Missing the point: What pundits don't get about Apple

Credit: Reuters/Beck Diefenbach

Yesterday's iPhone announcements have caused Apple's stock to drop significantly, as now seems to happen each year after a major Apple announcement. Pundits are angry at Apple for not reinventing the smartphone, claiming Apple's glory days died with Steve Jobs. Many financial investors are mad at Apple for not introducing cheap iPhones that make no money but would radically grow its market share.

Most of the commentary is just stupid.

Yes, the iPhone 5c is just the iPhone 5 in a colorful new case, to make last year's model look new. That may be a smart sales strategy to goose demand in the U.S. where the $99 subsidized price will matter, but it's just a sales strategy. Still, selling stuff is what a product company is supposed to do.

And yes, the iPhone 5s is a souped-up iPhone 5, but with two innovations that are underestimated. One is the move to a 64-bit processor (and a 64-bit OS), which sets the stage for Apple devices to replace PCs in the next few years, removing one of the performance caps in current models. (ARM, which designs the basic architecture used by Apple and others, is moving to 64-bit designs as well, but for servers first. So the 64-bit A7 is Apple's early move on that trend in the mass market ARM isn't focused on.) The performance gap between an iPad and a PC is already not that great; I bet it will disappear in a couple years.

The other is the M7 motion coprocessor, which people seem to have missed in the iPhone 5s analysis. It's Apple's entry into the wearables market. The very notion of a motion coprocessor is a radical one, and it says clearly that Apple believes in movement-tracking as a core capability. It debuts on the iPhone 5s, where it should enable a whole raft of medical and fitness sensors, as well as bolster navigation services and more. Apple is not alone in doing this; the Motorola X8 processor package has a similar notion, except it takes the "big chipset" approach that will be harder to apply to small, wearable devices than a discrete coprocessor like the M7.

Everyone seems to want Apple to make a smart watch, but Apple is clearly building a strategy for pervasive wearables. My bet is that this is its next wave, and we won't see it realized until Apple makes that shift with the equivalent of the first Mac, first iPod, first iPhone, or first iPad. But like any wave, it takes time to build, and the M7 is first visible ripple at Apple.

People also forget that Apple's brand is not so much about technology innovation but innovation in service of user experience. People get addicted to the experience, not the specific technology enabling it. But most pundits are geeks who love technology, and forget that the rest of the world loves experience. Just think about a car: What ultimately matters is how it drives, and that's what people focus on after the initial technology bamboozling has passed.

On the financial-strategy side, Apple is a company that makes lots of money, which is why companies are supposed to exist in the first place. In fact, it makes nearly half the PC industry's profits with a Mac market share well under 10 percent, and three-quarters of the mobile device industry's profits with a market share in the mid-teens. That's an amazing feat.

Pundits also tend to forget history. In Apple's early days, its Mac and Lisa computers were horribly expensive, and the cheaper-by-comparison IBM PC and then the clones left Apple in the dust. That memory fuels a lot of the cry for cheap, mass-market products today. And Apple was way out of kilter in that era. But most people forget what happened next: Apple created Macs that were just like the PCs of the era, and they offended existing Mac customers due to their poor user experience and didn't attract new customers because they were, after all, just PCs. The latter people kept buying regular PCs. I have no doubt that if Apple delivered a crippled iPhone to be cheap, it would damage its iPhone business immeasurably, and those folks looking for a $75 smartphone would still get a Nokia Asha or barely functional Android device.

I certainly don't mean to suggest that Apple is doing everything right. And the geek in me would love a game-changing iPhone. But if Apple starts basing its technology and product strategy based on tech bloggers' and financial analysts' advice, it'd be out of business soon. Most spew nonsense, and shouldn't be listened to. Apple is about the highly profitable, highly addictive long term -- which means we can't tell today if it's doing the right thing. But we can know that asking it to be shortsighted is a waste of time. If Apple fails, it'll be doing so on its own terms, not ours.

This story, "Missing the point: What pundits don't get about Apple," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Get the first word on what the important tech news really means with the InfoWorld Tech Watch blog. For the latest developments in business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

View the original article here

Microsoft Surface naming debacle about to get worse

Have you ever had a helluva time explaining to an experienced Windows user that the Surface Pro runs Windows but the Surface RT does not? If so, hang onto your hat -- just when you thought it couldn't possibly get any worse, it looks like Microsoft is taking a swift dive into the shallow end of the gene pool with its Surface branding.

For several months, Tom Warren at the Verge has been using the name "Surface 2" as a code name for the next version of the Surface RT. I assumed it was internal shorthand, used by the dev teams to refer to Surface RT 2 or Surface RT 8.1 -- or whatever Microsoft would end up calling its son of the deservedly maligned non-Windows tablet.

Imagine my surprise when I read Aaron Souppouris's story on the Verge yesterday that says, "Microsoft's Surface 2 could drop the 'RT' moniker." Apparently AdDuplex has been sifting through its data on recent website hits, and came up with many that say "Microsoft Corporation Surface 2."

Paul Thurrot, in his SuperSite for Windows blog, examined the same AdDuplex data and made a startling assertion. He says (with no attribution I can find) "the Surface RT replacement... will simply be called Surface 2, and the ... Surface with Windows 8.1 Pro ... will be called Surface Pro 2."

Paul's a careful fellow with a lot of contacts inside the Windows team, and the statements are definitive. It certainly sounds like Microsoft has settled on names for at least two of its new tablets: Surface 2 and Surface Pro 2.

If you have to deal with everyday Windows users, be afraid. Be very afraid.

Sometime in October, the Best Buys in the world will undoubtedly have five or six Surfaces on sale. Their names, if these pundits are right, will be Surface RT, Surface Pro, Surface 2, Surface Pro 2. I, for one, would also expect a Surface Mini or two. Heaven only knows if the little guys will run Windows 8.1 RT (or is it Windows RT 8.1?) or Windows 8.1, either Standard or Pro.

See where I'm going with this? Picture a guy who's gone to Best Buy to pick up a Windows tablet. He can choose from a Surface RT, Surface 2, Surface Pro, Surface Pro 2, or (presumably) a Surface Mini. Two of them run Windows. The others probably don't. For sure, the "2" versions are better than the "1" versions. But other than that, how's a customer -- an experienced Windows user -- supposed to know the difference?

As for the distinction between Windows RT running on some machines and Windows 8.1 Standard or Pro on the others: By the time the Best Buy clerk gets done explaining the difference -- no doubt with a PowerPoint presentation -- our mythical customer is already dreaming about a Nexus or iPad.

Hey, Microsoft. If you don't rename the Surface RT/2 to something that distinguishes it from the machines that run Windows, you won't have to worry about it very long. Better set aside another $900 million right now.

This story, "Microsoft Surface naming debacle about to get worse," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Get the first word on what the important tech news really means with the InfoWorld Tech Watch blog. For the latest developments in business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

View the original article here

Here's what Steve Ballmer said about his retirement in an internal email

Network World - This is the text of an internal email from Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer to employees regarding his plan to retire:

I am writing to let you know that I will retire as CEO of Microsoft within the next 12 months, after a successor is chosen. There is never a perfect time for this type of transition, but now is the right time. My original thoughts on timing would have had my retirement happen in the middle of our transformation to a devices and services company focused on empowering customers in the activities they value most. We need a CEO who will be here longer term for this new direction. You can read the press release on Microsoft News Center.

This is a time of important transformation for Microsoft. Our new Senior Leadership team is amazing. The strategy we have generated is first class. Our new organization, which is centered on functions and engineering areas, is right for the opportunities and challenges ahead.A

Microsoft is an amazing place. I love this company. I love the way we helped invent and popularize computing and the PC. I love the bigness and boldness of our bets. I love our people and their talent and our willingness to accept and embrace their range of capabilities, including their quirks. I love the way we embrace and work with other companies to change the world and succeed together. I love the breadth and diversity of our customers, from consumer to enterprise, across industries, countries, and people of all backgrounds and age groups.

I am proud of what we have achieved. We have grown from $7.5 million to nearly $78 billion since I joined Microsoft, and we have grown from employing just over 30 people to almost 100,000. I feel good about playing a role in that success and having committed 100 percent emotionally all the way. We have more than 1 billion users and earn a great profit for our shareholders. We have delivered more profit and cash return to shareholders than virtually any other company in history.

I am excited by our mission of empowering the world and believe in our future success. I cherish my Microsoft ownership, and look forward to continuing as one of Microsoft's largest owners.A

This is an emotional and difficult thing for me to do. I take this step in the best interests of the company I love; it is the thing outside of my family and closest friends that matters to me most.A

Microsoft has all its best days ahead. Know you are part of the best team in the industry and have the right technology assets. We cannot and will not miss a beat in these transitions. I am focused and driving hard and know I can count on all of you to do the same. Let's do ourselves proud.A

Steve

Reprinted with permission from NetworkWorld.com. Story copyright 2012 Network World, Inc. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time (for iPad)

Pros Same general, addictive game play. Strong art, music.

Cons A plethora of features results in some interface bloat. Paid extras mostly uninteresting, but almost a requirement for advancement. Currently available only for iOS devices. Bottom Line Propelling the eternal battle between flora and the undead into the past, Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time builds on its predecessor—but not in ways all casual gamers will appreciate.

By Matthew Murray

That pleasant aroma wafting through the summer air is not, as you may expect, vegetables. That would unquestionably be appropriate for a game like Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time, which returns us after four years to the universe of that wacky garden patch that's the only thing standing between humanity and undead annihilation. But no, the smell that surrounds PopCap's sequel to its 2009 smash hit is something more like candy—Candy Crush Saga, that is. Plants vs. Zombies 2 has adopted that ultra-popular game's "free-to-play" aesthetic wholeheartedly, and turned in commensurate results. If you loved the first Plants vs. Zombies, more than enough is right with this one to all but guarantee you'll respond to it, too. But the pleas for money and a few other small adjustments dilute an almost perfect casual gaming experience into one that's just a little overripe.

Back to Basics
The basics of Plants vs. Zombies 2 are identical to those of the previous game. Zombies are shambling from the right side of the playing field to the left, and it's up to you to stop them by any vegetal means necessary. Sunflowers (which emit the sun you use to acquire plants) are essentially required, but everything else is optional: You can choose from Peashooters to cover long distances in a straight line; Cabbage-pults, which can launch big heads of ammo over many squares; Wall-nuts, which provide armored protection; and many more. The zombies may appear plain, arrive armored (with buckets on their heads, or maybe carrying shields and other objects), set fires, or cause other kinds of mischief, but once you've stopped them, you've won—and can move on to the next level.

It's worth noting that, unlike the original Plants vs. Zombies, which was available on a wide array of devices, Plants vs. Zombies 2 is an iOS-only exclusive. I played it on a Retina display–equipped Apple iPad, but if you prefer gaming on a PC or Android device, you're out of luck for now.

Derivative Dangers
Though the art and music remain delightful accompaniments, and have received only gentle tweaks, in some ways Plants vs. Zombies 2 diverges greatly from its predecessor. First, as the title suggests,  time travel is involved: Your oddly minded ally from the first game, Crazy Dave, accidentally teleports you back centuries (on the search for a masterful taco—don't ask) so you can battle in Ancient Egypt, the Pirate Seas, and the Wild West, with a futuristic setting also apparently in the works. This means you get the expected differences in visuals (for example, the lawnmowers, which provide a last-ditch line of defense once the zombies are about to overtake you, appear as little motorized pyramids in the Egypt levels), but not so much in game play: Fighting in King Tut's backyard isn't that much different than fighting in your own. Inherited from Angry Birds and other similar games are "stars," which you receive for completion of a level within certain requirements (spend only a certain amount of sun, don't lose more than two plants, and so forth), and more significantly a map that lets you easily move between levels and see how many stars you still need to acquire, and so on.

If these changes don't affect the game much by themselves, together they give Plants vs. Zombies 2 a strong derivative feel. Whereas the original really was original, so altering the tower defense formula that it was all but unrecognizable, this one feels like most other games on the market, absent the freshness and individuality that so distinguished the first incarnation. Adding new plants is one thing—there are a number of fun ones, but I particularly loved the bonk choy, which can reach across two squares to continuously pound a brain-muncher—but watching my flora fight the zombies across the desert sands seemed unduly silly; and though there's something strangely endearing about zombies sporting traffic cones for head protection or inflatable ducks for flotation, I never warmed quite the same way to the sight of one lumbering around while stuffed in a sarcophagus.

All the other new game-play elements also make things feel busier than they should.  I didn't want to accidentally tap the counter of coins (distributed at the end of level, and used for buying power ups) when trying to plant a Potato Mine, or activate swiping gestures (available for only 800-1,200 coins each!) while trying to collect another couple of doses of sun. I just wanted to play the game, and the added filigree made that difficult at times.

Candy Crush Commerce
As for the paid upgrades, getting all the new plants will currently only run you about $20—the price of the original game. For another $14 you can get all the upgrade bonuses (more sun when shoveling, more starting son, more Plant Food or seed slots).  Or you can save some money through buying bundles, which combine certain plants and certain bonuses; all three of these will run you $22.  Want to accelerate access to Pirate Seas before you've unlocked enough stars?  Just $4.99 will get you there.  You can also buy bags of coins (from $2.99 for 5,000 coins to $99.99 for 450,000) that you can then trade in for more Plant Foods or gesture usages.  But PopCap doesn't stop there:  It also forces you to view frequent ads for your various possible purchases, in case you've forgotten or you really want to get 30 percent off your Jalapeno (one of the most useful plants, and a paid holdover from the first Plants vs. Zombies). This points up one of the biggest and most annoying problems with Plants vs. Zombies 2: It eventually gets too difficult to reasonably play (or play at all) without the use of the paid upgrades.

That's the Candy Crush Saga business model, after all, and if Plants vs. Zombies 2 doesn't get quite as shameless quite as quickly in begging for your cash, it won't stay completely free for most people for long. That's not necessarily a bad thing: Quality is definitely worth paying for, as the original Plants vs. Zombies proved. And if you're in the mood for more of the same, you'll unquestionably get that here, if in a more piecemeal package.  But rather than just build and expand lightly on what worked before, PopCap has played with the formula so much that sometimes you have to strain to see the charms that are still buried within.

View the original article here

Facebook blames a bug for lost posts about same-sex marriage

IDG News Service - Some recent cases of news articles about same-sex marriage disappearing from the newspaper page on Facebook appear to have been caused by a bug and not a policy violation, the social network said.

Several regional daily newspapers, such as The Mercury serving Pottstown, Pennsylvania, started seeing in late July that stories covering developments on the issue of same-sex marriage were mysteriously disappearing from their pages on Facebook. A post Friday at the website for the Poynter Institute, a journalism education and training center, called attention to the issue.

"In all likelihood this was a bug and not a policy violation," a Facebook spokeswoman said Friday, referring specifically to The Mercury's issues. If it had been a policy violation, the page administrators would have received a notification of the article removals, which they did not, Facebook said.

The circumstances surrounding some of the posts' disappearances are a bit odd. At The Mercury, for instance, online editor Eileen Faust noticed the trend when a local county began issuing licenses to same-sex couples on July 24. Roughly five to six articles disappeared from Facebook after they were posted, she said, but no stories covering other topics disappeared in a similar way.

The articles that disappeared covered news dealing with both support and opposition to same-sex marriage, she said.

The paper has not experienced any major issues with articles disappearing since then, but that may only be because The Mercury has not been posting as many articles on same-sex marriage, Faust said.

"We're going to keep an eye on this," she added in an interview.

The Mercury's posts on same-sex marriage have since been restored to the paper's page on Facebook, the social network said.

Other regional newspaper companies, such as 21st Century Media papers in the Philadelphia region and papers owned by the Los Angeles News Group, have also noticed that their stories on same-sex marriage have disappeared from their Facebook pages, The Mercury reported in its coverage of the issue.

21st Century Media and the Los Angeles News Group could not be immediately reached to comment.

Though The Mercury paper's issues were probably caused by a bug or some kind of glitch, Facebook said, the issue did arise just before the company announced an aggressive new strategy to better detect controversial content on its site that may be violent, graphic or sexual in nature.

Facebook has a complicated way for classifying what is offensive content and what is not. In terms of graphic content, "We understand that graphic imagery is a regular component of current events, but must balance the needs of a diverse community," the site says in its community standards.

The Mercury's Faust said she would like to have a more direct contact at Facebook to communicate with when issues occur. "We can't easily connect or get a response from them," she said.

Zach Miners covers social networking, search and general technology news for IDG News Service. Follow Zach on Twitter at @zachminers. Zach's e-mail address is zach_miners@idg.com

Reprinted with permission from IDG.net. Story copyright 2012 International Data Group. All rights reserved.

View the original article here

How about a solar-powered, submersible laptop for $350?

Computerworld - Next week in Ghana, a Canadian company will officially launch a solar-powered laptop that may soon find its way into North America, perhaps as a Chromebook.

The firm, WeWi Telecommunications, has built a rugged and submersible laptop that's designed to handle severe environments and quickly charge up on solar power. What's especially interesting is the price: It starts at $350.

The London, Ontario-based firm is calling it SOL, and the system was built to solve the problems developing countries have, said David Snir, the CEO and founder of WeWi. "We traveled to Africa and we saw the need," said Snir, who noted a frustrating inability to get electricity when working in that country.

SOL will also be released in North America by the end of the year and its specs and capabilities may find appeal in the U.S. market.

The solar-powered SOL laptop could come to the U.S. later this year.

The laptop weighs about five pounds, and is about 2 inches thick at its highest point. But that's part of the trade-off for having solar panels.

The four solar panels are little smaller than the 13.3-in. LCD display and open up in butterfly fashion. The panels are protected by the clamshell cover.

In sunlight, the solar panels can charge the replaceable battery in about two hours. (In cloudy conditions, a full charge might take up to three hours.) The battery is good for about eight to 10 hours, said Snir. The solar panels can be detached from the notebook and -- connected by wire -- placed in a sunny area to charge the unit while a user works at a desk or under a shady tree.

The system has been tested with Ubuntu Linux, which is being installed on it. But other operating systems are possible. In North America, Chromebook is one of the possibilities.

"We love Chrome," said Snir. "We see huge potential in Chrome."

Chromebooks require an Internet connection, something that's not an always an option in some regions of the world. For North America, "we are absolutely considering coming out with a version using Chrome," said Snir.

Channel partners will have the ability to install their own operating systems, as well.

The system is rugged. The shell is made of fiber-reinforced polymers. The internal electronics are protected as well, and there are shock absorbers inside to help protect the system from falls. For $50 more, there's a version that is submersible.

"Instead of making sure water would not seep into the computer, we said it's going to happen anyway," said Snir. With that design approach in mind, all the electronics are coated with hydrophobic nano materials that completely repel water, he said.

The system will support 3G and 4G networks, along with Wi-Fi, and it has SIM card support. There is an Intel Atom chip, and a 320GB hard disk drive. The SOL can support 2GB to 4GB of memory.

There's really not much mark-up on the system, said Snir.

"We really want to get Africa connected and we really want to help developing countries," he said. "We're not out to make a huge amount for money from our laptops."

Patrick Thibodeau covers cloud computing and enterprise applications, outsourcing, government IT policies, data centers and IT workforce issues for Computerworld. Follow Patrick on Twitter at  @DCgov or subscribe to Patrick's RSS feed . His e-mail address is pthibodeau@computerworld.com.

See more by Patrick Thibodeau on Computerworld.com.

Read more about Laptops in Computerworld's Laptops Topic Center.

Small and midsize businesses are moving to the cloud to host their communications capabilities. Learn how enterprise-quality phone benefits, online management, conferencing, auto attendant, and ease of use are built into a system that is half the cost of a PBX.

Read now.

View the original article here

What wearable computing is really all about

Computerworld - Most of the criticism about wearable computing technology is about social acceptability. "Nobody wears a watch anymore." "I wouldn't be caught dead wearing Google Glass."

The rest is about utility. "Smartwatches and Google Glass can't do anything that a smartphone can't do."

These arguments are based on a misunderstanding of what the wearable computing revolution is all about.

It's not about devices. And it's not about the convenience of leaving your phone in your pocket.

Wearable computing is nothing less than a fundamental shift in our relationship to computers and the Internet.

A "personal area network," or PAN, is a network centered around an individual person. And, of course, a wireless PAN, or "WPAN" is such a network that uses Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or NFC (near-field communication).

In the past, the PAN concept involved a central connected laptop. It was portable (movable from place to place) as opposed to mobile (usable while moving). The wireless computing revolution will give every user his or her own mobile WPAN.

The WPAN model is comparable to a LAN, or local area network, which emerged as a normal way to connect in the '80s and '90s. Under the simplest version of that model, devices were connected to a nearby server via Ethernet, mostly -- PCs, printers -- and that server was connected to the Internet.

The future of personal computing, if you will, can be compared to the LAN. The smartphone is the Internet-connected server. Wearable devices are the primary user devices where most input and output occurs.

Just as the adoption of LAN was driven in part by the evolution and standards formation around Ethernet technologies, the wearable movement's WPAN adoption will be driven by the new Bluetooth Low Energy standard (the wireless specification formerly known as Bluetooth 4.0). The new Bluetooth, first adopted by iOS and recently integrated into Android, will enable power-sipping devices with very small batteries to function, wake each other up and exchange rich data.

That means wearable devices will be able to receive not only words, pictures and sound, but video.

Prognosticating pundits say the wearables market will get huge fast. The UK research company Visiongain says wearables are a $4.6 billion market this year with "explosive growth and high adoption rates" over the next five years.

Juniper Research predicts that nearly 70 million wearable devices will ship in the year 2017 (up from 15 million this year).

ABI Research disagrees, and projects that the sports and health wearables market alone will see 170 million devices in 2017.

The wearable movement will be dominated in early days by health, fitness and "quantified self" applications. The reason is simple: It's less complicated.

Health monitoring involves measuring things like heart rate and activity level from a wristwatch or chest strap and uploading that data to a central place where changes can be tracked over time. Fitness fans, doctors and patients are all highly motivated to embrace this kind of self-monitoring, and are therefore already willing to spend big for new devices.

Over time, however, fitness and health will take a backseat to personal information management and interaction with everything on the Internet through a voice-based virtual assistant.

Right now, people associate wearable computing with smartwatches, fitness bands and Google Glass. But wearable devices will be worn all over.

We'll see a wide variety of wearable devices that clip onto clothing. Sony, as an early example, will soon ship its Sony Smart Bluetooth Handset SBH52, a clip-on device that relays audio to and from any Bluetooth device. You can use it like a phone (as in hold it up to your ear and talk). It also has an FM radio. Think of this device as a halfway technology between a Bluetooth headset and a clip-on wearable device.

Some wearable devices will be built into clothing, including shirts, shoes, socks and hats. Under Armour even has a vision video showing what it looks like when clothes are wearable touch computers.

Under Armour's vision video on wearable devices. Small and midsize businesses are moving to the cloud to host their communications capabilities. Learn how enterprise-quality phone benefits, online management, conferencing, auto attendant, and ease of use are built into a system that is half the cost of a PBX.

Read now.

View the original article here

Here's What Your Nail Polish Reveals About Your Personality

Whether you want to stand out on the sand, or light up the night, neon is perfect for the girl looking to get noticed. “Straight up, neon lovers are full of intensive energy, excitement, and F-U-N!,” says Foley.

To buy: Illamasqua UV Glow Nail Varnish in Séance, $24 at illamasqua.com; Ciate Corrupted Neon Manicure, $25 at sephora.com; Julep Neon Nail Dips, $12 at sephora.com

View the original article here