Sour Apples: iPhone 7 Disappoints

The new iPhone 7 is a disappointment, not for what it is but for what it could have been.

Let me explain.

On Wednesday, Apple announced their new hardware, specifically updated watches and phones. There was a lot of anticipation in advance of the event, with intense speculation that Apple would remove the analog headphone jack from the phone.

The headphone jack is certainly gone from the iPhone 7. However, what's also missing is any real innovation. There are many small refinements including better cameras, improved CPU performance, improved wireless network performance, and improved battery life, but these are things most consumers take for granted in annual tech refresh cycles. Other changes like new case colors, stereo speakers, and the new home button design seem more focused on style than substance.

The headphone jack removal is very polarizing for Apple consumers, because it interferes with common usage patterns that have persisted for almost a decade. Many people listen and recharge at the same time, and now you'll need an extra dongle for that. Many people plug their phones into their cars and other audio gear using the headphone jack, and now you'll need an extra dongle for that, too. And did we mention that this dongle doesn't offer another Lightning port for charging? So if you don't have Bluetooth audio in your car, forget about playing your tunes and arriving with a fully-charged phone.

Why didn't Apple add wireless charging? This is a feature found on many high-end Android phones and the Apple Watch. It would have nullified the complaint that with the new iPhone people can't simultaneously charge their phone and listen to music or make phone calls. It would have eliminated the need for a 'charge and listen' dongle that people don't want to carry around with them since they already have to carry a charger and/or they have one on their desk or nightstand. The option to use Bluetooth headphones is there, but these also have limitations mostly in the form of battery life; I have been on many conference calls that exceed the 4-hour capability of Apple's new AirPods, so would I have to buy two sets of them just in case they conked out mid-call?

Why didn't Apple introduce an OLED screen? This offers better contrast and lower power consumption than LCD, and has also been a feature on higher-end Android competitors for years. Because it doesn't required a backlight panel, it would have let the iPhone get even thinner or the extra space could have been used to increase battery capacity.

Finally, why didn't Apple ditch the Lightning jack altogether and introduce WiGig capability? This super fast 60GHz radio would have let the iPhone support HD and UHD video to desktop monitors and big screen TVs. It would have also allowed the device be totally sealed against dirt and water with no external connectors. More than that, it would have allowed the iPhone to become a single device that could use multiple screens and peripherals to serve as a phone, tablet, desktop, and entertainment device. Imagine pairing your iPhone with a wireless game controller and big screen TV to play video games in high-definition, or pairing it a desktop monitor, keyboard, and trackpad to use office applications and browse the web.

These are the kinds of changes Apple's customers are looking for, but at this point we can only hope for next year. Unfortunately for Apple, the Android platform is more competitive than ever. The recently released and highly-polished Nougat OS and new high-end devices from Samsung and other manufacturers are appealing even to Apple die hards. It seems like Apple's visionary image is tarnishing, and they are transforming into just another mega company trying to protect margins on existing products instead of taking bold risks on new capabilities that drive the industry forward.

p.s.: I didn't even mention that there was not a single announcement related to their personal computer business, even though the Mac lineup has not seen a major change in several years. I'm writing this on a three-year-old Macbook Air, and Apple doesn't have a single product that is compelling me to upgrade. I'll probably write about this in a future article.

Three Wishes for the iPhone 7

There's no doubt that the iPhone is one of the most popular consumer devices ever made, but to some extent it may be a victim of its own success. We now have all the screen sizes we need, from 4 inches to 5.5 inches, and all of them have pixels so small that adding more won't make the image any sharper to the human eye. The processors are fast enough for any application you might want to run, and the cellular, Wi-Fi, and Bluetooth radios deliver enough connectivity options and bandwidth. All iPhone models have fingerprint recognition and Apple Pay capability, and battery capacity is good enough for most people to get through their entire day without concern.

So what new features can Apple put into the next iteration of the iPhone to keep the platform fresh and compel current users to upgrade? Certainly another bump in processor speed or memory capacity isn't going to be very interesting, although it is probably inevitable. If I could ask for three enhancements, these are what they would be.

Wish #1: WiGig

Apple should add a new radio capability to the iPhone 7 called WiGig. Also known as 802.11ad, this technology uses the 60 GHz frequency band to transmit data at up to 7Gb/s. It won't replace your LTE or Wi-Fi connection, because these high frequency signals can't pass through walls, but it will provide several valuable capabilities.

The most immediately useful of these is the ability to watch movies streamed right from your phone to your TV in full fidelity with no messy cables or adapters. Imagine, taking your iPhone into the family room, opening up the Netflix app, and playing a 4K movie to your big screen TV without juggling remote controls. Then imagine going over to a friend's house and watching that same movie on his TV. You can try this today with AirPlay over Wi-Fi, but the video may be choppy and 4K resolution is not supported so it's 1080P at best. This might be the set top box killer we've all been waiting for.

It will also allow video games to display on the TV while using the iPhone as a controller. As an option, a Bluetooth game controller can be coupled to the iPhone to allow a more conventional game console experience where the iPhone replaces the console completely.

WiGig can allow the iPhone to drive a tablet display when you need more screen real estate; for example, while reading a magazine or book. The user can interact with the tablet while their iPhone is sitting on their desk or nestled in their pocket. Apple could create a 'dumbed down' version of the iPad for this, or just add this capability into new iPads.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it will allow the iPhone to be used with a high-resolution desktop monitor. When coupled with a Bluetooth mouse and keyboard, this could allow your iPhone to be your only computer. Apps could be extended to support a mouse, just as they have been extended to support a pencil on the iPad Pro. You would never have to sync your iPhone with your PC because all of the data would stay on the iPhone. Imagine traveling without a laptop computer, just using available WiGig terminals in hotels, offices, and other workspaces when you need a more traditional PC interface.

Wish #2: Visual Unlock

While the fingerprint reader has been a useful addition to the iPhone, I think we all have experienced the frustration of it not working from time to time, as well as the awkwardness of using it when your hands are full, dirty, covered in gloves, or just not conveniently positioned.

Apple should use the front-facing camera to enable the iPhone to be unlocked visually, by examining your facial features and getting enough of a sample with small movements and eye blinks to know that it's not being fed a static image.

Wish #3: Remove the Connectors

It's time to eliminate the anachronism of electrical sockets. The iPhone's Lightning connector and the 3.5mm audio jack should be removed, because there's just no need for them anymore.

Getting rid of these metal sockets will allow more freedom in physical design and, with minor changes to cover the volume, mute, sleep, and home buttons, allow the phone to survive serious encounters with water and dirt. Imagine not worrying about taking your iPhone to the beach or pool. Imagine being able to clean your phone by sticking it under running water.

The audio jack is made redundant by Bluetooth. I'm sure this will make some audiophiles choke, but for the vast majority of people Bluetooth is a better option because it is free of cables and provides comparable audio quality at the range of a normal headphone cable.

The Lightning connector can be eliminated by adding inductive charging to the iPhone; just lay the phone on top of a charger to top up the battery. Besides charging, the only other reason for Lightning is fast data transfer, but WiGig has that covered.

I'm sure this suggestion will elicit gasps from those who believe that this will upset users with legacy Lightning devices, but it's easy to imagine a WiGig to Lightning/USB adapter that can keep them out of the scrap heap.

Wrapping Up

It's time for some serious innovation in the iPhone family, and at this point that means Apple needs some extreme focus on key features that will really make these devices better and more useful for the majority of their customer base.

Distracted Driving: Let's Slay the Monster We Created

Almost every day we see it: Someone in one of the cars around you moving down the road at high speed with their attention focused on their smartphone instead of the traffic around them. It's a global phenomenon, and there's no sign of it decreasing in frequency despite all the laws against it. According to distraction.gov, the official US government website for distracted driving, 3,179 people were killed and 431,000 were injured in motor vehicle crashes involving distracted drivers in the USA during 2014. The World Health Organization predicts that by 2030, road traffic injuries will be the fifth leading cause of death globally, surpassing AIDS, diabetes, violence, and all forms of cancer. Yet with all that carnage, the site goes on to say: "The best way to end distracted driving is to educate all Americans about the danger it poses."

As a technologist, this is appalling to me. This problem exists because of the smartphone and mobile network technology we have created, and has grown because of the improvements we have made to that technology specifically so that all of us can be connected at all times, everywhere. Yet our best solution is to try to convince people that they shouldn't do the very thing that the technology was designed to enable!

I can't accept that, and I think we need to devise and implement technological solutions for this technological problem. Certainly people can and will continue to eat, drink, groom themselves, and engage in other distracting activities while driving, but I think we all agree that very few of these have the same distractive capacity as messages and other notifications that are actively pushed to your device at random times during the day causing it to flash, shake, and make all kinds of noises to get your attention.

The solution seems obvious: Simply stop the driver's phone from creating or allowing distractions while the vehicle is moving. Unfortunately, a logical examination of that approach leads to another set of problems that are not easily addressed:

• How do you know that the user is driving and not just a passenger in a car, bus, or train?
• What applications are allowed? Should the driver be able to have a voice conversation over Bluetooth? Should they be able to have a voice interaction with Siri, Alexa, or Cortana? What about Google Maps? Pandora radio? How do you allow some interactions and prevent others?
• How do you disable the driver's phone yet allow the passengers' phones to continue normal operation? People have multiple cars, multiple devices, and people also rent and share cars, so this is not straightforward.
• How do you deal with people who actively try to bypass or override the control mechanisms?

This used to be a problem related solely to text messaging, and perhaps could have been addressed through controlling SMS delivery in the mobile operator networks, but now it's about mobile applications over the Internet. Since you cannot disable Internet service without making the device completely useless, the solution must lie with the device manufacturers and the automobile manufacturers. I don't know what the answer is, but I believe it will involve a few specific technological components. 

First, every mobile device must be able to transition into a Driver Mode that limits its capabilities. For example, screen input may be disabled and only voice interaction permitted. Applications will have to be qualified to operate in this mode, and if not they will be disabled by the device operating system.

Second, every automobile must be able to provide information to the device that would allow it to engage and disengage Driver Mode at appropriate times, such as when the car is put into or taken out of a drive gear, or when the car is in motion or stopped.

The automobile could also assist or take over engagement with the driver in more intelligent ways, perhaps via technologies such as Apple's CarPlay or Google's Android Auto. It's certainly better to present visual information on the car's dashboard or infotainment display than require the driver to look at their phone's screen, and it's also better to present audio information over the car's speakers than those on the phone. In today's world where every smartphone can use Bluetooth and screen sharing, this should not be a big leap.

Finally, there will have to be some solution for dealing with multiple devices in the car. One approach may be to have each device's location precisely analyzed to determine which one is nearest the driver's position. Another may be for the car to detect all devices and force one to be placed into Driver Mode with the notion that passengers would object to having their phone disabled by the driver.

There are a few technical solutions available now, such as CellControl, but these are mainly for teen drivers and require parents to install and configure hardware in the car and applications on their child's phone. Most adults would never voluntarily install this kind of control, and could choose to opt out of it whenever they wanted. 

I think this problem is serious enough that phone and car manufacturers should get together and agree to a solution that works, and ensure that the technology is standardized, documented, and freely licensed. A subset of drivers will try to circumvent the solution, but the majority of drivers will probably appreciate the improved interaction and integration between their phones and cars and never look back.

If you have any thoughts on this important problem, please share them!

2010 MacBook Air: Lose weight, and nothing else

Now that I've had a few weeks (with one slight interruption) to get to work with the MacBook Air, I thought I'd share my findings.

I bought the top-end 13" Air with the intent of replacing my early-2008 15" MacBook Pro as my sole personal computer at home and work. Here are the specs:

• Pro: 2.6Ghz Core2 Duo, 4GB RAM, GeForce 8600M GPU, 7200RPM HDD
• Air: 2.13GHz Core2 Duo, 4GB RAM, GeForce 320M GPU, 256GB SSD
  

One of my biggest concerns was performance — I wondered if the Air could live up to the level of the Pro. Here's what I found out:

The screen is physically smaller, but the resolution is the same (1440x900) so the actual real estate is unchanged. The GPU is comparable, and both 2D and 3D graphics are snappy. The mini display port interface on the Air is superior to the DVI port on the Pro since it can support higher resolution displays and can carry both audio and video.

The CPU is slightly slower but the memory is faster; the new Air has a 1066MHz bus compared to the 800 MHz bus on my '08 Pro. So far this more than makes up for the CPU speed reduction in my estimation; response time in all applications (even graphically-intensive apps like iPhoto) seems to be the same or better.

There's no comparing disk performance — the Air blows the Pro away due to its use of solid state drive technology. Since the Air doesn't contain a 'disk' at all, but instead stores all of its data in memory chips, the access time for reading files is lightning fast and writing files is also faster. Even better, the Air has a 56GB storage advantage over the 200GB drive in the Pro.

The Air's audio is better, with a new under-keyboard speaker system that sounds fuller and less tinny than the speakers on the Pro.

The battery on the Air is delivering about 6-8 hours of normal use. This is double the amount of time I would get on the Pro.

At 2.9 pounds, the Air is 2.5 pounds lighter than the Pro. Considering the Air's smaller power adapter, the total carry package is about 50% lighter.

Peripheral connectivity options favor the Pro but, with two USB ports and a built-in SD card slot, the Air is more than adequate. However, the lack of a FireWire port on the Air may be a problem for cinematographers.

So, all in all:

• computation and graphics capability are about the same
• audio is a little better
  
• data storage and retrieval is much better
• battery performance is twice as good
• carry weight is halved
• lacking a FireWire port (not an issue for me)

At $1799, the Air turned out to be a good value for me and I've totally transitioned to it as my only personal computer.

Customer Service: One Reason Why Apple is Awesome

Last weekend I bought a new MacBook Air. Rationally, I did it because I wanted to reduce the weight of my travel bag; actually, I did it because it looks cool and I wanted a notebook with solid state storage.

After spending a day with it and getting it all set up for my office and home networks, installing software, and copying files from my older MacBook Pro, I decided to take it in to the office. As I was walking from my car into the building, the strap on my bag somehow unfastened and the bag and all its contents (the new Air and also my iPad) crashed onto the concrete floor.

I unzipped the bag to look inside; the iPad seemed OK, but the Air had a big dent in the corner of the case. Opening it revealed damage to both the top lid that contains the display and the bottom that contains the keyboard and logic board. Miraculously, the thing still worked and there was no damage to the screen. I probably could have lived with it, but the bent metal was keeping the top from closing completely on that side and I was afraid that the display would eventually get damaged from flexing.

So I made an appointment with the Apple Genius Bar at my local Apple Store in Tampa, and took the machine in. I was expecting that the lid and bottom case would have to be replaced and that it would cost me a fair amount of money.

The employee there looked at it, confirmed my view of what had to be replaced, and said that they would fix it — for free!

I was floored. I know that it is going to cost them at least a few hundred dollars in time and materials for this repair. In addition to this, they thought it would take 5 days to get the parts since the machine was so new, but three days later they completed the repair.

So now I'm on the way to pick up the computer and definitely thinking that I am going to be a loyal Apple customer for a long time. Way to go, Apple!

Why the Volt is a Great Idea

General Motors has had its share of bad ideas over the years, but I think they have a really good one in the Volt.

The Volt is a new electric car that will be released this fall in the USA at a price of $41,000. After government tax credits, that price will be effectively reduced to $33,500.

What's interesting about the Volt is its practicality. First of all, from the outside you would never know it was anything special. It looks like a normal car. It has four doors and a roomy hatch. It has room for four people and their luggage. It has a radio, air conditioning, GPS, and OnStar service. You can fill it with gas, just like an ICE (internal combustion engine) or hybrid car. You can also plug it in to charge the battery, just like a pure electric car.

Yet compared to ICE cars, hybrid cars like the Prius, and pure electric cars like the Tesla, the Volt is very unique. Unlike an ICE car, the Volt is driven by electric power, not a gas engine. Unlike a hybrid car, an electric motor drives the wheels at all times; there is no complex transmission that connects the gas motor to the electric motor. Unlike a pure electric car the Volt has a gas engine in addition to a battery.

The battery in a Volt has more power than the battery in a hybrid, but less power than one in a pure electric car. When fully charged it can carry the car for about 40 miles of normal driving. After that, the gas motor starts up and generates the power to drive the electric motor another 300 miles per tankful.

This resolves the key dilemmas of hybrid and pure electric cars. Hybrid cars run mostly on gas so even on short trips gas is consumed and pollution is created; in the end they are only slightly more efficient than normal ICE cars. Pure electric cars run solely on battery, but when the battery is drained it takes hours to recharge, making the car impractical for long trips and causing a persistent fear of unplanned detours and the possibility of being stranded. But the Volt allows the driver to go as long as they want, stopping for just a few minutes every 300 miles to refill the gas tank.

This key capability will be what allows people to finally embrace an electric car as a practical vehicle. Though most trips and daily commutes are fairly short, we all make long trips from time to time and most of us can't afford to have a different car for those longer trips.

I drive about 40 miles to work and back each day, so on weekdays I will use almost no gasoline. Since the price of electricity per mile is radically lower than the price of gas per mile, I will save a lot of money. I will also generate a lot less pollution. Electricity from the grid has the added benefit of being generated from multiple different fuels (coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear) or even renewable sources like wind and solar power. Much of this power can be generated domestically, eliminating dependencies on foreign energy sources.

This is why I can see the Volt becoming a very popular car, and the first really practical electric car to ever be mass produced. Kudos to the engineers at GM for coming up with such a brilliantly simple concept, and kudos to the management for embracing the concept and getting it to market.

'Net Neutrality, Take Two...

Two companies, that is. Google and Verizon, the behemoth of Internet content and the leviathan of US mobile and fiber optic broadband.

Today they announced a proposed "legislative framework" around 'net neutrality. If you're not sure what this all about, here's a brief overview:

The Internet is a collection of networks that carry data between computers. This data is transported in the form of packets, where one logical communication, a video for example, is broken down into a series of packets that are carried from the sender to the receiver. This is a core feature of the Internet, and makes it very resilient because packets can be sent along many paths to get to their destination, so if in the middle of a transfer a cable gets cut somewhere the packets can immediately be re-routed over a different connection to get to the destination.

Now all of this is fine until there are more packets waiting to be sent than can be carried over any one segment of the network. When this happens, packets are delayed, like cars in a traffic jam, and the result is a slower download or choppy video. This can and does happen when there is not enough bandwidth or when bandwidth is shared across a number of users. To solve this problem companies can add more bandwidth by adding cables and equipment to the network; mobile companies might add more cell towers and backhaul circuits.

Another approach to solving this problem is to prioritize traffic, so that some packets get sent with a higher priority than others. Imagine a highway with bus or carpool lanes; while most cars sit in rush hour traffic, carpools and buses zip by at full speed. The network can be just like that, with certain bandwidth reserved for specific types of packets.

Where this gets interesting is that many of the companies that provide Internet connections and carry packets also provide data services. Consider your cable TV company — you can buy Internet service from them but they also provide video and voice services. What would happen if they protected the quality of their video and voice services by reducing the quality of Netflix and Skype? Would that be fair to these other companies?

This is the core argument for 'net neutrality; companies that carry Internet packets should not be allowed to prioritize some traffic at the cost of other traffic. If you prioritize, you are not neutral because you will make that prioritized service better than the non-prioritized service.

The concern is that without rules that require network companies to treat all packets equally, they will eventually resort to prioritizing their services and throttling those of competitors. The cable company wants you to use their video on demand, not Netflix or Hulu. The phone company wants you to use their voice service, not Skype or Fring. Thus, in the end, these alternative services won't get a fair chance because the network companies will choke them out and stifle competition.

I agree with a general policy that would prevent traffic prioritization, and think there ought to be a clear delineation between companies that transport packets and companies that provide data services like email, video, voice calling, and social networking. Without this, the Internet innovation engine will stall and we will return to the bad old days when a few big companies controlled all the information and communication services available to us. Even though there is no longer a telecommunications monopoly, over 97% of the US population gets mobile service from just four companies (Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile) and a very large portion gets fixed line service from Verizon, AT&T, and a small number of major cable companies, so a small number of large companies have an awful lot of power.

However, in this announcement Google and Verizon take it upon themselves to define a framework where some traffic can be prioritized to allow broadband service providers to offer "differentiated services" whose packets could be prioritized over others. I think this loophole would be exercised to the maximum extent possible by the consumer fixed and mobile broadband companies in order to preserve their revenues at the expense of competitors.

What do you think?