TechDistortion

Walt Mossberg and the case of the iPad 2 Drawbacks

A day ago Walt Mossberg published his iPad 2 review. Whilst I don’t normally comment on other peoples product reviews something about his really stood out to me as being over the top. The section dedicated to iPad 2 Drawbacks. Here’s the review but below are the choice excerpts and my responses to them.

Mossberg: “The iPad 2 does have some drawbacks. Its cameras take mediocre still photos and Apple won’t even reveal their megapixel ratings. The company says they were designed for video, not still photography. They did capture decent video in my tests, including high-definition video from the rear camera and video good enough from the front camera for satisfying video calling. But, for a company known for quality, which bundles a new still-photo app with the device, the cameras are disappointing.”

A quick scan of Apples websites shows no specification for the still photo size on the iPad 2 whereas both the iPhone and the iPod touch have sizes shown. Walt is correct on this point but a better question is how is this a drawback? Apple aren’t publishing the specs because it’s not meant to be a camera for photography. Most consumers don’t compare the pixel count unless it’s a camera or a product that is increasingly being used as a camera such as mobile phone. A tablet is neither. It is not a camera. This is not a drawback.

Mossberg: “Also, the battery life, while very good, isn’t as strong as I found it to be on the first iPad. In my tough battery test, where I played full-length movies until the battery died, with the screen brightness at about 75% and both Wi-Fi and cellular radios running, the iPad 2 just barely exceeded Apple’s claimed battery life, dying after 10 hours and nine minutes. That’s 2.5 hours better than the Xoom did on the same test, but more than an hour less than I got from the original iPad, which clocked in at 11 hours, 28 minutes.”

Apple quotes 10hrs and you get more than that by 1.5% and it’s a drawback? Motorola claim up to 10 hours for video playback on their Xoom tablet and Walt’s identical test on the Xoom gets 2.5 hrs less than the quoted amount. This is a selling point of the iPad 2, not a drawback. Editorial required?

Mossberg: “Despite being slimmer and lighter, the iPad 2 still has roughly the same length and width as the original, so it can’t compete with the Amazon Kindle, or the smaller seven-inch tablets, if you’re trying to juggle it while standing in a crowded subway.”

That’s like saying my MacBook Pro doesn’t compete with my MacBook Air because it’s too thick. Classic Apples and oranges or in this case Apples and Amazons. If you are going to compare it as an ereader then do that. Most people that buy an iPad don’t buy it just to be an ereader and so long as the iPad sports a backlit screen it will NEVER be better than an eInk based product designed specifically for reading. It will always be heavier than an ereader and it will always be bigger than an ereader. This is because it is a tablet, and NOT AN EREADER.

Mossberg: “The other omission has to do with cellular data. The iPad 2 can’t use, or be upgraded to use, the new, faster 4G cellular-data networks being rolled out. Apple says this is because the chips needed to do this are too immature, draining battery life. But the Xoom promises to be upgradeable to 4G later this year, though I have no idea how that upgrade might affect its battery life or monthly fees.”

There are currently no 4G tablets for sale. There are only a scant number of mobile phones that support 4G. As a technology 4G infrastructure is still not fully rolled out around the world. When 4G becomes the standard it’s fair to call it a drawback.

I suppose my bigger problem with his review is more about the framing of his “drawbacks” of which none of them really are drawbacks for the vast majority of users. A lot of people read Walts posts and I only hope that the uninformed don’t misunderstand the core of what Walt is saying throughout the rest of his review: “…I can comfortably recommend it (the iPad 2) as the best tablet for average consumers.”

This is all that counts.

Updating Mobile Devices: Two Strategies, No Winner

Today Apple released its next major update to their mobile device operating system iOS4.3. It brings to mind for me the discussion between two separate camps - the tethered update and the over the air update. Traditionally all updates have been done with a wire connecting the device because there was no wireless option. With WiFi and 3G/4G networks wireless becomes an option.

Currently Android updates are done over the air over the mobile phone carriers network. It’s great for Google because it only needs to provide its update to its mobile phone partners (HTC, Motorola etc.) who then add their own updates (HTCs popular Sense UI for example) who then pass on the update to the carriers who sold the phone to be updated. So many hands to pass through takes more time with not all updates being passed on to the end user and whilst this is okay for Google to point the finger if there are delays it’s bad for the end user. In addition just because the carrier has the update doesn’t mean it will push it out to all of its customers phones - in fact updating thousands of devices all at once could overload their network, so they ration it out over several days or weeks. In addition the update takes up valuable data bandwidth that the carriers can’t charge for that slows down all of their other users. It is possible to upgrade Android firmware by downloading the update yourself (if you can find it somewhere online for your phone - some carriers post it online and others don’t) and updating it using a USB cable.

iOS updates however can only be performed over a USB cable. Apple provides a semi-automated system whereby the user is prompted they have new firmware available (“Software Update”) when they plug their device in on USB and iTunes starts.  More recent updates sometimes also require the latest version of iTunes to be downloaded first. Once this is done installation is very straightforward. This is easy for the end user, provided they connect their device to their PC/Mac running iTunes periodically. Many users purchase their iOS device, tether it once (usually at an Apple Store) to activate the device and never connect it again.

The best system takes the best from both approaches. Software updates for a phone should be sent via a system message directly to the device when it connects to a network to inform the user an update is available. From that point the user can choose to update over the air or to update later when next they connect their device to their PC/Mac via USB. If an update doesn’t work, the user should be able to seamlessly return to the previous version of the OS.

From Apples point of view such a solution is ideal as many users will be brought onto the latest version of the operating system where currently they stagnate on a older and sometimes less secure version of iOS. From Googles point of view such a solution is also ideal but the problem of customization prevents Google from fast-tracking their software updates. If their partners allowed Google to host their firmware update files on Googles servers they could handle the “last mile” of the update as it were for wired updates at least.

From the carriers point of view it’s not a good idea as it puts the control of when updates are fed across their network into the hands of users - which could bring down their network if everyone updated at the same time. Having said that a time-delayed system, if provided by the OS manufacturer, where that the user could delay installation over the network until a time the carrier agreed to, would alleviate this problem.

Whatever direction they choose I don’t mind so much so long as they consider the end user first. Based on the current situation with the two leading modern mobile OSes, who do you think will be first to lead the charge? Oh, and it’s not Google.

Concerning the ViewPad 10

After much delay finally the ViewPad 10 finally makes it to the lucrative American market. Just to recap: it’s a 10" tablet that can dual boot Windows 7 Starter and Android 1.6. It’s slightly heavier, than the iPad or iPad 2 and comes in a 16GB Flash RAM Wi-Fi only model.

Let’s not forget that Apple just outsold all of the Windows tablets that have come before in the preceding 10 years or more in less than 9 months with one product: the iPad. Hence we can conclude the draw of Windows on a tablet is not much of a drawing card. Android 1.6 “Donut” is now 17 months old and the latest release that is actually intended for tablet usage is Android 3.0 “Honeycomb”. In September last year Hugo Barra commented regarding Android 2.2 “Froyo” and it’s suitability for use on tablets: “…Froyo is not optimised for use on tablets.”  This also implies that neither were previous releases of Android hence nor is Donut.

I have no doubt that ViewSonic have been tinkering on this tablet for quite some time but with Windows 7 running on a tablet a well known non-selling point the hope for Android is dashed by using a horribly outdated version of the Android OS.

If this product is to have any chance it needs to update to Honeycomb ASAP and drop their price to something noticeably below the entry-level iPad 2 price or it will never sell in volume.

Laura June from Engadget Weighs in on Internet Anonymity

An interesting editorial piece from Laura June with reference to AOLs site Tech Crunch pushing all comments into Facebook - hence reducing the likelihood of unidentifiable people making comments. The premise being that the so-called trolls and inflammatory commenters are less likely to post if someone knows their identity. The problem with Engadget comments (and indeed, many sites currently) is that they use Disqus.

Don’t misunderstand - I think Disqus is one of the best commenting systems out there it’s just that whilst the commenter may choose to sign in using their Twitter or Facebook accounts (as I do) most create an easily faked account in Disqus and post free in the knowledge they won’t be personally identified.

To me the crux of the whole argument is two-fold:

• Firstly if you want to open up the floor for comments you do so at your own risk. Sometimes people have good things to contribute, but many more have nothing useful or sometimes even hateful things to contribute which does nobody any good whatsoever.
• Secondly the Internet put an artificial barrier between people and this created an environment where people felt safe to pretend to be someone else or to be anonymous and be effectively free from the consequences of their online actions. The more important and central the internet becomes to our lives the more important online credibility is to the individual. I’ve noticed a trend lately where more people are trying to maintain a genuine online persona (myself included) and are more careful what they put on the Internet. This seems to be a natural progression as we find our way in the digital economy and lifestyle.

Moving forward from here there is no doubt in my mind that more sites will follow Tech Crunchs lead and require more stringent proof of identity before posts may be submitted. It will significantly reduce the volume of comments received on posts, but then the comments are more likely to be constructive to discussion and worth more in the end. People should be responsible for the things they say and do online, just as they are in the day to day world beyond the internet.