Starting on the topic of HDMI, with Motorola touting it as one of the key features, customers would expect the ability to output HD-like Blockbuster to a HDTV set. Unfortunately, HDMI output is restricted due to copyright protection. Ironically, an illegally downloaded TV show or movie will play just fine. And as a side comment, I don’t encourage illegally downloading movies or music, but the restrictions imposed on legal content is just disappointing. Considering that the Blockbuster App comes pre-installed and that Motorola even offers an optional HDMI dock accessory, the entire situation is just ridiculous. I should also note that the packaging doesn’t include a micro HDMI cable.

Forget HDTVs, how about watching Blockbuster movies on the phone? That works great, right? Unfortunately, this is a disaster too. It turns out that the Blockbuster by Mail subscription plans are entirely independent from Blockbuster On Demand. Paying for one won’t offer access to the other. Meanwhile, Netflix offers free instant streaming to computers, TVs, gaming consoles, and mobile phones with a standard rental-by-mail subscription. Sadly, Blockbuster’s pricing is hefty too, movies go for $3.99 for a 24 hour rental and purchases cost up to $17.99. For the average person, that’s just a bit too much to pay for watching a movie on a 4.3 inch screen. When Redbox costs just a buck, there’s no reason to deal with this.

Even if you were okay with the expensive rates, the experience is still problematic. And if you thought Blockbuster for Android was a streaming technology like Netflix or YouTube, you are wrong. On Demand is rather along the lines of iTunes Movies or Amazon Unbox, which means downloading large movie files. And that’s a problem, since downloads take forever. Verizon doesn’t allow 3G downloads either, users will need to stick around a WiFi network until a download completes. Even with a fast internet connection, downloading a movie took about two hours. The app can conveniently run in the background, but it kills battery life quickly.

For those looking to get media onto their phone, with 8GB of internal storage and a bundled 16GB microSD card, there’s plenty of space for storing content. And if that’s not enough, using DLNA with a Windows 7 machine on a home network is probably the next best experience. It allows streaming music, movies, and photos to and from computers, HDTVs, gaming consoles, and even other DLNA enabled smartphones.

While Blockbuster deserves some credit for bringing 125,000 movies to the Droid X and even offering an option to queue movies for Blockbuster by Mail customers, the overall experience is nothing more than a complete failure. The mere list of issues go on and on: no HDMI output, expensive prices, no streaming, slow downloads, and WiFi restrictions. With the entire service being a nuisance, I decided to uninstall this application, but it turns out that isn’t possible either. The entire application is nothing more than bloatware for the average users. I’m looking forward to when Netflix brings an App to the Android Marketplace, hopefully they won’t make the same mistakes.

Links: Motorola Droid X (Review) | Blockbuster.com

The Benefits
OnLive isn’t simply a distribution medium like Steam, it’s entirely different. While the latter requires users to download gigabytes of data for each game, OnLive doesn’t. Getting setup and running is rather easy. The installer for both Macs and PCs is just a few megabytes in size and only has a few minimum requirements: a dual-core processor, 1280-by-720 resolution display, and a high-speed internet connection. And that’s about it, gamers won’t need a powerful graphics card to play the latest games. In fact, the service is so flexible that users can begin a game on one machine and sign into their account on another, regardless of the OS, to pickup where they left off. Game developers may find OnLive attractive as well: building a single version of their game for this service instantly makes it compatible with both Windows and Macintosh machines.

OnLive’s business strategy is different from anything we’ve seen in the gaming industry before. The company’s technology processes graphics-intensive games on their cloud-based servers and delivers the final product to customers: audio and video. The little application on each subscriber’s machine sends commands from a keyboard, mouse, or controller back to OnLive’s servers. With some behind-the-scenes coordination, the entire service claims to work in harmony. For masses out there with outdated machines, OnLive presents an opportunity to play the latest games without having to spend a fortune. As for notable titles, some include Assassin’s Creed II, Dirt 2, Mass Effect 2, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Splinter Cell: Conviction and a few more.

The Issues
While the initial pitch may sound interesting, there are a few issues worth noting. First, gamers will always need an internet connection, even if simply working your way through a single-player mission. And that’s not all, you can’t have just any internet connection, OnLive requires speeds of nearly 5.5 Mbps. That pretty much excludes most DSL customers and let’s not talk about the part of America that’s still on Dial-Up. For users who do have a great internet connection, despite the claims of the company’s representatives, it’s likely that there will be decent amounts of lag. That fact alone excludes most serious gamers from even considering the service. Playing a round of a multi-player first person shooter may not be so much fun anymore. I should also note that OnLive doesn’t work with WiFi yet, users will need to tether themselves down with an Ethernet cable.

As for graphics quality, OnLive is comparable to other video streaming technologies. Let’s put this in terms of something just about everyone is already familiar with. Think about the quality of a Blu-ray movie or an even a DVD, then compare that to streaming a video from Hulu or YouTube. While faster internet connections and HD content is becoming more widely available, there are always buffering issues. While OnLive’s compression technology claims to intuitively adapt, picture quality won’t look bad, but it won’t be as great as playing it natively. And as for game titles, when I said “a few more,” I meant it. There are only about 20 available at this time.

Bottom Line
When it comes down to considering this service over purchasing retail box games or using Steam, price becomes an important factor. OnLive charges a $15 monthly fee for access to the service, but not games. Getting access to a particular title will cost customers an addition one-time fee. F.E.A.R. 2: Project Origin goes for just $20 while Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands is $50. Unfortunately, this presents one major drawback: when customers cancel a monthly subscription, they will no longer have access to games they’ve purchased. While OnLive tries appeal to users who can’t afford expensive computer hardware or dedicated consoles, the bills add up. While an Xbox 360 S sells for $300, two years of an OnLive subscription costs $360. Let’s not forget that consumers get to keep Xbox hardware and games which isn’t possible for OnLive users. It’s a hard sell, but nonetheless an interesting one. If pricing drops significantly, it might be worth considering. Until then gaming on consoles or computers is still a more affordable option.

Links: OnLive.com

Update (7/21/10): It was just pointed out that my Xbox price comparison was somewhat inaccurate since I failed to mention the cost of a Xbox Live subscription which goes for $50/year. However, even with an additional $100 added to the price tag, customers will still need to buy games. The fact that games are unplayable after a user ends a subscription still makes the service hard to recommend.

Let me start off by saying that I am not a fan of touchscreen keyboards. At all. I love the tactile feel of physical keys beneath my fingers while I’m typing, and haptic (vibrating) feedback just doesn’t cut it for me. I don’t see how people with large hands can type anything on these keyboards. I have tiny fingers and I still manage to press the wrong keys! I’ve had this problem with the iPhone 3GS, which features one of the best touchscreen keyboards, and I even found the Droid X’s default multi-touch keyboard difficult to use despite its large screen. Typing often got frustratingly slow using the multi-touch keyboard, as I had to go back constantly to correct misspelled words. Fed up after an hour of trying to make it through a sentence without typos and spending over ten minutes on a five line email, I finally gave in and switched to the pre-installed Swype keyboard.

I know that, even though Swype has been getting rave reviews, there are a fair number of skeptics out there, including myself before I tried it out. But let me assure you that this positive reviews are warranted. For starters, Cliff Kushler is behind the project, the same guy who invented the T9 text-input technology that’s featured on millions of numeric keypad phones. Clearly not satisfied with his first revolutionary addition to keypads, he’s trying to “reinvent the wheel” again, this time for smart phones. He’s done this by creating a software that allows you to slide your finger over a touchscreen keyboard to spell out a word without lifting a finger. The intuitive software recognizes an intended word based on the keys you’ve run your fingers over. For example, if I want to type “Droid,” I would place my finger on the “D” key, then drag it up to the “R” key, across to the “O,” back to the “I,” and then back to “D” again. I know that this may sound a little strange, and a video is the best way to explain how Swype works, here’s Sahas Katta’s demo of Swype on the HTC EVO 4G:

If that video didn’t convince you that Swype is unlike anything you’ve ever seen, then I probably have nothing more to say that will change your mind. Swype goes far beyond the days of graffiti for Palm Pilots. The technology doesn’t require pin-point swyping accuracy, either. Running your finger across a set of keys  within reasonable proximity of those that form a word is generally enough; however, if Swype is unsure about your input, it presents a popup with four possibilities and a second page with another four. And if a word isn’t recognized, tapping it in the old fashion way will register it into the dictionary, and Swyping that same word a second time around won’t be an issue.

Full sentences are just as easy. To swype something like “My Droid X Rocks,” all I need to do is run my finger across the letters of the first word, lift my finger briefly, and then continue on to the second word. I found it very handy that Swype automatically selected the first option in the word suggestion box without making me have to physically touch the word to select it. This meant that I could continue swyping the next word in my sentence while Swype inserted the first option, dramatically speeding up my typing. However, the main reason for faster typing I found was the fact that I didn’t ever have to stop to hit the space key. Hitting the space bar is entirely optional with Swype, as the keyboard automatically recognizes where one word ends and another begins.

In terms of the learning curve, it’s actually fairly intuitive. The software walks you through a tutorial when it’s first activated. After that, I more or less got the hang of it in under a minute. Within an hour I felt completely comfortable using Swype. After swyping only a few sentences, it becomes clear how much faster it is. I was able to write texts using Swype, with minimal typos, in nearly half the time it took me to tap the same message on the standard multi-touch keyboard.

While the entire idea sounds great, there’s one major flaw with Swype: it is very, very easy to make mistakes. And that’s not entirely because the technology is flawed, but because we are. Most of us know how to type on traditional QWERTY keyboards because they’ve been around for ages, and we’ve been trained to type exclusively on these keyboards. Veteran typists have the muscle movements memorized for most common words. Because Swype doesn’t use the traditional typing method, however, muscle memory got in the way more frequently than I expected, especially when it came to words with trickier spellings. One of the most problematic words for me was “definitely,” a word that I don’t normally have trouble typing because I know the finger pattern. However, with Swype I had to think twice about whether it was spelled with one “E” or two and what the overall letter sequence was. This was more of a minor nuisance for me, since I have relatively decent spelling, but I can imagine it being a real problem for those who aren’t great at spelling and rely heavily on spell check or autocorrect. Unlike conventional typing, spelling does make a difference in determining whether or not Swype knows what you are trying to say.

I’ve found that Swype is only right about 75% of the time in what I’m trying to say. I’m going to chalk up most of this to my inability to swype accurately, but it has led to some fairly entertaining typos. For instance, it inserted the word “fruit” instead of “for” in an email to a friend. But a more serious incident was when the “o” in the word “dock” was swapped with the letter “i” in a work-related conversation with my boss. While he laughed it off, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t play out so well in other situations or with other bosses. Swype is also very problematic when it comes to passwords. There’s simply no way to verify that you’ve entered a password correctly using Swype, since the text is covered with astericks. Passwords that are standard dictionary words, which is highly unrecommended, may work with Swype, but entering complicated ones with symbols, numbers, and capital letters isn’t just annoying, it’s nearly impossible. Fortunately, the Swype keyboard also works as a regular tap-enabled keyboard when needed, though I wouldn’t recommend using it this way for anything other than odd words or passwords.

Overall, I think Swype is a fantastic addition to smart phones and is great for people like me who find regular single-letter tapping on touchscreens difficult and downright frustrating. Of course, it isn’t perfect. It has some problems with typos, and does go against the way we have been taught to type. However, these problems are more minor nuisances than serious issues and definitely do not outweigh the speed benefits that come with Swype. After using it myself, I now see why people have been so excited by this new text input feature, and I can honestly say that I would recommend Swype to all smart phone owners.

Links: Swype Beta
Video: Demo on HTC EVO 4G

Editors Note: This article was co-written by Sahas Katta and Alex Harvey-Gurr.

Currently, US law states that the telcos and the government that provide broadband services are not allowed to impose any restrictions on the Internet content that they deliver. When the Communications Act was passed in 1934, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was given the right to regulate telephone companies as common carriers. Under this legislation, telephone companies became subject to regulations that prevent discrimination based on content. In the 1970′s and 80′s, telephone networks were made available to Internet service providers (ISPs) under a non-discriminatory status, expanding the Communications Act to encompass the Internet as well. Since then, net neutrality has been founded on three main principles designed to foster a rich and prosperous Internet community.

First, ISPs do not have the right to directly influence the distribution of information on the Internet. This prevents telcos from censoring information they dislike or slowing down websites with objectives and philosophies that oppose their own views. For example, lack of anti-discrimination laws would mean that an ISP could slow down or block worker unions’ websites that are lawfully protesting that company’s policies. If such actions were to be allowed, they would have a profound impact on our First Amendment right, freedom of speech.

Second, telcos are prevented from stifling online competition. Without such a principle, ISPs would effectively have the ability to give preferential treatment to its own services over that of its competitors, monopolizing an industry already dominated by a few companies. The situation would be analogous to selecting the companies that would be allowed to compete and those that wouldn’t! Imagine if Google had started without such a principle. It could not have grown to be the company it is today if  it were in an environment so hostile to small businesses, such that would arise without neutrality laws.

Lastly, service providers are prevented from having control over equipment and platforms used for viewing and sharing information on the web. For example, routers are now a staple part of wireless Internet in the home. Telcos are prevented from barring other companies from manufacturing and distributing routers to access the provider’s network. Without such a restriction, users would be forced to buy equipment manufactured by their service provider to the exclusion of better equipment manufactured by a different company. The public would feel the impact as equipment would cost more and there would be fewer options available.

All three of these principles hit on a similar theme: the Internet is a medium for the expression of free speech. The idea that an entity could control and censor information at will violates essential freedom of speech rights and sets a precedent for such entities to impose their own agendas. Therefore, users should have the right to access and post content of their choice, both of which are essential to a diverse marketplace.

In recent months, net neutrality has resurfaced as a hot button issue due to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s decision to preserve the categorization of broadband access as a telecommunications service. This means the chairman supports neutrality law, and is even considering expanding on it to make it stronger. Major Internet-based companies like Google Inc., Amazon Inc., and Skype Ltd support the proposition, as do consumer and civil liberties watch-groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Microsoft has previously come out in support of net neutrality; however, the company has since backtracked and adopted a lukewarm position. The same goes for Apple, whose tightly controlled app store and extensive relationship with AT&T have raised questions about its commitment to stronger neutrality law. Telcos, on the other hand, are very vocal about their opposition to current policy, opting for less regulation. While the latest statements from the chairman are positive, his stance on the issue has been wavering over the past several months due to mounting pressure from the telecommunications industry, spending millions of dollars to lobby against strong rules and regulations.

In 2009 alone, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and The National Cable & Telecommunications Association collectively spent $61 million on an army of close to 500 lobbyists to kill current neutrality law. The industry has been trying to lobby Congress through generous campaign contributions, misleading advertising, fake grassroots organizations, and offering well paid lobbying positions to current congressional staffers and aides if they influence policy decisions. Other industries have been lobbying Congress in similar ways. For example, the healthcare insurance industry is similar to the telecom industry, spending millions of dollars to stifle competition that would bring choice to consumers. While the amount of money telecos have spent may seem high, it pales in comparison to their potential profit margins if strong neutrality laws were to be repealed. In order to hide this clear monetary incentive for opposing neutrality law, ISPs publicly oppose net neutrality on ideological pretenses instead.

The opponents of net neutrality argue for a free-market approach over regulating ISPs, because many feel that the industry, like oil, finance, and healthcare, is most innovative when left unchecked and unregulated. Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast all argue that they must be allowed to provide a tiered system of service in order to foster innovation on the web. Under their proposed system, websites would have to pay providers extra for faster and more reliable service, meaning that sites with more capital would be faster, while smaller, poorer sites would be slower. Consumers would essentially be paying more to the provider but receiving less reliable content. Verizon argues that prioritizing bandwidth for transferring information is necessary for future growth on the Internet and that keeping the net neutral would create many inefficiencies. For example, in the area of telemedicine, Verizon says it would need to prioritize packets transmitting medical information as opposed to ones transmitting email. While this may seem like a reasonable point, it fails to establish any fine line between faster transfer of information based on medical necessity and faster transfer based on economic advantage.

The truth of the matter is that ISPs would rather spend money fighting regulations than providing a better customer experience. It’s almost laughable when they claim that more innovation result from deregulation. The industry has been given the chance to innovate. In the 90’s, ISPs received funding through government grants and tax breaks in order to make significant improvements to the infrastructure. They have yet to meet the speed and penetration standards originally mandated since receiving this public funding, and the result has been a lag in U.S. Internet speeds internationally: the U.S. is currently ranked 26th in the world for its broadband infrastructure. With the exception of Verizon, the industry has barely invested in fiber optic technology, which is cheaper and much more effective than conventional network cables. Even Google has initiated what ISPs have failed to deliver, with its experimental 1 Gbps fiber optic network that it plans to test in about 50,000 communities, affecting up to 500, 000 people.

Instead of making such important investments in future infrastructure, ISPs are trying to find other ways to “innovate.” For example, ISPs have found it profitable to gather customer Internet usage trends and secretly insert specific ads into other company’s web pages. Such actions cast serious doubts over user privacy online where the ISPs are using these “Big Brother” methods. In addition to inserting ads, ISPs have been redirecting users to ads in order to maximize profits. For example, when a user types in a wrong URL, the ISP will often redirect the user to ad pages that pose major security risks. This unwillingness to incorporate intelligent and safe network protocols has given rise to new network security services like OpenDNS. Such services wouldn’t be necessary if providers focused on making their networks handle user input intelligently as opposed to making a quick buck through ad redirections. ISPs have also been caught using questionable methods trying to clamp down on peer-to-peer file sharing. In early 2008, Comcast settled a class-action lawsuit for $16 million where it was found to have been blocking or slowing down packets being sent through peer to peer (p2p) clients such as BitTorrent to reduce network congestion, even though they had no way of determining what data was being transferred, be it legally or illegally.



Even with current law, ISPs have already demonstrated that they are willing to slow down or block certain content unbeknownst to the consumer, raising questions about their potential actions in the absence of strong regulations. With content such as social media, entertainment, and news transitioning to online platforms, it is certainly a scary proposition to have a few large companies meticulously controlling the Internet for their own financial purposes. It is certain that such control will affect the average person’s Internet use, since high volume services like Youtube, Hulu, and Google will be the primary targets for ISP’s secretive “traffic management” techniques. Not only would these online services be under control, but many of the physical services providing us Internet access could be as well. The example given previously about routers is only at the tip of the problem, as we could see innovative Internet devices leave the realm of possibility due to network restrictions imposed by providers.

It is also important to note the political consequences of this change, as the web over the past six years has shed an enormous amount of truthful facts and information about political issues and campaigns. Online journalism, blogging, and Youtube have brought fact and reality to conversations outside of the Washington media bubble, giving people more choices for where and how they receive their information and news. Who’s to say that ISPs wouldn’t protect their political backers by blocking negative press about them over the web if net neutrality were to be repealed, the only thing that would be able to keep them from doing this? With these issues in mind and the fact that telecom companies are already abusing basic civil liberties, how can we trust that they will behave after they’re given even more control over the Internet and its content?

It is in the interest of the public to advocate for a fair and neutral Internet. The Internet has provided us with a means to hear all sides of an issue, something that is essential to a successful democracy in which diversity of opinion and rigorous debate help us solve problems within society. The filtering of information to suit the profit-based motives of a few companies will be disastrous for all. Imagine if oil companies bought out higher tier services and were able to broadcast their views more forcefully, while environmental and alternative energy groups were censored. Would the debate on the need to invest in cleaner and alternative sources of energy be a fair one?

Telcos have not only demonstrated complacency when it comes to the rights of the consumer, but have done so in efforts to make more profits. Spending millions in opposition to neutrality law instead of providing better services, it is clear that they do not have the public’s best interests in mind. A situation where telcos are given full liberties as gatekeepers of the Internet would kill any idea of unfiltered information. Therefore, consumers must be given options, especially when it concerns the information they receive. The right to view any content, choose any equipment, and compete with other services on a level playing field are essential to a free and innovative marketplace. Net neutrality thus serves as the line in the sand, and ensures that the Internet is not a controlled medium, but rather a means for uncensored communication, real reform, and progress.

Links: Save The Internet

Amazon’s decision to introduce a new feature like embedded video and audio in Kindle books on a rival eReader like the iPad is actually very smart from a business perspective. There’s no realistic way that the Kindle can compete with a tablet or a smart phone; it just simply can’t do all the things that those devices can. If Amazon were to take this route, it would crash and burn miserably. So, it has decided to take the road less traveled by. Instead of clashing with Apple head on and making it a fight between eReaders, Amazon has circumvented the battle by solidifying Kindle as the go-to eReader app for Apple users. Creating a Kindle app exclusively for these three Apple devices and giving it features that no other Kindle app has, not even the physical Kindle, will push it several steps ahead of Apple’s iBookstore. And by making the Kindle app the go-to eReader app, Amazon will ensure that users will take advantage of their 620,000+ library and buy Kindle books, and the profits from those sales will offset any loses Amazon may suffer from consumers buying iPads instead of physical Kindles.

Now, whether or not video and audio will be able to improve the reading experience is a whole other matter altogether. Personally, I would think watching a video in the middle of reading certain books would be a little counterproductive, but that may just be me.  Amazon announced that one of the first books to take advantage of these new features will be Rick Steves’ travel guide Rick Steves’ London, which is one of the few genres where I can see the benefit of a video feature; after all, if you’re a tourist and you’re relying on a travel guide to get you to your destination, what better way to tell where you are than a video that will visually and audibly guide you to wherever it is that you want to go? I do hope that Amazon doesn’t start adding movie clips to their fiction books, though. I really, really don’t want to have to listen to tweens giggle about how hot Robert Pattinson looks while they’re “reading” Twilight on their iPhones.

In an increasingly competitive eReader app market, Android has been the last major holdout in getting the Kindle app. But the wait is finally over, and Kindle users running Android 1.6 or greater can now download the free app on the Android Market. Amazon has included all the features that users would expect in a Kindle app; free book samples, access to the Kindle store as well as to previously purchased Kindle books free of charge, customizable background color and font size and color, adjustable screen brightness within the app. But most importantly, it will come with Amazon’s Whispersync technology that saves and synchronizes users’ books and bookmarks across all their Kindle-equipped devices, just like other existing Kindle apps do. This means that readers can download a book on their Android phones, read a few pages when on the go, then continue reading where they left off on their Kindles or iPads if they want a larger screen.

Like the upgrade for Apple devices, this introduction of a Kindle app for Android devices is another smart business move on Amazon’s part. Android phones have been increasing exponentially in popularity since their introduction a little over a one and a half years ago. More and more consumers seem to be switching over to one of the many Droid phones currently available. While it might not be as large as the Blackberry or Apple communities, this is still a significant number of potential Kindle customers that Amazon up until yesterday had yet to tap into. Now that the free Kindle app is available to most smart phone owners, however, Amazon is poised to reaffirm its status as the number one eReader with everyone, not just with Apple users. I’d honestly be very surprised if other Android eReader apps like Kobo, Aldiko, Laputa, and iReader will be able to compete with the Kindle app, simply because their libraries aren’t as extensive and their names aren’t as well known. It will be interesting to see how the public responds in the coming weeks to Amazon’s latest business moves, and if Kindle will be able to overtake iBookstore on Apple devices and top the Android Market for eReader apps.

Links: Amazon.com Kindle Apps

While the good people here at Skatter Tech translated his reflection on the matter as “You’re doing it wrong,” Steve Jobs insists otherwise. Backing up his response to Ars Technica, Jobs emailed TUAW reader Craig Brockman a slightly lengthier and more corporate answer:

“Gripping any phone will result in some attenuation of its antenna performance, with certain places being worse than others depending on the placement of the antennas. This is a fact of life for every wireless phone. If you ever experience this on your iPhone 4, avoid gripping it in the lower left corner in a way that covers both sides of the black strip in the metal band, or simply use one of many available cases.”

Jobs and Apple are consistently denying that this problem is the result of a design flaw in the iPhone 4, even though it directly contradicts statements Jobs made at WWDC earlier this month about the vastly improved iPhone 4 antenna design. This “brilliant” design entailed basically making the steel band that rings the iPhone 4 into a big antenna, and, as many astute readers may be able to infer, antennas don’t usually do all that well when they’re being covered.

It’s a little funny that Jobs is telling us to hold it in another way, since there are countless iPhone 4 promotional photos and snapshots of Jobs himself holding the phone in this “wrong” way circling the net. There is an unofficial report now that a Macintouch reader was told by Apple Support that a “missing protective coat on some of the parts” is the cause for the problem, which would explain why Jobs was able to hold the iPhone in this problematic way during WWDC demos. And isn’t it convenient that one of Apple’s $30 Bumper iPhone cases will alleviate this problem? As if consumers weren’t paying enough for the iPhone 4 already, now they have to buy a case to guarantee that they’ll get signal any way they hold it? Really?

In my opinion, it is downright disrespectful for Jobs to come out and blame iPhone users for being the cause of this signal problem. For $199 for the 16 GB model and $299 for the 32GB one, not to mention the costs of the data and voice plans, users deserve to get reception no matter how they hold their phones. Yes, other phones do have reception problems too, and that’s one of the reasons why consumers look to new smart phones like the iPhone 4, which is advertised as getting better reception, to alleviate this problem. The competition in the smart phone market is heating up; Sprint’s incredibly popular and critically acclaimed HTC EVO 4G was released a few weeks ago, and Verizon Wireless announced their new Droid X only a day before the iPhone 4′s launch. Right now, Apple really can’t afford to alienate its customers by releasing an iPhone with an obvious glitch and then blaming the users for “holding it the wrong way” instead of acknowledging that there is a problem and finding a way to fix it at Apple’s expense instead of the consumers’.

Links: Apple.com/iPhone | Our iPhone 4 Gallery

Let me just say right off the bat that this is a very pretty phone.  The Droid X is remarkably sleek and streamlined for such a large phone, with the only obstruction being the odd bulging camera portion on the upper back portion of the phone. It’s actually not as obtrusive as I thought it would be when I first saw the phone, but it could have done better without. The physical buttons are laid out in a way that compliments this streamline aesthetic that designers seem to be going for, with none of them jutting out too far out from the body while simultaneously not being wedged so far into the phone that they are hard to push. I personally found the Droid X appealing and in line with my own tastes, more so than other smart phones I’ve seen in the past. Even that little bulge in the back grew on me, and that had been my only initial complaint about the X’s design.

One of the highlight features of the Droid X is of course its 4.3 inch touch screen. I personally didn’t see what the big deal was (no pun intended) about the larger screen sizes with the Droid X or even the EVO 4G. However, now that I’ve used it first hand, I finally understand what all the hype was about. Bigger really is better. Watching YouTube videos via the pre-installed App is fantastic now that I can actually see the videos, in high quality mode too. The days of hunching over your smart phone are finally over, and you won’t even have to squint! I was even able to watch a game trailer with my younger brother on the Droid X without either of us leaning in too far and blocking the other’s view because of how big the screen was. This is a definite perk for the Droid X, as well as Sprint’s HTC EVO 4G which first introduced the larger screen size, and I can’t help thinking that from here on out most new smart phones will come out with these jumbo-sized screens.

Unfortunately, the 4.3 inch screen does put me in a bit of a dilemma. While I love what it does for video and the overall display of the phone, it’s also the source of my one and only problem with the Droid X: its size. The Droid X really is a massive phone, and a bit too massive for my personal tastes. I, like many people, prefer putting my phone in my pocket instead of in my purse or backpack, since it means I can always know exactly when I’m getting a call, text, or notification. This is sadly not an option with the Droid X. It is a simple fact of life that the vast majority of girl pants have smaller pockets than guy pants. So while we said in our EVO 4G review, which is the same size as the Droid X, that it’s “still small enough to slide into most pockets,” it’s unfortunately my pockets that are the exception. So until fashion designers start making girl pants with bigger pockets, it seems I’m destined to always be conflicted about these screens. Compact devices, such as the Apple iPhone 4, may actually suite me better in the long run.

My favorite feature to play around with this past day has by far been the 8 megapixel camera. I absolutely love Motorola’s decision to put a dedicated camera button on the lower right side of the Droid X. Having this physical button on the exterior of the phone has made it so much easier to get into Camera mode to snap a quick picture whenever I see something fun or interesting (or weird). And the pictures, as you can see, are fantastic. Picture quality stays high in both indoor and outdoor lighting, and colors are vibrant and true to life. There is no question whatsoever that the pictures taken on the Droid X are a thousand times better than those taken using the measly 2 megapixel camera on my Samsung Alias 2. The camera can also capture HD video, and while I haven’t had a chance to record anything interesting enough to publish here, my few test runs were impressive and the quality was on par with those taken by the EVO 4G.

I should note that I have had some initial set-up issues and difficulties with the Droid X similar to ones other reporters are complaining about. For starters, I couldn’t download apps on the Android Market: every time I tried to download anything I got a message saying “Download unsuccessful,” a problem that Sahas Katta had with his device as well. After some tinkering and a little angst on my part, we were able to figure out that the device had been set up to stop the installation of apps from unknown sources. I had to go into the Applications section of the settings menu and, after enabling unknown source installation, was able to finally go crazy in the Market. This was rather odd, since it shouldn’t have to be enabled for Marketplace apps. However, I should point out that the folks at Motorola and Verizon Wireless warned us that our Droid X units were still slightly in “prototype stages.” While it’s close to production quality, there might be a few minor changes. Models that ship to customers will run a newer version of Motorola’s custom MotoBlur Android OS. Our review units should get updates around that time as well. Also, Froyo v2.2 is set for launch later this summer.

I also had some trouble connecting the Droid X to my two-year-old Macbook. When I connected it with the included USB cable and selected “USB Mass Storage” for transferring songs onto the phone, my Macbook wouldn’t recognize the device. After restarting my Macbook once and plugging and unplugging the USB cable about five times, I realized that for some reason Pandora, which had been playing the entire time, was locking access to the microSD card, hense preventing the Macbook from recognizing the Droid X. As soon as I closed that App, the Macbook immediately recognized the phone and I was able to copy my songs over.

While Sahas Katta’s full Droid X review is in the works, please feel free to checkout the Droid X Photo Gallery and see Ian Thackston’s infographic comparing this to the iPhone 4 and EVO 4G.

Links: Motorola.com | VerizonWireless.com
Related: HTC Droid Incredible (Review)

Screen sizes may not be something that we immediately think of when we purchase electronics, but for certain products, it could be the difference between a product excelling over its competitors or failing. Looking at the smart phones, we praised the EVO 4G’s massive screen, but at the same time its larger size taxes the battery life. In addition, the overall feel of the product could be less than pleasant if it’s too large for your personal taste, which is something that should be considered when purchasing the right smart phone for you.

Determing what size is best for personal, practical, and aesthetic use is something we consider when buying our smart phones, our laptops, or our televisions. But as Dubravac pointed out, we don’t have a mental association of a product that fits the 5 to 13 inch void. Yes, the netbook has varying sizes ranging from 9 to 12 inches, but this is still a type of PC attempting to fill the void and becoming synonymous with this screen size range. On the other hand, the Kindle and eBook readers have also attempted to fill the 5 to 9 inch void in order to fit easily into a purse or backpack. Like netbooks, eBook readers are also wedging their way into consumers minds in order to convince them that they are the more portable, practical option that can capitalize on the last open screen size.

However, both netbooks and eBooks are now being cannibalized by the tablet. Entering the market at approximately 10 inches, the tablet PC seems to be the perfect fit to fill the void. Moreover, with the iPad selling 2 million units in just 60 days, it is becoming more and more clear that the tablet is here to stay and could very well be what future generations associate with the 5 to 15 inch range. Considering that iPads and other tablets can perform most of the functions that a netbook can provide while being portable and practical like an eBook reader, the iPad essentially combines the best of both worlds into one superior product. And with the consumer recognition of the Apple brand, the iPad, as it has shown with its shockingly high sale numbers, has already become the hottest item on the market, and everyone seems to want to get a hold of one. Even looking out at the show floor of CEA today was indication enough that the iPad tablet is a solid tablet device. Every booth had an iPad, either for personal use or to present their products. Some companies like ComiXology, a comic book community and compiling website, have even showed how their comic book reading application for the iTouch works perfectly as a comic reader for the iPad. Another strong example at CEA was enTourage’s eDGe, which is not only an eBook reader on one side but also an Android operating system on the LCD, making it the world’s first dualbook. Resisting the minmalist trend, enTourage chose two screens with two functions that makes it greater than the sum of its parts.

Regardless of personal opinion, it must be acknowledged that the tablet PC is most certainly the future generation’s understanding of what a 5 to 12 inch screen size should do. Just like we have come to accept that all of our televisions should be bigger than 32 inches and our phones smaller than 5, the tablet PC will become our mental association with this specific screen range. The only question is whether or not we’ll call them “tablets” or “iPads,” because if no one steps up to the plate, the iPad could very well monopolize the entire market that needs a device with this specific screen dimension.

Microsoft Xbox Kinect
While I was quick to assume that controller-free gaming was far from being ready, Microsoft took the leap with Project Natal (now Kinect). Sony attempted the same thing just a few years ago with the PlayStation EyeToy, but it was far from practical and never caught traction with customers. The Kinect, however, pushes the limits by dumping the traditional controller. While it’s hard to imagine how games such as Gears of War 3 or Halo Reach will be played without controllers, upcoming titles such as Dance Central and Fitness Evolved make Microsoft’s vision for gaming clear.

The technology behind it is simple yet ingenious: a set of cameras and microphones detect your movement and listen to your voice. It truly makes you the controller, and no gloves, vests, or accessories are needed. It is unquestionably easier to use than the PlayStation Move or the Wii. It’s refreshingly exciting with its“Minority Report“-like features for waving a hand in mid-air to slowly scan back and forth through a movie. Even the ability to simply yell out “Xbox Pause” or “Xbox Play” without having to hold a controller is truly convenient. The only thing that’s not exciting is the price-point. While Microsoft hasn’t officially revealed numbers, most reports indicate that the Kinect will cost consumers nearly $150. While multiple players can use a single Kinect, the price might be a speed bump for potential buyers.

While I’m positive that this technology will be great for family driven games, the true potential of the technology is probably not going to be apparent for some time. As Microsoft begins to offer more APIs for Kinect and developers begin taking advantage of them, I’m confident that gamers will see some exciting ideas. But for now, some issues are worth mentioning. For instance, there are slim chances that true gamers will consider staying on their feet all night long with Kinect. Voice commands may also become problematic if the sound from a home theater setup is too loud or if everyone begins yelling things. And while most demos were shown off in brightly lit situations, it’s hard to tell exactly how well the technology will work until the Kinect gets tested in an average living room.

Sony PlayStation Move
At first glance Sony’s latest creation, the PlayStation Move, appears to closely resemble the Nintendo Wiimote. However, there are a few differences in addition to the illuminated globe on top. While the Wii has a Nunchuck that’s tethered to the Wiimote, the PlayStation’s motion and navigation controllers offer more freedom by wirelessly connecting to the console. While the Wii uses an infrared sensor bar, the PlayStation Eye offers a camera and microphone for further interaction. It is true that the PlayStation Move technology isn’t revolutionary or groundbreaking; the components have been around for sometime already. Sony may have taken the safe route, but they also better implemented the idea into their console.

For serious gamers, the PlayStation Move is the best solution of the three consoles. For starters, it’s far more accurate and offers more control than the Kinect. With a joystick, a d-pad, and buttons in addition to camera tracking and motion capabilities, the PlayStation Move offers more control of a game. It’s something the Kinect, which can only track arms, legs, and body movement, simply can’t offer. The PlayStation Move also offers an unparalleled integrated 1:1 virtual movement experience in 3D space. The Wii, on the other hand, needs an addition Motion Plus accessory to simulate the same thing. When it comes to long hours of gaming, the Kinect gets tiring to play. Health benefits of physically engaging games aside, the PlayStation Move suits the average gamer better.

The PlayStation Move’s controllers offer a more traditional approach to gaming. A Sony spokesperson even assured us that most major titles would be entirely compatible with both the PlayStation DualShock controller and the Move controller. While the Move isn’t as convenient as the gesture and voice based control that the Kinect offers, it’s better for gaming at the moment. As for pricing, Sony announced that it would sell the Move motion controller for $49 and the Move navigation controller for $29. It’s a bit more affordable than the Kinect, but the bill can stack up when purchasing additional units for multiple players.

Final Thoughts
It would be unwise to try to predict which console will come out on top in 2010 until I can spend more time with the new hardware and game titles. After all, I did initially denounce the Wii since it’s graphics capabilities were years behind both the Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3, yet sales figures soon proved me wrong. As for the latest console hardware, both the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 have plenty of potential. With great graphics, a media center platform, and an online social network, Microsoft’s Xbox Kinect appeals to a large audience. Although slightly different, Sony’s PlayStation Move offers plenty as it paves the way into the realm of high-definition 3D gaming with Blu-ray movies and many upcoming exclusive game titles to back it. The new battle between consoles is clearly between Microsoft and Sony. The Nintendo Wii is in dire need of an upgrade.

Links: Xbox.com | PlayStation.com



The low power consumption and smaller size are the only actual “pros” in a many list of “cons”. Apple says the Mac mini will have such an amazing graphics card making it “ideal for graphics intensive applications or visually rich games”, but this is a complete and utter farce. The folks over at Notebookcheck tested the Geforce 320M, and although decent, the card clearly will not handle as many graphically demanding games as Apple is touting. In fact, the best game it can run is Sims 3, and if Mac users want to play the Sims, more power to them. However, when it claims that the new Mac mini can run “visually rich games”, Apple really needs to get their facts straight, especially when trying entice PC gamers to invest in its new product.

In addition to the Mac mini receiving a faster, sleeker, slimmer design there is also a simultaneous release of the Mac mini server. The server model, priced at $999, is designed to serve small businesses and office while the regular model, priced at $699, is targeting average consumers. The two models are virtually identical, except a few differences in specs; the server model has dual 500GB HDD (1TB total) running at 7200RPM versus the consumer model which has a 320GB HDD that runs at 5400RPM. Additionally, the server model lacks the optical drive, but has two RAM slots than the consumer model. Both versions have 4 USB 2.0 ports and 1 Firewire 800 port for faster file transfers.

My other qualm with Apple is that they are celebrating  the inclusion of an HDMI port and SD card slot when they are now market standards. In fact, many Mac mini owners use the device as a home theater computer connecting it to their television, so to not include an HDMI port would be irresponsible. Finally, almost every desktop and laptop have SD card slots readily available so I congratulate Apple not for innovation but for making the device more like its competitor. However, Apple has a strong grasp of its market, and everything they release will become cash cows except the failed Mac Air. It’s not to say that the new Mac Mini will be the next Mac Air, but I doubt it’ll reach the success of Apple’s ever expanding portable electronics market.

Links: Apple | Apple Press Release

On the software side, Google TV is more comprehensive than its competition. Most services allow users to surf the web, watch movies from video streaming sites, and tune into live TV. However, Google leaves the competition in the dust by offering the wide integration and connectivity with other devices. Typically, your TV can only be controlled by HTPC software. Google TV, on the other hand, offers access to control from a laptop, desktop PC, as well as an Android phone. Google demoed this feature by pushing multimedia content from the screens of a laptop and Android phone to Google TV. In addition to just pushing screens, Google TV also supports a “picture-in-picture” mode so users can keep watching their current TV show while browsing the web or running an app. Connectivity goes even further by allowing users to send voice commands to Google TV via an Android phone. When using Google TV’s “quick search” bar, users can say what they want to find into their phone instead of having to use a cumbersome keyboard or slow remote to type in the words. Apps are another interconnected feature of Google TV. Users can install apps on Google TV from their PCs through the Chrome browser. Of course, apps can be downloaded directly from the Android marketplace on Google TV as well. While other programs installed on a HTPC might contain many of the same features, none of them are as easy to use as Google TV. Many competing products aren’t interconnected out-of-the-box and require the installation of a separate application on each device you want to interconnect. Google TV clearly prevails over current HTPC programs in its out-of-the-box connectivity, ease of use, and great user experience.

The physical Google TV setup consists of a companion box (built by Logitech), which you connect to your cable/satellite box and TV. If you purchase one of Sony’s upcoming TVs that support Google TV, it will already have the features of the companion box integrated into it. For net connectivity, the platform supports both Ethernet and WiFi. Inside the hardware package is an Intel Atom processor. While this might seem lacking from a computer perspective, remember, Google TV is meant for simple media applications and not heavy processing. Unfortunately, Google didn’t specify the graphics processor going into the companion box, but I have a strong hunch it’s one of Intel’s integrated solutions. This means that a dedicated HTPC could have better graphics capabilities, but this would only really be useful for intensive games. The one area a HTPC might have an advantage is in the storage department. Google TV does not have an integrated DVR, although it can control your current DVR device. With a HTPC, it’s possible to upgrade the hard drive and attach a network attached storage (NAS) device, which can hold more data than Google TV paired with a DVR. We haven’t heard anything about possibly having Google TV control a NAS device, since it’s geared more towards streaming content, but I think it would be a useful addition in the future.

Google TV’s comprehensive package will make it more attractive than the current offerings. Google TV stands out due to its easy and quick switching between live TV and Internet content, connectivity with mobile devices, and access to the Android Marketplace. In addition, Google TV is backed by a huge partnership consisting of Intel, Sony, Logitech, Dish Network, Best Buy and Adobe.  By the end of this year, we’ll see whether or not this conglomerate of hardware manufacturers, software developers, and distributors will kill off an already small HTPC market. Although pricing hasn’t been revealed, I predict that Google TV will be cheaper than HTPC, which easily costs $500 and requires additional software. For power users, the HTPC might still be a viable option for them, but for the mass market, the ease of Google TV makes all the difference.

Links: Google.com/TV

Whether you’re a fan of mixed martial arts (MMA) or fighting games, THQ’s most recent UFC video game is an important shift in the gaming world that everyone needs to pay attention to.  Following in the footsteps of EA and their approach to its sports titles, UFC Undisputed 2010 will be THQ’s first attempt at combating the growing trend of used games. The premise is simple. If you buy the game new, you will be given a one-time use code that will allow you to access the online contents of the game. If you buy the game pre-owned, you will have to pay an additional amount to access the online mode. Although the amounts are in the $5 to $10 range and remain small in comparison to the original $59.99 price tag, the ramifications of EA and THQ are something to consider.

Although the $5 to $10 access code may not be the equivalent of spending $60, it’s still a way for video game companies to recoup their losses and effectively neuter used game distributors. This forces the consumer to have to choose whether to save money and have less game play or spend the extra amount and be a part of the ever expanding online world. This is problematic because it used to be that regardless of used or new version of a game, consumers were able to play all of the features in their game. However, with downloadable content on the rise, it was only a matter of time before developers found a way to combat the used game market, which is something they receive far less money from. Looking at a by the numbers analysis for a new game shows that EA and THQ have done their homework and are doing everything in their power to profit maximize and convince consumers to resist the urge to pay less for a used game.

If PGA Tour 2011, one of the first games that EA will begin using access codes for, costs $59.99 new while the used version is expected to cost $54.99, then the buyer of the used game would spend a total of $64.99 before tax because of EA’s $10 online access pass. Similarly, THQ is charging $5 for their online access codes making the used version of the game with the online access code totaling $59.99 if retailers like Gamestop continue to charge the standard $54.99 for a used version of a brand new game.  Therefore, because the combine price of a used version of a new game and the online access code fee is equal or even more than the price of buying it new, the consumer has no incentive to step into used game stories like Gamestop.

What does this mean for the future of video gaming? If games like PGA Tour 2011 and UFC Undisputed 2010 sell well on the new market and used game retailers see a significant drop in pre-owned sales for titles with online access codes, a couple things could happen in the short run and long run. In the short run, Gamestop will have to adjust their used game prices in order to compete with new game prices. This is great because prices will be lower and in an economy that is still getting out of a recession, it will make the burden of buying $60 games a bit easier.  Plus, if someone doesn’t even want to play online and just uses the single player or local multiplayer modes, they will save even more money if and when stores like Gamestop have to lower their used game prices. However, in the long run, we could very well see a huge chunk of Gamestop stores disappearing because of their inability to keep prices low while still turning a profit. Moreover, if companies continue to adopt online access codes, which is inevitable with the growing trend of online modes, content, etc., we could very well see the demise of the entire used game arena. For the consumer, this would be a tragic end to a more cost effective way to play the games we love. Only time will tell.

Links: UFC Undisputed 2010 | Gamestop

The original Nintendo DSi was incredibly successful and expanded on portable gaming technology. It developed on what made the earlier DS series popular and took it to a whole new level. But, has Nintendo gone too far this time? Within a year, a brand new Nintendo product has been released that adds nothing to the original DSi except being bigger, including a larger price tag. How can new owners of the DSi, or those who still haven’t upgraded from the older DS or DS Lite, decide if such a costly upgrade is worth it? Also, since Nintendo is consistently releasing handhelds at faster rates, how long is long enough to wait for the next “big” thing?

Courtesy of Wikipedia.org

Remember the Game Boy Pocket? How many of you actually bought the Game Boy Advance SP? Lets not forget how many people completely ignored the Game Boy Micro. Since announcing the original Game & Watch system in 1980, Nintendo has been constantly pushing handheld consoles into the market, some of which were revolutionary for the gaming universe. It was unbelievable being able to control your favorite Italian mushroom-addict in the palm of your hand. The Game Boy Color and later the Game Boy Advance were hands-down the highest points of the handheld gaming timeline. Iconic characters like Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario Brothers, and new Pokemon all kept Nintendo’s portable systems in motion. However, Nintendo started to lose control when releasing redesign after redesign; that is, until the birth of the most successful handheld to date at over 125 million units sold: the Nintendo DS.

The original Nintendo DS hit North American shelves in 2004. Its dual-screen design was based on the advancements of the original Game & Watch system, which was Nintendo’s first double-body design. Pressured by the capabilities of Sony’s PSP, Nintendo created a unique, fun-loving handheld console that had it all– PictoChat, was backwards compatible, and even supported online gameplay. Soon after, Nintendo joined the flashy next-generation of gaming consoles entering the scene. This led to the development of an upgraded, thinner Nintendo DS Lite in 2006. For some DS owners, brighter screens and longer battery life was enough to level up to the Lite. And for those non-owners, the DS Lite was the perfect reason to jump onto the Nintendo band-wagon. Life was good; however, unbeknownst to wallets everywhere, something huge was coming to the handheld market.

In 2009, the Nintendo DSi redefined the capabilities of the handheld console. Though the PSP has more wireless features, the DSi software also featured online capabilities. Similar to WiiWare on the Wii, the DSi has DSiWare which provides a wide range of downloadable content such as games, applications, etc. The device was also enhanced with a better microphone, two 0.3 megapixels cameras, a SD memory slot, and 0.25” larger screens. For many gamers, this portable device opened the doors for quality portable gaming. It was more than just for playing videogames: it was portable entertainment fueled by Nintendo’s mass popularity. Now, within a year of the DSi hitting shelves, the DSi XL has been released. The DSi XL is exactly what it sounds like; it is the exact same as the DSi, just “XL,” or extra-large. 93% larger, to be exact.

Lets get down to it. What is this upgrade going to cost? A whopping $190. That’s right, the newest Nintendo device is going to be the priciest yet. The DSi now costs around $160, and even less when shopping around. Lucky for us this isn’t quite a 93% increase in price… But still, is the price too much to ask of consumers? This is something that current DSi owners should take into even more consideration. But wait, what else is new in the DSi XL besides a new price tag? Nothing, absolutely nothing. There is still a slot for DS and DSi titles. There is still an SD card slot. There are still two 0.3 megapixel cameras. The advertised battery life barely increases by two hours. As mentioned, the DSi XL is literally just a larger version of the DSi. Its even more frustrating that Nintendo has announced that buyers with have to re-purchase the DSiWare, as there is no way to claim previously owned titles on the DSi.

Now its time for the big decision of whether the DSi XL is worth the upgrade. The main points to think about when considering the DSi XL are as follows. Upgrading from a DS or DS Lite would be a significant improvement. If you enjoy your DS or DS Lite, I would strongly suggest getting either the DSi or DSi XL because of the quality difference. The new hardware, DSiWare, and DSi-exclusive titles adds to the value you’re getting from the upgrade. The only downgrade would have to be the loss of a GBA port. If you are willing to upgrade and don’t mind spending the extra $30, then the DSi XL would definitely be the better purchase of the two. With all that said, if you have the DSi already, then the DSi XL just isn’t worth it. The DSi XL costs the most and the DSi is much cheaper right now. To own the DSi means one already has all the technology the DSi XL comes with. Yes, it is larger, but a larger handheld is ultimately still just a handheld. And if you hold it 93% further away you don’t even notice the size difference. If you are a true fanboy or fangirl (yes they do exist), then there is no getting between you and the newest Nintendo product. Whatever you do, just don’t get me started on the 3DS.

Links: Nintendo.com

So what is it exactly that differentiates a $200 and $500 monitor of the same size?
That’s where some important factors come into play.

When it comes to choosing the right monitor, there are ten factors to consider:

• Price
• Size
• Resolution
• Viewing Angles
• Contrast Ratio
• Color Quality & Color Gamut
• Brightness
• Response Time & Processing Lag
• Video Inputs
• Monitor Stand and Adjustments

The first nine have very much to do with the panel technology used in the display, which I’ll discuss.

Price
If consumers are buying panels based on their needs, then the truth is that most people are out to get the biggest display for price. For most consumers, size does matter and big monitors are no exception. Many people can’t tell the difference in picture quality if the monitors aren’t side by side. That being said, if picture quality doesn’t matter as much as size, which is what the market is geared to deliver based on demand, then you can expect to pay the prices below. Monitors at these prices will suffice for most people and will meet their expectations for quality and features. And if you’re buying retail as opposed to online, expect to pay a more.

Size and Resolution
These often go hand in hand and there are a number of common resolutions for the various monitor sizes offered. All LCD panels are measured diagonally from corner to corner, which consists of the entire viewing space. This is different from CRTs which are measured by the size of their tube, which is partially obscured by the bezel. That’s why a 32″ CRT television display only measures about 30″ diagonally … but you probably don’t have to worry about that anymore.

While physical size plays a bigger factor in televisions, resolution is more critical when it comes to monitors due to the very close viewing distance. Resolution, with  regards to LCD monitors refers to the fixed number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. For example, a resolution of 1280×1024 means there are 1280 pixels in width and 1024 pixels in height for a total of 1,310,720 pixels. A pixel is the smallest physical unit that displays color that make up the resolution of a display. This differs from image pixel size, which isn’t related to the panel’s physical pixel count or size.

Given our two monitor examples, while both of these are 24″ displays, they have different resolutions. The Samsung 2494SW has a resolution of 1920×1080 and the HP LP2475w is 1920×1200. That respectively equates to 2,073,600 and 2,304,000 pixels, with the HP LP2475w having 10% more. This is where pixel density comes into play, which is the number of pixels per square area; in other words, the physical size of the pixels. A higher pixel density equates to a sharper picture. The change in resolution also changes the aspect ratio of a monitor. Previously, widescreen monitors differed from widescreen televisions in that the aspect ratio of a widescreen monitor was commonly 16:10, while widescreen televisions are 16:9. This changed with the advent of 16:9 monitors, marketing a 1920×1080 resolution as “True HD”, the same resolution as 1080p televisions. Since both of these monitors have a width of 1920 pixels, they will both display 1080p video at native resolution, the only difference being that there will be a gap of (1200-1080)=120 pixels or 60 pixels on the top and bottom of the clip. Don’t let marketing confuse you on “Full HD” monitors, the only advantage a resolution of 1920×1080 has over 1920×1200 is the lower cost usually associated with 1920×1080 panels. A 16:9 panel of the same [diagonal] size will have slightly wider horizontal and shorter vertical physical dimensions than its 16:10 cousin, at the cost of a lower pixel density.

Back to the topic of resolution. A higher screen resolution is desirable due to the increase in screen real estate, giving the user more workspace–more windows, icons, etc. Certain resolutions are common to particular sizes of monitors.

Common Resolutions and Monitor Sizes

Note that there’s some overlap in screen sizes. The screen size doesn’t necessarily determine the resolution and vice versa. As an example of this, 21.5″ monitors are typically 1920×1080, giving them the same screen real estate as 1920×1080 24″ monitors and a higher pixel density. This brings up the question of what is a high enough pixel density, to which I’d answer that panels are built such that they have an acceptable resolution for their size. The only recent complaints I’ve heard are about the 1024×600 resolution of 10.1″ netbooks, to which some companies have responded by offering models with 10.1″ 1366×768 panels, over a 40% increase in pixel count.

Viewing Angles
These are the horizontal and vertical fields of view where the display’s image appears acceptable. Typically viewing angles are poor with twisted nematic (TN) panels, which make up the majority of monitor panels. 160/170 degree horizontal and 160 degree vertical viewing angles are typical with TN panels, whereas 178 degrees horizontal and vertical can be found in nearly all in-plane switching (IPS), multi-domain vertical alignment (MVA) and patterned vertical alignment (PVA) panels. TN panels are bottom barrel and mediocre viewing angles are just one of  their weaknesses. TN technology’s greatest success is that it’s cheap, and since the market is driven by the demand for dime-a-dozen monitors with little regard to quality, TN displays are plentiful.

Contrast Ratio
Contrast ratio refers to the ratio of the lightest color (white) to the darkest color (black) that the monitor is capable of displaying. Traditionally panels were rated based on their static contrast (the ratio above), but the recent implementation of dynamic contrast has created some confusion for the consumer. Dynamic contrast (DC) used in LCD displays is a method to artificially increase the contrast by lowering the backlight when a dark image is displayed on the screen. We end up with an LCD panel that’s marketed as having a 50,000:1 dynamic contrast ratio, but has a much lower static contrast, around 500-1000:1. This is exactly the case for our two example monitors. The Samsung 2494SW is listed as having a 50,000:1 DC while the HP LP2475w has a contrast of 1000:1, yet their static contrasts are both 1000:1. While dynamic contrast works well when the panel displays darker images, the highlights and bright areas of the darker images may appear blown out or overexposed. All in all, an LCD with a 50,000:1 dynamic contrast and 1000:1 static contrast has an inferior contrast ratio to a plasma panel with a 3000:1 static contrast. The higher the static contrast, the better. While 500-1000:1 is common for LCD panels, organic LED (OLED) displays are able to naturally achieve much higher contrast ratios along the lines of 3000:1 static and 1,000,000:1 DC. Currently, OLED displays are only available in a few very expensive TV models, but monitors should be commercially available in the not-so-far future. It’s definitely a tech to keep your eye on and there should be some interesting OLED advances shown at CES next month.

Brightness
All modern monitors have more than enough brightness for all indoor lighting conditions, which is why this shouldn’t be a deciding factor. LCD panels are typically backlit with fluorescent tubes called cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL).  Over the past few years, manufacturers have introduced panels backlit with LEDs, which results in a better picture for a number of reasons. Brightness is measured in candelas per square meter (cd/m2). Older LCD monitors can usually be found with a brightness of around 250 cd/m2, whereas newer ones are anywhere from 300-500 cd/m2.  For indoor use, a properly calibrated monitor will be set around 80-120 cd/m2, low levels that cheaper monitors won’t adjust down to without a loss in picture quality.  Only laptops really require higher levels of brightness for outdoor use.  In fact, most of you probably have your monitor brightness set much higher than it should be.  Think of brightness as the “black level”. The ideal brightness setting will display the darkest black while still being able to differentiate between as many shades of grey as possible between pure black and pure white.  You’ll need to calibrate using a colorimeter for the best results, but you may have some luck with a grey scale test chart.  This is the same for the contrast setting–it’s likely set too high, turning many shades of a color into fewer shades by crushing similar colors together.

On a properly calibrated monitor, you should be able to differentiate between shades

There’s a growing consumer trend that high brightness and saturation equate to a better image, driving the production of extremely bright backlighting and stuff like glossy screens. (eww!) In actuality, these end up oversaturating and overexposing the image. While monitor standards are vital for people doing color corrective work, such as photographers, having a properly adjusted monitor will display a wider range of colors and thus a better image.

Color Quality and Color Gamut
A monitor’s color gamut is the range of colors that it can display accurately and is largely dependent on the backlighting. NTSC and Adobe RGB 1998 color gamuts are common profiles used to rate a monitor’s color gamut in the coverage of a color space chromaticity.

As a wide gamut prosumer monitor, the HP LP2475w has a rated 102% NTSC color gamut, while most TN panels are around 82%. You’d be hard pressed to find color gamut coverage for many of the TN panels out there since they’re marketed as bang for your buck monitors, not necessarily for their quality color ranges. Generally, TN monitors have a poor color gamut and color accuracy. This is because TN panels represent colors using only 6-bits per color as opposed to 8-bits and therefore cannot display 24-bit truecolor (16.7 million colors). Instead, TN panels use dithering and interpolation to simulate the desired colors. While the color simulation is noticeable, most people aren’t aware of the differences as they’ve only ever been exposed to TN panels. Almost always, monitors using IPS, MVA and PVA LCD technologies will have superior color representation over TN, but you’ll pay for the difference. The cost is sometimes significant, as seen in the price between the $209.99 Samsung 2494SW, which uses a TN panel, and the $549.99 HP LP2475w, using an H-IPS panel, one of the IPS technology variants.

Processing Lag and Response Time
I’m going to make this brief as you only have to be concerned with an excessive amount of lag in PVA panels. These both relate to the time it takes the monitor to respond and change its image–namely in regards to image persistence as it refreshes each frame at 60hz, aside from the few 120hz NVIDIA 3D Vision rated monitors available. Neither of these will likely have any effect on your viewing experience on non-PVA monitors. If you’re in the market for a high-end S-PVA panel, it’s likely that you’ll do your homework on whether it will fit your needs. Since color correction work won’t be affected by slight lag, trading a slower response time for improved color accuracy and other features is acceptable.

Video Inputs
There are a number of inputs commonly found on LCD monitors and almost all will be equipped with a DVI input and often a VGA input as well. There are some outliers that only have an HDMI input, for example, so keep your eye out. While you likely only need a DVI port, more inputs will give your monitor versatility when connecting to different devices.

On this HP LP2475w we have two DVI ports, S-video, composite, and component inputs, HDMI and DisplayPort support, SPDIF out and six USB 2.0 ports. Short of having a built-in TV tuner with a coaxial connector, this monitor has everything. The addition of DisplayPort support is a nice touch, particularly useful to those looking to take advantage of ATI’s Eyefinity multiple display technology. With HDMI and s-video/composite/component support, this monitor can also be used with any number of gaming consoles or can be attached directly to a DVD/Blu-ray/HD-DVD player, effectively doubling as a 24″ 1080p television that can function independently of a computer. In comparison, the Samsung 2494SW only has one DVI and VGA port, as you would expect from a 24″ monitor at the $200-250 price point.

Monitor Stand & Adjustments
Would you buy a car without adjustable seats? Well, maybe if it saved you some cash. A stand with proper monitor adjustments can make the difference between viewing the screen comfortably and well … not. The HP LP2475w has it all; height, tilt, swivel, and 90-degree pivot rotation.

The Samsung 2494SW just has vertical tilt, the only adjustment that couldn’t be removed without making it non-functional. While the monitor is still very usable with only having a tilt adjustment, you might have to stack a couple of books underneath to bring it to the proper height. While cheaper monitors can skimp on stand adjustments, a prosumer monitor like the HP LP2475w is expected to fully adjust, which is one of my complaints about Apple monitors.

The Big Question
So what’s the best monitor? That’s for you to decide. I know, it’s a pretty lame answer. I’d say the best monitor is the one that fits your needs (or wants) at the lowest price. While this article didn’t delve into brand quality, you may be surprised to find out that many of the monitor and television brands use panels from only a handful of panel manufactures. An example of this that stirred up some controversy a few years ago was that the higher priced Apple 20″ cinema display used the same LG panel as Dell’s UltraSharp 2005FPW. Lastly, take the manufacturer’s warranty into account, it can make the difference between a monitor continuing to work years down the road or not. Now that you know what to look for, go out and do some research before you purchase your next monitor. If your needs are few and you have a tight budget, it’s a fairly easy decision. But if you’re a gamer with some fun money or a professional looking for a high end monitor, you have a lot of options.

Editor Note: Please welcome Josh Shapiro to the Skatter Tech team as the new Hardware Expert. More articles like these are on there way! Follow us on Twitter (@skattertech) or on Facebook.

Right off the bat, Ubuntu earned my respect. Installing the entire OS, after deleting and creating new partitions, on my less-than-average HP dv5z took less than 20 minutes. (Side note- the HP dv5z disappoints me greatly. I do not recommend this slow, unstable, and easily-overheating laptop to anyone. I hope the new laptops in this series fare better than this.) I thought it would take a painful hour or more, so finishing the installation in this amount of time pleased me. After downloading all the necessary updates for the system, which went by pretty quickly, I restarted my computer (Ubuntu booted up in about 20 seconds), took a deep breath, and dove in.

The simple layout of the desktop and destinations make using this system fairly easy. The three tabs at the top—Applications, Places, and System—are the Ubuntu equivalent of the Windows Start, Explorer, and Control Panel functions. However, Ubuntu organizes all the files, folders, and programs better. For example, in Ubuntu, if I want to open up the mouse preferences, I simply go  to System, then from the drop-down menu hover over “Administration”, and then click on the “Mouse” preferences. In the cluttered Windows XP & Vista, I click on the Start Menu, then on the Control Panel. I then have to browse through the control panel in search for the Mouse preferences item. That once again opens up another window. With Ubuntu, only one window opened up, the Mouse preferences, unlike Windows where I had several already. Everything feels faster to do too. And like I said above, I can click on any file or program up in this fashion and do it quickly and cleanly. Also, as an alternative and supplement for Linux users, Ubuntu features a console and similar Linux programs.

In addition, I enjoyed toying around with the highly customizable user interface. One of my favorite features, I get to change almost every aspect of the desktop. I can add new panels (a.k.a. taskbars) and place folders or programs on them. In addition to changing to the provided theme, I can make a completely new one, with my own color, image, and font scheme. Other than the desktop, the animation effects increased the fun and cool factor using the OS. By downloading free software called Compiz, I am able to use many different effects including making my windows wobble, opening/closing files using a “magic lamp” animation, or starting a really big multicolored fire on my screen. A user can spend hours customizing by just using Compiz: the possibilities are endless. While some of those features are definitely gimmicks, others truly help with productivity.

Continuing on the idea of possibilities, by going to the Ubuntu Software Center, I have the ability to download almost any open-source program or software for free. There are many alternatives to replace programs on Windows or Mac. A few main stream ones, such as Mozilla Firefox or the VLC Media player, can already run on Ubuntu. Others, such as Adobe Photoshop, cannot, but Ubuntu remedied this problem by finding a somewhat comparable alternative to download, in this case, Gimp. I found every program that I used on Windows, whether it be the Linux version or an alternative one through the Ubuntu Software Center. Even if I did not like the comparable Ubuntu software or if I run into issues, there’s plenty of new applications being added by developers from all over the world and a huge community to offer support.

As great as Ubuntu runs, there are a couple problems that cannot be overlooked. For one, the wireless connectivity, at least for me, works poorly. More often than not, I cannot connect to a network. If I do end up connecting, the connection to that network frequently drops. Although a solution to this problem most likely exists, it is nonetheless still an annoyance. But again, this only happens with a few of my connections, not all of them. (It could also be an issue with my HP hardware.) Another issue I can now overlook, but probably will come up again concerns the use of software. Although alternative software remedies this issue, it does not solve it. If a new updates hits the internet, I am unable to use it because it will most likely only run on Windows and Mac. Also, popular PC games, such as Call of Duty or Halo, can’t run on Ubuntu. Fortunately, I mostly play on consoles, so this did not bother me greatly. Also, though I have yet to download any, Ubuntu advertises over 400 free online games of all genres.

All in all, Ubuntu rocks. After using it for a couple weeks, I became accustomed to it and enjoy it throughly. Much more stable and organized, Ubuntu performs well in my book. However, out of my two computers, I only switched one of my computers to Ubuntu, leaving the other one using a Windows operating system. Being a student with little to no free time, downloading alternative software and learning how to use it turns me off from Ubuntu a bit. I know how to use a lot of the most popular applications as well, but some of those can’t be found on Ubuntu. Other than this and the wireless connectivity issue, I do encourage anyone to give Ubuntu a shot. I will definitely be keeping Ubuntu on my poor-performing laptop since the OS significantly improves my laptop’s usability. I wrongly feared Ubuntu: as the developers put it, Ubuntu most certainly is “Linux for Human Beings!”

Links: Ubuntu.com

Interestingly enough, the majority of iPhone owners on AT&T stated that they would buy it again if they had the choice. The real question is whether they would be willing to buy it with AT&T if it were also available through another carrier. The answer for me is: YES. Here’s why:

Just this past weekend, after spending time with family in the Bay Area (San Jose, CA), I drove back up to the Sacramento Area (Davis, CA). I had both my Apple iPhone running on AT&T and the Motorola Droid on Verizon Wireless. The Droid was able to provide voice-guided turn-by-turn directions and even display satellite and street views. My friend, also in the car, was able to multi-task and use the web browser with no issues. We randomly joked about the I Am T-Pain App for the iPhone. So we decided to buy it. It took nearly 10 tries and over an hour before it finished downloading. While I made a quick stop in the Berkeley Area, the iPhone couldn’t place calls, load Google.com in the Web Browser, or even finish downloading that App. AT&T’s network just didn’t work. It interestingly even displayed full signal, plus or minus one bar. My iPhone 3GS was fully charged and has all the latest updates. The Motorola Droid on the other hand breezed through any issues, other than for one or two brief “GPS signal loss” messages. While the unit did get somewhat warm and loose battery quickly due to heavy processing from the Google Maps Navigation App, it simply worked seamlessly with the Verizon Wireless network.

While I haven’t used Sprint‘s or T-Mobile‘s networks nearly as much, they are both outperforming AT&T as well. I have never heard too many complains about those two either. If you buy a Cell Phone, you should be able to make calls with it. Unfortunately that’s where the problem lies with my iPhone tied to AT&T. If I had the choice of purchasing a smartphone today, I’d definitely get the Motorola Droid no questions asked. If the iPhone were also available on Verizon, I might have a debate with myself to decide which to buy. For now, it’s probably best to stick with Verizon Wireless if you can.

Related Links: Consumer Reports

Just a few years ago, every Verizon Wireless customer was eligible towards a $100 discount when they upgraded their phone after their two-year contract expired. In 2007, I wrote an article about Verizon downgrading their Upgrade Plan. Their new “Every Two Plan” would only entitle customers paying over $80 a month on services a $100 discount towards a new phone, while the rest only received a $50 discount. They recently once again made some changes which has upset many customers.

Verizon Wireless’s latest changes apply to their Early Termination Fee (ETF). Normally if you choose to cancel your two-year contract, there would be a $175 fee for any device. As of November 15th, there’s a new fee for Smartphone owners, categorized as “advance devices” by Verizon. If you were to purchase a smartphone such as the Motorola Droid and decide to switch providers or cancel your contract, you’ll now have to pay a $350 ETF. If you moved to a new location that doesn’t have signal and decided to cancel your service the second month into the contract, that would mean you would end up paying nearly $550 for just the device. While Verizon does knock $10 off the ETF each month, that’s still a $130 left over to shell out 22 months into a contract. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) has even introduced a bill to revert this change since it’s “anti-competitive” and “anti-consumer.” As for now, fortunately, non-smartphone devices still only have a $175 ETF.

It’s true that the devices such as the Motorola Droid are heavily subsidized; otherwise we would have to pay a couple hundred bucks extra up front. However the required Smartphone data plans with the cheapest calling plans will still cost an average customer nearly $2000 over a two-year period. Even with the subsidy for the device calculated in, that’s still large amount to spend. While this won’t affect customers that don’t plan on canceling their contracts, it would still be nice to at least see Verizon increase the amount knocked off the ETF each month by at least a couple dollars so that the ETF would be close to zero a month before a contract ends.

While it’s great to see new high tech phones with more features become available for lower prices each year, it’s a bit depressing when you realize the service cost through just about every provider hasn’t.

What do you all think about the increased ETF? Is it fair to charge Smartphone owners more?

Links: VerizonWireless.com

An average brand-name Netbook (e.g. Dell, HP) with a standard 1.6GHz Intel Atom processor and 1GB of RAM costs about $300. Cell Phone carriers including AT&T and Verizon now offer subsidized Netbooks with a 3G Wireless Broadband card built in. So the big question: “Is it worth purchasing a Netbook with a contract?” The simple answer is NO.

For example, let’s take a look at the HP Mini 110. It retails for about $300 excluding tax straight from HP.com. Verizon Wireless offers the same configuration of the Mini 110 for a subsidized price of $150. Half-off seems like a great deal, but it’s not. First there’s a $35 activation fee. Next you’ll have to sign-up for a data plan that costs $60 per month for just 5GB of data. I should note that there’s also a $40/month data plan that offers just 250MB of data. Considering that I feel 5GB itself is too little, 250MB is just ridiculous. Plus there’s also a 2-year contract associated with the device. To get out, you’ll have to pay the $175 early termination fee. So if you add that up here’s what you get:

$150 (HP Mini 110) + $35 (Activation Fee) + $1440 (5GB Plan, $60 x 24 Months) = $1625.

Keep in mind that I didn’t include tax either. That’s nearly the cost of a fairly high-end Dell XPS laptop or MacBook Pro. Although Netbooks are a great tool, it’s not a good idea to spend that much for one and be stuck with it for two years. The technology is evolving and new models that run faster and longer keep coming out. Dual Core Atom processors are probably going to hit Netbooks within the next few months. Your Netbook will be outdated in no time. Unless you need a computer with 3G Broadband at all times, it might be better just to use hotspots when you need access. If you decide to upgrade your netbook every year, you can do so and still end up paying less than half of what a contracted Netbook costs. If you really need broadband on the go, either try to add a tethering plan to your current phone, grab a MiFi that works with multiple devices, or a separate 3G USB Modem.

Links: AT&T Netbooks | Verizon Netbooks

However it’s 2009 and we live in a digital world. I realized I haven’t had to manually set a clock back or ahead for at least a year or two now. Everything I use from my computers to mobile phones all get their time from a centralized source. They all adjust themselves automatically. Even cheap standalone alarm clocks that are available that cost under $15 now sync up with the atomic clock in Colorado.

So my question to guys: “Do you still have clocks that need to be adjusted?”
Let us know by voting in our Twitter Poll and by leaving a comment below!

.