Best tech/web advances of 2010 and biggest let downs.

[Harold Mansfield]

2010 was a pretty good year technology and web wise. Some things were actually monumental, and others not so great.

I could write an article of the best and worst but some stood out to me as the absolute best and worst for me.

Best:
Wordpress 3.0- Merging all Wordpress functions into one version has been the best revision of the software since I first downloaded it back during Wordpress 1.9.

It was definitely the buzz of the web world and I picked up quite a few projects from people and businesses anxious to apply it to their organization. It was a huge jump in the world of web publishing.

Windows 7 - Technically released in 2009, it wasn't really available till late 2009, but I didn't get it until mid 2010. After the Vista let down, Windows 7 is definitely a pretty decent OP. The ability to run more RAM is a huge benefit to power users, and consumers alike.

Worst or Biggest let down:

Google T.V/Hulu - I still think Google T.V. is a great product but the fact that Hulu decided to block their normally free website from the device and charge $7.99 for access is a big bummer. I already pay $100 a month for commercial television, I'm not paying another $8 for a website that is otherwise free depending on what device you use, just to watch more T.V. That severely diminished the functionality of Google TV for me and makes me wonder what other content providers that are normally free online will block access based on what device you use to access them. It's a bad move for both the content providers and sucks big time for Google TV.

Samsung Galaxy Tab - This was supposed to be the game changer in the new Tab wars. A Droid powered, smaller tab that is also a phone. Except the phone features are only available in Europe. So it's just a tab. If I'm going to have just a tablet, then I'll go with the iPad. The phone ability was what made this so attractive.
Big let down and really stupid to release it without this function after advertising it as so.

iPhone 4 - I don't have an iPhone, but the front facing camera was a first that should have propelled the iPhone even further into the stratosphere of mobile devices. However, it only works if you have a wifi connection. Really stupid. If wifi was that prevalent to the point of being convenient , people wouldn't need to pay for internet access or phone service. It's obviously not, so that makes it a dead, inconvenient feature for most people. These engineers need to stop imagining everyone in an airport.

What was good and bad for you this year in tech or the web?

[vangogh]

Interesting topic. I'll agree with you about WordPress 3.0. It was a big step forward in the software. Probably not something everyone will care about, but big for those of us who use WordPress. I've never used Windows 7, but I've yet to hear anything bad about it other than from the usual Microsoft detractors. It'll be interesting to see how Windows 7 does on mobile devices.

I'd add in the iPad for the year's best. It's clearly a game changing device and it's going to lead to many tablet devices in the coming years. I won't be surprised at all if in a few years most everyone is carrying about some kind of tablet device bigger than a cell phone and smaller than a laptop.

I think the MacBook Air makes one big advance in its use of a Flash drive instead of the usual hard drive. Flash storage is pretty much the better solution with its only downside being price. It's use in the Air and what I'm guessing will soon be all Mac laptops could help drive the price down enough for other computer makers to being using Flash storage.

I'm going to disagree with you about the iPhone 4 being a disappointment. True Face Tim currently only works over wifi, however that's a limitation of AT&T more than the iPhone itself and you have to realize the majority of people using it will be in their homes when they do where a wifi connection is likely ever present. In truth wifi networks are everywhere. Maybe not if you live in a rural area, but if you're anywhere near a city there's almost always a wifi connection ever present.

I'd also disagree with your assessment of the Galaxy Tab. I think your let down is more to do with how you specifically were hoping to use the device. I would think most people who buy one will also have a cell phone. I don't see the Tab as a device to replace cell phones and I doubt the lack of a phone is going to be a show stopper to most.

With Google TV I still think Google is off on how the majority view their tv set. I think most of use watch tv in a passive mode and Google is trying to sell us on interacting with the tv more. I'm not sure that's going to sell beyond the geek elite. Maybe we'll change in the future, but at the moment I see the idea being a little flawed. I do think it inevitable that we'll be getting tv content through the web. I think devices like Apple TV, Roku, and Boxee are more on target with where things are going, though none yet offers enough content for the majority.

One best of I'll add isn't solely from this year, but I think this year is when it really took off. The ebook. The growth in ebook sales Amazon kept reporting this year at the expense of hard covers and paperbacks was interesting. Seems pretty clear that we're now moving toward reading ebooks over printed books. I don't expect print to go away anytime soon, but it's hard to argue against ebooks or emagazines at this point. I know for me 2010 was the year I first started buying ebooks and having read a few now really like them.

[Harold Mansfield]

It certainly depends on where you are. For me, I just don't see much free wifi access anywhere. Yes, I see access, but not free. AND, I don't trust many free access points. Any savvy laptop owner can sit in a public area and create an open wifi connection and call it what ever they want (ie: "McCarran Airport Free Wifi") and get people in the area to log in.

So having a device with features that only work on wifi means I have to pay more money to use them away from home, after paying the exorbitant rates of cell packages AND a data plan that you have to have now which is an added expense... all functions should work on the network that I'm paying for. The networks that they keep advertising can do so much and so much faster. It's basically saying we are raising rates because we have this great new 3G, 4G network to offer you more reliable access, but if you want to use THAT function, you have to find and piggyback another network. That is not ready for prime time.

The problem with wifi mobile devices to me is, if I'm at home I don't need them. They are supposed to be mobile. If I'm at home I can just use my $50 webcam and Skype or any of the free IM services. I don't need a $400 web cam for around the house.

I can buy that most people will use the iPad at home or work where there is access, but I don't buy that people expect to only use functions on a mobile device like a phone at home.
If I can only use it at limited places where I can find a connection (even though I'm paying for a connection), then it isn't mobile. It's just wireless. And it shouldn't be on a personal portable device until it is usable like the rest of the functions on the phone.

That's just my opinion.

As far as the Galaxy Tab..I was hoping to use the device as they advertised it. The way they rolled it out at CES. There was no mention that the function wasn't available in the U.S and if you look at the reviews on Amazon and the Samsung website, people like the device, but had no idea that the phone didn't work until they got it. And the "fixes" to download Skype and use that is not a fix. I can use Skype on anything..again, you need wifi access.

I could very well be becoming a tech snob, but I expect things to work without having to jump through hoops and compensate for their limitations, or else don't bring it out until it's ready.

[vangogh]

Again keep in mind that most people will be using Face Time while at home and so will have a wifi network present and one they trust as well.


If I'm at home I can just use my $50 webcam and Skype or any of the free IM services. I don't need a $400 web cam for around the house.

Yes, you can do that. The average iPhone user (in fact the average consumer in general) would probably use the iPhone since it's easier. Many people my not have a webcam or do IM. Plus many people don't sit in one place the entire time of a phone call. I know I move around a bit. Sometimes I'm in front of my computer and other times I'm not.

I do agree it's much more useful to be able to video chat over the cellular network instead of having to use a wifi network. However I would again say this is more an AT&T thing and the rumor still persists that the iPhone will soon be available on Verizon and probably other networks as well. I suspect typical phone users will be fine using wifi only at the moment and be happy when they can also use cellular networks in a few months or a year.

I understand your feelings. I also know that to the masses this is much less of an issue than it is for you.


As far as the Galaxy Tab..I was hoping to use the device as they advertised it.

I can understand wanting the product as advertised. Even if a feature isn't something you need or truly want, being told you'll get it helps build a picture of something that turns out to be false. That would bother me too.

Just keep in mind that overall you're looking at these devices from your own perspective. The general public probably isn't going to feel as strongly as you about some if this. For example I agree that WordPress 3.0 was a big deal to WordPress users, but if we consider the general public it's not much of any kind deal at all. With video chat on the iPhone it's similar to there being no Flash on iOS devices. To some people it's a big deal. To the majority of real customers it's a non-issue.

[Harold Mansfield]

Well yeah. These are definitely my personal opinions and selfishness of the things that I wanted and expected from certain products. I don't think I'm expecting anything more than the way they insinutaed or actually said it would work. I think it's misleading to show people outside in an urban area using Facetime without stipulating "Feature not available on AT&T network".
Samsung is different. They said outright that this was a function of the device and demonstrated it.

I honestly think the average, non-tech consumer doesn't know the difference and are happy with what ever you give them. I do think people that work with or use different technologies frequently notice these little nuances or inconsistencies a lot more than most.
If I said these things to most of my friends, they wouldn't even know what I was talking about or care and would think that wifi only face chat is the greatest thing since the pager.

You are right, although I found quite a few people that were upset about the lack of the phone function on the Galaxy, it's not the majority..most reviews praise the device.
However, that one thing (which I think is major) kept me from purchasing and now has me leaning back towards the iPad. I'm still waiting to see what this Blackberry Playbook will do. I haven't seen anything that say's I can answer a phone call with it. If none of them are going to do it, then I may as well just go with the market leader, iPad. I don't understand what the problem is, it's just a big smart phone for the most part. They use the same apps and in most cases the same chips.

I did find something a little more measurable. Mashable just posted the biggest flops and successes of 2010.
I was really surprised to see how Digg has fallen from grace in just one year. The iPad is honored as the best of 2010 and I have to agree, hands down.
Tech's Biggest Win, Flop and Surprise of 2010 (http://mashable.com/2010/12/28/tech-win-flop-surprise-2010/)

[vangogh]

And I completely get why you listed each thing where you did. Personal or not I generally feel the same way you do. It's funny sometimes reading tech blogs talking about technology meant for the average person. The blogger forgets how much more tech savvy they are and spend lots of effort criticizing the lack of a feature here or the spec over there. They forget how very few people other than themselves actually cares about the missing feature or spec.

Interesting article. I'd agree with their assessment of things. Digg has been losing people steadily I think, but the redesign they recently did seemed to greatly accelerate the decline.

With something like the iPad it's easy for us geeks to rail against the lack of something like Flash. Truth is people don't care about Flash. They care that they can watch movies, play games, and be generally be more interactive with their content and device. Most movies I've encountered play fine on iOS devices, there are plenty of games to play, and touch alone makes things more interactive. Also you and I probably wanted the power of a laptop in a tablet device. I know I did. Tablet devices aren't going to be as powerful as laptops the same way laptops aren't as powerful as desktops. However tablets will be powerful enough for what most people want to do with a computer, checking email and surfing the web. For most people the iPad is more than powerful enough for all the computing they do.

[Harold Mansfield]

I don't want laptop functionality in a tablet. I want phone functionality since the phone companies are the ones that are carrying them and supporting them. I don't want to pay them to carry 2 devices (I'm already doing that) when the phone for the most part does most of what the tablet does. Let these things answer calls and it will replace my phone and netbook and cut my expenses in half.

I'm sure they know this and is probably why they are "rationing out the technology" (as I like to call it). If I can surf the web, email and take calls on an iPhone, Blackberry and most smart phones, why is that feature taken away from the tabs? I don't see where it is an additional function that is any different from what smart phones already do, and which they charge for with data plans being a necessary additional charge to be able to use a smart phone.
They have already figured out a way to get an additional $35 a month out of us just to be able to use the phones that they keep making.

The devices have the capability. And they are already providing the service. So the networks are obviously capable because they are doing it. What difference does it make if my device is 4" or 7" ? In most cases it's the exact same processor, and software. Just a bigger unit.

It's the same as Hulu and Google TV. Hulu is a free website unless you want to access it from anything other than a computer. Then it costs money. Same internet. Same browsers. Same website. But they don't want you accessing it from your iPod.

Personally I see a conspiracy to make us pay multiple bills for devices that could easily do it all in one.

[Harold Mansfield]

I actually just got off of the phone with both Sprint and Samsung to get a straight answer about this. According to Sprint..well they were pretty much useless. After being routed from India to the Philippines to the U.S. (or Canada) and back to India. I got nothing.

So I called Samsung. They confirmed that yes this device is constructed and has the capability to be used as a phone on a call plan from a wireless service provider. However, it is the providers that are blocking this functionality, not Samsung. According to them, the wireless providers only want this tablet to be used as an internet device and don't want us using it to it's full capacity as is done outside of the U.S. ( I put a spin on that , but it's pretty much what they said).

Also, there is no difference in the network usage or configuration to use this as a phone other than any other smart phone that does the same thing. Samsung created this device to be used in virtually every format in every country. In the U.S. alone it is compatible with Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular as well as most international carriers.
* EDGE/GPRS 850/900/1800/1900 MHz, HSDPA 7.2Mbps/HSUPA 5.76Mbps Tri-Band 900/1900/2100 MHz

It is the most compatible device to come out ever.

Conspiracy I tell ya.

[vangogh]

I want phone functionality since the phone companies are the ones that are carrying them and supporting them.

So if it were the cable and satellite companies offering tablets you wouldn't care about the phone? Phone companies aren't the ones carrying tablets. I can't speak for the Tab, but you can get an iPhone that's wireless only and has nothing to do with the phone companies. Sounds more like you want a bigger phone than a tablet.

Tablets are a new category fitting between phone and laptop. Most people who seem disappointed in them (not referring to you here by the way) seem to wish they were either more phone or more laptop. Kind of funny since there are plenty of good phones and laptops out there.

I wouldn't say this whole thing is a conspiracy. It's more everyone who owns a pipe that can connect to the internet wanting to maximize how much they make from those pipes, while minimizing what they have to offer. I don't care much for how they do it either. Seems to me a data plan should go with the person and not the device. Still I don't think it's conspiracy. More a few companies that can get away with a lot at the moment and so try to get away with everything they can.

[Harold Mansfield]

I don't expect the iPad to be a phone, (even though it does look like a big iPhone) I don't expect any tablet to be a phone. The Galaxy Tab IS a phone. It has all of the hardware, software and configuration needed to function as a wireless phone on the major carriers that support it...already built into it. That was the big gorilla function that gave it all of the press and praise. That's why so many people were waiting for it. That's why it won Best of 2010 at CES.

I don't expect them to purposely block that feature so that it is not available to me, but is to other owners outside of the U.S.
That's all I'm saying. The device and the networks are both capable. Why make it a point to disallow it?
That's why it's a big let down for me.
I mean c'mon. Honestly..tablets are just larger smart phones. Same OS. Same apps. Same Processor. It's just larger. Maybe it has more hard memory...but they all take SD cards for more memory.

There is not such a big difference in construction and functionality that makes them so much different.
The actual phone functionality is pretty small compared to the other hardware and software of these devices.
Take any Droid phone with a touch screen and blow it up to 3x's the size and you have a tablet.

The technology is already invented, they are just putting them on platform that is actually large enough to use it.

It may be a little more to it than that, but it's not such a big deal anymore to throw a phone chip into pretty much anything.
For pete's sake they have disposable phones with the circuits glued onto cardboard cut out throw away's for $10: http://www.hop-on.com/CellPhones.aspx

You can make any of these devices phone capable and we have the networks to use them. So why are they spreading the functions around to multiple devices as if it is some big technological issue to have it all in one?
Do you really believe that it is a big hardship to throw a phone chip into an iPad? Of course not, but then you wouldn't buy both and possibly pay a data plan for both.
The advances are good. Love the technology, but they are leading us around by the nose.
There is no reason that I should have to pay for a service plan for a tab which is already a phone, just blocked...and a data plan for a phone. When they both do the exact same thing. One is just deliberately blocked from using the call chip so that I have to keep paying for the other.

[billbenson]

I bought my wife a camera for xmas. She's been using a handheld sony that I bought about 4 years ago for about $200. It was ok. Really depended on light and if you moved at all during the click it would be blurry. I bought a 14 Mp Canon with a 35 x zoom. Ya, thats a bit of money, but before this something like this was $1k. Its not an SLR, but takes photos quickly, corrects for my shaky hands even at full zoom, movies are good. Its just so much better than all the cameras we have had in the past I was really impressed for the money. Here's a video of the zoom feature:YouTube - Canon PowerShot SX30 IS Video Test, Zoom Test (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6dBAdAqGNw)

[vangogh]

Harold I don't think it's a conspiracy to keep the phone chips out of tablets. I agree they could easily put one in. Maybe it means a little more expense, but no question they could add one. The thing is most people probably don't care if the tablet doesn't have a phone chip. I can understand being disappointed if it's there, but turned off though. Still most people aren't looking to hold their tablet up to their ear to talk. Even a 7 inch tablet like the Tab is likely too big for most to want to do that.

Now if you consider using a blue tooth headset then it makes more sense to add the phone chip to the tablet. I still don't think there's any conspiracy going on thought. While a tablet may just be a large smart phone, most people see them as 2 different devices with 2 different uses. People are going to carry a phone with them most all the time. They aren't going to carry a tablet, even a 7 inch one everywhere they go. The tablet could have a phone chip inside and most people will want a phone to go with it.

@Bill - that's a nice camera. The zoom is impressive. Can you change lenses on that one or is the lens attached permanently? I've always bought Canon Cameras. My current one is a pocket model for easy carrying. One day I want to get an SLR though and take some better pictures with it.

[Harold Mansfield]

I don't really think there is a conspiracy, it's just fun talk. But it is strange that 5 competing phone companies all decided on their own to disallow the exact same function on a phone product that they carry.
I think I'll call Verizon, U.S. Cellular, AT&T and T-Mobile today to see if I can get any more answers. As you can see it's really bugging me.

And yes, you would use a bluetooth :)

[vangogh]

No conspiracy? You mean you're not wearing your tinfoil hat? :)

I can think of other reasons why the phone functionality was disabled. It may not work as is on all of them. I think we have 3 different kinds of cellular networks among the 5 carriers. I don't know, but since the Tab's phone works in Europe I'm guessing it's on a GSM network, which I think excludes all US carriers except ATT&T. I'm not 100% certain of that, but I think you get the point.

It could also just be the carriers wanting to minimize the use of their networks. Both AT&T and Verizon recently dropped the unlimited data plans in favor of a plan that charges more for more use. I think it's likely that the phone is disabled in the Tab because of money or rather the perception by the carriers of how much money the phone will cost and make for them. I doubt that they got together though and talked about it.

Then again conspiracy theories are kind of fun.

[Harold Mansfield]

Got this from an Android forum. I can't confirm any truth to it but it seems to point the the fact that our powerful new faster, stronger, all access, expensive 4G networks are in fact inferior to those in Europe.:

I saw that response from Samsung, but I don't think it's true. I've been watching the posts on XDA as they try to work out a way to make calls on the tab. So far, if they get the phone working, the 3G stops working, some are blocked completely from using the Internet as T-Mo is blocking it my IMEI unless you use the no calling plan.
Source: Galaxy Tab as a Phone - Android Forums (http://androidforums.com/samsung-galaxy-tab/229539-galaxy-tab-phone.html)
When talked to both Sprint and Samsung, no one made any mention of this, but then again I just talked to customer service reps, not any real tech departments.

I don't understand how other smart phones and Blackberry products function just fine, doing the same things.

[vangogh]

That makes me think it's more incompatibility with the system as opposed to the carriers preventing the phone from working. Why it's an issue on the Tab and not on smart phones isn't something I can answer, though many phones will come in different varieties, each with a different chip for a different carrier. My old Palm Treo used to say Sprint right on the top as opposed to the ones sold by Verizon, which said Verizon on top.

Not long ago I read a rumor that Apple is working on a universal phone chip instead of having to build different phones for different carriers. Nice if the rumor is true. It would mean all phones with the universal chip would work with any carrier's network.

[billbenson]

@Steve - I don't know if the lenses are changeable, but its not really the point of the camera. Its really just a good easy shot camera with a good optical zoom on it.

[vangogh]

Got'cha. It's a lot of zoom, more than you usually see with easy shot cameras so I was wondering if it was a DSL with exchangeable lenses.