My ApplNion

The year 2010 will be the third year of the launch date of the Apple TV. I got mine 6 month after its release date, and love every moment of using it. Take 2 of Apple TV, which came one year later, has improved the device by a huge amount compared to the first version. Version 3.0 was released in November 2009, more than 16 month after version 2.0. This last version have an interface that is more appealing to the users, and add only a few functionality, such as the iTunes LPs and iTunes Extra.

While I welcome the new software upgrade for my Apple TV, I think Apple could do much better than that. From the beginning I knew that the Apple TV was hacked but I was never really tempted to do it. Let’s say that the first hacking procedures forced the user to remove the hard drive from the hardware and do manipulations that were not really tempting, even for a very technical person like me.

Last week I realized that there is now some procedures that uses a USB dongle to do the task without opening the hardware. The free atvusb-creator is the one I tried. It still requires a few manual steps using the command line, but it is easier for many users to do. This permit eventually to install the Boxee.tv software and NitoTV.

Basically, my understanding so far, is that NitoTV is something that can facilitate the installation of some software, such as a Flash plug-in and a web browser for example. Boxee, on the other hand, is more like an Apple TV within an Apple TV. It is a software that permit to stream many web contents that are, for most, not available in Apple basic software. I say most, because some are available via iTunes as podcast or video podcast.

After a few days playing with Boxee on my Apple TV, I can say that it is not really an Apple experience. It is not bad, but the interface is more complex to play with than the standard Apple TV software. Another thing I do not like about Boxee is that it is not a add-on in the Apple TV interface. It is a software that replace the Apple TV interface completely. When you want to return to the Apple TV menu, you need to quit Boxee as if it was a software on your Mac. In fact, it is.

I tried streaming some content from Boxee, some were working just perfectly and got me an image immediately. Some other make me wait forever before playing anything. When I say forever, I mean, two minutes in front of a black screen, nothing moving, it is forever to me. There is nothing I hate more than waiting for something to happen in front of a black screen.

So, if I have to conclude something about this experiment, it is that hacking the Apple TV is not something that was very impressive to me. I really don’t like the experience, not at all. It feels like running Windows in Parallel. It is working, but it is not like running Windows in BootCamp, say. But in this last case, at least, the experience is better, as I do not feel the need to install BootCamp.

It has been almost a week since Apple launched the iPad. Since, there is huges debates around the device itself. People are talking about the fact that it lacks a front camera for video conferencing, or the lack of multitasking. You can read Rob Griffiths article at Macworld as a reference. It even goes to the question as to why the iPad does run iPhone OS instead of a full Mac OS.

But the largest debate, by far more than any of the other, is the support of Flash on the device. Jason Snell said on Twitter.com that now that iPhone is such a popular device, there is now a debate over the need for Flash on the web. Here is what he said 3 days ago:

The people who try to debate me about Flash are just proving what I’m saying. That there’s a debate. And three years ago there wasn’t one.

I totally agree with that. In the past, who cared about the fact that a site was done using Flash, except the fact that you may be asked to install the plug-in. Today, when surfing from an iPhone, all those sites place a blank space in Safari where there is Flash content. As an iPhone user myself, yes, it is frustrating. Sometimes I have to forward the link to myself so I will be able to look at it later on my Mac.

Personally, I do not think we will see the dismiss of Flash content on the web anytime soon. But there may be place where Flash can be left alone and be given another standard technology such as Apple praised HTML5 standard.

For me, Flash should be used in places where it is really require. For example, what it the purpose of having video embedded in Flash when there is so many standards for playing video. Let’s standardize a way to display video on the web that everyone will use, then we won’t have a need to install multiple plug-ins for this, now, simple task.

Also, I can get very annoyed when simple text, publicity or image slideshows are embedded in something like Flash. This is nothing that needs Flash, really. So why use a complex technology to display simple things when it is not really required?

Flash may have its place for things such as Internet web based games. Facebook is full of such games and I do not care if they don’t display on my iPhone, or even on an iPad. Those are not the thing I expect to do on such device. I’ll use a Mac or a PC for gaming if necessary, that said, I’m not really in this gaming stuff anyway. But when I browse web pages for content, I do not want to be blocked by Flash embedded content to reach the information I want to see or read.

I hope we’ll see that happening in a near future…

At the beginning of November 2009, Apple announced their new line up iMac. At that time I had a white iMac 24″. I liked it, and I upgraded the internal disk a few month before to a 1.5 Tb. So, was I to change it for one of the newest model? Sure, hey, 27 inches! Not only it added 3 more inches to the screen, but the high definition resolution of 2560×1440 (vs 1980×1080) was almost 30% more screen estate! That was sold for me at that point.

So I put my 24″ iMac on sale, and ordered the 27″ iMac with the Core i7 processor. That specific model was only available by the end of November, and mine was shipped in early December. I received it something like December 12, and installed it as soon as I can.

There, I got a into some problems: the wireless keyboard and mouse were not working. So, to setup the computer’s initial launch, I had to hook-up a wired keyboard and mouse. After investigating a little bit, I realized that in the System Preferences there were no Bluetooth’s icon. I looked into System Profiler, not Bluetooth module detected.

I then called Apple Care, and they offered me a replacement unit, which I accepted. The representatives I talked to, very nice persons by the way, told me it may take 1 or 2 weeks to received the replacement. I returned the iMac and waited for the replacement to come in.

I was, like always when waiting for a new Apple product, looking at my Apple Store account to watch what was happening with the replacement. I saw that the representative made a mistake: they issued a replacement for the (free) printer I ordered at the same time of the iMac. I called Apple care again, and they corrected it. Then, I awaited for the replacement to be received by Apple. It took almost a week before it was entered as returned in my account. And then I saw the probable shipping date for my replacement: December 24th! We were near December 16 at that time.

On December 25th, I received an Apple gift: a note stating that my iMac shipment was delayed until January 6. Then, it finally shipped from China on December 31. I finally received the iMac on January 11th, after some problems with the carrier.

So, to be honest, at some point I was asking myself if I did the right thing ordering it just after the release date. I must say, after two weeks of working on it, I’m happy. I guest my experience is what happen when you order a revision one of a product. That’s a risk to assume, and I’m happy to have taken that risk. The computer is just fantastic and I love it.

I’ve been using iLife, mostly iPhoto, iMovie, Garage Band and iDVD, for the last 7 years. While there was many improvement in the products in the last few years, there is still stuff that do not scale to my needs.

I’m not a professional photographer nor a film maker. But sine I bought a DSLR camera, my current is a Nikon D90, I figure out that iPhoto did not fit my needs anymore. So I jumped to Aperture 2 last May/June, and my photography workflow have improved to something I would not have expected.

Now, for my personal videos and video assignment that I’m requested for, I thing I’m ready to go to Final Cut Express. In fact, I would like Final Cut Studio, but the price is overkill for my occasional needs. But there’s one missing elements in Final cut Express: there is no DVD authoring software included. To get DVD Studio Pro, we absolutely need to buy Final Cut Studio, because the product is no longer sold as a separate application. And in Final Cut Studio, I do not need Motion, Compressor or Colors. Those are great apps, but they are part of a more professional workflow that I do not need to use for my needs.

There may be a need to either include DVD Studio Pro in the Final Cut Express bundle, or maybe even better, make a new bundle priced in between the Final Cut Studio price and the Pro single apps prices that would be some kind of iLife Pro Bundle. This could include something like:

• Final Cut Express
• Aperture
• LiveFont
• DVD Studio Pro
• And maybe Soundtrack Pro and/or Logic Express, while in my case Garage Band fits most of my need for soundtracks editions of my movies and photo slideshows.

As for the iWeb component, I personally think that Aperture Web publishing feature is great, and with MobileMe gallery, we can do most of what we have to do without a web authoring software included in such a bundle. For such a bundle, I may be willing to pay, say, 400-500$ for it. That would be awesome as it will improve my production features by such a great amount.

I hope Apple will come out with something like this in a near future. Not everyone needs to pay the full price of Final Cut Studio plus Aperture to get in some kind of acceptable production. But some prosumer, like me, may need a bit more than what is offered in iLife 09, but we’re not ready to get to the high price of real pro suite.

Let’s hope 2010 will offer us something like this to buy. My money is already ready to get out.

It is a special day today, not for Mac users, but for Windows ones: Windows 7 is officially out today. I’d say that for Windows users it is a great day. Let’s see why.

I’ve been looking at the Windows 7 features description on Microsoft site. From a Mac user perspective, there is not much to be impressed. Most of the features on this list are something we used to have on Mac OS X for years, on only one CD/DVD, and one version of OS X.

For example, the BitLocker feature is the FileVault feature we have in OS X since 10.3 Panther. Windows Search is the version of Spotlight that we have since 10.4 Tiger.

A first that I can see in Windows 7 (unless I missed something before) is the support for multiple languages with the same version of Windows. Windows 7 supports 35 different languages, but don’t ask me why, this feature is only available in the Ultimate version. OS X have multiple languages since almost the beginning, so the buyers don’t have to validate that the OS is in the language they want when buying it. That is hardly an Ultimate feature…

Windows 7 is selling in three different editions: Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate. Each editions is available in either 32 or 64 bits version. Snow Leopard have only one version, that is compatible with 32 or 64 bits. And there is finally the family pack, good for three computers in the same home (Apple offers up to 5), which comes with both the 32 and 64 bits version. That makes it 7 versions of Windows 7 you can choose from. Not mentioning that you have to carefully choose the language of the Home Premium and Professional version before you buy.

Personally, I would have prefer only two versions, like in the Windows XP and 2000 time, a Home and Professional version. Home, no need to be Premium, as there is only one version, for the consumer market. Professional for the business market, which can include stuff such as better network integration and so on. I would have included the 35 languages stuff in all versions, so that users can choose the best price on the market, and still have it in the language they prefer.

But that said, every article I read on Windows 7 said that now Windows users have an operating system that is as good as the Mac operating system. And I must admit, from what I read and saw (video demo), I think it is right. Apple took the last two years or so making Leopard a better OS with Snow Leopard. But now, the Apple OS team will have to get back to the work table and improve on it for the next release.

I was looking in the last few days at the pricing versus the hardware of the new Mac offering, and I must say, the price is right!

It is the first time in many years that I see the Apple offering to be just right. Normally, when I looked at any of the Mac’s offering, I always felt that a BTO was necessary to have something right. Normally, say, the HD capacity was very low, and the upgrade price of the second best HD offering was just OK to suggest you should go there. For example, Apple used to put a 250 Gb HD in the computer, and have the 320 Gb offered at only 75$ more. At that price, go for it. But when you pay, you end with a computer that is 200-300$ more expensive that the price you saw on the site.

Now, for example, in the base iMac offering, there is not even a hard drive upgrade available. Meaning, somehow, if you need more disk space, this is not the computer you will buy anyway. In the higher ends iMac, there is a 1 Tb HD as the base, and the second option is a 2 Tb, no offer for a 1.5 Tb, something that exists on the market. And the 2 Tb option is not at a price that will appeal everyone.

I think Apple may have decided at this point to increase the base offer so that most people will be happy with it. In a way, it is better for everyone. The customers, that buy in brick and motor stores, won’t feel like if they did not get all they wanted from there. Most of those stores have the base offering available in the back store. And the customers that buy from the Apple online store, can just make their buy happen in 2-3 mouse clicks. Basically, most people won’t badder even looking at he BTO offers, the base models will be what they want. And the price is what you saw on the web site.

Everyone must have seen the announcement from Apple today. Everyone can see what have been announced on Apple site, so no need to describe them again in here.

I was looking forward to see if Apple would finally make the quad-core chips enter the iMac and consumer models. It is done. The high end model now have a quad-core i5 at 2.66 Ghz standard, and can be upgraded to an i7 at 2.8 Ghz.

The new iMacs also have more resolutions on almost the same sizes as before. The lower 21.5″ models have the resolutions of the previous generations 24″ models, while the 27″ have a resolution that is near, if not equals, to the Apple 30″ Cinema display. This means the fonts and icons will be smaller on the new display. But for me, I think it is more space to play with in my applications. I always was a guy who liked screen estate!

I was not in a market to upgrade my current iMac, but I must admit the 27″ and quad-core iMac are very tempting. Tempting enough to look at what I can get for my 2 years white iMac.

I’m especially impressed by the price. Hey, 1,999$USD for this, it is a bargain! Normally to build a Mac to my desire, I need to add a few BTO options, which make the price climb out of my budget (HD upgrade, memory, etc). The new iMac base configs are just what I want, no more BTO! I remember that the first white 24″ iMac model, when it was announced, was around 2400$, with a too small HD, a need to upgrade the video card, memory and so on.

A new analysis from Gene Munster describe a possible Apple TV evolving into a TV set connected to the Internet. First step as a new Apple TV setup box with DVR capability, then TV passes for shows, then as a high end TV connected to the Internet. I personally see a few problems here.

First, to build a DVR, you must be able to record something. That something, for most consumers, comes from the cable or satellite providers. The problem I see here is that most signal are translated to digital. From that moment on, digital mean some sort of encoding. And to protect the content from piracy, some providers may even encrypt the signal that only their setup boxes will be able to decrypt. The cable and satellite providers already offer PVRs capability well integrated in their setup box, so I find it difficult for Apple to make it more simple to use for the end users.

TV passes and subscriptions services using the iTunes Store sounds more likely. There again, Apple will have to compete with other services to make it appealing enough to the consumers. But here, I thing they already have the right start with iTunes and the Apple TV hardware as it is. It just need to be available to the users. HTTP streaming coming to Snow Leopard may also be a feature I’ll see well in an evolution of the Apple TV.

As for a full TV? I’m really not sure. Personally I prefer to buy my components separately. I have an Apple TV, and if Apple offer a new model, I’ll be able to afford it. But if it is integrated in my TV and Apple does not offer an upgrade to it (in case of hardware changes), I’m doomed. Will I change my TV every 3 years to have the newest streaming technology in it? Most likely not.

Now that we know what the new iPhone 3GS is, speculations about what the next iPod touch version will be are all around us. Rumours sites have already said that it should incorporate a still and (possibly) a video camera. Some sites have said that the capacity will range at 16, 32 and 64 Gb for each models. So far that makes senses. But there are many details that have not been said yet, and I hope Apple will integrate them to the iPod touch G3 (third generation).

For example, with all those apps that ask me if they can access my location, an integrated GPS would be a very nice add-on. My first generation 16 Gig iPod touch (the second generation has well) can only uses the Skyhook Wireless Inc. localization feature. But suppose you are in the middle of nowhere and such an app ask for your location, you won’t get any information to work with. And if the iPod touch incorporate a camera, I want to have the GPS data embedded in the pictures I take with it.

Since the second generation iPod touch, Apple is also positioning it as a gaming platform by tagging it as “The funnest iPod ever”. This enter in the market where the Nintendo DS and Sony’s PSP are already. Those two devices are portable gaming console that also try to be MP3 players and other functionality capable. Those devices also have a good set of speakers for gaming. My iPod touch does not have external speakers. And playing games with a headset is not really a good experience. The second generation iPod touch have a tiny speaker, but still not the ones of the iPhone. To really position it as a gaming platform, sound is really an important part of it.

So if we resume my asks to Apple, here are my wishes for the next iPod touch:

• It must include a still and video camera like the iPhone 3GS
• A GPS must be integrated to tag pictures and also to play nice with location capable apps
• I want a good set of speaker so I can play games with my iPod as I do with my DS
• I do not care much about the size, at some point you need to be able to use the content you have on your device
• I also want this new speedy processor, hey, why not, that the 3 GS have!

Sure, the iPhone is the best for this, but it come at a monthly price that not everyone need or want. I see the iPod touch as a less capable device than the iPhone, but not too less!

Microsoft just announced that starting next year, they will replace Entourage by an Outlook version in their Office for Mac 2010. When I first heard of Entourage on the Mac, I was wandering: what is that? I was at the time a Mac switcher, and was used to use Outlook and Outlook Express on the PC, but Entourage, never heard of such a program.

The fact that Microsoft is considering to align the 2 products line (PC and Mac Office) to have the same name for all included software, is a good thing for switchers as well as for enterprise that wish to have a Mac based users integrated in their network infrastructure. For the users that wants to buy Office for Mac and are already familiar with Outlook on the PC, the transition will be easier. For the enterprise, the Mac may become less of a pain to maintain as they will have to support, basically, only one email client.

With Snow Leopard that will also support the Exchange infrastructure, the Mac will then become more and more attractive to the enterprises. Will Outlook arrival help? Sure. IT staff may appreciate the fact that Mail will support Exchange servers, but the help desk will more than appreciate the fact that both PC and Mac users can use the same email client. It reduces support peoples training, and users can help each other when using the same software, even on different platform.

Is the fact that Apple announced Snow Leopard to support Exchange a trigger that helped Microsoft make that move? I’ll say yes. For Microsoft, it is an advantage over Apple to offer the same suite to enterprises on both PC and Mac. I just hope that Outlook for Mac will bare a more easy to use interface than the one on the PC. Sometimes just finding a simple option in the interface can be though in Outlook. I also wish that Microsoft will take some of Mail simplicity in Outlook for Mac. Overall, the software on PC is really made for professional business email reading and classification. The Mac version should be at least as good.

Personally, at home, I always uses Outlook Express on the PC, and Mail.app on the Mac. I will keep Mail. I like the simplicity of it, the flexibility are enough for my uses, and anyway, I buy iWork, not Office, for my personal usage too. And Mail is free!