Tablets finally have had their run?

I recently came across an article that was labeled with the infectious title:

Our Love Affair With the Tablet Is Over

 At first, I was curious. Surely, after a mere four year run tablets were not on the out. After reading the article, linked here, I had some significant misgivings. I feel as if the article, from a technical standpoint, could be proven true in the future. From a personal standpoint, and the fact that I reside on a campus, the article seemed to take some serious standpoints too far. For example:

The first issue I had was cellular vs. wi-fi. He states:

As phone apps improved in terms of quality and speed, users abandoned their tablets for the device in their pocket that could access the Web anywhere and anytime from Wi-Fi or cellular connections.

As a phone and tablet user myself, I find that I use both almost equally. Second, combining wifi and cellular connections seems presumptuous. Wi-Fi isn't everywhere or available anytime. I hate watching videos on my phone without a Wi-Fi connection because it eats up my valuable data limit. The larger screen real estate on a tablet allows me to watch YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, Vevo all on full HD. Why go to my phone? If I have Wi-Fi, I have my tablet. That simple. Granted, some restaurants have Wi-Fi these days, so if I were out to lunch I won't necessarily bring my tablet along. The point remains, if I can use my tablet I would rather do so. Not only is it easier on the eyes, fingers and typing in general (mine has an attached keyboard dock), but even now apps optimized for tablets are simply great looking. Which brings me to my next point.

The writer said:

Based on the momentum of the phone, Netflix decided to merge the tablet and phone UIs.

I find this akin to stating that our love affair with PC's are out because it is now considered standard business practice to have mobile optimized pages. Just because one is used, doesn't mean the other isn't. With the emerging tablet market, only four years in, they are becoming household items. It isn't out the question to see either ten inch or seven inch models around the house. Combining phone and tablet UI's isn't unprecedented, indeed it would seem like the logical next step.

Bringing it back to the cellular connection, the writer stated:

Conversely, only 12 percent of tablets have cellular connections, instantly making them non-mobile devices.

I believe this is because of design issues, but much like the iPod without a data connection...it hasn't gone anywhere. The iPod is still being readily developed. It still sold even though the brand new iPhone C was quickly reduced in production. A device far older than the newest iPhone is still being produced and it has no cellular connection. Where the niche remains, the companies produce. One would think that should cellular connection be an issue, Apple would have eliminated the newest iPod. Not only do they have the iPod, they have four versions of the device with no cellular connection. Obviously these are not tablet devices, they they do share the characteristic of not having a cellular connection. Non-mobile devices are limited, granted. They need a Wi-Fi to fully operate. In the end though, data intensive apps should be used on Wi-Fi. It's logical, as many mobile plans limit data. So, data intensive is negated through Wi-Fi, larger screen real estate to play with, often real keyboards to type...tablets are not only convenient they are more useful when Wi-Fi is around.

Finally, size. This has always been a point of contention for any company, as Samsung has demonstrated. A rule hasn't been established on what is the "best" size. The Nexus 4 is perfect in my mind, but someone else may want something smaller. The Note is well known as the "phablet" as the article mentioned. Personally, this is huge. It doesn't fit comfortably in the pocket, so maybe that's why Samsung came out with the Watch. Either way, anywhere between four to five inches seems to be the zone. Any larger and you're in tablet territory, any smaller and you're dealing with fonts being too small to see, assuming the phone may not have the processing power to display it correctly. I see size as the most fluid of concepts in this article, since it's really left to opinion.

In the end, this article may be right from possibly an enterprise point of view. Then again, maybe not. iPads are being used in schools, can be appropriated toward certain restrictions and are easier to play with concerning apps. Android is trying to make headway into this market, so it remains to be seen what will happen there. It isn't the Samsung Galaxy S[insert number here] that they are marketing to businesses and schools though. It's the tablets, whether it's the 8 or 10 inch versions.

Hopefully, tablets can be seen not as going away, but changing the way they are used. They aren't just for personal use.

Apple vs. Google: Maps edition

Hey there!

We all know about the rivalry between Apple and Google when the mobile market is concerned. One of the biggest changes in recent history was the change from the Google maps engine to Apple's own version. Not only was this the biggest change Apple made to their operating system in quite some time, it was poorly conceived and even more poorly launched. You see, the issue was not so much that Apple was launching a competitive maps to Google, it was that Apple had no mapping software that could even compare with Google's tried and true system. Street view, 3D buildings, directions, bike paths, subways...you name it, it was part of Google's system. This means, of course, that Apple would have to rely on third party information to then sync into it's own app. This...hasn't worked well. In fact:

it's still happening today. So when a CEO issues a letter of apology, especially from a company like Apple...well, you can't say much for the launch can you? So, bear in mind that while Apple does in fact have a map service...it's ill used.After all...if you can't trust the icon...

Drives you off a bypass...

Doesn't drive you off a bypass!

That isn't to say that it's horrible all the time. Meh. I'll start with the visuals, we'll go from there.

3D Imagery comparison
Both Google and Apple boast 3D views of major areas such as New York City. Depending on your preference, "pretty" may be an important issue for you. Otherwise, why would you buy an iPad? BAM.

Kidding.

So here we have Apple maps of ground zero in New York:

Pretty right? I like it. Nice and sharp. It's not perfect, obviously. This is straight from the Apple Maps icon. I mention this because Google Maps and Google Earth are separate applications, although getting to Google Earth from Google Maps is a simple menu press away. Even so, it's combined in Apple Maps. So there's that.

Moving on to Google Maps, let's look at the same image...

Bleh. Quite horrible actually. This is with the cache at it's largest, and after a bit of time to let the ram catch up. I'm truly disappointed here. All is not lost though, as Google and Apple are actually quite close when set at a more reasonable level.

Just viewing the bay for both of them, top is Apple, bottom is Google.

As you can see they are much closer in resolution. There are both 3D, roughly the same viewing angle. I will point out that Apple, being integrated with the maps features and not a separate app as Google Earth is, has the destinations such as food, gas, transportation...etc. However, Google Maps has the same thing, save the 3D buildings aren't represented in the same way. 

Here, I would like to point out a few things. If comparing the features now, rather than the visuals, Google doesn't display as much information but more relevant info. For example, both Google and Apple Maps show traffic, but Apple shows traffic only on the Battery Park Tunnel leading into FDR. On both applications, the buildings in the 3D shadow mode disappear and the map becomes flat to show more places of interest when you zoom out.
Apple shows many restaurants, where as Google only shows what has been searched for or what are even more visited. I'm not sure of the criteria here and why things are shown versus others. Finally, did you notice the red wreck icon on this image? At the time, Apple didn't have it. Not only does Google Maps do traffic, it can also report wrecks and direct you accordingly. Both apps have road closure info, though...so you're not totally in the dark.

My verdict: Apple has the appeal of a great looking app that has an "all-in-one" feature. 3D buildings, many places of interest. However, as linked above...it has had its issues with directions in the past. A friend of mine used Apple Maps to find a location that was unknown location locally and it led her to an entirely different city. Google didn't have that problem, found the location quickly. I wish Google had more locations of interest, but since it is a search giant after all...once you search for restaurants it will lead you to more relevant results.

Final thoughts: Apple for the visuals and lots of info. Google for the more relevant info with visuals on a lower bar. Comments below! Gimme feedback! Oh, and Google Hangouts vs. iMessage/FaceTime next!

Currents

So we all know I'm a Google fanboy. Well, I happen to appreciate the other sides of technology like..um..what's that fruit company we all think about sometimes?

Anyway, apps are great on smartphones these days. Google has released a new app called Google Currents.
Basically, this app is like Google Reader online (or in app form if you so desire). Currents basically syncs things just like an RSS feed, save they make the interface really nice. Lovely no?

On the surface it's the common Google style (white, spacious and the classic Google logo) and you scroll through your interests. I have to say, I'm digging the whole spacious look. However, I also use a popular app called Pulse. I have to say, Pulse is more "cluttered", but I also like the mosaic type interface. Google seems to be going the route of that fruit company, by using space in a modern type style that emphasizes efficiency over look. Other than that, I like the interface as it presents my news.

Google Currents also sync's automatically (assuming settings are good for it) so that when you're not connected you can still browse the latest topics. Pretty nifty.

After some use, I'm into it. It's not revolutionary of course, but it's Google. Almost like you gotta use the rest of their products if you use only one. Ha. Finally, I saw this picture (and found more awesome ones) on the selfsame Currents and I thought it was just down right cool, especially since I was part of an early release of a particular game that used similar weapons....

Google v. Everyone

So I've decided to somewhat restart my blog. I say somewhat because I'm doing that half hearted key turn. You know, where your car kinda kicks back at you...as if to say: "Start me or don't, but don't make me spark my plug again." (lol)
ANYway: This is my first post again. Whatever, as Jay-Z said: "You not feelin me? Fine, costs you nothin pay me no mind."

My original post was going to be "Google vs. Facebook". I realized how cliche this sounded, as everyone and their dog thinks Google is trying to take down Facebook through Google+. This is false, as Google doesn't need to take Facebook on. Facebook has less of a product base then Google does. Even more so today, since Google has Chrome OS and Android under its belt. These are actual Google products that are being used in the market today. Facebook on the other hand...well...isn't. My point being, I don't have to compare market advantages or numbers in most cases because it's like arguing apples and oranges. Sure, they have similar ideas or intellectual property. That doesn't mean they are direct competitors.

I think of it like this:

It really frustrates me that the writing isn't bigger. I'm lazy though so...didn't do it again. The left says Facebook, the right Google. The middle is us. Viola! Good picture. Moving on:

They aren't direct competitors you see. They just feed off each other. Ad revenue is high in both. Facebook has double the population of the US (and then some) and Google is...well...Google. I mean, you don't go around saying: "Yeah, I can't find this *insert destination here*, will someone Bing it?" or "I don't know what *insert search query here* is, someone Yahoo! it." Nope, you Google it. It's a household name. Boom. You want to update your status? Facebook. You want to find whatever? You Google it.

So now that I've established that I'm actually a Google fan boy but Facebook is cool too, I'm going to drop some reasons why I think Google may catch a few people (that is...FB, Apple, Twitter etc.) off guard.

1. The +1
This was the copycat to the Facebook "Like". It was a good idea, and Google recognized that. The difference being that there isn't an annoying share window that pops up. It's just boop! shared publicly. It doesn't show up in your feed though. This is key. Why? Because that means your feed isn't dominated by your shared links. They can find that somewhere else. You can share links of course, but that +1 just succinctly adds your approval to a particular page. Done. Sneaky Mr. Anderson...very sneaky. Honestly, I don't think the full value of the +1 (and even the "Like") has been fully realized yet. Social networking has a huge advertising ability. These little buttons just go to show that it's only the beginning. However, with Google being the integrated search engine it is and the fact that it's just integrating itself in our phones, web browsers, soon to be TV's etc..just goes to show that it has just started. That little +1 has been added not only to websites, but Marketplace (books, music, apps, movies). This tied into a little social networking platform we'll talk on later.

2. Media (Music, Movies and YouTube)
One of the smartest business decisions of Google was the acquisition of YouTube. It's one of the most visited sites in the world. It hosts too many videos to comprehend. Google added a Movie marketplace to YouTube, did you know that? The Android Marketplace has movies too...seeing a trend? There are many reasons why YouTube isn't as publicly known as the Marketplace, but that isn't the point for this particular discussion. Facebook's recent attempt at renting movies. Lovely yes? It does exist, especially trying to find that little link...OH there it is. Last but not least we have music. Ho boy. Let's just say: An article by Mashable did well in summarizing the three major services currently available. I know that there are more minor services out there. However, these three are specific to storage of music. Here's my thing: iTunes charges. The only reason it can survive is the sheer size of iTunes as it stands. Google? Free up to 25,000 songs. Google also has HTML5, catering to Apples fortunetelling and enabling iPod Touch/iPhone users to access the selfsame music service. Can I access my iTunes collection from an Android device? Nope. Granted, it requires an internet connection...but this is a cloud service. Of course it requires an Internet connection. Jeez. For the record, I'm intentionally ignoring Amazon's cloud service. Read the Mashable article if you want a true comparison. Of course, tied into a little social networking platform I'm getting to.

3. Apps/Android
Finally, there is Android and subsequently apps. Android as everyone knows is Apples biggest competitor, and recently revealed to have Jobs eternal hatred. Thermonuclear is a tad harsh in my opinion...but also it's TOTALLY last decade. Come on Steve. We had cell phones in Kirk's days of Star Trek and all you can think of to take down Android is nukes? What about a iRobot thing? That was just cool. I just hope Siri doesn't get any ideas. So instead of Steve saying:

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple’s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong,” Jobs said. “I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product. I’m willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

 He could have been like:

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Apple's $40 BEELION in the bank, to right this wrong," Jobs said. "I'm going to destroy Android, because it's a stolen product. I'm willing to STAB THAT OPERATING SYSTEM WITH NANITES."

See? That so kicks ass. I'm just saying: if John Connor had some nanites Skynet wouldn't have stood a chance. You know this. I digress...


Android is going to get a "universal" update soon, termed Ice Cream Sandwich 4.0. It's the attempt to homogenize all the different versions of Android out there. We have some devices still running 2.2 (known as Froyo) and 2.3 (known as Gingerbread). Alphabetical deserts. How cute. Honeycomb 3.0 is for tablet devices (a market Apple still easily dominates). The point to all this is: see how many versions we have out there? One advantage of Apple at the moment is the ability to update their phones at the same time, due to identical hardware. Up until recently it was just by hooking up to iTunes, but Apple released this brand new, never before seen over the air updates! Oh wait...Android has been doing that for a while now...anyway, Android is quickly becoming the easy alternative to iOS, and some say on the way to becoming the standard. I don't believe that is true. If there is one thing Apple does right, and that is interface. Let alone Mac, people love that interface. I know I do, and I'm using an Android device. I have an iPod touch, and the access to the app store is lovely. Either way, Android is moving up and will eventually plateau, but the question is where. All this, tied into a social networking platform I've yet to describe.

4. Google+
Launched without fanfare, which I take as a nod to Facebook's origins. Invite only at first (even Gmail used to be), Google+ ballooned to 10 million users in a very short time. Currently estimates are around 18 million users. Of course, this is paltry compared to the 800 million users of Facebook. Curious note though: 75% of Facebook's users are outside the United States. Huh. Another curious note: It took 2 years for Facebook to reach the same amount of users that Google+ reached in 1/3 of that time. Of course, Facebook had limited exposure...but that begs the question why only 25% of Facebook's population is in the US...I dunno.
Anyway, Google+ is growing. Maybe it will plateau, but I doubt it will ever really stop. Integration is just too much. Speaking of integration: All those services that are mentioned above? All are somehow integrated into Google+. Not necessarily into the main feed, assuming your circles are what they are, but your +1's that you share publicly are there, the movies that you care to share are there. Oh, and Google Music allows sharing of music for a one time full listen to your circles, and samples after that. Yummy. Google+ just started, and integration is at it's infancy. This means that party is just getting started.

It's a really exciting time for us consumers of the electronics. Developments, changes and progress are the way of the world of technology. We users, that is: you me and that dude over there texting while walking about to get hit by the girl texting while driving, are the devourers of that technology. As much money as these companies make...they are always balanced by our satisfaction. If we don't like it, we don't buy it. If we don't like it, we write about it (free speech +1<---lol get it?) and we crucify it. Just look at Myspace, or Yahoo! or any other number of companies that have either been way ahead of the curve or desperately behind it. Companies understand that, at least for the moment.

I'm a Google fan boy, I admit it. That does not mean that I utterly abhor all other technologies out there. I appreciate what each type of technology can do. iPad's have their niche, Android tablets have theirs so on and so forth. Facebook is the single strongest social networking platform. I use it, and will continue to use it. I love Google Music, but I have iTunes and will continue to use my iPod Touch. Although, those usages may drop due to Google stuff coming out, but I'm not going to write off anyone just yet. That's the beauty of it: it's anybody's game.