The Perfect Tablet for Everybody - Now There's a Dumb Idea

How often do you hear someone talk about "what people want?" Whether it's politics or technology, pundits act as if all people want the same thing and they know what it is. This leads to ridiculous criticisms of things like the current smartphones and tablets; notice I'm avoiding the political part!

You hear, for example, "the iPad and other tablets are flawed because people don't like virtual keyboards - they want a real keyboard. The reporter goes on to say "when I write my stories, I blah, blah, blah." This storyline makes it sound like a) they know what everyone wants and b) they represent everyone by talking about their personal needs in the same sentence.

I'm pretty sure "people" don't all want the same thing - whether it's in their computers or condiments on their hot dogs. This is more than just a complaint about the state of journalism - it goes to the core of how computers have been developed over the years.

Real keyboard - you want a real keyboard!

Let's look at automobiles as a starting point. There are several dozen different basic auto designs because "people" don't all want the same thing. There are compact hybrids and nine passenger SUVs and a whole crop of "crossovers". Because PC functionality has been controlled by one company for nearly thirty years, only one version of one product was necessary - the Windows PC. I don't know what "all people" want but I do know that

The Perfect Tablet will include

six card readers, firewire and

USB connectors, a mouse,

a keyboard, SLR equivalent cameras

as well as serial and parallel ports

"some people" would have preferred something different - specifically a whole lot easier to use and less prone to malware. Almost no one claims to use more than ten percent of the functions of Word or Excel - hyperbolic cotangent anyone? The fact that people do not always want the same thing requires that companies build more than one thing - at least if there are any competitors to worry about. Microsoft's only real competitor was Apple and they were not much better. Their product - although easier to use and less prone to malware - was still only one version. It ran MS Office just like Windows. Notice that both companies dropped the easy to use and cheap or free versions of their office software - MS Works and Apple Works. They did have decent alternatives to the gargantuan MS Office but no more.

As we turn the corner toward mobile devices, my hope is that companies will not try to build the "perfect tablet" that meets the needs of everyone. If they do, it will include six card readers, firewire and USB connectors, a mouse, a keyboard with numeric keypad, SLR equivalent cameras (front and back), dual game controllers, as well as serial and parallel ports - hey some people still have that 1995 dot matrix printer to hook up. And of course it must run Excel, Word and PowerPoint using any remote device purchased since 1950.

In the case of tablets the smarter decision will be to either offer several models - one with and one without a keyboard - or one product that has options - such as docks we've used for years or the wireless keyboard approach on the iPad. The primary driving force for tablets is size, weight, convenience and ease of use. I'll be terribly disappointed if they evolve into dinosaurs as PCs have done. Adding layer upon layer of functionality was no problem with desktop computers - users could just buy bigger monitors so there was some place to see the actual words in their document. Ten inch screens, limited keyboards and slower processors that characterize tablets may finally reverse the trend away from mega-applications.

The new crop of ultrabooks notable for their lack of hard drive and optical drive but with the ability to run full versions of Windows or Mac OS represent another change in direction. They are distinguished not by new features but by features that are omitted - what a refreshing change. Now only if the next version of MS Office included a version of Word with five hundred commands rather than one thousand five hundred. The Apple iWork package may indicate the new direction for productivity software.

Photography breakthrough: HDR for the masses

Thankfully we are now past the stage of "megapixel bragging"; every camera today has more than enough megapixels to do the job. Image stabilization (IS) is the most significant improvement in photography in recent years. If you've never experienced it, hold a camera zoomed to 300+ mm and see how different the image is with and without IS turned on. But one thing that still plagues amateur and professional alike is the uneven distribution of light in many images.
The Problem
On a sunny day, for example, the bright sky causes the camera to close down the aperture and underexpose the subject. Most people learn they can set the camera to allow in more light - back light compensation - but then the nice bright blue sky turns almost white. The highlights are said to be blown out. It turns out our eyes can see a wider range of light intensity than a camera.
Professional digital photographers have a solution. They spend money on expensive cameras, spend more money on Photoshop and then spend time combining three separate images - one standard exposure, one over exposed and one underexposed. High end cameras can easily produce this set of images. This is not an approach most people would want to try but the results are amazing; details are present in the bright, dark and intermediate areas of the picture.
The Breakthrough
On September 1, 2010 Apple announced an upgrade to their iOS software - used in iPhones, iPods and iPads. This change allows the camera to take the necessary three images and automatically combine them into an HDR photo. The results looked impressive in the demonstration but I'll have to see real results before I believe it. This approach does not require anything special in camera electronics or optics since the process is just rapid image capture followed by sophisticated image processing. Since all smartphones and the upcoming hoard of tablets generally include cameras, it is likely other vendors will implement similar capabilities that will produce better images and require little if any change in user behavior.

Thinking of a camera for Christmas?

If you think it's time to upgrade your old 15 megapixel camera, this may be just what you need. A camera company you've never heard of - Leaf Technologies - just announced their 80 megapixel monster. That's no typo. You need plenty of memory cards though because each image takes nearly one-half gigabyte of storage. Oh, and you also need plenty of money; the basic model is $31,387 - also not a typo. And of course if you want to take any pictures, you need to buy lenses; they aren't included with the camera. If you keep your eyes open, you can probably pick one up for 10% off on e-bay. Actually, when you think about it, it's not such a bad deal. The previous model cost the same amount and had only a lousy 56 megapixels.

New "Middle Class" Cameras Available Now

If you’ve always wanted a camera with the features and image quality of an SLR and the size of a compact, your dream has just come true. There is a new class of cameras referred to unglamorously as Micro Four Thirds. Four thirds refers to a sensor size found in some SLRs while Micro indicates the camera bodies are small.

These cameras look much like compacts but have interchangeable lenses – which of course will add to the size depending on the focal length. They are smaller than SLRs because they do not have the “reflex” mirror or prism used in the SLR viewfinder. Image composition is done with the LCD or optional electronic viewfinder.

The Four Thirds sensor size is on the small end for an SLR but many times bigger than any sensor found in compact cameras. Pixels can be bigger on a larger sensor and pixel size is more important than huge pixel counts. If you are wondering about the "four thirds" name, digital camera sensor sizes are based on an archaic TV tube measurement system that only vaguely makes any sense at all.

This diagram illustrates various sensor sizes beginning with "full frame" (upper left) that is equivalent to a 35mm film negative. Only a few high-end DSLRs have such a large sensor. The four thirds sensor is shown at the right of the second row. It is significantly smaller than some other DSLR sensors in the first two rows but many times larger than any compact sensor shown in the third row.

A typical Micro Four Thirds camera

4.5x2.8x1.7in   -   11.8 oz - without lens

Panasonic and Olympus have products available today with prices in the $600-900 range. As with SLRs, additional lenses can drastically increase the price of the camera “system”.  For more information on compact and DSLR cameras look at my comparison video.

Lens flexibility is a major design improvement with the Micro Four Thirds format. The lens "mount" or connector usually differs from camera to camera which is why Nikon lenses do not fit on Canon cameras. The Micro Four Thirds format defines both the sensor size and the lens mount so lenses are compatible among the various brands. Because lenses can be the most expensive component of your system and because they often last years longer than the camera, this turns out to be a very big deal.

At this writing the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 and Olympus PEN E-P1 have nearly identical specifications: same sensor size (4/3), same pixel count (12mp) and same burst rate (3fps). The Panasonic offers built in flash while the Olympus does not. The Olympus has image stabilization (IS) but the Panasonic does not. The Olympus IS is built into the camera resulting in simpler, smaller and less costly lenses.

More companies will get into the fray soon which will make more cameras and lenses available and inevitably cause prices to drop. The winner may be the company that comes up with a more appealing name for the product category!