Why don't you own a video camera?

Often times we look at techies and shake our heads because we can't understand why they have that latest gadget. What does it do that's useful, really? It costs how much?!!!!

But sometimes the techies are on to something. The early adopters of digital cameras, for example were right on. Today, there is almost no reason whatsoever to use a film camera . Quality, cost, convenience, compactness... Eight years ago, digital cameras were an expensive novelty, but today, one would be pretty much a fool to not own a digital camera. 

Today, I would argue that the same could be said for owning a camcorder, or more accurately, a video camera. If you weren't paying attention, until recently, video recorders were the size and heft of a hard-covered book and could cost close to $1,000. Now, a video camera that can give you passable video quality delivered straight to your computer (no more tapes! no more tapes!) is closer to the size and heft of a deck of cards and costs less than $150(!). If you have kids, or have some other event that you'd like to save to video, you'd be hard pressed to find a reason not to buy a video recorder.

Sure a high-end video-camera can still cost uite a bit, but low-cost video recorders such as the Flip which are good enuff for friends and family are the ultimate option. Why don't you own a video camera? They're too big and clunky. Not anymore. They're hard to use because there are too many wires, tapes and stuff to handle. Not anymore. They're too expensive. Not anymore. If you're dead broke, charge $150 on a credit card and pay it off over 10 years. The video you get in return should be well worth it.

Review of the Flip in the NY Times.

Cheap video camera showdown in Gizmodo.

Flash-based hard drives: Like Ryan Leaf.

Jeesh. Flash-based hard drives a.k.a., SSD (solid state drives), are like the Ryan Leaf of computer tech. Flash-based drives showed so much promise, yet has delivered nothing so far for notebook computing. They are expensive (~$900 for an SSD upgrade on a notebook computer) and unreliable.

In theory, SSD's have many advantages over conventional hard drives:
- energy efficiency (due to lack of moving parts)
- silent operation
- compact size
- fast

So far, the potential benefits have yet to be realized. Performance gains have been minimal and in some cases are actually WORSE than standard hard drives. Compact size has been a non-factor so far since they're usually used inside of standard notebook casings. Energy efficiency gains have also been minimal.

Now, adding insult to injury, a recent analysis shows that "a large computer manufacturer" is getting around 20 percent to 30 percent of the flash-based notebooks it is shipping sent back because of failure rates and performance that simply isn't meeting customer expectations.

About 10% of the SSD notebooks are defective (compared with only 1% of standard hard drive-based notebooks). Another 10% or so are reporting performance issues with basic functions such as video streaming.

Of course we're just in the beginning of phasing in SSD drives, but here's to hoping that you don't make the mistake of buying an SSD-based computer. Here's also to hoping that I'll be writing about SSD's being like Eli Manning in the near-future...

Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD: Much ado about nothing.

Most people bring in the new year with a positive salutation like "Happy New Year!". Well, no one told Warner Brothers, because the first thing they said to the HD DVD consortium was "$%&# off!"

Indeed, the top tech news as the CES 2008 gets underway is the most recent development in the Hi Def "format wars": Warner Bros/New Line drops HD DVD like Microsoft dropped Plays For Sure.

Ostensibly, this is a major development in what is ostensibly a major format war because it tips the balance of content to Blu-Ray's favor. Columbia, Disney, Fox, Lionsgate, Miramax, Warner Bros., New Line, and Sony are all committed to releasing movies on Blu-Ray while only DreamWorks, Paramount, Universal, and the Weinstein Company remain committed to HD DVD.

So which type of player should the consumer buy? The answer is obvious: Neither. Am I saying this because of the price? Blu-ray and HD DVD players are down to $199...surely not too much for even the thrifty, right? The price is fine, but the utility isn't.

First of all, if you're one of the majority of people without an HDTV, don't even bother. Your $30 DVD player will deliver a picture every bit as good. Even if you do have an HDTV, chances are pretty good that you have a 720p set. In that case, an upconverting standard DVD player will get you a picture so close to HD that you may not be able to tell the difference. Says who? Says Andy Parsons, chairman of the Blu-ray Disc Association. Also, for HDTVs 32" or less, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between standard DVD and HD DVD or Blu-Ray.

So that leaves Blu-Ray and HD DVD useful for those with 40"+ 1080p HDTVs, right? Well, kinda. As mentioned earlier, if you own an HD DVD player, you're just praying you'll be able to see any movie given the lack of studio support. The selection for Blu-Ray isn't much better: There are about 400 titles available in Blu Ray compared to about 90,000 standard DVD titles. In other words, Blu-Ray and HD DVD display awesome resolution, crystal clear 1080p resolution pictures for a few movies/TV shows, but for 99.96% of the content out there, Blu-Ray and HD DVD players don't do a damn thing.

Bottom line, a few things have to happen before this "format war" comes to a conclusion:
1) The movie and TV studios have to get behind either Blu-Ray or HDTV or both formats must be universally supported. Otherwise the consumer is left in the lurch and neither type of format is useful at all.
2) 40" HDTVs must become common place. Before that happens, neither Blu-Ray nor HD DVD offers any appreciable benefit.
3) HD DVD and/or Blu-Ray players must drop to below $100 in price.

It is easy to see how the above three conditions may not be met for one or two years. So it is entirely conceivable that the consumer will choose neither Blu-Ray or HD DVD. In one or two years, there's a high probablity that digital delivery of movies via on-demand and internet downloads will become the choice for viewing movies at home. Netflix and LGare teaming up to offer movie streaming service and an expanded movie rental and download service is expected from Apple within weeks.

So basically, if the question is Blu-Ray or HD DVD? The answer is: Who cares?

R.I.P. CDs

CDs and DVDs are useless. At least as it pertains to computing. It’s one of those things that is self-evident, but not entirely obvious...yet. After all, every desktop and notebook computer sold today has an optical drive built in. I believe that 2008 will be the year where that will begin to change.
The other day I was in an older colleague’s home office and was amused to see a stack of 3.5” floppy disks. These disks have the capacity to store one digital photograph and no capacity to store an mp3 file. How quaint.
Upon my return home, I saw a stack of CD-Rs and CDs on my desk. How quaint.
The fact is that CD/DVD drive in my notebook is dispensable. The only things I have used the drive for lately are: ripping CDs and installing software. Now with music and movies and software available for download, the need for an optical drive in computers is questionable. I used to burn CDs, but that was when burning CDs was an economical way to store and transfer data. Now that 500 GB hard drives are available for under $150 and flash usb drives are available for $12, CD burning is anachronistic.
Desktops will probably have optical drives pre-installed for some time, but in notebooks where space, weight and power consumption also argue against the presence of an optical drive, the DVD/CD drive may go the way of the 3.5" floppy drive. look for sleek, compact notebooks from Apple, HP and Dell with NO CD/DVD drive...

The iMac was the first mainstream computer to forgo the floppy disk drive. Fittingly, a new Apple product may be the first mainstream device to dispense with an optical drive: Apple subnotebook rumored for January 2008

Power to the People

Computers once filled entire rooms. Now they fit in our pockets. How a generation formed our tech landscape. (Steven Levy/Newsweek)

Nice article. The last 30 years have been amazing. Here's to hoping the next 30 will be even more amazing...

Pocket More Green With 'Green' Hype

Pocket More Green With 'Green' Hype (by Dan Gross / Newsweek) is a refreshing bit of skepticism about green initiatives in the business realm.

Although businesses' environmental interests often coincides with their business interests (i.e., saving resources and minimizing waste often saves money), it is becoming more common for businesses to tout their "green" credentials to distract attention from their other less savory actions...

In short, "seeming green" isn't the same as "being green". Example: Leo DiCaprio seems green with his new movie and his love of hybrid cars... but the irony is that your average truck-driving Joe who lives in an apartment (and not a 10,000 sq. foot mansion) is most certainly greener than any jet-setting hollywood star...no matter how green he may seem.

Be Green. Save Green. The first step to doing this is to avoid being duped. Think critically and don't always believe the hype.

Tech Zeitgeist

Well it’s 7 years after the year 2000 so maybe we’re just a wee-bit late...but just only.

The past few weeks have seen the introduction of the Transformers movie and the iPhone. These technological masterpieces are the things that people have hoped for in the past and have just now come to fruition. These things – along with hybrid cars, the Nintendo Wii – are the things that people will literally wait in line for. Amazingly, all these things which were not long ago part of the realm of science fiction, while not cheap, are remarkably accessible. Technology: where the proof is in the pudding; and the pudding is delivered.

Am I overstating things? I don't think so. Think about the things that people went mad over in the last few decades: The Beatles, Cabbage Patch Kids, etc. Tech is now. Now is tech.

Thoughts on Apple's "Thoughts on Music"

Steve Jobs posted a surprising, but not shocking treatise on music DRM (Digital Rights Management) on Apple's website on February 6, 2007.
Much has been made of Steve Jobs/Apple's recent treatise of DRM'd music. Specifically, many pundits (ahem, Molly) seem to be wary of Apple's denouncement and are taking a cynical stance on it; it's hard to believe that Apple would be taking a pro-consumer stance on this issue.

I personally believe Mr. Jobs/Apple's declaration against DRM at face value simply because the consumers' interest and Apple Inc's interests are aligned in this instance.

Thanks to CNET's Buzz Out Loud podcast
, we know that consumers benefit from un DRM'd music. No need to explain anything further here.

What is a little less obvious is that Apple would ALSO stand to benefit from repealing DRM at this stage in the game. Here are a few reasons why:

1. Being "trapped" in Apple's fairplay isn't the main reason for stellar iPod sales:
Over the past few years the vast majority of iPod sales were to first-timers. Furthermore, the vast majority of repeat iPod buyers only have a few dozen DRM'd tracks on their iPods. The conclusion that Apple has reached at this time is that they DO NOT NEED DRM to be successful in the PMP market. Apple's near-monopoly is not due to their DRM scheme at this time. People aren't "locked in" to Fairplay. They're "locked-in" to the iTunes' and iPod's convenient interface. Sure, Apple's market share will drop, but it will drop DRM or not; there's no place to go but down when you're at 80% market share. Besides...Apple has other ways to lock consumers into iPods: hook-ups in many new cars, numerous accessories, NIKE + iPod, etc.
By dropping DRM, the iPod platform opens up and becomes more inviting to people on other platforms...people who made the mistake of purchasing a Dell DJ or Rio player, for example.

2. People aren't stupid - DRM is restraining iTunes music sales. People still buy CDs to rip onto their computers because they don't like buying DRM'd music. The stats bear this out: fewer than 2 billion digital tracks sold while more than 20 billion tracks sold on CD in 2006.
Apple currently holds the proverbial large slice of a small pie. Apple wouldn't even mind getting a smaller slice if the digital download (dd) market increases in size. Let's say hypothetically that the dd market increases to 10 billion tracks sold annually and Apple "only" captures 5 billion tracks of sales. Apple would benefit from $250 million in gross margin in this scenario (assuming they net 5 cents / itunes track). That's a number even a company the size of Apple can not ignore.
At this point in time, the easiest way to grow the dd market (and iTunes sales) is to drop DRM. Apple is keenly aware (as noted in Stevo's recent keynote) that iTunes competition isn't Napster or Zune. It's Amazon, Target, and Wal Mart's CD sales. Dropping DRM is the competitive advantage that iTunes needs at this point.

There are a few other reasons for Apple to drop DRM, but the above are a few key points that behooves Apple to drop DRM for their own benefit...as well as the benefit of music lovers everywhere.