Posts Tagged Microsoft
2010: Year of the Smartphone
Posted by Matt in Smartphones on December 25th, 2009
At long last, 2010 will most definitely be the year of the smartphone. No, really–I’m serious! I mean, sure–the experts thought 2009 would be “the year” and maybe it was a little. But it wasn’t for me. And that’s what I’m talking about. Okay, well–perhaps that’s not totally true either as I technically procured my first smartphone, a pre-owned Palm Centro, but after blocking all data services (simply because I wasn’t ready to pay for them), I’m not sure we can really truly accurately call that having a smartphone. It’s more like just having a cell phone and PDA combined into one nice little (compact) package. A smartphone is a phone…but smarter. Right? Or maybe it’s supposed to make the user seem smarter. I dunno about all of that–but I do know this: from the perspective of smartphones–this year is gonna be awesome!
First off, we’ve got Verizon rolling out the nation’s first usable 4G network, all based on a new technology dubbed ‘Long Term Evolution,’ (but you can call it LTE for short). Right now there aren’t really any mainstream phones that support this tech, but you can be sure Verizon won’t leave the ocean dry for long. Phones from all sorts of places (maybe even Google itself) will be jumping on the LTE bandwaggon very quickly. Not only will this be a completely IP-based network (which is good for a number of reasons), it will sport enough bandwidth to make you have a heart attack, provide better, more complete, and more reliable coverage in each of its deployment zones, and it’ll make AT&T’s network feel like the party-lines from last century. Basically–it’ll knock your socks off. ‘Nuff said.
Now, I wouldn’t hold off buying a phone just because I felt the need to wait for LTE compatible hardware. It’s going to take time to completely cover North America with the new service, but at least it’ll be easier and more efficient to do so.
So what about the phones?
Okay, you’re right–I got off on a little bit of a tangent there, but it’s important information, you must agree. What I really want to focus on is this: what’s next for smartphones in 2010? Well, lots–let’s look at it from an OS perspective and then summarize at the end.
Apple
People were interested in smartphones long before the iPhone hit the market in 2007, but you have to admit that they really did something to enhance the everyday consumer’s understanding and expectations of what a smartphone can and should do. It also spurred a lot of other manufacturers into realizing that there were plenty of new things to be done with smartphones and that there was a danger of being left behind in a hurry. Obviously the iPhone hasn’tcompletely dominated because Blackberry still holds a considerably large marketshare, but it did give almost everyone a big kick in the pants.
So what’s next for the illustrious iPhone? Well, I highly doubt we’ll see a 4G version of this before 2011 when AT&T really begins to roll out a nationwide 4G network, and since the current iPhone is already HSPA+ compatible, there isn’t a huge reason to even release a new device. That said, it’s ludicrous to assume that Apple will sit idly by while Google makes big movies. I think we’ll see a refresh of the iPhone 3Gs with some updated hardware like a faster CPU, support for 802.11n, a new graphics chip, better battery, and so on. My bet is that there will be a new iPhone OS to go along with this–probably something akin to a 3.5 release, but Apple’s versioning standards are so crazy that they might just call it iPhone OS 4.
I think two much larger questions are currently on people’s minds: first, will Apple end their exclusitivity with AT&T (whether by choice or forced by the FCC) and second, if the first does occur, will Apple bring an iPhone to Verizon?
The first is quite possible–perhaps even likely. The second I think is much more far-fetched. Verizon has shown that it sees Apple as something more along the lines of a direct competitor and doesn’t seem to interested in it’s phones. More on that later…
Even though they’re just launching their first phone, Google has been a huge player in the mobile space for awhile. Android is really starting to take off with the advent of two Android-powered phones on Verizon’s network in 2009 alone. We’ll definitely see some awesome new Android phones coming to Verizon in 2010–also T-Mobile will get an actual Google-branded phone and we’re seeing Sprint and AT&T adding Google to their lineups as well. Many analysts expect Android to take the #1 smartphone OS position by 2012, but I think they’ll reach that status at least a year sooner.
I like Android for several reasons. First, I have a choice of devices. If I don’t like the HTC Droid Eris, I can go with the Motorola Droid–or even pick a different carrier and grab the T-Mobile G1. There are Android choices on any network in a decent number of combinations. Second, the OS is based on open-source Linux. Any carrier can modify the OS to suit their needs, add a different UI, or pre-install additional apps or features. This makes Android a very versatile player in the market and it really can become unique to the person using it. Third, it comes ready for traditional enterprise features. Exchange support is built in, data can be stored in the cloud, and it readily connects to Google-based products–something many consumers and businesses rely on daily. Yet another great feature is the openness of applications. Google provides the Android marketplace for those who want to public and/or sell apps through it, but there’s nothing stopping a developer from distributing apps on their own, without Google’s permission. Nearly all of these abilities give Google a huge advantage over Apple who, in some ways, is still stuck in the primarily proprietary ways reminiscent of the early ’90s. Oh, and what about multitasking? Google does it, iPhones and Blackberrys don’t. Big mistake for the latter?
But even Google doesn’t have all of the advantages. Blackberry has a great push-based email system that easily rivals corporate Exchange technology. Apple still has the most apps at 100,000 and growing while Google has only 20,000 at this point (although the Marketplace was only started in February of 2009). Still, one must ask–after you get past the first 10,000 or so apps, how many of Apple’s remaining 90,000 get downloaded regularly? Hmm.
Palm
Palm released two phones this year on Sprint’s network, and while the technology is pretty cool and reportedly works pretty well, I think Palm’s biggest accomplishment is the slick webOS. I’ve played with this new system quite a bit and find it super easy to use, packed with great and powerful features (like Synergy), and a lot of fun to use. This is still very much a first release OS, so we’re still seeing some performance issues from time to time. Android phones and the iPhone still feel smoother and faster. Still, since we’ve never seen webOS on anything but Palm hardware, it’s hard to say if this is a hardware or software issue. To Palm’s credit, the webOS updates since 1.0 have fixed many of these minor problems. webOS is a big multitasker as well. The “card-view” makes switching back and forth a breeze and closing a running app takes a simple flick. This is a major feature Palm has that nobody else does. Just because other OS’s run multiple apps at a time, doesn’t mean that switching between them is easy. Even Android doesn’t do this as well as Palm phones, and of course the iPhone just doesn’t. Palm has always included physical keyboards on its smartphones, and that’s one thing they’ve definitely got right from the hardware perspective. The sliding Pre is so-so, but the Pixi seems like a nice compromise. Still, I wish we could get a good size screen plus physical keyboard, minus the awkwardness of the Droid’s horizontal keyboard. This is a hard feat to accomplish in any case.
It’s difficult to speculate what will happen to Palm in 2010. They’re still having trouble turning a decent profit, but that may have something to do with their exclusivity details with Sprint. I don’t know many people who still use Sprint service, but obviously there are exceptions. One thing that may help save Palm is to get the Pixi going on Verizon’s rock-solid network. Another option would be to license their Linux-based webOS platform to other manufacturers like HTC, Motorola, Samsung, and LG. I’ve almost always been impressed with LG phones, so maybe they’d have some great success with smartphones. It all remains to be seen. The final problem with Palm is the exceptionally limited application and support base. There are still very few apps in the Palm catalog, so until a wider selection is available, it may be difficult to market the phones to hardcore users.
RIM (Blackberry)
I like Blackberry phones. They’re fast, robust, and capable devices and running on the right network, provide a great data-based experience in addition to excellent voice services. I remember when Blackberrys were no more than a glorified, Internet-connected PDA, so the added phone makes a big difference. Still, most of their phones are not touchscreen-based and requires navigating with a roller-ball, keyboard, and a few other miscellaneous buttons. The exceptions to the rule are obviously the Storm and Storm 2 running on the Verizon network. I haven’t played with these extensively, but many users said the Storm was good and the Storm 2 really makes up for the first edition’s shortcomings. The main caveat I see with those two is the lack of physical keyboard–a feature that I generally miss on virtual-keyboard based devices.
Blackberry is the darling of the Enterprise, so I predict their marketshare will grow or at the very least remain steady. Blackberry OS 5.0 also seems like a potential game-changer with many users snatching it up as quickly as possible. It’s a bit hard to guess where things may go, but the status quo hasn’t changed much since it’s introduction. I’m expecting them to plod along with business as usual.
Wrap Up
We already know Apple is planning a big mobile event for January 26th, so this will give us the first clue of 2010 about new iPhones, iPhone OS, and perhaps an “iPad” tablet (which, if they really do introduce it) I sincerely believe will be a huge failure. I haven’t yet seen a tablet I really liked running any OS from any manufacturer. I feel confident that even though some folks may say “wow, look at that sweet Apple tablet,” most (including myself) will just keep walking.
Google will be the theme of the year. Year of the Google phone. And I didn’t even mention Microsoft, so I’ll do that here. Windows Mobile 7 is coming later this year and it may really change the game. As much flak as Microsoft gets from a lot of people, they really do know how to write good software. Windows 7, Windows Server 2008, and the latest Office products have all been hits. I’m expecting Windows Mobile 7 to be the same game. (i.e. super nice, light, fast, robust, etc). Keep your eye out for that one.
What are your predictions? Is this the year Apple dominates the world? Or maybe the rise of Symbian in the United States? The comment box is open, so have at it!
European Union wants to kill innovation
Someone should fine the European Union for stifling worldwide innovation. No, really–I’m serious. In the decision handed down today to fine global silicon manufacturer Intel (INTC) the sum of $1.45 Billion, the EU essentially is forcing Intel to watch its every move in both national and multinational arenas. Essentially, this will cause Intel to impose internal restrictions (read: bureaucracy and red-tape) on how it competes with other silicon manufacturers, specifically it’s little brother, Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). I firmly believe that the EU made the wrong call on this one as they admittedly have no hard evidence that any anti-competitive practices were being done by Intel. In fact, their only basis for the fine is speculation that Intel made secretive verbal agreements with 3rd party companies in order to force them into buying Intel-only chips. This makes absolutely no sense for several reasons.
First, just a few years ago AMD was stealing huge portions of market share from Intel with very new and incredibly powerful multi-core and 64-bit processors. Intel was sticking with it’s Pentium 4 line of processors and was content to simply increase the processor clock speed every 6 months or so, but AMD woke the sleeping giant and threw Intel’s R&D department into a frenzy. Intel quickly began to close the gap with their Pentium D processor line. A few months later, they released the Core Solo and Core Duo processor lineups and quickly followed those with the more efficient Core 2 Duo processors. Intel was back in the game and before AMD knew what hit them, Intel had retaken the market share and then some. Now, Intel’s Core i7 processors are taking AMD and others to the woodshed for a lesson in processor power, performance, and efficiency. Intel’s product is simply years ahead of the competition.
Second, most PC manufacturers (Apple included) are interested in making their customers as happy as possible (okay, really just making the most money possible) by building the highest quality products. Perhaps this is not the case across the board, but generally most of the machines you can pick up off a store shelf are fast and reliable. And just about all of those run on chips made by Intel. Apple Computer, known to use some of the most robust hardware in the business, is not using AMD chips–instead they use Intel processors. If AMD’s lineup were indeed better, don’t you think they’d switch? I certainly do… You just simply cannot fine a company for being good at what they do. It’s retarded. If AMD and others were just as good, then competition would be more intense. This is just simply not the case.
Finally, the evidence put forth isn’t really evidence. It’s hearsay. When was the last time you heard of a court charging someone with murder without any evidence; material, circumstantial, or at least from an ear or eye witness? The verdict from the judge/jury nearly always points to the evidence presented to them by the prosecution. Yet in the instance between the EU and Intel, we see and hear no evidence whatsoever. Intel has asked for it, but the EU cannot produce it. Instead they’ve fined the company on a ‘gut feeling’ or perhaps it’s just a whim. I imagine that companies like AMD have just been whining to the EU for so long that they’ve finally decided to do something about it to quell the complaints. Definitely not a good reason.
I look back to another instance where the EU seemed to have lost it’s mind. They charged Microsoft with violating antitrust laws and forced them to create versions of Windows that did not contain the normally-bundled Windows Media Player. They cited the fact that customers needed to have a choice rather than being forced to use WMP over other players. I just don’t understand this either. What about Apple’s bundling of iTunes and Quicktime with every version of OS X? How is that not identically anti-competitive? Actually, I don’t believe that either companies are guilty of violating antitrust laws. They simply make a product that contains obviously related other products. How would you like to have to go find your own calculator, text editor, Internet browser, file explorer, media player, and so on immediately after booting your computer for the first time? It’s tedious and pointless. In fact, if the OS didn’t include a web browser, you would need to use another computer to obtain one. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to force companies like these to do the bidding of an organization that obviously does not understand technology. It makes me sick.
Find some hard evidence of wrong-doing or back off, EU. I don’t like your constant interference with American companies.
Why the EU will not force MSFT to remove IE from Windows
It seems to be all over the news these days: companies are joining the fray left and right in the European Union’s investigation to determine whether Microsoft’s bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows violates anti-trust laws. Just this week Google became another voice in the suit initially begun by the top execs at Opera, a browser that holds around 2% of the overall market share (no wonder they’re upset!). Mozilla is also part of the suit as an “interested 3rd party.” Ultimately, it seems that the EU is more interested in protecting competitors than protecting true competition. As has been proven by Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome, if you create a better product, people will actually use it!
But here’s the real problem with this case: if Microsoft is forced to remove IE from Windows, then you face numerous problems, first of which is…how do consumers initially gain access to the Internet? No IE = no browser. Buying a computer through an OEM would allow bundling of that company’s preferred browser, which would help in alleviating some of the difficulty there.
A second issue points directly at Apple. If Apple is allowed to bundle Safari with their OS, how can you possibly tell Microsoft that they can’t bundle IE with Windows? This point is further supported by the fact that most Apple OS X users prefer Firefox over Safari and make it one of the first applications they install after buying a new Mac. Clearly bundling Safari with OS X hasn’t hurt Mozilla at all. I imagine this will be further illustrated once Google releases Chrome 2.0 with support for OS X. Not to say that Safari isn’t popular–it is–but it doesn’t discourage most users from using alternate browsers. Alternatively, you actually can completely remove Safari from OS X if you like–I just tried it. But…why would you want to??
Opera is a pretty small fish in a very big ocean–who is most likely just jealous that most people prefer other browsers over theirs. This suit will get more face time in the news during the coming weeks and months, but in the end, expect everyone’s pockets to be just a little lighter. Not much else will change.
Font smoothing in Windows (and why Mac users don’t like it)
Yesterday, a friend of mine posted a twit remarking that font smoothing in Windows 7 was not done properly and how Microsoft still hadn’t gotten it right. I hadn’t noticed any obvious issues of this nature in my usage and testing on Windows 7, so I was instantly curious to know why he thought as he did and if Microsoft, after all these years, still hadn’t mastered something as simple as font smoothing. So I set out to do the research.
Joel on Software has a great article thoroughly explaining the reasons behind the differences, but for those who want the digest version, I’ll give it to you here.
Apple and Microsoft use the same process for rendering fonts, a technology called “sub-pixel rendering.” The reason the two operating systems render text differently (specifically in web pages) is due to the algorithm behind the font rendering engine. Each character within a font is set to take up a certain amount of space measured in pixels–thus an “A” takes up more horizontal space than, say, an “I.” In addition to that, each typeface has it’s own style of letterform–that is each letter is designed to look a specific way and may, in some cases, slightly exceed the given letter-space when font smoothing is applied.
Apple, the company with a philosophy that the artistic and stylistic aspects of just about anything trumps everything else, wrote their font smoothing algorithm to allow type to exceed it’s allocated space, giving fonts more character at smaller sizes. This makes for a smoother looking font, but also is sometimes blurry and can be hard on the eyes. Microsoft on the other hand took a more practical approach and decided that each character must fit exactly within the available space and therefore “chisels” the characters to fit within that space. This creates a less-smoothed font, but makes things far easier to read on-screen. In fact, you can see this difference directly on a Windows machine by putting a Safari for Windows window and an Internet Explorer or Firefox window side-by-side. You’ll see what I mean.
So the question is now: Which company is correct?
The short answer is both. Apple’s OS will provide a more unified look between computer screen and printed output. This is yet another reason (whether they realize it or not) why designers often prefer OS X over Windows. Microsoft gives users a more readable on-screen experience at the expense of some character style (although at large font sizes, these differences become less noticeable.
All-in-all it’s pretty much just a matter of personal preference. Neither way is necessarily wrong–it’s all about what you like.
Windows 7 Gestures
I’ve been playing with Beta 1 (build 7000) of the up and coming Windows 7 from Microsoft and discovered a new feature today that I haven’t seen documented on other sites or Microsoft docs either. If you grab a window and quickly “jiggle” it back and forth a couple times, all other windows behind it will instantly minimize. Let go and then “jiggle” the window again to make the other windows re-appear.
It seems pretty intentional and has worked every time I’ve tried it. Interesting new feature!