Why an iPad Mini Will Not Happen

Jillian wrote in Padgadget that an iPad mini as (the current rumour mill chart topper) makes sense.  You can read it here. 

I think it is a stupid idea to start this rumour in the first place and I still think, despite the assertions from various sources indicating, that Apple would not be caught dead launching a product that is already known to be their first challenger.  Remember all the other manufacturers who announced, retracted, re-launched and finally to see it not selling the way it was expected?  Well, why would Apple with its mighty fortress market leadership want to enter a market that had been laughed off as being silly?  Would not that look awfully silly on them?

To be fair, the "news" was that Apple had consigned, ordered or procured screen size that is meant for a 7" tablet.  It did not mean they wanted it to be a tablet.  The problem is that all the rumour mongers (including other manufacturers), unlike Apple , only think unidirectionally.  Just because there exist evidence of 7" screens shipped to Apple, that does not prove that it will be a tablet like iPad.  I believe it is meant for a different product. 

Then again, it is just rumours.  But for argument sake, let's just say it is true that Apple is indeed preparing to launch a touch screen device in the form and size similar to the standard 7" tablet in the market now; what would that device be?

Jillian's assertion that the mini iPad makes sense because of 1) iTextbook, 2) MacBook Air evolution, 3) Portability & 4) Family-style, is flawed.

1) the current iPad size is perfect for reading any materials.  Be it textbook, magazines or newspaper (not the broadsheets, though).  Make it any smaller would make reading difficult.  Getting students to read existing textbooks is already a difficult task for the educators, let alone to read one that his hard on the eyes.  Cost savings are not significant.  What we see in the market now is that the price for 7" tablets are not much cheaper than the 10" varieties.

For Apple, if it is the cost, they can work something out especially if it is negotiated by the government.  Price is not an issue, I believe.  Among the many technological aid for teaching, the iPad is one of the cheapest.  Try installing PCs, Smartboards, networking and contents for every school, and you will see that the iPad is really a bargain.  Just like its adoption in the enterprise, most parents can afford an iPad and the authorities do not have to fret over the budget.


2)  Macbook Air evolution is an interesting point.  I agree that the two shall meet but I tend to see it as the iPad gaining size (13" perhaps) with physical keyboard and more powerful version of iOS running of higher end processor.  While the current form factor for MacBook Air will be taken up by MacBook Pro.  That leaves the current iPad not having the need to supersize itself..

3)  portability.  What?!?!?!  'nuff said.

4) Family-style.  Please refer to point 1) on cost.  Also, the iPod touch serves the niche for kiddies toy neatly.

I would accept if the rumours insist that Apple is making a giant iPod.  That would have been more palatable.  But I think what everybody is missing is the way Apple usually works.  And I say this to include not only the bloggers, writers, speculators, investment analysts etc but including the manufacturers who are trying to catch up or compete with Apple.  Apple does not work that way.  All their products has a heavy element of psychology in them.  From Macintosh to iPad, everything is user-centric, intuitive and has an emotional appeal.

With a touch screen device of 7", if it is true, I bet it would be the new Apple TV.  Why?  Here's my take.

The current Apple TV is a set top box.  It is physically attached to the TV. The interface is cumbersome (very un-Apple like) and the control is a conventional (albeit given an Apple treatment) stick with buttons.  Not cool!

The new Apple TV will come in two parts.  The viewing screen with major part of the hardware and OS and a handheld device or remote control and preview.  The set top box can easily be morphed into a handheld device with a touch screen for control.  It will connect to the viewing screen wirelessly, seamlessly.  It is technologically possible and it is waaaaaayyy cooler than what we have now.

The touchscreen will let you select, preview, manage your programs and instruct which TV in the house (I suspect most household would have more than one TV) to show what at what time for how long.  The small screen serves the purpose well enough and the icons would not be overcrowding the screen.  There won't be too many icons and there are folders to take care of your playlists.  Of course, parental control is built-in.

But then, the new Apple TV would also come preloaded with Safari for your, oh-BTW moment where you need to google something.  Heck, you may want to find out more about the movie that you are watching, right?

This system goes in-line with what Apple stands for, user-centric, intuitive and emotionally appealing.

What other have shown earlier this year with clearer, bigger screens, thinner profile etc etc are nice but not revolutionary.  It is just macho showing.  Voice control, face recognition, preemptive selection of programs, to me, is just plain creepy.  Imagine sneaking into your bedroom past curfew time and the TV suddenly blare out Hawaii 5-O theme song!  It is just not psychologically pleasing.

If it is true that Apple is experimenting with 7" touchscreen, it has got to be its new Apple TV.  Mark my words.

Remember, you read it here first.


Oh, there is one more thing.  The iPod touch, iPhone and iPads would have extension apps to work with the TV as well, though it would not be full fledged app.  The new Apple TV would eventually be morphed into an extension of the iMac.  Think Avatar!

Who can best play Steve Jobs?

I responded to a blog here about Rihanna playing Whitney.  The blog talked about the similaritie between these two wonderful singers and contrasted them against Ashton Kutcher playing Steve Jobs.  The point is that there are no similarity betwen the latter two.  I beg to differ.  Their looks are similar!  Beyond that, nothing.

I contended that as far as serious biopics are concerned, it would be paramount to present the subject, usually a legend, as closely as possible in the human side of it.  In other words, the actor portraying a legend must be able to act out the turmoils, elations and attitudes of the character as closely as possible.  As such, a lightweight actor will most probably not do justice to the legend of the subject.

Rihanna is a great singer.  She will be a legend in time to come but can she act?  I leave that to my readers to decide.  Along the same line, is Ashton good enough to portray Steve Jobs?  This is what I am curious to find out.  There are many names suggested by many people to play Steve Jobs.  I like you opinion on this.

Let's do a simple survey.  Kindly leave a name or names (in order of preference) in the comment of e-mail it to me.  We shall see what the general consensus be like.

Thank you.

Can an Idiot be made Smart?

        Once upon a time, families gather.  They gather to share stories.  Gramps tell stories of their youth, pops and moms read to the children.  It was a time when learning from the elders equals learning from the teachers.  

The children in turn tell of their days in schools or put up a pantomime to the delights of all present. That was entertainment then.  They played games too. They made music.  They sang and danced.  It was socially enriching.  It was mentally stimulating.  It was fun. 

Before long, an invader came. It came in the form of a box that emits voices.  It was good.  News from around the world could be heard.  The world seemed smaller.  Stories were told by strangers from far, far away.  Not from gramps no more.  Pops and moms stopped reading as they were fascinated by that box.   They were too engrossed with the stories and news read by some strangers from far away.  And they got their children to join in this new activity of passive listening.

But still, they gather.  The sharing disappeared.  The legacy from the old days forgotten.  The pantomimes neglected.  Games seemed too tiring.  Family fights over the choice of channels.  Social enrichment and family bonding suffers.  Learning was left to the teachers alone. Individualisms flourish.  Passivity sets in. 

That was not the end.  This time, the invader continued its onslaught with pictures along with sound.  First it was grainy monochromatic and small.  Then it became better with colors and crisp representation of reality on ever larger screen never seen before.  Passivity went up another notch. 

Before, listeners focused only on one sense – the sense of hearing.  That leaves room for the mind to engage in other chores such as visualizations or imaginations.  Everyone was still able to do some work while listening passively.  Now, the intruder mesmerized with moving pictures that talk and sing.   More senses were engaged.  Besides using the ears, eyes would be needed.  That left very little room for the brain to do other things.  It was the beginning of the degeneration of the mind.  Mindlessness sets in.

The humans named the invader, the Idiot Box.

Humans soon discovered the trap that they had got themselves into.  Passivity and mindlessness were not natural to human.  It became a distress.  Socializing has always been a hobby of humans.  Humans need stimulations of the mind and body.  Soon, that invader was swept aside for other things.

Because the human minds cannot rest, innovations continue.  There were a lot of gadgets and devices that replaced the once mesmerizing Idiot Box.  The invader now introduces its relatives and friends.  They not only talk and bring news from afar, they can seemingly think too.  Ask them a question and they will answer.  Accuracy is subjective to the questioner and the questions, of course.  Things were really getting out of hand.  A tool is something that you use to help you get something done.  It was not meant to be able to think.  A thinking tool was something hard to accept.  One tool, one task – simple.  One tool, variable tasks – distressful.  Humans thrived on simple things.  Well, most humans do, anyway. It was left to the expert to handle such complicating contraptions.  Over time, more humans became “experts” and thinking tools soon used commonly in their lives.  Tools and gadgets are “smart” these days.  Everything from the most mundane to the most sophisticated are enhanced with smartness.

Smart tools are so prominent that they have become a part of humans’ lives.  Sociologists and psychologists are forced to revise their knowledge with studies on the arrival of these tools.  Questions arose as to the impact of these appendages to the human lives, socially and psychologically.  Back to the basic, humans are social animals that are endowed with extra capabilities to thrive on adversity.  Humans are capable of great adaptation to survive in any natural setting.  It takes time but eventually, humans will learn to live differently and successfully.  That is with the understanding that the environmental changes are natural.  But these rapid changes are man-made.  It is artificial.  Can human adapt so rapidly for so much in so little time?  That is the question that troubles sociologist and psychologist in recent history.

All is not lost, however, for nature dictates that all progress and changes must plateau at one point in time.  Also, humans have the knack for categorizing the world into separate compartments.  So long as all the processes fall neatly into each compartment, humans are comfortable.  And so, after much turmoil, humans segregated those intruders into various compartments and everyone was happy.  The idiot box continues to be an idiot.  Churning out programs that were fed to it live as long as the humans turn it on, else it just squat there and does nothing.  The “smart” relatives and friends remain so.  Smart is the operational word here as they still excrete garbage when fed with garbage.  But still, humans were happy.  Humans, once again were in control.  There was lasting peace after all. 

Meanwhile, in the dark crevices of the innovative human minds something lurked. It cooked up various hybrids of devices that supposedly made life easier for humans.  The turmoil reignited.  Smartness went into cleaning tools.  Cleaning tools were incorporated into smart machines.  Some successfully stamped their presence while some drifted into oblivion.  Humans once again found themselves at war with categorizations.  It was troubling and the war is still raging now. 

While some battles have settled, others are still undecided.  Computers are no longer a keyboard with brains and a screen that you place on a desk or a lap.  It is now pocketable; not just portable.  Entertainment is delivered on handheld devices in various sizes.  Phones that not too long ago only help transmit our voices over long distance can now deliver all other functions of it relatives and friends. Buttons are reassigned or retrenched in some cases.  There are replaced by touch sensitive surfaces.  Isn’t it humanizing?  Or is it?

The last few battles rage on still.  Among the most gruesome at this point is the incorporation of “smart” into the idiot box.  Do humans want a dumb messenger to be smart?   How smart can it be before it discomforts humans?  Humans want control. They want easy manipulation, no doubt, but they still want to be in control.  They like to be served when they think they need it, not when the device thinks the humans need it.  Humans would want to turn on the idiot box and be entertainment when, how and what they feel like.  They do not want to be dictated nor preemptively served.  They want it to be obedient, controllable and aesthetically beautiful.  Most important of all, they do not want it to be too smart.

So, can the idiot box be made smart?

The answer is affirmative and the solution is simple but the strategist of the invaders got it all wrong.  Victory will be in the hands of humans.  It is time for humans to restart gathering, sharing and bonding.