Thursday, February 21, 2008
iPhone glitch. Can't type y-o-u-r-e
For about a week now, I've noticed this small, unimportant glitch on my iPhone. At first, I tried to ignore it. Why not? It doesn't change anything or affect my use on the phone. But wait a minute... this is an iPhone! It cost $400 for crying outloud! So, why am I getting glitches? Is the glitch exclusive to my phone or do all iPhone experience this glitch? Is this glitch the beginning of the end for my iPhone?
As you can see in the video, I am unable to type y-o-u-r-e on my iPhone. It's impossible. And don't tell me I'm missing, I've tried it a ton of times and it doesn't work. When I type something like scare or are, it works fine and I never miss the 'e'.
Anyone else have this glitch? Or can anyone explain what is going wrong to make the 'e' key unable to hit after a series of other keys?
The PS3 secret weapon: Little Big Planet
When I can, I try to pick up the latest copy of PSM (PlayStation Magazine) or read up on upcoming PS3 games to see what I should expect. I've heard a little information and a LOT of buzz about a game called Little Big Planet. It's being labeled as an easy-to-play community game that offers the gamer to show off their creativity. I recently downloaded the video from the Playstation Store and I was instantly hooked, yet I can't really explain why. I don't understand the point of the game or even what it really has to offer, but it's different. It allows users to use their imagination and have fun!
Just watch the video to see what I mean! (You can find 2 additional videos on my Facebook)
I can't really explain why, but doesn't something about that game just make you want to play?
As you can see, the game will focus on simple gameplay. Up to 4 players (either playing together in the same room, or playing together online) will be jumping, moving around, holding onto things and figuring out puzzles. All of this will be done in a fun, imaginative world.
The great thing about Little Big Planet is the ability to create your own worlds and also edit others (even as you play them). You can even upload your own photos and put them as banners in the background. Don't like the picture of the bird on the wall? Get into graffiti mode and spray paint an 'X' over him and put something else, like a sports car. There are tons of other things that can be done. Watch these 2 other videos to understand more.
A playable demo was supposed to be released late 2007 and the full game was going to be released early 2008. Sadly, both were pushed back. It's somewhat interesting because the game looks polished so I can't figure out why it will take another 7 months to complete the game. In the end, I suppose it's a good thing so they have enough time to make sure they release a quality product.
Until then, I'll just have to wait. :-(
Just watch the video to see what I mean! (You can find 2 additional videos on my Facebook)
I can't really explain why, but doesn't something about that game just make you want to play?
As you can see, the game will focus on simple gameplay. Up to 4 players (either playing together in the same room, or playing together online) will be jumping, moving around, holding onto things and figuring out puzzles. All of this will be done in a fun, imaginative world.
The great thing about Little Big Planet is the ability to create your own worlds and also edit others (even as you play them). You can even upload your own photos and put them as banners in the background. Don't like the picture of the bird on the wall? Get into graffiti mode and spray paint an 'X' over him and put something else, like a sports car. There are tons of other things that can be done. Watch these 2 other videos to understand more.
A playable demo was supposed to be released late 2007 and the full game was going to be released early 2008. Sadly, both were pushed back. It's somewhat interesting because the game looks polished so I can't figure out why it will take another 7 months to complete the game. In the end, I suppose it's a good thing so they have enough time to make sure they release a quality product.
Until then, I'll just have to wait. :-(
Blu Ray vs HD-DVD - A Winner is Announced!
So, this is actually a few days old new, but I wanted to touch on it anyways. For a few years now, Sony and Toshiba have been fighting the Next-Gen video format war. Sony offers Blu-Ray, while Toshiba makes HD-DVD.
Videos in these formats are in high-definition. This means they have a higher picture resolution and therefore, a clearer picture with more detail. Both formats are pretty much the same. They offer the same 1080p resolution. Blu-Ray has more storage space per disc, while HD-DVD offers more interactive content.
Last week, I read that Blockbuster, Target, Walmart, and Netflix all chose to carry ONLY Blu-Ray, which I thought was a major turning point in the war. Then I heard that a major studio that backed HD-DVD was switching to Blu-Ray (I believe it was Paramount, but I'm not positive). This had to be a bad sign.
The next day, I heard rumors that HD-DVD insiders said that Toshiba was planning to drop their High-Def format manufacturing. Soon after, it was confirms on major websites that Toshiba has officially stopped (or plans to stop) production on all HD-DVD software and hardware. Blu-Ray is your next video format of the future.
What does this mean? Well, many consumers who wanted to jump into high-def movies have shied away due to fear that they would buy the inferior product and be stuck with a format no longer supported. Now that Sony has won, this gives consumers all the confidence they need to take the plunge and buy a Blu-Ray player.
This will probably result in a decent rise in Playstation 3's sold. Not only are they the cheapest Blu-Ray players on the market, they are probably the best all around machines. While most Blu-Ray players will only offer a video player that displays Blu-Ray and upscales DVD movies, the PS3 can display Blu-Ray movies, upscale DVDs, play games from PS3/PS2/PS1, has a hard drive to allow you to store and view pictures and videos, comes with an internet browser, and many other features as well.
DVD's will continue to be popular for many years and it probably will be 10 years or so until Blu-Ray is the standard video format. However, those who have recently bought that big high-def 1080p TV will only truly get the full experience of the TV through Blu-Ray and not DVD.
Videos in these formats are in high-definition. This means they have a higher picture resolution and therefore, a clearer picture with more detail. Both formats are pretty much the same. They offer the same 1080p resolution. Blu-Ray has more storage space per disc, while HD-DVD offers more interactive content.
Last week, I read that Blockbuster, Target, Walmart, and Netflix all chose to carry ONLY Blu-Ray, which I thought was a major turning point in the war. Then I heard that a major studio that backed HD-DVD was switching to Blu-Ray (I believe it was Paramount, but I'm not positive). This had to be a bad sign.
The next day, I heard rumors that HD-DVD insiders said that Toshiba was planning to drop their High-Def format manufacturing. Soon after, it was confirms on major websites that Toshiba has officially stopped (or plans to stop) production on all HD-DVD software and hardware. Blu-Ray is your next video format of the future.
What does this mean? Well, many consumers who wanted to jump into high-def movies have shied away due to fear that they would buy the inferior product and be stuck with a format no longer supported. Now that Sony has won, this gives consumers all the confidence they need to take the plunge and buy a Blu-Ray player.
This will probably result in a decent rise in Playstation 3's sold. Not only are they the cheapest Blu-Ray players on the market, they are probably the best all around machines. While most Blu-Ray players will only offer a video player that displays Blu-Ray and upscales DVD movies, the PS3 can display Blu-Ray movies, upscale DVDs, play games from PS3/PS2/PS1, has a hard drive to allow you to store and view pictures and videos, comes with an internet browser, and many other features as well.
DVD's will continue to be popular for many years and it probably will be 10 years or so until Blu-Ray is the standard video format. However, those who have recently bought that big high-def 1080p TV will only truly get the full experience of the TV through Blu-Ray and not DVD.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
iPhone 2.0 - The next model.
So, I recently read that Apple is working on the next wave of Apple iPhones, and not those upgraded memory versions either. Brand new, 2nd generation iPhones. Obviously they are, they do with all their iPod lines too.
So far, I'm hearing that the iPhone is looking to upgrade/improve all of it's most major flaws, which could make it even more desirable by those who loved 1.0.
iPod owners have been dealing with this dilemma ever since iPods have been made. They go out and buy the awesome new iPod Nano, only to find out that 6 months later, another (better) Nano came out with more memory and now has video playback. iPod classic users buy the 80GB version and find out 3 months later that a 160GB version is out with a better screen and more memory for the same price.
I suppose it's a sign of a good/smart company that continues to improve it's products to keep product demand high. Will I be getting iPhone 2.0? Probably not. I'm guessing my iPhone holds out and is useful for at least 2-3 years to come. I'll probably skip 2.0 and when 3.0 comes out, I'll probably jump all over it.
So far, I'm hearing that the iPhone is looking to upgrade/improve all of it's most major flaws, which could make it even more desirable by those who loved 1.0.
- The most obvious change is to make it 3G compatible instead of EDGE. Both are the wireless networks that phones connect to. EDGE is an older, slower network. 3G is newer and faster. In comparison, EDGE is like dial-up, 3G is broadband. iPhone 1.0 uses the EDGE network which alot of people saw as a huge flaw. Apple says they used EDGE instead of 3G because 3G consumes much more battery and battery life was already somewhat of an issue with the iPhone. 3G would have crippled the iPhone 1.0.
- The next change is changing the battery setup. So many users complain about not being able to remove the battery. Since the iPhone case is enclosed and cannot be opened, there is no way to swap batteries. The only way to get a new battery is to send it to Apple to get it replaced. It's very likely that Apple will finally allow users to swap their own batteries.
- Memory. With the iPhone holding only 8GB of RAM memory, it can fill up fast, especially if you have tv shows or movies. They have recently upgraded to 16GB, but I'm guessing the next model will come standard with a 32 GB memory load. They may also add a slot for SD cards - maybe even allowing the slot to read SDHC cards (4GB+). The iPhone probably won't use a hard drive as a hard drive uses more battery. It'll still to RAM memory.
- Keyboard. This is an interest change. The keyboard was probably the most controversial part of the iPhone. Being an onscreen qwerty keyboard was loved by some and hated by others. On one hand, it offered a keyboard that would hide when not in use and not take up any room, but still offered a full keyboard as opposed to the usual 123abc typing through cell phones. Buttons on the keypad won't break either (since there is no keypad). On the other hand, some people hated not being able to 'feel the keyboard' as they used it, while others complained it was hard to hit the right key with their big fingers. I personally prefer the onscreen keyboard and would probably not adapt to the new model if they offer a real keyboard. I just think it'll look clunky and ruin the look and feel of what the iPhone is.
- Lastly, browsing the internet on the iPhone is great... except for one thing - NO FLASH/JAVA. It's not truly a big deal and would probably make loading times much slower. However, I'm guessing that Apple will try to add either or both of these plug-ins to 2.0.
iPod owners have been dealing with this dilemma ever since iPods have been made. They go out and buy the awesome new iPod Nano, only to find out that 6 months later, another (better) Nano came out with more memory and now has video playback. iPod classic users buy the 80GB version and find out 3 months later that a 160GB version is out with a better screen and more memory for the same price.
I suppose it's a sign of a good/smart company that continues to improve it's products to keep product demand high. Will I be getting iPhone 2.0? Probably not. I'm guessing my iPhone holds out and is useful for at least 2-3 years to come. I'll probably skip 2.0 and when 3.0 comes out, I'll probably jump all over it.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Fact: Dunkin' Donuts is more expensive than Starbucks!
There is a misconception out there that I want to correct. It is pretty much common knowledge to the community that I live in that Starbucks is more expensive than Dunkin' Donuts. In fact, I usually get ridiculed for going to Starbucks because it's so expensive. Well, after doing some 10 second research, I've found out that it's all a lie. Starbucks is actually cheaper than Dunkin' Donuts (at least for a Large 20 oz. Hot Coffee)
So, I will pretty much go anywhere to get a cup of coffee. Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, Bagel World or anywhere else really. I'm not too picky really. But I end up going to Starbucks the majority of the time for a few reasons - I love the Atmosphere, Employees, and Caffeine (Starbucks coffee contains 50% more caffeine than Dunkin' Donuts coffee) [ Source - Center for Science in the Public Interest - http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htm ]
Well, believe it or not, there is now another reason why I choose Starbucks (at least over Dunkin' Donuts)... It's cheaper! Now this is probably a huge shock to everyone reading this, but it's true, at least in Marblehead stores. While I have been falsely advertising the price difference in the past, I have finally got the correct numbers. Here they are:
Starbucks 20 oz. Large Hot Coffee - $1.95
Dunkin' Donuts 20 oz. Large Hot Coffee - $2.19
That is over 10% more for a coffee at Dunkin' Donuts. Yeah, it's only .24 cents, but still. It's a quarter cheaper at Starbucks (after taxes). If you drank 5 cups of coffee a week and chose Starbucks over Dunkin' Donuts, you would save $65 a year!
The real question is: Why does everyone assume Starbucks is more expensive than Dunkin' Donuts? Where did this lie come from? I only have 2 assumption:
1. While white collared workers tend to go to Starbucks, blue collared tend to go to Dunks. And it is generally accepted that Starbucks appeals to a wider range of wealthy customers. Maybe just because its customers are though to be wealthier, then people assume that the drinks must be more expensive, right?
2. This is purely opinional, but I feel like people go to Dunkin' Donuts for their coffee - not their lattes and other specialty drinks. On the other hand, I feel like people don't go to Starbucks for their coffee, but instead a latte, frappachino, or other specialty drink. So, most people only spend $2.30 for their large hot coffee at Dunks, but people are paying $4.40 for their large lattes. Maybe this is the reason people think that Starbucks is more expensive.
I don't really know why, but the truth is out. Spread the word. Let it be known that Starbucks is actually cheaper than Dunkin' Donuts. I will do some more 10-second research on prices of other drinks and report it back here at a later time...
TO BE CONTINUED...
<------------ GO HERE
SAVE THIS ------------------>
So, I will pretty much go anywhere to get a cup of coffee. Starbucks, Dunkin' Donuts, McDonalds, Bagel World or anywhere else really. I'm not too picky really. But I end up going to Starbucks the majority of the time for a few reasons - I love the Atmosphere, Employees, and Caffeine (Starbucks coffee contains 50% more caffeine than Dunkin' Donuts coffee) [ Source - Center for Science in the Public Interest - http://www.cspinet.org/new/cafchart.htm ]
Well, believe it or not, there is now another reason why I choose Starbucks (at least over Dunkin' Donuts)... It's cheaper! Now this is probably a huge shock to everyone reading this, but it's true, at least in Marblehead stores. While I have been falsely advertising the price difference in the past, I have finally got the correct numbers. Here they are:
Starbucks 20 oz. Large Hot Coffee - $1.95
Dunkin' Donuts 20 oz. Large Hot Coffee - $2.19
That is over 10% more for a coffee at Dunkin' Donuts. Yeah, it's only .24 cents, but still. It's a quarter cheaper at Starbucks (after taxes). If you drank 5 cups of coffee a week and chose Starbucks over Dunkin' Donuts, you would save $65 a year!
The real question is: Why does everyone assume Starbucks is more expensive than Dunkin' Donuts? Where did this lie come from? I only have 2 assumption:
1. While white collared workers tend to go to Starbucks, blue collared tend to go to Dunks. And it is generally accepted that Starbucks appeals to a wider range of wealthy customers. Maybe just because its customers are though to be wealthier, then people assume that the drinks must be more expensive, right?
2. This is purely opinional, but I feel like people go to Dunkin' Donuts for their coffee - not their lattes and other specialty drinks. On the other hand, I feel like people don't go to Starbucks for their coffee, but instead a latte, frappachino, or other specialty drink. So, most people only spend $2.30 for their large hot coffee at Dunks, but people are paying $4.40 for their large lattes. Maybe this is the reason people think that Starbucks is more expensive.
I don't really know why, but the truth is out. Spread the word. Let it be known that Starbucks is actually cheaper than Dunkin' Donuts. I will do some more 10-second research on prices of other drinks and report it back here at a later time...
TO BE CONTINUED...
Thursday, February 7, 2008
iPhone vs. LG Voyager
VS.
Alright. So, tonight was interesting. I brought Vicki to the Verizon store to get her a new phone. To cut the main part of my story, she was checking out phones and he was making his sales pitch about how one of the Verizon phones had broadband connection. I kinda mumbled to her that I wish my phone has that and he asked what phone I had and I told him the iPhone. After he jokingly told me to get out (or was he really joking?), he was basically putting down my phone any chance he got. Saying that their new Voyager is just as good as the iPhone.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love electronic high-tech gadgets - even if they are better than the ones I have. They had a usable version of the Voyager out for use and let me tell you, it's nothing compared to the iPhone. Here is my quick comparison.
1) The overall biggest difference is interface. The iPhone's interface, menu system and options are all so smooth. Nothing feels clunky or hard to use. The Voyager's interface just doesn't match up. It's not bad, but it's just not nearly as smooth.
2) The iPod's touchscreen is superior. The Voyager's touchscreen does offer feedback, but does that really make a difference? Do you need the phone to vibrate everytime you touch your screen? Also, the Voyager is pressure sensative meaning you need to press down onto the screen for the phone to know you are trying to do something. I'm not sure if it was because of the pressure touchscreen or because it was a floor model, but the touch screen on the Voyager wasn't easy to use. I repeatedly had to press a button 2 or 3 times for it to work. The iPhone is thermal sensative and reactions to any touch of the finger, even with no pressure. When you press a button, the phone reacts to it. You won't have to press down 2 or 3 times for the phone to understand what you are doing.
3) Internet Browsing - After the interface, this is the next biggest difference between the phones. The internet browser on the iPhone is a true Safari web browser. It looks exactly as it does on your computer. This is where the iPhone beats most cell phones. I dont know of any phones that offer true Computer-like images of the internet. You can even double-tab with your finger on a specific paragraph and the screen auto-zooms to fit the paragraph to your screen perfectly. The Voyager's internet browsing is just like any other cellphone. I went to 2 sites and they were both pretty ugly. ESPN.com and NewYorkTimes.com both looks like text messes on the Voyager, but on the iPhone, they looked just like they do on your computer (well, except neither phone has Flash... which is kinda annoying. You MIGHT be able to install flash on the Voyager, but I doubt it based on it's browser).
3a) Internet Speed - People make claims regarding the Voyager's G3 data speeds that are broadband and I'm sure they run faster than the slow-speed internet of the iPhone. In my test in the Verizon stores, however, the iPhone downloaded the 2 previous websites much faster than the Voyager. My only thought is that the G3 high-speed internet must need to be turned on.
It's true, if you compare both phones, the Voyager is a more traditional cell phone and has some deeper options, but it's just another phone. Except for it's touch screen, it's nothing different than what other phones are doing out there (and still, the touchscreen isn't as good as the iPhone's).
Sure, the iPhone doesn't have great cell phone options, but its the other things that the iPhone does so great and so easily that makes it stand out. It's internet browser, it's iChat interface is the best texting format I've seen on any phone, the Visual Voicemail is unmatched by any other phone, and it's got an iPod built in.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Heartbroken... by a football team? It's true.
I wasn't myself today. Not at all. It was SB-Day +1 and it was a bad day.
The Patriots, after going 16-0 and reaching the Super Bowl, fell short of the perfect season and finished 18-1 and Super Bowl runners up. A sports loss has never hurt so much. Any other loss is just a tough loss, but this is different. Once they finished the season 16-0, everything became intensified. The risk/reward factor went up 5000%. Why? Cause there were only 2 possibilities. Either finish 19-0 and become the first team to ever win 19 games in an NFL season and be labeled as the best NFL team ever, or finish as the laughing stock of football.
Now when people talk about the only 16-0 team in history, they won't talk about how great the offense was or how dominant they were or how they were the best team ever. No - now they'll talk about how they are the biggest dissappointments in sports history (which I don't agree with, but I think it's a label they will receive).
If the team had finished 15-1, 14-2 or any other record and then reached the Super Bowl only to lose, it wouldn't be nearly this bad. But the best regular season ever is diminished - no, destroyed - by what happened in Super Bowl XLII.
I'm sure a lot of people want to put blame on the Patriots, but I think the Giants did a great job and played a great game. Their defense played outstanding. It was clearly the most pressure Tom Brady has seen all season. And that last Giants drive was something special and will be talked about in football mythology forever. It was something you'd expect from the Patriots... not the Giants. The biggest play of the game and one of the best plays in NFL history is when the Giants had a 3rd and 5 at the end of the game on their own 44, Manning avoided a heavy rush, miraculously getting away from a sack, scrambling to the right, and lobbing a ball up for grabs into the middle of the field. David Tyree, with Rodney Harrison in great coverage and all over him (legally) gets his hands somewhat on the ball and presses it against his helmet on the way down and maintains control..... somehow. Instead of it being 4th and 15 on their own 35... the Giants now had 1st and 10 on the Patriots 35.
I know it's only a game, I know it shouldn't affect my life, but I can't help it. We all were stolen a chance to view history. Well, that's not entirely true. We did see history - the biggest upset in NFL history. It's just not quite the history we wanted to see.
The Patriots, after going 16-0 and reaching the Super Bowl, fell short of the perfect season and finished 18-1 and Super Bowl runners up. A sports loss has never hurt so much. Any other loss is just a tough loss, but this is different. Once they finished the season 16-0, everything became intensified. The risk/reward factor went up 5000%. Why? Cause there were only 2 possibilities. Either finish 19-0 and become the first team to ever win 19 games in an NFL season and be labeled as the best NFL team ever, or finish as the laughing stock of football.
Now when people talk about the only 16-0 team in history, they won't talk about how great the offense was or how dominant they were or how they were the best team ever. No - now they'll talk about how they are the biggest dissappointments in sports history (which I don't agree with, but I think it's a label they will receive).
If the team had finished 15-1, 14-2 or any other record and then reached the Super Bowl only to lose, it wouldn't be nearly this bad. But the best regular season ever is diminished - no, destroyed - by what happened in Super Bowl XLII.
I'm sure a lot of people want to put blame on the Patriots, but I think the Giants did a great job and played a great game. Their defense played outstanding. It was clearly the most pressure Tom Brady has seen all season. And that last Giants drive was something special and will be talked about in football mythology forever. It was something you'd expect from the Patriots... not the Giants. The biggest play of the game and one of the best plays in NFL history is when the Giants had a 3rd and 5 at the end of the game on their own 44, Manning avoided a heavy rush, miraculously getting away from a sack, scrambling to the right, and lobbing a ball up for grabs into the middle of the field. David Tyree, with Rodney Harrison in great coverage and all over him (legally) gets his hands somewhat on the ball and presses it against his helmet on the way down and maintains control..... somehow. Instead of it being 4th and 15 on their own 35... the Giants now had 1st and 10 on the Patriots 35.
I know it's only a game, I know it shouldn't affect my life, but I can't help it. We all were stolen a chance to view history. Well, that's not entirely true. We did see history - the biggest upset in NFL history. It's just not quite the history we wanted to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)