Being Inside a Webpage

Putting aside how this changes porn, this is really cool:

“The idea of navigating a webpage with Glass seems like it could introduce some challenges, but Google seems to have worked out a decent control scheme. Scrolling is accomplished by sliding your finger forward on the touchpad to scroll down. You can also zoom in (or out) on a page’s content by sliding two fingers forward or backward. But what about just looking at the website? Google has pulled off a neat trick here. With two fingers placed on the touchpad, you simply move your head around to pan.

Google Glass gets full-on web browser, new hands-free functions in monthly update – Chris Welch

1, 2, 3, and counting…

Microsoft is building another Surface Tablet, the Xbox Surface. First impression: I’m flabbergasted. What on earth are they thinking? Two versions of Windows on tablets both called Surface isn’t confusing enough? Guess not, let’s throw in another! And at the same time, let’s confuse developers too! Which Windows platform to develop for? Windows RT which is a good price point and looks like a nice tablet experience, but can’t really run Office? How about the much more expensive Windows 8? Maybe Windows Xbox? Or is that Surface Xbox? Really, they can’t even keep their naming conventions straight between hardware and operating systems.

And I would like to know precisely how many tablets Microsoft expects me to buy? One for casual consumption, one for “creation”, and one for gaming? How much more clearly can they make an argument to just buy an iPad?

And who is going to buy the Xbox Surface? Does Microsoft think parents will buy it for their kids? So now it’s up against the real Xbox? Doesn’t that just cannibalize Xbox sales? At least with the iPad, the kids can justify it with all the educational and creative apps that are available.

All this is going to do is cause a massive amount of confusion and drive people right into the iPad with it’s much simpler proposition: one tablet to do it all, almost.

Goal Post

Seems so strange that pretty much everyone seems to be having so much difficulty explaining the larger screen on the iPhone 5. Most people think Apple it just caving to competition or admitting they were wrong and the 3.5″ was too small all along.

John Gruber, the one guy I assumed would figure this out is just as befuddled as everyone else:

So the question is, if a 4-inch 16:9 display is better than a 3.5-inch 3:2 display, why hasn’t the iPhone been using 4-inch 16:9 displays from the start? Cost must have been a factor. Bigger screens are more expensive, and the 2007 iPhone display was like nothing else on the market. Bigger displays also consume more power. But I think it’s really mostly about a subtle change in priorities, a reordering of the tradeoffs — and, let’s face it, a response to marketing pressure from the aforementioned bigger-seems-better retail showroom factor.

This is really very simple. The goal post has moved. What makes a great smartphone today is not the same thing that made a great smartphone in 2007. Here are a couple of things people aren’t talking about:

  • A lot more people are watching a lot more video on their phones now
  • A lot more people are reading a lot more books on their phones
  • And there was one more thing, oh yeah, there are hundreds of thousands of more apps for the iPhone now than there were five years ago. Maybe adding an extra row of apps to the screen would help.

Parameters change, needs change, people change and great design changes to satisfy these changes.

While I’m at it, here are some other things I can help to clear up for John:

Along the lines of can’t-really-be-answered-but-gosh-they’re-fun-to-ponder questions like, say, “Who’d win in a fight, Batman or Spider-Man?” or “Star Destroyer vs. U.S.S. Enterprise?

Batman has far superior tactics and strategies so he would be the favorite in a fight with Spider-Man. Unless Batman knew he was going to – or could potentially – fight Spider-Man. In this case, Spidey wouldn’t have a chance. Batman is the guy who, with a bit of planning, beat up Superman. You really think a spider is going to get him?

Star Destroyer vs, Enterprise? Ok, imagine this:

The bridge of the Enterprise
“Lt. Worf, full spread of photon torpedoes please…”
“And while you’re at it, beam the bridge crew of the Star Destroyer into space….”
“And in their place, beam some more photon torpedoes onto that now empty bridge.”
“And if by some slim chance, if they give us any trouble, jump to warp nine and we’ll come back to finish them off later.”

Motorola, Phoning it in for Probably the Last Time

Reviewing Motorola’s newly announced phones is just one big bag of disappointment. Nothing really new here, nothing that pushes the envelope, just three more slab like Android phones with big and bigger screens.

And they’re not even shipping with the most up to date version of Android.

Motorola, what’s the point? Either you aren’t giving it your all, or you’ve got so little talent or direction that you really shouldn’t bother to get out of bed in the morning. Hence my terribly tedious and totally obvious title for this entry, just like your new phones.

Isn’t one of the ‘great things’ about Android that there are so many different choices? But what does Motorola do? They add three more unimaginative and derivative designs that stand out in no way. Lemmings.

If the iPhone and the Samsung F700 had a Love Child….

…It would look just like the Samsung Galaxy S.

Sort of.

Looking at just the hardware, and just from the front, the F700 really does look like both the iPhone and the Galaxy S.

Image from the verge

What’s important here is that the F700 and the iPhone were released essentially at the same time (within a few months), so it’s hard to call the F700 a copy of the iPhone. Unless Samsung had some secret detailed prior knowledge of what the iPhone was going to look like. But there is no indication of that.



From the front (and with the phone off), all three of these devices have the same slate like appearance that we have all become so familiar with. This is not what phones looked like in 2006. Samsung clearly has some design intent here that shows up later in the Galaxy S and their tablets. Still, the rest of the Galaxy S bares more than a passing resemblance to the iPhone. And once you look at the UI, it’s little more than a direct clone.

Google is Now Officially Lost in the Wilderness

Eric Schmidt is on record as saying Google is “in the information business.” That’s a meaningless statement, it’s like saying they are in the “breathing air” business. This is the current Executive Chairman of Google basically saying he doesn’t know what Google does. But how could he not know?

Simple. Google is doing too much in too many directions and has no master plan.

Please note, the draft of this article was created using Google Docs*.

* I mean Google Drive or whatever totally idiotic name they are using this week.

iPad Mini

The iPod Touch is more a tablet than an MP3 player. Calling it an iPod is no longer relevant. Rebranding it as a an iPad Mini would draw more attention to its real power and clarify the mobile line up.

If the rumors are true that the next iPhone will have larger 4” screen, the newly rebranded iPad Mini could share that same display.

There is also the suggestion that a new 7” iPad could be made from the same screen technology as the 3GS but scaled up to 1024 X 768. This makes sense from for the size of the device, but not for the density of the screen. Would Apple really want to launch a new product with a display that is rapidly becoming obsolete? Doesn’t strike me as being a very elegant solution.

My bet is on a new rebranded 4” iPod Touch with Retina Display (or close to Retina Display) everymore to be known as the iPad Mini.