Tech Wars 2.0

With Apple just releasing a plethora of new gadgets, the latest rendition of the Mac and iOS operating systems about to be released, rumors in the mill about expectations for Microsoft's Windows 9, and the next generation of Google/Android hardware on the market, people from gadget newbs to hardcore geeks are abuzz with excitement, clever retorts are being prepared, and the next round of "my computer is better than yours" is under way.

I don't seek to settle the Tech Wars debate, but only provide high level objective observations about the devices that I have used, compare them to my own expectations and requirements, and provide a template to do the same. To that end, I hope to have a form, app, or portal for readers to see what might likely work for them. To see my initial overview of the major players, please read: Windows vs. Mac vs. ... Google?



Minor digression - the Tech Wars are actually a very good thing because it encourages manufacturers to provide a quality and affordable product for consumers to use. No one solution will work for everybody. Seeing various gadget fan-boys bicker over who's stuff is better makes me smile.

In my last tech post, I gave Microsoft a lot of grief over Windows 8. When it first appeared on the market, it was well deserved - loss of the start menu, the Metro interface that makes a desktop look like a phone or tablet, and poor UI intuition and control. I think MS deserves a fair hearing since they have made continuous and for the most part, better upgrades that improve the user's experience with the system. Among these are:

• Allowing a user to set up the interface much like a Windows 7 device
• Back buttons on Metro style apps
• Most Windows computers now have touchscreens
• Better screen size for "hybrid" or all in one devices like the Surface Pro

I had a chance to see what the Surface 3 Pro is all about and observe these updates in action. I wasn't blown away, but I was relieved that if I invested in that kind of a system, I would be functional in its use. I
still didn't like the fact that you had to buy expensive add-ons beyond the device itself and the duality of the Windows 8 OS, though improved, still requires some finesse and technical know how to use to its potential. There are a great many ways to configure a Windows 8 device, but the configurations not being used increases the system's footprint. However, the device incorporates mobility and productivity into a single platform. You can use it as a tablet, laptop, or tower workstation, but be prepared to spend as much or more than you would for a Mac. From Microsoft's website, a Surface Pro 3 comparable to a MacBook Pro, would cost $999 - $1299 + $129 for the keyboard. Add a docking station, second monitor, keyboard, and mouse, and you add ~$400 more.

As I have had the opportunity to use various Windows systems over the years, I have noticed that software evolves before hardware. Windows 8 was no different. Few new Windows 8 devices had touchscreen capability, and form factor was really skewed (screen size vs. type of UI). The hardware didn't have the capacity or ability to process what the operating system and UI were trying to do. (Engineering fun fact: the UI is not the actual OS!) What is the point of having a touchscreen style interface without a touchscreen? Microsoft doesn't usually design hardware platforms, they design the operating system and let other manufacturers build the computer. This methodology means that the software's capabilities will be a generation ahead of available hardware. Have you heard that
buying the first generation of new software being a bad idea? This is a reason why! (First gen of new software is also usually full of bugs). So now, available hardware is better suited for what Windows 8 is designed to do. However, with MS upgrading in smaller time intervals, the hardware you have now could become obsolete or incompatible with newer features in 6 months.

There are plenty of rumors floating around the web about what Windows 9 will be like though Microsoft hasn't released any real details. The OS should be available to the public in Spring 2015 with look-ins during the fall and winter. The biggest complaint I have heard about Windows 8 is wanting a degree of separation between laptops and tablets/phones; actually most would prefer to stay with something like Windows 7. Windows 9 appears to address this issue by bringing back the Start Menu in its true form, while allowing a user to expand the interface to MS' Metro apps as much as they are comfortable with. If this is true, Windows 9 could be a big hit, however, I see a problem in hardware capacity.

Even though we can compress more data into ever smaller spaces and flash/solid state tech is maturing and becoming affordable, it may take some time for the hardware market to mature depending on how many resources Win 9 needs to function. The dual nature of MS' new OS methodology remains, but a user should be able to better control over which UI components are used. From an engineering standpoint, I think that the OS should determine what kind of hardware is being used and display a compatible UI. Small screen size? Metro would be easier; not a touchscreen? Start Menu, etc.

Questions remain about whether Windows 9 will be a free upgrade or require buying a new license, backwards compatibility with current applications, and how much separation there will be between workstations, mobile, and hybrid devices. All in one platforms seem to be Microsoft's mantra and they are banking on the market accepting these kinds of devices as mainstream. Windows 9 I think will answer that question for MS.

Enough about what could be, now for what is! Apple just released the iPhone 6, the Apple Watch, and is about to make OS X Yosemite and iOS 8 available to the public. Steve Jobs said that he never expected users to want a phone that has a large screen, deferring to the iPad for mobile productivity, but the market thinks otherwise. Google has enjoyed success with platforms like the Galaxy, Galaxy Note, Google Nexus, HTC One, and others. Users want something that is lightweight, simple to use, is productive, and minimizes the number of platforms they need to do all of their work. It is hard to check on an eBay posting, read an eBook, or use many social media functions on a 4 inch screen. If you only want a phone for talk, text, and browsing, a small screen works, but that is not what people are using mobile devices for. Finally, Apple fans will get their screens on the 4.7 inch iPhone 6 and the mammoth 5.5 inch screen on the 6+. Below is an image about the relative sizes of the latest generation of iPhones straight from Apple's website:

And the following are relative phone sizes compared to other competitors:

Google fans scoffed at these new models because they already have much of what the new iPhone offers: total data synchronization across different platforms, cloud storage for files beyond music and photos, tap to pay, WI-fi hotspots, larger screens, etc. They aren't wrong; my droid phone has many of the above, albeit I haven't had much opportunity to use these features. Although I would argue Google is on the cutting edge of innovation and new features, Apple makes them work effectively, better incorporates these abilities into its systems, and jump starts the market into incorporating new features beyond the device itself. Tablets didn't become common place until the iPad and the iPhone was the first modern smart phone.

I have heard Android users complain that their device becomes difficult to use after as little as a month. One of Apple's selling points is that they market a total integrated system, the operating system, its features, and the hardware it is working on. No, you don't have the best ability to accessorize or upgrade and Apple can lag behind its competition in delivering new features, but Apple tries to ensure that what it gives you works well, not just now, but 3-4 years from now. This goes for Macs too. While being technically savvy myself, I have lost many productive hours due to crashes, reboots, re-imaging, pointless or buggy updates, and system lag on Android and Microsoft devices. You also pay a pretty penny for Apple's stuff too, so what would you rather spend, possible time lost from a cheaper, innovative, but potentially buggy device or a more expensive device that usually works as advertised?

To reiterate another of Apple's hallmarks, they focus on stability, usability, and simplicity; focusing on interaction with your apps and not constantly tinkering with your system. To that end, here are a few updates expected with OS X Yosemite, where Apple introduces some simple, but significant changes to its UI:

• The 'stoplight' becomes: close, minimize, full screen instead of close, minimize, and maximize with the full screen key somewhere else on the toolbar

• Reduces toolbar space across many of its apps
• Minor cosmetic changes to the way the UI looks
• Introduces data synchronization for all data across all Apple platforms through iCloud
• Allows a user to use any of their Apple devices interchangeably - e.g. a user can answer a phone call on their Mac if their iPhone is on the same network and can hand-off tasks from one Apple device to another. (iOS 8 required).

• The Spotlight search feature becomes "center screen" when activated and also returns web results

The tradeoff is that many of these new features require an up to date iPhone or iPad.

Then, there is the Apple Watch. If there is a device that am skeptical of, it is this. Android also has smart watches and they aren't popular. There is a concept in the engineering world called "data dumping," where too much information is being delivered that a person can't absorb and respond to it given a method of delivery. That is why when giving presentations, I was taught to be concise and articulate without putting too many data points on one page. Remember small screens being a gripe for Apple users? The Apple Watch is essentially an iPhone for your wrist. Sure, you no longer need your shoulder band to store your device when going for a run, but there are so many functions that most users would become overwhelmed and many of them are pointless unless the recipient also has a Watch. A user would probably prefer an iPhone or iPad to do what the Watch is capable of. If I got a message on the watch, I think I would pull my phone out to respond (and I think a phone is needed to make the Watch functional anyway). I'm also not sure how many users would like to rely on Siri to interpret what you are saying and doing as the Watch is makes heavy use of voice input.

Touching a couple of points that I didn't address about Google's Chomebooks last time - Google has a regular update cycle every few weeks that introduces fixes, updates, and new features. For the most part, these updates are worthwhile, but after some time, the system can get sluggish. Dumping cache or even doing a restore to factory condition would improve system speed. You wouldn't lose your data provided it is in one of Google's cloud apps. Additionally, there are some newer Chromebooks on the market with bigger screens and better hardware.

For getting stuff done on the web, Chromebooks do their job well, but the ability to do something offline is not what these devices are designed for. On a recent trip, not having access to my library of music and video was most unfortunate as was not having access to projects I was working on unless I specifically made all of the required content available offline. I still like the fact that these devices are lightweight and fast. Having Google and everything it can do without all of the extra baggage can make a user's online life far simpler. Some can produce sufficiently on a Chomebook without needing anything else. Google Now is scary (cool and creepy) with relevant information about weather, traffic, stuff to do, even travel itineraries.

Recent updates to Chromecast caused a couple of apps to stop working much to my frustration, but
those bugs were fixed within a couple of days. It is mildly frustrating to not be able to play local content, but Chromecast can be used on any platform, MS, Apple, or Google that has the plugin installed.

In closing, there are a few new points to consider when looking at a new gadget. If you want to do "everything at once," are comfortable with duality and persistent, but not necessarily stable upgrades, or are looking for something that is better for upgrading hardware, consider Windows. If you want something that is simple to use, want predictable upgrades that are more likely to work, and are willing to accept restrictions of limited compatible hardware and be a step behind the next best thing consider a Mac or iOS. Other questions to consider are:

• How mobile are you? 
• Do you need the ability to have access to your data regardless of where you are? 
• How much stuff and what kind of stuff do you do on the go beyond talk and text?
• Do you need the ability to move data across different platforms?

What you decide is dependent on what you are comfortable with and what your requirements are. Whatever you choose, get something that will last. Apple tries to make that a given when you buy a device, but you have the flexibility with other platforms to go "overboard" when you select your hardware. Google/Android is hit or miss in this department, but if you "hit," Google's devices can do surprisingly well.




I'll still laugh at the diehards - besides, maybe they will push those they don't like to make something better. One thing we can probably all agree on though:

Internet Explorer is the best browser ... for downloading a better browser!

Images are the property of their original owners. This post is for educational purposes only!

We can all agree to hate IE yes?