Future of Computers

I think I'm still at the same place I was a few years back when the iPad first came out.  Basically tablets (I am partial to Android and so probably Samsung's entry) are excellent for sofa/commute browsing (reading and simple gaming too), they are very good for some task computing: recipes, portable showrooms--very good when a designer is at your house and wants to show you images--and they are fine for simple messaging/communications, particularly as voice to text has gotten better.  They suck for long form writing--whether blog posts or business email, or any other longer writing--and are crap for any gaming that wants to be immersive. 

That means that they are probably good for about 90% of what people use computers for at home, and maybe 20% of work use.  Not being able to do that last 10% at home, however, means that real, full on computers are still (to the extent that they are at all) necessary.  Massive storage on the cheap, CD/DVD/BluRay players and writers, better graphics and keyboard mouse inputs are all still important. 

Now, that said, things are changing rapidly and I don't think it will be very long before tablets are the home computers.  HDMI connectivity to a television, USB or wireless connection to a network attached storage, and a bluetooth keyboard and mouse cover most of the difference between how people use computers and what you can do on a tablet.  Pretty much the only things that are still missing are the raw power you can get in a desktop (or even a laptop), but most people don't need it.

Throw in a PS3 and you've covered most gamers, and there are only a handful of processor intensive tasks remaining for the computer (graphics, CAD, serious audio/video editing).

Still, those add on options that convert a tablet to a near-computer aren't exactly cheap, and it is still much cheaper to buy a low end desktop or netbook to get that functionality.  That will change, however, and I think it isn't too far off that all computers will be tablets, with enhanced functionality via home network plus some accessories. 

The form factor is still a question, and using a phone size makes much more sense to me than even a 7" tablet...but that is contingent on combining it with something like Google Glass for certain functions (reading) so that is further off than the tablet+ as computer.

Seems Like A Bad Idea

Apple's new "Lightning" connectors seemed like a bad idea out of the box to me, but the way they are designed to make it very unlikely to get good, inexpensive spares and replacements really seems bad.

Up through the 4s, it didn't make too much difference between Android and Apple.  The top of the line androids were faster and had more features, and better access (file transfer issues) but there wasn't really a practical difference for 99% of users.  The 5 however seems to have screwed themselves over. Nevermind their new garbage maps program replacing Google, the new connector is a real head-scratcher.

Already people who have accessories for older Apple devices are no longer locked into future Apple products which won't be compatible (without adapter).  But the expense of buying a few extras is a little obscene.  I like to have at least 4 charging/usb cables: one for home, one for work, one for the car and one for travel.  For Android phone those are standard micro-USB and you can get a dozen for less than $20.  For the previous Apple jacks, the non-branded ones were close in price.  Now instead of $10 for all the connectors you want it is likely to cost >$100.

I've never been a huge apple fan, but I got an iphone (3g), I thought the ipods were excellent, and I even liked some of their computers (other than the very overpriced aspect).  Really, though, Apple products mostly offer a high cost premium for user friendly but often substandard otherwise products and so are primarily for people with plenty of spare cash who don't actually care about performance. 

(I was tempted to use the term "Rich idiots" but that really isn't fair: there is no meaningful performance difference for the vast majority of people, and apple does have more apps, but it does speak to a selection of style over substance and a willingness to light a couple hundred dollars on fire for it.)

The Death of TV is Greatly Exaggerated

Or something.  Sony and Panasonic (and really Samsung too) definitely have some problems in their TV divisions, and it's a combination of several things happening the past few years, bad economy probably chief among them.

Televisions are not yet entirely commodity, however, and there is good room for growth in the future, provided some meaningful changes occur.  Large, lightweight, low energy screens have massive potential.  For gaming and watching movies, of course, but that's just what we do now.  Think about the benefits of having a wall sized screen, that when turned off, looked like a wall with some art on it, or even better a picture window Imagine if anyone could convert an entire wall to a screen that would, when powered "off" present as a picture window with a live view from somewhere else in the world...

To really do this at a level where every new house/apartment would be built with a display wall would require a few changes: lower energy use chief among them.  Really, though, we are pretty nearly there in terms of cost and screen capabilities.  The biggest issue is setup and control.  I would envision a bank of modular panels, each one an HD display, and any 2x2, 3x3 and maybe 4x4  of which could be grouped together to form a larger display, with other panels around the selected group being "environmental" (typically black, but with the occasional one on the web).  Separate panels make repair easier, and less costly, and greatly enhances versatility--watch TV on one side while someone browses the web on the other.  

The technology exists today to do this, but the energy costs and the installation costs really keep it from becoming viable.  To do this today would require lots of computing and graphics power--we want to be able to have these managed all together--though relays could help reduce the cost of external connections like game consoles.  Still, it's cheaper by far to build an in home theater.

HDMI Cables

Cabling for various components in an entertainment system can be fairly complicated and very pricey. With analog cables the high cost makes sense. Pickup and loss along the length directly affect the signal, so very low resistance wires (heavy gauge copper) with high quality shielding that is separated by the center conductor by a fair distance and preferably driven are very important to signal quality. Good analog signal cables are expensive.

Digital is completely different. Signals are transmitted quickly but are either 1 or 0. No in betweens. Noise pickup is almost irrelevant. This is one of the major advantages to digital signal transmission. It also means that you do NOT need any special care in the cable. This means that digital cables should be much cheaper than analog. I picked up my HDMI cables for about $3 each (including shipping) online. Cheapest I could find at a store: $30 at Radio Shack. Most are over $50 with plenty of them being over $100!

There is zero reason for these cables to cost over $10...or for them to not be included with devices that use them. Zero. It's a rip off. Unfortunately for most (low-info) shoppers, this information is not exactly handed out at anyplace that sells these cables. They make too much money to let people in on the scam.

Apple: Computers for Luddites...Rich Luddites

...because it sounds nicer than "Dummies."

I have an iPhone. I like it well enough. There have been a couple freezing episodes, and in terms of productivity software they are crap compared with other smart phones, but it's an mp3 player, ok camera and phone together, plus the downloadable apps are sometimes fun. It is also very pretty.

Apple computers are great for people who don't have a clue what they are doing when it comes to computers. They are easy to use, trouble free devices. They are also very pretty.

If it was not for two things that they do, Apple would likely be the dominant home computer in this country (and maybe the world). The first was early on. They did not let others produce computers that would run MacOS. This is why, despite the advantage of being first and best for a decade or so, Microsoft, Intel et al. were able to push past and come to dominate to the extent that personal computer is now synonymous with a Microsoft OS system. The resulting market dominance means that new hardware developments and pretty much all software is available on PC's first...and for less.

Which leads us to the other thing Apple does: set prices way higher than comparable Microsoft systems. This has always been a bit of an issue to me as I want to buy the best computer that I can get for the money, and Apple has never been close. In fact, I build my own desktops and that has not been possible if you wanted an Apple...I think this is no longer the case, but it is still much easier to build a PC than it is a Mac.

The security and stability issue is real: people writing viruses and worms want to have as many computers as possible pick it up, so they target Microsoft OS rather than Mac. This has actually lead to Windows being the more secure system, but it is just attacked more often. Because many users do not use security features properly, there are plenty of PC's taken out by viruses, worms, and spyware. Because Mac's are not targeted and because they don't allow the user as much freedom to mess with settings (and cause problems), they are more secure.

Mac's really are good computers for people who just want basic internet and productivity function and don't ever want to fuss with things (most users), but they will never be as popular so long as they are ~1.5-2x+ the cost of a comparable PC. This will enshrine them as toys for people with money and without tech savvy. It's really a pretty narrow market. Value shoppers, bang-for-your-buck types, power gamers, and computer geeks (they may prefer Linux, but most have at least one Windows box...even if it's a switchable one) are all PC types, and they account for most of the market.