Tech Bloggers Giving CES the Apple Treatment →

In this article by Mat Honan from Wired, he highlights a major problem with technology journalism today - people are bored with just about everything. These are just TVs, this is just another tablet, that iPhone is hardly any different from the last one... blah blah blah.

This year the CES coverage seemed to be more pessimistic than previous years. The latest iPhone release seemed to be received as more disappointing than previous years. The anti-Apple folks say that Apple has peaked and can't keep up their momentum without Steve Jobs. The rest of the tech bloggers think that CES has lost its shine. These aren't two separate things, there is one explanation - everyone has gotten used to insanely brilliant, beautiful, and incredible technology. Many believe it is bland and boring because we're surrounded by it.

Tech reporting today often sounds more like a spoiled rich kid complaining that the Mercedes his parents got him for his 16th birthday isn't the right color. It is a shame. Every time I pick up my phone, tablet, or laptop there is a moment of disbelief at how incredible the technology is. Not all reporting is this way, but enough of it is and those same "writers" have no shame in publishing nothing more than click-bait-crap.

This doesn't mean we can't be critical of new technology. We don't have to accept every new product as profound. Not every product will be a revolution, but embracing a steady clip of evolution is not settling.

Engadget: CES 2014 Picks →

Some interesting picks in here, definitely seems to capture the best products there. With that being said, I'm still not seeing anything that is standing out.

  • Oculus Rift keeps making these kinds of lists, but it seems to be in a perpetual state of development.
  • Sony Z1 Compact packs a top end punch into an iPhone-size device, a rarity for Android devices.
  • There are a LOT of fitness trackers, I don't see that changing any time soon.
  • The Mother sensor system seems interesting. Not a grand slam, but a fresh take on smart home technology.

CES 2014: 4K and 3D

There has been a lot of 4K news at CES, no surprise there. Computer monitors make sense and a 4K computer monitor should excite anyone who uses desktop monitors. 

TVs are a different story. When talking TVs, the important thing to remember is that you don't sit nearly as close to them. When you sit farther back, even the most perfect human eye can only differentiate a certain level of detail. Read more here. Here's the quick version; this diagram shows you the screen size versus viewing distance chart and shows at which range a given resolution is actually valuable.

resolution_chart[1].png

You'll be surprised to see, that most of us could actually have a 720p TV and not be able to tell the difference from 1080p. So why bother with 4K (1080p is 1920x1080 pixels, 4K is approximately 2x that in both directions - 3840x2160, or 2160p)? It is a marketing gimmick in many ways. Realistically there has been no convincing argument why we all need it.

This brings us to Vizio. Vizio is doing two interesting things.

  1. Kill 3D TVs. I've been saying this for ages, 3D as it exists today, is pointless. Lots of extra hardware, increased cost, decreased convenience, for a negligible (if any) enhancement to entertainment value.
  2. Reasonably priced 4K TVs. If 4K has a chance of taking off, it is because Vizio is taking their pricing very seriously. Their prices are almost low enough to fall within the "well I don't need it, but for just a few bucks more why not?" range. That's where 3D was eventually too, so we'll see if it takes off.

I'm not sold on 4K TVs, and never have been on 3D in the home. One thing is abundantly clear, the television manufacturers are desperately looking for the next big thing.

How Much Does Design Matter for Wearable Tech?

John Gruber posted an interesting tweet yesterday regarding how important the aesthetic design of a product is:

Of course, some folks aren't interested in the design of a product, but in general it holds true. Some of the appeal of the iPhone is how stunning it is to look at. Part of the appeal of the Moto X is how clean and simple the design is while still being highly customizable.

So why is it that a large number of wearable devices just aren't elegantly designed? I see a few obvious reasons.

  1. Physical limitations - The physical limitations of putting certain sensors, certain screens, and certain features into a device with a battery that can power it is challenging. Very challenging. In many instances, there is no choice but to make the device thicker than is desirable to accommodate the necessary battery, our battery technology simply isn't that good yet.
  2. Unique design - The easiest way for the general public to judge design is if it looks like a product that we know has been beautifully designed. The problem here is that companies can't just all copy one another's designs or things would be very boring. Companies branch out, they try to put their signature mark on the product, and often it just isn't quite right.
  3. Branding - Certain companies cannot resist putting their branding all over a device rather than letting the device speak for itself. The most glaring example is the new Pebble Steel with the large "Pebble" printed right on the face of the watch.

I'm not sure where this leaves us. I don't see any products out today (including the rush of announcements at CES thus far) that I believe will go mainstream, though some will likely sell fairly well. I do know that I've largely stopped wearing my Pebble, I remove my Jawbone Up for any half way formal event, and I wouldn't wear Google Glasses outside my house if I did own them.

I look forward to the wearable revolution, but I am seeing the M5 in the iPhone 5s being more and more valuable as the tracking mechanism of choice since it is beautifully designed and already guaranteed to be with me at all times.