Hasta La Gadget!

This month we’re hearing rumors upon rumors that Samsung will be releasing their second full iteration of the Galaxy Note line with a “2″ model toting a massive 5.5-inch display – but you might want to go ahead and skip it. We’ve been using the Samsung Galaxy Note – the first one – since it was released, and are now working quite actively with both the Galaxy Note 10.1 (the tablet-sized version of the device line) as well as the Samsung Galaxy S III. As it turns out, there might not be a need for yet another Samsung display size.

Of course who can say such a thing when Samsung has been making a killing over the past couple of years in creating Android devices in a variety of sizes. They started really hitting it when the began manufacturing the Galaxy Tab lineup, starting with the classic original Galaxy Note and moving up to the 10.1-inch tablet and back down to the 8.9. They’ve also hit 7.7, 7.0 several times, and have certainly moved through every inch between 3.5 and 4.7 as well.

NOTE: The image above is a mock up, not the real deal. That said, the designer behind the mock-up is a pro – hats off to him!

Check out our reviews of the Samsung Galaxy Note (T-Mobile) Samsung Galaxy Note (International), and Samsung Galaxy Note (AT&T). And don’t forget our review of the Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 as well!

The first Galaxy Note has a 5.3-inch display and a chassis that’s not too thick, made to work with HSPA+ radios at its fastest, not quite hitting up the world of LTE (in its first international iteration, anyway). We assumed that this was because LTE components made the device a bit fatter than Samsung would have liked it – though the Galaxy Nexus proved us wrong with its own slight weight gain – and the LG Optimus U may have been another clue with its future exclusivity. That’s not confirmed, of course, but such a similar form factor is certainly set to cannibalize the market Samsung has all but cornered right this moment.

The Samsung Galaxy S III also presents a bit of a conundrum for you potential future Galaxy Note 2 purchasers – do you want that next-gen device, or do you want this already fabulous smartphone? Have a peek at a hands-on we did with the Galaxy Note (original) and the Galaxy S III vs one another before the Galaxy S III was released earlier this year.

Now with the Samsung Galaxy Note 2, we’re likely going to see everything we had with the original Note, but with a larger display as well as some Galaxy S III flair. We’re hoping to see each of the following bits of fabulousness that came with the Galaxy S III line for one reason: if Samsung is able to continue to bring on Samsung-unique features such as each of these, they’ll have an Apple situation on their hands with people wanting to remain “in the family” – aka brand loyal. Of course when we say “we hope” it’s more of a hope for Samsung if they want to continue to rise in the market ranks.

S Beam Hands-on

AllShare Play / Group Cast Hands-on

Share Shot / Buddy Photo Share Hands-on

If the next Galaxy Note does indeed appear with these features onboard when it comes into the light at IFA 2012, I will congratulate Samsung on a continued job well done. If they are not aboard, I’ll question Samsung’s ability to stay confident in their own software. That’s no joking matter!

You might want to skip the Galaxy Note 2 is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

As I’ve noted on SlashGear before, I have what some might call a gaming closet museum. Over the last couple of decades, I’ve collected consoles, handhelds, and popular games, and kept them on the ready in the event I want to go old school and power on my old Atari 2600 or check out an NES title.

I recently found myself bored and decided to break out some of those old hardware devices. And as I combed my way through all of those products, I couldn’t help but wonder: what if we had a single console to rule them all? A device that was universally supported and acted as the only console we needed for the generation.

The excitement was palpable. I started thinking up ways in which the console would work and the chances of every developer – from Nintendo to Electronic Arts – supporting it for the good of the community. Surely, it would be possible, right?

Then I started thinking about the reality of the gaming industry. We have three companies right now offering hardware, and not one of them looks to be willing to change their strategies. What’s worse, none of them like each other.

As if that’s not enough, we’ve come to a place in the gaming community where some people would just not play titles from their favored company on another console. Nintendo fans, for example, curse at the thought of being able to play their beloved Super Mario or The Legend of Zelda games on a console designed by another company.

But perhaps a universal console is where the industry should be headed. In a world where people have less money to spend, wouldn’t it be nice to pay for one $300 or $400 console, and not worry about buying two or three for that price? And by reducing hardware-acquisition costs, it’s possible that developers and publishers can make far more on the backside, since customers will have more to spend.

In a perfect world, Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and perhaps other members of the gaming community would collaborate on the universal game console, offering up their own two cents on what should be included and what shouldn’t. The result? A device that would likely deliver high-quality graphics, unique concepts, and a design that would make people across the globe quite happy.

“Perhaps a universal console is where the industry should be headed.”

Combining the strengths of all gaming companies delivers the very best results, if you ask me.

But unfortunately, no one is asking me. The game industry has become big business. And whether we old school gamers, who desire the old days of innovation, like it or not, the chances of the industry changing are slim and none.

We’re stuck with multiple consoles, games that are exclusive to some products, and a community that can’t quite get itself to accept major change.

It’s unfortunate, isn’t it? I think a world where a universal game console was the norm would be a better place. But maybe I’m alone.

Let us know in the comments below how you would feel if a universal game console ever hit store shelves.

Will There One Day Be A Universal Game Console? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

I was using my Apple TV the other day to stream some music to my television and thought about something: prior to the Worldwide Developers Conference in June, rumors suggested that Apple was going to announce a new Apple TV operating system that would support applications and all kinds of other goodies. There was also some speculation that the company might offer up a new Apple TV set-top box that would come with some storage for the apps.

However, amid all of the talk of a new MacBook Pro with a Retina display and discussions on Apple’s new mobile and desktop operating systems, the Apple TV was overlooked. And those of us who actually want to run apps on our televisions were left to hope it might happen another day.

There’s just one issue: since WWDC, discussions on a new Apple TV have dried up. We haven’t heard of any improvements to the device’s operating system nor discussions on developers bringing their apps to the device. There hasn’t even been a rumor mentioning the possibility of a new Apple set-top box launching sometime soon.

So, what gives? Has Apple’s highly touted ability to keep everything secret won yet again? Or is it possible that the rumors were nonsense in the beginning, and those of us who own an Apple TV will never get the update we so deeply desire?

Unfortunately, I’m starting to think that it’s the latter. For years now, Apple has called its set-top box a hobby, and although it doesn’t like to use that moniker nowadays, the device really is. Like it or not, Apple doesn’t really care all that much about the Apple TV, and it has proven to be an afterthought for the company for far too many years.

“I’ve decided to ignore all Apple TV rumors”

Realizing that, I’ve decided to ignore all Apple TV rumors that might arise in the next several months. The way I see it, Apple cares most about its iPhone, iPad, and Macs, and the company is more than likely working on a television. To worry about updating a device that comes in at $99 and many consumers don’t even know about would be a mistake from a business perspective.

Admittedly, it’s not the end of the world for me. As much as I’d like to have an App Store on my Apple TV, I have applications running on my current Samsung HDTVs. At this point, I really only use my Apple TV to watch television shows or movies I download or to stream some of my music. Beyond that, I ignore it.

But that could all change if Apple actually started caring about the Apple TV. And if those rumors could eventually come true, I think there would be millions of the device’s owners who would be awfully happy to have that extra functionality.

Don’t hold your breath, though. Unfortunately, the Apple TV is slowly but surely meeting its maker. And within the next year or so, it’s quite possible it’ll be discontinued and throw into the grand junk heap of tech goodies that couldn’t hold out for long.

Whatever Happened to That New Apple TV? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Microsoft’s Surface Pro has company, with Lenovo revealing its own Windows 8 slate, the ThinkPad Tablet 2, targeting the all-important enterprise segment. Like the higher-spec Surface, Lenovo’s new tablet has content-creation features like a digital pen and all the remote management your IT team demands; it also has the more flexible full version of Windows 8, rather than Windows RT. And, like Microsoft, Lenovo is playing pricing cards close to its chest. One thing is already becoming clear, however: Windows 8 may well struggle to compete in business markets.

While official numbers are in short supply, Lenovo’s intentions are likely to be in keeping with Microsoft’s own estimates. The Windows maker said it planned to offer the Surface Pro at a price akin to an ultrabook, figured to mean a $699+ sticker. With similar specifications under the hood, the ThinkPad Tablet 2 will probably amount to the same, options depending.

Unfortunately, Apple’s iPad already has a head start, even if it wasn’t originally intended for business users. The iOS tablet may not have been designed with enterprise in mind – there’s no biometric security, no digital pen – but what it lacks in tailoring it makes up with ubiquity, and that counts for a lot. Individual users and IT departments alike are familiar with the iPad, and while it demands compromises, they’re already a known quantity.

“Microsoft has purposefully crippled Windows RT to leave a market for Windows 8”

Microsoft’s segment positioning may well prove the downfall to competing with all that. The entry-level Surface is expected to be competitive with the iPad – the unofficial guesstimate is around $499+ – but runs Windows RT rather than Windows 8. That version will be cheaper, certainly, but Microsoft has purposefully crippled it so as to leave a market for Windows 8 and the machines the full OS will run on.

Apple’s price advantage and dominance of the tablet segment are therefore balanced against Microsoft and Lenovo’s more suited specifications and Windows familiarity, each of which come with a price disadvantage. Lenovo could try to upset that balance by undercutting Surface and trying to bring its Windows 8 model closer to the iPad, but that’s a considerable challenge given the hardware. Intel processors and the graphics, memory and storage to go with them generally add up to a more expensive machine than an ARM-based tablet such as Apple’s; we’re basically talking keyboardless ultrabook, with extra thrown in if you want the optional pen.

Microsoft’s two new versions of Windows might look like they increase flexibility, but OEMs may well find they’re an inadvertent pincer-movement, trapping them between locked-down consumer functionality or something that’s comes enterprise-ready but at a cost. That sort of premium is easy to explain if you’re first to the market, but Windows faces all the challenges of following not one but two high-profile platforms into a segment where some might argue that consumers have already picked their winner. It’ll take more than a stylus and a slick new UI to address that.

Windows 8 tablets are bad business is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.

Although all of the talk surrounding Cupertino currently centers on Apple’s iPhone, I can’t get the company’s television out of my head. I own an iPhone and have an iPad. And although I’ll likely buy Apple’s next handset, it’s the company’s television that has me drooling.

Based on the reports surrounding Apple’s television at the moment, I can all but guarantee that I’ll be buying one. I love the idea of iCloud integration and I firmly believe that it’ll come with an App Store. Better yet, it’ll deliver high-quality visuals that should make its competition reevaluate their future decisions.

The only thing I don’t like hearing, though, is talk of Apple requiring iPhone and iPad owners use their mobile devices to control the television. Yes, it’s a forward-thinking idea, but it’s a bad one.

The fact is, we can use the iPhone and iPad as a remote right now. On my Apple TV, for example, I can control everything the device does with Apple’s nifty Remote app. But that Remote app is designed for a simple box and even simpler functionality. The remote’s featureset just won’t translate to a sophisticated television.

Like it or not, today’s remotes, as ugly and big, and old school as they might be, are a necessary evil. Physical buttons that light up at night make it easy for us to choose a channel, increase the volume, and perform other activities. And with some help from a physical keyboard built into some of those remotes, we can quickly type out just about anything.

“Using the iPhone as a remote will take us back in time”

A touchscreen-based remote, however, tends to fall short. For one thing, we’ll always need to be looking down just to find out what buttons we need to press. And our current practice of sliding our finger over to a button based on muscle memory alone will be gone. Using the iPhone or iPad as a remote in some ways will take us back in time.

That said, I can see some value in using an iDevice to control my new Apple television. I like the idea of using it to type in credentials into an application or even making it a secondary screen that delivers more information than what’s on the television. For example, if I’m watching a baseball game, it would be great if that broadcast shipped over to my iPhone – likely through an additional application running on the handset – some information on the batter, who’s up next, and other key data.

But as a remote, I don’t see much value in the iPhone and iPad. Apple can certainly create some nifty applications and I won’t deny that the company has come up with features that have blown us away. But controlling a television is very basic and needs some physical buttons. A mobile device featuring only a touchscreen just won’t get it done.

Ditch plans for the iDevices controlling your televisions, Apple. The future is still in the past with physical remotes.

Dear Apple: Don’t Use the iPhone As the Remote for Your TV is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.