Tweet from an employee of the San Diego Comic Con:
Monday, January 24, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Life just got a whole lot easier!!!
Received the following email from Amazon.com this morning!
**********************************************************
Hello,
We have good news! One of your pre-ordered items is now eligible for release date delivery and has been upgraded at no additional charge. Your new delivery estimate is:
Mark Hamill, et al "Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray]"
Estimated arrival date: September 27 2011
Hello,
We have good news! One of your pre-ordered items is now eligible for release date delivery and has been upgraded at no additional charge. Your new delivery estimate is:
Mark Hamill, et al "Star Wars: The Complete Saga (Episodes I-VI) [Blu-ray]"
Estimated arrival date: September 27 2011
**********************************************************
WOOT!
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Android > Apple
The following was my Facebook wall post in response to my Apple fanboy's claim that Apple and its iphone is and always will be superior to Google and Android (enjoy!):
Hokay! So I was going to let this go, but you obviously want to fight. I understand it's your intent to get me worked up, but I need a new blog post...so here we go!
The only reason your precious Apple doesn't partake in any sort of mixed media showcase events, such as CES, is because its leader (notice the absence of cancer and or turtleneck jokes...I fight fair and with class) doesn't believe in moving the industry forward or competing with mainstream market. Instead, his business model is to mix and pour more glasses of Kool-Aid and pass it around...oh yeahhh!
Yes, Apple has come out with some great products, but it does so by ignoring the prevailing competition and trying to "think different," which translates to, "if you can't beat the current game, start another." Google's Android OS is on multiple phones, with multiple manufacturers, on multiple networks. It's an operating system that is constantly evolving to integrate cell phones across the board...an advantageous and commendable point that your leader tries to spin as a weakness to the public. Apple develops within its own world, ignoring the daunting task of say creating a mobile app market that the developer, consumer, and distributor can all benefit from without limitations.
Apple has survived by "changing everything" because they don't compete, they innovate. On many levels, this is a great thing! However, how do they keep doing it? Well, they charge 3 arms and 4 legs for their products (and yes, those limb counts are correct because Apple doesn't give charitably to anyone and so toxic waste cleanup groups aren't funded and now women are having mutant babies with lots of extra arms and legs...but I digress!). Anytime Stevie gets close to mainstream products or something he hasn't done first or best he gets all frustrated (i.e. antennagate and i.e. "you all are just holding my phones wrong").
In the end, Google and Apple are out to leave their mark on the world in order to make some money and keep the shareholders happy. However, Google is going after the big fish (complete integration of all digital devices from mobile to home to business) while Apple keeps moving to a different lakes to find new fish and say they are always better (i.e. "this is going to change everything...again"). Didn't mean to make the fish analogy so deep!
Hokay! So I was going to let this go, but you obviously want to fight. I understand it's your intent to get me worked up, but I need a new blog post...so here we go!
The only reason your precious Apple doesn't partake in any sort of mixed media showcase events, such as CES, is because its leader (notice the absence of cancer and or turtleneck jokes...I fight fair and with class) doesn't believe in moving the industry forward or competing with mainstream market. Instead, his business model is to mix and pour more glasses of Kool-Aid and pass it around...oh yeahhh!
Yes, Apple has come out with some great products, but it does so by ignoring the prevailing competition and trying to "think different," which translates to, "if you can't beat the current game, start another." Google's Android OS is on multiple phones, with multiple manufacturers, on multiple networks. It's an operating system that is constantly evolving to integrate cell phones across the board...an advantageous and commendable point that your leader tries to spin as a weakness to the public. Apple develops within its own world, ignoring the daunting task of say creating a mobile app market that the developer, consumer, and distributor can all benefit from without limitations.
Apple has survived by "changing everything" because they don't compete, they innovate. On many levels, this is a great thing! However, how do they keep doing it? Well, they charge 3 arms and 4 legs for their products (and yes, those limb counts are correct because Apple doesn't give charitably to anyone and so toxic waste cleanup groups aren't funded and now women are having mutant babies with lots of extra arms and legs...but I digress!). Anytime Stevie gets close to mainstream products or something he hasn't done first or best he gets all frustrated (i.e. antennagate and i.e. "you all are just holding my phones wrong").
In the end, Google and Apple are out to leave their mark on the world in order to make some money and keep the shareholders happy. However, Google is going after the big fish (complete integration of all digital devices from mobile to home to business) while Apple keeps moving to a different lakes to find new fish and say they are always better (i.e. "this is going to change everything...again"). Didn't mean to make the fish analogy so deep!
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Internet...Point and Click or Tab and Type
Does anyone remember those old loud keyboards? You know, the ones that sounded like jigsaw puzzle pieces clicking into place as you struck the keys! I remember the old Tandy that we had practically echoed down the hallway when you typed. I kind of miss those keyboards. They were from an age of computing (I know I'm only in my early 20s) when a computer was a smart tool...smart in the sense that you had to have some smarts to use them.
I'm not saying that computers were for any sort of elite group (and I am by no means calling myself smart), but they definitely required you to use your brain. Today, a "good computer" or rather a good UI (user interface) and OS (operating system) is one that any native pulled out of the jungle could sit down and figure out without being shown. Modern computing for the average home user has become idiot-proof. This phenomenon applies to the Internet as well. Websites that have been around since Al Gore gave the green light for the interwebs are updating the sites more and more every year to make their interface "more user friendly"...you know, in case all of the Aborigines decide to leave the bush and buy MacBook Airs tomorrow. The point is, just because more people can supposedly use computers without instruction doesn't make them better...maybe more marketable, but certainly not better.
Why didwe most of us learn to read analog clocks? Well, some might argue it's a product of the Cold War days and that we should be prepared for the potential reality that an EMP from a large nuclear detonation might wipe out all digital watches in the world leaving humanity to fall into a post-apocalyptic world of chaos because no one will know when Survivor will be on (NaOnka, you need to go home). Others might say it's simply because there are many analogue watches still being made...very valid. While still others might say it's because it is the most efficient (let's not talk about atomic clocks here) and fail-safe form of time keeping and helps 7 year olds (and older) learn an engaging mathematical system in a practical way. Well, a watch is a simple little machine that helps people like you and me obtain information that gets us through our days. Isn't a computer the same thing, only worlds more complex? In that same vein, aren't we forsaking the more efficient, powerful, and engaging forms of computing for the less-capable, less powerful, and more passive forms? Simple is not necessarily better in computing!
Remember the days of command lines and terminals? Maybe you don't, hell I wasn't typing when it was a mainstay. However, you used to need a basic level of programming in order to navigate a computer. You needed some training, some knowledge, some cerebral activity. It took more work, but your computer experience was more adaptable. Tech support was not the multi-gazillion dollar business that it is today because people could work through their own problems. They didn't have a message box with the "OK" grayed out...they had a loop in code or an error that had to be worked around.
While manypeople companies might argue that more user-friendly interfaces are beneficial to productivity and other similar things, it can't be argued that being ignorant and only knowing how to click things is more powerful and long-lived than knowing how to type commands.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
I just threw up a little in my mouth for using that, but it's applicable here. We've become too dumb for a race that has become so dependent upon a technology and experiences that require some real smarts to maintain and adapt to the future. Maybe this newer generation who were born with Baby Einstein and Fisher-Price laptops will change things?
I'm not saying that computers were for any sort of elite group (and I am by no means calling myself smart), but they definitely required you to use your brain. Today, a "good computer" or rather a good UI (user interface) and OS (operating system) is one that any native pulled out of the jungle could sit down and figure out without being shown. Modern computing for the average home user has become idiot-proof. This phenomenon applies to the Internet as well. Websites that have been around since Al Gore gave the green light for the interwebs are updating the sites more and more every year to make their interface "more user friendly"...you know, in case all of the Aborigines decide to leave the bush and buy MacBook Airs tomorrow. The point is, just because more people can supposedly use computers without instruction doesn't make them better...maybe more marketable, but certainly not better.
Why did
Remember the days of command lines and terminals? Maybe you don't, hell I wasn't typing when it was a mainstay. However, you used to need a basic level of programming in order to navigate a computer. You needed some training, some knowledge, some cerebral activity. It took more work, but your computer experience was more adaptable. Tech support was not the multi-gazillion dollar business that it is today because people could work through their own problems. They didn't have a message box with the "OK" grayed out...they had a loop in code or an error that had to be worked around.
While many
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
I just threw up a little in my mouth for using that, but it's applicable here. We've become too dumb for a race that has become so dependent upon a technology and experiences that require some real smarts to maintain and adapt to the future. Maybe this newer generation who were born with Baby Einstein and Fisher-Price laptops will change things?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)