My ApplNion

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.

Two weeks ago, I finally upgraded my PowerBook 12″ to a MacBook Pro 15″. Quite an upgrade I can say! But it is not one of the latest Apple’s offering, but the previous generation of MBP Unibody, late 2008.

I found this Mac in an authorized Apple reseller in Quebec city. This was the store’s demo. It is the 2.4 Ghz Intel C2D with 250 Gb 5400 RPM HD and 2 Gb of RAM. It also have the ExpressCard/34 expansion slot and the dual video card with dedicated memory (9400M shared and 9600M with 256 Meg).

For the price I payed it, I’m very happy with my choice. First, I have a model that is more upgradable with the ExpressCard than the newer models with the SDHC card reader. Second, even if I got the base 15″ model, I have a video card with dedicated video RAM. The new base 15″ model only have the 9400M video card with shared memory.

One thing I can say about this new 15″ MBP, is that while it is bigger than my 12″ PowerBook, the weight is about the same. The 12″ is thicker and very heavy for its size.

Now, I’m waiting for a few upgrades for it. I ordered a 500 Gb 7200 RPM hard drive and a 4 Gb memory upgrade kit. With such an upgrade, this MBP should be a very nice and usable Mac for the portable usage I need for it. And it will have cost, in the final run, the same price, if not cheaper, that the basic mid-2009 15″ MBP, and I’ll get a better video card.

This model also have the glossy screen. This is one thing I’m not sure what I will do with it. When in controlled situation, I can manage to diminish the glare to a usable level. But sometimes, it is more difficult to control to environment, and the glare is very apparent on the screen.

So far, I think I got a great computer deal…

I was reading this article a few minutes ago, and damn, if true, why does Apple retains the feature from us! I want this camera. But not only the video one of the iPod nano, the full video/still camera of the iPhone.

As an amateur photographer, I now use the very nice Nikon D90. There is lots of advantage of using a DSLR as our main photo tool. You get the versatility of the lenses you can buy and use with it, and the quality is very nice too.

But one thing that you miss is the portability. First of all, a DSLR is not a small camera to bring with us, even if the D90 not that big, it is still not a point and shoot one. And even with a point and shoot, you don’t have it with you all the time.

But my iPod touch is most of the time with me, in my pocket somewhere. So having a camera on it will mean also to have a point and shoot with me. Not to mention that it is also a small portable computer that I can use to read my emails or surf the web when I have access to wifi.

Go, Apple, go. We want that camera!

With today’s announcement of new iPods, I must admit I’m really disappointed… I was ready to shout out a few dollars away at Apple to replace my first generation iPod Touch, but the new models does not satisfy me at all.

First, the 8 gig is the exact same model that the one of last year, except for the software version. The 32 and 64 gigs are better, using the same CPU and memory as the new iPhone 3GS, but no camera? No way I’ll buy that!

Not to mention another feature I wanted to have: a GPS. Like I mention previously, many apps now make usage of the core location features in the iPhone, but on the Touch, it is based only on Wifi networks around you. Useless if you’re not in an area with Wifi…

Sorry Apple, but this time is not the time I will upgrade my iPod Touch. I do not feel really bad still using it, after 2 years, just to have a barely more usable iPod. Maybe next time, who knows…

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!

Less than a week after I complain about the Macbook Pro line not offering the same options on all the models, Apple just decided to add the matte option to the 15″ model. There is still the 13″ that have not got this option yet. Since the 13″ model is cheaper, it fits better my budget. That is 500$ I can put to something else on my Macbook Pro or even my other life’s part.

Still, this is a move in the right direction. I hope Apple will offer this option on all of its screens, including the iMac and Macbook. If people cannot bare a 15″ with glossy screen, imagine what it could represent in a 24″.

When Apple released in November 2008 the new unibody Macbook and Macbook Pro, I was impress by the design. It has been said enough that the Macbook Unibody lack of Firewire port was an error. Apple corrected this last spring by renaming the Macbook aluminum as Macbook Pro that compare more to the remaining of the line.

But still, I have my own complaints about the Macbook pro line of computers. Let’s start by my last Apple portable buying decision. Some 4-5 years ago, I bought a Powerbook 12″, the same one I’m writing this article with. At the time, the white iBook was the “consumer” choice. I choose the PowerBook 12″ over the iBook because of the more robust aluminum enclosure and for the capability to use extended desktop with an external monitor. But there were also a few built-to-order options that I like, such as upgrading the HD to a faster 5400 rpm than the stock 4200 rpm.

Today, when I look at the Macbook Pro offering, there is things that bugs me. First of all, the specifications of the Macbook 13″ and the Macbook Pro 13″ are almost identical. The Macbook Pro have a better battery, a firewire 800 port (over a 400 for the Macbook), backlit keyboard, more upgradable memory and an SD slot. But they have the same graphics card, HD size and base memory.

When I look at the built to order options, that is where I get frustrated. For the Macbook 13″, I do not have any upgrade choice for a 7200 rpm drive for this computer. I can upgrade the size, but not the speed of the drive. I could with my Powerbook 12″. To have a faster HD, I have to choose the basic 15″ and up. Other than that, I can choose the much more expensive SSD.

Another frustration, is that if I want a mate screen, I have to choose the 17″ model, but this option is not available for the 13″ or the 15″ models. This option is only 50$ on the 17″, something that I would be more than happy to pay even on a 13″.

So, my point here is, when Apple defines Pro for something, the same options should be available on all models of any size. I’m going to upgrade my Powerbook sometime this year or early 2010, and I hope Apple will change its offering by then.