iPhone Nano

Today's title is controversial. I really regret Apple has gone the full featured smartphone way. But just last week I found a device that turns an EXISTING iPod into an iPhone (sort of). The gadget is called BlueEye, from Gear 4. BlueEye is the size of an original Apple iPod remote, and has a built-in FM radio tuner, like the radio remote (in case you prefer to listen to some live programming instead of the stored tunes). But it also has two additional pieces of hardware inside - a microphone and a Bluetooth transceiver. The idea behind this product is very simple. You are listening to your iPod, your phone rings and you can pick up the conversation using the same earphones you already wear. And to make your life easier, the music is automatically paused and even the calling phone number is displayed on the iPod's screen.

The device does not require any batteries and chargers (it draws the power from an iPod). It pairs seamlessly with any Bluetooth - enabled phone. And is as easy and straightforward to operate as it should be. Of course you end up with a two - device setup. Your original iPod and your phone. But this is not bad. There are places where you go just with your phone, leaving the iPod at home. And if you happen to take the iPod with you, you will not miss a call even if you crank up the volume to the maximum.

Very simple, very useful, and very well done, congratulations, Gear 4!

Move data from your mobile phone to the Web

I believe all of us have changed a mobile handset (at least once). Long time ago (like mid -nineties) it was a pleasure. Being a GSM subscriber in 1993 meant your phone was bulky and heavy and all your personal data (mostly contacts directory) was stored on a SIM card. So you brought your new (less bulky and less heavy) handset from the shop, pulled the SIM from the old one, popped in the new and voila - everything worked as intended. The new phone logged to the network and you were able to dial. But as the years passed by and mobile phone turned gradually into "mobile - everything - you - need", silently you started to store more and more information in it. More PERSONAL information. SIM address books had simple structure: name (alphanumeric) + number (digits). Current phones bring hierarchies. Name is no longer just a string of characters. There is a first name, last name, company name. And there are several numbers per contact (mobile, home, work, fax) and other fields like an email address. Day by day you keep entering this information. A new number calls and your phone offers to save it as a contact, you add name and other info to it and save.

After two years (typical period of service contract) of being loyal to your carrier you are offered a new, flashier, better mobile phone if you decide to extend the contract. The new gadget has many extras - FM radio, color screen, Internet browser,... and is even slimmer and flashier. So you swallow the bait and pop your SIM card in just to realize there are just two numbers in the directory: emergency (112 in Europe and 911 in the US) and voice mail. The rest is gone. To be correct, the rest is in your old phone. SIM cards do not carry contacts anymore. SIM structures (flat list) and capacities (100 or 250 if you are lucky) are not enough, so phones store the information in their internal memories. So in a panic you go back to your old and faithful one, where your data is, but the new one still attracts with its looks and new features. After a while you decide to make the effort and TRY to move the contacts "somehow" across to the new phone.

First you try saving contacts to the SIM card to move them over, but you soon realize you loose the structure (directory is no longer hierarchical with multiple numbers under one name). No to mention you are only able to move only part of the list this way. Then after reading a manual you notice you can "beam" the contacts over infrared or Bluetooth, but soon find out the originating phone (for some reason known only to its designers) can transmit only one entry at a time, and repeating the process 400 times would take two weeks. Then you turn to a neighbor who is a computer geek and offers to move the contacts from the old phone to Outlook and then to the new phone, but you soon find out your phone does not connect to Outlook at all (though it should...). Finally you decide to retype the entire address book...

Wouldn't it be good if your mobile operator had a service that allowed you to "push" all the contacts from your (old) phone, over the air, to a hosted Web service (similar to GMail). Push one button and backup your data to the network. Then take the new phone and "restore" the network backup. With one press of a button. Service like that would make users very happy. It is straightforward for the operator to implement, yet only a few are actually offering it. Imagine all your data backed up. Lost your phone? Lost nothing! Bring a new one, push a button and restore the information. Your PERSONAL information.

There are tons of services that can be built on top of an address book stored at the network. Smart messaging, like Missed Call Notifications can show the NAMES of the people trying to reach you instead of their meaningless numbers. Voice Activated Dialing, a service build on ASR (Automatic Speech Recognition) technology would let you dial a short number (like *4444) and say the name of a person you would like to talk (imagine having this when driving a car). Add the presence information to that ("Carl is at the meeting, would you like to leave him a message?"). Intuitive configuration of your personal ringback tones and blacklists (again names instead of numbers). Numbers are things from the past, they originated when rotary dial was your user interface. Names are what we know and love. Technology and services in 21st century should not be built on what was available 100 years ago. Dear mobile carriers, if you really want to be innovative, do not restrict me with SIM cards and rotary-dial numbers. Give me the service I deserve!

iPhone: I'm confused

The first impression was WOW! And Steve's party continued into the night. But then was the morning [after]. I am being asked all the time what do I think about the iPhone. So here are my thoughts, in no particular order:

• I am surprised. iPhone seems to be a gadget for geeks like me. It solves many problems, but probably not the ones people have. I still would prefer a Nano with a slide-out keyboard. Pure music and pure phone calls in a stylish and simplistic design.
• What Apple unveiled seems to be a bit overdone. They merged together several pieces we discussed here: a touch screen, wireless connectivity and a PDA. But this is not necessarily what most people want. It is hard to imagine the iPhone being the only phone you have (it is just too big... going to a pub or skiing? forget it...). The Nano with phone functionality would do...
• Phone is the killer application? Hey Steve, give me a break, there are thousands phones on the market already. But well handled music on a phone would be something. Again we come to the Nano-iPhone... BTW nobody has been able to come up with a well integrated music on the phone. Even Microsoft with the specialized music buttons is a far cry behind the iPod's click wheel. NanoPhone would be a killer... And it would be much easier and less risky for Apple.
• No 3G? Well... this should not be a problem for most people, and those who cannot live without fast data, rest assured, there will be a 3G, Snapdragon - powered model. Version 2 or version 3, but it will come. Snapdragon core is ARM-based, so they will have to rewrite neither system nor applications.
  
• 600$ with a 2-year contract... This is way too high. They will sell a few in California, and a few more in Dubai (provided the price of oil does not collapse), but this is not a price for the mass market.
• Then is AAPL a short? With its price approaching 100$, the iPhone not being a clear winner and the options uncertainty mounting... it may very well be... At least I would not take a long position now. While being a gadget lover I will try to be one of the first iPhone owners, I doubt this very device will propel the stock higher. Before iPod, Apple had breakthroughs like the Lisa or Newton...
  

So to summarize... Putting the iPhone "cool factor" aside, I am disappointed. No wide-screen hdd-based iPod. No Internet tablet. No NanoPhone this time. Should we [again] wait for the next CES?

Microvision Delivers

Microvision has supposedly delivered today. The fruit is the long awaited IPM or Integrated Photonics Module. Making the long story short, IPM is a tiny multimedia projector. By using lasers as a source of light, it marks a very significant milestone on the road of image projection technology. First, it gets rid of Edison - style light bulb. We all know how inefficient light bulbs are in converting energy into light. Most of the energy supplied to a bulb is converted into heat. That is why image projectors draw a lot of power, get hot and noisy (they need fans to blow the heat out). Microvision IPM uses lasers. You probably have or at least have played with a pocket laser pointer. It runs for months on a set of tiny batteries and has a range of half a mile or more. Compare that to even the most powerful Maglite torch - they are big, heavy and can only dream to have a comparable range. Then using lasers you can get rid of another heavy and bulky part - optics. The IPM does not have any lenses. The laser light is coherent, it does need any optics to help it focus. It is focused all the time.

So how do they do it? How does it work? Almost identical to the old tube - style TV set. They have a beam of light (actually three beams - red, green and blue) and they can steer it left, right, up and down. The same way the old style TV sets used to work, except TVs were shooting an electron beam onto the fluorescent screen and IPM shoots light onto any surface serving as a screen. The heart of the IPM is a mechanical microchip, a so-called MEMS device, a tiny, fast moving micro-mirror, reflecting the lasers into any precisely selected point. And what is the most important, by getting rid of a bulb and optics, Microvision has been able to reduce an image projector to the size of a candy, making it possible to embed it inside a mobile phone or a device like a video iPod, no to to mention a notebook computer. The power consumption makes it possible to integrate with a portable device and run on batteries at least for a few hours.

The Holy Grail of display technology? Possibly, but this is just a prototype. We (at least myself) still do not know much about the image quality, the yield rates of the microchip (this will almost directly translate into price). We even don't know if the company will be able to productize the IPM prototype. I have been following Microvision (MVIS) for awhile. They had a lot of internal problems. An innovative, VC - founded startup, with great vision and roadmap, but just going too broad, burning money too fast and unable to deliver market versions of any of its gems. Things have changed not long ago. They got a new CEO (Alex Tokman), who sounds like a right person to do the job. Tokman is definitely not a movie star, but he seems to be doing one thing extremely crucial to the likes of Microvision - FOCUS. Instead of going wide, he axed many side projects and regrouped the company to focus and deliver. Not many but just a few products, the IPM being the most important. I love a strategy like that. Do not try to do everything. Just focus on your strengths and deliver. The customers, the investors, the partners, they will love you. The competition will hate you (they would love you to spread wide and thin!). Looking at the MVIS stock, it is quite probable 2007 will be the year of Microvision. But remember the company has still a long way to go. From prototype to large scale production. From trade shows to signing real contracts. And they will have to win the consumer acceptance. I am going to refrain from predicting MVIS to be a quick and safe money (my public track record for 2006 is not that great, although I still very much believe in QUIK story, buying on the dips). But hey, can you find other companies with such potentially breakthrough technologies?