HeresHow Gadget Talk 

The iPad Versus 3D: Which Will Take the Hype Cake?

The iPad is scheduled to launch April 3 in the U.S., and by the end of that month in Canada. Several manufacturers have confirmed that they will be bringing 3D products to market in Canada and the U.S. by the Spring/Summer. So which category will garner more hype?

To date, both the iPad and 3D technology have been creating major buzz, for very different reasons. One technology is attempting to bring a new form of big-screen entertainment into the home, and the other is focusing on small-screen entertainment on-the-go. Both provide images with depth and vibrant colours. And both could represent the future of entertainment consumption. In 10 years, we might not only see movies and games in 3D, but also regular TV shows, news programs, even commercials in full, three-dimensionality. Likewise, a decade from now, magazines, newspapers, and books could be predominantly viewed in digital format on tablet devices like the iPad.

The iPod and iPhone created buzz like no other when each respective device launched, and each format has lived up to its name, outselling all others and ushering in a new category of products and technologies. It's likely that the iPad will do the same. In the TV sector, the launch of both the flat panel LCD and plasma formats, as well as 1080p high-definition content, created major waves in the industry. There have been ripples since with innovations with faster refresh rates, slimmer designs, LED backlighting, and gorgeous new cosmetics. But 3D might just be, as they say, the "next big thing" that brings the tide in once again.

With the launch of 3D TV and the iPad in 2010, this year could be a landmark one for the industry. A year that marks a major shift in the way media is consumed. A year like 2001 when the iPod hit the market, or like the early-to-mid 2000s when LCDs, plasmas, and HD were finally breaking through into the mainstream.

It's strange to even question whether one product, the iPad, can have as much an influence on consumer technology as entire category of products, which will include 3D TVs, monitors, Blu-ray players, receivers, discs, and the like. But it's quite possible that the iPad could have just as powerful an impact. After all, many still require convincing that 3D is the "way of the future." Some can't imagine enjoying it in their living rooms, nor donning those cheesy glasses every time they want to catch a movie. Contrarily, most have clearly shown their support for the Apple brand, and excitement over the iPad, what it can do, and what they can, and plan to, do with it.

It'll be an interesting Spring for the consumer electronics industry, that's for sure. iPads will be undoubtedly flying off shelves, while 3D products will occupy much space on them. Although how that will translate to actual sales remains to be seen.

Now if only we could demo compelling 3D content on the iPad, colliding the two hottest technologies to hit the market this year. Tech geeks everywhere are undoubtedly rubbing their hands together in eager anticipation. Stay tuned.

Published: 03/09/2010 12:49:13 PM UTC By Christine Persaud

Oscars Show Movies are Still About Story-Telling

If there's one thing worth taking away from this year's Academy Awards, it's that despite all the fancy costumes, technical enhancements, and visual effects, true, unadulterated story-telling is still duty number-one for the movie industry.

While the Best Picture category was full of contenders (10, to be exact), most saw it as a two-horse race between sci-fi, 3D flick Avatar and the simple war movie The Hurt Locker. While both included eye-catching visual effects, Avatar took the cake in this department, costing millions upon millions to create (but equally reaping millions upon millions at the box office, with more still to come.) But once you strip the film of all its 3D, cinematic glory, the story was a tired, played out one that we've seen a million times before. There's only so much you can mask with blue people and 3D pictures.

On the flip side, many hadn't even heard of The Hurt Locker until it became nominated for the prestigious award. While I haven't yet seen it, most reports peg the film as the best representation of the war in Iraq of any movie created thus far. It features relatively unknown actors, and a relatively unknown Director Kathryn Bigelow (who was coincidentally married to James Cameron, the man behind Avatar, a decade ago.) It was the underdog in this race.

People rooting for the underdog isn't a new concept, though. Crash won a few years back, taking the industry by surprise. Then it was the low-budget film Slumdog Millionaire that had big-budget directors in tears (and not the happy kind.) The Hurt Locker now joins this group of nice-guys-finish-last-type films.

All three movies have one thing in common: great stories that are either original, or told in an original way. The visual effects are arguably just a few steps above what we might have seen five or 10 years ago. Movies like Avatar and Star Trek, on the other hand, wow us in different ways, with big-budget effects, futuristic imagery, and high-action scenes created with precision. The story-telling portion, however, arguably takes a back seat.

This isn't to say that cinematic beauty and creative visual artistry aren't important parts of the movie industry. They're sort of like high fashion: you gawk at the outrageous, yet beautiful outfits the pin-thin models strut down the runway wearing, but know that you would never wear such an impractical thing, nor would it ever be found in any retail store, except maybe those that sell Halloween costumes. But it's art. It's pushing the boundaries. It's showing what we can do, and taking us to a place we aren't. And there's an equally important place in the industry for this.

When the fantastic visual spectacles are combined with great story-telling, this is when we reach the Holy Grail of movie-making. For now, we will continue to appreciate that telling a great story in a compelling way remains the backbone of the movie industry. As for the pretty lights, cameras, and action? It's high fashion for the film experience.

Published: 03/08/2010 11:30:37 AM UTC By Christine Persaud

Rogers Cable Lets You Defeat the Pointless Quick Start Menu

If you subscribe to Rogers Cable and live in Ontario, you will have noticed that a new Quick Start guide popped up about a month ago, requiring that you click the Guide button a second time to get to the actual program guide with the day's TV listings. The sentiment was nice, but the concept was completely annoying. And it seems as though I'm not the only one who felt that way, as the company has released a statement about "service enhancements" that now allows a subscriber to defeat this.

I give kudos where they're due, and Rogers is slick in calling the new defeat option an "exciting new tool" based on customer feedback. Ah, a PR spin at its best.

"Our customers told us they enjoyed the new menu and its features," says Rogers in its prepared statement, "however, they also enjoyed more control in how they could view the menu."

Translation: customers fought back saying "when I hit the Guide button, I want to get the programming guide! If I want to have quick access to news, sports, weather, and On Demand content, there's a pretty easy way to do it. Scroll to the desired channel, and hit Enter."

To defeat the Quick Start menu, scroll down to Self-Service, Select Change GUIDE Order, then choose TV Listings First. This will adjust the order such that when you depress the Guide button upon start-up, it will immediately go to the TV Listings; just as before. Unfortunately, pressing the Guide button a second time will still take you to the new Quick Start menu versus adjusting back to full-screen TV mode as it used to. Baby steps, I guess. (Full step-by-step instructions and visual guides on making the change are available here http://redboard.rogers.com/2010/we-listened-how-to-customize-the-order-of-the-quick-start-menu/.)

Frankly, I'd like an option that says "kill-the-stupid-Quick-Start-menu-entirely", but alas, it appears that at least some customers appreciate the menu enough for it to be left in tact. (That, or Rogers doesn't want to completely kill its idea just yet.)

For those five people who might actually use it, the Quick Start guide provides one-button access to things like On Demand channels, weather reports, and games. Why Rogers feels this would take precedent over actually watching TV - that is, enough to overtake the Guide itself - is beyond me.

Nevertheless, it takes guts to admit a mistake, and rectify it immediately. Even if it's deemed an "improvement", "enhancement", or as a means to provide the "best experience." Just admit it, guys. It was a bad idea that few liked.

Published: 03/05/2010 10:20:50 AM UTC By Christine Persaud

A Writer’s Experience with Citizen Journalism

The nature of the "free" that's ingrained itself in today's world of media consumption has managed to extend itself to journalism through something called citizen journalism. This is when a Website posts "stories" written by, as the name implies, pretty much anyone. It might be a 45-year-old stay-at-home mom looking for something to fill her days; a 19-year-old bored at his new office job, or simply an enthusiast that wants to feel involved in a particular topic, or just the goings on in his area. The idea is that it's the public that's providing the information for consumption, for the most part for free, and not professionals.

Freelance journalist (not the citizen kind) Claude Adams decided to challenge this notion and try his hand at citizen journalism with a U.S.-based Website that was running a special "Pro" citizen journalist section for a small fee to writers. (Read the hilarious account of his experience here). Adams realized that in the world of citizen journalism, it's quantity over quality. I don't mean that the site wanted him to write more, but that they simply wanted him to write content that would attract the greatest number of eyeballs.

It can be argued that this concept isn't new, nor restricted to journalism of the citizen kind. Readership is everything, and one can only assume that good quality content is measured, in at least some fashion, by the number of eyeballs that view it. Yet Adams explains how the editor rejected a story from him that she admitted she would have commissioned right away had she been working for a paper like the New York Times. Apparently, however, the article just wouldn't have gained enough traction (i.e. eyeballs) as a citizen journalist piece.

Some social media and new-age thinkers argue that citizen journalism, however, is the future of journalism. The idea can be compared to the belief that reality programming is the future of TV, where viewers, not experts, get the deciding vote as to which young hopeful music artist gets a recording contract, or which game player is deserving of $1 million bucks. In other words, we don't want the high-budget writers or experienced actors. We want the guys-off-the-street, the guerilla filming tactics, and the sharp, acid tongues.

In some ways, "real" media should feel threatened. The average Joe who happened to be at the right place at the right time, or was able to capture an image of an accident or a bar fight with his cell phone camera, has always been there to offer tips to the "real" media. So logically, why can't that same passer-by spew his own 200 word rant about what happened and post the "news" himself?

But there are a few issues with citizen journalism, quality concerns a la Adams' experience aside. For one, you don't get paid for it. While some sites (like the one Adams wrote for) might offer a nominal fee based on how many "hits" or views your item gets, or how many posts you contribute on a monthly basis, it's certainly not enough to make a living, nor a career out of it. Second, in many ways, the citizen journalists rely on real journalists to pen their prose. They comment on a news story that was reported on in a reputable paper; or regurgitate information (or even use a long, run-on quote) from another source, adding a few lines of their own spin. Without the real source of information; the one that requires the research, follow up, and fact-checking, the citizen would not be able to report his musings. Third, if the popular notion holds true, people value the opinion of their peers just as much as they do the opinion of experts. But all credibility goes out the window when accountability doesn't exist. It's easy enough, after all, to say what you want, claim what you want, and fail to check the facts when you're accountable to no one, and writing under an anonymous pseudonym like RealBlogger123. If you can't be sure that the person your daughter is talking to in the online chat room is a 13-year-old boy like he claims to be, how can you be sure that the citizen journalist reporting on something is actually reporting the truth?

Eyeballs are great. Catchy headlines are great. But is the future built upon quick rants from every Tom, Dick, and Harry that feels like he wants to contribute to the World Wide Web? Or is it built on articles that are simply too good to get more hits then the story about the local dog chasing his tail?

Published: 03/04/2010 02:45:39 PM UTC By Christine Persaud

Jack of All Trades, or Master of One?

As the ability to do things like navigate, capture still images and videos, compute, and play music become expected on-the-go rather than desired, multi-function products are becoming more commonplace. Car-makers are building GPS into the latest vehicles, mobile phones are coming with decent digital cameras, and music players like the iPod Touch can afford access to things like apps and e-mail. But do we want our devices to be jacks of all trades, or masters of just one?

Every device is, of course, a master of at least one. The iPod Touch, for example, is first and foremost, a portable music player. A mobile phone is, above all else, a phone. And a car with GPS is, quite obviously, a means of transportation with the simple added value of a system that can help you reach a destination successfully. But one could argue that the iTouch affords access to e-mail, games, and apps just as easily and smoothly as it does music. And while all mobile phones afford the ability to make voice calls over a cellular network, that function has almost become secondary to features like Web surfing, text-based messaging, and even, for some, music playback and photo capture.

Most people won't own a phone as an exclusive image capture device, but chances are that someone with a vehicle equipped with GPS won't also own a portable GPS device, nor will he make use of the GPS function on his cell phone (unless he's on foot, perhaps.) And the more cars that come equipped with GPS, the lesser need we'll have for portable units. Likewise, as cell phone digital cameras get better, our desire for entry-level digital cameras will dwindle. Or will it?

The more a device can do, the better, many say. The obvious trade-off is that the device probably won't do everything as well as a gadget dedicated solely to that one function could. Using the cell phone camera as an example, it might have ample megapixels, but not include useful features like flash, image stabilization, and a powerful sensor.

Except that a lot of cell phone cams now do come with useful features like flash and image stabilization. Just like some GPS devices include Bluetooth capability so you don't need a standalone headset or speakerphone. And like a subscription to broadband Internet affords access to TV content, which means you don't need a cable subscription.

When it comes to the jack of all trades and masters of all, we can thank companies like Apple and categories like mobile phones for really pushing this trend. But people do, and will, still want separate devices for separate functions. After all, how many people do you know that own both an iPhone and an iTouch (or other iPod iteration?) Or have a mobile phone with a pretty good digital camera, but still have an entry-level digicam to use at important events, like birthdays, or because it has a specific feature, like a waterproof housing?

In others word, whether the devices are masters of just one trade, so to speak, or more, there's still room in the market for a full deck of products.

Published: 03/03/2010 03:01:59 PM UTC By Christine Persaud

Online Video: Not There Just Yet

Much debate has been going on about how the growing library of online video will affect traditional means of consuming movies and TV shows. Some say cable and satellite TV will be a thing of the past within a decade; why bother with a set-top box when you can watch HD video streamed from the ‘Net on your big screen TV? Others feel online video will simply complement traditional cable and satellite TV services. To get a feel for online video and how the experience compares, I decided to jump on the bandwagon.

It started with the launch of Rogers On Demand Online. Here's an online service that's free, that's high quality, and that, most important, actually offers quality content. I can catch up on episodes of favourite shows I missed (and somehow forgot to PVR), or introduce myself to new ones. I chose to do a little of both.

Then one weekend, I decided I would run a search to see if I could find streaming copies of an old ‘90s TV show I love. It took only a few minutes to locate a Website that has every episode from every season. Neat! The catch? Either pay $19.99, or you're restricted to watching only 52 minutes worth of content at a time, which strategically ends a quarter-ways through a second episode. After the 52 minutes, you need to wait an hour to resume watching. Fair enough.

In addition to these two sites, I've also caught online video at specific network Websites, and, of course, sites like YouTube. Thus, it's fair to say I've had a pretty hefty sampling.

For the most part, the experience has been favourable. Video quality is acceptable: when it comes to the RODO service, it's fantastic, with crisp, clear quality video. With the ‘90s show, the quality doesn't rival DVD by any means, but it's still watchable. In some cases, however, it's been less than ideal. I have reported here before that certain network Websites have major issues with motion blur; such that episodes become almost unwatchable. My colleague commented the other day that YouTube has taken the place of the popular (but still running) show America's Funniest Home Videos. With user-generated content, though, the quality naturally varies considerably. But the main issue I ran into had more to do with the reliability of Internet connectivity than with the Websites themselves.

A segment on last week's episode of Saturday Night Live summed the experience up perfectly. One character was adamant about showing another a hilarious clip on YouTube. But every time they began watching, the video would start buffering and they'd end up in an endless loop, waiting for the connection to load. Eventually, they gave up, never getting to the highly-anticipated punchline.

While my experiences weren't nearly as frustrating, I did encounter a lot of slow and interrupted connections, despite the fact that I live in downtown Toronto and have a high-speed Internet connection, and high-quality wireless router. For normal Web surfing, the connection is fantastic. But when it comes to video, watching an entire program can sometimes get, quite frankly, annoying.

Of course there are fixes: connect directly via Ethernet, wait for the video to buffer fully, then watch it all the way through, invest in an even faster modem and better router (if one is available), or a computer with a better wireless adapter. And chances are that avid online video viewers will be equipped with the best of the best to ensure as flawless an experience as possible. But the point here is that for the general populace, chances are that they'll experience some form of connectivity issue at least some of the time when catching a TV show or movie online; at least more often than they would via standard cable/satellite TV. The glitches I encountered were enough to convince me to resort to online only when it is, well, the only resort.

This isn't to say that cable or satellite TV is perfect. I can't count how many times HD channels have frozen up, some times consistently enough that I have to resort to the SD channel. Or how many times my on-demand channel has gone on the fritz. And don't even get me started with the Canadian networks hijacking the much better quality U.S. high-def feeds, an issue that really angers me. But in terms of reliability, I'd feel much safer catching the Superbowl or Hockey Play-offs or Season Finale of Lost, via cable/satellite than broadband Internet. It's more likely for an Internet connection to get choppy than it is for a cable TV service to conk out.

Going forward, this will probably change. But for now, I really don't think the TV industry should worry so much about online video taking over. We definitely have a long way to go.

Published: 03/02/2010 11:40:45 AM UTC By Christine Persaud