Speaking of wars, might as well pipe in about the current tablet wars.
I will admit... I am not an Apple Product fan. I will also admit, I used to use a Mac before Windows 95 came out.
I am a PC user, mostly because I am a gamer, I like being able to do other things with my computer and also deal with annoying issues that Windows has brought upon itself. I also play a little with Linux variants, but not enough to really be one of those people to run linux on my main computer.
Apple is, by no means, an original company. The iPod? Yes, it was the first Music Player to host a large hard drive to store music conveniently. But there have been MP3 players a year or two before that, using flash memory to story megs of music. MP3 players have been around for years on computers.
The iPhone? Only semi-Original. I say semi, because it was their attempt to get into the wireless phone industry and they did it well, by hitting Blackberry and the other cellphones where they hurt, the lack of music. But like the iPod, it stylized and its design made me question wanting to have it as a phone, namely, the lack of a replaceable battery. The entry cost of one and lack of replacement battery made me feel like if the battery goes bad, I have to get another iPhone versus just swap the battery.
The iPad? Sorry, but Tablet PC has been around for a few years with Windows XP. It just was never implemented or caught on because manufacturers didn't do a wonderful job in making hardware to make the Windows XP Tablet OS be worth a damn, and to be honest, not many things really made it worthwhile.
And to be fair, the iPad is a good step, and when it started out, its apps were mostly iPhone related and only improved when iPads drew people to look into them.
Now, let's look at Apple's competitors.
Blackberry - The originator for the SmartPhone. It took Palm's PDA organizer and made it deal with e-mail and act as a phone. However, Blackberry's evolution stunted itself and when the iPhone's Touchscreen came out... The Storm which was suppose to be their answer to the iPhone petered out due to the awkwardness of the OS in handling the touch screen as well as the 'push click' process. The other thing that kicked Blackberry hard is their lack of an App store which came a bit late... Getting apps for the blackberry was like pulling teeth from an alligator until they finally started putting in an app store.
Microsoft's Mobile Phone OSes - Has tried on numerous levels to be good. But to my honest opinion, it just hovered in place and never really caught on. The Windows 7 Phone ad... To be honest, it also made me go, "Uhm... No." 'A phone to save us from our phone.' That motto is terrible, the motif to make Windows 7 Phone seem so much better failed to inspire me and the initial looks was not impressive. The demonstrations of it were terrible as well.
Android - I will admit, I am an Android fan, but one thing I should note... Android has been around for a few years. I did not hop onto the Android bandwagon until the Motorola Droid. I will point out one thing... Verizon's Droid viral ads were the best hook to get people. While some believe it made the Motorola Droid seem like the iPhone killer, I went in with the belief that it was a good iPhone competitor. It wasn't until later, I found out that the Android OS has been around for a while, which has been, strangely enough the T-Mobile HTC MyTouch phone with the celeberties standing there, showing off a phone with its own little wallpaper reflecting them.
T-Mobile's Android ads were not the best example of getting people interested in Android phones. To me, it was just another lame phone from one provider to coax people to go with them. Verizon hit where it count to get people who didn't like the iPhone to see an alternative they didn't know they had, and with so many introduction of things, such as the Car Navigation system that the Motorola Droid offered, enticed people with the 'all in one' device capabilities. The preview pictures with regards to customizing the look of the phone was also one of the selling points for me.
Getting back to the Tablets, the iPad is the second of its kind. As I said before, there was Windows XP Tablet devices, and in fact, its really more of a 4th or 5th generation device. Palm Pilots and Windows Mobile Devices have implemented 'similar' concepts, but were small and bulky (Bulky as in thick with some weight). iPad took the PDA based devices further by incorporating the WiFi and Cellular wireless support and a larger screen with a slimmer form factor.
The Galaxy Tablet and the other tablets used hacked Android Phone OS to be the 'first Android' based tablets. However, even Google, the creators of Android, stated this was a bad idea. Notion Ink, a tablet I was looking forward to, however, after the FCC tear down of the device, I was having second thoughts about it due to questionable issues with it as well as the actual internal design was a scary looking device to make me not want to get it.
The Xoom, on the other hand... I got myself, and I also attribute Verizon again for how they promoed it. The demonstration of it looked weak at first, given again, being the First Android 3.0 implementation and not many apps designed directly for the Xoom, I didn't get it when it first came out. I did, however, go and play with it at a Best Buy.
I liked some of the implementation, much more than I did some of the other tablets as well as the screen, even though I question Motorola's design of the tablet (Rear firing Speakers - Bad idea)
I will state, when I showed the Xoom to some guys at work... Some of the apple fans stated that they wished some of the Xoom features were part of the iPad. What more, they were disappointed with the iPad2 announcement, as some of the hardware improved, but the general UI did not. The ones I talked to liked the fact that Xoom had a customizable desktop, a dashboard that you can setup yourself (One of the reasons I liked my Droid over the iPhone).
Again, the Xoom is not going to be the iPad killer. It is a good competitor. There are more on the way, hopefully with the Android 3.0 OS, and along with it apps that will make the experience even more enjoyable.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Battle: LA
Well, I think I will start off with the most recent movie I went to go see:
Battle: LA
Before I went to see it, I pretty much went, "YAWOTW Movie" (Yet another War of the Worlds) movie.
In some ways, it was, and in other ways it wasn't. In most of the War of the Worlds movies, we are greeted with Alien War Machines that are fairly unstoppable. I saw the train wreck that was 'Skyline', which followed the tried and true formula of the unstoppable Alien War Machines. While it was grotesque in the way it was 'unstoppable', which was basically, machines powered by using the brains of the humans it captured and harvested, the movie was pretty much the tried and true of Aliens beating the crap out of the humans, only to end with one of those humans becoming one of the aliens and fighting within.
Battle: LA, on the other hand, puts an interesting twist. The aliens are attacking, but not necessarily unstoppable, just overwhelming and completely alien in regards to the conventional warfare.
Now some spoilers of the movie will be mentioned, so you might want to skip reading this if you don't want it spoiled.
In the movie, majority of the technology seems just slightly more advanced than ours. Some Anti-Grav for some of their vehicles, but not many beam based weapons, only the drone ships seem to have that. The alien soldiers are fairly armorplated, but not completely protected. The difference here is the fact they are alien, you can't kill it like you can a human, which obviously is resilient, but not impossible to stop.
The aliens take out military forces fairly expediently, which later is proved how that happens. They locate based on transmissions from the soldiers. They also fight less conventionally, a lot of military tactics are based on ground fighting, literally from building to building and from ground positions, however, the Aliens are attacking from rooftops of some 1 or 2 story houses, which usually don't have easy to get onto roof without assistance.
One of my gripes with the plot is the statement with regards to Earth's Water. Yes, the concept of using water as a reactor source is hardly something new. For those of you who don't know it, science has always theorized the use of water as a means to power a fusion reactor. Our current reactor technology is Fission, which is breaking down of Plutonium to Uranium (I believe) which heats water in a controlled fission reaction. Fusion, on the other hand, is the energy release when an element combines and breaks down. Our Sun is a fusion reaction, constantly going from Hydrogen to Helium conversion and vice versa. My rough understanding of the water based fuel is basically breaking down Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, or often times creating heavy water (H30, 3 Hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule) to facilitate a fusion reaction.
Anyways, the complaint I had was how one of the commentators made out the alien's attentions. That Earth's water is in a convenient state. Yes... And No.
Within the range of our known science, there is probably planets with similar situations. In most cases, there are comets or other places where water is in an ice state. Physics of Water is that at Room temperature, its volume is 1 to 1 with its weight. However, when frozen, water's volume is slightly larger than its weight. Which is why ice floats, the density of ice is less in its solid form than it is in its liquid state. And while ice might not be 'convenient', the water of earth is hardly 'pure' or convenient for fuel than ice.
The one thing I noticed with Skyline and Battle: LA... Is that the Military is shown as knowing it is coming. Like Independence Day, it is observed coming, and the military is active for the most part. Unlike Independence Day, they don't make a showy appearance and blast a city, or like Skyline where a weird time, suck up a lot of people, then cause of lot of fighting, they try to assault and make a beach head and start pushing inward, then start rolling in their hardware behind their troops.
Over all, the movie was reasonable to enjoy.
Battle: LA
Before I went to see it, I pretty much went, "YAWOTW Movie" (Yet another War of the Worlds) movie.
In some ways, it was, and in other ways it wasn't. In most of the War of the Worlds movies, we are greeted with Alien War Machines that are fairly unstoppable. I saw the train wreck that was 'Skyline', which followed the tried and true formula of the unstoppable Alien War Machines. While it was grotesque in the way it was 'unstoppable', which was basically, machines powered by using the brains of the humans it captured and harvested, the movie was pretty much the tried and true of Aliens beating the crap out of the humans, only to end with one of those humans becoming one of the aliens and fighting within.
Battle: LA, on the other hand, puts an interesting twist. The aliens are attacking, but not necessarily unstoppable, just overwhelming and completely alien in regards to the conventional warfare.
Now some spoilers of the movie will be mentioned, so you might want to skip reading this if you don't want it spoiled.
In the movie, majority of the technology seems just slightly more advanced than ours. Some Anti-Grav for some of their vehicles, but not many beam based weapons, only the drone ships seem to have that. The alien soldiers are fairly armorplated, but not completely protected. The difference here is the fact they are alien, you can't kill it like you can a human, which obviously is resilient, but not impossible to stop.
The aliens take out military forces fairly expediently, which later is proved how that happens. They locate based on transmissions from the soldiers. They also fight less conventionally, a lot of military tactics are based on ground fighting, literally from building to building and from ground positions, however, the Aliens are attacking from rooftops of some 1 or 2 story houses, which usually don't have easy to get onto roof without assistance.
One of my gripes with the plot is the statement with regards to Earth's Water. Yes, the concept of using water as a reactor source is hardly something new. For those of you who don't know it, science has always theorized the use of water as a means to power a fusion reactor. Our current reactor technology is Fission, which is breaking down of Plutonium to Uranium (I believe) which heats water in a controlled fission reaction. Fusion, on the other hand, is the energy release when an element combines and breaks down. Our Sun is a fusion reaction, constantly going from Hydrogen to Helium conversion and vice versa. My rough understanding of the water based fuel is basically breaking down Water into Hydrogen and Oxygen, or often times creating heavy water (H30, 3 Hydrogen molecules and 1 oxygen molecule) to facilitate a fusion reaction.
Anyways, the complaint I had was how one of the commentators made out the alien's attentions. That Earth's water is in a convenient state. Yes... And No.
Within the range of our known science, there is probably planets with similar situations. In most cases, there are comets or other places where water is in an ice state. Physics of Water is that at Room temperature, its volume is 1 to 1 with its weight. However, when frozen, water's volume is slightly larger than its weight. Which is why ice floats, the density of ice is less in its solid form than it is in its liquid state. And while ice might not be 'convenient', the water of earth is hardly 'pure' or convenient for fuel than ice.
The one thing I noticed with Skyline and Battle: LA... Is that the Military is shown as knowing it is coming. Like Independence Day, it is observed coming, and the military is active for the most part. Unlike Independence Day, they don't make a showy appearance and blast a city, or like Skyline where a weird time, suck up a lot of people, then cause of lot of fighting, they try to assault and make a beach head and start pushing inward, then start rolling in their hardware behind their troops.
Over all, the movie was reasonable to enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)