Thoughts

How about a real Apple TV (an Apple tablet)?

Ligia and I were watching cartoons in bed this morning, on my laptop, and I realized Apple still hasn’t capitalized on the opportunity to create a real Apple TV. Here I was, after having ejected my external drives, disconnected the laptop from its peripherals, taken it off its stand and put it on our bed, when all of this could be handled very simply with a larger iPod — a combination iPod/Apple TV/Apple Cinema Display.

Try as I might, I just can’t watch movies or video content on my iPod. The screen is too small, even though I have an iPod touch. It has no speakers, so I have to use headphones. Clearly, Apple has the technological know-how to put together a really nice Apple TV that’s not yet another box tethered to a TV in the living room, but a display with integrated speakers and the circuitry that allows it to get on my network and access media from various drives, or to play the media I sync to it through iTunes, or to download media from the Internet. And yet, it’s content to charge people for small fry (iPods, hamstrung Apple TVs, etc.) when it comes to personal entertainment devices.

Just think, with a nice LED screen of about 13-17 inches, a touch screen, plenty of onboard storage, a good battery, WiFi, Bluetooth, and speakers, they could have an amazing device that I could take with me wherever I decide to sit in the house or in the yard. I could take it in bed and watch movies without draining my already tired laptop battery, I could take it outside on the patio at night to watch stuff there, etc.

Apple already has all of this technology. Why don’t they put it together?

They have the LED displays already, in their laptops and in their Cinema line.

led-cinema-display

They have the touch screen capabilities, from the iPod and iPhone.

ipod-touch

They have the media playback capabilities and other circuitry from the Apple TV.

Apple TV

They have the amazing batteries from the MacBook Pro line.

new-apple-batteries

The speakers are also from the MacBook Pro line, and they’re some of the best small speakers on the market, if not the best.

macbook-pro-speakers

People talk about an iTablet, but I’m not really sold on the idea. Yes, if you put all of these components together, you could have an iTablet, but what I want is a larger iPod, or rather a usable, untethered Apple TV with a nice, built-in display and decent battery life. It could look something like this (and no, this isn’t a rendering, it’s a screenshot from Apple’s own website).

itv

Take away the stand, and imagine a nice iPod-like bezel around it, so you can grab it in your hands and hold it. Perhaps it could have some sort of leg that folds out to let it stand on its own, too. This is what I’m looking for. An iPod I can actually watch, anywhere.

Images used courtesy of Apple.

Standard
Reviews

Inventor portraits by David Friedman

David Friedman, a photographer from NYC, is putting together short video documentaries of inventors. The first three are already up on Vimeo. A very cool idea. Wish I’d thought of it first. Kudos to Dave.

Inventor Portrait: Clint Fruitman from David Friedman on Vimeo.

Inventor Portrait: Jerry Ford from David Friedman on Vimeo.

Inventor Portrait: Tom Roering from David Friedman on Vimeo.

There are more details about each inventor on Dave’s blog, along with more non-video profiles of interesting inventors. Check it out.

Standard
Thoughts

Countering the effect of gravity

In 2005, I wrote an article entitled “Gravitational propulsion-levitation vehicle“, where I detailed an idea of mine that I’ve had since 1997 or so, of a vehicle that could harness the gravitation field of the Earth and use it to move on the ground or in the air.

Now, in 2009, I see that my twelve-year old idea was first investigated, albeit in a more limited way, back in 1992, by a Russian scientist named Evgeny Podkletnov. Furthermore, in 2003, an Austrian scientist named Martin Tajmar developed Podkletnov’s research and found a measurable reduction in gravitational pull with the help of a spinning superconductor.

You see, that’s where our ideas are related — in using spinning discs that would generate their own gravitational fields. Back when I started thinking about this stuff, in 1997, I had no idea about Podkletnov or Tajmar. It was just me, a guy who took two college physics classes, trying to figure out how this might work. But I think it’s very interesting that people in different regions of this world, some whose life is physics and some who only have a basic understanding of the subject, are thinking along the same lines when it comes to countering the effect of gravity. It’s the sort of thing that encourages my belief that we’ll get this figured out somehow, that a vehicle powered by gravity isn’t just sci-fi stuff.

I’m not alone in thinking this way. Since I wrote the original article, I’ve gotten contacted by a number of people, some who sounded kooky, and some who sounded like they were serious. I still haven’t written back to any of them, since I’ve had no new spark of inspiration that would make me believe I could contribute anything useful beyond what I already said. But I’m glad to see that we’re possibly on the right track.

My thanks to New Scientist for publishing “Seven things that don’t make sense about gravity” — a very interesting series of mini-articles that brought me up to date with the research done on gravity so far.

Standard
Thoughts

Micropayments: the only equitable way to reward web publishers

The more time I spend writing and publishing articles on the internet, the more I realize that trying to get paid for my efforts through advertising is not a sustainable way to make a living. I get decent web traffic, but that’s not enough. Have you seen the going CPM rates these days? I’d need to get ridiculous amounts of traffic in order to see any sort of worthwhile profits, and even then, I’m not so sure the costs of running my website wouldn’t trump my revenues or at least take a big bite out of them.

The current system is messed up. Most web publishers don’t get tons of traffic, which also means they don’t make money. They’re lucky if they break even with things like Google AdSense or affiliate programs or other some other ad programs. They, like me, don’t want to load up their websites with ads, left and right, top and bottom, inbetween the lines and everywhere else. They just want to worry about writing and publishing informative articles. They don’t want to spend ¾ of their time (or more) advertising their site and getting their buddies to vote up their posts on Digg or StumbleUpon or who knows where else. They’d much prefer to not have that headache at all, and to only write and publish. But they can’t, because the system is faulty. It only rewards the very few who get the most traffic.

Do you want to know why newspapers aren’t making money these days? Why they’re going under? Sure, blame shoddy journalism, blame whatever else, but the truth is they relied mostly (or solely) on advertising for their revenues, and look where they are now. Subscription fees were kept artificially low, and as circulation numbers started to go down, they couldn’t charge their regular rates for ads, and revenues went down fast, in a vicious spiral that fed itself.

Had a decent micropayment system been in place, the web would be a flourishing, profitable, preferred way to make a living nowadays, instead of the insane, overloaded, “buy, buy, buy, look at me, no look at me, no, I’m better, wait, my titles are more interesting, I get more traffic, I make more money, I know how to increase your traffic, I have more free stuff” nuthouse that it has become. Everyone’s desperate to publish more articles, to make the titles and text more titillating, to grab an extra click from you here and there, to make you vote or like or bookmark their stuff so they can supposedly get more clicks and votes and likes and bookmarks and more and more and more meaningless crap that leads nowhere and contributes to nothing.

Unfortunately for the world and the web, micropayments were talked to death, even in the early days of the internet, and all the fancy initiatives went nowhere. A lot of people were wronged because no one bothered to get things going. Just think, all this time, web publishers of all sizes could have been making an honest living! Fortunately, this nasty situation can still be set right.

Here’s my micropayment initiative. I think it’s workable, and more than that, it would allow a lot of people to make a decent living by doing what they love: writing, not hustling and wasting their time pushing their site on people.

First, we need all the browsers and feed readers to work with the companies or organizations that would process micropayments. Whether the functionality is built in or added through plugins is up to the browser makers and feed reader makers to decide. Users would enter their account information directly in their browser’s or feed reader’s preferences, and their micropayment accounts would be automatically charged every time they access a micropayment-enabled article, on the web or via a feed. There’d be no logging in every time, like with PayPal, which is a hassle when all you want to do is read an article.

Second, search engines and websites would display the price of the article next to its title, just like they’d display the site or the date the article was written. The browser itself would display an extra icon when such a web page is accessed, just like it displays a lock when HTTPS websites are accessed. Perhaps a dollar sign or some other currency sign would show up next to the website’s address. If the user would move their mouse over the button, the price would be displayed, similarly to the behavior of the alt or title tags.

Third, and this would happen behind the scenes, the browser itself would read the price tag of the article the user is reading, and would send that information along to the micropayment service along with the user’s account information. Notice this means the user could use their micropayment service of choice — so there wouldn’t have to be just one — and the browser or the website wouldn’t care. The micropayment service would then transfer the price of the article from the user’s account to the web publisher’s account. The transaction fees would best be charged in bulk, per 50 or 100 transactions or so, and would be deducted from the web publisher’s balance.

That’s it! It’s so simple I just don’t know why it hasn’t yet been implemented.

As for the price of the articles, each web publisher could set their own price. I propose 5 cents per view. When candy and soda costs 75 cents to $1 or more, I think no one would balk at paying 5 cents to read a good article. But let’s have a look at some proposed traffic figures just to give you an idea how 5 cents can add up.

Say you get 5,000 views per month. That’s a modest amount of traffic, but at 5 cents per view, you’d still make $250 at the end of the month. That’s nothing to scoff at. Tell me if you wouldn’t be happy with that money in your bank account!

How about someone who gets 25,000 views per month? That’s a fairly decent amount of traffic. At 5 cents per view, they’d make $1,250 per month. That’s already a line of income. That’s money in the bank you could be using to pay your bills, but you’re not seeing it because micropayments don’t exist yet. Isn’t that infuriating?

How about someone who gets 50,000 views per month? That’s a nice amount of traffic. At 5 cents per view, they’d make $2,500 per month. That’s practically a decent salary right there. If you keep your expenses low, you might even be able to live off that in the US. If you lived in another country where living expenses are less, you could live nicely on that money.

The best part is this: it isn’t free money, and it isn’t money that could be yanked away if your advertisers get pissed off with something you wrote. This is money each and every web publisher has rightfully earned through their work, and yet there is no micropayment system out there to make this possible. This means all the web publishers out there are currently being cheated out of money they could be earning. Isn’t it ridiculous and completely unfair? Think of newspapers, where dedicated journalists work, day in and day out, and who have to close when they could focus their efforts on web publishing and turn a very nice profit with their traffic!

What about developing countries? I suppose the price for reading an article could differ based on your country of origin. The micropayment processor would automatically charge those countries less per article, say 30 to 40 to 70% less, depending on their general economic status.

What about subscriptions? They’re nice but not sufficient. They’re nice because you can predict your income more reliably when you know you’ll have so many subscriptions coming in every month, but not sufficient because users don’t pay per usage. If they end up spending less time on your site, then they’ll feel like they’ve wasted their money on the subscription. Also, just in case you haven’t noticed, subscription numbers are down everywhere these days. When money gets tight, subscriptions are among the first things to go.

What about goodwill, and doing stuff for free? That’s nice, and I already do plenty of stuff for free, but the problem with goodwill is that this world still functions with money. When was the last time you paid your mortgage with goodwill? When you buy your groceries, do you pay with a smile and a hug?

Micropayments are the best way to go forward. I wish people would stop talking about them already and someone would get going with the idea. It goes without saying — but I’ll say it anyway — that I for one would be glad to work with any legitimate company that wants to start processing micropayments.

Standard
Reviews

In-camera HDR now here

Back in November of 2006, I had a few ideas about taking foolproof photos. I predicted that it wouldn’t be long before we might see in-camera HDR. That feature is now here. Let me show you two cameras that have recently become availble. They both do in-camera HDR.

Ricoh CX1

Ricoh CX1 - 1

Here’s what Ricoh says about their in-camera HDR feature:

“It can be difficult to photograph scenes in which the level of brightness varies greatly. With dynamic range double shot mode, the CX1 shoots, consecutively at high speed, two still images with different exposures, and then it records an image that combines the properly exposed portions of each. Expanding the dynamic range up to a maximum equivalent to 12 EV makes it possible to record images that give an almost naked-eye impression.”

Ricoh CX1 - 2

[via Ricoh]

FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR

FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR - 2

Here’s what FujiFilm says about their in-camera HDR feature:

“Just as your eye sees the full range of shadows to highlights in high-contrast scenes, “D-range Priority” simultaneously captures two images to produce a single image with Wide Dynamic Range up to 800%, revealing subtleties in shadow and eliminating washout of the bright areas.”

FujiFilm FinePix F200EXR - 1

[via FujiFilm]

It looks like both companies use a two-exposure method, where one is underexposed to capture the very bright areas, and the other is overexposed to capture the dark areas. The two exposures are combined in-camera to create a single photo that contains the proper details from each exposure. You have to specifically turn on this feature — the camera won’t do it automatically — but the nice thing is that you only press the shutter button once.

I’m really glad to see this feature come to market. In some ways, it’s similar to a feature found on Canon DSLRs, called Auto Lighting Optimizer, except that feature adjusts the sensor signals within a single exposure to render a better photo instead of combining two photos. I imagine the dynamic range compensation obtained through that technique isn’t as pronounced as the in-camera HDR done by Ricoh and FujiFilm.

Standard