Contagious Ignoramus

Windows 8 has become quite the topic of conversation these past few months—and for good reason.  Redmond seems to have really polished up the infamous OS to release the historically un-intuitive bindings and create something truly unique and fresh.  I for one support Microsoft because it creates diversity and competition for my long-time favorite Mac OS X.

You can choose not to like Windows.  I won't judge you nor will I blame you, because I feel Microsoft still has a long way to come before I'll be persuaded to jump ship; however, I was infuriated by a comment I saw on YouTube today.  One that a shocking 146 people liked.

Are you even being serious right now?  Okay, let's stop drinking the idiot flavored Kool-Aid and think for just one second.  Microsoft is not a hardware company.  Apple is.  It makes sense for Microsoft to charge substantially more than Apple because that's how they turn a profit.  When you walk out of the Apple Store with your new MacBook Air in the ornate white bag, Apple has already turned a strikingly large profit off of you, whereas Microsoft has to charge a garganutan price on the OS to even turn a svelte profit.  In essence, Apple is subsidizing your OS upgrades because you already paid 150% markup on computer hardware.  All Microsoft gains from your PC purchase is a single, bulk-priced OS license.  Therefore, come update season, Apple only charges $30 because they made $600+ off of you when you bought your computer, but Microsoft made less than $80.

Get it, people?  Ugh.

Selflessness is Key

Religion is a hot topic lately.  Maybe even more now than ever.  As many of you know, I am of the Mormon faith—one that is shared with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  I don't want to enter into the logistics of my religion as no matter how hard I try to correct and debunk misinformation, it is all for naught.  One thing that my religion teaches (that is not exclusive to Christianity nor religion at all) is that of service and good works.

I don't care what religion (if any) you're a part of, but I want you to understand the importance of service to your fellow man.  There are so many people out there that are in need of help and you can change their lives; even the smallest of ways.  It saddens and bothers me that so many people refuse to lend service, or find excuses for not helping the hungry, the homeless, the mentally ill, the elderly, the unlearned, the list goes on.

Humanity shares one basic emotion: empathy.  Don't just talk about how messed up the world is and how you wish there were less people in need.  That gets you nowhere.  Take action!  People think that helping the impoverished requires money, and this couldn't be more incorrect.  By simply lending a few hours here and there, you can change people—especially yourself.  Help your old neighbor rake her leaves, lend your hand at the soup kitchen, befriend the mentally ill.

Service isn't always the most motivating thing and we ofttimes make excuses for ourselves or rationalize how we wouldn't/couldn't possibly positively change someone else.  Don't.  You have no excuses.  The reward and comfort you'll receive from helping others far surpasses the few hours of meaningless entertainment you would have received from watching TV or playing video games.

Don't get caught up in the world of politics, commerce, academics, technology, if you lose sight of what truly matters.  People.

The Box Sells

I have always been fascinated by the way companies package and box-up their products.  You know the old saying, "don't judge a book by its cover?"  Well, no one listens to that.  First impressions mean everything.  One example of such dominance is Beats by Dre.  They don't sell a particularly good product, but they brand and package it in such a way that makes it nearly irresistible.  Apple, Kellogg, and other brands follow suit.

Fanny Wang is a newish headphone company trying to branch into this market, and thus far, they've done a decent job.  They make a nice sounding headphone with good design and sell it for a fair price.  Sure, it's a designer headphone, but the quality and looks of the product make it sell.  One thing they haven't gotten right, however, is the box.  Granted, most of their distribution and sales are done online, but I still wonder how successful they are in brick-and-mortar retail.  You can tell that they wanted to make nice packaging.  There is a magnetic latch, customized packaging, and a nice instruction/warranty manual.  Even the outside of the box looks nice.  The font used looks good and they carefully describe the advantages to the product they're trying to sell.

So what's the issue?  For the main picture on the box, they use a massively pixelated and blown up image.  Why?  Beats me (see what I did there?), but it's certainly noticeable.  I don't know if they didn't want to pay their designer for a higher quality image or if the factory didn't print it right, but it's heinously noticable.  As a consumer, I would not have bought these headphones simply on the basis that their packaging is lackluster.  Silly?  Yes.  But, problematic?  Certainly.  Packaging and first impressions mean everything, and if you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

'the new' Annoyance

Let me set the record straight.  This is not an article intended to bash Apple—most of the things they showed off at today's keynote look really slick, and I'm excited to see that gorgeous retina display in action.  I will say, however, that this was the first keynote (in history) where I think they made a few serious mistakes.  No, not technical ones, but things that I think are a little dumb.  I know we'll all look back on this article next year after the crashing success of the iPad 3 and laugh why I ever thought these things were a big deal, but I'm hyped up, so let's talk about it.

First off, the name.  It sucks.  Badly.  Look, I'm all for ditching the nameology.  Once you get into high upper digits like we'll see with the iPhone 5/6, it gets messy.  We don't see an iMac 14, or an iPod 8, we just see the product name with a generation notation.  It's one thing to call it "the new iPad," but keep in mind, they're also retaining the iPad 2 in the lineup at a $399 price point.  To have the iPad 2 and the new iPad, it gets really awkward.  I say ditch the names.  Go to iPad.  And when you call tech support, they'll ask you what generation—iPad 3rd gen, or iPad 1st generation.  There is no need for this confusing nameology.  Apple wants to get away from it, but can't fully break free which is why they have this "the new" precursor, and it sucks.  Remember back in 2009 how the iPhone 3GS was launched and marketed for the first few weeks as iPhone 3G S?  Well it was confusing and journalists hated it so Apple changed it.  I hope they do this with the new iPad.

Secondly, the cameras.  There is now a 5MP 1080p camera on the back and the same shameful VGA camera on the front.  ARE YOU SERIOUS?!  No one, and I mean no one uses the iPad as a video camera.  You look like a baboon.  It's heavy, awkward, and generally unpleasing.  Now, the front-facing camera can be used all the time—in Skype, FaceTime, Livestream, and other applications.  Why must the only useful camera stay inferior to the other camera we'll never use?  Additionally, they called the rear facing camera "iSight."  WTF, Apple.  iSight has a notoriously bad reputation and hasn't ever been on anything other than a Mac.  I can see why Apple might want to do this to bring the Mac-like nameology and features to the iPad which is supposed to overthrow the computing market, but it's weird.  Just call it a camera.

iCloud.  What a mess.  I finally started to think I understood exactly what Apple intended iCloud to be used for, but now it's even more abstracted and broken than before.  The new iWork update, which should be out today, brings tighter iCloud support, but documents are still oddly synced, they're not really well integrated with Lion, they're not multi-account supportive, and more.  Additionally, the new iPhoto hosts libraries which Apple explicitly stated they would never consider last year.  Look, iCloud, whatever it is, is a good idea in concept, but actual execution is awful.  Apple needs to tell people what iCloud is, what applications support it, how it syndicates, how multi-platform syncing works, and how to actually use it.  Right now, it might as well be a placebo because it's nearly impossible to use.  The "it just works" slogan should have an asterisk followed by an "April fools" in fine print.

I'm sure the new iPad will be a smashing success, and I know the things I'm nitpicking about are small, but a few things Apple did today were not only weird, but I think borderline stupid.

Update on 6 March 2012 by Quinn Nelson

Turns out the official name is simply iPad, but they could have done a better job at clarifying this during the keynote.  I was not the only confused one.

Thunderbolt was Dead on Arrival

Let me be clear.  I'm not here to undermine the capabilities nor technology behind Thunderbolt as it's certainly the best I/O method on the market; however, I can't help but criticize the technology and it's lack of success.

Thunderbolt has been on the market for just over a year.  Unveiled at Apple's January 2011 MacBook Pro keynote, Thunderbolt technology promised to bring the "fastest and most versatile I/O ever."  While this is accurate from a technical standpoint, we have to take a look into the past at Apple's failures: trying to create an I/O that is widely adopted.

Let's jump back to the year 1999.  Apple had re-branded the infamous IEEE 1394 interface as FireWire.  This technology was groundbreaking because it had the power to transfer files at up to 400 MB/s (while it only truly transferred about 49 MB/s)—a stark improvement on the unreleased USB 2.0 technology which technically could carry up to 480 MB/s, but was really only achieving about 10-13 MB/s.  Because of FireWire's raw power, much of the A/V industry began to move cameras and other media devices to this technology, but one specific limitation, price, prevented it from overthrowing USB.

Apple wanted money.  The near-bankrupt company was charging a $1-2 royalty for every FireWire 400 port.  While this royalty charge was eventually abolished in 2001, it was done too late.  USB 2.0 had just about every advantage.  Technically, the open-standard was just as capable having had legacy support for USB 1.1 devices which had already taken the market with storm.  Not to mention it was open.  No royalties.  Over a few years, even Apple began to lose interest in FireWire and moved over to the more universally accepted USB.

Before I get into failed market strategy, I want to mention the actual hardware limitations of the Thunderbolt I/O technology.  Unlike USB, Thunderbolt doesn't have 1 central controller.  USB can handle 127 devices per controller whereas Thunderbolt can only handle one.  Technically, this isn't much of a problem, but cost really takes a sucker-punch here.  While it may not be a big deal to add multiple controllers on laptops with a gargantuan price tag, on a $200 tablet, this is seemingly less feasible.

What Apple advertises to be Thunderbolt's greatest strength, I see as the biggest weakness.  Daisychaining.  The theory is simple.  Hook up a hard drive, game controller, display, and sync cable up to your computer all from one port without noticing a loss in bandwidth.  In order to daisychain, all devices require two Thunderbolt ports.  One input.  One output.  This will certainly drive the cost of the device up exponentially.  Did I mention troubleshooting?  Something stops working.  Is it the cable?  Bus?  What if your first device's output goes out and every other daisychained device stops working?  Yeah, so you can mix and match the cables or move devices around, but this isn't always very easy reaching behind your desk through the slew of cables to find out what isn't working correctly.

Let's talk marketshare.  Apple is still in single digits.  Now that's nothing to mock, but less than 10% of computers are Macs.  Do you really think a 10% demographic can change the input/output technology of the other 90%?  Face the facts: PC manufacturers control the market, and with the exception of Sony, there has been zero interest in Thunderbolt technology from big PC conglomerates.  Additionally, PC manufacturers have already embraced and adopted USB 3.0.  Back in '99, Apple had the advantage of releasing FireWire before USB 2.0.  The successor to USB 2.0 has already been on the market for nearly two years, and hundreds of computers come stock with USB 3.0.  Oh, and mark my words... Apple will have USB 3.0 in their 2012 computer lineup.  USB 3.0 cables, despite their 50% slower transfer rate still haul butt—they're well fast enough for most individuals, and as PC manufacturers have already embraced USB 3.0, there is no room or need for an expensive, proprietary technology.  A Thunderbolt cable costs $50 from Apple.  For one cable.  USB 3.0?  There are hundreds of cables from dozens of manufacturers starting at $1.  Yes, obviously part of the lack of expense is due to market adoption which Thunderbolt has yet to receive, but I'll be surprised if the technology can be dropped to that low of a price even with adoption due to complex components located in the cables themselves.

Last, look at the evidence.  It's been 13 months since Apple announced and shipped their first Thunderbolt enabled computers. There are exactly 9 Thunderbolt devices that can be purchased today.  9!  Many of which are 200%-300% more than the USB counterparts, and are cluttered with bugs and problems.

I'm not trying to be a downer.  I think Thunderbolt is an amazing technology that far supersedes USB 3.0 in power and size; however, Apple screwed the pooch.  They were too late into the game, and USB 3.0 has the monetization, legacy, backwards compatibility, market adoption, and development.  Thunderbolt was dead before it was born.