8 posts tagged “apple”
It certainly seems that as I distance myself from my early 20s, technology has decided to go and make it hard on me. It's made me reconsider the reasons why our older generations don't quite understand e-mail and the internet. Maybe my dad doesn't use his cell phone very much not because of a lack of understanding it, but because it has detected his age and decided not to work properly.
My MacBook Pro is in the shop again. Same symptoms: it turns on like normal--chimes, keyboard lights up, everything--except there's no signal to the monitor. Or any monitor, for that matter (I have an external here at work, and the Apple "genius" tried it on his). I can turn on VoiceOver, hear the robot describe to me the log-in screen. I can even log in, but get no picture.
I won't say it was a painless and quick process, but we are now in possession of two iPhone 3G phones and a hefty new two-year contract. We bought them at an Apple Store, and for some reason, I feel better about that than the rather unfriendly employees at AT&T. Porting Cyndi's number over proved more difficult than it should have been, but we eventually got it.
Later, I'll give my impressions of the phone itself and the App Store. My initial ones are very good. But now, I'm exhausted and done with lines. At least until the Dark Knight comes out...
RoughlyDrafted has an interesting article that details "SproutCore," Apple's solution to building rich internet apps that doesn't rely on Adobe Flash or Silverlight. The article is heavily biased toward Apple, so take that into consideration while reading, but it brings up a few interesting points: namely between the different approaches Apple and Google are taking (open) to the ones Microsoft and Adobe are (closed, proprietary).
With WWDC in full swing and Jobsy's keynote out of the way, you knew it was coming. I'll keep it short and sweet since I can count the number of people that care on one hand.
It's no secret that the living room is the next battleground in the world of home entertainment. Microsoft and Sony are both making plays to be the all-in-one solution to your living room entertainment needs. The PS3 and the Xbox 360 are posturing to be more than just game systems, but full multimedia beasts: listen to music, surf the internet, even download movies (rumored to be on the way).
Now, it appears that Apple may want in on the action. They're currently developing something called the iTV, which was originally designed to stream downloaded content from your computer to a box that would hook up to your TV. It's a work around to get those television programs to play on something that doesn't require you to sit in a computer chair to enjoy. Initially, it seemed like a lot of trouble just to get things to be watched where they should logically be watched. Well, then came the rumors that it was going to do more than that. Maybe a hard drive? Will it double as a DVR? How great would that be?!
Now, Apple is encroaching on the realm of the digital home. Prudential analyst Jesse Tortora seems to believe that in order for Apple to see long term success against the likes of Microsoft and Sony, adding gaming to the mix may be necessary. "There are no technical limitations to this capability, and Microsoft is already aggressively wooing the movie studios," he writes, "This could adversely impact Apple’s iTunes Movie download business longer-term, along with its iTV and video iPod sales."
Is this something that Apple should realistically pursue? It seems like a pretty frightening path to follow, especially considering that Microsoft has posted nothing but annual losses in it's video game division since the original release -- fiscal year 2006's losses to the tune of $1.26 billion (src: Next Generation: "How much is too much?"). Interestingly, that article reminded me that Microsoft's original reasons for breaking into the video game market were very close to where Apple finds itself now: afraid of being locked out of a potential digital lifestyle revolution.
So does Apple need to pull a Microsoft? My gut says no, but they haven't always made the best business decisions.
According to Engadget,
the rumored "iPhone" (an Apple-branded phone) could be released as
early as this month! I have heard this rumor bandied about so much that
I'm not even excited anymore. Granted, I most likely will be once it's finally announced, but who knows when that'll be?
According to the internet,
Apple is running out of time with this thing. Competing manufacturers
are jumping on the cell-phone-as-music-player bandwagon with phones
such as LG's Chocolate and Sony Ericsson's Walkman phones. If they don't act now, they could miss out.
I'm still a little puzzled by my own fascination with the music
playing cell phone. I mean, I have a nano, it's small, it holds as many
songs as I want. Why do I even care whether my phone can play songs or
not? And yet, when researching the Chocolate phone, I found myself
googling "Chocolate" and "itunes." (FYI - There's no support between
the two and the Verizon version of Chocolate doesn't recogonize AAC
files.)
Anyway, for those of you that still care, "iPhone" may make its
surprising debut this month, or next year. Don't think I'll be holding
my breath on this one.
Basically, you need to have Nike+ shoes and an iPod Nano.
Then you buy a little receiver from Apple or Nike that lets the two
things talk to one another. The iPod suddenly acts like a pedometer,
measuring distance, speed, calories burned -- all the usual stuff.
Additionally, it'll send verbal updates through the earphones at
regular intervals that I assume you're able to set.
What's even cooler is that after a run, you can sync the Nano up
with your computer and it downloads the run data and allows you to
analyze and compare it with your progress. No more boring excel
spreadsheets. Like all things Apple, your data will be presented in all
its round edged, bright colored brilliance of OS X.
Yes, I'm excited about this, but only because certain factors have
aligned in my favor. First and foremost, I happened upon a
complimentary iPod Nano, which saves me a good $200. Secondly, I
desperately need new running shoes, and this seems like a good excuse
as any to buy Nikes. And finally, I just got a raise, so I have an
event better excuse to spend money on myself!
Back in the height of the Pat-and-Kenji-running-phenomenon, Pat
bought a pedometer (I asked him what it was so I could link it, but he
forgot the brand). Basically, it was a watch and shoe sensor combo
thing that does essentially all the things the Nike Sports Kit (the
official name of that thing) does and cost around $150, if I remember
correctly. Considerably less than the $330+ Apple/Nike's solution is
($200 for the Nano, $100 for the shoe, and $30 for the kit). That's
even too much for me to justify, but like I said, circumstances being
what they are, I'm pretty excited.
I'll report back on all the bubbly widgets that this thing is sure to offer.
