All in all, it’s a pretty smooth experience. The install took about 10 minutes from boot to desktop, and after fixing a few minor driver issues (video, touchpad/pointer, and chipset), the UI was running quite smoothly. Metro-style apps loaded quickly, I could switch between various perspectives quite quickly, and things worked as described.

The new Explorer features are nice and easier to find via the new Ribbon interface, but I don’t think I’ll find myself using it that much. I’m a keyboard-shortcut guy, so most of the time the ribbon will remain hidden away until I need something obscure from it.

When you take into account all of the stuff that Microsoft has packed into Windows 8, it all works with few immediately noticeable bugs. However, I’m hoping that Microsoft is still planning on doing a lot of work on this thing before it hits RTM next year.

Issues

First off, I don’t like that the Windows 7 style start menu is gone. Not just hidden–it’s gone, unless you edit a Registry key that basically turns off all of the new features: ribbon, metro, lock screens, and more. In essence, it would revert you to the mainstream Windows 7 experience. Assuming that such a sacrifice still includes the performance gains that Windows 8 promises (reduced memory and resource usage footprint), then maybe that’s not such a bad thing. But I believe that there will be some new Win 8 features that even the power users will want and turning it all off is not a good option.

I find the new interaction model a bit unwieldy. Getting to common areas like the global control panel, device manager, computer management, and even shutdown/restart requires a jump back into the Metro Start UI replete with all of its tiles. For mobile devices, the tiles make sense–I want to see a lot of information at a glance, and the tiles fulfill that task well. But when I’m sitting at my computer all day with email, Twitter, and Google+ at my fingertips, the live updates provided by Start make less sense.

Additionally, having to return to this full-screen launch interface to do nearly *anything* just rubs me wrong. I feel like I’m interrupting all of my current tasks on the standard desktop in order to grab another tool or start a new browser. Sure, common items can be pinned to the taskbar a la Windows 7, but having a bunch of quick access items in a popup Start menu just seems like a more fluid way to work (i.e. every version of Windows since ’95).

What worries me after seeing this new interaction model is that as time goes on, the tech industry is focusing more and more on doing or showing one thing at a time. Sure, metro apps can be collapsed into a sidebar-esque view, but every last one of them feels like it was meant to be run fullscreen or not at all (perhaps the exception being social media apps).

Yes, these apps are more powerful than ever before, but isn’t this interaction model what we all got away from starting with Windows 2 and even more in 3? The ability to open multiple apps in multiple windows, each with their own space was a huge leap from the DOS and 1st-gen GUI days when running one application at a time was considered cutting-edge. Why are we pushing things back in that direction? Every mobile OS does this–run multiple apps simultaneously, yes, but use only one at a time. Tablets are largely the same way, but now we’re trying to do that with our desktops??

First, Apple brings “full-screen” to the forefront with OS X Lion, and additionally pulls some iOS features in alongside the core OS. That makes things weird. Theoretically, Microsoft has a better and more robust strategy here by actually integrating such an experience into the core of their OS and making this functionality a required new interaction pattern, but it still feels like a huge step backward.

Hopefully this majorly-highlighted Metro UI is so prevalent only because of the Developer Preview, so I’ve got my fingers crossed for a much more balanced approach come final release. However, I’m a little scared that we won’t be so lucky.

I don’t mind change, and I’d like to believe I’m fairly “forward thinking.” I’ve been excited about every major Windows release since Windows 95, including non-starter features like WinFS (still a great idea, btw) that didn’t make it into Longhorn. But my initial excitement about Windows 8 is now reduced to cautious optimism. Yes, there are some majorly awesome features coming (like syncing your user account across multiple machines via Windows Live), but there are possibly some major caveats in store as well. Only time will tell.

Well, if things don’t work out quite like I want them to, I guess there’s always Linux

By now, you’ve most likely heard about Verizon Wireless following in the steps of AT&T’s usage-based (or ‘tiered’ as they are known to many) data plans. If you haven’t or aren’t exactly sure what that means, it’s a pretty simple concept. Essentially, Verizon previously offered a plan that was more or less unlimited. As long as you weren’t abusing the network, you could use as much data as you wanted per-month.

This plan was $30 across the board, although many subscribers were eligible for substantial discounts through their employers. For instance, my data plan through Verizon costs less than $25 a month. Honestly, that’s quite a bit of money for a wireless Internet connection accessible only via a smartphone–especially when my landline ISP doesn’t charge much more than that for a lot more use.

Those types of wireless charges are to be expected though. You’re paying for the use of the Internet almost anywhere over a relatively limited amount of bandwidth.

What’s Coming

Today, all of that is changing. Verizon is doing several things that won’t immediately affect current subscribers, but that may affect subscription renewals down the road and will definitely impact all new smartphone purchasers who aren’t already attached to a smartphone data plan. No matter how I look at these items, I can’t figure out even one single way that consumers will be impacted positively. Don’t believe what Verizon tells you. This isn’t at all good!

First, while the lowest priced data package will continue to start at $30, it will be capped at 2GB and any usage over this will be an additional $10 per 1GB. So, no matter who you are, you’ll have to worry a bit about going over your data limits each month similar to the buckets of minutes you purchase (i.e. 700, 1000, etc). Even though this seems like a good amount of data, don’t forget that your phone always uses some amount of data, even when it’s put away with the screen off. Unless you turn off 3G/4G, completely, it’s impossible to stop the flow of data. If you think you’ll use more than 2GB, plans are available for 5GB at $50 and 10GB at $80.

Second, corporate discounts are only available for customers purchasing at least the 5GB level of service. So if all you need is 2GB per month, don’t expect to get a percentage or dollar discount on your data. It won’t apply. Makes a lot of sense, right?

Third, if you want to tether a device to your phone (like a laptop, tablet, iPod Touch, etc), you must purchase the tethering option for an additional $20 per month. Granted, this gives you an additional 2GB to use, but it doesn’t seem really fair when you consider the fact that they’re placing unreasonable restrictions on what you’re allowed to do with a data package you paid through the nose for already. Even if you are currently grandfathered in to an unlimited plan, it’ll cost you an extra $30 per month to add tethering. So that’s $60 a month for data right there. Ouch.

Finally, while Verizon is currently allowing existing data plan subscribers to maintain their unlimited status, they’ll most likely force everyone to convert to a usage-based plan in the future. This is pure speculation at this point, but given their current direction, it seems probable.

Bottom-line

By now you’re probably thinking: “wow, this guy just hates usage-based data plans!” That’s not true at all. In fact, I’ll even support usage-based plans as long as the pricing is fair! The new policy is anything but. Many of you probably remember when Big Red introduced a $15 smartphone data plan last year that provided a 150MB allowance. They discontinued it shortly thereafter because few people bothered to get it. It was such a horrible value that most users just figured paying $30 for unlimited data was a much better deal. A few emails, picture messages, and web pages would blast through 150MB in a matter of days, if not hours. Verizon would have you believe that they learned from that mistake and are correcting things now. Well, I have news for you: they’re not.

I challenge Verizon and anyone else who supports this move to name one consumer-focused reason that this is, in fact, a good move. Just one!

For the rational, logical people out there, I think you’ll agree that this is an awful move for a company that’s been touting its super-fast, super-reliable 4G network since the end of 2010. A network that will allow users to blow through 2GB of data in an incredibly brief period of time. You’ll rack up overage after overage in no time flat. It’s crazy.

Take Action

So…what can you do to bring about change? Here are a few ideas:

1. Sign the official petition asking Verizon to reconsider their decision and either bring back unlimited data or scrap the usage-based pricing scheme and start over.
2. Don’t add any additional smartphones to any existing or new plans. If Verizon ever forces you out of unlimited data, drop the data plan altogether.
3. Encourage your family and friends to do the same as #1 and #2.
4. Terminate your contract and head to Sprint, which still offers unlimited data (at least for now)
5. File a complaint with the FTC

Obviously, none of the above will work if just a few people do it. We need everyone to take part in pushing Verizon to reverse their new policies. So, what are you waiting for?

Desktop OS

I won’t say much regarding the traditional desktop-class OS market. Apple has OS X Lion hitting digital shelves in July while Google Chromebooks are shipping right about now. Yes, they’re competitors, but Google’s cloud OS is such a new player in the market it’s unclear how it might affect Windows and OS X. Chrome could take off for consumer and enterprise users that don’t currently need access to traditional applications like Photoshop, AutoCAD, standalone collaboration tools, and so on. For now though, OS X and Windows will continue to hold their place in the market.

Mobile

Next up is the mobile device space. On one side you’ve got iOS. On the other: Android. This “battle” is a bit less exciting this year than it has been in years past because both platforms are near parity. Features on one generally match features on the other, and both have proven to be quite usable for just about any type of user. Notably absent from this year’s WWDC keynote were snarky remarks about Android from Steve Jobs. It’s doubtful that he’s gotten over his grudge against Android; however, Steve demonstrated that copying features straight out of other systems was no problem! New iOS notifications are practically a direct copy from Android, while iMessages takes quite a few queues from Blackberry Messenger.

An age-old issue is that of copying features from one OS to another. Apple and Microsoft copied from Xerox, after all. So, while Android fans are making fun of iOS playing catch-up, Android has been required to do some of the same in times past.

One issue I must take with iOS 5 is that of iMessages. Apple has created yet another proprietary messaging platform. While this is not terribly surprising–Apple has a sordid history of building their own proprietary systems when excellent open protocols were available–it’s pretty disturbing. In addition to iMessages, we previously had proprietary services like Blackberry Messenger, Kik, LiveProfile, Beluga, and several others. That’s in addition to old standbys AIM and MSN Messenger. But what I really would’ve liked to see is Apple integrating directly into the existing open messaging protocols like Google Talk and Facebook Chat. Both of those are based on something called XMPP and are insanely powerful for text, rich media, audio, and video.

I’m sure Apple made this decision because they are more interested in consumer lock-in and bringing as many users as possible to their platform than they are at furthering innovation and the industry at large. While corporations certainly have the right to make money and the responsibility to be good stewards to their stockholders, proprietary technologies are not required to do so. Google and IBM are prime examples of companies that make tons of money by using and supporting open source. Apple made the wrong call here and will hurt the industry as a whole if this catches on.

All that said, I am 100% ready to kill off expensive text messaging plans and move to data-driven messaging. But I want that to happen via open protocols used across any device on any carrier. This is the age of the Internet, after all.

Cloud

The main area I want to focus on is that of Internet-based products and services.

Google has been a huge provider of these services for some time now and continues to expand its offerings. Web apps such as: Gmail, Calendar, Books, Picasa Web, Talk, Voice, and the recently released Music service are notable in their lineup. Many other lesser known services are also available that integrate directly into Search. All in all, Google is almost 100% “cloud-based.” They tend to only offer native app solutions when it supplements an existing web offering, a la Android and Chrome OS.

Apple, on the other hand, has traditionally focused more on native solutions than web. Their first foray into the web space came as MobileMe (and its individual ancestors), but most people (Jobs included) would agree that it failed in quite a few areas. iCloud is Apple’s complete rewrite of the platform and huge tie-in to existing iProducts and infrastructure. It features things like data backup from Apple’s mobile products, wireless syncing for documents/photos/books, mail, calendar, music, and photos.

On the surface, Apple’s offerings have become almost identical to Google’s. They both provide multi-device syncing, backup, productivity apps, and more. Both store your a copy of your data in the cloud. But there is one extremely huge difference. With Google services, everything can be accessed from a web browser practically anywhere in the world. Just hit the Google app URL of your choice, log-in with your username and password, and access your stuff. It’s easy and ubiquitous. In many cases these web services are supplemented with a mobile app on Android (and often on iOS as well). This is especially relevant with Gmail, Music, Docs, and Talk.

iCloud still stores all of your data in the cloud, but at present, you can’t get to it with a web browser. (Perhaps email and calendar are an exception, but it’s unclear from Apple’s website.) Instead, you’ll need an iPhone, iPad, or Mac in order to access most of your data. Photos are also available to Windows machines. But you won’t just need an Apple device. You’ll need your Apple device. iCloud is designed to pair with a specific device and connect it to your cloud account. But if your battery is dead or you’ve left something at home, it sounds like you’ll be stuck. Good luck getting that Excel document for the big meeting. Your cloud extends only as far as your battery. This seems like a huge downside to a set of services that otherwise has a lot of value. Within the next decade, web apps will become as powerful if not more so than native apps. Apple will have to evolve their offerings to keep up. Google has some shortcomings when it comes to things like editing documents, but they’re way ahead on the web front. iCloud does have some public APIs, so we’ll see what 3rd party developers can do with those.

Another significant difference between the competitors lies in the music services. Google is currently unable to sell music and match existing downloaded and ripped songs to a huge online library, so full uploads of your music is required. This usually doesn’t take weeks as Apple claims, but it can take a significant amount of time–certainly a few days–to get a large library uploaded. The upload process also slows down other Internet-based activities due to limited upload bandwidth.

On the upside though, once the music is loaded, any modern web browser can stream it from any machine. It’s literally music on the go from anywhere. The Android mobile app also supports this stream-anywhere philosophy and is available on any Android 2.2+ device. In addition to streaming, songs can be downloaded to the device as desired.

iTunes on iCloud works a bit differently. Initial setup is faster since you’ll have immediate access to iTunes-purchased music past and present. For a nominal yearly fee, you can quickly match all ripped music to anything in the master iTunes library. Anything that can’t be found there is uploaded the manual way just like Google. The music is available on up to ten devices.

That’s where the fun stops, though. First, users are still required to use iTunes (whether on desktop or mobile) to purchase music. There’s no web interface. This means that Apple failed to address the glaring issue of iTunes being incredibly bloated. I run across more and more users each day that are looking for a way out of the garden. Unless you’ve got a high-end machine, iTunes will be a pain in your side and Apple just expects you to deal with it. It runs far worse on Windows than Macs to boot.

The other issue relates to music storage. While you can download anything you’ve purchased or uploaded as many times as desired, the fact remains that the music must still be stored on a device. There’s no streaming whatsoever, so downloads are required. If a device’s space gets low, you’ll have to manually delete content in order to make room for new songs. Additionally, unless you keep your entire music library downloaded to every iDevice you own, there’s no guarantee that songs from one will be on the other. A manual search and download will be required. If you’ve got a lot of music, this could prove unwieldy. In the music store arena, Apple obviously has the lead, but in the convenience and tech department of the actual service…Google takes the cake.

One final caveat related to the iTunes cloud service is that their privacy policy states that they’ll willingly hand over information regarding your iTunes Match data to record labels if threatened with a lawsuit. In so many cases its going to be hard to determine if certain music files are legit or not. Nobody keeps all of their receipts, people lose original discs, and yes of course, there are pirates out there too. But what’s going to stop legitimate users from getting sued by RIAA and the like? I suspect TechDirt may have some insights here, but it’s a little disturbing to say the least.

All-in-all, I think parts of iCloud will be a very hard sell to users. Yes, everyone will benefit from app and data backups, OTA updates, and so on, but many users are already tied in to existing 3rd party services like Gmail, Google Calendar, Google Docs, and so on. The ubiquity of those services (read: doesn’t require an Apple product in hand) makes them extremely lucrative. Switching to iCloud might not be worth the trouble–easy or not. Also, while details are still forthcoming, I wonder if certain data can be excluded from the cloud sync. Some documents, photos, and so on might not be appropriate for global cloud transference…especially to a family Apple TV or some such. Privacy conscious users may also balk at just shoving everything into the cloud. What security, integrity, and such are provided or guaranteed for uploaded data?? And finally, with capped data plans in vogue and no clear way of switching away from iCloud if desired, Apple will need to provide tools in order to track data usage and export content into industry-supported formats. Something they might not be willing to do.

Apple definitely has provided a huge upgrade from the MobileMe of the past few years, but it remains to be seen if they’ve really hit something good yet. It’ll be hard to beat Google at it’s own game. And with Google releasing the next major Android version this Winter, it may bring to significant upgrades and UI adjustments that trump iOS 5 in some important ways. It remains to be seen what’s up their sleeve. There’s even room for a Google Music refresh, so don’t count the music store out yet.

At any rate, the Google/Apple competition is definitely turning out to be a fierce one. The remainder of 2011 promises to be quite interesting indeed.

The concept of credit is a great one, and it makes life a great deal easier. I, for one, hate carrying cash and much rather using my card as much as possible. But at the same time, I hate carrying multiple cards, pulling them out of my wallet, losing them, and so on. I’m much more conscientious in keeping track of my mobile phone, so what better device to use when I need to pay for stuff? It has security to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access and I can even remotely wipe it if I do lose it. That would be nice since I wouldn’t have to call one or more banks and have them change my account numbers, re-issue new cards, and so on.

Well, turns out the technology and implementation of such a device and system is already here, and it’s called Near Field Communication. It’s similar to RFID in the sense that it’s used to wirelessly transmit information over a pretty short distance, but instead of using a hardcoded tag like RFID, a device employing NFC can transmit any data it wants to a compatible reader. So essentially, your phone could act as 5 different credit cards at once if you so chose. All you’d need to do is pick the one you want to use from the phone’s software, move the phone near the reader, and the transaction would commence. Pretty slick, huh?

That all sounds great, of course, but for this to really work, it has to be standardized in much the same manner as the current credit card system. Any credit card can be used on any credit card reader. They’re all compatible with each other. The only issue that arises is whether a merchant has a contract with your card issuer. For instance, some retailers don’t process American Express cards, but other than issues like that, the credit card system is ubiquitous.

Google has been a big mover in this arena in the past 12 months and beginning later this year, NFC equipped Android phones will be able to take advantage of a new service named “Google Wallet.” They’ve partnered with banks like Citibank and MasterCard, in addition to retailers such as American Eagle and Macy’s. As more and more phones are enabled with this service and new retailers come on board, this serves to be a great boon to consumers! I, for one, can’t wait!

There’s one potentially looming problem though.

Apple is reportedly working on a similar NFC system for the next slew of iOS devices. Nobody’s sure how far along this thing may be, or if we might even see it in the iPhone 5, but it’s still a bit worrisome. If Apple couldn’t even be persuaded to make their Facetime protocol compatible with existing video chat services (many of which have been established for quite some time), can anyone really expect them to play nice in an arena where money might be made directly off of consumer purchases? Something tells me the answer is a resounding “no!”

Certainly competition is good in driving down prices, but this argument is not about that. It’s about making things incredibly easy for consumers to use, not to mention compatible across brands, service corporations, and country borders. If Apple is indeed working to bring this technology to future devices, my hope is that they’ll partner with Google in order to tie into existing infrastructure. Failing to do so will only serve to hurt both consumers and retailers as they’re faced with the difficulty of supporting both systems or the choice of supporting only one.

Ultimately, things will become standardized and either one side will win or compromises will be made between competitors; however, Apple’s choice in this area could determine whether the technology becomes ubiquitous within 12 months or takes many years to saturate the marketplace.

Make the right choice, Apple.

I agree with the latter–not because Windows was known for being insecure (although at the rise of the Internet, it certainly was), but because Windows continues as the largest OS install base in the world by a huge margin, and because the Windows ecosystem is so very much open. Those two factors combined are what malware writers love to target. Open and ubiquitous.

Obviously other mobile OS’s meet the ubiquity requirement–the install base for BlackBerry OS and iOS is certainly not small–but neither of those platforms support the open ecosystem philosophy. What we end up with is a subset of people (across all platforms) that don’t understand the potential risks of owning a mobile device, so the “openest” platform with the most users is going to end up as the prime target for blackhat hackers.

Does that mean everyone should be bailing on Android in favor of a more closed system? Absolutely not–the security on closed-source software is almost always less secure than widely used open-source. Sure, there will be more exploits targeting Android in the days to come, and no, there’s no guarantee that the platform has the best security among all of them (although the fact that it’s based on Linux, which is quite mature, gives it a leg up on iOS and Windows Phone 7 for sure). But because of its platform, any significant flaws in the OS’s security model will be indubitably corrected, and Android will emerge as the most used, and most secure mobile OS in the market.

Well, they were right about the second part, but wrong about the timetable. It wasn’t in 2014 that Android took the #1 spot. It wasn’t even in 2012 that Android steamrolled iOS. It was 2010–a whole four years ahead of analyst predictions. Rock on, I say.

This isn’t quite as amazing a feat as was the rise of Windows two decades ago, but it’s very similar. Apple is sticking to its guns and locking its software to its hardware. This is per-usual, of course–but as we’ve seen from the numbers, they still have to combine iPad sales with traditional Mac sales to even make a dent in the overall PC space. Yet, they still seem to be counting the iPad among mobile devices as well. Attempts to count it under both categories is a little shady, but that seems to be the status quo.

Words are just words, of course, but I can’t help laughing just a little at Steve Jobs’ jabs at “other” tablet devices. Calling them “stillborn,” “dead on arrival,” or “unable to compete” was clearly a miscalculation on his part. It would seem that the Reality Distortion Field affects not only fans around the world, but even the Founder himself! That’s gotta be pretty scary for investors.

So here’s to the Motorola Xoom, the upcoming LG slate, various HTC and Motorola DROID phones, and the plethora of other Android-based devices shipping in 2011. Make it a memorable one!

My prediction: Android will ship 150% more units than iOS. I’m guessing I’ll be way off and that the actual percentage will be far higher…

May the best platform win.

But for all of the absurd tech pundits who seem to think that removal of h.264 is a bad thing, you’d think the world was coming to an end. But this really is a good thing! Especially for consumers!!

I mean, look at the facts…

• h.264
  • Almost half (like 47%) of PC browsers in use on the web don’t support h.264. (Firefox, Chrome, Opera…the former two which are still climbing the market share charts)
  • The two browsers that do support h.264 are IE 9 and Safari. IE 9 isn’t even really showing up on the usage charts at this point, and Safari barely holds 5% market share–doesn’t seem to be going much of anywhere.
  • The MPEG LA strictly controls h.264 licensing. It’s currently able to be used “royalty free” to end users, but that clause doesn’t apply if the content encoded in h.264 is produced commercially. Encoders and decoders (hardware and software alike) are required to pay patent licensing fees. (One reason BluRay movies cost so much more than traditional DVDs)
  • h.264 is a well supported codec among consumer electronic devices, and is a “standard” in terms of wide digital media and film studio use. Beyond the ITU group though (which really isn’t a standards body), the codec is not truly a standard–especially in the realm of the web, where there is no native support except via a Flash layer.
  • h.264 is not an open standard or an open source project. In any way. Whatsoever. Period. Anyone declaring otherwise is either mistaken or lying.
• webm
  • All of the aforementioned browsers (excepting Safari, of course) will fully support the webm codec.
  • webm is an open source project, completely unencumbered by license fees
  • It is fully supported by Google and too many other hardware and software manufacturers to list.
  • While not a true web standard (yet), it is in line with the w3c’s philosophy and is backed by every major open-source browser vendor.
  • It easily matches h.264 in both quality, speed, and efficiency (i.e. neither codec is superior to the other).

As I stated before, the above list is not my personal opinion, it is supportable fact.

Anyway, Google moving away from h.264 is great news for those of us who want an open, unbiased, unencumbered, and generally “free” web! Naturally, the people who support h.264 as a web standard are probably fans of communism and socialism too–just sayin’. It’s not that I’m against the format, just the philosophy behind it. If h.264 could shake the shackles of the MPEG LA and be completely open sourced, I wouldn’t have a problem supporting it whatsoever. But corporations are greedy, so I don’t see this happening anytime soon.

What about Flash, though? I’ve seen many articles and tweets criticizing Google for being huge hypocrites for not removing Flash support from Chrome as well. Unfortunately, most of these folks are mindless drones who have listened to the lies told to them by those with agendas…like, oh…a certain CEO of a major Fruit company. The fact is (and I’ve definitely addressed this in previous posts) that Flash is a web standard, is open-source, and isn’t a video codec. It’s a rich media file format that just so happens to support video in addition to a ton of other stuff. The part of Flash that isn’t open source, is Adobe’s content creation and playback tools. There’s not much stopping any other developer from writing their own open source Flash production tools. I suspect that they’d just have trouble selling it against Adobe’s gold standard products. Google is not being hypocritical at all! Especially since Flash will support webm as well as a plethora of other formats.

Here’s the thing about Flash. The main reason most content publishers are still using it (other than its ubiquity) is the fact that it supports content protection (read: DRM). I’m not a fan of DRM by any means whatsoever. In fact, that was my main complaint with the whole iTunes model earlier this decade. But DRM aside, if Google quit supporting Flash on Chrome, they’d be significantly limiting users’ web experience. There’s not much by way of native h.264 video on the web, so this point is moot. Examine Mozilla’s stand on the issue as well and a similar pattern emerges. They won’t support the majorly encumbered h.264, yet they built better support and security for Flash directly into the browser.

Bottom line: I won’t be supporting h.264 or any browser that does include native support. webm will become the dominant web video standard over the next decade and any who do not provide support for it in their hardware or software will be left in the 2000s. Face it: an open web is better for everyone.

But apart from all of the hype, news articles written, and plans to produce various new tablet models in the near term, I honestly believe the market is doomed to eventual failure as just another passing fad. A fad off of which manufacturers may make multiple billions of dollars, of course.

That’s a pretty bold statement, I know–and certainly not one which I make lightly. But my argument is this: while tablets may be fun to use and convenient at certain times, they don’t really evolve the personal computer much, if at all. It’s more like a step backward. (I feel like I’ve said that before…)

Let’s look briefly at the evolution of the mobile phone. We started with huge bricks whose single purpose and capability was making phone calls. Useful, no? Well, as time went on, we saw these phones get smaller while adding new and better features like text messaging and limited web surfing. At the same time, we had the PDA market offering apps, calendars, contacts storage, to-do lists, and again–limited web browsing. But then we realized that a PDA combined with a cell phone would be sweet! And thus, the smartphone was born, and now we’re activating hundreds of thousands of them every single day. It was a natural marriage.

On the PC side, we’ve gone from huge room-sized computers to desktop PCs to ultraportable laptops, and with each iteration things continue getting better. In my opinion, the so-called netbook (or perhaps ultraportable laptops) are probably one of the best mobile computing devices out there. It’s still technically a laptop, but made to be as thin and light as affordably possible. Netbooks are great productivity machines–you can run a full office suite, gain access to an unlimited number of web applications, and even (if you dare) probably run software like Adobe Suite, Eclipse, Visual Studio, etc (not all at once, of course). The full-size keyboard makes most of those activities rather effortless. That’s so much better than the virtual tap-a-type keyboards found on tablet machines. Those things are pretty useless when it comes to actually getting stuff done. Netbooks don’t stop at productivity though. They also make great multimedia machines and low-end gaming devices!

My point is this: nearly anything a tablet can do, a netbook can do better. Now, there’s certainly something to be said for having a touch screen. I have to admit that some applications are inherently more satisfying when you can physically manipulate a device by touching it. That’s certainly cool and useful, but most of the time a keyboard and pointer are insanely more useful than a finger pushing stuff around on a screen. I think tablets and netbooks should converge into mostly netbook with a little tablet thrown in (i.e. a touchscreen that can be collapsed overtop the keyboard. Dell, Lenovo, and some other PC manufacturers are doing this already, and from what I’ve seen, it works quite well. That’s exactly where mobile computing should be headed. Not with limited, touch-centric OSes like iOS, Android, and Blackberry OS–but with full OSes like Windows and Unix with some touch-based enhancements integrated in. It’s been done before, but perhaps imperfectly. It’ll improve with time.

Basically, I don’t care how much money corps think they can make with tablets. I’d much rather they innovate and create truly useful experiences rather than spend time and money on limited use toys like the iPad and Galaxy Tab.

Okay, rant over. Feel free to drop your own two-cents in the comments below…

1. Analyst (sometimes “reputable” and sometimes a nobody) or “random employee at company X” makes a statement about some product or service company X or Y offers.
2. Somehow this statement ends up being on the record, or captured by someone (random person’s secretary?) who decides it belongs on the record.
3. News pundits pick up on the statement, and write a “breaking” story on how The Company will succeed, fail, or otherwise be affected by product or service A, B, or C. In fact, sometimes these “reporters” seem to insinuate that the world economy will collapse in its entirety if The Company fails at releasing Product B by Date Z.
4. In order to back up the “story,” the “reporter” throws in some statistics from here and there, plus some pseudo-facts from who knows where. You won’t be able to find the source, since news outlets just report so-called “facts” reported by other news outlets, who in turn get their facts from– yeah, you get it. It’s a vicious circle with no real beginning.
5. Add out-of-context quotes from three other “analysts” and submit to the editor.
6. Editor is busy playing Starcraft II and can’t be bothered. Clicks “Approve” on all stories in his queue.
7. Article gets released. The world prepares to meet its bitter end on Date Z.
8. Repeat.

Yeah, big problem! So how do we fix it? Easy–try this simple three-step formula.

1. Fire every “business analyst” on the planet. They’re useless.
2. Require every reporter to back-up each fact in their article with hard evidence. Not “so-and-so said such-and-such,” but real, honest-to-goodness fact. (e.g. “It rained yesterday.”)
3. Attach every editor’s job security to articles they approve. For every approved article that contains factual errors, their salary is cut by 5%.

Done.

I’m to the point where I’m just going to stop reading the news. Life’s better without it, anyway…