It’s hardly been a good week for Samsung. Not only has the company been forced to backtrack on its Galaxy Tab sales figures, admitting it was counting vendor shipments rather than end-user purchases, but return rates are also said to be far higher than expected. Considering the Galaxy Tab has been the poster child of Android slates so far, it’s an embarrassing showing against the nigh-unstoppable Apple iPad. Question is, was it Froyo that scuppered the Tab – a smartphone OS asked to do tablet duties it simply couldn’t fulfil – or is 7-inches simply the wrong size? And, with Honeycomb fast approaching, can Google’s new OS turn the tide?
It’s fair to say that Froyo – Android 2.2 – was never intended for tablets; even Google confirmed that. Back when we first reviewed the Galaxy Tab we praised Samsung for the work it had done on creating custom apps for the slate, replacing the native calendar, address book and other software to suit the 7-inch display and 1024 x 600 resolution. It went some way to disguise the feeling that the Tab was an oversized phone, certainly, though it was nowhere near perfect.
Still, we’ve seen a gradual flow of tablet-centric apps for Android, including some high profile launches from the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. They’ve targeted Tab owners and borrowed design cues from iPad apps to make the most of the resolution, carving out a 7-inch niche where even Google didn’t think there was potential.
However, to paraphrase Jurassic Park, just because we can, doesn’t necessarily mean we should. In the most recent SlashGear poll we asked readers to vote for what tablet screen size they were most interested in, and – as of writing – a full 50-percent of over 3,000 respondents told us they were looking for a 10-inch scale slate. In contrast, a little over a quarter preferred a 7-inch model, like the Galaxy Tab (or, indeed, RIM’s BlackBerry PlayBook).
Now, we didn’t ask for justifications of each selection, so we can’t say exactly why more people prefer a larger slate than a smaller one, but there are some common reasons we’ve been hearing since the Tab was first rumored. One is a basic preference for bigger-scale web browsing, with smaller tablets not perceived as offering a big enough leap in screen real-estate over a smartphone. Another is portability; while the Galaxy Tab can fit into a coat pocket (or even your jeans pocket, if you’re not a fan of skinny fit), how many people actually do take it out with them?
The absence of phone support undermined Samsung, with carrier wariness of potentially cannibalized handset sales leaving North American Tabs unable to make regular voice calls. Whether the target audience for an Android tablet – more likely, perhaps, to already have a smartphone – would bother carrying both around sapped some of the slate’s portability potential. We’ll have to wait until European sales and return figures for the Tab emerge, given versions there allowed for voice calls and thus it could fully replace a cellphone, to see what sort of impact that artificial crippling had.
Should Samsung have waited, or avoided the contentious 7-inch size altogether? It’s perhaps telling that, of all the big-name Android slates launched at CES 2011 last month, the vast majority had displays in the 10-inch range. Dell’s Streak 7 mimicked the Galaxy Tab, but with an 800 x 480 display that’s rightly being criticized in reviews; it also misses out on Honeycomb, at launch anyway, despite having a dual-core Tegra 2 processor at its heart.
The others – Motorola’s 10-inch XOOM, LG’s G-Slate with what’s believed to be an 8.9-inch screen – plumped for more direct iPad-rivalling scale, and indeed Samsung is expected to bring a 10-inch Galaxy Tab, with Honeycomb in its sights, to Mobile World Congress in just a few weeks time. From what we’ve seen of Android 3.0 so far, it’s a vast improvement over previous iterations when it comes to accommodating a big touchscreen. It’ll work on 7-inchers, of course, just like it will work on smartphone-scale devices, but it’s pretty clear Google had 10-inch tablets in mind throughout development.
We’ll know more after Google’s Honeycomb event tomorrow, where the Motorola XOOM is expected to take center stage, and with the Android team expected to outline not only what makes 3.0 special but the longer-term vision for the platform. Honeycomb on the Galaxy tab could well be the reboot the 7-inch slate needs.
One of my favorite cities in the US is New Orleans. I was originally introduced to this city when I had to go there on business some 20 years ago and fell in love with its people, food and culture. I take two weeks each year and designate them as eating holidays and, while one week may take place in Asia or Europe, the other week almost exclusively is in New Orleans. This city is known for its wonderful food scene with great dishes like Oyster Po Boys, red beans and rice, gumbo, jambalaya and the mufaletta and my favorite, a N’awlins crawfish feed.
It is also the home of Paul Prudhomme, who put Cajun cooking on the map after he left New Orelans most famous restaurant, Commanders Palace. His replacement, Emeril Lagasse has gone on to become one of the most famous chefs in America thanks to the Food Network, and his great restaurants in New Orleans have helped refine that region’s cuisine.
But what New Orleans is most known for is the Birth of Jazz. As a kid I was always drawn to the TV when Louis Armstrong was playing or when I heard Billy Holiday or Mahalia Jackson singing. But I did not really get a serious appreciation of the history of Jazz and the contribution Armstrong and a legion of early Jazz greats like Scott Joplin, Sidney Bechet, Fats Waller, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker, Count Basie, Miles Davis and a multitude of others have had on every type of music from the blues to modern day rock and even rap.
That appreciation came when I watched Ken Burns’ PBS special on Jazz and then bought the DVD collection of this special for myself to go back to and watch on my own time. This is a wonderful labor of love that PBS and Burns have given us and anyone interested in music history should watch it sometime in their lifetime.
Now there is a new application for the iPad called the History of Jazz [iTunes link], an Interactive Timeline that takes full advantage of the iPad’s full media capabilities and shows how the iPad and tablets can deliver a completely new way to interact with content. The program is laid out so that there are dates tied to each phase of Jazz’ history starting with Scott Joplin and Buddy Bolden in the 1890’s. In this section you learn that ragtime began as a dance and was the music of the red light districts of America. It highlights these Jazz pioneers and then links you to You Tube videos that either highlight the music of that time, or in the case of later stages where video of these Jazz greats exist, show them actually performing some of their greatest hits. I especially loved watching Louis Armstrong doing “When the Saints Go Marching In” or Fats Waller doing “Your Feet’s Too Big”.
Each timeline segment of Jazz is highlighted by great examples of the musicians and music that defined each period covered. It even has a section on what they call Future Jazz greats and highlights Joshua Redman doing “Jazz Crimes” and a performance of Sherik’s Syncopated Taint Septet’ “ Live @ Easy Street.”
And at $9.99 it is a steal. This is not in any way trying to be a comprehensive history of Jazz. But you do get a wonderful short history of Jazz and some of the iconic music performances helps the history of Jazz come alive and gives people a better appreciation of the impact Jazz has had on the music scene around the world.
Video games are more like movies than ever before. Studios are spending boatloads of cash to get epic games on store shelves, and along the way, they’re making stories more engaging and dramatic. A key component in a developer’s ability to create a more cinematic experience is the use of cutscenes. Just about every game nowadays starts out with a cutscene to break gamers into the title and ends with a cutscene to close out the story. Most titles also have scenes sprinkled throughout to add a bit more color.
I’ve always been fond of cutscenes. I enjoy the opportunity to learn more about characters than I otherwise would without cutscenes, and I typically find them useful for relaxing my hands or running to the kitchen to get a drink between the action.
But there is a limit to what I’m comfortable sitting through.
As anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid titles knows, cutscenes can be a nightmare. Games in that franchise make you sit for an inordinate chunk of time listening to characters interact on topics you just don’t care about in most cases.
I’m fine with the few seconds, and can even live with a cutscene that lasts a few minutes. But once a game hits the 10-minute threshold, I’ve checked out. And I’m left wondering why I didn’t just watch the shows I had DVR’d rather than sit through the typically boring cutscene.
Realizing that, I wasn’t too happy to hear that Dragon Age 2 might be overrun with cutscenes. In fact, the BBFC in the UK revealed this week that the title will have 103 minutes of cutscenes when it launches.
Maybe it’s just me, but having 103 minutes of cutscenes in a video game sounds excessive.
When I play a game, I’ve made the conscious decision to not watch a movie or television show. I’ve decided I want to do something active while I sit on the couch rather than shovel popcorn into my mouth. I don’t want to think that I’ll have the opportunity to actually play Dragon Age 2 and then get stuck sitting through several cutscenes as the finite amount of time I have each night to play a video game ticks and tocks away.
If Dragon Age 2 had about 30 to 40 minutes of scenes, I’d be happy. But once a title hits over an hour and goes to nearly two hours, I’m annoyed.
Believe it or not, I’m not impatient. I simply feel that nearly two hours of cinematic content over the course of the several hours the game lasts will take me out of the experience of playing the title. Worst of all, so much cutscene content could make the game feel choppy.
So, let’s hope Dragon Age 2 offers the ability to skip scenes. If not, I doubt I’ll complete it.
There’s a story going around today about an alleged problem in the power management unit affecting Motorola’s first two dual-core smartphones — AT&T’s Atrix 4G and Verizon’s Droid Bionic — that leads to a hodgepodge of issues: overheating, weird RF fluctuation, the list goes on. Sounds like a tragedy in the making, doesn’t it? Worst yet, the PMU problem is said to be a “major unfixable flaw that will plaque [sic] it forever.” Bummer!
But let’s back up and consider the facts here. First, as best we can tell, the sources are two posters in a HowardForums thread, one of which doesn’t even have the information firsthand — he was allegedly given the news “by someone who is testing the devices.” Furthermore, there’s really no such thing as an “unfixable” bug; you might need to peel away several layers of software and hardware to fix an issue depending on how fundamental the flaw turns out to be, but engineers have proven time and time again that “unfixable” isn’t really in their vocabulary (white paint aside, of course).
As an industry analyst for over 30 years, I have had to travel to over 55 countries for my work and spend countless hours on the road each year. And when I ended up with downtime in any location, I needed something to do other then ponder the future of tech. So early in my career I decided that I would learn about each country’s culture and especially their food.
I have been what you might call a serious foodie since I was a teenager. My uncle was White House chef to Harry Truman and he introduced me to really, really great food at a young and impressionable age. He was Filipino so his food had major Asian overtones. In fact, I am half Filipino and half German so I grew up on rice and sauerkraut and was already familiar with food diversity. Going to each country and finding what would be their top national food dish and then trying many versions of it to see which is the best has become quite a sport for me. For example, when I am in Singapore I try to find the best Chili Crab, their national dish. Or when I am in Greece, I search for the best Mousakka. Or in Japan, I try to find the best and freshest Tuna (Toro) Sushi. You get the idea.
As I work with and talk to tech executives and workers who travel a lot I find that many of them have become foodies too. And many of them have become wealthier thanks to their tech work so some even take their love of food to new levels. A great example of this is Nathan Mhyrvold, former CTO of Microsoft, who after he left Microsoft went to the Cordon Bleu Culinary school in Paris to learn more about his second love, food. He has become a master French chef and in fact, he will release a 1500 page book entitled Modernist Cuisine sometime in 2011.
I recently had a chance to attend the Fancy Food Show in San Francisco to check out what was hot in the food world, but also to see how the Internet and social media is changing the ability to market their products. This is an amazing show. Every booth had some great food to show off and in many cases, they had products for you to test. That means getting bites of the best Iberico ham (I tasted 20 of them) or taste-testing the dozens of new balsamic vinegars or even the latest and greatest in Jelly Bellies. Think of it as one giant appetizer party with hundreds of h’ordeuvres to choose from.
As I talked to the many vendors at the show, all of them told me that the Internet has dramatically changed their business. Before the Internet, most of their products were sold locally or marketed through special mailings to resellers or distributors. But thanks to the Internet, they now have a world audience for their foods, as well as the ability to market them directly to customers.
But social media has also had an important impact on the food industry. For example, stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joes use Facebook and Twitter to keep customers abreast of food trends and specials. However, where social media really shines and has actually enabled a major trend in the food business, is with food trucks. I learned at the show that food trucks are becoming a hot idea and they owe their success to Twitter. The best example of this is the Kogi Truck in Los Angeles. The Kogi Truck marries Asian food with Mexican twists. They are famous for their Korean taco that serves Korean BBQ in a taco. While the food itself is great and unique, it was not until they started using Twitter that their business really took off.
Before Twitter, they would park their truck in some crowded area and hope people would come by. But by using Twitter, they can broadcast where they will be each day and now people from all over the city come to eat there, with lines sometimes an hour long. Here in Silicon Valley, Sams Chowder Mobile is the hottest truck that also draws long lines. But we also have our own version of the Kogi Truck called Seoul On Wheels, and new ethnic entries such as the Indian themed truck Curry Up Now, a French food themed truck called Spencer On The Go, and my personal favorite, Filipino themed AdoboHobo.
And it turns out that these food trucks, thanks to Twitter, are growing by leaps and bounds. Just Google “Food Trucks” and put in your city or county and you will find a list of those in your neck of the woods. For example, I Googled Food Tucks NYC and got the great article from New York Restaurant Magazine on the 25 best food trucks in NYC.
I also heard that some of the very high-end restaurants are now using iPads to deliver their menus and especially their wine lists, with quick links to the wines pedigree and ratings. It was pretty clear from talking to these food industry folks that technology and especially social media is having a major impact on their businesses.
As for the food part of the show, I did see some interesting things here as well.
The coolest thing I saw was a picture of the Mona Lisa done in Jelly Bellies. Artist Kristen Cummings was commissioned by Jelly Belly’s to do this painting and it contains over 1500 Jelly Belly’s.
Most interesting Food trend: bacon everywhere. There was bacon-infused foods of all types, which seems a big trend and I even found it in chocolate. But the best thing I tried that was bacon related was Smoked Bacon SeaSalt. This was awesome and a little of this on any food gives it depth and of course, a hint of bacon flavoring. It’s made by Caravel Gourmet. And another favorite, Bacon Jam, which can be put on hamburgers, sandwiches and blended with balsamic vinegars and to add depth to sauces. I am a big fan of bacon and pig products so I was in hog heaven so-to-speak.
Most interesting product: When I started traveling to Japan, I often hear the word Umami, which is Japanese for the 5th taste after sweet, salty, sour and bitter and one that loosely means deliciousness. Someone has tried to create a product that delivers this Umami taste experience in something called Umami Taste #5. Check out Dean and DeLuca’s description of it and you get a sense of how it could enhance the flavor of stews, soups, pastas, etc.
On the candy front, Jelly Belly introduced something called Jelly Bean Chocolate Dips in Very Cherry flavor. Tastes just like chocolate covered cherries. Also comes in chocolate covered Orange and Coconut flavors.
This is the one show I get to cover each year that I actually look forward to, and as a certified foodie, I love the fact that I could marry my interest in tech and food into quite a fun and informative day at the Fancy Food Show.
I’m a firm believer in Google TV. I think the platform has more promise than any other software running on set-top boxes today. With the right vision and some fulfilment on promises Google has made in the past, I think it’s quite possible for the company’s platform to entirely change the way we enjoy entertainment in the living room.
But in its current form, Google TV isn’t there. Content providers aren’t playing nice with Google and running the platform in tandem with your cable provider’s DVR won’t deliver the same appeal that DISH customers enjoy. I view the software more as a proof-of-concept than a nicely thought-out implementation.
Realizing that, I just can’t see why Logitech continues to sell its Revue set-top box for a whopping $300. Yes, I know that it’s running Google TV, and the platform can do more than, say, the software running on the $99 Apple TV, but it’s clear now that the excitement everyone had about Google TV has died down. And it’s being viewed as what it really is: an under-performing entertainment platform.
As far as I’m concerned, the Logitech Revue should be selling for $150 at most. At that price, the company will be able to drum up some demand for the device, hopefully get most of its investment back, and at least have an installed base in place for when Google gets serious about its platform.
But the need for a price cut goes beyond demand.
Earlier this month, Vizio, currently the second-largest TV maker in the U.S., announced that it will offer Google TV in some of its sets going forward. In addition, reports surfaced last week claiming ARM-based Google TV devices are scheduled to launch “soon.” With the help of ARM, vendors should be able to offer lower-cost technology, pushing down the average price of Google TV products.
Logitech continues to feel pressure outside of the Google TV market, as well.
Apple announced in December that it hit 1 million unit sales of its Apple TV. The figure isn’t staggering, but it effectively highlights that the platform is catching on. And let’s face it: Logitech doesn’t enjoy the same brand recognition that Apple does.
Moreover, Roku’s set-top boxes, which can be purchased for as little as $60, continue to sell well.
So, I’m a little confused by Logitech’s insistence on maintaining its $300 price tag on the Revue. I understand that it wants to get every last dime out of its investment and I think it believes that the device will offer more value when Google updates its platform, but by then will it be too late? At least right now, the Revue is somewhat new and relevant. In a few months, it could be just another forgotten toy that failed to catch on with the mainstream.
Say what you will about Logitech and the future of home entertainment, but unless the company starts realizing that it’s not as well-positioned as it could be, and it understands that the competition is offering cheaper and more compelling alternatives, it simply won’t see success in the set-top box space.
In the video game industry, debate rages over what kind of content is appropriate for children and what is not. Some say that the interactivity of a violent game make it a potentially more dangerous activity for the average child than watching a violent film. Those on the other side of the debate say that with the vast majority of players, violent games have little impact, and the industry should not be treated differently than Hollywood.
As readers of my columns here on SlashGear know, I’m very much a supporter of the gaming industry. And I fully believe that games should be held to the same standard as films. I personally know that violent games did not make me violent when I was a child. But as for other kids, well, I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t really say for sure.
But all this talk of what’s good for kids and what’s not often leaves out a key component in that entire debate: the ESRB’s Mature rating. The Mature rating is designed to keep kids away from potentially objectionable content. Games with a Mature rating are considered suitable only for people aged 17 years or older. It’s the gaming industry’s answer to Hollywood’s R rating.
Over the weekend, I was discussing ESRB ratings with some friends who have children. I outlined for them the major differences between the ratings and talked about some games that fit into each category. After I mentioned the Mature rating and included titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops and the Grand Theft Auto series, a friend stopped me and asked me a rather interesting question: “Why 17?”
Of course, the simple answer is that the ESRB likely followed the film industry’s lead with the R rating. But the question also made me think. Is 17 really the right age for a mature-rated title? And if not, should it be higher, lower, or eliminated altogether?
It’s a question that cannot be answered so easily. Some titles, including Medal of Honor, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and several others, certainly feature content that might be objectionable to kids. But as anyone who has spent time playing mature-rated games on Xbox Live knows, the mature rating is largely ignored by younger teenagers that want to frag you as soon as you turn around. And when they do so, they usually throw off a few obscenities to make you know who did it.
However, just because younger kids are playing these games doesn’t mean that the Mature rating’s age requirement is too strict. Quite the contrary, it might just mean that few people care.
At the same time, how would upping the age requirement affect the industry? It’s likely not something that teenagers would like to see happen, and considering 18 years old is the age at which people can go off to war, having the Mature rating’s age requirement any higher than that wouldn’t make much sense.
And then there is the question of whether or not we need age requirements at all. Should a parent be able to decide what’s right for their kids and what’s not, regardless of age? Should kids themselves have the ability to make their own decisions about a particular game, even if the title they want to play is Call of Duty: Black Ops and they’re 12 years old?
It’s hard to say. And in the end, it likely depends on the individual. But like the movie industry, the video game business likely has a responsibility to impose some kind of limitation on kids when objectionable material is readily available. It’s just debatable if age, and especially 17 years of age, should be used to judge whether or not a child can handle a respective video game’s content.
So, let’s hear from you. Is 17 the right cut-off for mature-rated games?
Another Facebook change, another privacy uproar. Read the headlines and you might have thought the social network was planning to open the books on private cellphone numbers and home addresses to any advertiser willing to slip them some cash, rather than adding some more sharing options along with the usual granular control over who gets to see what of your digital details. Unsurprisingly Facebook froze its plans pending a reassessment of its privacy controls; unfortunately, nobody is taking Facebook users – and the online community in general – to task over taking some responsibility for what they share.
If you haven’t been following the story, here’s the situation in a nutshell. Facebook announced on Friday that it was planning to add address and mobile number to the personal information that could be shared with applications, websites and advertisers. As with other personal details, the degree to which that data was accessible would be managed under each user’s permissions settings: everything from a come-and-get-me open pipe to a complete block on anything being revealed. Facebook billed it as a way to “easily share your address and mobile phone with a shopping site to streamline the checkout process, or sign up for up-to-the-minute alerts on special deals directly to your mobile phone.”
Don’t get me wrong; I’m under no illusion that Facebook is doing this for altruistic reasons. Making online purchases quicker is undoubtedly handy to those who actually click through Facebook adverts, but for the social network itself it’s all about making money from its most valuable asset: its millions of registered users. Just like with a free newspaper, Facebook makes its money by showing you adverts, and it can use your personal information to tailor those ads more appropriately. Access to personal contact details, meanwhile, is even more valuable.
However, just because there’s profit to be made for Facebook, it doesn’t mean this is either bad for the user or a sign of Evil Big Business taking advantage of the general public. We manage the degrees to which we disclose personal information all the time, long before Facebook arrived and gave us a simple privacy settings page to work with. Every time you avoid giving your phone number to a door-to-door charity worker, tick the no-junk-mail box on a bank form or refuse to give your address to someone you just met at a bar, you’re exercising your own, personal privacy filter.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. After all, it only takes a quick glance at sites like Lamebook (often NSFW) to see that many Facebook users have problems with over-sharing, accidentally making public posts out of what were meant to be private messages, and generally forgetting who out of their friends and family can read what they’re saying. Maybe Facebook does have some intrinsic responsibility to shepherd its members through the difficult journey that is online life; perhaps the privacy pages really won’t be complete until there’s color coding, pop-up warnings and a virtual cash register showing just how much you’ve lined Mark Zuckerberg’s pocket.
This constant push-me-pull-me with Facebook does users no favours. Every time the privacy patrol scream, and Facebook backtracks, it reinforces the idea that the site itself is solely responsible – should be responsible – for making safe use of the information we share online. Don’t get me wrong, if Facebook was looking to sneak in a “we can sell your identify” clause into the T&Cs, that’s something worth shouting about. When, though, we muster the same amount of vitriol for sharing options that already have safeguards – safeguards that satisfactorily protect our email address and other details – it looks more like abdication of responsibility. We want to trust Facebook do “do the right thing” – based on our own interpretation of what “the right thing” is, exactly – so that we won’t have to. We can spend our time looking up old crushes, posting photos of ourselves looking fierce in clubs, and commenting on videos of cats.
Privacy is important, but the responsibility begins at the individual level. Just as you don’t hand out your address to strangers in the street, maybe giving it to every website that asks isn’t all that sensible either. Relying on other people, or companies, to protect us universally is a naivety we abandon before adulthood in the real world, yet something many seem determined to cling to online. That’s before you get to the thorny issue of lost or stolen data. In the end, it’s your life, your number, your face: it’s up to you whether it’s an open book.
2011 may be the year of the tablet, but as a segment it’s still painfully immature. Our hands-on with ASUS’ Eee Slate EP121 last week triggered the usual arguments, dismissing the 12.1-inch tablet out of hand because of its perceived “old” technology. Admittedly, there are plenty of points where the EP121 could fall short: ASUS reckon users will see up to 8hrs runtime, which seems hopelessly ambitious for a relatively slimline slate with a Core i5 processor, and the display was frustratingly glossy. Still, the dual-mode hybrid touchscreen is its crowning glory for those who understand that there’s more to a stylus than most – Steve Jobs included – would have you believe.
While the EP121 will happily let you stab at Windows 7 with your finger – or two, since capacitive multitouch is supported – it’ll also let you whip out the included active stylus and get far more precise. Art apps are the obvious beneficiary, with the Eee Slate turned into a self-contained Wacom Cintiq, but there’s also digital handwriting recognition for a surprisingly accurate alternative to onscreen keyboards. Float the stylus nib above the screen and you can move the pointer without making a selection, for hover functionality; there’s also pressure recognition, so the harder you sketch, the thicker the line.
Unfortunately, most users have only ever come across two types of touchscreen: the resistive panels common on pre-iPhone smartphones and the capacitive screens Apple’s handset helped popularize. Active digitisers are something most people are unfamiliar with, so they associate a stylus with a dumb plastic toothpick, something that’s most likely a compromise for undersized on-screen icons. Throw in the generally underwhelming experience of resistive touchscreens on commercial devices – in markets on self-checkout machines, for instance – and you can see how it could be boiled down to a two-player battle in which capacitive technology pulls ahead.
Microsoft isn’t helping things with software, either. Devices with active digitisers – or hybrid pen/touch displays – generally run Windows, and the Microsoft OS still falls well short when it comes to tablet usability. It’s been more than eight years since Windows XP Tablet Edition launched, and while the handwriting and speech recognition engines have improved behind the scenes, visible tablet accommodation to the end-user has barely evolved.
Ironically, Microsoft has had the answer – or at least a potentially significant part of it – under their nose all the time, in the shape of OneNote and the team responsible for it. Billed as a digital notetaking app (which supports searches of handwritten notes, among other things), OneNote is actually a great example of how Windows and stylus control can work together in a way far more intuitive and flexible than putting finger to screen.
For a while, with the Courier project, it seemed like the company had recognized its strengths and was set to take advantage of them. Rather than the “must do everything your desktop does” attitude that infects current Windows tablets – and leaves them mixing pen, finger, keyboard and mouse paradigms and failing at them all – Courier looked set to do one core set of skills very well, something that no other current tablet offered. Rather than ASUS’ Eee Pad models, which bill themselves as ideal for content-creation as well as consumption and then deliver that by merely bolting on a physical keyboard, the active stylus would have allowed for precise digital handwriting and sketching – with pressure sensitivity, angle recognition and more.
No, perhaps it wouldn’t be the best device to run World of Warcraft on, or to do your company spreadsheets, but Microsoft appeared to be finally saying that some things were best left to your desktop or notebook. Courier could have been another step on Microsoft’s path to an Apple-style ecosystem of devices and services – all held together by its beloved cloud – and offering not just a facsimile of the iOS platform but a legitimate alternative based on something Steve Jobs refuses to countenance: that a stylus can still be a legitimate input option for a mobile device.
This isn’t meant to be an eulogy to Courier, but nor is the stylus ready for its obituary. The iPad has made great strides in popularising the tablet segment, but it’s also left Apple’s rivals scrabbling to create me-too alternatives that offer buzzwords like “content creation” with little more than a half-hearted nod from the spec sheet. The irony is that Microsoft is probably in the best starting place to take advantage of that, and yet seems the most reluctant to use its position.
The EP121 is far from perfect, but it’s also no iPad-clone and for that ASUS deserves some credit. The stylus-savvy will recognize it for its strengths and make up their own minds whether the hybrid display and Windows 7′s naivety balance each other out. They won’t have much in the way of choice, though; look at the tablets announced at CES 2011 this month, and you’ll see the vast majority avoid the stylus like the plague, in preference to solely finger control. Unfortunately, until the tablet segment matures enough to countenance anything other than another would-be “iPad killer”, the stylus will continue to get its unfair reputation.
A few days ago a fellow SlashGear columnist Don Reisinger elaborated on how his Kinect was collecting dust. If I put myself in Don’s shoes I can relate to his article and his questioning of whether or not the Kinect can meet the needs of hard core gamers and a hard core gaming experience. I, however, in coming at it from a different angle, have a completely different experience with my Kinect.
Before I go much further, you need to know that for all intents and purposes I am a hard core gamer. I have grown up spending not an insignificant amount of time being entertained by video games. My father, being a long time analyst in the industry, worked on an early project with Nintendo and their first console. He brought one home during the project and I was hooked.
I’ve owned every major fixed and mobile gaming console since, and I can say video games are my guilty pleasure. That being said, after getting married my video game addiction became harder to maintain. To quote Brodie from Mallrats “Hell hath no fury like a woman’s scorn for SEGA.” How true this quote is, as video games – or more specifically me playing video games – instantly changes her generally cheery disposition.
In order to get my fill I had to start playing after my wife and kids went to bed; I would sneak out into the living room and get my fix. This is why when the Wii first came out I saw a way that me, my wife and even my kids could all play video games together. I was quoted when the Nintendo’s motion gaming console first launched as saying that “the Wii was the board game of a new generation” and I still feel I am right. However, even though the Wii was inviting for people of all ages, it still required the primary barrier to entry to gaming, the remote.
Granted it is a simplified and more intuitive remote but it is a remote none-the-less. My then five and three year olds still had trouble using it. I noticed as well that there was still a slight learning curve for those who have never used a remote to play video games. This is where the Kinect came in.
Since having the Kinect in my home I have found that as a family we use it a great deal more, even more than our Wii. My now seven and five year olds have taken to it and are able to compete and play without barriers or frustration. When they have friends over it is one of the first things they want to show off and play. Friends of theirs who have never played video games pick it right up and it’s instantly a party hit. I’m not sure our experience would be the same if all we had was the Wii.
I personally doubt the Wii or the Kinect will ever appeal or replace the experience of a hard core gamer. I do however believe that both platforms are fulfilling the job they were created to fulfill. Namely, making it easy for non-gamers to start gaming by eliminating the complexity of a controller filled with buttons.
For me, what the Wii failed at for us as a family the Kinect succeeded at. I now have a way to engage in interactive entertainment with all the members of my household. So unlike Don I’m not looking forward to developers trying to figure out how to appeal to me as a hard core gamer. I am looking forward to developers creating new and innovative ways for me and my family to jump, swing, dance, kick and more all while playing video games together as a family.
