Mac OS X Tablet : Now Or Never

Apple is closing on Microsoft at the operating system race track. Of course this does not mean Mac OS X sales are anywhere near the sales of Microsoft Windows, but there are areas where Microsoft used to race alone, without any competition and that competition starts showing its strengths. One such area is a Tablet PC.

Apple was early to the market with the Newton. Way too early, just before the Internet in fact. And they finally dropped the product line. Microsoft tried to approach the Tablet PC a number of times. They had various Windows CE - based designs, like the Vadem Clio (too early and too slow). Then decided Windows CE was not up to the task (that seems strange to me, but well...) building the first generation of Windows XP - based tablets like the Compaq TC1000 (I really liked that one and am thinking of buying its more powerful brother - the TC1100 - back). And then they started persuading us Vista is the way to go... Until last week when they gave up... Allowing users, who get Vista with their new hardware downgrade to the XP. This move is very controversial, actually meaning Vista is not all that better than XP, at least in some areas of use. One such area are tablets. Tablet computer is designed to be portable. Portable means low weight and no AC power supply. Low weight means batteries cannot be extremely big. And no AC power means the designers have to squeeze as much time as possible from whatever batteries they have. Most of the time this means using slow processors and less memory than recommended to run Vista. Tablet community confirms this. Most of the people I know are using tablets stick with XP or downgrade Vista down to XP or at least complain how slow Vista runs on their tablets. Not to mention it eats more precious juice to do what XP does...

Vista is a complete overkill for a tablet. What typical tablet user needs is a Web browser with fast AJAX engine and Flash support to run all these Web-2.0 applications like GMail, Google Reader, Flickr or whatever you like. A multimedia player for pictures, music and videos and some light office applications like a document editor, a spreadsheet and an offline email application. Why would you need to load all these goodies like RPC, DCOM, and hundreds of other performance bogging processes. To eat your battery and slow down your CPU? After a few weeks with the Nokia N800 I have to say with its capable browser it is very close to the experience and fields of use of the XP-based TC1000 I had four years ago. Yes, I would still prefer a bigger display and a thumb keyboard. But it runs Web 2.0 quite fast on the 300MHz ARM processor. And stays on long enough (actually I do not know how long... that means long enough not to bother measuring the battery performance).

Now I hear rumors Apple is coming back with a portable tablet computer. After squeezing the Mac OS X down to run on the iPhone and on the iPod touch I bet they can make the operating system perform brilliantly on the tablet form factor gadget. And unless Microsoft brings a real AJAX performance to the Windows Mobile - based tablet sporting a decent (800x600 or better) touch screen, Apple is poised to regain the tablet crown and capture a significant market the Origami failed to impress...

Fujifilm vs Sigma: Niche Strategies

I decided to buy a new digital camera. Technology moves fast ahead and my current Minolta A2 is ageing. I have been quite happy with the A2, but it starts showing its wear... And there are some general capabilities of the camera it just does not have. I went through my albums and among things I would like to have improved are white skies. Indeed on most of my pictures the sky is white. This means the dynamic range of the sensor was not high enough. The bright portions of the image saturated the image sensor, most of the time resulting in a white sky. I do not complain about other aspects of the images that much. Resolution of 8 megapixels is fine for the moment. 28-200 lens are OK too. So I started some research to find a camera equipped with a high dynamic range sensor. On one hand there is a cornucopia of new models from the market leaders, namely Canon and Nikon, followed by Panasonic and Sony. On the other hand two designs have attracted my attention: Sigma SD-14 and Fujifilm S5 Pro.

Sigma is known for probably the best sensor on the Planet: the latest X3 from Foveon. But unfortunately the rest of the camera lags a little behind what is currently on the market. Things like the autofocus, live view screens, overall speed and in-camera JPEG quality are just not there... Fujifilm S5 Pro attacks the very problem I want to solve - the dynamic range - by using a very special sensor with two photo diodes per pixel (one capturing the dark range, the other capturing the bright range of the pixel). Both cameras have very radical sensor designs, something I really value (not wanting to settle for what everybody else would go for :) ). But there are two different approaches by Sigma and Fujifilm to be a special niche player. Sigma locks you in with their own lens mount. So buying the SD-14, you somehow agree to buy all the future lens and other accessories from them. Fujifilm is much smarter here. They use a standard Nikon D200 body. Just furnish it with their own sensor and image processor. The rest is simply a Nikon. So choosing the S5 Pro, you are not locked in. Every Nikon accessory fits. Even Sigma lens with Nikon mount. This way the decision to buy the Fujifilm S5 pro is much less risky. Even if you do not like the body, the lens and other accessories you invest in can be used with a standard Nikon body later on.

Sigma wants it all. They give you the special sensor, but only when you commit to buy the entire rest of equipment from them. Fujifilm understands they will not conquer the world alone. Nikon partnership is very smart here. It even works the other way. The S5 Pro may be an easy choice for current Nikon users. I bet Fujifilm outsells Sigma, even as personally I would probably pick the Foveon - based body, provided it was a more standard design. For now, I decided to go the Fujifilm way. It's promise of high dynamic range is attractive and Nikon compatibility prevails over the superior X3 technology the Sigma offers. So far the product strategy has made the difference. May be one day Sigma learns their lessons and chooses the way Fujifilm has taken. It would definitely be beneficial for them...

Apple cellular network

Last week was full of speculation of Apple bidding for the 700MHz spectrum in the US. While this may or may not prove right, I have another concept for Steve Jobs. Why not become an MVNO or Mobile Virtual Network Operator? In Europe we are experiencing a tsunami of emerging MVNOs. Some of them are purely virtual, being no more than a brand, a web presence and a calling plan. Some build the entire core network infrastructure, including MSC's (Mobile Switching Centers), HLR's and all the galaxy of components composing a mobile network (less the radio transmitters and antennas). Each of them is targeting its own audience. Looking at this picture it looks pretty natural Apple should become an MVNO. The iPhone buyers are not happy about the AT&T alliance. They can live with AT&T just because they love Apple and they can withstand any torture just to be able to use the Apple product. This is a very loyal audience, feeling superior to anybody else. They are ready to spend a couple of hundred dollars every now and then when a new generation of iPods hits the streets. They stand in line at Apple Stores whenever a new product is introduced.

Apple has been giving them their own operating system for years, to power the best breed of computers. They followed Steve Jobs buying Power PC's and criticizing Intel even when it was known Apple was going the Intel route. Then they were purchasing the Intel machines just because there was an Apple logo on it. So why is Apple putting them now in the hands of the AT&T network? Wouldn't they feel better if their beloved iPhones were logging to the "own" Apple network, with Apple - centric user experience? Having its own mobile virtual network, Apple could offer a number of services targeted at iPhones. As it is the case with MacOS, it would have control of what is offered, how it is presented. Instead of negotiating a special data plan with AT&T to allow the iPhone users painlessly download iTunes music to their gadgets, having its own network would enable Apple to directly couple iTunes with voice and data plans of their own. And it's more. As with MacOS, Apple could control both the frontend layer (the iPhones) and the backend layer (the network and its services). And the Apple audience would feel good.

I am sure such a move was considered. Wonder why Steve Jobs did not choose to go that way. Wanted but could not due to technical reasons? Or rejected this route for other reasons?

Nokia N800: the iPhone killer

I have a basket full of various portable devices, each of them aspiring to be the king of portable Internet. The one I do not have is an iPhone, for several reasons. First and most obvious is we do not have AT&T coverage here in Poland :), but then I think the iPhone is not that great when it comes to mobile Internet. Especially the screen resolution of 320x480 is far from what is needed for decent web browsing. And then there are various reports of incredibly weak Safari performance and its Web 2.0 (AJAX) incompatibility. And while the World was waiting for the holy iPhone, Nokia quietly developed the second version of the Linux - based Internet tablet. The N800 is a successor of the N770 and its specs are really attractive (especially the screen at 800x480, 2.5 times more spacious than Apple's). After reading many very positive opinions on the N800, I finally decided to get one myself, and have to admit it has exceeded all my expectations by a wide margin. Here are the pros of the device:

• Overall build quality is excellent. On par with Apple.
• The design details, such as a foldable bracket, so the device stands on the table without a need of a dock.
• Built in stereo speakers - I love to listen to BBC World service streaming over the Internet (reminds me of the old days when I used to travel with Sony ICF world radio)
• Built in FM tuner, coupled with the built in speakers this is just great
• Built in Skype and Google Talk. With video (there is a small pop-up webcam available)!
• Built in Opera - the best browser on the Planet. The Web 2.0 / AJAX support is just amazing - everything from YouTube (Flash 9) to Citibank to Google works as on a full size PC. This is by far the most important piece of the N800. The browser is incredibly fast and fully compatible with the latest web sites. (and by the way you scroll the pages with fingers, very easy, fast and intuitive plus the hardware full screen / zoom in / out buttons make the Web experience complete)
• Fantastic touch screen. It recognizes if you touch it with a stylus or with a finger and the operating system automatically adjusts the actions - when touched by a finger, the menus and keyboard are displayed big, when touched by a stylus, the menus and keyboard are small. I was amazed how accurate the keyboard was and how easy and fast I was able to type with my thumbs on the screen.
• Great media performance. Both audio and videos (including full screen) play great. Both on earphones and through the speakers.
• Support for two SD memory cards, up to 8GB each, for 16GB total storage.

The device does not have a phone part built in. This is a very clever design. I have always preferred a two - piece approach to mobile connectivity: a small phone, acting as a modem if necessary and a bigger portable tablet (like the N800) in a briefcase, ready to be pulled out when needed. N800 can use the phone (over Bluetooth) as a cellular modem. And it has a WiFi radio built-in for places with coverage. The upcoming US version ordered by Sprint will have a WiMax radio.

After failing a bit with its business communicator lines, Nokia quietly managed to build an almost perfect device. It has the perfect setup and shines in everyday use. Also the decision to base the N800 on Linux (http://maemo.org/) pays off, as there are plenty of third party applications available. It is really hard to think of what else could be put inside the device to make it better? May be a GPS chip? May be a DVB TV tuner? A solar charging panel on the back? Accelerator to let you scroll the pages by tilting the device (OK, this one I really would love to have!). It really has got almost everything needed... We hear rumors on the Google Phone nowadays - from what I see Google should partner with Nokia to make the N800 its default mobile platform. That would add some good fresh blow to the current tug of war :)

Intelligent Mobile Terminals

Mobile Internet, wireless data cards, WiFi, UMTS, 3G, HSDPA, WiMax... look how many standards we have developed. I often try to think which way the future will develop. So far we have been thinking of WiFi as more "Internet oriented" and GSM/3G as more "telephony oriented" technologies. But this is going to change... Since the first day of "cellular packet data" known as GPRS we have been using "telephony oriented" networks to access the Internet, and vice versa, by means of Skype et al, Internet networks have been providing us with voice communications. But still a notebook is more of an Internet device and a mobile phone is more of a telephony device. The divide is more and more blurred however...

With the commercialization of technologies like GAN - Generic Access Network (I wrote about UMA a few weeks ago) the meaning of "carrier" as both the service operator AND the access network is taking a split. Voice telephony operator no longer needs a radio access network at all. They can rely on public and private buildout of Internet connectivity and work via virtual tunnels established between the handset and their infrastructure. We can easily envision an opposite model - an independent RAN (Radio Access Network) serving connectivity to various service providers - both mobile voice and pure data operators, and today mobile carriers becoming more a service providers than network operators. This trend clearly reminds us about the Ten Laws Of The Telecosm Redux by George Gilder. Especially the one obout the dumb networks:

Dumb networks will prevail over smart networks. The future is all-fiber networks that do nothing but transmit bits. Intelligence belongs at the edges and endpoints.

This is our “life after television” paradigm. It separates content from conduit. If you have the best conduit, you will want everyone’s content on it. You won’t want to restrict it to your own content. On the other hand, if you have the best content, you will want it on everyone’s conduit. You won’t want to keep it on your own network. Players that try to combine content and conduit will eventually split apart and often bleed financially in the process (e.g., AOL-Time Warner).

George formulated the original law referring to the all-fiber networks, but the same applies to wireless. Radio Access Networks will be as dumb as possible. Being able to connect everyone with everything, without paying any attention to what bits are transferred and what services are run. As with UMA - this will be the task of the Terminal (a mobile phone, an Internet tablet, iPhone, Google Phone...) to use any available radio network and find its home services to connect. But the operators of services (like voice telephony service or presence service or messaging service) will no longer operate the network itself. At least those who follow the rule of separation of content (service) from conduit (access / pipe) will win. This has already happened in the ixed world - AOL is the proof. This will happen in the mobile world. The coming tsunami of MVNOs (virtual or "networkless" carriers) is the proof.

Intelligent terminals will be the key enablers. At the moment my Windows laptop can be considered as an intelligent network terminal. With automatic WiFi and https tunnels, the applications like Firefox or Microsoft Outlook work regardless of what exact connection I happen to have. Be it an EDGE phone connected via Bluetooth or an HSDPA phone over USB or WiFi - to and access point - connection or 3G data card or wired Ethernet. I never restart my Firefox sessions and emails keep on coming to my Outlook Inbox any my Google Talk presence status is visible. The only difference is speed - sometimes good enough, sometimes slow. WiMax? It will be just another conduit available, eventually embedded inside the computer, alongside with 3G HSDPA/HSUPA, WiFi, Bluetooth et al. My laptop will always find a way to connect. With UMA, the same trend is coming to devices presently known as mobile phones. The form factor will remain. We need a voice communication device in our pockets. But it will automatically negotiate the most optimal conduit to access the services it is subscribed to - availability, call notification, voice sessions etc. Roaming charges will be a short time challenge, but eventually the world will be flat [rate] for us to benefit.

I just wonder when we are going to see the current mobile carriers spinning off their radio networks as separate businesses. The expected efficiency and payoffs seem to be huge... But we may wait a year or two until this happens, as this direction must be a mindtwister for many decision makers...