Hasta La Gadget!

Beautiful screen, crisp hardware, superlative specifications: if ever a smartphone deserved Google’s Nexus branding, the DROID DNA by HTC is probably it. Announced on the same day that LG’s Nexus 4 went on sale, the HTC DNA is so impressive a phone that its looming, 5-inch presence even managed to overshadow Google’s dire performance with Play store stability as eager Nexus buyers tried to secure a new phone. It’s a sign that HTC is taking the smartphone segment as seriously as it really needs to, not only iterating on what’s out there today but leading with new, compelling features in an appealing package. So appealing, in fact, that it’s hard to escape the feeling that the DNA, not LG’s handset, should’ve been the new Nexus.

The Nexus program has always been about pushing the envelope in mobile. That started out purely in hardware terms, with the original Nexus One acting as a shove for manufacturers to wade into the specifications arms-race. In handsets since, Google has used each iteration to frame its ambitions with Android, in terms of what it believes should be standards in software, hardware, services, and features. So, the LG Nexus 4, Google’s latest collaboration, adds wireless charging for one, the search giant’s theme-du-jour.

HTC has given the DROID DNA wireless charging. It has the high-resolution cameras – back and front, the latter ideal for the Google+ video hangouts Google has been pushing of late, what with its wide angle 88-degree lens – and top-tier processor of the Nexus 4, and the 2GB of RAM, and the gamut of sensors. It has a display that not only uses Super LCD, like the Nexus 4, but which blows its resolution out of the water with a Full HD panel, double the 720p LG opted for. There’s NFC, for Google Wallet. Even Google and LG’s decision to limit internal storage and leave out a microSD card slot has been mimicked, with Google hoping the cloud will drift in to take the place of local files.

In fact, there are only really two points of divergence from Google’s current Nexus strategy and HTC’s approach with the DROID DNA – well, three if you count Sense, but then it’s an HTC-branded Android phone, and so Sense (for better or worse) is a given. First is on-screen buttons, or their absence, with HTC insisting on keeping its dedicated keys for system navigation. That’s something Google has been trying to push for a couple of Nexus generations now, but it’s something OEMs (when they’re not being coerced with Nexus branding, that is) seem reluctant to accept.

DROID DNA by HTC hands-on:

The second, and more important, is price, and it’s here that Google and HTC’s approaches may have proved incompatible for Nexus purposes. The LG Nexus 4 is distinguished in no small part by its affordability in SIM-free state, and at $299 sans-contract it actually matches some handsets sold with the shackles of a 24-month contract. Google’s ambition is to drive off-contract adoption (just as it tried – and failed – with the first Nexus, because either the market, or the carriers, or consumers, or most likely all three, weren’t ready) and further relegate the operators to the role of dumb-pipe, and for that it needs a handset that’s startling in its affordability.

In contrast, the HTC DNA is unlikely to be a cheap phone, at least not SIM-free. True, Verizon is hitting the $199.99 price point, but that’s a subsidized figure: it relies on the carrier recouping its initial outlay on your shiny new phone with an overflowing wallet-full of cash on calls, messaging, and data each month over a two year period. That expectation, plus HTC’s desperation what with its own dire financial straits, has undoubtedly prompted a more competitive subsidy, with an eye on the longer-term that an off-contract phone simply can’t match.

“Google needed a cheap Nexus, a device as network-agnostic as possible”

Here, then, is where HTC and Google’s ambitions diverge most significantly. Google needs a cheap Nexus, a device as network-agnostic as possible. That’s why it left out LTE, after all – because supporting each individual flavor of 4G means tying yourself to a handful of carriers, and the necessary testing and approval for each – and why operator offers in each country where the Nexus 4 is being sold feels like an afterthought.

HTC, though, desperately needs a device that will see the company taken seriously again. A phone that can stand against the best from Samsung, and LG, and Motorola, and even Apple, and not immediately be relegated to the also-ran category. Once, the company was synonymous with Android phones; in the past 12-18 months, however, it has dwindled to a shadow of its former glories.

It’s too early to say whether the DROID DNA will achieve all that, though on a specs basis (an important element, though not the only one) it’s off to a promising start. If there’s a drawback to be found, though, it’s likely to be the software side of the equation: one of the reason Google’s Nexus devices have grown in popularity among users, particularly those heavily invested in Android, is because they’re first in line for OS updates. The DNA runs an older version out of the box, Android 4.1, and by saddling it with Sense, HTC has introduced further delay into the upgrade process.

Right now, that delay seems inevitable. If HTC can use the early access Google has promised to new versions of Android for key OEMs, and give supporting existing devices with timely updates the same degree of priority as it does pushing out new phones, it could do what so far Samsung, LG, and the others have failed to achieve. That is, create its own take on the Nexus program, delivering the latest and greatest in hardware with the latest and greatest in software, maintaining its unique brand in Sense without also demanding a compromise on software freshness from users. That’s the way to build brand loyalty and relevance, and they’re the two factors that could yank HTC from its current downward spiral. The answer’s simple: just make the DROID DNA a Nexus in all but name.

It should’ve been the HTC Nexus DNA is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Halo 4 has gotten a lot of people talking.

After Microsoft ousted Bungie to take over the Halo franchise, there was rampant speculation over what the future might look like for the world-renowned games. Would they deliver a new experience? Would they follow in Bungie’s footsteps? Would they try to tread new ground?

With Halo 4, we have an answer. Microsoft’s 343 Industries game studio has decided that it wants to take the Halo franchise to new heights with a trilogy that will follow the first one developed by Bungie. A lot was riding on 343 to deliver a worthwhile Halo experience. And so far, it appears the company delivered.

Don’t believe me? According to Metacritic, a site that compiles all game reviews in one spot, Halo 4 has received a Metascore of 87 from critics. Gamers have nearly universally celebrated the game’s graphics and fun. Sales are believed to be strong and could have won the month if not for Call of Duty: Black Ops II. By all measure, Halo 4 is a success.

That success requires us to give credit where it’s due. Bungie should be credited with creating a franchise that so many people across the world enjoy. Microsoft should be credited with understanding how important it is to deliver a high-quality experience. 343 Industries should be credited with carrying the torch bravely and effectively.

“For a long time, fans believed only Bungie could deliver the Halo experience”

But perhaps this saga goes beyond just one good game. The outpouring of love for Halo 4 can’t help but make me think that Bungie is negatively affected here. For a long time, gaming fans believed only Bungie could deliver a gaming experience that players would want. Now, it’s clear that’s not the case. And since Microsoft owns the Halo franchise, with each new launch, Bungie’s inspiration on the game will only be diminished.

Therefore, I have to pose a question I thought I never would: does Halo 4’s success make Bungie irrelevant?

Bungie fans who are displeased with the way Microsoft has treated the company will of course say I’m losing it. But think about it. Gamers responded extremely favorably to the game, despite protests over Bungie’s treatment. In fact, Halo 4 is one of the most popular games on store shelves right now.

So, maybe gamers really don’t care about Bungie or fairness. Perhaps today’s gamer cares most about entertainment value and they couldn’t care less which company is behind a title.

A similar scenario played out with the Call of Duty franchise. After Infinity Ward was left in shambles with the ouster of Jason West and Vince Zampella, the studio’s leaders, some believed that Call of Duty would die. Gamers, those folks said, would never buy a game from a company that, in their minds, treated the brains behind Call of Duty so poorly.

However, since Zampella and West have been gone, Call of Duty has hit new heights. It turns out that West and Zampella mattered little. And now, gamers who play Call of Duty each day rarely think about them.

For the sake of all gamers, I hope Bungie comes back with bigger and better things in the coming years. But for now, I can’t help but wonder if Bungie has been relegated to an afterthought now that Microsoft has staked claim to Halo.

Does Halo 4 Make Bungie Irrelevant? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

The Apple rumor-mill is cyclical, and one tale refuses to die: Apple ousting Intel from its MacBooks, and replacing x86 chips with ARM-based alternatives. The story surfaces periodically, just as it has done today, with titters of increasing “confidence” within Apple’s engineering teams that Intel will be eventually ditched in favor of the company’s own A-series SoCs as currently found within the iPad and iPhone. Not today, so the whispers go, but eventually, and what’s most interesting is that we’re likely already seeing the signs of the transition in Apple’s newest models.

Apple has arguably pushed tablet processors as far as they need to go, at least for today’s market. There’s a sense that the Apple A6X chipset in the latest, fourth-generation iPad with Retina display was a near-meaningless improvement on the A6 its predecessor sported; far more important was the change from old-style Dock Connector to new Lightning port. Sure, the newest iPad is faster in benchmarks, but in day to day use there’s hardly a noticeable difference.

Those benchmarks give some hints, however, as to where ARM chips might make sense on the desktop. The iPad 4 did particularly well in SunSpider, a browser-based test of JavaScript performance that gives a good indication of how fast the web experience will be. Considering most of us live online when we’re using our computers, that’s an increasingly important metric.

The iPad 4 scored under 880ms in our SunSpider testing (the lower the number, the better), making it one of the fastest tablets around in that particular benchmark. Now, admittedly, a current-gen MacBook Pro is capable of scores a quarter of that. But, more importantly, the iPad 4 can run for more than ten hours of active use delivering its level of performance, on a 43 Whr battery. Inside the new 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina, in contrast, Apple finds room for a 74 Whr pack.

“Intel may make a fast processor but it’s behind the curve in efficiency”

The allure of an ARM-based MacBook, then, is the combination of that growing performance and the power frugality of the chips that deliver it. Intel may make a fast processor, but it’s behind the curve when it comes to efficiency compared to ARM; the company’s struggles with Atom in the mobile market are evidence of that. And, while there’ll always be a cadre of performance-demanding Mac users, the regular cohort with more everyday needs might be more than wiling to sacrifice a little top-end grunt for the longevity to make it through a transatlantic flight with plenty of juice to spare.

In the end, though, Apple is notoriously self-reliant. The company has bought or invested in specialists in chip components, displays, aluminum casing production, optically-laminated displays, component assembly, and more. Anything, in short, that contributes to Apple’s supply chain or its competitive advantage in the market place (or preferably both). Sometimes the fruits of those investments go relatively unused for years, at least as far as the public can see; Apple’s perpetual and exclusive license to use Liquidmetal in its range – something so far mostly limited to a SIM-removal tool – is a good example of that.

We’ve also seen how it won’t shy from distancing itself from vendors when they either won’t toe the line or let the company down. NVIDIA’s time in the doghouse after the faulty MacBook GPU saga is good evidence of that, while AMD has long been tipped as attempting to curry Apple’s favor but never quite delivering the goods in internal testing.

If Apple can rid itself of reliance on another third party – and further extend the distance between its range and Windows-based PCs, blurring the lines of direct comparison – then it will undoubtedly jump at that chance. It’s unlikely to be shy in flexing its checkbook to do so, either, betting on long-term investment over short-term gains.

Apple, if time has taught us anything, will do what’s best for Apple: that means it demands the biggest advantage from those it works with, and isn’t afraid of taking a hit if it needs to change in order to achieve greater returns. In the past, Intel has given it early access to new processors, as well as the collaborative spoils of Thunderbolt ahead of PC rivals. If Intel can’t meet the grade on the sort of processors Apple sees as pivotal to its vision of future computing, however, all that shared history will be for naught. As far as Apple goes, it’s the Cupertino way or the highway.

If Apple can ditch Intel, it will is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

If there were ever a time when it was more evident that the software ecosystem surrounding a device was more important than the hardware inside it, it’s now. As evidenced first by the rapid rise of Samsung with their Galaxy S III vs the iPhone advertisements and the subsequent massive sales of their whole Galaxy family, then by the almost surprisingly positive reviews the Nokia Lumia 920 is receiving here at the dawn of Windows Phone 8, the importance of the software has tipped the scales. Any brand that doesn’t roll with this understanding will soon be eclipsed.

Over the past couple of quarters, Nokia has been beaten by Samsung as the largest mobile phone seller in the world – this record was held by Nokia for 14 years before 2012. The iPhone 5 is doing extremely well, selling 5 million units opening weekend, this half as much as the Galaxy S III sold in 100 days (as shown in the link above) – the iPhone 5 has overtaken the Galaxy S III in mobile web traffic and was announced by Apple to be the fastest selling phone in history.

Speaking from a writer’s perspective, this year I can tell you: the vast majority of the releases we’ve received from manufacturers has not been about hardware, it’s been about apps and services. Nokia Music has been pushed almost as much as the Nokia Lumia Windows Phone 8 rebirth, the LG Intuition phablet device brought on the era of LG making a point to use “QuickMemo”. LG’s effort is as simple as allowing the user to make notes on a screenshot while Nokia is jumping in on the music sales universe, somewhere that everyone and their mother is working to angle to their advantage digitally.

Apple has been working this angle since 2007 – or you could argue even before the iPhone was released with the iPod working exclusively with iTunes on Mac computers. Sony has an empire of cameras, gaming devices, and music playing pocketables that use their own cords and memory cards exclusively.

But that’s not the future – and it’s not the same as a software ecosystem.

The most important difference between manufacturing your device’s own cords and creating software that works with your device exclusively is breakage. We’ve heard complaints about proprietary equipment being broken and having to be replaced for large amounts of cash in the past. We’ve also seen massive crowds of users getting wild over their device’s exclusive network being knocked out.

One is not better than the other in a negative sense – there’s always going to be a major down side to creating the system around your hero device yourself, be it software or hardware. Having your own software, your own media network, your own app, music, movies, and digital book sales system though – that has a far more vast system of benefits than creating your own hardware ecosystem.

Create and require a new peripheral that your device requires to function and the only thing you can do to upgrade is to create a whole new peripheral. Create software that interacts with your device and you simply have to update that software – and you can do it as many times as you like. Software is the gift that keeps its ability to give – and it creates a lot less litter too, mind you.

The brand power increases as well with each new app specific to a family of devices. The iPhone 5 now with a brand new cord doesn’t sell nearly as well as The iPhone 5 now with a major upgrade to Siri. Samsung is aware of this – that’s why the Galaxy S III was Samsung’s coming-of-age, complete with a standard look and feel across the planet as well as a lovely little collection of Samsung-specific apps inside: and sharing abilities, too.

Nokia understands this too, and as they launch their family with Windows Phone 8 and Microsoft, a group that’s more than just a little aware of the power of branding, they stand a chance of grabbing hold of the public’s interest. Now we just have to see if the peak of smartphone evolution sticks, or if we’ll continue to improve devices beyond the point at which we humans can even detect their changes.

Smart device specs are over, long live the ecosystem is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Apple finds itself in an extremely enviable position. For years now, the company has been the envy of companies that wish they could generate billions of dollars each quarter on products that make customers drool. Apple is a special case. And it seems that every market it enters, it’s successful in.

That’s precisely why I’m confused by Apple’s seeming unwillingness to jump into the gaming space.

Apple’s iOS platform is rather interesting. Although Apple didn’t really plan it this way, its mobile operating system has become one of the most popular gaming platforms in the world. For years, customers have been turning to their iPhones, iPads, and iPods to play titles. And with each new hardware improvement, developers have been jumping at the chance to increase the playability (and beauty) of their games.

And yet, Apple has done little to acknowledge that. Each year at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple invites game companies on stage to show off their new creations for the latest version of iOS, but Apple has balked at portraying itself as a gaming leader. Instead, it simply wants to allow game developers to succeed on its products without truly mentioning its important involvement.

I think that’s a mistake. Apple has become a gaming company, whether the firm wants to admit it or not. And Apple’s success in mobile gaming could very easily translate to success in the console market.

Think about it: whenever Apple launches hardware, customers flock to buy it. When the company unveiled a new iPad Mini recently, it took only hours before the white version’s initial supply was sold out. The iPhone 5 is still on backorder for some models.

“Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are coasting”

Right now, the gaming space is ripe for Apple’s involvement. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are coasting without focusing too much on dramatic improvement. Instead, the companies are content with iterative updates that might be appealing to customers now, but won’t be able to hold up over the long-term. After all, the Wii U can match the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, but can it really be expected to compete with the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4?

Apple, meanwhile, has the cash and the know-how to do something special in gaming. The company could deliver a console that bests anything Microsoft and Sony might offer in the coming years. And with the billions in cash it has on hand, it wouldn’t take much for Apple to acquire a developer or two and get quality first-party titles onto store shelves.

And yet, Apple ignores gaming. The company seems content to deliver tablets, computers, smartphones, and music players, and couldn’t care less about consoles.

Hopefully things will change. Apple has all of the ingredients to become a leader in the console market. And its brand recognition is second to none. The company should jump into gaming and start putting pressure on the current competitors. After all, why wouldn’t it want to control another multibillion dollar market?

Why Does Apple Ignore Gaming? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.