Interestingly all of the people that said that the iPhone was a looser and would die a quick and unnatural death are now saying what a wonderful device the iPad is.
However there is one dissenting (and in my view reasonable) voice amongst the fan club. The Register report on an interesting article from the NYT's David Pogue.
His wife's observations are exactly what I have been saying. After all the hype has settled this will be seen for what it is. A nice expensive toy. I am hanging out for the HP slate which will be (according to reports) lighter, more powerful and a real computer with real interfaces.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
The iPad - Whatever Happend To Innovation?
With the "most important announcement of Steve Job's life" done and dusted, but without the dust having settled what is the verdict? Am I buying this or is it just candy wrapped in marketing?
I have to say that despite the anticipation and hype before the event I did not have high expectations. As more detail was leaked I became less excited until the night before my expectations had plunged to an all time low. In retrospect I have to say that all of my expectations were met. This was a fizzer and the hype appears now to be no more than marketing.
My initial response was one of underwhelmed and nothing at their presentation and all the glowing reports from those who used it have not changed my opinion. All of the fancy things that Steve demonstrated elicited no more than a ho-hum from me. Interestingly it reminded me a lot of the iPhone launch which I can still recall. My reaction to that launch was quite the opposite even though they are very similar devices.
I will start by saying what the iPad is not. The iPad is not a tablet. The tablet computer has a number of functions which are clearly missing form the iPad. First and foremost it has no digitiser and its associated functions. The digitiser is an active matrix built into the screen which allows the use of a multi function stylus or pen. It enables what is called pen computing, It doubles as a mouse in its simplest terms but it also has handwriting recognition, may be pressure sensitive, and write and erase. Pen computing is an extremely powerful tool and for anybody that has ever used pen computing to not include a pen in this format device is unthinkable. Not one of the news bloggers that are tablet specialists think that the iPad is a serious contender in this space. Touch has been around for a long time on these devices but until now they have all had the active digitiser. To remove that feature is like removing an athlete's leg. Some of the functions that require a pen are drawing, fine control graphics manipulation, and handwriting. These are possible with touch but you do not get the fine control with touch as you do with the pen. That is why conventional pens are held and not attached.
Neither is the iPad an e-book reader. As nice is the display is it is not e-ink. The e-ink displays are designed to minimise eye strain for prolonged concentration that is necessary for reading. It does not replace the e-book reader so that idea that somehow e-book readers will flock to this device is mistaken.
The iPad is not a web device. The lack of full web function ensures that you will not display many web pages. To criticise flash is to miss the point entirely and the pronunciation's of Steve Jobs in the last few days regarding his perceived issues with flash is disingenuous to say the least. In the last 24 hours I have visited several web sites that required flash to display, one of which is a daily visit and would be rendered useless without flash. Why would I buy such a device where I would be forced to return to my regular computer of choice just to visit this or that random site.
The iPad is not a portable music player. Lets be perfectly blunt about this, any potential iPad customer will already own at least one of iPhone or iPod, perhaps multiple such devices. Tho buy yet another device to replicate that function that you cannot put in your pocket makes no sense at all.
The iPad is not a movie/media player. Its lack of codecs, lack of connectivity and form factor (4x3) make this a vary poor media player. One can accept these restrictions on a small pocket device but not on a device that is supposed to be a replacement for a mid level computing device.
It is not a personal computer. I know that this is the most radical and potentially controversial statement but bear with me here. It is a closed computing platform. That means that all code that runs on this device has to be digitally signed by Apple. So none of the restrictions above can be bypassed without hacking the device. You cannot run a third party browser. (All browsers that run on the iPhone are simply Safari with different UIs). You cannot install additional audio and video codecs, for instance xVid or FLAC. You cannot do voip over 3G or Skype unless Apple grants their permission. You cannot run linux or parallels or Boot Camp to run your Win apps. You cannot even run your Mac apps without Apple allowing them to be ported, and even then some will have difficulty because of the interface. The addition of docking and pairing solutions makes up some of the gap but there is still a huge gulf between the iPad and a personal computer.
"So", I hear you ask, "What is the iPad".
The iPad is realy a portable iTunes player/games machine and not much more. I will concede that with the additional APIs and applications you can perform some of your more sophisticated tasks but without an open environment and pen functions any serious computing has to be done with a tethered keyboard and mouse(?).
Of all of the positive reviews of this device none have talked about its usability in a wider environment other than reading books, playing movies and playing games They all rave about its wonderful interface which I will concede looks extremely nice. One of the great things about the iPhone is the interface which is a great piece of design. But what is good for a hand held device does not necessarily scale up to a mid range device.
The iPad is light innovative and a wonderfully designed and architected but it fails to produce in its intended market. The things which made the iPhone a best seller will not save the iPad. It is a different format and different market. If Apple think that the success of the iPhone can be replicated by scaling up its features into a mid level device I believe they are mistaken. I am going to stick to my Tablet until Apple produce a serious contender.
I have to say that despite the anticipation and hype before the event I did not have high expectations. As more detail was leaked I became less excited until the night before my expectations had plunged to an all time low. In retrospect I have to say that all of my expectations were met. This was a fizzer and the hype appears now to be no more than marketing.
My initial response was one of underwhelmed and nothing at their presentation and all the glowing reports from those who used it have not changed my opinion. All of the fancy things that Steve demonstrated elicited no more than a ho-hum from me. Interestingly it reminded me a lot of the iPhone launch which I can still recall. My reaction to that launch was quite the opposite even though they are very similar devices.
I will start by saying what the iPad is not. The iPad is not a tablet. The tablet computer has a number of functions which are clearly missing form the iPad. First and foremost it has no digitiser and its associated functions. The digitiser is an active matrix built into the screen which allows the use of a multi function stylus or pen. It enables what is called pen computing, It doubles as a mouse in its simplest terms but it also has handwriting recognition, may be pressure sensitive, and write and erase. Pen computing is an extremely powerful tool and for anybody that has ever used pen computing to not include a pen in this format device is unthinkable. Not one of the news bloggers that are tablet specialists think that the iPad is a serious contender in this space. Touch has been around for a long time on these devices but until now they have all had the active digitiser. To remove that feature is like removing an athlete's leg. Some of the functions that require a pen are drawing, fine control graphics manipulation, and handwriting. These are possible with touch but you do not get the fine control with touch as you do with the pen. That is why conventional pens are held and not attached.
Neither is the iPad an e-book reader. As nice is the display is it is not e-ink. The e-ink displays are designed to minimise eye strain for prolonged concentration that is necessary for reading. It does not replace the e-book reader so that idea that somehow e-book readers will flock to this device is mistaken.
The iPad is not a web device. The lack of full web function ensures that you will not display many web pages. To criticise flash is to miss the point entirely and the pronunciation's of Steve Jobs in the last few days regarding his perceived issues with flash is disingenuous to say the least. In the last 24 hours I have visited several web sites that required flash to display, one of which is a daily visit and would be rendered useless without flash. Why would I buy such a device where I would be forced to return to my regular computer of choice just to visit this or that random site.
The iPad is not a portable music player. Lets be perfectly blunt about this, any potential iPad customer will already own at least one of iPhone or iPod, perhaps multiple such devices. Tho buy yet another device to replicate that function that you cannot put in your pocket makes no sense at all.
The iPad is not a movie/media player. Its lack of codecs, lack of connectivity and form factor (4x3) make this a vary poor media player. One can accept these restrictions on a small pocket device but not on a device that is supposed to be a replacement for a mid level computing device.
It is not a personal computer. I know that this is the most radical and potentially controversial statement but bear with me here. It is a closed computing platform. That means that all code that runs on this device has to be digitally signed by Apple. So none of the restrictions above can be bypassed without hacking the device. You cannot run a third party browser. (All browsers that run on the iPhone are simply Safari with different UIs). You cannot install additional audio and video codecs, for instance xVid or FLAC. You cannot do voip over 3G or Skype unless Apple grants their permission. You cannot run linux or parallels or Boot Camp to run your Win apps. You cannot even run your Mac apps without Apple allowing them to be ported, and even then some will have difficulty because of the interface. The addition of docking and pairing solutions makes up some of the gap but there is still a huge gulf between the iPad and a personal computer.
"So", I hear you ask, "What is the iPad".
The iPad is realy a portable iTunes player/games machine and not much more. I will concede that with the additional APIs and applications you can perform some of your more sophisticated tasks but without an open environment and pen functions any serious computing has to be done with a tethered keyboard and mouse(?).
Of all of the positive reviews of this device none have talked about its usability in a wider environment other than reading books, playing movies and playing games They all rave about its wonderful interface which I will concede looks extremely nice. One of the great things about the iPhone is the interface which is a great piece of design. But what is good for a hand held device does not necessarily scale up to a mid range device.
The iPad is light innovative and a wonderfully designed and architected but it fails to produce in its intended market. The things which made the iPhone a best seller will not save the iPad. It is a different format and different market. If Apple think that the success of the iPhone can be replicated by scaling up its features into a mid level device I believe they are mistaken. I am going to stick to my Tablet until Apple produce a serious contender.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Ten Things I Hate About MS Windows
1. $500 - give me a break
Most other operating systems for the desktop range from free to about $50, but not MS. They have to squeeze the last ounce of blood from the dying user. True some versions are cheaper - but still over $100. In a day and age where you can buy full systems for way less than the price of the OS there is some rather distorted summs going on here. The price of hardware has dropped substantially over the years but not the OS. This brings me neatly onto No. 2.
2. How many versions for you Sir?
Starter, Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. Whilst most other operating systems have a single version (desktop, not server) MS have in their wisdom deemed that the user must pay extra for what most other operating systems provide in their base OS.
3. Legacy
When shall we shake off the shackles? In this day and age of virtualisation we are shackled to legacy compatibility. Run a virtual server, there are plenty to choose from, both free and paid. We are being tied to legacy when we could have a much faster and more stream lined OS if we cast off the shackles of the past and went to a clean 64 bit OS.
4. The Registry
Who's wonderful idea was this? As soon as MS created this multi headed monster anyone with half a brain could see what was coming. Corruption, phantom entries, viruses that place protective shields around themselves hiding inside the registry. Admittedly it has improved since earlier versions but it is still a serious issue.
5. Dynamic Linked Libraries.
I am not sure exactly what it is about DLLs that causes so many issues but they seem to be a nightmare. An installation will randomly "upgrade" DLLs at will and trash several other programs as they do so. Why don't we have standard core libraries which are protected and then additional libraries provided by each program vendor as required. This seems to work for other operating systems.
6. Open kernel
Protect the kernel for goodness sakes. To tack on UAC as an after thought in order to annoy the heck out of any one trying to perform a simple operation is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Users rejected Protected Computing years ago and this is simply imposing all the inconvenience without any of the protection. If you really want to improve the OS stability protect the kernel and core libraries so that they cannot be changed without a signed package and only by supplying the admin password. The rest of it can be as open as you want. But that means re-designing the OS to behave like a real multi-user milti-tasking OS.
7. The GUI as the OS.
We have this wonderful GUI interface and instead of treating it as an application it has become the OS. The result is that you have this over burden of an overblown program sitting in between the user and the hardware slowing everything down. The GUI should be simply just another program and each user program should run as a separate entry but instead the whole thing has been designed so that the running programs sit on top of the GUI interface. Bring back performance.
8. Paying for bug fixes.
Windows 7 is a bug fix for Vista, whatever MS would have us believe. I fail to see why we have to pay for Microsoft's incompetence. I read recently that Windows ME was a minor upgrade to Windows 98. This was the opposite to Vista/Win 7. ME users were manage to pay for new bugs in 98.
9. Performance Bloat
This is related to, but different from #7. Each OS requires more memory and more processing simply to run the OS. To run the exact same programs I used to run with 512M on XP I need 2G on Win 7. How does that work? If I want to run more powerful tools such as high res 3D gaming or graphics editing then sure, I can accept that. But just to run the OS without any other gains, and then to have the programs run slower into the bargain does not make any sense to me.
10. No economic upgrade path.
It is still a minimum of $100 for an upgrade to the most basic version of Windows. Most other programs are genereous to loyal users but not MS. If they really wanted to stop piracy then price their OS upgrades resonably. Anything more that $50 for a fully blown OS is a rip off IMHO.
Most other operating systems for the desktop range from free to about $50, but not MS. They have to squeeze the last ounce of blood from the dying user. True some versions are cheaper - but still over $100. In a day and age where you can buy full systems for way less than the price of the OS there is some rather distorted summs going on here. The price of hardware has dropped substantially over the years but not the OS. This brings me neatly onto No. 2.
2. How many versions for you Sir?
Starter, Home Premium, Professional and Ultimate. Whilst most other operating systems have a single version (desktop, not server) MS have in their wisdom deemed that the user must pay extra for what most other operating systems provide in their base OS.
3. Legacy
When shall we shake off the shackles? In this day and age of virtualisation we are shackled to legacy compatibility. Run a virtual server, there are plenty to choose from, both free and paid. We are being tied to legacy when we could have a much faster and more stream lined OS if we cast off the shackles of the past and went to a clean 64 bit OS.
4. The Registry
Who's wonderful idea was this? As soon as MS created this multi headed monster anyone with half a brain could see what was coming. Corruption, phantom entries, viruses that place protective shields around themselves hiding inside the registry. Admittedly it has improved since earlier versions but it is still a serious issue.
5. Dynamic Linked Libraries.
I am not sure exactly what it is about DLLs that causes so many issues but they seem to be a nightmare. An installation will randomly "upgrade" DLLs at will and trash several other programs as they do so. Why don't we have standard core libraries which are protected and then additional libraries provided by each program vendor as required. This seems to work for other operating systems.
6. Open kernel
Protect the kernel for goodness sakes. To tack on UAC as an after thought in order to annoy the heck out of any one trying to perform a simple operation is shutting the gate after the horse has bolted. Users rejected Protected Computing years ago and this is simply imposing all the inconvenience without any of the protection. If you really want to improve the OS stability protect the kernel and core libraries so that they cannot be changed without a signed package and only by supplying the admin password. The rest of it can be as open as you want. But that means re-designing the OS to behave like a real multi-user milti-tasking OS.
7. The GUI as the OS.
We have this wonderful GUI interface and instead of treating it as an application it has become the OS. The result is that you have this over burden of an overblown program sitting in between the user and the hardware slowing everything down. The GUI should be simply just another program and each user program should run as a separate entry but instead the whole thing has been designed so that the running programs sit on top of the GUI interface. Bring back performance.
8. Paying for bug fixes.
Windows 7 is a bug fix for Vista, whatever MS would have us believe. I fail to see why we have to pay for Microsoft's incompetence. I read recently that Windows ME was a minor upgrade to Windows 98. This was the opposite to Vista/Win 7. ME users were manage to pay for new bugs in 98.
9. Performance Bloat
This is related to, but different from #7. Each OS requires more memory and more processing simply to run the OS. To run the exact same programs I used to run with 512M on XP I need 2G on Win 7. How does that work? If I want to run more powerful tools such as high res 3D gaming or graphics editing then sure, I can accept that. But just to run the OS without any other gains, and then to have the programs run slower into the bargain does not make any sense to me.
10. No economic upgrade path.
It is still a minimum of $100 for an upgrade to the most basic version of Windows. Most other programs are genereous to loyal users but not MS. If they really wanted to stop piracy then price their OS upgrades resonably. Anything more that $50 for a fully blown OS is a rip off IMHO.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Win 7 Scam - Are we being taken for a ride?
In your average software life cycle you see minor upgrades and bug fixes and major revision releases. Customarily the minor releases are free and are chacterised by point releases. For instance 8.0 is the initial release, 6.0.1 is a minor update to fix a release bug and it will then go to 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 etc as further updates are released. All of these are free until the next major release when we go to 9.0 and existing users pay an upgrade to receive the new software. Now the upgrade price is usually a substantial discount to pay for the loyalty of customers. Differing software companies offer different pricing schemes. All of this is quite normal and offers loyal users bug fixes, minor upgrades and discounts on major releases.
When Microsoft released Vista there was a lot of hype created around this wonderful new product but the market was underwhelmed. Not since the Windows ME disaster has there been a more lukewarm response to a Microsoft OS. One would have thought that they would have learnt from Win ME. Be that as it may, The initial release of Vista had so many issues one has nightmares just thinking about it. But it is true that the updates did make it marginally more usable. It is interesting to not however that the actual revision number of Windows Vista is 6.0. Now here is the thing. Windows 7 is release 6.1. The reason that MS give for this only being an incremental number is that a change in major release will cause a lot of software to not run. I am not entirely convinced. I believe that in fact Windows 7 is simply a service pack on Vista with a minor GUI upgrade. Why do I say this? Let me explain.
If they changed the version from 6.x to 7.x then they could simply provide a check box in the program's properties to make it think it is Vista. After all, that is exactly what they did to XP programs that did not run under Vista, and there were precious few of those.
All Vista drivers work in Win 7, which means that the kernel driver sub-system was substantially unchanged. This has not been the case for any other OS upgrade. Vista required all new drivers because the driver subsystem was changed. Same drivers = same OS.
Win 7 was only what Vista should have been in the first place. To its dying day Vista was a retrograde step for 99% of people. There are I/O issues. There are memory issues. There are performance issues. None of which have been satisfactorily addressed despite all of the updates, until now that is.
I maintain that Win 7 is primarily a patch fix for Vista and should be free to all Vista users. MS however put in all the fixes for Vista and in order to sell it as a new OS release they gave it the synthetic "7" moniker, added some interface changes and marketed it as a brand new OS.
There were I believe several motivations for doing this. First they wanted to make money on it. The sales of Vista were way below expectation and MS lost a lot of market share as a result of the issues. The only way to recoup the loss in revenue was to make everybody pay all over again. Second to release Win 7 as a service pack for Vista would be admitting that Vista was in fact broken, at beta level on release and this would have been a loss of face. Third they wanted a clean break from the damaged Vista branding. Vista has acquired a stigma that MS wanted to break from and the only way to do this was to pretend that Win 7 was a new OS, rather than the patch upgrade that I contend it is. So for MS to regain their place as market leader in operating systems they believed it was necessary to present Win 7 as a mew OS and to try to cut the link to Vista.
I believe that MS should have released Win 7 as a service pack. This has been the principle in the past and I believe it would have worked here. Sure they would have not had as many sales but their sales of Vista would have taken off once people realised that the bugs were gone. Reviewers were universally negative on Vista, but the same reviewers were universally positive on Win 7. All MS needed to do was to engage in some subtle marketing and Vista's image would have turned around on the back of a substantial service pack. Remember XP in the pre-service pack days? It too was bug ridden and unstable, not as bad as Vista I will grant, but not the wunderkind that it became after the service packs. The XP service packs also added substantially to the features. As much as Win 7 did over Vista.
To release Win 7 as an upgrade comes down to one thing, greed. MS needs to keep the $ signs in their eyes rotating at great speed and to do this their revenue stream has to be maintained, and what better way than to package an OS upgrade and an entirely new OS and to charge accordingly.
When Microsoft released Vista there was a lot of hype created around this wonderful new product but the market was underwhelmed. Not since the Windows ME disaster has there been a more lukewarm response to a Microsoft OS. One would have thought that they would have learnt from Win ME. Be that as it may, The initial release of Vista had so many issues one has nightmares just thinking about it. But it is true that the updates did make it marginally more usable. It is interesting to not however that the actual revision number of Windows Vista is 6.0. Now here is the thing. Windows 7 is release 6.1. The reason that MS give for this only being an incremental number is that a change in major release will cause a lot of software to not run. I am not entirely convinced. I believe that in fact Windows 7 is simply a service pack on Vista with a minor GUI upgrade. Why do I say this? Let me explain.
If they changed the version from 6.x to 7.x then they could simply provide a check box in the program's properties to make it think it is Vista. After all, that is exactly what they did to XP programs that did not run under Vista, and there were precious few of those.
All Vista drivers work in Win 7, which means that the kernel driver sub-system was substantially unchanged. This has not been the case for any other OS upgrade. Vista required all new drivers because the driver subsystem was changed. Same drivers = same OS.
Win 7 was only what Vista should have been in the first place. To its dying day Vista was a retrograde step for 99% of people. There are I/O issues. There are memory issues. There are performance issues. None of which have been satisfactorily addressed despite all of the updates, until now that is.
I maintain that Win 7 is primarily a patch fix for Vista and should be free to all Vista users. MS however put in all the fixes for Vista and in order to sell it as a new OS release they gave it the synthetic "7" moniker, added some interface changes and marketed it as a brand new OS.
There were I believe several motivations for doing this. First they wanted to make money on it. The sales of Vista were way below expectation and MS lost a lot of market share as a result of the issues. The only way to recoup the loss in revenue was to make everybody pay all over again. Second to release Win 7 as a service pack for Vista would be admitting that Vista was in fact broken, at beta level on release and this would have been a loss of face. Third they wanted a clean break from the damaged Vista branding. Vista has acquired a stigma that MS wanted to break from and the only way to do this was to pretend that Win 7 was a new OS, rather than the patch upgrade that I contend it is. So for MS to regain their place as market leader in operating systems they believed it was necessary to present Win 7 as a mew OS and to try to cut the link to Vista.
I believe that MS should have released Win 7 as a service pack. This has been the principle in the past and I believe it would have worked here. Sure they would have not had as many sales but their sales of Vista would have taken off once people realised that the bugs were gone. Reviewers were universally negative on Vista, but the same reviewers were universally positive on Win 7. All MS needed to do was to engage in some subtle marketing and Vista's image would have turned around on the back of a substantial service pack. Remember XP in the pre-service pack days? It too was bug ridden and unstable, not as bad as Vista I will grant, but not the wunderkind that it became after the service packs. The XP service packs also added substantially to the features. As much as Win 7 did over Vista.
To release Win 7 as an upgrade comes down to one thing, greed. MS needs to keep the $ signs in their eyes rotating at great speed and to do this their revenue stream has to be maintained, and what better way than to package an OS upgrade and an entirely new OS and to charge accordingly.
Monday, April 13, 2009
How much would you pay for an iPhone dictionary?
After about six months of use I am at last sorting out the good, bad and ugly applications. Some apps are just brilliant and in daily use such as Oz Weather and Google Maps. Others are nice to use and yet others have been deleted never to return.
One app though seems to me to be extraordinary value for money and that is Dictionary.com.
Dictionary.com is an online dictionary that is up to the standard of a quality home dictionary without the nuisance of taking out several large volumes from the shelf. They have now added a fantastic application to the iPhone and all for the princely sum of nothing. Yes, that is correct, this app is free.
I have been comparing it with the dictionary I would prefer, the AU$40 Oxford dictionary and although the Oxford is somewhat better there is no way I can justify $40 when the Dictionary.com is free. In many cases the entries in Dictionary.com and the Oxford are all but identical.
Not only do you get the dictionary but you also get the pronunciation, the Thesaurus and a word of the day. The WOD does require online access but the dictionary and Thesaurus are both offline. The text entry also does a spell check and suggests similar words just in case, like me, your spelling is less than perfect. It also keeps a history of recent words. If you have a word in one of the three screens, Dictionary, Thesaurus WOD, selecting another screen will perform a look up in that screen.
As far as I am concerned this is going to be my standard "pocket" dictionary unless I can get the Oxford for a substantial discount.
See Whats On iPhone for another view.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
iPhone - DYI Charger
It has been a source of much frustration to me (and obviously many others) that many of the iPod accessories will not work with the iPhone. Not sure for all of the reasons for this but one of the more irritating is that a large proportion of iPod chargers will not charge the iPhone. The worst thing is that there is no indication whether that particular accessory will charge the iPhone (unless marked of course) until you purchase said accessory and plug it in. I recently bought several iPod car adaptors on sale for $20 each only to find that one charged the iPhone and the other did not.
In researching this I came across some interesting information on iPhone charging adaptors and more specifically using USB for supplying power to connected devices.
USB has four pins designated +, -, D+ and D-. + is 5 Volts regulated, - is 0V or ground, D+ and D- are the data pins, send and return if you will. The actual current that can be drawn from a USB port varies on wheter the port is on a powered device, a hub or a dedicated charger, and also what revision USB the port is. What this means for the iPod and iPhone is that the iPhone requires more current and therefore the charger for the iPhone is slightly different due to the higher current required.
This article and its links provide some good information on how to adapt your regular USB adaptor to make the iPhone know that it can use it for charging. In short all you need is to add two resistors to one of the D lines between the + and - lines to tell it to turn on charging. In other words apply about 2.5V to one of the data lines. Some of the circuits use four resistors and others 2 but the outcome seems similar.
Of course there are other resons why your avereage USB car adapter will not charge your iPhone but you really need some skills in electronics to sort it out if it does not work first up.
I will be trying this out when I get home to see if I can get my wife's phone charging in her car.
In researching this I came across some interesting information on iPhone charging adaptors and more specifically using USB for supplying power to connected devices.
USB has four pins designated +, -, D+ and D-. + is 5 Volts regulated, - is 0V or ground, D+ and D- are the data pins, send and return if you will. The actual current that can be drawn from a USB port varies on wheter the port is on a powered device, a hub or a dedicated charger, and also what revision USB the port is. What this means for the iPod and iPhone is that the iPhone requires more current and therefore the charger for the iPhone is slightly different due to the higher current required.
This article and its links provide some good information on how to adapt your regular USB adaptor to make the iPhone know that it can use it for charging. In short all you need is to add two resistors to one of the D lines between the + and - lines to tell it to turn on charging. In other words apply about 2.5V to one of the data lines. Some of the circuits use four resistors and others 2 but the outcome seems similar.
Of course there are other resons why your avereage USB car adapter will not charge your iPhone but you really need some skills in electronics to sort it out if it does not work first up.
I will be trying this out when I get home to see if I can get my wife's phone charging in her car.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Landmark - 40 Years on
Yesterday was the 40th anniversary of a device we all consider a central part of our computing experience, the mouse.
This BBC article is an excellent tribute to this small creature.
It is amazing how such a seemingly casual idea was the herald of a revolution in the way we use computers.
Update
This article also shows some light on this guy who was so forward thinking.
The video link near the beginning is over an hour but is very interesting in what it indicates.
You have to think that at this time computers were rooms full of equipment and that input was typically cards, paper tape and if you were very lucky a teleprinter, and the output was paper tape, paper and on occasion a screen. The idea of the average user interacting via a console was rare and the interactive interface which is second nature to us these days was thought of as a nonsense at the time.
This BBC article is an excellent tribute to this small creature.
It is amazing how such a seemingly casual idea was the herald of a revolution in the way we use computers.
Update
This article also shows some light on this guy who was so forward thinking.
The video link near the beginning is over an hour but is very interesting in what it indicates.
You have to think that at this time computers were rooms full of equipment and that input was typically cards, paper tape and if you were very lucky a teleprinter, and the output was paper tape, paper and on occasion a screen. The idea of the average user interacting via a console was rare and the interactive interface which is second nature to us these days was thought of as a nonsense at the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
