I've always wanted to turn my
29 April 2009
Two New Compact Mics for iPhone and iPod
I've always wanted to turn my
Display 2009: LED Dragonfly, Gull, and Butterfly CCTV
Already available in some districts in Seoul and South Korea, these nice little LED lights shaped like gulls, butterflies, and dragonflies are in fact CCTVs system and may soon cross the ocean to arrive in Japan near us and all across the world. And I can tell you this system works pretty well, just look at the last picture in the gallery, the fat, bald Gaijin taking a picture is.... me!
Are Apple's ads really better than Microsoft's?
As Apple celebrated, Microsoft canceled the company picnic.
As Apple announced results that beat expectations, Microsoft had its first ever year-over-year dip in sales .
As Apple announced a billion app downloads, Microsoft gritted its molars with a view to finally shaking a little of the smugness from Apple's chops.
So you might be wondering, as you sip your weekend cocktail and ponder why the NBA playoffs are even longer than the regular season, just how much each company's advertising might have contributed to these slightly diverse results.
In recent weeks, Microsoft has turned to a strategy of death by a thousand cuts (or, well, at least two) on the Apple brand. Macs are expensive. They're cool for drooling fools. Oh, and did we mention they're expensive?
While Apple has kept on steadily associating Microsoft with turgid, virus-infested slop made by the poorly dressed and pitiful.
But the difference between Apple and Microsoft advertising--and their brands--can only be told partially through these campaigns. The John Hodgman/Justin Long nipple-tweaking campaign is merely a portion of Apple's advertising. It doesn't define the brand. It enhances one aspect of it.
On the other hand, because Microsoft's "Laptop Hunter" campaign is aggressive and timely, it could become the only advertising output by which the brand is defined: We're cheaper, we're angry, and we're just not going to take it any more.
Microsoft unfortunately abdicated from giving its brand lasting positive emotional values when it walked away from the potentially forward-thinking and moving "Where Do You Want To Go Today?" campaign in 1996.
For reasons many, varied, and probably political, the company never found a campaign to better it. Advertising came and went. Consistency was non-existent. Contrast that with even the Hodgman/Long ads--they maintain the clean white backdrop enjoyed by so many other Apple ads. Whatever they say, they say Apple immediately.
If you asked anyone in the wider beyond to tell you about just one striking piece of Microsoft brand advertising in the last 13 years, you might find them looking as if they're trying to recall the name of their twelfth one-night stand.
In fact, the most memorable and, in my view, brilliant effort since then, was the second Seinfeld and Gates ad. Again, Microsoft walked away far too quickly.
In that same period, the Apple brand seems to have gained a strength that not everyone might have predicted. But how much is simply down to Apple's advertising?
It depends what you call advertising. Apple's whole culture is built around the understanding that its very best advertising isn't TV spots or print ads. It's the products.
Apple products are seen far more often than any of the company's ads. They can be admired, touched, played, and stroked. And the majority are visually striking.
The majority of Microsoft's products don't enjoy the same quality of exposure. And certainly not the same quality of design. Which means the onus on Microsoft's advertising should be to create far more drama and positive emotion around the brand. It hasn't happened.
The onus on Apple's advertising is largely to say: "Look at this. Isn't it cute? And cool. Apple? Of course, it's Apple. Who else did you think it was? Toshiba?"
Many of Apple's ads are nothing more than simple product demonstrations. Beautifully executed, celebrating their own simplicity, with often superbly chosen music. But still simple product demonstrations.
As different products are launched, each ad adds to the style and simplicity of the whole brand. And the values that Apple embraces--simplicity and style being just two--are ones that last through time. They matter to the customer.
It is difficult to name two Microsoft campaigns that actually built on each other. It is difficult to name two Microsoft campaigns that even reflected the same spirit, the same ethos, the same sense of a defined brand.
In fact, when Microsoft has been involved with brilliant pieces of work--such as this example for XBox (and, yes, I know this one was banned)- the viewer would be hard-pressed to feel that XBox is anything to do with Microsoft at all. There isn't even a Microsoft logo anywhere near it.
Can one imagine Apple launching any product, in any category, without its advertising identifying it, tonally and visually, as being an Apple product?
In the end, Microsoft, a brand that has considerable strength in the marketplace, seems to have become something of a diffused, defused blur in projecting its image. Microsoft built a business machine. But its brand advertising became like your demented auntie at Christmas: there, but not there.
Perhaps Windows 7 will be launched with a campaign that will lift the spirits and entice the parts that Microsoft advertising has mostly failed to reach for quite some time. Perhaps.
However, somewhere, somehow, the potential strengths of the Microsoft brand have not been projected by advertising. There seems to have been no consistent strategy, no sense, even, of what emotional values the brand should represent.
And now a company that has such a large market share is playing image catch-up. Which is really quite odd.
Nvidia: Chips to speed Apple Leopard, Windows 7
Graphics chips will be tapped to accelerate more tasks in upcoming versions of Apple's and Microsoft's operating systems, according to Nvidia.
Apple's upcoming Mac OS X Snow Leopard will tap into the compute power of graphics processors
(Credit: Apple)In an interview Friday with Sumit Gupta, product manager for Nvidia's Tesla products, Gupta described how new programming environments will tap into the latent compute horsepower of graphics processors to accelerate software in Apple's upcoming OS X Snow Leopard and Microsoft's Windows 7 operating systems.
Graphics chips aren't just for games anymore. The trend toward general-purpose graphics processing is defined by an acronym that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue: GPGPU. But the essence of General Purpose computing on Graphics Processing Units is pretty simple: use the scores--or even hundreds in higher-end chips--of processing cores inside GPUs to speed tasks that, in some cases, would be done much less efficiently by the central processing unit (CPU).
This is where OpenCL (Open Computing Language) comes in. OpenCL is a programming environment for "heterogeneous" computing. That is, computers using a mix of multicore CPUs and GPUs. Microsoft's analogous programming environment is DirectX.
Apple says this about OpenCL on its Web site. "Another powerful Snow Leopard technology, OpenCL...makes it possible for developers to efficiently tap the vast gigaflops of computing power currently locked up in the graphics processing unit."
Today, on a PC or a Mac, the CPUs made by Intel and Advanced Micro Devices are adept at handling general operating system tasks. For instance, handling the sequence of things that must happen after the user clicks on an icon to start an application on their desktop.
But some tasks traditionally handled by the CPU will be shifted over to the GPU--or divvied up, so certain operations are done on the CPU, while others are done on the GPU. "The really interesting thing about OpenCL and DirectX is that OpenCL is going to form part of the Apple operating system (Snow Leopard) and DirectX (version 11) will form part of Windows 7," said Gupta. "And what that essentially means to consumers is, if your laptop has an Nvidia GPU or ATI (AMD) GPU, it will run the operating system faster because the operating system will essentially see two processors in the system. For the first time, the operating system is going to see the GPU both as a graphics chip and as a compute engine," he said.
(Note: Gupta's comments implied future versions of DirectX, not DirectX generically.)
"For example, when you launch (Google) Picasa, that is completely run on the CPU. (But) the minute you choose an image and apply a filter, that filter should run on the GPU. (This happens) when you have Apple and Microsoft pushing the application developers to do that," Gupta said.
Gupta continued. "If you look at the Apple OS today. It's a beautiful interface where there actually is more visual content than there is sequential (CPU) content...stuff that's more available to the GPU. The CPU is one aspect but not necessarily the most important aspect anymore," he said.
That said, CPUs from Intel and AMD are still indispensable. "If you're running an unpredictable task, the CPU is the jack of all trades. It is really good at these unpredictable tasks. The GPU is a master of one task. And that is a highly parallel task." he said.
One of the limiting factors of unlocking the potential of the GPU has been the programming environment. "The hardest part about using the GPU was that you had to use a graphics language to program it," Gupta said. This is changing, however, with OpenCL and Nvidia's CUDA development environment based on the C programming language.
Intel sees it this way: "Since the graphics pipeline is becoming more and more programmable, the graphics workload is making its way to be more and more suited to general purpose computing--something the Intel Architecture excels at and Larrabee will feature," and Intel spokesman said Friday, referring to Intel's upcoming graphics chip.
"Coming out with this C compiler and the CUDA architecture, that's the big change we made. We came up with an architecture that was more friendly and familiar to your average C programmer," Gupta added.
Ubuntu 9.04 as slick as Windows 7, Mac OS X
Here's what the official press release won't tell you about Ubuntu 9.04, which formally hit the streets overnight: its designers have polished the hell out of its user interface since the last release in October.
So much so, in fact, that I am starting to prefer using my Ubuntu "Jaunty Jackalope" desktop over the similarly slick Windows 7 beta (which I am currently running full-time on one desktop) and Mac OS X Leopard operating systems, which I also use regularly.
I left Windows Vista, XP, and even Debian lying bruised and battered by the roadside some time ago.
You won't be able to notice the vast improvement in Ubuntu's desktop experience over the past six months by browsing screenshot galleries of 9.04 or looking at new feature lists. What I'm talking about is that elusive slick-and-speedy feel you get from applications launching fast, windows moving around without jerkiness, and everything simply being where it should be in the user interface.
Launching and using Firefox on Ubuntu 8.10 on my 2GHz Core 2 Duo-based machine with 2GB of RAM, a 7200rpm hard disk, and an Nvidia GeForce 8800GTS always seemed to feel like I was going back a few years, to a time when Web browsers were not considered something you always had open to service Web applications like Gmail and Bloglines.
It was the same with Windows Vista.
In short, Ubuntu is now as slick and beautiful as Mac OS X or Windows 7.
Now, just like Microsoft has taken the blowtorch to Vista to produce the lightning-quick Windows 7, which so far runs well, even on older hardware, Ubuntu has picked up its own game.
I particularly noticed the Ubuntu difference when I put the operating system to the test by simultaneously launching and using multiple applications, listening to music and more while using my spare CPU cycles in the background to encode high-definition video with Mencoder. Ubuntu still felt very fast--even with traditionally sluggy pieces of software like OpenOffice.org.
It's not just the speed changes, however, that has got me excited about Ubuntu 9.04. It's also the subtle additions to the interface; the logical move of shutdown and reboot options to the far right of the menu; the slick new notifications system; the seamless (finally!) integration of the Nvidia accelerated drivers, and the cleaned-up options and package install systems.
Want Adobe Flash or other proprietary software like multimedia codecs on Ubuntu? Just search for them in the one location, under their own names. No downloading anything from any Web sites. No package management or dependencies. No apt-get. Point and click.
I'm not a Linux novice (in fact, I'm a former Linux and FreeBSD systems administrator), and I've been using Linux on the desktop since the late 1990s. I usually run a combination of Ubuntu and Windows on my PC, and the latest Mac OS X on my laptop.
So I'm in a position to notice step changes in user interface behavior like the one that Ubuntu has brought to the table with 9.04. In short, Ubuntu is now as slick and beautiful as Mac OS X or Windows 7.
As we've noted in earlier articles, Microsoft has also brought its best to the table with Windows 7. However, it's a pity that Apple didn't seem to do so with Leopard. Like some reviewers, I felt that Steve Jobs' latest operating-system opus added a lot of new features, but also some unfortunate erratic behavior that muddied Mac OS X's position as a user interface leader.
As the magazine Macworld has noted, the new Stacks feature in Leopard's Dock is a "mess" and replaced the formerly utilitarian approach to keeping folders in the Dock with a "snazzy but generally less useful pop-up window."
The new "Spaces" feature in Leopard is nothing new; it provides multiple virtual-desktop workspaces, which Unix has had for decades; but I found Apple's implementation erratic.
Then, too, there was the speed price some users paid in Leopard for all the upgrade, though that could just be the older-hardware penalty. On my 1.5GHz G4 laptop with 1280MB of RAM, Leopard runs sluggishly, whereas Tiger runs like a dream. As I don't use any of the new features, the upgrade seemed worthless.
When you consider Microsoft's remarkable rebirth with Windows 7 and the fact that Ubuntu is free, open source, and runs on anything, you would have to wonder what sort of rabbit Steve Jobs will have to pull out of his hat with Snow Leopard to keep growing Mac OS X's share. Sure, there are some apps missing on Linux (say, Photoshop). But the same can be said of Mac OS X in certain areas, and VMware and CrossOver solve a lot of problems.
Looking back to the genesis of Ubuntu 9.04 six months ago, I suspect that its subtle but powerful changes are due to the new user interface team that Ubuntu founder Mark Shuttleworth said at the time he would put in place. If so, that team has already earned its paychecks and even more, and we're looking forward to seeing what another six months of development will produce.
In the meantime, kudos to Ubuntu 9.04: you got game.
More apathy for a Dell smartphone
It's hard to tell if anyone is as enthused about the possibilities of Dell making a smartphone as Michael Dell.
He's been making periodic references to his company making "small screen" devices in the near future at public appearances for the last year. But the people who watch his stock and analyze his company's every move, appear incredibly underwhelmed by the idea of a Dell handset. Their apathy is notable since a) Dell's last handheld device was very popular with consumers and b) Dell hasn't formally announced anything specific.
While getting into the smartphone-making business is not a terrible idea, seeing as how the PC market is pretty pitiful right now and smartphone sales are soaring, how Dell goes about manufacturing, selling, and marketing such a device is important. Even the slightest misstep could undo the progress the company has made in turning around its business.
Again, Dell has not made any official announcement of a specific product. But the frequency or rumors about such a device is increasing. The latest appraisal came Tuesday from Bernstein Research analyst Toni Sacconaghi Jr., who said that while there's potential for Dell to make some decent profits from a good handset--which could arrive "in the next six months"--he's not convinced Dell's execution will be all that graceful.
The company's track record in making devices other than PCs is "uninspiring," he wrote in a research note. "From an investment perspective, we do not believe it is appropriate to give Dell any credit (nor deduct any value) for its smartphone business. We'd rather take a wait-and-see approach."
In other words, Dell investors aren't ready to toast Michael Dell's smartphone just yet. There are plenty of reasons for them to be skeptical, chief among them being the company's ongoing restructuring and realignment of its core business. Sacconaghi points out that the smartphone business could be a "distraction" from the company's larger goal of improving its costs and establishing itself as a global PC brand and supplier of enterprise hardware and services.
But there's also the possibility that the phone will be just fine. Not a standout in its category along the lines of the iPhone, BlackBerry, or G1, but something that is based on brand name recognition could sell well in markets the company is targeting heavily right now: India and China. No matter what, it's really important for Dell to make decent margins. If it does manage to do that while snagging a small slice of the mobile handset market, something akin to what HTC has right now, it could result in decent revenue--Sacconaghi throws out the figure of $4.5 billion for fiscal year 2010.
There are rumors, however, that what Dell has come up with so far is not very exciting. Ashok Kumar, an analyst with Collins Stewart, panned the handset earlier this month--without seeing it, mind you--but based on feedback he heard from wireless carriers.
"The carriers, who see products from all the leading handset vendors, have decided to pass on Dell's handset," he said. "Some carriers are citing a noncompelling product with a road map that lags competition."
And a few weeks before that, Shaw Wu, an analyst at Kaufman Bros., also said in a research note that Dell showed devices running Android and Windows Mobile to carriers who were ultimately uninterested in the product.
Despite all the negative feedback on a product that isn't even official, it's actually not a terrible idea for the company to try this. Because, here's the thing: the PC industry isn't what it used to be. During the first quarter of 2009, the industry saw a 7.1 percent decline in shipments from a year ago, to 63.5 million units, according to IDC. Every major vendor is struggling to sell what are increasingly similar devices that bring in very thin profits. Though companies like Hewlett-Packard are making it look easy to sell laptops, most of the company's strength comes from its services and printing businesses. So Dell getting into advanced handsets that offer Web access, e-mail, and GPS features, one of the faster growing consumer electronics categories--IDC says sales climbed 22.5 percent over the previous year at the end of 2008--could be, well, smart.
If it is trying to compete with the likes of Apple, Nokia, RIM, Palm, or even HTC, timing is key. By the time Dell releases this thing, whatever it may be, to make a decent impact in markets like the U.S., Japan, South Korea, and Europe, it would need to be a significant jump forward in what those guys are offering. Consumers aren't dumb and they're not just going to buy something because there's a Dell sticker on it, especially if it really is as far behind what's currently on the market as some are saying.
So what would would make you buy a Dell smartphone? Make sure to take our poll or let us know in the comments.
Apple plots course for middle of mobile
Apple seems almost ready to bridge the gap between the iPhone and the Macbook with a new type of mobile computer.
(Credit: Tom Krazit/CNET)Is the world finally ready for the mobile minitablet?
It's become quite clear over the last several months that Apple is ready to bridge the mobile computing gap, with plans to develop a device that fits somewhere in between the iPhone and the MacBook. A recent Wall Street Journal article proclaimed that during his medical leave, CEO Steve Jobs has been working on that midsized mobile device, bigger than an iPhone but smaller than a MacBook.
And just this week, BusinessWeek reported that Apple is developing a "media pad" that would let users watch videos on a larger screen than an iPod Touch or Amazon Kindle, but on a device that's more portable than notebooks and lacks a keyboard.
The personal computer industry has long tried to make such a device a reality, but apart from some early success for the Kindle, no one has managed to convince the public that the attempts released to date--such as the Ultra Mobile PC--are worth buying. Instead, PC companies looking for increased mobility are finding ways to shrink the notebook PC as opposed to a finding a new way to use computers.
As far back as 2000, Microsoft founder Bill Gates was evangelizing Tablet PCs, but a combination of price and uninspired software doomed that category to niche status. Intel and Microsoft then turned the hype machine to the UMPC (later rebranded MID, or Mobile Internet Device), which several years later aren't exactly flying off store shelves.
More recently, PC companies have embraced Netbooks, small inexpensive mininotebook computers that are designed for basic Web surfing and e-mail. Netbooks, however, are further depressing the PC industry's gross margins and attempt to cram a full-fledged notebook user interface into a small package, and it doesn't seem that Apple is all that crazy about this category.
But Apple has developed a few unique ideas for mobile computing over the past two years that have resonated with designers, developers and users; namely, the iPhone OS and the App Store. So, is the timing finally right for the tweener computer?
BusinessWeek reported that the iPad (name stolen from Silicon Alley Insider for its brevity) would be about the size of the Amazon Kindle, but with a screen that covers a greater portion of the surface. The Kindle is 7.5-inches long, but the screen is just 6 inches; by comparison, the iPhone sports a 3.5-inch display, while the smallest MacBook uses a 13.3-inch display.
Previous attempts at making keyboard-less devices with 7-inch or 8-inch screens--such as UMPCs and MIDs--haven't captured the public's imagination. Microsoft and Intel had high hopes for the concept in 2006, which was also known as Project Origami inside Microsoft. Samsung made perhaps the best-received UMPC, but that wasn't saying much, and interest in the category quickly faded after the launch of the iPhone.
The main issue with UMPCs was a lack of compelling software. They were designed to run Windows XP, which itself wasn't designed to run on a device with such a small screen and limited methods of input. And at launch, Windows Vista was actually a step backward in terms of its suitability for mobile devices.
Samsung's Q1 was perhaps one of the best UMPCs/MIDs, but it never amounted to much in the market.
(Credit: CNET)Intel tried to shift MIDs to Linux to get around the resource problems of Windows Vista, but its partners have yet to gain any traction. And neither attempt was able to galvanize third-party developers into creating applications designed specifically for a mobile platform.
Apple's iPhone OS, however, was designed for a small-screen mobile environment. Installing the iPhone OS 3.0 on the iPad would allow Apple to preserve the user interface from the iPhone and iPod Touch and keep the device simple: a more complicated (and power-hungry) operating system isn't needed for a computer like this.
This would also allow Apple to take advantage of the App Store, giving the iPad thousands of applications at its disposal right from launch. One potential problem with that approach is that developers will have to rewrite their iPhone applications to adapt to the larger-size screen on this new device, said Craig Hockenberry of Iconfactory, creators of Twitterific.
Hockenberry, who is very confident that Apple has such a device in the works, doesn't think this will be a huge obstacle, but developers will have to gauge whether the extra development effort is worth their time. One thing Apple could do is set aside a separate section of the App Store for iPad-optimized applications, while finding a way to run older iPhone applications in some sort of compatibility mode.
"It wouldn't be hard for Apple to have a "Classic" environment on a tablet that provided a 320x480 window for running one or more iPhone applications," Hockenberry said in an e-mail. "It would be a smart thing for them to do: there are instantly tens of thousands of apps and users are presented with a familiar interface (something that looks a lot like Dashboard in Mac OS X.)"
The iPad could also be the first Apple product to surface with a chip designed by P.A. Semi, which Apple didn't buy on a lark. A custom chip could solve two problems for Apple--the need to keep software compatibility with the ARM-based chips used to run the iPhone while delivering more performance for HD video playback or more robust games that competitors might not be able to immediately match.
What might such a device cost? There are two schools of thought on price.
UMPCs, at around $700, were considered too expensive but because they didn't offer any value, not because of the sticker price itself. It would not be hard for Apple to argue that an iPad with an HD screen, thousands of applications, and a superior mobile browser is worth just slightly more than what people were willing to pay for the original iPhone.
A $699 iPad would slot nicely between the iPod Touch and MacBook in Apple's product lineup and preserve Apple's profit margins, while allowing the company to reduce the price over time if needed similar to the original iPhone.
But Apple could also hook up with a wireless carrier--we'll save the AT&T versus Verizon debate for another day--to subsidize the iPad. The company has reportedly been in talks about distributing MacBooks through wireless carrier friends like AT&T, which already sells 3G-equipped Netbooks with a data plan subscription.
A device such as this would be infinitely more attractive with wide-area wireless networking, as opposed to just Wi-Fi--especially if carrier subsidies bring the price down to around $499, just above the largest iPod Touch. It's hard to see something this big replacing a mobile phone--you're not going to hold one of these up to the side of your head--but there are certainly plenty of headsets available in the world.
This is the last frontier of the promised convergence between computers and communication devices: the midsized device. That shift has already happened to the smartphone, but it seems very reasonable that for many people, smartphone screens are too small for serious computing.
If Apple is indeed working on such a product, it will have to get the implementation right to avoid duplicating the failures of so many other mobile computing aspirants. But by having awakened the public to the promise of basic mobile computing, Apple could be best positioned to capitalize on the need for something more.
More on Windows 7's 'XP Mode
Microsoft on Tuesday offered up a few more details on its once-secretive project to use virtualization to offer an "XP Mode" for Windows 7.
As noted on Friday, Microsoft is using its Virtual PC technology to allow Windows 7 users to run programs that work in Windows XP but not in Windows Vista. On Tuesday, it noted some more of the fine print regarding the product.
As far as technical requirements, XP Mode needs a beefier system than that required to just run Windows 7 or XP alone, including at least 2GB of memory and a system that has chip-level virtualization from either Intel or AMD. One of the challenges is that today it is often not that easy to tell whether one's PC has such support.
A screenshot of Windows 7's XP Mode, which allows programs designed for Windows XP to run inside a virtual machine within Windows 7.
(Credit: Microsoft)"Some PCs have it and some don't," said Scott Woodgate, a director in the Windows unit. "It's not as clear as it should be relative to which PCs have (hardware-based virtualization) support and which don't."
At its core, XP mode consists of two things, the Windows Virtual PC engine and a licensed copy of Windows XP Service Pack 3 as a packaged virtual machine. Although neither piece will be included in the Windows 7 box, XP Mode will be a free download for those who have a license to Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Enterprise, or Windows 7 Ultimate.
Microsoft is aiming XP Mode primarily at small businesses, Woodgate said."That's a class of customers that may have Windows XP apps that they may want to run on Windows 7," he said.
Larger businesses may also have need to run older applications, but typically want control over things like who can install programs on their machines and other management issues. For them, he said, Microsoft has a product called MED-V that allows such control. An updated version of MED-V, due to be in beta within 90 days of the launch of Windows 7, will add support for Windows 7's XP Mode, he said.
One of the benefits of XP Mode over Microsoft's existing virtualization products is the fact that, after a setup process, the Windows XP virtual machine runs in the background so users don't have to manage multiple desktops. XP Mode automatically installs shortcuts for XP programs in the Windows 7 start menu. The experience from that point on is similar to the one offered by VMware's Fusion and Parallels in their virtualization products.
Woodgate noted that XP Mode isn't a security solution. Indeed, to protect their systems, users will need antivirus software running both on their Windows 7 desktop as well as a copy running inside their Windows XP virtual machine.
The beta version of XP Mode is debuting alongside the Windows 7 Release Candidate that is going to developers this week and being made publicly available on May 5. Microsoft said a final release will depend on the feedback to the beta, but Woodgate said Microsoft hopes it can be ready for download at the same time Windows 7 is made broadly available.
Microsoft has been working on the XP Mode as long as it has been developing Windows 7, and Woodgate said even he is surprised it stayed secret for so long.
Display 2009: 37" and 46” Full HD Multitouch TVs
Far from being new, these 37" and 46” Full HD Multitouch TVs are still impressive to see in action… A bit sluggish with Google Earth , I really hope to see more and more LCDs and TVs like these.
Princeton's Latest Ugly iPOD SoundWall
Designed for iPod and iPod Touch, the SoundWall is the latest audio 2.1ch and video cradle for your beloved Apple DAP. It offers a Video Out (Composite and S-Video), Audio In and Out, a remote control, and a nice little LCD… Interested, but it's WAY too ugly for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
