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.

Marco on Google's Gmail-Google+ Integration →

It is a somewhat cynical view. One could argue Google is attempting to make it as easy as possible for people to connect. To be clear: I disagree with this being opt-out instead of opt-in, I think Google is doing everything they possible can to make Google+ relevant, and I think they will cave to pressure on this and make it opt-in.

Marco has a strong closing statement:

You, the users, are just along for the ride. You’re just eyeballs. Body parts and ad-targeting data. Google doesn’t care about you at all. You’ve tolerated enough already that it’s pretty clear you’re not really going anywhere.

It is an interesting notion. It does ignore the fact that you being nothing more than "eyeballs" and providing you with great services are actually (or can be) quite complementary insofar as the end result of the product they make. Their intentions aren't important to most people.

This reminds me of the quote:

If you are not paying for it, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold.

There is an interesting counter-stance to this that I have discussed quite a bit with my friend Erik Sunde (@eriksunde).  If Google uses the information they have on you responsibly, the end game is that you see more relevant ads to the extent of you actually clicking on an ad being within the realm of possibility (*gasp!) - is that so bad? I know we've been trained to despise advertising online, but if it is for a product we have genuine interest in could that trend change?

There are some inherent assumptions about exactly what information Google has, how they share it with 3rd parties, and how secure some of your more private information (like location) is kept. Google, like Apple, is under such a fine microscope that they go to great lengths to make responsible decisions and to be as transparent about those decisions as they can be. 

They do make mistakes, they do get fined. Bottom line - there is no substitute for protecting and educating yourself. 

Full disclosure: I put forth the idea that relevant ads might not be so bad while I personally use the Disconnect.me plugin for Chrome to block ads and tracking.

Stratechery: The Best Analogy For Chromebooks Are iPads →

An excellent follow up piece (to his original post) on where Chromebooks fit into the tech world. Also read his link to Vance McAlister's response, both are very insightful.

From Vance:

The true value in ChromeOS is what it DOESN’T have. Critics say “a Macbook or Windows laptop will give you the same Chrome browser, plus a lot more as well!”, but that misses the point entirely. Those laptops don’t come with the killer feature of ChromeOS: the LACK of a traditional OS.

The lack of a traditional OS means you do not have to deal with the myriad frustrations of Windows, Mac or even Linux. You get instant on, constant updates, no registry corruption, no accumulated accretions and eventual slowdowns, no viruses and conflicts. In theory, as long as the hardware holds up, a ChromeOS device will be as slick and responsive in five years as it is out of the box.

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.

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.

We Don't Understand Tech Enough to Compete in the Space, Let Us Report on It →

On Yahoo Tech... David Pogue heading it up does give them a chance at making this work. It is still a bit of a comedy with how miserably Yahoo has failed in the tech industry as of late that they're attempting to become a tech news source.

Omission of the "!" is, and always will be, intentional. Perhaps that'll change if there is ever something exciting going on at Yahoo.