The Stylus Counsel

I have an iPad, and I've been interested in buying a stylus for it. (That’s the pen-like thing you can draw on the screen with.) Of course, Apple will gladly sell you one, but like most of their accessories, it's shockingly overpriced. I realize it has a lot of impressive technology, and it works quite well, but still, it is a pen that costs $130. Well, it doesn't even have ink, it really is just something to touch the screen with. So even worse, it's a stick that costs $130.

But I'm not going to rant about Apple products being overpriced; everyone knows about that. What I'm finding frustrating is trying to find a reasonably-priced alternative. 

I'm amazed at how bad people are at giving advice. it sounds simple: I’m looking for a cheaper alternative. Yes, I know that means compromising on features. I’m looking for a balance of features and price. That shouldn't be so complicated; it's what people have been doing for years.

But every comparison article just tells you that the Apple pen is the best. Really? The most expensive option is the best? Next you're going to tell me that the Bugatti Chiron is superior to a Kia Rio. And yes, I do understand everything in car analogies; after all, it did make this easier to understand the basic point that in more mature industries, we understand these concepts. But for some reason, the tech industry approaches the situation with the simplistic attitude of a five-year-old. 

You’d think there would be at least some discussion of whether the superior features are worth the extra money compared to buying a Chinese knockoff from Amazon. And I did find a lot of discussions in which people ask the seemingly-obvious question: What's a cheaper alternative to the Apple pencil. And so often the advice from other people is to buy the Apple pencil anyway, because it's worth it.

I think there's a couple of problems here. One is that there's very little understanding of financial realities. A lot of people can afford to spend a hundred dollars on a luxury, so it's not a big deal to spend that to get the best available option. But there are also a lot of people that can't spare a hundred dollars. If you're in that boat then telling you that it's the best option is not a real justification for buying the hundred-dollar stick, even if it is the best.

Also, I've noticed for a while now that techy people are really not good at giving advice on which products are best for others. Specifically, the problem is that they're bad at understanding another person's requirements and adjusting their priorities accordingly. They'll always recommend  the most sophisticated, powerful, configurable option, because that's what they would want. That's why your nerdy cousin convinced your tech-phobic aunt that Linux would be just perfect for her. I've seen the same pattern repeated over and over through the years and across different market segments. Just be glad they don't recommend buying a Koenigsegg Gemera because of the cool valve technology. Oh, there I go again.

Anyway, I did buy a much cheaper stylus from a company I hadn't heard of, after I did find some reviews that said it wouldn't be that bad, I guess. And so far, it seems to be the reasonable compromise I was looking for. But no, this doesn't mean I'm buying my next car from an anonymous online company.

Surface Tension

Microsoft has a new, cheaper version of its Surface tablet. The Surface Go is a 10” table for C$529, which puts it close to the cheapest iPads. That seems like a good move. I never understood Microsoft’s early attempts at a tablet. In general, I don’t understand why they feel the need to make tablets, but that’s another issue. The first Surfaces were very high-end, and I wondered how much market there is for tablets that are more expensive than nearly all laptops. On top of that, there’s the question of how many people want a super expensive tablet but haven’t bought them from Apple. It’s like when VW periodically tries making an expensive car; it may well be a nice car, but I’m not buying a luxury vehicle from Volkswagen.

But with the Surface Go, Microsoft seems to have taken a sensible approach to deliver an inexpensive but still powerful tablet, so they apparently think there’s a good market there. That’s interesting, because it’s been about ten years now that computer makers have been fussing around trying to make a new computing format, something that’s portable, affordable, and convenient.

First we had the netbooks. They started off as microscopic laptops with flash memory and custom Linux-based operating systems — essentially they were small versions of today’s Chromebooks. That seemed like an intriguing idea, but people weren’t ready to make such a big break with the past, and soon netbooks had hard drives and Windows, which made them less cheap, portable and usable.

Then tablets took off, and while they’ve been popular, they haven’t been super-profitable for manufacturers. And as a personal observation, they’ve been kind of an awkward proposition: you can get a really cheap tablet which you can use for many things, but it will be far from a replacement for a laptop/desktop. You can use it for e-mail and some web surfing, but many web pages won’t work well on a small screen and underpowered processor. And slightly larger jobs like typing this blog entry won’t be easy.

But there seems to be a new format coalescing: you can get a 9.7” iPad with a keyboard case for about $500, and now Microsoft is aiming at a similar price-point. I find that tablets at this level are much more capable what with their screen and computing power, and an unobtrusive keyboard opens up many more uses, while still keeping the device more portable than a laptop. And sure enough, I’m typing this on one of those iPad/keyboard pseudo laptops.

So I think we’ve finally figured out the formula for a new computing format. I don’t see this replacing anything: there’s still things laptops are better at, smaller tablets are significantly cheaper, and phones are much more portable. But the 9-10” tablet/keyboard is a very useful setup. My apologies to that kid in the “what’s a computer” Apple commercial. You were on to something. But it’s still a computer.

Ghost Of The Machine

Apple is running a TV commercial showing a child doing all sorts of things with her iPad, ending with a neighbour asking what she's doing with her computer.  The child responds by asking "What's a computer?" I suppose the message is that the iPad is so unlike a conventional computer as to be unrecognizable. But I'm thinking that it's still pretty inconceivable that a kid would not have encountered a computer at that age, so the message I'm getting from it is that if you give your kid an iPad, your kid will be an idiot. I can't be the only one thinking that the child-actor's line delivery is particularly wooden, presumably because it's so unbelievable. She's probably wondering to herself why these adults find it so important that they see a distinction between computers with keyboards and computers without.

I don't really get it either. But it seems that adults have a big fascination with kids not knowing what obsolete technology is. Although the trend has subsided a bit, I can't count how many links I've seen passed around Facebook of videos of children perplexed by VCR's, Walkmans, phone dials, etc. First of all, I don't really know what the attraction is. I try to avoid seeing evidence of my age, but apparently some people can't get enough, like being unable to avoid picking at a scab or something.

But I also wonder about some of these kids. Just because you've never used something personally, you still get introduced to things a number of other ways. Usually that would be your parents and the media. I never had to place a call through an operator at a switchboard, but I saw them in movies. I never bought any records, but my parents had them. At some point it did occur to me to ask my parents why they had all these flat boxes with pictures of Elvis on them, as well as who this "Elvis" person was.

The fact is that we're all subjected to old-fashioned technology throughout society. Many people have noted the oddness that the 3.5" floppy is the universal symbol of saving a file, even though they haven't been used for years. And as I was thinking about this post, I came across this comic on that very idea. Old fashioned ideas often become symbols. I'm typing this entry on a web page that uses a picture of a bell to represent "notifications" even though bells have just been Christmas ornaments during my lifetime.

And also, you might be surprised how many things that are still in used in society that kids don't understand. I remember as a young child thinking that it was turning the steering wheel back and forth that made a car move. That wasn't because cars were obsolete, it was because this is a complicated world, and it takes a while to learn all about it. I was too distracted by learning grammatical structures and object permanence to learn the details of current technology. 

We all end up learning about a lot of the culture that came before us. You'll probably find that even kids have learned a lot about what came before them, eventually. Some kids are faster at picking it up, and some are slower. I've always assumed that they single out the latter for those "today's kids don't know what a flip-phone is" videos. Those kids are easy to find; they're the ones with iPads.

Tweet Dreams Are Made Of This

You've probably seen Apple's current ad campaign where they show people holding up oversized tweets.  The narrator then tells them how their problems will be solved by getting an iPad. Some of them are kind of entertaining, though they're no "I'm a Mac/I'm a PC" or "1984".

But I noticed that the tweets they hold up have actual Twitter handles on them.  So I thought I'd look them up. I figured they would be too smart to just use random names that might belong to real people.  They'd probably create Twitter accounts for each of the characters in the ads, to make sure no one else takes those names. And Apple is an inventive enough company that they might do something fun with the concept,  like have fake Twitter feeds for each of these characters.

What I found was quite surprising:

• These are all real people, and the Tweets are real.  But...
• The people in the ads are not just actors, but in most cases they're totally different from the actual people. For instance, the gothy teenager who hates everything is actually an African-American woman who doesn't seem particularly nihilistic. 

So I'm wondering what exactly the point of this campaign is.  I can understand you might want to involve real people, that will get you viral guerilla marketing tactics to access key influencers and other buzzwords. But if you're not going to use the actual people, why not just make up the Tweets as well.  Instead of trying to associate your product with some random kvetch, why not give yourself a nice convenient set up. @who_needs_MSOffice says, "I wish my tablet weighed 0.17 grams less." "You're in luck..."

So really, using real Tweets is just a creativity exercise for the ad creators. They say sometimes you need to give yourself arbitrary constraints to get the creative juices flowing; taking a bunch of Tweets as the starting point is just their way of seeking inspiration. 

Deriving Functions

Apple has an interesting new innovation. You may have missed it because we were all distracted by the collapse of western civilization. But their new MacBook Pro has replaced the function keys with a "Touch Bar" which is a small touch-sensitive screen. The idea is that a program can present customized buttons, or entirely different controls. The initial demonstration showed a video-editing program that let you scroll up different parts of the of the timeline with the Touch Bar.

The reaction seemed to be pretty negative. Though I thought it was a good idea. Let's face it: function keys kind of suck. They were okay in the pre-GUI days when they're really was no better way to reach large numbers of features. But now that we have drop-down menus, toolbars, context menus, tool-tips, etc., there really is no need for a row of unlabeled buttons.

To make matters worse, computer makers have usurped the function keys to handle things like volume control. Now I can't remember whether my F5 is going to save or turn down the screen brightness. I actually find myself missing the WordPerfect function key template.

But a touch screen would be ideal here. Their disadvantage is that the lack of physical keys mean that using them at speed is difficult (as anyone counting typos on this blog will know.) Inevitably, a company led by a hunt-and-peck typist will try marketing an all-touchscreen keyboard, and then wonder why it flops.

But no one needs to touch-type on the function keys, so it doesn't really matter if you have to look down at them. And if you're going to look down before you press the button, you might as we get the confirmation that it does what you think it does.

What they need to do now is start replacing all of the less-used keys. A lot of them are just a technological appendix. Which leads to...

Things The Teenage Me Would Never Have Believed About Life In The Future, #35

Computer keyboards still have a SysReq key. And no one has figured out what it's for.

But to me the biggest proof that the Touch Bar is here to stay is that people immediately started doing weird things with it. You can play the original Doom on it, or have a KITT style radar blip. I'm sure they can come up with plenty more ideas. Maybe make it look like a WordPerfect template.

And You Thought The iPhone 7 Was Expensive

You can see that "cars" and "technology" are two of the biggest tags on my blog, so I'll take any chance to combine the two. And today I have a great opportunity to do that, with rumours that Apple is planning to buy McLaren, makers of race cars and high-end sports cars.  Later in the day, McLaren shot that down, saying there were no discussions between the two companies.  But they would say that, wouldn't they?

Mainstream business reporters are taking the rumours as further proof that Apple is planning to build a self-driving car. But people more closely following the issue are saying, huh? It had seemed that Apple was determined to go it alone and do everything themselves, however crazy that sounded. A few weeks ago they reorganized their automotive department, with big layoffs. That was taken as evidence that they were scaling-back their automotive ambitions. Partnering with an established car company would seem to be further evidence of this reduction of plans.

My new McLaren

But there's the further question: Why McLaren? After all, this is a company that makes a small number of very expensive cars, so it's hardly the ideal partner to start a technology revolution. The other potentially revolutionary news on the car front is that GM is closer to delivering the Chevy Bolt, an all-electric car. It's going to be competing against Tesla's upcoming Model 3, as the best attempts yet at building practical, reasonably-priced electric cars. So if Apple is serious about competing as an electric car maker, they'll have to compete against a huge company trying to convert to making electric cars, and a small electric car company ramping up to mass-produce cars. So a company that hand-builds cars out of carbon fibre isn't in the best position to compete.

This brings up an interesting point: Back before portable devices made them super cool, Apple was just a company that made computers, and a tiny percentage of computers at that. Whenever Apple execs were asked if they were worried about having such a small share of the market, they responded by drawing an analogy to the car market. They pointed out that Apple's share of the computer market was more than BMW and Mercedes' combined share of the car market. Those two car companies weren't worried about having such a small share, because they were positioned as the luxury manufacturers, and made more money on each unit, much as Apple did on its relatively expensive computers. (And much as it still does on its phones and tablets.) But even applying that analogy doesn't work here. Even if you assume that Apple now wants to take BMW and Mercedes' positions literally as well as figuratively, McLaren still doesn't have the size to do it.

There is another aspect to this that may explain it. As a really dedicated racing fan will know, all Formula One cars have electronics supplied by McLaren, regardless of the car's manufacturer. McLaren actually makes a wide variety of high tech things, so a purchase might not be all about cars. Or at least, not about the manufacture of cars. So I guess it's conceivable that this could make sense, in as much as Apple making a car makes sense.