Travels

Why the Concept of a Sprint / T-Mobile Merger is Absurd

2014-01-30T00:23:00.000-05:00

What can be said about a merger between Sprint and T-Mobile?

It won’t happen, that’s what.

Let me dive into the heart of an announcement I’ve been mulling over for the past few days. Recently there has been small-talk in the wind about a potential merger between T-Mobile US and Sprint, whom are the fourth and third largest wireless carriers in the United States respectively. This announcement comes on the heels of an already-completed merger between MetroPCS and T-Mobile US which was finalized at the end of 2013. Both Sprint and T-Mobile US have expressed an interest in merging forces to take on ATT, who (despite direct marketing attacks against them from T-Mobile) still continues to show positive growth in last year’s 4^th quarter earnings.

Although I can see the logic in another merger by T-Mobile US (especially a merger with a company larger than themselves) I don’t see the sense in choosing Sprint. Granted, T-Mobile US is aware that they have a lot of ground to cover in order to regain lost market share; prior to the merger with MetroPCS, poor management and advertising led to a sharp drop in new subscribers which ultimately forced the hand of T-Mobile US’s parent company, Deutsche Telekom, to either drastically re-invest in the American portion of their market or bail. Their ultimate decision was to go balls-to-the-wall and reinvest. Deutsche Telekom bought US prepaid carrier MetroPCS as their first move in a hard push to rebuilt their American market.

It seems the MetroPCS merger worked out well for T-Mobile US, so why don’t I see any sense in choosing Sprint as the next merger-buddy? Although it isn’t common knowledge (or perhaps as common as it should be), Sprint and T-Mobile are currently operating on two completely different and incompatible wireless technologies.

Let me explain. There are three major technologies in wireless phones right now: GSM, CDMA, and LTE – the last of which you have probably heard of, if nothing else. What these acronyms stand for is essentially irrelevant; what is important to know is that each carrier uses either CDMA or GSM services as their backbone and then LTE service is applied on top of the backbone to provide next generation (or 4G) service.

For example, Verizon uses CDMA service as their backbone. CDMA provides Verizon customers with talk service, and 2G/3G data. From there, Verizon has applied LTE service on top of their CDMA service. When you’re in range of a Verizon tower that has had LTE service added to it – boom! You have 4G speeds.

It is important to note that carriers can only have one backbone. In other words (going back to our Verizon example) if Verizon uses CDMA as their backbone, their devices cannot detect or use GSM towers. This seems to be silly, but the two technologies are so completely different that there just isn’t enough room in phones to build in a radio for both services (Nerd moment: there are, of course, some exceptions to this rule and I'm sure one or two tech-savvy people will point that out to me. I'll squash that argument now by saying that if a carrier were to hypothetically use two backbones, it would need all of its phones to be dual-SIM and those phones would be financially unfeasible to market. Therefore, arguing that Sprint and T-Mobile could migrate over to a dual-SIM environment is not an option). There are a lot of reasons for this including the way in which the receivers are constructed and the frequency that each service uses in the air, but we won’t get into any of that here. After all, knowing why the two technologies aren't compatible isn’t necessary to understand why a Sprint and T-Mobile merger makes no sense.

Anyway, GSM and CDMA each have their own unique advantages. GSM uses SIM cards, meaning that you can easily carry your number from one phone to another and even from one carrier to another assuming that carrier uses GSM technology. CDMA, however, does not use SIM cards and therefore carrying your phone to another carrier is virtually impossible on a CDMA service. Additionally, GSM has greater 3G speeds and is the only of the two technologies that has the capability to talk on the phone and use data at the same time. CDMA, however, is cheaper to implement and can therefore cover a much broader area with much lower maintenance costs. This explains why Verizon has been able to advertise their reliability for so long – they simply have more towers because their towers are cheaper to mass produce – and why AT&T has been able to advertise the speed of their data network for so long.

(If you’re not a tech nerd who didn’t already know that, some lights should be going on in your head regarding all the confusing commercials you’ve seen about wireless service – but let’s get back to the point)

So, hang on a minute here – as far as “customer satisfaction” goes, GSM sounds like its superior. Even though CDMA is cheaper, shouldn’t every carrier be using GSM?

When CDMA was introduced it promised the ability to lock down a phone to a carrier – something Verizon really wanted to do. Why, you ask? The answer actually has to do with the way phones are sold in America. In the United States, carriers offer phones at low prices by locking you into a contract which brings down the price of the phone. We are the only country in the world that does that (and if you’re curious as to why, it can be found in my blog post here). Although this helps American customers to get very expensive devices at a low cost, it has proved to cause one major problem: if a subscriber cancels his service early, the carrier actually loses money on the deal. This happens because of the way contracts are structured and can be clarified by reading the blog post linked above. Although I could give you a clear explanation here, the reality is that I’ve rambled enough already. So, suffice it to say that subscriber cancellation in America = a loss of money, and losing money is bad.

So what does this mean for us? Since every cancellation in America is a net loss, carriers want to give as few reasons as they can to subscribers that would be an incentive to cancel their service, and CDMA carriers use an inability to transfer your phone to another carrier as a cancellation deterrent. It sounds kind of underhanded, but it’s true.

Let me get to the point. There are two CDMA carriers in the United States: Verizon, and Sprint. Everyone else uses GSM (and prepaid carriers just mooch off of the towers that the big carriers put up, so they don't count). Everyone, including T-Mobile US, uses GSM. This means that Sprint and T-Mobile US would be merging two mutually exclusive networks and trying to somehow duct tape them together to make one network.

How would they do this? The only logical answer is to use the LTE service.

The only way to make a Sprint and T-Mobile US merger work would be to not merge their services, but instead share capital and patents to work towards a massive-scale LTE rollout.

Clarification: LTE, although currently being used as a service laid on top of either a CDMA or GSM backbone, can operate as a standalone backbone itself. LTE service has the ability to handle phone calls, data, and anything else a subscriber can throw at a mobile network. Therefore, Sprint and T-Mobile US would only have one reason to merge – to surpass Verizon’s coverage and then make a massive push to phase out their CDMA and GSM services altogether and migrate their network solely to LTE.

In the end, I just can’t see this happening. LTE rollouts are a massive undertaking. If they weren’t, we would have it everywhere by now. For Sprint and T-Mobile to try and make some kind of underdog push from behind and then magically become so efficient that they could beat Verizon to a full LTE conversion would be one heck of a feat – a feat that I just can’t see happening.

In my opinion, if either of them actually had the internal structure to take on Verizon’s rollout-pace they would have done it already.

So the verdict in all of this? Two wrongs won’t make a right. There is no way that a T-Mobile and Sprint merger would be financially or operationally feasible and to stand behind the notion that a push for a full LTE rollout would be a valid reason for a merger is not only lacking in common sense, but it’s something that the FCC will never buy. After all, the same argument was made just last year when AT&T tried to buy T-Mobile and the FCC didn’t buy that, even for two companies who would have to do far less work to successfully merge, as they already currently run on the same backbone.

The long and short is simple: let’s not get our hopes up. My prediction is that Sprint and T-Mobile US will see the FCC’s early skepticism and come to their senses, and that will be the end of that.

Image source can be found here

Phone Pricing, the iPhone 5c and Contracts: Why No-Contract Carriers are Just a Marketing Scheme

2013-09-14T12:54:00.001-04:00

Over the course of the last couple days, I have been voicing my distaste over the new Apple iPhones that were released – specifically, I have thoroughly decided that I am not a fan of the iPhone 5c.

In the first post that I put out, I made a comment that I was of the opinion that the iPhone 5c should only launch overseas, and that Apple shouldn’t bother with it here in America.

A lot of people wanted to know why I said that. Is it because I think other countries are less privileged than us or something?

No, actually this is not the case at all. You see, here in the United States we don’t pay all that much for phones, and it’s been this way for so long that we don’t think twice about it, except maybe for the fact that as consumers, we here in America aren’t really willing to pay more than a two hundred bucks for a phone, right?

So could you imagine paying seven hundred dollars for an iPhone?

This is where you violently eject the drink you were sipping on and laugh, or perhaps wonder why anyone would pay a price like that for a device that isn’t worth that much.

Well, guess what: it really is worth that much.

You see, smartphones these days have the power to do anything a modern computer can do, and then some. In reality, it costs apple well over four hundred dollars to produce an iPhone; but if that’s the case then why do we only pay two hundred dollars for it?

In steps the contract.

Have you ever wondered exactly why cellphone companies lock you into a contract? Most people don’t even think about it anymore because it’s just such a common thing. When considering a cellphone, your internal monologue usually goes something like this: “You want Verizon or AT&T premium service? You need a contract”. That’s just how the world has worked for so long now that the great question of “why” doesn’t even cross our minds. It seems incredible, too, that with so many “No Contract Phone” options the contract carriers would still be able to rope people into the contracts. How do they do that?

Allow me to answer the question you never thought you needed to know. On average, prepaid carriers will charge you fifty five dollars per month for “unlimited” smartphone service during the course of a thirty day period. To get the same deal, the average contract service runs about ninety dollars per month. Furthermore, a contract requires you to sign on for two years, with the threat of a “cancellation fee” that can be upwards of three hundred and fifty dollars in the event that you decide to jump ship early. So why do they do that? It doesn’t seem like a sound business model to charge more for the same service, right? Why are they charging you an extra thirty dollars per month?

To find out the answer to this, I’ll compare the price of a Galaxy SIII on a contract and on prepaid.

On Verizon services, the Galaxy SIII is currently available for free as an upgrade. On Boost Mobile, the Galaxy SIII will run you four hundred dollars.

Yep. Four hundred dollars.

How does that happen? The answer is simple: contract carriers are using the structure of a contract to reduce the price of the phone. In other words, a contract carrier charges you a higher monthly price because it is essentially subsidizing the price of the phone over two years. This is also why they don’t want you to cancel their service; if you did that, the company would lose money on the phone. On top of the cheaper phone, a contract carrier can also offer faster service and better coverage, but all of that is just fluff. What you, the reader, should walk away from this blog with is that a contract only serves one purpose: to put a phone in your hands without paying nearly a thousand dollars for it.

So in the end, what’s the point of “no contract providers”? The answer there is that it’s all about the marketing. Have you ever had a bad experience with a contract? Many people at one point or another have encountered an enormous cellphone bill due to some kind of overage (remember the days before text messaging was unlimited?) and as a result, they don’t want to be “locked in” by a carrier. They’re afraid that they’re being ripped off, mostly because the carrier didn’t properly explain the potential for overages or how the contract system works in general.

Fortunately, the days of massive overages are long past. Contract carriers have simplified and dramatically lessened overage fees, and there are new “transparency” rules in place for things like cancellation fees. However, a lot of people are still scared of the contract, and no contract services feed on that fear to draw people away from the premium service of contract carriers, all the while continuing to provide phones at a non-subsidized price.

Okay. So, iPhone 5c? You said something about not marketing it in America?

Right. So now that you know the difference between a subsidized price and an unsubsidized price, let’s shed some light on the iPhone 5c.

First off, the subsidized price of an iPhone 5c is ninety nine dollars. Unsubsidized? Three hundred dollars.

Subsidized price of an iPhone 5s? two hundred dollars. Unsubsidized? Eight hundred.

Subsidized price of an iPhone 5? Ninety nine dollars. Unsubsidized? Eight hundred.

So let’s look at those numbers. Over the course of the contract, the “time to profit” point on the iPhone 5c through the course of a contract is much sooner than the other phones. What is time to profit? Think of it as a phone provider asking the question “at what point in a contract while paying the subsidy cost will the customer pay off the cost of the phone and we’ll begin to make a profit?”

So the iPhone 5c makes a profit a whole lot faster because it’s cheaper to build. The crazy part about that is: the iPhone 5 costs the same amount of money on a contract, has the same hardware as the iPhone 5c and is built a whole lot better! In other words, if you’re thinking about a cheap iPhone, in our country, you would be a whole lot better off just buying the iPhone 5. After all, it is the same price.

So, what good is the iPhone 5c, and what does this have to do with other countries?

Most countries in the world do not have the ability to subsidize the price of a phone. In China, for example, it’s normal for individuals to dish out eight hundred dollars for a phone. They don’t subsidize the phone, which means no contract, but also means an expensive phone.

So, the iPhone 5c would be fantastic in markets like China. Why? People would only have to pay three hundred dollars instead of eight hundred for the phone!

Great idea!

This is why I believe it shouldn’t have ever been launched in the United States. Here in the US, the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a money-hungry grab at profit. In China, though, it’s a brilliant and ethical way to get iPhones into the hands of the average person.

So there you have it. This was more of an informative post than news, but it is something that I believe all phone users should get a clear explanation on – after all, we’re the ones under contract and buying this hardware. We have the right to know what we’re getting ourselves into.

Stay empowered, and the next time you walk into a phone store to get your next upgrade you’ll be prepared.

Image Source Found Here

The Offical Breakdown of the iPhone 5s: A Surprisingly Solid System

2013-09-13T22:37:00.000-04:00

After doing a lot of reading on the iPhone 5s, this device seems to be pretty good on paper. It's one of those things that I hate to admit (because I'm not typically a fan of Apple) but I believe in being fair.

For the past few days I have been yearning to do some research on the iPhone 5s and how its changed; I am particularly interested in the details of the fingerprint scanner, but other ventures have sucked away my time. So at long last I have finally been able to take a look into the yet-to-be-released phone.

The changes of the new iPhone can be summed up into two categories: technical changes in the phone, and other changes, which I will hence be dubbing "iFluff" - things that have been added just because they're easy to market as "cool". The major iFluff upgrade? The fingerprint scanner.

Yes, Apple has added the much-talked-about fingerprint scanner to it's new phone, but to be honest it's probably the least interesting upgrade on the list. However, I will be going into great detail about it. I really wasn’t interested in looking into the fingerprint scanner because I thought it was cool, though; more realistically I wanted to bash it (because I think it’s nothing more than a novelty) and bash it I will.

At the end of the day, the rest of the iPhone 5s has very little to be negative about though, and all-in-all despite the fact that the advertising over-glorifies it to the point of puking rainbows, I would give the device a healthy 9/10 in terms of it’s features and hardware.

That means a lot coming from me. I don’t really like Apple, but fair is fair. It’s a good phone and for the rest of this blog I'll be breaking down what makes it something to talk about.

First: This phone is the first device - ever - to run on a 64 bit processor and operating system.

This doesn’t mean much to people who are non-technical, so let me break this one down real quick. In terms of computer processors, there are two types: 32-bit and 64-bit. Saving all of the technical mumbo-jumbo, what you should walk away with from this paragraph is that 64-bit systems are the newer, faster ones. You should also know that regular computers have been off of 32-bit for about five years now. So why hasn't this technology moved to smartphones yet? It has been difficult to get that technology down to smartphone-size and I definitely give Apple kudos for doing it first.

To the consumer, the whole "32-bit vs. 64-bit" thing doesn’t mean much – right now. The problem is that 64-bit systems don't really work faster unless the programs on that system are optimized for it.
What does that mean? Well, it means that there is an inherent problem with the initial transition to 64-bit: the software now has to come up to meet the hardware, meaning that most apps won’t even take advantage of it yet. In other words, we probably won’t even feel the difference of 64-bit until the iPhone 6 is on the horizon. However, Apple is setting themselves up to continue to be a smartphone player in the future by making the switch now. IN the end, it will mean that Apple will be the first to optimize, the first to get faster and this will mean that Apple stays in the lead when it comes to the speed and fluidity of their devices. It seems that while everyone else was revolutionizing the accessory market with smartwatches, Apple was working on a 64-bit phone. Well done. I still think Apple needs a new toy to prove they can continue to innovate in the overcrowded smartphone market, but that’s a point I’ve already made.

Second: iOS7 is really very nice.

Even though this isn’t really an iPhone 5s-specific thing, I have to give it mention. I am very, very pleased with the iOS7 system. It’s brighter colors, flatter look and more robust set of features bring it (finally) up to par with the android systems in terms of “cool-things-my-phone-can-do” stuff, and these little gadgets suck in new users better than any marketing method. Case and point: the main selling point of the Galaxy S4 is its ability to track your eyes. It’s a novelty, but its just one more cool thing it can do to allow its owner to say “my phone is cooler than yours”

iOS7 is finally supporting lock screen notifications (those things that tell you when you have messages, voicemails, etc. that you see when you first turn on your phone), a radio service similar to Google Play or Spotify, and quick-switches for phone features like Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. These are things that android has had for years now, so it’s about time Apple jumped on the band wagon.

Third: The Camera got a much-needed update

For those who aren’t familiar with the issue, the iPhone 5 has a major camera problem when in sunlight. Apple opted to use a sapphire lens on its camera on the iPhone 5; sapphire is a good choice because of its thinness and durability. However, the small size of the camera on the iPhone 5 caused the sapphire lens to make photos, well….sapphire-colored, when in direct light. Therefore, the iPhone 5s received a wider lens. This should correct that issue.

All in all, this whole group of things stacks up well. New features, a new chipset running on a 64bit architecture and a fixed camera mean the only thing consumers will be worrying about is the durability of the phone, which still lacks. Oh, right, and the fact that the phone keeps a record of your fingerprint.

So, let’s move on to that fingerprint reader.

This so called “revolutionary security device” gave me a good laugh today while I was catching up on the details of its function. I’m disappointed that Apple centered its focus of changes around it when so many other, more significant things changed in the iPhone 5s.

First off, let me start by saying that Apple’s fingerprint scanner is by no means revolutionary. The Motorola Atrix HD had a fingerprint reader back in 2011, and there are even a handful of other devices that have had it since then. Heck, even computers running windows 7 have had fingerprint readers for years. Fingerprint authentication isn’t anything new and if you’re attentive you’ll note that you really don’t see them on anything nowadays, simply because they were expensive to produce and didn’t really change anything.

Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s move on to Apple’s device, which is apparently “revolutionary” now that it’s in an iPhone and not in the hundreds of other devices they’re already in. The fingerprint scanner itself is known as “Touch ID” and saves your “fingerprint data” in an encrypted section of the processor. Apple is doing this because they are ensuring us that reading a fingerprint is more secure than typing in a passcode.

Except, Apple doesn’t believe it’s more secure than a passcode. As it turns out, if you reboot the phone or wait longer than 48 hours between successful unlocks, the phone reverts to a “backup passcode” that you have to use to unlock the phone.

Apple’s reasoning for this “feature”: To prevent phone-thieves from “stalling for time while they figured out a way to circumvent the fingerprint reader”.

What?

So, Apple, what you’re saying is “Fingerprint reading is less secure, but it’s cool so we’re going to put it in. However, to keep your phone secure, we’re going to make it so that you have to get into the phone the old fashioned way if it gets hijacked”. Now, that’s just funny to me. Also, the Touch ID is already being reported to have spotty functionality at best when hands are “sweaty, wet or dirty” and you essentially have to poke the home screen dead-on for the phone to work, so forget one-handed unlocking.

So, what is the verdict on the Touch ID system? Fail. Also, I’m not happy with Apple claiming to keep my fingerprint data in the wake of all the news about the NSA hacking into everything. For all I know, they’ve hacked into my cat by now. The last thing I want them getting is my fingerprints – not cool. Now before everyone tells me I’m overreacting, I should note that I fully understand how the Touch Id system works: I understand that it’s kept on an encrypted part of the chip, and never gets transferred over the internet, etc. etc. But, if the NSA can get into a Blackberry – which is certified in security far beyond any Apple product - I trust nothing.

At the end of the day, the iPhone 5s is a solid device wrapped in a package of fluffy iSheep wool. Despite this, I would still recommend the device to a consumer, especially if you’re already an Apple user – this one really would be worth your money if you're looking to upgrade. If I were you, though, the first thing I would do once I unboxed it would be to turn off Touch ID. It’s useless. As for the second thing? Put an OtterBox on it. The iPhone 5s still retains classic Apple fragility, and besides - TouchID doesn't even work with an OtterBox. How could it, when the OtterBox cases cover the button?

Image Source Found Here

Apple is Following the Lead of Nokia

2013-09-11T13:59:00.000-04:00

I am officially taking issue with the iPhone 5c.

Why, you ask?

For starters, its marketing scheme is a direct rip-off from the Nokia Lumia 920.

Okay, enough with the one-line-impact-phrases; allow me to explain myself. I am currently the happy and proud owner of three regularly-used devices: the Nokia Lumia 920, which is my business phone, and the HTC One, which is my personal device, and a first-generation iPad, which serves as my regular web-browing and email tool. In owning the Lumia 920 it has quickly become my favorite smartphone, being extremely durable, smooth to use and incorporating a large volume of business-oriented tools like Microsoft Office. When you couple all of that with a phenomenal camera, a scratch-proof screen / scratch-proof body plus great battery life, you get one heck of a phone.

Before I purchase anything, I make darn sure I know what I’m buying – this behavior largely stems from the inevitable truth that I’m very stingy about what I spend money on. That being said, when I looked into purchasing the Lumia 920, I looked into everything, including its hardware, software, and projected market longevity. Now when I say “projected Market Longevity” this is by no means an exact science. I “calculate” market longevity by essentially evaluating the branding and advertising scheme that the company (in this case Nokia) is implementing towards their brand and taking into consideration the company’s marketing budget for said brand and release cycles as a company. From there, I essentially just do my best to judge how long that particular device is going to be marketed, receive updates, and be produced.

So what’s the point of saying all of this?

While I was evaluating Nokia’s strategy for the Lumia 920, I noticed something important: Color was a thing. Nokia was trying to stand out from Apple by breaking away from the stereotypical black and white and producing a series of colorful devices. In fact, one of their most prominent advertising pictures was this photo here:

image source found here

Look familiar? That might be because it looks a whole lot like this iPhone 5c advertising picture:

image source found here

Crazy, right? I only pieced this together because of my borderline-obsessive need to know everything about a product before I buy it, but that’s pretty cut and dry. It seems to me that Apple has recognized the consumer interest in color, and is following in Nokia’s footsteps.

So what’s the big deal? It's just color.

For the consumer, this doesn't mean much. However for the investor, little things like this are a bad sign. I take minute details like this into consideration all the time when making judgments on the future of a company or product, and I am sure that investors do precisely the same thing. Seeing Apple blatantly follow-suit in such a way as this further underscores the company’s recent lack of innovation. With Apple’s failed “Special Event” behind us, where the Cupertino company essentially released more of the same, seeing more signs that Apple is having a difficult time innovating is definitely a scary thing. It’s things like this that cause sharp drops in stocks, and I feel as though Apple carelessly overlooked these small details.

Unfortunately, the list of painful details in the fine print doesn't stop with the whole "color fiasco". There's also the fact that the iPhone 5c launched with its own, unique dock and won't work on any docking devices designed for the iPhone 5s, and then there's the fact that the iPhone 5c even launched at all.

...wait what?

Yes, the iPhone 5c being launched in-general is a big, blinking red sign that Apple is struggling to keep its valuation high, meaning that they're concerned about how valuable their company is (because their stocks keep dropping).

This is the point I'm trying to make: the fact that Apple is forcing you to buy unique hardware for the iPhone 5c, combined with a "follow-suit" marketing campaign and the fact that the iPhone 5c was an unneccessary device in the first place shows clearly that the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a blind attempt at turning a high profit on a low-cost item. Apple isn't producing that phone for you or for any consumer - they're producing it to line their pockets.

So, what does this mean for Apple?

I feel as though Apple currently has enough iSheep to still have a good flock after the wolves have fed, but I see a major decline in the company’s valuation in the near future. The iPhone 5c will not be the cause of the decline, but it will certainly be the early warning that most of us miss.

Oh, and although I have no qualms with the iPhone 5s (other than that it’s an overpriced, overglorified iPhone 5) or Apple as a company, I genuinely hope the iPhone 5c is the next Apple Maps.

top image source found here

Disappointing Day for Apple

2013-09-10T23:57:00.000-04:00

At 10am PT today, Apple held what was the much-anticipated “Special Event” at their headquarters – an event that was shrouded in rumors of new releases and changes.

Apple is notorious for doing everything it can to keep the general populace in the dark about its releases right up until the very end, and they are normally very good at it; however it seems that this time around there were enough legitimate leaks that many of the rumor-mill sites hit the nail on the head in regards to what the ordeal was about and left little to the imagination. As everyone (at minimum) expected, the “Special Event” held today was centered on the unveiling of the new iPhone 5s and the newly-developed-and-launched iPhone 5c.

As my readers may already know I did not exactly have my hopes up about the event as a whole; in fact just yesterday I posted a guess as to what could be expected from this launch, and I also included my prediction as to how investors would perceive the announcements that were to come. I surmised that Apple would likely release three products: two iPhones and a new iPad. I also predicted that if Apple only launched the two iPhones (and possibly the iPad) without the added launch of some other sort of innovative technology, it could be expected that a notable loss of interest from investors and from the public would instantly follow.

Okay, Okay. So what actually happened at the event?

During the course of what ultimately turned out to be nothing more than a very over-dramatized release party, Apple did not even so much as launch a new iPad – all they did was launch the iPhone 5s and the iPhone 5c. Furthermore, aesthetically and technologically speaking the new pair phones were shown to be just as I had feared they would be; the iPhone 5s is nothing more than an iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader and a few upgrades (albeit a significant camera upgrade, but this is to be expected based on their previous camera issue in the iPhone 5) and the iPhone 5c is nothing more than a plastic iPhone 5 with bunch of colors. Aside from these changes, there is virtually nothing different in the iPhone 5s from the iPhone 5, and as for the iPhone 5c… well, I didn’t even think that should have launched in the first place.

So what does this all mean for Apple, and for consumers?

The end result of this less-than-exciting launch was that we saw a significant drop in Apple’s stocks today. Apple closed the day down two percent, which is not good considering they just launched the product intended to carry their profitability for the next year. If Apple is going to continue to stay in the good favor of stockholders and investors, they will need to make some kind of splash soon with a new product. Holding a launch like this without really innovating anything was not good for Apple. Even iOS7 (which I personally think is quite the beautiful system) is already experiencing mixed reviews from developers, and the negative commentary behind the software mixed with uninteresting hardware might result in a serious hiccup for Apple.

In my opinion, today’s launch was definitely not a business-savvy maneuver unless Apple has something like a Google Glass competitor up their sleeve that’s aimed for launch in the very, very near future. After all, we are seeing a lot of shifting in the mobile market right now, and we have historically seen that when a company sits still in times like these, it never ends up well. Google is currently launching their first original Motorola-branded smartphone, and Microsoft is currently moving into position to make some big changes in their mobile business. Even Blackberry is making ripples with the undertones of a Microsoft buyout. Without any real innovation, Apple is just leaving that door wide open for Microsoft and Google to walk through.

So is all hope lost for Apple?

I want to be optimistic and say that this launch being so underwhelming means that something huge is in the pipeline, but I can’t say that with any kind of assertiveness. It’s just a hope and it is not based on any sort of facts, but I would like to believe that Apple has yet to lose its touch; unfortunately, though, the cards don’t seem favorable right now.

I will be closing this with some extra resources for you. Below I will be linking the keynotes to the new iPhones and the new iOS (for those who didn’t catch that a few months ago). I feel I should also point out that I will be posting again very, very soon covering a small conspiracy I noticed, regarding the iPhone 5c; to give you a little teaser, I think Apple shot it’s “Innovation” slogan in the foot with the iPhone 5c by using similar marketing tactics to the Nokia Lumia 920 – but, we’ll get to that in the next post.

iOS7 Keynote can be found Here

the iPhone 5s and 5c keynote can be found Here

Image Source found Here

Is Apple Running Out Of Hat Tricks?

2013-09-09T01:38:00.000-04:00

In recent weeks I have been putting a lot of focus on Microsoft thanks to all of the uproar surrounding a slew of changes that’s occurring with them. However, I think it’s just about time I put just a little emphasis on Apple. After all, they are set to launch a bunch of stuff soon.

Sorry for not getting around to talking about this launch sooner; I have held out on writing about it for as long as I can, because my honest opinion is that I don’t expect us to see anything exceptionally unique come out of it. Admittedly though, the world is a mysterious place and we could experience the unexpected. I’m going to break down the facts and see if I can come up with some conclusions on what we can expect from this announcement, and in the wake afterwards.

By now, most people who keep up with technological news are aware that Apple is being watched for signs that they can’t hold their own without Steve Jobs at the helm. Since his passing, the world has kept a keen eye on the company, as they have historically been unable to hold it together without him. Even though the iPhone 5 was released after Steve Jobs’ passing, many investors wrote it off as pre-planned, and because of this the world is watching this upcoming release intensely to see if Apple really still has all of its ducks in line.

So this means their next release better be pretty spectacular, wouldn’t you agree?

On September 10^th the world is officially expecting the announcement of two new iPhones – the iPhone 5s and the iPhone 5c – the iPhone 5s being the latest and greatest iPhone, while the iPhone 5c is said to be a more cost-friendly and probably-plastic version of the iPhone that will possibly sacrifice some key features to keep the cost down. I also believe that Apple will be releasing a new iPad; the prices of both the iPhone 5 and the iPad have been getting slashed in major retailers and I can’t imagine Apple cutting prices on the iPad if they weren’t on the verge of a new product release for the iPad line.

So, we have our preliminary lineup: two new iPhones and an iPad. Not so bad, right? Wrong.

As of right now I have three questions about the expectations of September 10^th and its impact on the technological world: what is it that the public is really expecting out of these new devices, what could Apple possibly offer us in the iPhone 5s that isn’t in the iPhone 5, and why is Apple producing the iPhone 5c in the first place? I ask these questions because the answers to them will lead us to the answer of the question that is on everyone’s mind: is Apple falling apart?

As always, Apple has remained secretive about almost everything (and will right up until the announcement), but it has been speculated that there will be very little changing in iPhone 5s compared to its older brother save a small camera and processor upgrade. However, one thing has been leaked: it seems that the iPhone 5s will contain a fingerprint scanner. The news that the iPhone 5s has a fingerprint scanner on it at all genuinely disappoints me and throws up an early red-flag that the iPhone 5s is going to be a flop. Here’s where I draw my concern with this leak from: short of a few hardware updates, the only difference between older the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4s was Siri – a novelty. When the new “4s” came out, it’s only change was a novelty and we really didn’t see any innovation between the two devices. I feel as though Apple is setting everyone up for another “4s situation” in the sense that they are going to market the 5s as a new phone when in reality the only major change is the fingerprint reader, which is really no more useful than Siri and is all-in-all just a novelty and nothing more. Fingerprint readers really don’t provide a tremendous increase in security to a phone, and the only thing this fingerprint reader is going to do is be fun to play with and drive the price up on the iPhone 5s. Meanwhile, the actual hardware itself will probably be imperfect at first anyway, making it less of a seamless integration and more of a “we need a wow-factor” afterthought.

With Apple under the microscope by investors right now, they really can’t afford to have the iPhone 5s come off as “The iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader”. It will scare investors into thinking their innovation has been stifled and I’m sure that if this is the case, we’ll see Apple’s stock decline by close on the 10^th.

To quell the words that I’m sure will surface from that statement, I understand that a sub-brand such as the iPhone 4s or the iPhone 5s is designed to be non-innovative and merely an evolution of its original, but is that really what Apple needs right now, with the condition of the criticism they face? If anything, they really should have skipped out on the iPhone 5s and moved right to the iPhone 6, but we’ll get to that later.

So, the verdict on the iPhone 5s: prepare to be disappointed. It’s most likely going to be an iPhone 5 with a fingerprint reader.

Onto the iPhone 5c: launching this device at all is really one move I don’t understand. Apple’s explanation for this device is that they wanted to ensure Apple products were affordable for everyone and thus wanted to create a device that could be purchased at a low price point – but there is a problem with this. Historically, Apple has been able to offer budget iPhones all along without adding another product to their line. How do they do this? Simple: they just slash the price of the previous iteration and boom – instant budget-phone. There is no doubt that this is already happening in retailers now as companies like WalMart gear up to stock the new phone. So, why did Apple pay a bunch of people to create an intentionally sub-par device to fill a so-called “gap in their business model” when they were already inadvertently doing just that with older iterations of the phone? There is no doubt that we will see features missing on the iPhone 5c and with its plastic shell I’m sure we can expect hardware specs similar to the iPhone 4…. But wouldn’t it just make more sense to remarket the iPhone 4 then, and avoid the plastic look and avoid brand fragmentation? I would think so. In the end, I don’t see the iPhone 5c selling in the United States. The iPhone is a status symbol – just as equally, the iPhone 5c could become a symbol of “I couldn’t afford an iPhone 5s so I bought this” (you know how mean kids can be). If you market a product as “the iPhone for everyone else”, are you really expecting it to do well, when it essentially turns it back on virtually the entire history of your previous business model?

I think the answer here is that Apple is looking to grab the profit form a low-cost, high-margin phone and not considering the repercussions of such an approach. This is just my humble opinion.

Verdict on the iPhone 5c? In my opinion, Apple shouldn’t even launch this in the US. I can see it doing well in other markets where phones are much more expensive, but here in the US I couldn’t imagine it selling to expectation at all.

As for the iPad, well, speaking of brand fragmentation the iPad was a mess from the time the iPad three was released. I don’t want to see how they decide to brand this iPad – in fact, I hope one doesn’t even launch. Before another iPad launches, Apple needs to bring the fragmentation on the iPads under control. Therefore, my verdict on this product is simple: if you’re going to launch a new iPad, kill all sales and support for the previous versions. You need to wipe the slate clean on the iPad and start fresh – and whatever you do, Apple, don’t name this one just “iPad” again. Please.

So, I know this all seems pretty pessimistic, and it is. However, we have still seen some pretty good things come out of Apple. iOS 7 seems gorgeous, and after playing around with it I’m very impressed. However, Apple needs to do more than just come out with a new Operating system if they don’t want to end up like Microsoft. If the new iPhones and iPad are all that Apple has to offer on the 10th, then god speed to them - I can envision the stock plummet already.

Okay, so what would Apple have to do to save itself from that fall?

Release a Google Glass competitor, tomorrow and beat Google to the punch on wearable computing, then surprise us all with a massive screen on the iPhone 5s.

If Apple wants to keep investors from panic-selling, they need to innovate in the absence of Steve Jobs. This release is Apple’s chance to prove to the world that they can produce quality products without Jobs at the helm, and if they miss it, then they will have a hard time doing it next year after a year of interim for Apple investors to watch the iPhone 5s be nothing new, the iPhone 5c fail and other tablets really begin to catch up to them. Furthermore, while we’re waiting another year to see innovation from Apple, Microsoft will be plugging away at their changes, meaning that the lack of innovation soon will mean giving Microsoft the chance to spring into action.

Apple needs to do something remarkable, and I think the only way to do that is to move into wearable computing, and to ensure that they don't get left behind in the smartphone market. One of the major changes happening in the smartphone world right now is a movement towards bigger screens. This surge of large-screen popularity can be seen In the wildly popular Samsung Galaxy S4 and the HTC One, not to mention the over-the-top devices like the Galaxy mega. If Apple continues to ignore these two portions of the market, I don't believe that it will do the company any justice.

So my verdict on what needs to be done? Apple should increase the screen size of the iPhone in the 5s iteration, nix the iPad release, only release the iPhone 5c overseas and release a Google Glass competitor. Sounds like a lot, but this right here would be my dream release from Apple, and in my opinion would snatch them from the jaws of death.

Also, while I'm on the topic of wearable computing, Apple had better not produce a SmartWatch. If they jump on the SmartWatch bandwagon, they will only further be proving that they aren’t interested in innovation, because the SmartWatch market is likely to die very quickly.

In the end, we’re either going to be dumbfounded by an amazing innovation in the next 48 hours, or we’re going to be severely disappointed. I’m bracing for the worst, and hoping for the best. If we don’t see something spectacular come out of them, I believe we could potentially see a large shift in the mobile market over the year after. Who knows? Maybe we’ll see the first WinKiaBerry.

Image Source Found Here

Microsoft: The World’s most Massive Jigsaw Puzzle

2013-09-07T21:59:00.000-04:00

As we all press endlessly into the future, we cannot help but wonder what it holds for us and when it comes to technology, people like myself try as best as possible to see into the future.

Why?

It’s fun.

That being said, I have always been one to keep an eye on Microsoft and their antics, especially lately with the Nokia Buyout and the rumors that Microsoft could potentially be in the market to buyout blackberry as well. Microsoft has been the dominating presence of technology in the past but is still struggling to regain its foothold after the mobile paradigm shift of the last decade.

In the wake of the recent buyout, what is Microsoft going to do during the course of the next five years? The company is in a churning state of change and as of right now, investors are worried (and so am I) about its future.

Though I think I’ve officially put it all together.

You see, in recent news there seems to be a leak of Microsoft’s latest software update to Windows Phones known as GDR3 (or General Distribution Release 3). This leak, which was a craigslist find, seems to outline some major changes that lay the foundation for what is known as Windows Blue, the grandiose update supposedly linking all of the different Microsoft platforms once and for all, thus unifying the new platform across all devices.

It’s interesting that we hear news about this now, right after the acquisition of Nokia, and in the wake a new rumored Nokia device, the1520, which keeps up with the large-screen trend by upping to a phablet.

So what can we expect?

Well, here’s my theory. Many people believe that the surface branding is going to die; I don’t believe that to be true. In fact, I wholeheartedly believe that the Lumia line is what Microsoft is going to kill. Microsoft is going to do it’s best to keep the branding under one name: Microsoft. As I said in a previous blog, Microsoft’s most difficult challenge is going to be to bring the branding issue under control that has been plaguing them. Therefore, Microsoft is going to rebrand the next Nokia device (likely the 1520) to “Surface Phone” or something along those lines, and will make it the transitional device on a slow step-down to a 4.5in surface device. Once this is done, Windows will release the “Blue” update and unify all of the devices, thus making the interface the same across all of them. During this time, I’m expecting to see one or two more companies scooped up, namely Dell and Blackberry, as Microsoft drops third party support and brings hardware production under one roof. Sub-brands like Dell, AlienWare and blackberry will be integrated into the Microsoft brand, and suddenly we will see a very apple-like, IT-and-Business-Friendly, all-1^st-party Microsoft.

While all of this is plausible, it is of course quite a distance off in the future and could be massively interrupted by the change in management that is on its way. Furthermore, my prediction hinges on Microsoft’s ability to bring the desktop and laptop market in-house – something that could spur a lot of problems, but also potentially open up the market for other up-and-coming operating systems like Ubuntu Edge and Chrome. Things like this could spell death for companies like Acer and HP though, who have already seen a few woes in this new mobile universe we live in.

All-in-all, I think one thing is for sure: Microsoft cannot keep living on the edge of first party – they will have to tip one way or the other, and continuing to trust other companies with their Operating system is not something that I believe Microsoft wants to continue doing. The advent of bloatware and other issues with Windows PCs is putting a blemish on their name that only going 1^st party can eliminate. Since this is most likely their goal, I have based my prediction off of what is most likely to need to occur, and then judging what I believe to be the only logical steps to get there.

In short, this is my prediction, based on a little research and mostly intuition. I’m sticking to it, so let’s see what happens in the next several months.

Photo Source found Here

The Real Competitor to Galaxy Gear

2013-09-06T15:16:00.000-04:00

For quite some time now I have been covering the antics of Google as they produce their new Glass technology, and although I didn’t pick up a developer copy due to the heavy price tag, I will be one of the first to grab the consumer model assuming that the price comes down in the way that was promised by Google.

It seems that no one yet has announced a real competitor to Google Glass and although it’s likely that other companies are just simply keeping tight lips on those projects, we have recently seen something happen in the world of tech that I almost didn’t see coming:

Smartwatches.

Google is currently paving the way into a new generation of technology in which our everyday-use devices will be blended into our fashion and worn on our bodies. When Google announced Glass, the whole world stirred with the potential of the next sci-fi tech to become a reality.

The result is this: several companies, including Samsung and Qualcomm, have jumped on the bandwagon with something called a smartwatch. These things are essentially glorified Bluetooth receivers; they read your text messages, show you missed calls and in some cases they can even scan QR codes.

That sounds pretty cool, Especially if the price is right. However, because of the timing and the looming arrival of Glass, I’m concerned about the longevity of such a device. Let me explain.

Glass has been in development for some time now, and has a slew of developers working on apps for it. Furthermore, it has the ability to do virtually everything the Galaxy gear and other smartwatches can do, plus a few other cool tricks. It can take pictures and video, provide you with traffic updates, give you the weather and much more. In fact, the potential of the Glass system is virtually limitless, and it’s quite clear that Google is taking their time to make sure that they get it right.

So the question I have is this: why did all of these companies decide, just now, to release these smartwatches when a better, and most likely more well-thought-out, technology is knowingly on the horizon?

That’s not a rhetorical question. I genuinely don’t understand.

I wholeheartedly believe that Glass will kill the smartwatch; they will become inconvenient and a waste of money as soon as Glass is released. Why? Well, who wants their text message popping up on their phone, in their glasses and on their watch? It’s too many places. Furthermore, even a deal for some kind of integration between the two would be relatively silly. You could potentially use a smartwatch as a control for Glass I suppose, but then you would have to look at it, and wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of it?

As of right now, I see the smartwatch kind of like a mini-DVD. It seems like a good idea until you realize that DVD’s just work better, and mini-DVD’s don’t really revolutionize anything.

Picture source: Droid-life.com

Microsoft Should Acquire Blackberry

2013-09-06T00:20:00.000-04:00

image source: tech2.com

Not too long ago, I wrote a blog post regarding my belief that Microsoft should acquire Nokia, and sure enough, about six months later it happened. Although I can’t speak for Microsoft's final motives (and I can’t say that I definitively predicted the cause) I was of the "an-acquisition-is-genius" opinion because of the apparent fragmentation issue that Microsoft is having with its products and I am citing this as a primary reason why Microsoft continues to trail in the mobile market. A major drawback of the Microsoft name right now is that they have too many products out (this is, at least in part, a result of the antitrust break-up that occurred in the company several years ago - Microsoft never really recovered from that). From where I sit, it seems that the corporate structure of Microsoft is creating an environment where many of the development projects aren’t talking to each other. The result is that Microsoft is producing a lot of half-assed products and services, many of which are being cancelled, or the names changed which ultimately just creates further confusion. Microsoft truly needs to simplify and unify its fragmented branding and when I wrote my last blog, I felt that bringing Nokia in-house would provide them with the hardware patents, structure and manpower they needed to really get a good grip on their first party hardware. Once Microsoft gets a grip on their hardware and operating system, it should be easy to simplify the software branding and bring everything under control.

So, in short, I truly believe that acquiring Nokia was the right move for Microsoft.

Now as we know the announcement to buy up Nokia came on the heels of another announcement – Ballmer is on his way out, and Microsoft is left with the challenge of finding a new CEO in the wake of what is already a large shake-up in the form of the acquisition. A lot of investors are concerned with this ordeal as a whole– why? Well, most CEO’s don’t want to take a company over that already has the next two years planned out and stockholders are therefore concerned about whom may be currently under consideration by the board. Many CEO’s want to change things – after all, that’s what corporate executives do best, right? Why else would every operating system ever look completely different from its previous iteration? Ballmer has already done all of the hard work, like acquire Nokia and reorganize the company, removing the former stack ranking system that is cited as a primary cause for development fragmentation in the company.

Ahem, let me get back on track. Here’s the point of this blog: I don’t think the next two years are as cut and dry as people are making it. My point in mapping out everything I did above is to illustrate one fact: The Nokia acquisition was a move to strengthen only one part of their business: first party consumer hardware. Right now Microsoft is currently trying very hard to make a name for itself in the consumer market again (primarily by taking on an Apple-like model and producing all of their hardware in-house) and we have all been focusing on that as analysts, but I feel Microsoft’s strategy is much deeper than that and if we all take a step back for a second, this is quite clear. Looking at the broader strategy of Microsoft may also reveal that the job of the upcoming CEO may not be as pre-planned as we are leading ourselves to believe.

Back in the day before Apple really began to pose some competition, Microsoft made a name for itself in the consumer market in a way that was different from other companies: they cornered the consumer market by first being the number one business system. Microsoft was able to overshadow Apple in the business world for a few simple reasons: Microsoft products were (and still are) less expensive, easier to maintain, and more versatile than the products of other competing companies. Building on the foundation of these basic principles, Microsoft plowed ahead in the business market and then moved into the consumer market as almost a secondary business.

The question here is this: despite the overwhelming presence in business why did people buy Microsoft products for their homes?

The answer is actually more simple than you think: No one wants to learn two systems.

If a person uses a certain system at work (in this case, Windows), they want to come home and use the same thing, because people simply don’t like to do more work, and incompatibilities between the two systems and the usage differences end up causing a major inconsistency when you’re trying to easily sync your information across device and work efficiently. All in all, what this means is that although Mac devices might be better for home use, learning two different systems and having to make continuous conversions to transfer data is just something that people don’t want to do. Switching back and forth between a PC and a Mac is like going back and forth between driving a Honda and a plane, and I truly believe that Microsoft recognized this when initially breaking into the consumer market.

In short, Microsoft has always known that a major key to dominating the consumer market is to be the overwhelming presence in the business market.

…Okay, so how does this all tie in to the title of the blog?

Microsoft has been able to make leaps and bounds in its consumer electronics and software over the past few years, but it’s hurting. We all know that the Microsoft systems haven’t lived up to analyst expectations - so what is Microsoft to do?

Buy Blackberry.

Acquiring Blackberry could seriously change the game for Microsoft. Blackberry is known for two things: business-friendliness and security. If Microsoft were to get it’s hands on the patents that Blackberry holds and implemented the security features available on those devices into existing windows phones, matched with the physical integrity/build quality of Nokia devices and perhaps a well-timed release of Windows Phone Nine, well, we could suddenly have one very, very serious mobile contender.

A "WinKiaBerry" could function with the integration of a Microsoft product (for active directory and email, vpn, etc.) the security of a blackberry device, the software of Microsoft (including office) and the strong, long-lasting quality of a Nokia device. Something like that would dominate the business and IT marketplace and re-affirm Microsoft’s position in the business market, thereby keeping them in the game for the consumer market, and buying them time to stabilize their new “first party” approach.

In my humble opinion, Microsoft purchasing Blackberry would be a smart move, and if we see something like this happen then the next CEO would have a lot of changes on his plate. This could ultimately quell investor worries and perhaps even move the stocks up quite a bit – besides, Blackberry is still hurting pretty badly, especially as the new Blackberry 10 system’s “newness” luster begins to fade and the stocks continue to fall.

So in the end, I see Microsoft running with this Nokia deal in their consumer market while working on an acquisition deal with Blackberry and ultimately setting themselves up to make a strong run at the mobile IT market – a market still in churns as BYOD reigns in the wake of a good successor to Blackberry.

An opportunity like that is almost too good to pass up.

Validation, To a Degree

2013-09-03T03:18:00.000-04:00

I have always been on and off with my blogging. Anyone who has followed me for any period of time knows this.

However, I think I just found my spark again. Why? Well, let me tell you.

Recently, I wrote a post called "Microsoft Should buy Nokia. No, Really" outlining why I believed it was truly a wise business decision for Microsoft to break its partnership with Nokia and simply acquire them. sure enough, six months later, it happens. Then, I wrote another interesting post regarding some older tech that I believed should be returned to smartphones. Six months later, the HTC One features one of the things that I had humbly hoped would return.

I wrote a total of two really in-depth posts, expecting little return on these, and I nailed a 2-0. I impressed myself a little, so I'm taking this opportunity to briefly pat myself on the back.

I've been in the technology field for a while now despite my age; however, it hasn't been very long that I've been writing about it. When I came out with those first few posts, I was apprehensive-at-best about their validity, and whether or not I was just spewing ignorant pseudo-knowledge out of my mouth. But it appears to me that I do have a level of understanding for this world, and that little bit of a push was just what I needed to get back on my saddle and really begin to write.

The long and short of all this? Expect to see more from me. I will be jumping on the tech-blogging bandwagon again and pick up the pace to see how this goes. I hope you all will be there with me for the ride.

See you on the next post.

Image source found here

Technology That Should Return To Smartphones

2013-04-24T03:43:00.001-04:00

I don't know about everyone else, but there have been times where I have found myself missing some certain functionality in smartphones.

Right, sure What else is new?

Well what I'm talking about is not just any functionality, but functionality that used to be in old smartphones, or even PDA's that was once extremely useful to me, and is now no longer available. It seems like as smartphones move forward into the future, certain things get left behind (that are still widely used technologies) because the smartphone market believes they are "antiquated". In the end, though, the consumer knows better.

Infrared: Also known as IR, this technology was in PDAs, but never really translated over to smartphones thanks to the advent of Bluetooth. However, IR can be used in several other ways besides just pairing devices, such as controlling your television, your ceiling fan, or anything that uses a remote control. I remember using my HP 111 PDA in combination with Nevo controller software to run virtually everything in my household, right from my PDA. Pretty cool, right? This is a feat that hards to accomplish with smartphones, even today, and using old technology I was able to do it in just a few minutes.

The use of Serial ports and expandable HDD slots: My old Compaq 110 PDA had an IDE-like port on it (which attached to the serial port on the bottom, and sat on the back like a kind of case) that would allow me to use my windows mobile-enabled device to browse through hard drives on the fly without needing a laptop. For any tech, this would be an extremely useful tool that I wish I could find a system for on my current Windows Phone. For someone working on computers all the time, this technology used to be indispensable. However, the advent of the SD card killed this technology.

Windows Mobile 5: I know, I know. I might get reamed out for adding this here, but there was one thing great about windows mobile: It's file system was accessible and compatible with a Windows PC. I loved being able to use my PDA as a flash drive with a readout. I never had a moment of "did I save that to my flash drive?" because I could pull it up on my PDA and check, then connect my USB cable to my PC and upload it again later, just like a flash drive. Pretty Nifty, right? Not to mention that I could download and install my own custom java applets, which can be really, really useful. Sadly, though, the virus was the killer of this technology, and the amount of times you reformat your device due to an unauthorized java applet was very high; however, the trick there was to live and learn - and back up a lot. Which I didn't mind after weighing the benefits.

Ethernet Ports: Yes, it's true. Older PDA systems actually had Ethernet ports on them. I just want one to wire my smartphone into a system. The troubleshooting possibilities are endless.

So why am I mentioning all this? Well, I've been thinking this over and I have been getting more and more tired of carrying my laptop around to troubleshoot computers every time I need to work on a network. Wouldn't it be convenient for us professionals to have a company produce a new smartphone that has the connectivity features that would be useful to us to allow us to use our mobile device for troubleshooting?

It may be just a pipedream, but I know I would buy one.

Don't Buy Into Wireless Ac For Your Home Just Yet

2013-04-23T12:53:00.003-04:00

Most people have wireless in their home these days. Those people who use their computer frequently know that wireless can be slow (and is in fact much slower than a wired connection); these people usually end up "wiring in" their most-used electronics and leave the wireless for their mobile devices, such as their tablets.

However, in the past few months a new system, "wireless Ac" has been developed that can supposedly hit speeds "over the air" that are as fast as wired internet.

That sounds really cool, until you factor in a couple of major problems.

Like any other device that has just been released, if you buy in early, you'll be paying a premium price for the new technology. Currently, on the east coast I have been seeing wireless Ac routers running for about $115. Which doesn't seem too bad until you realize that the router won' even work.

Wait, what?

That's right - you see, a wireless system has two parts, the router and the receiver. The receiver has to be built using the same technology as the router (i.e. wireless n router needs a wireless n receiver) and the fact is that virtually none of the mobile electronics on the market today are using the wireless Ac technology.

So, what happens? Well, most new wireless Ac adapters are built with wireless N backwards compatibility. That means that your electronics will pick up the signal, but it likely won't be any faster than your old router, meaning you just paid a pretty hefty sum of money for the same thing you had before. The only way to get wireless Ac speeds right now is to pick up a USB adapter that will set you back roughly another $100, and since most mobile devices don't support these kind of adapters, this is really only useful for a desktop or laptop PC.

In my opinion there isn't enough literature out there on this, so I figured I'd throw a blog up on it. Final verdict: hold off on wireless Ac until mobile devices start coming out that have the hardware to pick it up. That is when this new technology will really begin to become useful. Until then, beware of buying a wireless Ac router, and getting tricked into thinking it's working when you're only getting wireless N service.

Also, remember: wiring in is always faster and more reliable. Have a computer at the other end of the house? Go with a powerline kit.

Microsoft Should Buy Nokia (No, Really)

2013-04-23T01:55:00.000-04:00

How's that for a title?

Microsoft has, for a long time now, been trailing Apple. This is nothing new, but after hearing it a lot, you get to wondering why. After all, Mac systems are terrible business machines, they have loads of compatibility issues and are seriously overpriced. So what's going on here?

The answer is simple: on an Apple product, the entire unit - hardware and software - is tailored by Apple to be as appealing as possible.

Microsoft has been (up until very recently) a software-only company, producing nothing more than their operating system (Windows) and some software to throw onto it. That model has worked fine for them up until the last few years as the tablet market has really taken off.

Why the tablet market? Answer: Apple thought ahead.

In the process of creating the iPad, Apple patented things. Then, Apple patented more things, and finally ended by patenting more things. As a result, very few other companies have been able to produce a tablet as iconic as the iPad, simply because every time one does emerge, it is stepping on the toes of an Apple patent somehow (Galaxy Tab, anyone?). When the iPad was released, it was a surprise to everyone. There weren't many companies that saw it coming, and then everyone started playing catch up; it was virtually the iPhone all over again. So, the iPad has enjoyed it's glory days for a while now, sitting on top of its patents and eating up market share.

Meanwhile, there have been dozens of other companies doing their best to produce a reasonable competitor, and none have emerged. This was partially the fault of Microsoft, who didn't believe in tablet computing until Apple got it to work correctly (darn them!). Microsoft, under the impression that the iPad would flop, took a gamble and didn't panic.

The result of that Gamble was Windows 8, which is already being compared to Windows Vista - slipshod, buggy and unintuitive.

However, there is hope.

Microsoft finally got sick of the 3rd party problems, and made it's own tablet. The Surface.
Have you tried it? It's pretty cool, and the keyboard mechanism is also fantastic; it's really what the Asus Transformer has been trying to do all along, just done right.

Unfortunately though, a lot of Microsoft's 3rd party companies aren't exactly thrilled that Microsoft is making a competitor, but there isn't much they can do; after all, their only other option I Android, and Google has the Nexus so it's the same all the way around.

However, Microsoft has an opening here.

With the downfall of RIM, and Nokia moving into their market share, Windows Phone 8 is expected to grip 10% of the market by the end of this year. Seeing as it's only a few years old, that's really, really impressive. However, Microsoft still has very little control over the hardware, and despite Nokia's reputation for being indestructible, I have a firm belief that Microsoft will have a hard time really breaking into the market until they create a 1st party phone. However, this is unlikely. Nokia an Microsoft have an agreement, and I have a gut feeling that agreement includes Microsoft and Nokia not competing with each other (notice that there isn't a Nokia Tablet in the works?).

So what are two struggling companies to do?

Merge.

A Nokia/Microsoft Merger would be an ideal solution. Microsoft would obtain the Nokia patents, and be able to implement them into the next version of the surface, and rebrand the Lumia to a Surface Phone (or something like that) and finally go completely first party. Granted, this would shut out companies like HTC and Samsung, but Samsung has already announced that it plans to develop its own OS soon, and HTC is heavily leaning on Android, so I don't consider those to be large losses.

In the end, a first party tablet and phone, mixed with the 3rd part computer ecosystem would be a great compromise for Microsoft and would settle them right back into their own niche.

What do you think?

Note: This is an opinion article and in no way reflects fact or rumor. This is strictly written hypothetically.

Image source found here

Is Tumblr Starting to Get Serious?

2013-04-23T01:26:00.002-04:00

We all have our social media preferences. Some of use Facebook, others Twitter. Still others venture out further, and touch networks like Pinterest. In this age, social networking is really no longer restricted to one outlet; the teen years of the new millennium have ushered in the age of multiple-outlet networking. As time goes on, the competition in the social industry becomes stiffer and Facebook is no longer the de-facto outlet to post your thoughts. In the wake of this, some social networks have thrived, while others have either fallen behind (MySpace, anyone?) or become stagnant. Tumblr is one such network, and has had a hard time in the market due to the advancing competition. So, as a company trying to survive, what are they to do?

Tumblr has always had a hard time turning a big profit, and so naturally the first thing that comes to mind when trying to save them is "how do we make more money?" Tumblr's answer: take their ads and go mobile.

Theoretically, a mobile ad campaign is a great concept, seeing as this is a totally untapped resource for Tumblr. On top of that, they have attracted big names such as Warner Bros. and this is encouraging for them. However, I think Tumblr might be getting a bit ahead of itself with this mobile ad campaign.

Wait, Why? You just said this was a good idea!

Simple: Tumblr is currently shrouded in obscurity when it comes to its use, and most new Tumblr users are finding it hard to adapt because of this. Let me explain.

You see, Tumblr is supposed to be a blogging platform, and technically it is; you can post things to your page, and this becomes your "blog". However, Tumblr is designed so that your blog is naturally hard to find. Therefore, it does not attract serious bloggers, but rather a younger crowd of people who are looking to generate something more like an online diary, only visible to a select few people. This means that the heart of Tumblr is not actually social, but is really closer to what you would expect to see in a high school lunchroom: a gathering area for cliques. We know this bad, because Facebook has tried to defeat this by increasing its methods of new friend discovery several times in its life. The problem with this form of social networking is that few people often venture out to find new connections, thus limiting the full use of the site and limiting content distribution, which is a turn off for marketers.

I like the idea that Tumblr is finally getting serious about becoming a more "real" social network, and turning a profit, but I feel as though the platform really needs to go through some refining before they can truly become a competitor in the social network industry. Tumblr needs to make a decision: are they a blogging platform, or a diary platform? In my opinion, once this is clarified, then their user base can expand based on a clear definition of service, and prove to potential advertising investors that their money will be worth it.

After al, Tumblr does get its user to spend more time on it on average than Facebook. There is some real potential there for advertisers. Tumblr just has to make the advertisers see that first.

Observations about Apple, Inc.

2013-04-23T00:28:00.000-04:00

I do my best to watch the tech market very closely. No one is perfect, of course, but I believe that there is one thing people starting to widely agree upon: Apple is beginning to have problems. You may have heard this once or twice, but really; how can anyone tell how Apple is doing?

It's a fair question that I feel has not been appropriately answered by the media. Here's my opinion on the matter.

I am throwing my voice into the wind of people who think Apple is on the verge of internal collapse, but why do I think so? Apple is so tight-lipped about everything that it's hard to get a launch date out of them, let alone someone saying "yes, we're about to fail".

However, there are signs.

One: Before Steve Jobs, Apple had a very fragmented product line, similar to Microsoft. Their computers has confusing hardware setups, and it was difficult to find a Mac that worked for you. On top of that, the price for the systems seemed unjustified and at the time it was. So what did Steve Jobs do? He killed a lot of the products in Apple. Apple's line shrunk don to just a few products, and these exclusive pieces of equipment were then remarketed as a "high-quality, premium product" to justify the price. Each product was made with high quality material, and designed to do one thing: run fast.

While Steve Jobs was in power, this model worked phenomenally for them.

Now that he is gone, however, it seems that things are beginning to change. Apple has added a lot of new product, including an iPad Mini, several new Mac Books, a new line of color options, etc. Now, there is even rumors of a new iPhone line for the budget shoppers, and silly useless gadgets such as an iWatch floating around.

Seems a little...fragmented. Doesn't it? It does to me, and that tells me that the unification Steve Jobs created is beginning to fall apart on the inside.

Two: The iPhone 5 seems a little cheap, don't you think? It sure seemed that way to me when I put my hands on it. The back of it has echoes of the plastic on the Samsung Galaxy series, and is a far cry from the glass of the iPhone 4 series. This tells me that Apple is beginning to toss out the "premium parts, premium price" motto and instead focusing harder on their profit margin, which in my opinion is a bad move. Granted, the iPhone 5 is probably more durable, but there are other ways to make a phone harder to kill. The Nokia Lumia 920 can survive a fastball with virtually no damage. How? It's that new Gorilla Glass 2 that does the trick. Had this been utilized in the iPhone 5, it may have been a real home run.

Three: The lack of changes from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 5 seems to have upset a lot of users; many people feel as though they bought the new phone for nothing, or simply decided to wait for the iPhone 5s. This lack of change has prompted Apple to kick iOS 7 into overtime by borrowing developers from OSX to pump out the new iOS in time for the iPhone 6. However, this seriously concerns me.

It has been rumored that iOS 7 will be drastically different from iOS 6, forcing users to re-learn a system that is already very familiar to them. Granted, we don't know this for sure, but I can sure bet that it will be at least a little different. I just hope that Apple builds on functionality instead of changing it. Companies are known for making drastic changes in functionality when times get tough (look at RIM and WP) and this isn't always a good idea (as in the RIM example).

Meanwhile, as Apple scrambles to overhaul iOS, the question of the iPhone 7 emerges. It has been confirmed that the iPhone 5 and 6 were pre-designed before the death of Steve Jobs, and this has left everyone wondering is Apple is prepared to redesign the phone without him. Can they do it? In my opinion, I believe that their handling of iOS 7 should give us a good idea of the answer to this question.

So what does all of this mean in the end?

It seems to me that these are the factors everyone is examining when considering the future of Apple. These are the markers that we find our path with, and try to predict the fate of the giant. My opinion? I truly believe that right now, the fate of Apple rest on iOS 7. If this does well, it could restore the faith of investors. If they flop with this new OS, then who knows. Maybe we'll see the rise of the Windows Phone.

Sifting Through the Hype: Facebook Home

2013-04-22T23:56:00.000-04:00

We have all been hearing (at lest to some degree) that Facebook, Inc. is "making a phone" soon, or has already made one. Thanks to all of the hype and excitement, though, I feel that the news has gotten a bit blown out of proportion over the past few months. So, I decided it was time for me to write a quick little article on this "Facebook Phone" for the sole purpose of laying down all the facts in one place.

Here goes.

First and foremost, "The Facebook Phone" is not a phone. It is, in fact, just an android app; albeit a powerful one. This app is known as "Facebook Home" and can be downloaded to most andoid phones running jellybean (a recent version of Android). Facebook Home has one purpose: to turn your phone into a Facebook-centric "Social System", allowing you to do things like post updates to Facebook right from your Android lock screen, and post images to your albums without having to switch between your camera app and Facebook App.

This sounds cool to anyone who uses Facebook, right? My first reaction would be "Wow! What a great way to add functionality to your phone!"

Unfortunately though, it isn't all roses and daisies.

You see, Facebook Home is a little more than just an "app" - it utilizes a process called "skinning". In layman's terms, "skinning" (or "to skin") means "to override a system's basic functionality with new functionality to accomplish a particular task". In other words, Facebook Home is altering the Android Operating System at some core levels . This is how Facebook Home is able to edit your lock screen, camera, etc.

So what's the problem with that? I trust Facebook to know how to work with code.

The problem with skinning is that you are bound to affect the functionality of other parts of the device you're restructuring and sure enough, Facebook Home does just that.

If you're an individual who utilizes a lot of widgets on your android phone, you may want to steer clear of Facebook Home; the app controls your widget functionality and thereby disables the use of many of your favorite widgets, including simple ones like clocks. It also changes the basic flow of certain parts of the phone, meaning that if you're not a power user, it might take you a little while to get the hang of the new Facebook Home system. Even though it is just a skin, it does make some pretty significant changes to the phone.

The changes are so significant, that according to Forbes, the app on Google play is getting some pretty low marks. In the end, what Facebook Home really does is asks you to sacrifice a good chunk of existing Android functionality in order to utilize it's system and a lot of Android users simply aren't willing to do that. Granted, Facebook Home may be wonderful for the Facebook Power user, but aside from that small target group Facebook Home may be a bit to extreme of a change to swallow.

Hey, wait a minute. I could have sworn I heard about a real phone coming out!

There is a new HTC phone being released soon, called the HTC First, with Facebook Home Pre-installed. This is the phone you have been hearing about.

In the end, what you need to know is this: Facebook Home can be used on most Android Smartphones. It does change the phone. A lot. If this is right for you, then try and install it - you can always reverse the damage by uninstalling it later. 500,000 people have already done so in the last five days, so this seems to be a safe bet. However, I wouldn't recommend wasting your money on the HTC First. Why? Simple. You can just as easily turn your Galaxy SIII into a "Facebook Phone" - for free. Do it that way, and you won't have buyer's remorse when you realize your phone doesn't have that cool lighter widget you live so much.

This is my advice to all Facebookers out there right now, as it stands.
Hope this post sheds some light on the whole situation. Cheers, and happy reading!

-Joe

My Posts WIll Be Lengthy

2012-09-06T19:40:00.003-04:00

For those of you whom have followed my blog in the past, you may notice that there are a lot of posts that were once here, and no longer are; this is because I’m really getting serious about this blog.

I will be writing as a side-profession, and trying my hand at this “get paid to blog” thing, so I have renamed the blog, refocused my target content, and am moving forward with my new tech blog, Techni-Sense.

This means that I will be posting regularly, and I may have more traffic on the site, so for some of my former readers, I hope that this is something you will continue to enjoy, and if it isn't, please feel free to write me hate-mail about it so that I can correct whatever I may have improperly altered (no, I’m not kidding. This blog is about my readers, and I want to make as many of them as happy as I can).

I would like to clarify a few things for my new readers, though. One thing that’s important to remember about this blog is that my posts will be lengthy. I value clarity, even if clarity comes with length. I believe that quality of content is much more important than attempting to “shorten it up”, so, please read my blog if you prefer concise content. If you prefer short excerpts, then unfortunately I’m afraid this blog may not suit you and unfortunately this is something that I simply cannot change; it is a core value of mine that I find to be extremely important.

Also, you may find my blog to be highly opinionated and speculative; this is by design. I am not writing just about technology (there are plenty of other blogs for that). I’m writing about the potential impacts of technology as it develops, meaning that sometimes, I might just be guessing, and to me, that’s okay. Why, you ask? Well, it gives my readers something to consider and think over, and in my opinion that is perhaps more important than the content itself.

This will perhaps be my shortest blog entry. Hopefully, though, this helps any new readers understand just how this blog will work. I hope that it’s as interesting to read as it is to write.

Ciao,

Image source found here

Google Glasses - A Brief Synopsis

2012-06-01T12:56:00.000-04:00

For this post, I need to detail a particular bit of technological news that has caught my interest recently: Google Glasses.

Also known as Project Glass, Google Glasses are Google’s dive into a genre of technology known as augmented reality. For those of you who aren’t familiar with that idea, augmented reality is a term that essentially denotes that technology and the real world can exist side-by-side, providing you with a real-time view of the world that is “augmented” by technological information. I have a more in-depth outline of augmented reality listed on this post.

*Now before I take off in what I'm about to write down, I'd like to throw a small disclaimer out there: I am about to write about the impact of augmented reality in recent years, and it may sound like I am putting my faith in Google Glass, and leaving out some other important contenders. I know there have been some other serious undertakings aside from Google Glass, such as EyeTap - Don't get me wrong; I'm aware of those. However, technological impact is measured by how many people have access to it just as much as the power of the equipment, at least when dealing with consumer electronics. Therefore, I'm leaving those endeavors out of this particular blog as they're simply not well known enough. We're talking about the future here, and in my opinion, those other attempts at perfecting this technology do not represent the future, but rather the past, which will be built upon going forward.

The first real notable accounts of this kind of technology came in the form of smartphone apps that utilize the camera of the smartphone as a view screen on which to overlay the augmentations onto the real world. Some notable apps will place twitter posts from friends over top of their location (so, if you point at the last place that a friend checked in with your camera, that check in will appear as a bubble of text “floating” over the building), augment your driving experience by highlighting fast-braking cars or lane-changes, or even overlay Wikipedia facts onto historical landmarks.

This sounds like awesome technology, doesn’t it? Well, it is. However, in its current state, the technology is very clunky.
I am a firm believer in the “practicality breeds growth” model for electronic development – in other words, I believe that new technology will not catch on in today’s market if it cannot perform the existing, tedious everyday technological tasks better than the previous methods. Computers replaced books for searching and scratch-paper for basic mathematical calculations; smartphones replaced computers for on-the-fly information and cars replaced horses for travel. However, tablets have not been able to gain traction as a laptop replacement – why? Simple: it is not easier to type or work with them, period. Therefore, practicality dictates that the laptop will continue to be favored by corporations and people who require efficiency and power, simply because it fits the bill more appropriately for those requirements.

My point in all this is, if you can already Google something, why both going the extra mile to use an augmented reality app, point your camera at the place you were going to "Google" and hold it up, just to get the information you could get on Wikipedia anyway?

In steps Google Glasses.

Google Glasses aims to implement a small computer system into your glasses that will allow you to augment reality on the fly. This means you will be able to take pictures, get directions, text message and even check the weather without ever pulling out your phone. As of right now, there have even been rumors of text to speech technology integrated (for translation, or for the hearing impaired), a video camera, and even the ability to update Facebook or Google+ right from the minimalist-style view screen in the glasses. Everything that you do will be right in your eye, augmenting the reality you already live in. If you want to take a look at exactly what it might look like wearing the glasses, check out the concept video.

This brings the augmented reality technology out of the “novelty” category, and right into the realm of practicality. The best part about that is, when novelty, sci-fi-esque technology suddenly becomes practical, people eat it up. So, if you ask me, this technology could be huge if done correctly.

Google Glasses were announced early last year by way of the concept video that is linked above. Since then, a lot has developed, and several pictures of high-profile Google employees have been captured, doing nothing but adding to the hype. Additionally, “Project Glass” has a Google+ page, on which they have been posting photos that were actually taken with the prototype of the glasses. The technology itself has been rumored to be out sometime next year, thanks to an interview with Sergey Brin (a Google co-founder) who was wearing the glasses in an interview and speculated a rough completion date of “sometime next year”.

If they make it out by then, I’ll be very curious to see how it turns out. If it can do even half of what the prototype video shows, then they will be extremely an extremely useful piece of tech. I’m wary, though – Google has announced that not all of the features shown in the concept video will be available. They have seemingly confirmed the mapping, at least, and we all know it can take pictures. However, if the 1^st version is under-released with a lack of features to speed up the release date, the Glasses could flop in a very bad way. A piece of technology with this much needs to live up to it. This is how Apple succeeds, and Google will need to do the same thing. Not only do the glasses themselves come with hype, but the new technology does as well. High hopes need to equal high yield.

Tell me what you think. Email me, hit my Google+ profile, or what-have-you, but I would love to get some other perspectives. My personal opinion - I'm planning on buying a pair.

On a more technical side note: for those people who are more technologically inclined: Google Glasses are supposedly android based, and also supposedly operated via a small trackpad on the primary housing. This contradicts the original rumor that the glasses will be controlled with eye movement, and may pose to be somewhat cumbersome for picture taking and OS navigation, but only a real test will determine that. Additionally, the viewscreen is also rumored to rest slightly above your line of sight, not totally imersing you in the effect of augmented reality. To be honest, I don't know if I like that or not.

I'll update this post as more comes to light.
Ciao,