iPhone 4

Well frankly, I'm a little surprised, and then I'm not.  The iPhone 4 is certainly a massive improvement on the current iPhone 3G S, but to me in a few respects it is still a disappointment.  Main features: "Retina Display", A4 Chip, 5MP camera with LED Flash and 720p video recording, 6-axis Gyro control, front facing VGA camera, 802.11N wi-fi, huge battery, and iPhone OS 4 (iOS 4 as it's now being called).  I don't really know much more about iOS 4 than what I saw at WWDC.  It finally does multi-tasking (only took 4 tries), has a unified email inbox which is a nice feature, adds the ability to create app folders, and they've actually added Bing as a default search option (irony...).  The "retina display" is an interesting piece of technology to be sure, but seems a little bit unnecessary to me.  Simply put, it's an extremely high resolution, 3.5" (BOO) screen.  It has a pixel density of 326dpi, which Apple says is beyond the human eye's limit of distinction (meaning you can't see the individual pixels), and a resolution of 960x640.  I'll be honest here, I've played with an HTC HD2, which has a 4.3" screen and an 800x480 resolution, and I could barley tell there were pixels unless I held it all the way up to my face.  So I don't much see the point of a screen with a higher pixel density than we can even see.  But hey, who's going to complain about higher resolution?  Apparently you'll also be able to edit your 720p video recordings with a new iMovie app, but not for free of course.  The phone will have the ability to video chat, from iPhone 4 to iPhone 4, and over wi-fi only until the carrier's networks can handle the extra load.  The eBook reader from the iPad also makes its way over to the iPhone, as well as Netflix and Guitar Hero.  The A4 chip in the iPad clocks in at 1GHz, with a separate GPU for the higher demands of a tablet computer.  Although we know the A4 chip is used in the iPhone 4, no one knows what it will be clocked at, nor what GPU Apple chose to pair with it.  I'd say it's a safe bet that it will clock in at 1GHz as well though, given the plethora of Snapdragon devices that have come about recently, because it will need to compete, and have extra power to multi-task.  I'm not going to bash this guy yet until I've had a chance to see for myself if it's worth all the hype, and I will probably as soon as they're out, so I'll reserve judgment until then!

Things the PSP could improve on

Since I wrote an article on what I believe the NDS could improve upon in future generations, I think it's only fair to do the same for the PSP.  There have been a few iterations of the system, so I'll start with talking a bit about them.  The PSP 1000 was the first, and the 2000 and 3000 came after it.  The 2000 model introduced a new shell for the system that was substantially thinner than the 1000 model, causing it to be dubbed the PSP Slim.  The 3000 shares the shell of the 2000, but gains a new screen said by Sony to be better outside than the original, and a built-in microphone.  The screen itself has double the color gamut, double the response time, and nearly five times the contrast ratio.  Put simply, it's a noticeable improvement.  An entirely new version of the PSP has also recently been released called the PSP Go.  This version features a sliding design that keeps the controls hidden until needed, and a slightly smaller screen with the same resolution.  The other main difference between the Go and Slim is memory.  The Go has a built in 16GB of flash memory and an M2 slot for expansion while the Slim features only an MS Pro Duo slot.  The Go also ditches the UMD drive in favor of download only games. Now as I only have a PSP 3000 running 6.20 firmware, I can only speculate on what could be improved based on my experience here.  From what I have discovered, I think one of the biggest updates is obviously going to be the screen resolution, which can easily be doubled, and the graphics chip, which can easily be bumped up to 1GHz in these current times.  I'm honestly a fan of the slider design, back in high school I designed my own handheld, but I think the controls need a refresh.  I think that keeping one screen with fantastic graphics is fine but make it a touchscreen for easier control inside the games and apps and whatnot, a capacitive touchscreen.  I'm also a fan of having a large amount of built-in memory to store games on, but I think that a handheld should have some sort of cartridges or discs in order to play games across systems.  It would be horrible to lose all the games you'd downloaded if your PSP say, fell in the pool...  Shoot with flash memory being so cheap now, put the games on memory cards.  And to make all the fanboys happy, add a second analog stick to make shooters much much easier :-)  Now on to the software.  Sony has done a good job here, there are a lot of features you won't find in most handhelds, including a web browser, Skype, PSN store, media player, internet radio, remote play with PS3, and a digital comic reader.  The XMB bar is also a great UI.  The only thing I wish, and I know it'll never happen because it's Sony, but the PSP could really benefit from being open source.  It could easily run a version of Linux, or even Android as I believe Sony now has a relationship with Google.  Having a faster processor would also allow for a more functional web browser with support for Flash, making Android look even more probable.  Several companies have shown how easily Android can be skinned to work for whatever applications they need, so lets get to it Sony!

How does this work?

I put my car up on a lift at school today so that all of us in class could look at the suspension since we're learning about it, and so that my teacher could look at the power steering setup.  While we were all standing around it one of the gentlemen was leaning against my car.  My quote was "Boy, get your hands off my car!"  Now, I'm a humor filled, sarcastic person and that phrase coming from me is obviously just my humorous, sarcastic way of saying, "Dude, don't lean on my car."  I thought this was an easier, less jerkish way of saying that so I jokingly said it.  Apparently the word "Boy" used in that context is degrading to some people.  Well, anyone who knows me knows I am in no way racist and in every way sarcastic, so no one I know would take offense to me being an idiot, but this guy was livid.  My teacher explained that the term was degrading to him and I simply said that it didn't make sense.  I mean he is a boy, as I understand it, so I don't see how calling someone who is a boy, a boy, is degrading.  I'm told it's almost like using the N word though.  Now I apologize for offending the guy, and I'll be sure that he knows it was meant to be all in good fun tomorrow after I'm cooled off a bit.  He also proceeded to say that had be been his younger self he would have clocked me.  That's what really set me off, and so I told him that when it was his $26,000 car that he was leaning against I wouldn't say a word.  I just want it to be known that I would have used the exact same phrase had it been anyone else leaning on my car, and had it been a girl, substitute that in for "boy."  I mean honestly we're all grown and in college, if you can't take some sarcasm by now you need to lighten up.  And most importantly, don't lean on my daggum car!  We've ALL been told that by our teacher!   I wouldn't want to pay for a new paint job on a brand new car that's for sure.

Nintendo DS Improvements

In light of Nintendo's upcoming 3DS handheld, I thought I might ponder some improvements that could be made on the current 25 versions of the NDS.  Nothing new or groundbreaking here, just my personal opinions.  I can't wait to see what E3 (2 weeks!) has in store, but I think I'll have a hard time keeping up with my posting at the rate they typically release stuff at this conference.  That's tangential to my primary story however, we'll get there in due time.  Let's start with the DS.  I own two of them, the original, and the Lite.  Between the two, the Lite marks a considerable improvement over the first, or the Phat, as it is referred to by some.  It's smaller, lighter, brighter, and altogether more pleasing to the eye.  After that, the DSi was introduced, with two cameras, web browsing, downloadable games, and an all new firmware on top of a thinner, lighter still frame and 3.25" screens (up from the 3" screens on the Phat and Lite).  Now, right before the official announcement of the 3DS, we are treated to a new version of the DSi, sporting everything the current i model has, but in a much bigger size.  4.2" screens are what this behemoth offers, Nintendo says to cater to the older crowd of DS gamers that have had a hard time reading text on the smaller screens of past iterations.  Now's when I state what I would like to see improved on the next generation of dual screen handhelds from Nintendo.  I personally think that the idea in and of itself is a great one, there are several games I love to play on the DS, but like many Nintendo systems, the best games come from Nintendo themselves, that is to say the games that utilize the touch-screen the most, and the most graphically taxing, showing what the DS is capable of pushing to those 2 screens.  In my opinion, making the screens bigger is a great idea, but leaving the resolution at a miserable 256x192 is pathetic.  It's understandable to leave it at this stage in the handheld's lifecycle, but I'm talking about the future here.  If we're going to be playing games on two 4.2" screens, they better at least have the resolution of the PSP's screen of similar size, which is nearly double that.  Also the same size screen on the HTC HD2 is nearly double the resolution of the PSP!  Clearly Nintendo is a bit behind on that note, but I'm sure they've noticed.  The graphics processors are also severely outdated at this point, clocking in at nearly 100MHz and 80MHz respectively, when we have feature-phones with 500MHz processors now (there is one in my desk drawer).  The graphics are by no means bad, there are some fantastic looking games on the DS (Metroid and Mario 64 I'm looking at you).  I don't think anyone would object to GameCube level graphics in a handheld, and I know they could do it.  Nintendo has a habit of not focusing on performance as much as gameplay, but their games typically tax their own systems the most, and it shows on this system and on the Wii as well.  Again I'm not talking about changing the current system at this point, and I know that with the lifecycle game systems generally have, they are outdated before they are released, but Nintendo should at least be working to put itself ahead at the point of release.  A capacitive touch-screen would also be a welcome, much more finger-friendly touch to future iterations.  Now I applaud Nintendo for keeping themselves at a point where the actual game-play is more important than graphics, and I love to play most of their games no matter how they look.  That's one thing they know how to do, and do well.  I'm not sure what to think about the idea of a 3D handheld, not to mention a dual screen handheld, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't interested in seeing what they've come up with, and how it will treat all the games released to this point.  All in all, I'm pleased with the DS that I own, and the games that I have as well, but I think that Nintendo should be working on the next generation and making it competitive on all fronts instead of releasing so many different versions of the same thing.  Do it right the first time and we don't have to have three different versions on store shelves at once!  P.S. - Keep the throw switch from the Lite, not the power button that you can press accidentally!

Just to Clarify

 Only iPhone pic I have :-)

I've noticed that my blog so far (yes it's only 2 posts, but still...) makes it seem like I am an Apple hater.  I'm really not!  I don't hate Apple as a company on the whole, I just hate some of the decisions they make.  I love that they took what the cell phone was, and turned it into something completely new and exciting.  They started a revolution, and there is now some excellent competition in the smartphone market going on, which is a win for everyone in my book.  The company has some good ideas, I'm just not convinced that they explore every option before they say yay or nay to some things.  I mean the iPad running iPhone OS?  That's not the greatest decision ever made, it was an easy one though.  That way they didn't have to create anything new and groundbreaking, which is a smart decision, just not one that made tons of people very happy.  The iPad in itself is a great idea, I just wish there was more reason to want to own one.  It really should be something "magical", not more of the same, just on a bigger screen.  I just wanted to make my position clear, I am not against the technology that Apple has brought us, I just don't see them as holy and wonderful either.  They make a good, solid product, and like everything ever made, they can always get better.  Open Source would be good too  :-)

NBC and Time Warner tell Apple "No Thanks"

"...several large media companies, including Time Warner and NBC Universal, told Apple they won't retool their extensive video libraries to accommodate the iPad, arguing that such a reformatting would be expensive and not worth it because Flash dominates the Web."

Score 1 for Flash :-) These two media giants refusing to cater to Apple's controlling ways means they will continue to use Flash for all their video needs. This means that the TV shows and videos published by NBC and Time Warner will not be accessible on the iPad. Poor Apple, just when they thought they had it in the bag! The article, published by the New York Post, goes on the state that media companies are growing more resistant to Apple thanks the a slew of new devices on the way from Dell and HP that will likely include an ACTUAL full web browsing experience (meaning Flash included). Also that Apple should be keeping an eye on the newly announced Google TV, which will let users stream free video content to their HDTVs.

Source:  New York Post

First Post - The Apple Conundrum

Alright here's the deal. Apple is a control freak. They know it, but they keep trying to make excuses up. Now, I first off want to say that I'm not trying to bash the iPhone or iPod Touch themselves, I think they're great devices that have huge potential. The iPhone changed many perceptions about what a cell phone could be, and it does a great job at most things that it advertises it can do (even if it's a little late to the game on some things, *cough cough cut and paste cough*). I want to bash Apple as a company because I swear, and Steve Jobs is the most popular example here, the company is run by a bunch of 5 year olds who don't want anyone else to play with their toys. I mean let's explore the main topic of debate between Apple and everyone else. Flash. Yeah I'm bringing Flash up. Adobe has come out and said on numerous occasions that they would love to have their mobile version (10.1) coded to work on the iPhone as well as every other major smartphone OS on the market right now. Well Apple said that was all well and good but they needed to see proof of concept first, i.e. a smoothly working example. Well look no further Apple, Adobe has their latest version of the beta bundled with the newest release of Android OS version 2.2 (Froyo). Not only does it integrate fully with the on-board web-browser Google provides, it runs smooth as butter. Seriously. Looks like a desktop running it. That's not good enough for Apple though, no they've invented new reasons why they won't allow Adobe's great product to be introduced into iPhone OS. Their first main reason is because they say that HTML5 is the future of the internet, and Flash is just a poorly coded prerequisite.

"New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too)."

I'm not going to say that HTML5 is not the future of the web, but let's all admit, we have a LONG way to go before we get there. RIGHT NOW Flash is a major part of the browsing experience, and to not see that Apple must just be ignorant. The second main reason they say is

"While Adobe's Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system."

My first reaction to this statement was "Hypocritical much there Stevie?" Who dictates what can go on your baby iPhone? Yeah that's what I thought. Apple does. Any and every app has to be approved by Apple before it gets submitted to the App Store. Seems like a very closed system Apple… Adobe allows anyone who has the software to create Flash applications, including games, so while it's not exactly open source, it's quite a bit more open than Apple… So let me now make my main point. Apple will refuse to allow Flash on the iPhone as long as Adobe is the one who controls it. If they let owners put Flash on their babies, Apple could no longer control what applications, videos, and games people used/played on them. That's what this is all about. Steve Jobs knows it too. Apple refuses to let go. That's why, as long as I have the choice, I will opt for anything open source over anything with that little Apple on the back. That way I know for sure I can do whatever I please with the device that I've paid so much money to own. I'm looking at you Android :-)

Source for Steve Jobs/Apple quotes:  Apple