via Stephen Hackett. DVICE: On December 20, 1996 Apple bought NeXT bringing back Steve Jobs. Then all those brilliant folks got to work, and made a dent in the universe. Exactly fifteen years later the US$429 million investment begot the world’s most valuable technology company, at $368 billion.
There is no absolute winner for this Display Shoot-Out because all 3 Tablets were both winners and losers in some categories, which is interesting in and of itself. In most categories the 3 displays were reasonably close in their lab test performance, which again is interesting, but perhaps not that surprising since they are all IPS LCDs. But the Nook Tablet was the leader in more categories – both in the lab tests and the viewing tests – so it is the declared winner in overall display performance and picture quality, at least for this round…
The iPad 2 also has an excellent display and is very close in performance to the winner. What is impressive is that the iPad 2 is still delivering top display performance close to what many predict is the end of its product cycle, with lots of interesting predictions for its next generation.
The Amazon Kindle Fire came in with a decidedly last place finish behind the Nook Tablet and iPad 2.
Lots of test results including: screen reflection, brightness, contrast, color temperature, and viewing angles. The iPad 2′s Achilles’ heel is the low resolution of 132 ppi. Both the Nook Tablet and Kindle Fire sport a resolution that’s almost 30% higher at 169 ppi. Text rendering on both generations of the iPad is visibly poor, especially after getting a taste of the iPhone 4, and is the main reason why I’m waiting for the next one and hoping it sports the oft-rumored 9.7-inch 2048×1536 Retina Display. Kudos to the fine folks at Barnes & Noble for demanding only the best display be used on its Nook Tablet.
But RIM did nothing. Almost nothing. They were the healthiest competitor. They felt no pain from iPhone’s entry. The platform they had built was still growing and they were tweaking it constantly. There were always improvements to point to but fundamentally the code was limited. It was very difficult to adapt it to touch input and the first attempts at a touch UI were embarrassing. But there were no signs of a new platform that reflected the Unix-like competition.
The iPhone in 2007 and Android in 2008 forced Microsoft, Palm, and Nokia to scramble. Not RIM. RIM’s core customers were mostly enterprises. Microsoft, Palm, and Nokia had enough exposure to regular folks that when the iPhone and Android smartphones came on the market they felt it. The iPhone and Android smartphones have been slowly infiltrating the enterprise, not through massive corporate IT purchase agreements, but through individuals who want to use just one phone at home and at work.
I don’t think RIM is doomed. When it comes to smartphones RIM is more Apple like than even Apple. The hardware, BlackBerry OS, and data services are all managed by RIM. The most important competitive advantage is secure data services like email, which are encrypted and go through RIM controlled servers. That’s why RIM has been targeted by governments that desire the ability to intercept messages for reasons of national security. I put privacy at the top of the list of what’s important to me, so let’s hope RIM sticks around, does well, and more companies follow RIM’s footsteps in making our electronic communications secure especially from nosey, prying eyes.
Right now it’s the only open source mobile OS that has a chance against IOS. If there is no alternative to IOS then Apple will have exclusive control over what makes it to market. That is a future none of us should want to live in.
I like the way John Gruber puts it:
A different perspective would be that Google is the bigger threat, and that using Apple products is a way to better protect our privacy and personal information.
If there is no alternative to Android then Google will have exclusive control over what makes it to market. I just want to point to the WinTel-dominated PC market in the 1990s. It wasn’t very exciting then, and it’s not very exciting even now. Imagine a WinTel-like Android monopoly in the smartphone market. That would suck.
Presumably, if the next iPhone comes with LTE, it will use newer-generation chipsets and Apple will have tuned iOS for battery longevity. But I’m not optimistic. I’m also hoping that any LTE phone Apple offers will come with a setting that turns it off and allows users to drop back to 3G when battery life is more important than raw speed.
With iOS 5 Apple disabled turning off 3G. With my iPhone 4 I liked switching to 2G because it meant I had more bars. Recently, before I upgraded to iOS 5, there were times when 3G got more bars than 2G. I thought that was unusual, but a few weeks ago when I decided to test out an iPhone-free life for the rest of the year an AT&T store representative told me the company would be phasing out 2G in the coming years. Maybe that’s one reason why iOS 5 doesn’t give you the option to shift down to 2G. There will be little to no benefit.
That being said, I’m fairly sure 3G service will be around for some time. If the iPhone 5 supports LTE the option of turning off LTE will probably be there. LTE is being lit up all over the U.S. but there are big pockets without coverage. And there will still be big pockets without coverage when the LTE iPhone 5 gets to the market sometime next year.
If the iPhone 5 does end up supporting LTE Apple would have made sure battery life is just as good as what we get on the iPhone 4S. I’d go 3G to squeeze out even more battery life or because there is no LTE coverage in my area. Most of us wouldn’t be forced to drop down to 3G because the iPhone 5 doesn’t last an entire day.
Update: via John Gruber. Guggenheim Securities, Shing Yin:
We believe Apple may have decided not to release an LTE iPhone last year in part because it did not want to cede any leverage to Verizon, which had the clear lead in LTE deployment. We think Apple preferred to see AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all offer essentially the same iPhone, so that it maximizes the role of the device (rather than the network) in consumers’ purchasing decisions. With AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint all expecting to have a reasonable amount of LTE coverage by the end of this year, we think Apple is likely to be more open to offering an LTE iPhone […]
Gruber responds:
Apple will release an LTE iPhone when they can make one that meets Apple’s own standards for performance, battery life, price, and manufacturing scalability. It’s that simple.
If you see analysts adding more to what Gruber just wrote regarding a LTE iPhone consider it superfluous rubbish.
John Martellaro, The Mac Observer:
WWith the success of the Amazon Kindle Fire, Apple can no longer sit idly by and watch this part of the market get gobbled up by a competitor. An avalanche must be averted.
I don’t think there has been one day Apple has been idle since Steve Jobs came back to run the show in 1997. I’d bet for the foreseeable future everyone at Apple will be working as best as they can every single day. Apple will most likely upend markets, piss off incumbents, just to get us some insanely great products and services. But I don’t think a 7-inch tablet is one of them.
All the hoopla about Apple’s TV plans by The Wall Street Journal and at the end all you get is: “Apple’s plans are vague.” Ben Brooks sums it up nicely.
The explosive growth of smart phones and tablets has made high performance TFT technologies, particularly LTPS (low temperature polysilicon) and IGZO (indium gallium zinc oxide), critical to production of the high resolution displays used by these devices. These TFT technologies employ high mobility semiconductor materials, which allow panel manufacturers to shrink TFT dimensions and increase light transmission. LCDs with greater than 230 ppi (pixels per inch) resolution, such as Apple’s Retina Display, are enabled by high transmission because it minimizes power consumption, allowing mobile devices to run longer without recharging.
[...] high mobility backplane production is forecast to grow 150% from 5.6 million square meters in 2011 to 14.1 million square meters in 2012. Drivers for this tremendous growth include multiple Gen 5 and larger LTPS fabs starting production in 2012, as well as expected IGZO production on existing lines by Sharp, LG Display and Samsung.
IGZO seems to be quite promising.
[...] it’s made of a durable Lexan material that’s soft to the touch, and looks nearly as smart as leather. This isn’t a gaudy case. It reeks of purpose-built seriousness befitting Pong’s intentions. And the case not only seats the iPad 2 with a firm grip, it also includes a unique folding cover that can be be arranged in a variety of stand configurations.
But when push comes to shove, you wouldn’t spend $100 for aesthetics and a clever kickstand. You would buy the Pong case because you’re concerned about radiation exposure, and want to ensure you’re getting every bit of 3G power your iPad can muster.
I worry about radiation exposure and that’s why the computers in my home are connected to the Internet via Ethernet cables. Cables are not pretty but they are faster and more secure than wireless. There is one additional advantage: almost zero radiation exposure. The next step is to figure out a way to be reachable, but not need a cell phone. I’m not sure if this is possible, but I continue in my search. But not everyone who is worried about wireless radiation can or is willing to go without WiFi or 3G.
That’s where Pong Research comes in with its iPad 3G case, which reduces SAR levels and at the same time improves 3G power. The good folks at Pong Research is innovating in the right direction. Pong’s claims were confirmed by Cetecom, a FCC compliance testing outfit in Milpitas, Cali. A naked iPad 3G emits about 1.44 milliwatts per gram (mW/g); in a Pong case the SAR level drops to 0.445. And 3G power goes from 22.4 dBm to 16.4 in a regular case that trips the proximity sensor; the iPad runs at full power in a Pong case. If you’re worried about radiation exposure but can’t live without wireless Internet connectivity I recommend taking a serious look at cases by Pong Research.
But from my perspective, Siri’s greatest impact won’t ultimately be on users, or on device manufacturers (though they certainly risk losing market share to Apple). It will be on the TV industry’s content creators and packagers. Why? Because a voice-controlled television interface will fundamentally disrupt the six-decade-old legacy structure of networks, channels, and programs. And that’s a legacy that — until now, at least — has been carried forward from analog to digital.
Siri is like a point-to-point protocol where you get direct access to only the content you wish to view.
DisplayBlog is written and produced by Jin Kim. Subscribe via RSS.