Up On the Roof…

During Apple’s media event today, there was discussion around the new device and who’d use it.

I can see some appeal for use in the medical field, although medical apps or device connections were not covered at all today. With a large screen, it’s better at charts, photos, graphics (x-rays) than an iPhone ever could be. See also Upcoming Apple Tablet is Generating Significant Hype — Will it affect Healthcare? on MedPage Today.

What about home use? The iPad was designed for games, iBooks, movies, etc. So, the home user is in the sweet spot of the iPad’s target user.

iPad vs Kindle. With a $499 entry level iPad, the prices are close enough to make potential Kindle purchasers consider an iPad. Current prices are $259 for the 6″ Kindle and $489 for the 9.7″ Kindle DX (a match for the iPad screen size). I think the answer pretty clear here; the iPad wins. For me its as simple as “Color” vs “Black and White” TV.

Business Users? The iPad makes a great presentation device thanks to Read Full Post

Last night I read a story on WSJ.com (may require subscription?) about the company, Monster Cables, and their practice of suing anyone who uses the word “Monster” in their business name or product.

In general, I lean toward a company’s right to protect the value of their name. I agree that If the name causes confusion in the marketplace, then that use should be contested.

However it seems Monster’s take on this is We used it first, anyone who wants to be a monster, pay up.

They’ve sued the Red Sox over names related to the “the Green Monster,” the TV show “Monster Garage,” but the one that was featured in the WSJ piece, and shows that this may be more of a revenue generator for them, was their lawsuit over the Rhode Island company Monster Mini Golf.
Read Full Post

An article on Ars Technica today covered a new patent by Apple, that could tie its Nike+iPod device to particular pieces of clothing.

If they carry through with it and you have intentions to buy this pedometer on steriods, you could find yourself limited to the shoes you run, jog or walk in. Additionally, it could restrict your choice of any garments, such as head gear, jackets, sweatpants, etc…

There were plenty of comments on Ars, mostly negative, most on how evil Apple is becoming, but maybe not? This could be start of something big.
Read Full Post

I can see myself.

There it is. Right up there—first sentence. That’s the biggest reason for the lack of use of iChat videoconferencing (in the workplace, at least). At home its a big hit with the kids. They eat it up. Especially in Leopard, with the addition of cool “Effects” that let you distort your image like a Picasso or have a dynamic background using a poor man’s green screen. There are also developers creating add-on effects for it.

Back to the work issue. I think iChat would be a great tool at work. Especially with increased telecommuting, increasing numbers of permanently remote users, and for groups who need to collaborate, it can be a valuable tool. All of the new MacBook and MacBookPro laptops in our group have the video capability built-in. I can count on one hand the number of times it has been used.

I was wondering why we use it so little, then it hit me. I don’t want to see my ugly mug on screen and if others feel the way I do, that explains it. Its not that I or any of my friends and co-workers look particularly unappealing (People have told me I look a little like Andre Agassi and Uncle Fester, so go figure).

Nobody, wants to see themselves on screen. When you’re speaking to someone, you don’t see yourself. When I’m talking to someone, in my head I look like _______________ (fill-in the name of some Hollywood mega-star), but on iChat, its not that guy.

So rest assured, there is a solution, in Mac OS X 10.5 (Leopard), but it is not enabled by default. From Apple.com:

Link: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html#ichat

So, the challenge for me now is to fix this on every machine in my group. Which I will attempt to do next week. I promise to report back if the use of iChat video increases.

Apple announced the iPod Touch, aka the iPhone, without the phone built-in.  It has comes with more memory and is thinner than the iPhone. But, what does this do to the iPod/iPhone market?

The iPod Touch is now an option for those who don’t need a phone, or can’t get out of a contract, but would like to use it as a wifi PDA + music player. Many people still carry a phone and an organizer. Some due to the “corporate standard” or they may need to use of custom application, built on one of these platforms.

The move to smartphones, like the iPhone, Blackberry, Treo and new devices still in the works is imminent. But there are limitations on the disk size on the phones. Even with news SD cards, they don’t match the 160GB size of the newest iPod, the Classic. For those users who carry their entire digital library with them, Apple kept an iPod close to the original form, but as usual thinner.

I haven’t held the new iPod Nano yet, so I’ll hold judgement on how it fits in a workout routine, now that its bigger and there’s no much to an iPod Shuffle, unless the Nano has become to big for running and gets replaced by the Shuffle.

I’m looking forward to some first hand use with these devices.