TWIT hypocrisy part 2? ----- The TWIT Live Special of the Microsoft Surface Event

I'll keep this short....

We all know that TWIT appears to regularly violate other people's copyrights with its "Live Specials."  In the same breath they'll bully users of it's own content even when compliant with their purported "Creative Content" licensing.

So today we had yet another "questionable" example of wanton abuse of someone else's copyright in the form of a "TWIT Live Event" covering the Microsoft Surface announcement.

Now to be completely honest,  Microsoft isn't as explicit about rebroadcasting of it's live events as Apple but I did find a general statement of use of the company's Intellectual Property (or IP) that extends to online content.

As such, I managed to dig up a few sections where TWIT could be in violation of their Terms of Use for Copyrighted Content.

Specifically:  (from the Microsoft website)

"Offensive Use"

"Your use may not be obscene or pornographic, and you may not be disparaging, defamatory, or libelous to Microsoft, any of its products, or any other person or entity."

Laporte and Paul Thurrott repeatedly offered commentary during the "Live Event" that could be considered disparaging of the presenters especially Panos Panay.

AND...

"Link Methods"

"You may link to Microsoft content by using either a plain text link with words such as "This way to Microsoft.com" or by participating in an applicable Link Logo program. No other images may be used as a link to a Microsoft site."

Everybody else provided a hyperlink to the event.  TWIT decided to embed it in their own content and context.  If it were an Apple event there'd be no question how big a NO NO that is.

As for the actual event..

Surface tablets and a big all-in-one called "Surface Studio" that folds down into a desk with a big knob you can put on the screen...

Rah...

Who cares...this article is about hypocrisy not another boring product launch from a company desperate to be relevant.  

BTW, I'm referring to Microsoft but the observation could apply equally to TWIT...

At the end Leo wrapped up the "coverage" in his trademark style with a live read of a "Blue Apron" ad.

Nice of Microsoft to provide content for Leo's "reaction video" and Blue Apron to pay for it with an ad read.  

Maybe the term "reaction video" is incorrect.  Reaction videos usually don't violate commercial copyrights of whatever's being "reacted" to.

Here's the proof straight from the horse's ass...err mouth...

https://twit.tv/shows/twit-live-specials/episodes/309

Hypocrisy.

TWIT & YouTube: The Hypocrisy Engine and Why it Works (against you)

I told you I'd be watching and I'm keeping my promise.  This time it's proof positive of the double standard TWIT employs when it comes to copyrighted material.

TWIT had a "Live Special" that was nothing more than a live reaction video to Apple's September 7th event.  That's bad enough but TWIT was also rebroadcasting the event which is in direct violation of the Apple Copyright and Terms of Use of their website.

So why do I care?

As you know, My Digital Dynamic channel received a copyright strike due to a takedown of an UNEDITED vidcap of the broadcast of TWIT's move to the East Side studios.  Even though I conformed to the strictest interpretation of the Creative Commons license I still received a copyright violation that removed monetization for all videos on that channel most of which had no TWIT content.

OK, so TWIT's on my list but what about YouTube?  What do they have to do with it?

Everything..  There's a double standard at play here.

One that for me began years ago with the #microstopped mass takedown that yanked a Windows 8 HowTo video and continues with the recent TWIT takedowns of the past month.  YouTube provides the heavy hand to enforce what is often unfair and unsubstantiated copyright claims.

The fact of the matter is this.  YouTube is not your friend when it comes to copyright law and free speech.  YouTube is in the business of selling ads not political activism.  To that end they protect their Safe Harbor provisions and their advertising revenue at your expense.

It's a business not a public park.  They get to make the rules and however unfair or unevenly applied you have to operate within them if you want to put your content on their service.

BUT...

When they enforce the rules on one party and not another that sets up a double standard.  This is why I include them in my "hypocrisy engine."

Here's the companion video.   Much more fun than all these...words...

Apple's on the right side of this one

"There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all."

Antonin Scalia

A quote from a Supreme Court Justice known for being so conservative that Pat Buchanan looks like flower child by comparison. 

He got it, so why doesn't the FBI?

Yes I'm talking about Apple and more specifically Tim Cook's refusal to assist with the unlocking of an Iphone connected to the San Bernardino terrorist case. 

Over the past week or so I've watched as the FBI, Justice Department and other members of law enforcement trot out the same tired straw man of national security that gave us the Patriot Act.

Their argument is still just as flawed.  Worse it's still based on a fundamental misunderstanding of technology that heralds from the days of floppy disks and dial-up modems. 

The media coverage hasn't helped either by incorrectly framing the controversy as the loss of a "back door" in the previous incarnation of IOS ( IOS 7).    "Back doors" are the stuff of 80's flicks like Wargames and Tron not 21st century mobile devices.

Before IOS 8 it's true that Apple did have the capability to unlock an encrypted phone after being presented with  the proper legal documents.  Which was exactly the position Apple didn't want to be in.  By which I mean being constantly pestered by requests to invalidate Apple's own security features. Not exactly good for business and definitely counter to a more progressive view of the world.

So with the advent of IOS 8 Apple removed this capability (and themselves) from the equation by eliminating the code that allowed them to unlock an encrypted phone.  Well, at least that's what they thought until San Bernardino happened.

Law enforcement has long wished for a more "limited" interpretation of the fourth Amendment.  In their view we'd all be so much safer if only they could just flip a switch and listen in on the bad guys at a moment's notice. 

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

Ronald Reagan

They stop just short of levying charges of treason when denied such powers but never miss an attempt to try to shame Apple (or anyone else that offers some deference to privacy rights) into compliance by claiming such defiance of the "Rule of Law" only helps criminals and terrorists.

"If Apple wants to be the official smartphone of terrorists and criminals, there will be a consequence"

Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney ( AZ.)

Here's the core of the problem....

"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Lord Acton

Nobody is suggesting that criminals or terrorists should be allowed to run about unhindered.  But what happened to good old fashioned detective work?  Edward Snowden's revelations may now be called "exaggerated" but the fact remains that there's ample resources available to law enforcement without potentially short circuiting the 4th Amendment.

The country was founded on a system of checks and balances for a reason.  It extends not only to the three branches of government but little stuff like trial by jury and the right to not incriminate one's self.

You're a fool if you believe that anyone with unfettered access to your private data isn't going to abuse the privilege. 

Remember Richard Nixon?  He had to leave the presidency precisely because of just such an abuse of power.  He felt benevolent leadership required keeping tabs on everybody.

Nobody thinks about individual liberties until their own is threatened. 

Hey, I'm not a big fan of Apple or their products.  Personally I don't care much for benevolent overlords that reign over walled gardens.  So I find it ironic that Tim Cook is on the right side of this issue.

Perhaps it's because he understands the difference between selling products and selling out civil liberties.

A distinction the FBI chooses to ignore.

Amazon isn't alone, this is how we work now

If you've been in the workforce for the past decade or so you may have noticed subtle changes.  Sure it takes hard work and sacrifice to get to the top but does it feel like all that effort has left you just spinning your wheels?

It's no secret that we're all working harder and getting less for it.  Less pay, less benefits and less free time.  The old adage was that work was its own reward but the guy who came up with that didn't have a mortgage or a dwindling 401K to worry about.

He also had his weekends...

Consequently, it's no surprise that we find today's workplace increasingly demands more than just a job well done, it demands a lifestyle commitment.

As in your job is your life.  

So what? That's work and that's how it's always been.

Except it hasn't...

Where the baby boomers may have had a reasonable expectation of a shiny pot of gold at the end of their career rainbow those that came after found themselves without a pot to...well you know...

Without falling into the trap of every succeeding generation blaming its predecessor, the point is that the endgame has changed.

While we hear a lot of lip service about work/life balance and the importance of family it seems such things are at odds with expectations of the average worker in today's corporate culture.

So is it any surprise that when the NewYork Times peeled back the curtain of Amazon's corporate culture they found more in common with the Kremlin than KMart.

Horrific stories like...

"A woman who had breast cancer was told that she was put on a “performance improvement plan” — Amazon code for “you’re in danger of being fired” — because “difficulties” in her “personal life” had interfered with fulfilling her work goals." NYTimes

Or...

"Amazon came under fire in 2011 when workers in an eastern Pennsylvania warehouse toiled in more than 100-degree heat with ambulances waiting outside, taking away laborers as they fell." NYTimes

If these were but a few isolated incidents they could be excused but it appears that rather than the exception, they're the rule...

"At Amazon, workers are encouraged to tear apart one another’s ideas in meetings, toil long and late (emails arrive past midnight, followed by text messages asking why they were not answered), and held to standards that the company boasts are “unreasonably high.” The internal phone directory instructs colleagues on how to send secret feedback to one another’s bosses. Employees say it is frequently used to sabotage others. (The tool offers sample texts, including this: “I felt concerned about his inflexibility and openly complaining about minor tasks.)" NYTimes

None of this shakes the Wall Street Glitterati though...

"I envision all investors saying 'Great,'" (Jim) Cramer said Monday. "Do I want to work at amazon? No. If you want to play your money with companies that only treat their employees well and do everything right, it's harder than you think to find." CNBC

Which has to be the most stunning display of cognitive dissonance (one of my favorite phrases) since Bernie Madoff uttered this 2007 quote, 

"It's virtually impossible to violate rules in today's regulatory environment"

InformationWeek

Of course Wall street loves this stuff.  We all know that nothing will raise a share price faster than pulling the rug out from under workaday America.  So it was with Amazon the following Monday after the New York Times expose'.  Amazon's share price was effectively unchanged.

Which is strange because for all the conservative admonitions about self reliance and the glories of capitalism Wall Street heaps praise upon companies that have effectively adopted management based on communism.

Hypocritical.

That any company can be celebrated for a institutionalized policy of devaluing people should be cause for outrage.  But there's that cognitive dissonance again.  So long as Wall street gets its money nobody really cares how it got there or who gets  hurt.

Think it's OK to throw a little Chairman Mao in with your capitalism?  Consider how relatively backward communist nations were before they embraced some form of capitalistic markets.  China wasn't known for anything but making cheap knockoffs of American goods.  The Soviet Union couldn't make a decent car and Cuba might as well have thrown out the calendars after 1962.

Creativity, innovation and progress are not born out of repression and abuse.  These days, however, no matter where you work you will suffer it in some measure.

Your choices are to literally be a "Wage Slave" or strike out on your own.  Of course if whatever shingle you hang happens to threaten one of those places you choose NOT to work for, expect to be crushed. 

Ask Barnes and Noble how that feels...

Let's bring back the America we were sold.  The one where hard work was rewarded and CEO's didn't look to Chairman Mao for guidance.  Let's get the Labor Department to actually do something other than print lunchroom posters and spit out manufactured statistics for the crystal ball prognosticators on CNBC.

How far have we really progressed over the past two generations when wages remain stagnant, women are still underpaid and companies blatantly abuse their workforce without consequence? 

We need real progress, not just some dumb commercial of waving wheat fields complete with proclamations of America's greatness on Bloomberg.

There's only one way to do it, make them fail and to hell with what Wall Street thinks.  There are other places to buy crap that aren't Amazon.com, other retailers that don't have "Walmart" over their doors and other phones that don't have an Apple Logo on them.

Some favorite Onion bits to brighten your day...

Take a break!

Uber

Wolfenstein: New Order 2nd person mode

Fetal Position workers

Apple friend bars

Products aren't revolutionary, get it straight!

The term "revolutionary" is overused.  Changing your form of government from a monarchy to a representative Democracy is revolutionary.  Browsing the Internet from your tablet instead of your PC is not. 

Revolutions are about upheaval not convenience.  Changing your method doesn't change the context.   The core of the word "revolution" is "revolt."  "Evolution" is just another form of "evolve." 

Simply put, revolution and evolution are not interchangeable terms regardless of anything you see in a Microsoft or Apple advertisement.  When you buy an IPAD you're not revolting against anything, not even Microsoft. 

There's nothing wrong with evolving, it's the reason we aren't still beating our clothes on rocks or retiring to a little wooden shack with a moon carved in the door when nature calls. 

Yet the word "revolutionary" gets thrown around quite a bit.  Maybe that's because the so-called developed world has long since moved on from debates over social justice to be replaced by the most popular color of Iphone. 

Perhaps the misuse of the term stems from our fascination with technological doo-dads.  They need do nothing more than change their shape or offer a bigger screen to suddenly find themselves on par with a certain conflict in 1776.

It's more than a question of semantics, it's a potentially dangerous devaluing of the term.  If a regime change is on par with the latest "product" we become desensitized to both.  That's fine for the crap found on late night infomercials but not for events that potentially affect the human condition. 

I'm probably screaming into the wind but it seems obvious that the more we muddy the meaning of what we say the less value our words have. 

Think about that the next time you're browsing the wares at your local best buy or Amazon.com.

If technology is the tool, why am I the one getting used?

Technology's great isn't it. 

"There's an app for that" and increasingly there's hardware for it. too.  The next decade promises an explosion of technical doodads that will be able to do anything from having your favorite latte' ready when you wake to alerting you to failing health.

Ain't it grand.  Our entire lives, every need, every whim, every action collected, recorded, monitored and stored.  Today, a newborn baby can expect a record of everything they've ever done from cradle to grave.

How convenient, how secure, how exciting this gilded cage we're making for ourselves.  Until we found out about the antics of the NSA recently, the concept could be brushed off as the ramblings of a crank.  Regardless of the level of technical expertise governments may or may not have, the event shocked a technology addicted populace even if only for a moment.

For the next few months at least, anyone selling anything with the word "privacy" is sure to do well until the next shiny bauble comes along.

Short of an EMP pulse from space knocking us back to the 19th century, change never happens overnight.  It's gradual no matter how exponential Moore's law becomes.  Today it's a fingerprint reader on an Iphone or the convenience of storing your private data in the cloud.  Most people wouldn't give a second thought to what it really means to swap out an Android phone and find all their personal data and settings automatically downloaded to its replacement. 

It's just  cool because it's so convenient.  Never mind someone else has control of your stuff...

All you have to do is stress the utility of that new toy and privacy goes out the window.  That anyone who uses a  Smartphone expects the data on it to be private in the first place is laughable but they do. 

 You can choose not to participate but soon find yourself ostracized.  Socialization, personal economy and even careers increasingly demand you jump on the bandwagon.

Technology isn't a bad thing so long as it remains a tool but it seems we're moving toward an age where the tool is used against us.

Consider a world where your smartphone snitches to your health insurance company via its NFC payment capability while your car verifies your location via GPS.  There's no denying it, you got the supersized fries and your health premium is going up because of it.

Consider your car insurance company monitoring every mile and basing your premium on what they find out.  It's already happening with at least one major insurance carrier.

Maybe you get a discount for driving 5 miles under the speed limit and ordering the salad instead of the burger.  That makes it all ok, right?

It's the small changes in what is considered acceptable that gradually erode personal freedoms and liberties.  Consider that for your discounted premiums you've essentially subjected yourself to a set of values you may not share.  As it becomes a more accepted practice you become more powerless.

Companies are essentially demanding compliance from their customers.  What happened here?  Since when does a customer have to justify themselves to  the cashier?

It's simple really. 

You're a prisoner, worse, you pay dearly for the privilege while the whole time doggedly defending your right to treated as such.

Technology is seductive, slowly evolving our dependency to the point where it's inconceivable for most to live without it.  We're convinced we need it even if we don't.  We must be continually connected and have instant access to everything.

We even create workflows of nonsense just to justify having it.  Is it really that important to be able to talk to Google?  What if all your queries were recorded, compiled and used to create a profile about you that you knew nothing about?

The sad fact is that the services we rely on often don't have our best interests at heart.  Profit and  Philanthropy make poor bedfellows.  So does power.

Once governments discover this voluntary abdication of civil liberties it's nothing for them to exercise control over our cherished providers of our technological fix.

And it is a fix.  If you can't imagine a day without your smartphone you're just as addicted as anyone on crack cocaine.  You think you need it but in reality you don't.

Technology is a tool but there's no reason you should allow yourself to be used by it.  Get your context straight and you won't have to worry about privacy or security.

CES 2012, So What

Note:  I wrote this article last year for Technorati.  I bring it forward now to see if anything's really changed. My bet is that it hasn't...

Article originally published on Technorati as CES 2012 So What

CES 2012, so what...

Spend any time on the Internet and it's hard to avoid coverage of the Technology industries biggest show and tell.  But is it really?

This year, it seems the big story has centered around LG's 55 inch OLED display and an onslaught of "me too" tablets and ultrabooks.

Oh yeah, and that whole Microsoft pulling out of the show next year thing.  Even their keynote was a yawn inspiring parade of old information and lackluster demonstrations.   As I watched it I thought to myself that it was the first time I've ever seen Steve Ballmer struggle to not look bored.

Now we have the last of the two most recognized names in technology eschewing the event for other venues.  The other notable absence of course being Apple.

It's been suggested that it's far more effective and less costly to make major announcements on the Internet or via more focused events like Microsoft's Build or Apple's Worldwide Developer conference. .  If you're Microsoft or Apple, CES is not the avenue it once was to get your product in front of the consumer.

That makes sense.  CES is supposed to primarily be a venue for manufacturers to test new products out on potential customers.  By "customers" I'm not talking about you and me, rather I'm referring to purchasing agents for Big Box stores like Best Buy and second string manufacturers that want to use components from companies like LG.  So you don't get in unless you're either tech press or in the "industry".  

It seems strange that an event touting itself as a "Consumer Electronics Show" has no interest in showing their wares to consumers.  Instead they'd rather have the information filtered through technology media with their own biases or vendor PR departments.  That may explain why so many innovative products fail to gain any traction in the "real" world.  You can't gauge public interest if you don't give them opportunity to talk to you.

As I've watched the coverage from a number or sources I've noticed that even the best technology press gets little more than a sales pitch and evasion when pressed for details.  With all due sarcasm, it seems completely logical to spend millions on a flashy booth and provide no information on the products it contains.  After all who cares if the product actually exists let alone when it will be released.  In the end it's likely that we could have gained more information from a press release.

I've been to a number of industry tradeshows and I can tell you I'm usually bored after an hour or two.  While a trip to Vegas is usually a good thing I can understand the tech pundits bemoaning having to attend a show like CES.  Let's face it, they were probably bored the first day and spent the rest of the week desperately trying to find something interesting to report

CES gained a lot of its current popularity when Comdex left the scene around 2004.  Even with the exit of Comdex the show currently brings in only 150,000 visitors on average during its yearly run which is quite a bit less than the quarter million in years past.  Perhaps the writing is on the wall and like many brick and mortar retailers, the Internet has a lot to do with the decline.

 It's also possible that the whole concept of CES has become outdated.  Technology changes faster than old avenues of promotion can keep up with making it difficult to forecast demand for six months let alone a year out. 

Another problem is the saturation of product markets.  For example, this year seems to be the year of tablet and ultralight laptops.  What we see is a mild upgrade to devices we already know with little in the way of revolutionary products. 

Take TV's for example.  Everybody knows about HD now and the only big advance we've had is screen size and gimmicks like 3D over the past few years.  OLED is nice as is 4K resolution but it's still just a TV which is still a commodity product no matter how good it looks.  Couple that with astronomical pricing  when they finally decide to release the "upgraded"  product and all that "innovation" goes out the window.
(2013 note:OLED 55" said to be 10K when released only in Japan this summer BTW.  They blame low yields of only 10 to 15 percent of the large OLED panels for the scarcity and price.)

In the end it's likely that CES will eventually fade away in favor of more consumer focused promotions in smaller shows and on the Internet. 

The New Ipad Mini is coming!

My golden pin to poke the Apple hype balloon...

Enjoy!

Music credit:

Sneeuwland (Oskar Schuster) / CC BY-NC-SA 3.0

New Apple products but where's the revolution?

Article first published as New Apple Products But Where's the Revolution? on Technorati.

So today the buzz in Apple land was the announcementof the new smaller IPad, the completely redesigned IMac and Retina display on a 13 inch laptop.   Oh yeah, and your "New" Ipad is now old because the 4th Generation IPAD was announced.   The 4th gen IPad boasts a more powerful A6X processor and available LTE connectivity.  Hope you got your offer from Gazelle.com locked in before today!

Tim Cook was front and center hyping all the "innovations" of his new products.  At one point even comparing the new IPAD mini to the Samsung Galaxy Nexus.  Cook even went so far as to drag out the "sold more IPad's than PC's" argument  from last year which still holds as much relevance as the number of paper clips consumed by the average office.

Undoubtedly there'll be hundreds of articles about the announcement and it's not my intent to rehash that information.  I'm sure there'll be 100 blog posts in the next 24 hours to take care of that.

What was striking was how little innovation there was to be had. 

Sure, ever since the introduction of Samsung's Galaxy note last year then the Nexus this year Apple fans have been hoping for a smaller version of the IPad,

Today they got it but it's hard to understand what's so great about it.  It amounts to little more than Apple late to a market already dominated by a competitor.

The new IMac  has a thinner profile and is available with the "new" fusion drive which is little more than an SSD accelerated hard disk.   That's technology that's been available since the introduction of the Intel Z77 chipset.   Unless you view your IMac as an objet d'art instead of a computer there's nothing revolutionary about it.

In short, today's Apple announcement boiled down to a refresh of the current Ipad, a smaller Ipad with a $329 entry level price point and a prettier IMac in 21.5 and 27" screen sizes. 

Where's the real innovation? Where's the world changing product that has set the standard for consumer electronics?  Instead of changing the way we interact with technology like the first Macintosh PC or the Iphone, Apple seems content to react to market trends instead of setting them.

One thing that hasn't changed is the price point.  Apple still demands a premium price for largely garden variety hardware in an attractive shell. 

Living in the Silicon bubble, the Sequel

I would dearly love to live in the world of tech commercials.  I'd never see a landscape that wasn't a scenic vista. Every city street would be a model of urban renewal with stylishly clad inhabitants happily dancing through the day with their Smartphones and tablets at the ready.

Business professionals would conduct high level meetings in their Speedos comfortably reclined on some sunny tropical beach.   The view only temporarily obscured by perfectly toned examples of the human form interrupting the crashing waves.

This is the world promoted by tech pundits.  Pseudo journalists who often forget that they're living the dream that few of their followers could ever enjoy.

Oh! what horror it must be to cover a Smartphone launch or have to spend a week in Vegas covering a tech toys convention.  

So when a recent Saturday night Live skit shone a light on the tech punditry by mocking their surreal point of view, the punditry could only chuckle nervously.  If you missed it the skit focused on a fictional panel discussion with three tech pundits airing grievances about the shortcoming of the Iphone 5.  Later 3 Chinese factory workers countered with sarcastic responses citing inhumane working conditions

We'll leave alone the hypocrisy of the stereotypical Uber humanitarian Iphone Devotee embracing a product whose very creation advocates abject slavery for Chinese workers on the line.    Oops,  I guess I didn't leave it alone ah well, moving on...

Response from the punditry ranged from tepid amusement to complaints that the pundits in SNL's skit looked like "they were out of the 80's" and not consistent with the "real" punditry.  Actually, the depictions were fairly accurate if you watch enough tech podcasts. 

That's the problem with living in a bubble, you start to lose touch with how the rest of the world sees you. 

Perhaps, like many others, I'm making more of the SNL skit than it deserves but I think it was a perfect depiction of the techie mindset.  Gross consumerism and perpetual upgrade cycles trump ordinary reason.  Only the device matters. The next killer app is always just around the corner promising to let you do absolutely nothing with greater speed and utility. 

Who cares if the factory that made it employed abject slavery to make it, your world view is safe right?  Worse, who cares if the mechanisms to produce the next killer device were devastating the economy of those not so blessed to be in the tech punditry.  Hey there are plenty of jobs at Starbucks and Amazon warehouses right?

I've noticed a new wave of complaints from the punditry lately.  Suddenly they feel unfairly trolled and will go so far as to call the Internet "mean".  

I'll clue you in punditry, the Internet isn't "mean" it's just worried about its next paycheck.  It's growing incredulous at your denial of reality.   Tech toys are expensive for the rest of us but you seem to be oblivious to that fact and prefer instead  to cite your distorted reality as the de facto norm.   

I thank the pundits for their input and appreciate the information.   What I don't appreciate is the assertion that their lifestyle in any way reflects that of their audience.  It doesn't.  Perhaps when you realize that you'll be able to graduate from podcasting to actual journalism.

A Touch of Madness Over Windows 8

Article first published as A Touch of Madness Over Windows 8 on Technorati.

A touch of madness over Windows 8

Change never comes without cost and it's usually exacted by chipping away at our comfort zone.   Like some tortured victim of Stockholm syndrome we'll  irrationally rise up against any threat to our routines.

So the coming release of Windows 8 might as well be a new red scare to many tech industry bigwigs and pundits. 

It began  with a dire prediction about the fallout of Windows 8 from game industry mogul Gabe Newell of Valve:" I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I thinkwe’ll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market."

It continued with rumblings from industry pundits over changes to the way we'll be interacting with the Windows 8 interface.  From removal of the startbutton to optimizations for touch sensitive devices that irritatedindustry press it seems  those "in the know" are of mixedopinion at best.

It doesn't matter.

Think of all the convoluted keyboard shortcuts and permutations of pointing devices and it becomes obvious that we've hated our interaction with computers for years.  If the experience was ideal we wouldn't be trying to minimize it with ergonomic gimmickry.

Chances are pretty good that most of you have a Smartphone, tablet or both and you've become accustomed to getting your stuff with a tap or a swipe.   For many it's preferable.  So is it any surprise that Microsoft thinks you want to do the same on your desktop? 

If Microsoft is guilty of anything, it's of being a bit early to the party.  If touch interfaces weren't popular Apple would never have bothered with the IPAD and Microsoft wouldn't be getting into tablets in a big way with Windows RT and Surface. 

The way you work with your PC today will be very different from how you use it just 10 years from now.  That may sound like futurist prophesying but consumer preferences eventually permeate the workplace.

 Consumers have voted for touch with their wallets, just take a look at IPAD sales for proof.  They will come to expect it in all their digital interactions even if it involves a little pain at first.

That means touch on your desktop is in your future and you'll learn to like it, even if you don't know it yet.

IPAD Mania, Make it Stop!

I know, I shouldn't be annoyed by the hype.  I actually did a 2 part article predicting the hysteria but I can't help myself...

With Tim cook making ridiculous comparisons like how many more IPADS than PC's were sold in the same quarter I have to point out that the statistic is only valid if you also include things like  staples  and rolls of toilet paper.   Spoiler alert, way more rolls of TP flew off the shelves and it's a seriously more useful commodity.

Then we have respected technical pundits calling the new IPAD a "content creation device" and how we're now in the "post PC era" Here's a news flash, my 8 year old digital camera and my pen and legal pad are also content creation devices, that doesn't make them "resolutionary"  I also don't need an Internet connection for my PC to be useful and I don't have to worry about filling up my flash or blowing my Data cap because I downloaded too many movies.

I'm still mystified how people can enjoy a movie on anything smaller than a 30" screen.  I didn't even like it on a 22" LCD.  It's amazing how marketing can convince consumers that less is more with a few flashy applets and a pretty screen.

Ok, here's the thing.  The new IPAD is still a tablet.  Yes it's got the greatest 10" tablet screen in the world and can hook up to LTE (fake 4G) networks now.  Wonderful, and at only $600 to $800 I can join in the fun too.

I can't stand tech hype.  I can't stand the fact that a now obsolete predecessor to this current generation IPAD only drops $100 in price and I'm supposed to be thankful.

I love how tech shows geared toward mobile devices still rely on laptops for their content while they expouse the virtues of the IPAD's third coming.  If the day of the PC is over then toss the Macbook already!  No? Then accept the fact that a tablet, any tablet, is a complement not a replacement for a PC.
All those nifty apps on the IPAD?  They're toys, nothing more than recreational apps.  Do you think Tim Cook types up his speeches on an IPAD then sends it to his secretary to edit on an IPAD?  Do you think major Hollywood movies will be shot with an IPAD camera?  Not likely if they have a major studio behind them and want to display their work somewhere other than YouTube.

Yes, there's office for the IPAD but it's so stripped down that it might as well be a document viewer.  gotomypc on a tablet?  Yeah, that's what I need, to be scrolling around the screen because I can't see the whole desktop all the time hoping my swipe doesn't accidentally wipe out the RAID array because of a careless flick of the index finger.

If you have the kind of time to be playing games, taking pictures and watching movies on your tablet during the day then god bless you.  Most people I know get up, go to work and barely have time to get 1/2 hour for lunch let alone play with a tablet.  This kind of product is aimed at a shrinking market that can't really afford a $800 tablet that's going to sit on their shelf most of the time.

When you get right down to it the reality is that the promise of a device like this for the general public holds no more water than the middle aged man who buys the red corvette thinking he'll restore his  dwindling virility
...and Apple laughs at you all the way to the bank.

Apple revs up expectations for the latest IPAD.

Article first published as Apple Revs Up Expectations for the Latest iPad on Technorati.

I wrote an article last week in my Digital Dynamic Blog entitled, "It's Crazy".  I aimed it squarely at this week's IPAD launch and the media frenzy that accompanied it.  Seems I was right as we were treated to an avalanche of media attention and outlandish marketing sound bites.  Of course Apple's CEO Tim Cook wrung a bit more anticipation out of the crowd by first announcing the new 1080P Apple TV box before getting to the star of the show.   The new IPAD which is curiously just called, IPAD (not IPAD3 or IPAD HD) has the following specifications.

2048 x 1536 (3.1 million pixels) Retina display.

A5X processor, quad-core graphics

5 MP camera on the back

HD (1080p) video capture

Voice dictation (not SIRI by the way)

4G LTE capability For the IPAD LTE (73 mbps on LTE).

Wireless hotspot capability

10 hour battery life, 9 hours on 4G.

9.4mm thick, 1.4lbs.

Compatible  mobile carriers; Rogers, Telus and Bell in Canada, At&T and Verizon in the U.S.

Price Wi-Fi iPad: 16 GB ($499), 32 GB ($599), 64 GB ($699)

Price Wi-Fi + 4G: 16 GB ($629), 32 GB ($729), 64 GB ($829)

IPAD2 pricing will also drop by $100.

Availability: March 16th in the U.S. and Canada

During the event, Tim Cook boasted of more IPAD sales in the 4th quarter of 2011 than any makers PC sales.  That's a dubious statement considering most people don't use tablets the same way they use a pc especially when there's heavy lifting to be done.  While technically accurate, the statement holds no more distinction than asserting that more paperclips were sold in the same quarter than the total number of IPADS ever produced. 

The advent of the tablet is a welcome utility for many but just as your corner convenience store is not a threat to the supermarket the tablet is no threat to the pc.  Unfortunately, Ultrabook pc makers feel it is  leading at least one manufacturer, Acer to aim for a $499 price point.  This after admitting they currently make no profit at the current $799 price.   Considering a pc in any form factor will by its very nature will have more functionality than a tablet it seems a pointless goal.  More so when you consider that the top end of the IPAD food chain offers little more than a nice display and LTE connectivity at a $829 price point.  

Tablets have their place but limitations of storage, dependency on network connectivity for basic functionality and limited performance compared to even entry level PC's makes them more of a compliment than replacement for pc's.  That also calls into question the Apple price premium especially if you don't normally utilize their ecosystem.  Cooler heads suggest selecting devices based on your needs instead of marketing hype.