Ampers & Dot

Well what can I  say - I was wrong. A few weeks ago I ranted about Palm’s emptiness around marketing its upcoming device, the Pre. Well yes, “I was wrong”. Ok, actually at the time I wasn’t wrong, but since then Palm’s redeemed itself by building up some actual hype around this thing.

First, and most importantly, it announced a firm launch date. (Thanks Drew for pointing this out, 12 hours after I published my previous post.) The Pre comes out tomorrow morning (a Saturday launch? When news sources can’t play up the hype?!…. let’s just ignore that for right now and remain proud that there’s at least a date) But once the date was set, the hype ball started rolling.

Jason over at MrMobile has some solid coverage of this hype, and even Sprint is playing up the Pre hype, hinting at device shortages. And you know what: this is GOOD.

Gizmodo’s reported on how big the hype’s building, with some people (person?) buying into Sprint’s low stock threats by waiting in line and other people (idiot?) buying into the device hype by getting fanboy tattoos. Now, as seen here, Sprint is promoting that “the wait is over”. Awesome! They’re actually getting people excited!

Now look, will the device stand up to the hype? I don’t know. Will millions of consumers flock to Sprint stores this weekend? I’m not sure. Will the Pre launch be a success? Only time will tell. Will it kill the iPhone? No. Am I excited to see what happens this weekend? Absolutely.

Anyone out there waking up bright and early to get their hands on one? Beuller?

I try to steer clear of writing about marketing here (because that’s what I do during the day) but there’s been one big topic bothering me for too long not to address: product launches.

As a total gadget geek, I do my best to always know when the newest and gadgetiest devices are coming out. I read lots of blogs and forums, and go to networking events, and even email and talk to industry experts whenever I can to stay ahead of the curve (I’ll never argue that I have a healthy interest in gadgets… it’s really almost problematic). Over the years of tracking gadgets, I’ve watched dozens of products come and go.

Usually, at least with the cooler gadgets, there’s a fair amount of online buzz long before the device is ever released into the public. For example: any upcoming Windows Mobile device usually has WinMo enthusiasts talking in forums for about six months before it ever hits shelves. With any gadget, the big tech blogs usually speculate on a release date far before one is actually announced. This gives the fans something exciting to read and speculate about to pass the time until the gadget is actually real. (It’s a strange obsession, I know.)

But that’s where things get screwy: launch dates. Why do we have to speculate? Shouldn’t we know? Shouldn’t the company selling the gadget promote the date on which you can actually buy it?

Most recently, there’s the hype around the upcoming Palm Pre. The Pre actually looks pretty cool. It’s this season’s iPhone competitor featuring a brand new OS, obligatory touch screen, and a very Palm-like keyboard. Check out more details on the official Palm Pre site here. Also, while on that site, please notice the “Coming Soon” text on the left. That’s right: we don’t know when the Pre is going to be publicly available. Why not?

Honestly, I have no idea. There’s actually a LOT of speculation around the actual launch date, including a hint from this morning that it might launch as soon as NEXT WEEK. We could be a week away and not know it? That seems ridiculous. Wouldn’t Palm want to get people excited - maybe build some buzz about an upcoming launch… maybe some marketing to build the hype? Well they’re trying… but without a launch date.

See, I think launch dates work. They get people excited, build the online and offline buzz, and get people to line up for your product (which perpetuates the hype and gains even more news coverage). Like the iPhone. (Of course Apple did this right, marketing is one of the things it does best.) With each iPhone there was substantial buzz around the launch date - to the point that people stood in line for DAYS.

When the Google Phone launched, it too had a firm launch date - and people lined up! Overall, the G1 sales have been rather low, but there was still enough hype around the launch to get crowds lining up. Why isn’t Palm doing this with the Pre? Seriously, I want to know!

We could be five days away from the Pre launch. If this were a new iPhone, fanboys would already be packing up their camping gear to wait in line. This is supposed to be Palm’s chance at a resurrection - you’d think they’d let people know about it.

So here’s my question: does a gadget get more coverage without a launch date - having fans and blogs constantly speculate? Or is it better to have a firm date, announce the date, and have people stand in line to build the hype?

Maybe it’s that I’m just impatient, but I think that having a real, confirmed date is just much more exciting. What do you think?

So apparently we’re in a recession. At least that’s what I hear in the news (or at least I would if they’d ever stop talking about Swine Flue). Evidently, consumer spending is down, earnings are down, profits are down, morale is down, budgets are down, and depression is up.

But don’t let all this negativity trick you into thinking no one’s spending: as TechCrunch reports, the domain name “Ad.com” just sold for $1,400,00.00 to a domain holding company (who likely hopes to sell it for more, in the near/long term future). Basically they paid 140,000 times more than Ad.com likely cost in the first place. That’s right: almost a million and a half dollars for a domain name. Yeah, it’s short and short domains are cool… but this purchase seems ridiculous.

Last year I reported on the sale of Pizza.com at a whoppingly stupid price of $2.6m, but those were different times - way back in 2008 when the New Startup to Silicon Valley Engineer ratio was about 1/1.5 and web 2.0 companies were valued beyond the moon. But in 2009 when even the biggest tech giants are struggling to make a profit, how in the world is a $1.4 million domain name worth the investment?

The argument, as I made last year, is that people don’t just randomly type in URLs, they go to search engines to find them. Hell, people even use Google to search for URLs, instead of just typing them in.

So let’s look at Pizza.com a year after its $2.6m sale… what’s the point of this site!? Ugh. Moving on.

No. You know what, let’s not move on yet. Let’s go back to Pizza.com and look at what they’re doing with a $2.6 MILLION domain. It’s a website, about pizza. With Google ads on the sidebar. Amazing.

Alright, now I really need to move on. How about Googling “Pizza”… it’s a) off the first screen, requiring scrolling b) below news results c) below map results d) below the Wikipedia entry, which is basically as helpful as Pizza.com e) below paid ads. I don’t even want to think about how many paid ads on the word “pizza” you could get for $2.6 million… but I’m sure it would be a more valuable move than spending the lump on a domain.

Here’s what it comes down to: in this economy - when companies are conducting layoffs, dollars are tight, and business are timid to invest - it just bothers me to see money wasted like that.

But who knows, maybe in a few years once the economy is back and the web is roaring, the “domain holding” company that purchased Ad.com will be able to flip it to some other dimwitted entity and then who will look stupid?

From my point of view: both of them… Just one will look stupid and rich. But still stupid.

I’ve seen the future - and it’s beautiful. More specifically: it’s in high definition and has interactive capabilities.

This past week was my single favorite of all 52 a year: Masters week. A time during which the world’s top golfers flock to Augusta, Georgia to battle each other in the most pristine setting on earth. There is no other competition like it and it truly is “A tradition unlike any other”. I could happily go on for a few thousand words just expressing my love for the Masters but I’ll save the non-golf-fanatics the trouble and instead, talk tech today.

What completely blew me away during this year’s event (aside from Anthony Kim’s 11 birdies, Campbell’s opening round, or Sergio’s lack of sportsmanship) was the quality of coverage. Like all PGA events, the Masters is a four day tournament running from Thursday to Sunday - with network TV covering only the weekend afternoon slots. Unlike other PGA events, the Masters has a live, online component for the entire event.

Beginning Thursday morning, Masters.com provided viewers with live streaming video. Ok, so that sounds cool, right? But it gets better. Much better.

Instead of just streaming one feed, viewers had the option of four different feeds depending on your preferences. Also, as shown in the image below, the feeds have picture-in-picture, a live interactive leaderboard, a chat window to interact with other fans, player alerts, feed info, and a live ticker across the bottom. Incredible. (To see a better rundown - that inspired this post - check out Drew’s coverage at The Daily Muddle.)

It takes a lot to impress me with technology these days, but I can truly say that I was jaw-droppingly amazed by the Masters coverage. This is, hopefully not long from now, the future of TV. But not surprising: it’s all online.

Either through internet enabled TV, or TV enabled internet (more likely that the two will eventually become one in the same) streaming video online gives viewers a significantly richer experience, that we will soon grow to expect in our programming.

In the future when we watch a baseball game, we’ll be able to pick the camera to watch from - pitcher’s view, or batter’s. We’ll be able to pick the commentary - home or away. After a play we’ll be able to choose our instant replay angle and speed. We’ll be able to chat about different players, or plays - which will likely be annoying and overrun by spammers… When we watch American Idol we won’t have to text in votes, we’ll just click the on-screen button for our favorite contestant. And when we watch commercials (yes, we will watch commercials in the future) we’ll be able to click on the product to order it (and I don’t actually see that as a bad thing!).

To be perfectly honest: I’m not a big TV person. I have my favorite shows that I really enjoy, but beyond that I just don’t watch much. Instead, I’m an internet person. I could browse the web all day. But as TV and the internet converge, I could easily see myself enjoying watching TV again. Mainly because, I won’t just watch - I’ll interact.

Although I don’t use a BlackBerry on a daily basis, I understand them and the people that swear by them. They are fast, simple, and functional devices that easily empower business use with a sturdy feel in a stylish package. BlackBerries are great.

Maybe this is why I had such a difficult time understanding the touchscreen focused BlackBerry Storm. For those that don’t want to go back and read that post, mainly I argued that the touch-centric device took away from what makes a BlackBerry so great - pure functionality. By forcing the user experience to be entirely touchscreen, it makes even the simplest task - like checking email - a hassle.

My biggest gripe was that BlackBerry scrapped the clickwheel/ball, in favor of the poorly implemented finger dragging mechanism - meaning that if you wanted to navigate between two emails you’d have to click, hold, drag down, wait, and hope you didn’t overshoot. Considerably more difficult (and annoying) than rolling a little ball a little bit.

So I gave BlackBerry the advice that they should have started the move towards touch devices a little safer - testing the waters by adding a touch screen to their already popular devices - as opposed to the Storm, which was a full on belly flop into the murky drudges of Lake Touch. Now, only a few months later, a new device leaks into Rumorville (related note: Lake Touch is actually the main tourist attraction of Rumorville, millions flock there every year).

Courtesy of CrackBerry.com (who speculates this is likely a fake) we have  a leaked image of the BlackBerry 9900 for Rogers (oh, Canada…).

The 9900 is basically a Bold, but with a touchscreen… and without a clickball. Dammit BlackBerry, you missed my point. This is a perfect opportunity to trial touch capabilities within the BlackBerry OS - figure out the kinks and work on the the numerous bugs - but retain the full functionality of why people love BlackBerries. But I think this misses the point, again.

The Storm was a big overstep also because of its lack of a physical keyboard, so I guess the 9900 is at least a step towards sanity. But forcing users to still use the finger drag scrolling, clickable screen, and dysfunctional touch OS just seems cruel.

I guess all I’m saying is that I’m all about innovation, but it should come more gradually through an evolution. To me, it seems like BlackBerry is forcing evolution by skipping generations - which ultimately leaves the newer models missing the fundamental core of what makes a BlackBerry so cool.

Or maybe I’m just sad that we continue to lose out in the War on Buttons.

Last week gadget geeks began buzzing about the prototype Lenovo Yoga, an awkwardly named, but sleekly designed ultra portable notebook - seen here:

The Yoga is a conceptual spin on the Sony P, taking the bite sized computer and slimming it down even further. With a tiny keyboard and nub mouse, space on this puppy is at a premium. But surprisingly, there’s still a super wide screen display.

On one hand this is looks awesome gives you considerably more square inches of screen than most Mobile Internet Devices - but on the other hand, much of the screen is entirely wasted space.

I’m not sure how manufacturers haven’t realized this, but extra wide screens aren’t necessarily good for user experience. The problem, is that the web isn’t built in wide screen. Web “pages” are built like, well… pages. Not always 8.5″ by 11″, but if one of the dimensions stretches it’s the length, not width.

Look at your browser right now - you’ll realize that it’s actually one dimensionally navigational: you get the option of Up or Down. Have you ever tried to read a page that scrolled right and left? How annoying was that? (Side note: I’m entirely convinced this is why Plurk failed and Twitter succeeded. Side scrolling does NOT work.)

Ultimately this introduces a massive problem: unoptimized computing experience. Browsing the web on an ultra-wide screened device gives you a lot of wasted left-to-right.

Let’s take a look at the Yoga’s Flickr page in “Yoga-View”:

What the heck is that? You can’t even get a picture in the frame all at once, but look at all the wasted space on the sides. And hell, this doesn’t even have my taskbar in it - that would rob an additional 30-45 pixels.

So if the web is inherently vertically functional, then why do device screens continue to get shorter and wider? My guess, is that it’s to increase screen real-estate by keeping the device pocketably small. Larger, squarer devices just don’t look or feel as tiny - while smaller thin units just feel more “gadgety”. In the case of the Yoga or Sony P, it was likely a trade off to get a full sized keyboard clamshell - you just can’t cut out any more room and expect to have a functioning qwerty pad.

The see one of two solutions: first, the entire web could change. Pages can be re-written to accommodate wide screen displays, meaning no more wasted space on each side - think of five or six column blog layouts… Second, gadget screens are going to need to advance, making foldable displays that slim down to fit in your pocket, but open up to a rich browsing experience.

But for now, I’d rather have a clunkier device that allows me to functionally use the computer as opposed to an incredibly slick looking one that requires  me to scroll more often than I click.

Seeing as how this blog has slowly evolved into being entirely focused on gadget hardware analysis, it seems only fitting that I cover today’s Apple news.

That’s right folks: we have another iPod to drool over - the new and “improved” iPod Shuffle, seen here:

The new iPod has the following features:

• It’s tiny, about the size of a AA battery.
• Comes in fancy matte black or lame-o silver
• Holds 4gb of music
• Costs more than the old one
• Has Text to Speech technology that reads you what song you’re listening to (this one is so ridiculous that I don’t even know where to begin)
• Has NO buttons.

Ugh. No buttons.

Ok, so there are buttons… they’re just on the headphones - meaning that there are no buttons on the device. What’s so wrong with buttons!? Nothing. Buttons are great - especially for something small like this. But I know what you’re thinking: buttons on the headphones - that’s ok! Well you’re wrong.

Having buttons on the headphones means that you’ll either have to use Apple’s headphones or buy an adapter to use any others (including any old iPhone earbuds you might have around). It also means that when your Apple headphones break (and they will, I mean - those things will never stay in your ears and the cord will get tangled and frayed in a few months) you’re going to have to buy the expensive Apple-branded ones just so that you can change the song on your mp3 player. Are you serious?!

And let’s look at the price: first, it’s $70 - which is more expensive than Apple’s previous shuffle. Sure, it holds a bit more, but in this economy more expensive is almost unheard of. But what if you want to use other headphones? Or what if your pod-controlling headphones break? Well you’ll need that adapter… and that’ll probably cost you an Apple-tax of $20-30 (just a guess). Ultimately this thing will set you back MORE than almost any comparably spec’d mp3 players.

Look, I want to rationalize Apple’s decision saying that the lack of buttons is to support the tiny size - but watching Apple design gadgets with fewer and fewer buttons - I really see this as a continued push to over-simplify, which in turn continues to complicate user experience.

Simply put: fewer buttons is NOT better. Take it away, The Onion:

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard

I’ve long argued the need for buttons but also respect the unique value that touch centric devices bring to user experience. It’s a confusing paradox where I’ve vowed to never own another phone without a touchscreen - but still rely quite heavily on hardware buttons to drive the experience.

Well, over the last week gadget blogs have been buzzing about two new toys coming to market: the LG Versa phone and the Touch Book computer. The beauty and innovation behind these eye-catching devices being that the keyboard detaches leaving a touchscreen slate.

The detachable form factor gives consumers the best of both worlds: a rich touch experience in lightweight and portable hardware, but an optional keyboard for typing/messaging/whatnot. This makes perfect sense to me because touchscreen keyboards just aren’t good enough for real work. They aren’t. But often times all you’ll need is a pretty screen with easy scrolling options and the inherent fun in navigating with your finger.

Personally, I would really appreciate this form factor. On my cellphone I don’t find the need to use the keyboard often - when browsing the mobile web it’s easy to pull up the onscreen keyboard to search things like “John Cusack films” in a few seconds - to learn that he had 18 years of awesomeness (and eight recent years of embarrassment). But when I need to write an email or even a longer text message - I desperately need keys. Whenever I try to write an email with my onscreen keyboard I find myself being short and snippy - and never as coherent as I should be. And I totally blame the onscreen keyboard for that!

Similarly, when browsing the web on a laptop - I don’t really need the keyboard - it just gets in the way (related note: have you ever browsed through Google reader with a touchscreen? It’s delightful, I promise you). But as soon as I’m ready to actually do something functional - I simply must have tactile reinforcement.

So think that the detachable form factor will gain popularity over the next few years and will become more common in both phones and computers. A bright clean touch surface combined with a hardware keyboard makes a great device - plus, you give the two an option to separate and you have two perfect devices in one.

This week played host to one of my favorite annual events: Mobile World Congress. Each year at MWC, mobile device manufacturers preview their upcoming toys; showing off new features, crazy concepts, and basically making me salivate with gadget envy.

The big story in my mind this year was the preview of Windows Mobile 6.5, but because that wasn’t quite as exciting as I wanted it to be… I’m going to talk about something completely different that unexpectedly caught my attention: the GSM Association pushing for the standardization of Micro USB for mobile phones!

The quick rundown, is that nearly all of the big phone makers are on board to outfit every device with the same connection type. You’d only need one charger for multiple devices - if you were traveling and lost/forgot your charger it would be very easy to find a usable replacement - at the office and you’re phone’s dying, of course someone has a charger that fits - and a myriad of other reasons that this is just awesome.

Of course, it’s worth noting that I said “nearly all of the big phone makers”… not “all”. The one blaring exception of course, is Apple.

Apple will likely opt to stick with its proprietary Dock Connection for the iPhone, meaning that consumers will continue to be forced to use cables which cost boatloads and can pretty much only be found at Apple stores. You know what? This bothers me.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an Apple fan. But no matter how pretty the devices are, Apple’s stubbornness with its hardware has always driven me bonkers. Here are my three biggest gripes:

• One button mouse. Look, I get it: Apple designs simpler machines. Then why do I have to hold down a button before clicking every few minutes? Isn’t that actually LESS simple? Apple has known that a secondary click option is necessary, but instead of creating hardware that allows this - they give you a work around that complicates things and slows down work.
• Non removable batteries. This one is just pure extortion. Simple fact: over time batteries degrade and lose their ability to hold a full charge. Apple knows this. Yet, iPods, iPhones, and some of its laptops house batteries that can’t be removed by consumers. Of course you can PAY Apple to do it for you… but once a battery is dead most people just replace their iPods/phones instead.
• Price. NO details needed here. No one can argue Apple’s hardware is cheap. But with Apple stores selling Apple products, all with the Apple name, all proceeds go to… you guessed it: Apple.

Really, what it comes down to for each of my grips is indeed, stubbornness. It’s Apple being “Different” - keeping up its unique image (and keeping 100% control over hardware sales). But would changing any of these things really change Apple? Not even a little bit. Apple will always have cool looking, sleek devices that others try to emulate. It will always have the Apple Fanboys. And most importantly: Apple will always be unique.

So Apple’s unwillingness to standardize to Micro USB doesn’t surprise me, but it just adds to the list. Apple will continue to own its market by being the only one producing Apple-capable products - and it will similarly, continue to drive me bonkers.

This week, after nearly a year of anticipation from Blackberry junkies, TMobile finally released the Curve 8900. This model (code named Javelin) is a nicely improved follow up to the hugely popular Curve, giving TMobile a contending Blackberry to fight off AT&T’s Bold and Verizon’s Storm. Now all three carriers have exclusivity to a new, next-gen Blackberry - giving “crackberry addicts” from each something pretty to play with.

Blackberries Storm (VZW), Javelin (TMOB), and Bold (ATT) - Courtesy of Engadget

Before I dive in to a rant - I want to address the Curve 8900 and how much of an upgrade it is over the original Curve.

• Better screen - Kevin at JK on the Run even uses the word “love” in bold, when describing the 480×360 display. I can’t even begin to tell you how many pixels that is in such a small space - but let’s just say: PRETTY.
• Incredible form factor - As Sascha Segan from PCMag says it’s the “best of the past three models”. It’s smaller than the original Curve, but with the chicklet QWERTY pad. As slim as the Pearl, but with a Bold size screen. This thing has it all - and is TINY.
• Better Camera - the 3.2 megapixel camera is better than the original Curve, plus has video recording.
• WiFi - Yes, it’s Edge only… but TMobile is still pretty much EDGE only anyway- so the important thing is that the 8900 also has WiFi.

So there- I’ve made the case that this is arguably the best Blackberry on the market (depending on your preferences). So why the post? Because chances are you haven’t even ever heard of this phone. And that really bothers me.

When AT&T launched the Bold this fall there were Blackberry nuts (sounds like a crappy cereal found at Whole Foods…) lining up waiting to fork over $300 WITH contract.

When Verizon launched the Storm you’d have thought it finally had an iPhone, based on the lines at retail stores. VZW spent more promoting the Storm than a governmental bailout (too soon?). But it worked. There was so much buzz around the Storm that people actually got excited to talk about Verizon!

So what the heck happened? Why didn’t TMobile promote the 8900? At all? It’s just sort of there. Even now, months later - Verizon still has a section of its homepage dedicated to the Storm. AT&T has the Bold featured (in between iPhone glamor shots) on its wireless page. TMobile? Nothing.

At the time of this writing - to find the 8900 on the TMobile site you have to go to the phone page, select “Blackberry”… then go to PAGE TWO! Do they even know they have this phone?

I think TMobile missed a big opportunity here and while I have some theories (that all include the Google Phone and/or Steve Jobs), I can’t figure out why there was no push.

I often complain about the lack of marketing for Windows Mobile devices - that there’s never a consistent or clear message, no branding, and overall no marketing support - but this isn’t a problem with Blackberry devices. People love them. They’re buzzworthy. “Blackberry” is almost a colloquialism for email device. So why not push it?

No excuses. So here’s an endorsement: the TMobile Blackberry Curve 8900 is an AWESOME phone.

There: I’ve just done more than TMobile’s entire marketing team.