Interested in purchasing a low-cost, ultraportable? Check out this list at liliputing.com.
I say: Please add a dual digitizer with capacitive multi-touch and pen support for handwriting. Yeah, I want the world. I know, but what a wonderful world it would be 
Apple may not think that their iPhone is ready for video, but it looks like the cellular industry thinks the time is now to support scenarios such as this. In an USA Today article several cellphone providers are talking up how you might be able to watch TV on your cellphone. Sounds good to me.
All of this makes me wonder how MIDs and UMPCs might fit into this. Assuming they have they connectivity, will the video experience be up to par or will the setup assume very small displays?
I also think any video watching scenario needs to assume that people will be watching videos from services such as YouTube. Gone are the days of exclusively watching TV networks or shows from major movie studios.
This is going to be very interesting to watch.
I love Tablet PCs. If you’re been following this blog, you probably already know that. UMPCs, well, I haven’t met one that I use a lot day to day, but I do carry one with me whenever I travel. I like the smaller size, but yet the full computer experience. I also love my iPhone. It’s my favorite way to check Twitter or TechMeme or thredr.com. I’m also looking forward to the MIDs. My fingers are crossed that they’ll hit the useage sweet spot.
So given these three devices how would I like to see them take the next step?
Here are a ten things:
1) I want these devices to be more aware of my context–where I’m at, what I’m doing. GPS is a part of this. As I outlined in an earlier post with Smart Cameras, there’s so much more.
2) I’d like to see more services that let me use which ever device I’m on. That includes watching movie, TV shows, music and so on.
3) More horsepower. I know this goes against the battery life, but there’s so much more that could be done with video, for instance.
4) OK. I’d like even longer battery life too or at least lighter spare batteries
5) Improved and transparent connectivity. I want to be connected to devices in an adhoc manner or on the Internet via WiFi or WiMax or whatever without having to think about it.
6) This kind of goes along with #3; I’d like to see better cameras in all of these devices.
7) Instant on for the larger devices.
Better interactivity, including multi-touch, better speech recognition, better ink drawing and painting experience, better ink in the browser, better Voip, and so on. In a nutshell, let me communicate better between apps, with others, and when I’m creating new content.
9) I’d buy a 24″ table-top “Tablet” if there was such a thing. The Wacom Cintiq is close, but not exactly what I have in mind.
10) If my UMPC had instant on, I’d probably use it at home for a TV show lookup.
I better stop, I’m coming up with too many ideas now and I said I’d only list 10. Hmmm…maybe I should have said my top 20 wish list. Oh well, time to get back to work.
James Kendrick asks–for the average person–give them a choice between a low cost notebook and a Tablet PC–is the price difference worth it for a Tablet?
Depending on what you do, the answer may be no. For me, yes. For many no. Why isn’t the answer yes for more people?
Here’s the thing with Tablet PCs: Microsoft markets them as a “premium offering,” focusing on Tablet features in higher SKUs in Vista. This makes sense. The OEMs love it because a higher price is consistent with this marketing model. However, when’s the last time you saw Microsoft really make this case, strongly. You don’t. One problem is what’s meant by a “premium experience.” Is it one that a CEO has? An artist drawing a Disney animation? A person on a sojourn through the Andes? Likewise, Tablet PCs make an ideal offering for schools. However, price is a big issue here. Unfortunately, Tablets do very poorly here. Similarly, Tablets rank poorly on the coolness factor–something many older students pay attention to, even though Tablets are actually quite impressive from a technology perspective.
So in a nutshell, the two markets where Tablets look like they might have a chance–on the high end SKUs (think businesses) and the low end (think schools and students), Tablets do very poorly.
But looking at Tablets today, I think all this misses the real opportunity. I ask, why isn’t a smart board in a classroom a “Tablet” if you will. Why isn’t a MID? Why isn’t the Microsoft Surface Computer?
The way I look at it, there’s a collection of technologies that are slowly becoming practical which make computers more natural to use–and which enable them to work in ways that help me be more efficient, to do more, and make my life more enjoyable. I don’t want to live my life behind a keyboard and a mouse.
And as I pointed out in the previous post, it’s less and less today about one OS, one platform. It’s about how devices work together. The problem with the Tablet as a platform approach is that it’s too restrictive and more aligned with yesterday’s world. Have you ever tried to “share” with or send ink to anyone over the Internet? ‘nuf said.
For ink to really work today, ink and reco have to work in the browser, on the Mac, on Linux, with smart boards, and most importantly all versions of Windows. There have to be top notch drawing primitives. There has to be great digitizer and touch support. It’s not just about Vista XYZ. A Tablet is not unto itself. Those days are gone.
That’s one reason that these lower cost computers are doing so well right now–because they don’t have to do much. There’s great value in the connectivity. That’s why the “Tablet” per se has to reach out and be a great connection and communication enabler.
Now in terms of the Tablet as a form factor. I still think there’s lots of room for innovation. I’d like to go back to the days of the NEC Litepad or the HP TC1100. Now these were great Tablets even if they were a little under powered.
Similarly, I have great hopes that the OEMs building UMPCs and now MIDs will begin to appreciate the importance of the whole experience and not just the specs on a hardware listing.
Still lots of room for growth and evolution in my mind.
As of right now, I wonder, who’s leading the way? Now that’s a tough question to answer.
The success of the $299 Eee PC has ignited a lot of interest in similar devices. HP has stepped into the mix with its HP Mini-Note that starts at $599. James Kendrick has a nice overview as does Gottabemobile.
Actually, ASUS (the creators of the Eee PC), HP and others appear to be flushing out the market more in the $500-$1000 range. The higher prices in my mind aren’t the same thing as the Eee PC.
Where these new devices may make a lot of sense is in the education market. That’s good to see. This is a huge opportunity as schools learn more and more how to leverage computer technology inside the classroom. The lower prices will be enabling much of this market.
What’s interesting to see is how simliar these devices are to the much more expensive UMPCs. Add a keyboard, more plastic, and take away touch and you seem to have a much cheaper device. This doesn’t make sense, except to a marketer trying to position different products. Oh, well. The UMPC is dead. I need to keep telling myself that–and letting it go.
Of course, the UMPC and MIDs for that matter are seen more as companion devices than primary systems. This has placed a huge burden on creating compelling apps and experiences, which haven’t materialized for the mass market. The Mini-Note, on the other hand, appears to want to be a full-time notebook and can leverage all of the traditional software out there. So it’s more of an evolutionary step in notebook trends than a big jump like the UMPCs or MIDs.
I keep thinking though that the OEMs are missing the real opportunity when it comes to education–especially primary education. Where’s the natural input? Typing is fine for many things, but what about when working through a math problem? What about handwriting skills? What about the arts? What about finger painting??? I can envision typing-oriented software that facilitates each of these and lots of multiple choice questions, but is this really the way to go? A pen is much more flexible than a keyboard, so why not leverage it where it makes sense?
I realize cost is a big concern, but I’d like to see these devices bring together the power of other input methods, such as touch, pen, audio, and voice, and video.
I also realize that part of the issue here is that whatever features are built in need to make sense for Linux, because this is where the lowest priced opportunites lie. Not sure how many of the Linux systems will actually be sold, but I can see where if touch is used just like a mouse, then where’s the motivation to add touch? Now if pen input is achievable and Microsoft made its handwriting recognition available to Linux (via Silverlight, for instance), then maybe this equation would change. Same goes for speech recognition. Of course it’s very important to realize that touch and pen input are too different animals and have different hardware considerations. Personally I’d like to see both supported in the hardware.
Video and audio recording is another area that makes a lot of sense for education systems. Producing a good recording is going to be a challenge, but solveable I think.
Assuming the teacher writes (types) on a smart board or Tablet PC or something, their screen content ought to be streamed to each of the student PCs or lazy streamed if you will–meaning the stream will be made available for download later because of real-time bandwidth issues or to preserve battery power in the student systems during the class. Actually, the content all ought to be stored on a remote server for archiving reasons no matter what.
Now if the streams are brought down from a server later (in whole or in part) there’s a synching issue with each student’s notetaking. Assuming all the clocks are the same, the built in clocks might be OK. It may also mean that student computers may need to “hear” a clock sync event from the classroom–or maybe when they boot up they do a little peer-to-peer request asking the teacher’s system (if it’s available and you can trust it) what time it is.
I also think that the mics ought to be used collectively in a classroom/presentation setting. In other words, think of all the mics working in the classroom as a collective mic array. Software runs real time or psuedo real-time to leverage the closest mic to get the best audio for a stream that everyone can record in their notes. If the teacher’s talking as they write on a smart board, then the smart board’s mic(s) is used. If a student in the back of the class asks a question, then the mic on their computer is used. Again, maybe the audio stream is made available in real time for personal recording and syncing with notes taken, or maybe its brought down and synced in some lazy fashion.
Now video is an interesting challenge too. Ideally what I’d like to see are cameras in the classroom (fixed would be fine) with a “robotic director” if you will picking the best shot. In other words, using a model about how a teacher usually teaches in a classroom (follow the teacher in front of the classroom and follow them as they move about, switch to a classroom view if many students move about, switch to a student(s) view when a student is “talking” and so on). There might also be a way to leverage the cameras in the student computers, particularly when a student asks a question–the system might switch to their local camera, for instance–but I’m not so sure about this. Fixed cameras are probably easier to manage. No matter how their managed, though, streaming and recording all the image streams is probably the wise way to go.
I mentioned earlier that the screen capture/video/audio ought to be available random access from a remote server, because in most cases I imagine students won’t want to review everything. Instead, they’ll want to get right to something that they’re having trouble with. Indexing the content or previewing thumbnails of the content (on the server and/or locally) is going to be key. I can see a student, for instance, reviewing some notes, getting confused, and then simply tapping on a video icon, which goes up to a server and starts streaming down the classroom video from that time slot. Likewise, they could jump to that part of the presentation where they realized they misunderstood something. Maybe they want to review a portion of the class where they had to step out to the restroom. Or maybe they want to get a video snipit of themself giving a presentation in the classroom and sharing it with their grandparents. Of course, recording class presentations would bring a whole new meaning to what it means to miss a class. Since public schools are paid on attendance, for instance, would students reviewing a presentation later that they missed while they were sick (or watching live while home in bed) be good enough to be counted as having attended so the school gets its money? Video recording and streaming could change where the focus lies in student attendance.
Now let me get back to the computer hardware itself. Typing noise in a small class (where a teacher doesn’t have a mic) would seem to be an issue. I wonder how quiet the Mini-Note and other systems are? I know a bunch of people that type awfully load; I sure would find it distracting to be around them all day long in a classroom while I’m trying to focus on what the teacher is saying.
Durability is going to be a big issue too, but it sounds like HP has thought through some of this with the Mini-Note. I imagine this is going to be a bigger and bigger challenge not only for the case companies, but for the display manufacturers. The rest of the components can do OK. Screen breakage is going to be an issue. It means that if nothing else the screen needs to be dirt cheap and as easy to replace as a scratched DVD. Shouldn’t the displays just pop right out for easy changing??? I know Intel was working with OEMs for awhile to make components like displays easy and inexpensive to replace, but I don’t think it ever caught on. Maybe with education PCs we’ll see this become more popular and feasible.
Of course, maybe it’s not displays that students break the most. That’s just my guess. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of what gets broken. Anyone know of any oneline data?
Anyway, lots of thoughts and still more thinking to do….
I’ve been meaning to get up a video that I made awhile back which shows how similar the iPhone and UMPC are in many respects–at least how I have them set up. Yeah, it kind of surprised me too. But it’s true.
The issue is that even with similar features, the experience is different. And here is where the iPhone trumps the UMPC.
Take Flicks on the UMPC and the finger slide gesture on the iPhone for example. Both can be used to switch from “page to page” in an application (though Flicks can be defined to do a lot of things). However, despite their similarities, the iPhone slide gesture wins out for me.
It wasn’t until this morning that I realized why.
The iPhone slide gesture gives me feedback during the gesture, Flicks does not. With Flicks–as the name suggests–you make a rapid side-to-side or up-down gesture to signal an action. The problem is that during the gesture itself you get no feedback. It’s not until the gesture is complete that you might see an icon on the screen signaling that the gesture was recognized. If you did the gesture incorrectly, no icon appears.
The iPhone slide gesture is completely different. During the slide itself you see the “page” begin to move. You can tell right away that you are in control of something. You slide slowly, the page moves slowly. You toss the page to the side, it moves off the screen rapidly and the next page “bounces” into view.
The lack of feedback is a big problem for Flicks. It means that no matter how much the hardware may improve to improve the quality of the gesture, it’s still not going to provide real-time feedback. Flicks’ paging gesture as it exists now is never going to win out over a gesture with feedback. The Flicks page gesture is OK in itself, but just not optimal.
Some of the problem is that Microsoft is working with subpar gesturing hardware. Resistive technology isn’t going to do it–or at least I haven’t see it work as well as capacitive. Give this video a glance to see the problem. In it Josh Bancroft tries to slide a coverview like window of content on a MID using is finger. Since the MID uses resistive touch and Josh doesn’t use his fingernail, the experience is horrible. Don’t fret Josh, I’ve done the same thing. Many, many times over. And I keep doing it wrong too.
Now the “hand” tool in IE is more like the iPhone’s slide gesture. Pretty much. With it you can slide page content up and down. There are some jitter problems in IE though that you don’t see on the iPhone. Here again, part of this is a sensor problem. And “hand” tools are not standard by any means on Windows apps–though with coverflow like controls and other iPhone-inspired behaviours becoming more popular, maybe it will be.
I think the challenge for the Flicks team is to come up with gestures and a user interaction model that makes more sense for a variety of devices. Whereas Flicks might seem cool at first–and it might be a simple way to add some gesture functionality to a lot of apps never designed for gestures–it’s probably not the model that should be the primary focus.
Microsoft is giving more breathing room to XP on low-cost PCs by extending the time that it will make XP Home able to OEMs for these devices through at least June 30, 2010. It refreshing to see this, although in my mind Microsoft is not going far enough to address the challenges at hand.
There’s no doubt that Microsoft has missed the boat when it comes to low-cost PCs, MIDs, and even its own UMPC. It’s in a catch up game. Microsoft is getting challenged on the low end by the hardware and cost frugality of Linux and on the coolness side by Apple’s iPhone. Lots of body punches. No knockouts, just draining body punch after body punch. As a tech enthusiast and long time user of Microsoft products it’s hard to watch. (But I know time will heal all wounds, as I sit here typing this on my Mac Pro after reading about the announcement on my iPhone. Heh.)
It’s not that Vista is terrible on these machines although in some cases it’s sluggish, it’s that these low-cost systems simply often don’t have the drive space to hold the larger Vista. But that’s only part of it. Solid state drives, for instance, will get bigger. The bigger issue is that Vista is biased towards the desktop and large displays. XP is for that matter too, but not as bad (no sidebar, for instance). Yes, Vista can be set up like XP, but it would need to be stripped down to really make a good comparison. I’m not sure if Microsoft would want to take the engineering and test time to strip Vista down though.
What I hope Microsoft really understands is that it’s not simply a matter of XP over Vista. The user experience matters too and simply giving the nod to XP doesn’t address this issue. As Linux-based MIDs and low-cost PCs running optimized shells are going to demonstrate and the iPhone excells at, a good OS needs a good user experience. XP is so-so when it comes to small displays. For instance, some windows need at least 600 pixels high or they won’t fit. OEMs have addressed this by bumping up the display resolution. But then everything is itsy bitsy. Fine for young eyes, but not mine. Actually it’s not the number of pixels that’s the real issue, its how the pixels are used. Tiny buttons are hard to target, for instance. And frankly, small displays should have a different shell. It’s fine for Windows Explorer to be an option or the desktop to be front and center, but that’s not the best user experience. And then there’s the whole issue as to whether everything should be mouse and keyboard oriented on small devices. Try an iPhone and you’ll see.
Here’s one other thing that’s troubling me about this whole announcement: Mary Jo Foley is reporting that the XP extension will not apply to “higher-priced and more robust UMPCs.” Wow, this is a misreading of the UMPCs space. So soon Microsoft itself forgets that the whole idea of the UMPC was to build a low-cost device. Further, these new low-cost PCs are essentially UMPC-like systems with a keyboard and without touch and for lower price. They are UMPCs. I’m hoping that this is just a bit of miscommunication. UMPCs are supposed to be low-cost devices and they will run on low end hardware. The OEMs messed this all up, which is why in part the sales have been lackluster. (Although I think it’s also because the user experience wasn’t all the inspiring either.)
One more thing: Microsoft I’m sure is focused on competition along the OS front–both from Linux and OS X–and the web too for that matter–but it’s important to not lose sight of Intel. Intel really defines what the industry does, in large part because it makes the processors and chips that many systems use. Here’s the thing, for the last year or so and at least the next year or two Intel’s roadmap is about “portable” processors, not power house notebook systems. In other words, I would not be surprised to see the growth on the low-end systems to outpace most others–simply because this is where Intel is putting its energy. Microsoft I assume knows this and I expect the next version of Windows will address this…maybe? If not, we’ll be hearing the slam of more body punches.
Now here’s the part that really erks me: it appears from Microsoft’s announcement that XP Home addition is all that Microsoft is giving extra time for. But what about ink? There’s no Tablet PC edition. So in other words, the low-cost PCs, which are great for young students on up, which is exactly where ink makes a lot of sense, won’t have it built in. Amazing.
Now here’s the real kicker. There is a way around this: the browser. Using Silverlight and web services to handle recognition, you can build ink enabled applications for XP Home. So essentially Microsoft is saying no to ink and yes at the same time. It doesn’t make sense. (We have yet to see how good Silverlight will be on Linux systems though. Depends on what Novel comes up with.)
Microsoft needs to think a bit harder about its commitment to ink and the ink ecosystem. It appears that it’s getting too defensive, trying to separate out its value at the high end. Come on, what about the kids? If for no other reason, Microsoft should be doing the right thing to make the education experience better for students–no matter what the lost revenue at the high end–which is a stupid argument in itself, because ink is essentially given away for free in several higher versions of Vista and under marketed across the board at that.
If I were Microsoft I’d flip this whole notion of technology exclusivity and license the heck out ink and its top-notch recognition. Why not? Go make some money from it. Get it out there. People will know that it comes from you. Isn’t that a good thing? Make some money. Get some exposure?
So I’m sitting here, shaking my head, realizing that as a Tablet developer I have to keep thinking beyond Microsoft’s immediate strategies. I hope they change or at least Microsoft blows me away with the next version of Windows–because if it doesn’t my head and shoulders are going to get mighty sore from shaking and shrugging and squinting my eyes every time–BAM–there’s another–WHAM–body punch. Ugh.
Update: Not everyone agrees with the idea of extending XP. Joe Wilcox blogs that he’s been advocating to shutdown XP for awhile in order to boost Vista sales.
Imagine if Haiku had made it to market. Need I say more?
I’m going through an innovation meltdown. Maybe it’s a developer mid-life crisis I’m having. Maybe it’s all in my early-adopting mind. But it feels real and I can’t take much more of this without throwing caution to the wind and….and….coding.
What’s the “this” I’m talking about? This time it’s about a little music and a little thing called the iPhone. Seems some creative types have been creating little virtual instruments for their iPhones. Stuff.co.nz has the details and YouTube has some videos you can check out of their music. Here’s one that’s been viewed over 2 million times since its posting in February.
Why is this a big deal? It’s not. But the thing is, that this is yet another one of those little things that the UMPC should have enabled. Unfortunately the hardware wasn’t quite there. But this was only part of the issue. If you ask me, the UMPC builder “community” wasn’t up for it either and without their support….you know what happens. And by “community” here I don’t mean the end users–I mean those creating the devices and their experiences. You fill in the blanks with your favorite names.
Here’s the thing. It’s with little stuff like this that inspires. Especially on the consumer side. But over the last while I’ve heard the creaks and cracks of too many shrugging shoulders, telling me it’s not all that.
I made a mistake. I listened to them. I shouldn’t have. I should have pushed, prodded, and produced. I didn’t. And now I’m bummed.
Put simply: I don’t like sitting on the back of the innovation bus. I don’t want to ride there and unfortunately that’s where I’m at in too many respects. I don’t like it.
So I’ll say it again: The Tablet PC/UMPC/MID-builder community better get a good touch solution out and fast or it’s simply not going to matter any more. I’ll put it more colorfully: That clock-is-ticking sound you hear is no clock–it’s the chug-chug of the technology train leaving the station.
Warner Crocker’s declaration that the MID market race is over now that the iPhone/iPod Touch SDK has been announced may be a bit provocative, but I think he’s onto something. What do I mean? For the near term the iPhone/iPod Touch is essentially going to lead the MID market in terms of price, availability, developer community, quality of user experience, and funding of its ecosystem.
For Microsoft, this doesn’t mean much, because Microsoft isn’t playing in this game per se. Yes, there’s XP and Vista for some beefier units and I guess “CE” is a choice too. But let’s be serious here, for the near term none of these reach the platform model of the iPhone/iPod Touch. Sorry.
There are some Linux distros that are pretty slick that I’ve seen on some MID prototypes (at CES), but I don’t see these as major contenders either. Why? Because they are fragmenting. There’s not one single way to do things. It’s a little bit of this and a little bit of that. Nice efforts in some cases, but for the immediate future they are not going to lead the industry. They won’t condense into an industry. Sorry.
Where I think the big issue is, is not particularly in the OS “wars,” but rather in how essentially Intel’s MID initiative is left without a software partner. If Microsoft isn’t going to do it–if Linux isn’t going to provide a cohesive answer–Intel’s view of the MID world is going to have a tough time competing with the iPhone/iPod Touch family.
Actually, for Intel it probably doesn’t matter. I’m sure Intel will be quite happy if Apple switches to its CPU family and takes over the MID market. It doesn’t need the Intel-named MIDs to “win.” However, since it’s unlikely that Apple will ever license their OS platform to others to build like-minded devices, Intel will lose out in the total market it could achieve. So I’m sure Intel is struggling to figure this out.
As I see it there’s one possible software partner left–for the near-term–that could come to Intel’s aid. And that’s one that’s been quite good at filling holes left by Microsoft–Google. I don’t think it’s likely–just possible. Google could rework its Android initiative to make it MID friendly and this together with Intel’s hardware partners could possibly create an ecosystem that might have a chance at broadening the MID market. A chance. A thin one. But one nonetheless. I’m partially in doubt because of Google’s boardroom ties with Apple and Google’s lack of prior experience in this area. Besides they are thinking “phones” rather than MIDs at this point.
Note that in all of this I’m talking near term. Three, five, ten years out anything could happen. However, for the next year and possibly two Apple is in the lead and will most likely stay that way.
For all of you that are thinking I’ve fallen victim to the hype, let me encourage you to do a few things: First, get an iPhone. Use it and then tell me that it’s connectivity and form-factor don’t draw you in. Second, play banker for a minute. Where would you place your bets? In an unproven, fairly fragmented software market geared around an unproven family of MID products from hardware-based Intel and its partners or with Apple and its “iPod” family including the recent iPhone device that’s done remarkably well for its first year? And third, if you’re a developer, check out the iPhone SDK. Tell me it doesn’t have many of the things we’ve all wanted as rich-app, mobile developers. We’ve seen similar things before and beyond as well. But have they been so well packaged before? If you’re still not convinced, watch the demos during Apple’s SDK announcement event. And if none of this convinces you, I bet you’re not shaken by near term events, so no problem. I agree with you that in time the world will reach equilibrium and all will be well. What’s a couple years here and there among friends?
Yes, several years out, things will most likely be much different. And no doubt, there will be plenty of room for niche players across the board in the meantime. And Microsoft’s and Intel’s coattails are big enough to carry several efforts along the way too. But for the Kliener Perkins level break away products, I’ll be looking in the iPhone/iPod Touch direction.
As a Tablet/UMPC enthusiast and developer, I’m not going to dump what I’ve been doing and radically change directions, but you can rest assured that I’m keeping my options open. Like with the OLPC and Eee PCs I see an evolution occurring here and I don’t want to be left behind.
Good technology and good implementations deserve respect. And I’m treating the iPhone with such. Doesn’t mean my competitive instincts aren’t kicking in. Just means I’m very mindful and doing my best to do my best.
I wondered if Microsoft would forget about the UMPC and Tablet–it didn’t. In the Mix08 keynote today, during an Aston-Martin demo, they used a Samsung UMPC running a demo app written in WPF. And in the demo after that they had a casting-director demo an app running on a Tablet PC. And best yet? The demoer walked around with the Tablet! Finally. Finally. Finally. I tried to take a screenshot, but the video stream failed right at that point. (Flash or Silverlight or Air is leaking memory like mad. My system is almost dead. Copy/Paste is working intermittently. Closing apps to try to make it all the way through the keynote.)
It’s good to see that the UMPC and Tablet PC didn’t get overlooked. Maybe next year we’ll see multi-touch and Silverlight or maybe even one of the key speakers using a Tablet/UMPC during their talk.
I’m a fan of capacitive touch, like on the iPhone. I like the natural nature of sliding the fingers across the screen to make things happen. I was talking with a Lenovo rep the other day and he challenged my belief that you can only get this capability on a capacitive touch. He showed me the touch on the new Lenovo X61 for instance. He could slide his finger across it easily to select a region on the desktop. No awkward pressing hard.
What I learned was that it’s not just the fact whether a digitizer is capacitive or not. It’s the quality of the digitizer. Evidently there are high-quality resistive technologies that can give you a smooth experience. Lenovo appears to be using it.
I haven’t tried one UMPC/MID though that comes as close to what I want however. (I have seen a Toshiba UMPC-ish protoype running at CES 2008 that came close. But I wasn’t allowed to touch it to verify.) I wisht he manufactures realized that just because something is small it shouldn’t be made cheap.
Now two-point touch or multi-touch is another matter. There are tons of possibilities here on the product side if only we could see some progress on the hardware and driver side. Will multi-touch give the edge to capacitive? I don’t know. But I’m getting tired of waiting for the hardware folks to catch up here. Are they waiting for Microsoft to do something on the SDK side? If so, let’s get moving! Enough sleeping at the wheel.
Update: Ooops. Several people let me know that I had my Lenovo’s backwards. I fixed the typo. Sorry about that.
I agree with Rodfather on this one. I’m hoping that N’trig sees the possibilities here and comes up with a lost cost active/capacitive touch for UMPCs. It would be killer.
The other day I blogged about how I’d like to see the OS support video (more specifically “enhanced” video) as a native data type to ease sharing and recording of desktop content directly. I’d also like to revisit another idea that I’ve blogged about before that’s also along these lines: I’d like to see direct audio recording supported on laptops, video cameras and mobile devices.
What do I mean by “direct audio recoding?” If I’m recording a talk and the speaker is using a wireless mic (in particular), I’d like to be able to record directly from the wireless mic to my device. Why record over the air in this electronic world when a simple electronic solution is practical and would produce much better results? How many times have you tried listening to a recording that some one’s made in a large class or at a conference and instead of hearing the speaker you hear those around the recording device whispering, adjusting their chair, typing, and the like?
Seems to me with wireless recording of audio every college student, conference goer, and reporter should have an appropriately equipped device. These are all three very attractive customers for OS vendors because they include influentials and new buyers. Kind of seems like a great differentiating “feature” for a company, doesn’t it? Imagine if Apple supported a standard like this? Imagine how much additional market they’d capture? Would we see reporters on TV holding up their iPhones all recording directly to their phone? Would we see even more college students using MacBooks?
How might this work? There are a couple possibilities.
One is to have a “sound server” that the speaker can plug into which digitizes the stream and broadcasts it in a stream over the network (WiFi/Internet) so it can be directly recorded locally. This might be a good way to go because it only requires a single hardware change on the broadcast side–at least for laptops. And, of course, it would require WiFi support in the recording devices, which is a reasonable assumption going forward for many devices.
There would need to be some additions on the device end, however. For laptops, Tablet PCs, and the like we’d need a way to record the live audio stream. Lots of possibilities here. An OS built in feature would make sense to me, but it could be an extension.
A downside to this approach is that it would place more stress on the network–particularly WiFi where there could be many users such as at an industry tech conference. WiFi at settings like this are already overloaded.
Another approach would be to add circuitry on each device that could record the audio. Unfortunately, it’s probably not practical to record from the mic itself. It may be of a proprietary format. Some of the companies that make the wireless technology aren’t going to want to make their technology cheaper and more accessible to the vast number of digital devices. They’re all focused on the high end, which makes sense. They have to be focused on quality for professional productions. Providing mass-market access is another game.
One solution might be to add an FM-based repeater in the network and integrate FM-recorders on each device. This might be better in the sense that it would not load up WiFi networks and it’s more broadcast oriented than connection based. It wouldn’t matter how many people are recording. It could be 10 it could be 1000. There are some USB FM digitizers on the market which hint at how much this might cost each supporting device. (I’m not sure if an FM-digitizer would consume less than a comparable WiFi-based one. That’s a question for the double Es.) I did try a simple experiment where I took an ultra-small FM radio and wired up its audio out to my Tablet’s audio in and then recorded some test broadcasting I did from a wireless mic. It worked OK although the range wouldn’t support large-hall uses.
So if this is such a good idea, why doesn’t it exist already? Well, essentially it does exist, in pieces at least. But the reason is simple and a couple fold: First, this is something that mobile devices really need. If you’re primarily using a tethered desktop, you’re unlikely to be anywhere that you might want to record “over the air.” That being said, we’ve all probably wanted to record audio/video streams over the network at some time. Unfortunately, this technology has been held back for various reasons in order to prevent people from recording online music or broadcasts. Silly though. This should not be a high-end feature. It should be made accessible to everyone and everywhere.
And I don’t just mean laptops, Tablets, MIDS. Video cameras should support features like this. While you’re video recording let’s say Bill Gates at a presentation, you should be able to switch the audio feed to come directly from the WiFi network or possibly some radio (FM) frequency. If the videographer wants crowd noise they’d turn off direct recording and use the device’s mic. If they want to focus on the speaker, they’d switch to the direct recording “channel.” Sure would make for more professional audio recordings.
Looks like Engadget has the details on the fortcoming HP 2133 “UMPC.” Some details, “.9-inch 1366 x 766 (WXGA) display, ExpressCard/54 slot, Wireless LAN, nearly full-sized QWERTY (95% of full), integrated webcam, and optional SSD in a 2.5-pound anodized aluminum sex pot running Vista or Linux.”
I put “UMPC” in quotes, because although this is a small form-factor computer, like the ASUS Eee PC, it’s lacking touch or an active digitizer, also like the ASUS. There’s also no way to fold down the display into Tablet mode.
This may not be a bad thing for the “UMPC” moniker. Maybe it’s a time to just let all small computers be called UMPCs whether they have touch or not Instead, let’s begin calling touch-capable devices “Origami”–the popular code name originally used for the device. I like it even better.