proved to me, once again, that there are a vast number of victims of the "Jobs Reality Distortion Field" running around on this planet. I like Apple, but come on people. Stop giving them more credit than they have earned. Let's take a look at reality.

Apple didn't invent the 3D dock in OSX Leopard. It is a copy of the 3D Sun Looking Glass dock, which was created earlier than the UI for OSX Leopard. Looking Glass wasn't viewed by the public until 2003, but remember that the pretty 3D dock finally appeared in Leopard in 2007. A Sun programmer (Hideya Kawahara) developed Looking Glass in his spare time. When Sun executives saw the first version, they gave him the full-time job of developing it further. They showed it to the public in 2003, and made it Open Source in 2004. It seemed to fizzle out in 2006.

Giving Apple credit for inventing the 3D dock shown in the Windows 7 demo is just like believing Apple invented the windowed, mouse-driven OS, which was created by Xerox PARC labs years before Apple copied it in their Mac. If Microsoft did anything, they copied Sun (and Xerox), just like Apple did.

While Apple definitely uses innovative technology in products they create, they rarely invent it. It amazes me when people even forget that portable MP3 players existed for a while before the iPod ever came out. What made the iPod so popular was iTunes. I keep wondering what psychological trickery is involved that keeps making Apple's otherwise intelligent users think Apple invented all of this stuff. Apple innovates by using cool technology invented by others.

Here's another reality that gets overlooked. Microsoft's early work for some of the 3D desktop features of both Vista and Windows 7 was done many years ago. Microsoft has been working on various 3D desktops for almost a decade. For example, "The TaskGallery" was a project they did back in 1999. It allowed users to display normal Windows programs running in "paintings" hanging on the walls of a 3D virtual office environment.

For more reading, head to "Project Looking Glass" and look at the screen shots. Overall, it makes our current UI's look bad. Taken as a whole, it is much more advanced than Windows or even OSX. Actually, you may think you are looking at OSX Leopard on some of the screen shots. It's a shame Looking Glass never took off. Back when I first saw it (2003), I hoped Microsoft would purchase the rights and make it the new Windows standard UI. As usual, Apple beat them to the punch by folding some of the concepts into Leopard. Seeing the demo of Windows 7 with a Looking Glass dock gives me hope that Microsoft may be headed that same direction.

Technorati Tags: Windows 7,Microsoft,Apple,Leopard,Project Looking Glass,TaskGallery

Record Companies: Where do we go from here?

2008-05-27T14:24:00.001-07:00

I've made no secret of my opinions on our current recording industry. I feel the existing record companies have litigated and legislated themselves into being the focus of widespread consumer hatred. They are involved in the most self-destructive activities of any business segment in history. They are dying of self-inflicted wounds and most folks will be happy to see them gone. Everyone hates them.

More importantly, nobody really needs the set of services they provide anymore. The business models they cling to make no sense in the digital age when individual artists can record and distribute their own music nearly as easily as the big companies can and with more control. Times have changed and the record companies haven't.

The only question left unanswered is, "What's next for these failing companies?"

There are some great suggestions floating around the web for taking the recording industry in a new direction, but none I've seen were as workable as the ideas outlined in an open letter posted by Ian Rogers, the former General Manager of Yahoo Music. He wrote this letter to Guy Hands, the boss at EMI. Guy Hands is one of the more forward-looking executives in the music industry, so he is likely to be more open to innovative ideas for his company's future.

In this letter, Mr. Rogers talks about the services recording companies once provided for artists. He then talks about why those services are no longer as valuable as they once were. Finally, he outlines a new set of services the recording companies could provide in order to make themselves relevant again. Let's explore some of his ideas, intermingled with my own of course.

In the "old days," recording companies provided the startup capital needed to make a master recording. Studios were scarce and studio time cost a fortune. The equipment was cost prohibitive and it took very specialized skills to create professional sounding recordings.

In those days, recording companies also provided the cash for duplication and packaging. They paid for the large scale reproduction of the studio recordings, the album artwork, the printing, the packaging, and everything else associated with creating a retail package to put on store shelves.

Recording companies also provided distribution. Back then, shipping cases of heavy vinyl records to stores all over the country became quite expensive and logistically difficult. Although the media became lighter when moving to CDs, the shipping expenses were still huge and it was no easier to coordinate. That was the era of big record store chains and obtaining shelf space for their artists was a major service the record companies provided.

Finally, they did a lot of marketing. In those days, marketing meant getting albums played on the radio. It meant paying for premium placement in retail outlets. It meant creating "point of purchase" displays in the big chain stores. Later, it meant getting the album played on MTV.

All of this was both useful to the artist and very expensive. All of it was necessary. All of it was worth signing a contract turning over most of the income from the album sales to the companies in exchange for the services. It was simply the way things were done back then.

Things are quite different now. In the digital age, professional quality recordings can be done by the artists at home using modern computers and software, all at very low cost. File servers and the Internet make "infinite duplication" as easy as customers clicking "download" on a web page. Album packaging means "tagging" the digital audio file with album artwork. Most of the labor and cost-intensive portions of making an album have been replaced by cheap digital solutions. Even getting the word out is fairly easy in our socially-networked world.

So why do we need the recording companies? Good question.

Really, out of all the services once provided by recording companies, the only one that is still debatably valuable to artists is marketing. Viral word-of-mouth on the Internet makes getting the word out about new releases nearly trivial, but the recording companies can still help the artists in the areas the artists don't want to deal with.

For example, they could provide new types of marketing services that are good for both the artist and the consumer. Create "groups" of artists with similar sounds, styles, or influences. Ian Rogers suggests that these groups be handled as "affinity labels." These are small niche labels that only handle a certain style of music. I personally think this is a brilliant idea.

One way to think of this process is "matchmaking." There is so much music available now that customers need a way to narrow down the selection. In this case, knowing you like one artist at a given affinity label means you can assume you will probably like other artists at the same label. The service provided by the record companies would help customers select music they are almost certain to like. They would be matching artists to consumers, which would help artists sell their music.

In my mind, the affinity label could even be "virtual" and still serve the same purpose. For example, you might call all of your dark, brooding artists, "Onyx" artists. In reality, "Onyx" may only exist as a marketing "tag" you use on web sites. The simple act of tagging an artist as an "Onyx" artist would tell the consumer what to expect and boost the sales of that artist to all "Onyx-loving" consumers.

The recording companies could also provide management services to the artists. Most artists have no desire to do the detailed management associated with multiple income streams from a wide variety of digital distribution sources. Perhaps the companies could provide web-based tools and services for artists to manage their various income streams.

The recording companies could also make it simple for artists to select highly-targeted marketing services or purchase premium placement on music web sites. Put all of these services in one secured location online and make it easy for them to use. The level of automation involved in these services will make it cheap to operate them. If it makes their lives easier, artists will be happy to pony up a percentage of their sales.

The retail and manufacturing aspects of this industry are quickly fading away. It is becoming a pure digital service industry. If the recording companies focus on providing the types of services that are both valuable to artists and helpful to customers, they will reinvent themselves in a way that allows them to persist far into the current century. They will also make good money at it.

In contrast, litigating grandmothers, parents, and children until hundreds of thousands of people are telling everyone they know to stop buying your products is stupid. Treating all of your customers like criminals is a bad idea. Using restrictive DRM only encourages your customers to download illegal DRM-free media instead. Lobbying to restrict Fair Use rights only makes customers hate you for making it illegal to use what they already bought. It's common sense.

This is not the way to do business and certainly not the way to survive. If you spend all of your time doing your best to incite hatred in those who feed you, don't expect them to feel sorry for you when somebody pirates your products. When you make it difficult or impossible to use the products they purchase from you, customers don't want to give you any more of their money and they don't care a bit when you go out of business.

The one common thread in every article I read about the RIAA these days is the belief that a major change is critical for their survival. The RIAA member companies need to pursue an entirely new direction and business model. They need to become service companies instead of product companies. They need to focus on serving the needs of both the artists and the consumers. Only then, do they have any hope of surviving.

Technorati Tags: Record companies,Music industry,Fair Use,DMCA,RIAA,PRO IP

Do Macs cost more than PCs? It depends.

2008-05-24T09:53:00.001-07:00

Does a tower case with a quad core CPU, 4GB of RAM, and an NVIDIA 8800 cost more if you buy it from Apple instead of Gateway? Absolutely. BUT only if you are just talking about buying the hardware. We all know there is more to a computer purchase than that. When you consider the complete OS, the included software, and the level of service, the price evens out quite a bit.

First of all, Apple includes the complete OS. Adding Vista Ultimate to a PC costs extra, pumping up the price significantly. Apple includes word processing, simple spreadsheet, and a number of other useful applications. Adding this same level of capabilities to a Vista PC will require additional software purchases. Add these costs to the price of the hardware and suddenly the price gap is a lot narrower than it seems at first glance.

Just a couple more observations: I've used both Vista and OSX. I've used identical applications available on both. Both were running on hardware "certified as compatible" and I had zero crashes on either. I also had zero mal-ware infections on either. Both were very stable and easy to use. Both have brain-dead easy installation routines that worked perfectly with supported hardware. Both started up with tutorials for new users. They both just worked for me with no trouble at all.

What about performance though? I'm mostly a Vista user these days, because there is a lot of software not available on Macs. BUT I want to tell everyone OSX just beats the heck out of Vista in one key area: resource footprint. By this, I mean RAM, GPU, and CPU usage. OSX is simply leaner and meaner. With the same CPU, RAM, and GPU in both machines, I saw less RAM and CPU being used in nearly every task I tried and despite using less resources, the OSX system felt more responsive.

I'm guessing this is why an Apple machine can often get away with using less hardware for the same tasks. This is one important difference that nobody ever seems to address for some reason. Instead the groupies say easier, more stable, more secure, etc. None of which is really true in my own experience. For a user like myself, Vista and OSX provide virtually identical levels of stability, security, and ease of use. But, OSX wins hands down on resource usage. You get more bang out of your hardware.

The standard 64 bit address space is another big difference I liked. Using 8 GB of RAM on your motherboard is no problem at all in OSX. Think about that. It needs less RAM but it is able to address more. That's a nice combination if you work with large images and video. More RAM is available for your data.

So what more could you possibly want? I'm glad you asked.

In a word, software. The Mac needs more off-the-shelf software. If you could walk into Best Buy and have the same software choices available for Macs that are available for Windows, it would become impossible for Vista to compete in any identical hardware comparison. OSX would just eat it alive. For now, though, most of us are stuck with Windows because we need that software selection. After all, it is the software that actually lets us do things, not the OS.

The bottom line? Macs may cost more initially if you only look at identical hardware, but including the full OS, and useful basic software levels the playing field on cost. Add in the more efficient use of hardware resources and you end up with an arguably quicker system with more usable RAM. The efficiencies of OSX mean identical hardware isn't truly identical. The Mac gives you more punch on the same hardware. So you are getting more bang for those extra bucks. But this isn't enough for a win. Why not?

The one glaring blemish for the Mac is software availability. If there were more software available, the Mac would win hands-down. As it is, the lack of software ruins any hope of a clean victory for the Mac. If Apple can somehow address this, the Mac will become a clear winner.

Technorati Tags: Apple,Mac,OSX,PC,Windows,Vista