Can we all finally admit that the Wii U is in huge trouble? I mean, for months I’ve been saying it here on SlashGear, and yet, the company’s most ardent supporters have continued to say that the console will be just fine. But again, that argument flies in the face of the facts. Nintendo earlier […]
The Chromecast was arguably one of the most talked-about new products that was revealed by Google earlier this week. The new Nexus 7 and Android 4.3 were cool and all, but the Chromecast definitely got most of the attention, and it’s easy to see why: it’s a media streaming device the size of a dongle, and it only costs $35 ($11 after the 3-month Netflix discount, which has since been discontinued). However, after playing around with it for a little while, I’ve noticed that it’s an awesome device for some people, and an awful device for others.
Perhaps the biggest point that’s being argued over is the lack of streaming options available for the Chromecast. While more and more services will eventually support the new device, only Netflix, YouTube, and Google Play are supported. This is obviously a huge turn-off for those who take advantage of the likes of Hulu, Amazon Instant Video, etc., but for me, the only streaming services I use are Netflix and YouTube (okay, I use Spotify too, but I never use it on a TV anyways). Then again, these other services can be accessed through the Chrome browser and relayed to the Chromecast, so not all hope is lost there.
But the support for Netflix and YouTube means that the Chromecast supports all of the video streaming services that I use, which is a huge win for me, but a huge loss for those who use anything other than these two services. Again, though, the Chromecast SDK will allow more and more streaming services to add support eventually, so the only question is when that will happen.
The Chromecast is great for a variety of things, including presentations (just as long as your presentation is through a Chrome browser, which shouldn’t be too hard, thanks to Google Drive’s Presentation app). You can mirror a Chrome tab to the Chromecast, and keep browsing other tabs on your computer while that tab remains on the TV. And yes, if you’re on that active tab, any action you do will be mirrored to the Chromecast, which is great for showing a large crowd something on your computer.
However, a huge complaint that I have after playing around with it for about an hour, is that it’s just not as convenient as a streaming set-top box like an Apple TV or Roku. It’s also harder to use for those who aren’t tech-minded. My wife, for example, found the process of using the Chromecast to be extremely tedious compared to just browsing around on a set-top box using a remote control. She found it was quicker and easier to select the content she wanted on a set-top box rather than using the Chromecast.
However, even though I’m pretty tech savvy, I still found the Chromecast to be a little tedious at times. For example, I love watching episodes of How It’s Made while I fall asleep, and the nice thing I like about set-top boxes is that they’ll automatically play the next episode. Chromecast doesn’t do this. Instead, after a show is over and I want to watch another one, I have to wake my smartphone, and scroll down to the next episode. Sadly, there’s no option of just tapping “Next” in the Netflix app. With that said, it’s simply just easier to use a remote control in this instance.
Obviously, that’s a very specific example of when the Chromecast doesn’t exactly work well, but from an overall perspective, I really like it. It’s extremely portable, so I can take it with me when I travel and use it in hotel rooms to watch my Netflix shows, instead of using my laptop’s small screen and awful speakers. It’s also a great device for parties, especially when you’re all gathered in the living room and you want to show everyone a funny YouTube video. All you have to do is bring it up on your smartphone and beam it the Chromecast to have it start playing on the big screen.
In a broader sense, the only downside is latency. Google already said that gaming is out of the question because of slow latency, and pausing/resuming video, as well as adjusting volume took a second or two to kick in for me. Granted, I was in a room in my apartment that gets really crappy WiFi coverage, so I’m guessing the latency would be a bit better than this in a well-covered area.
As far as the extra USB power cable that everyone keeps complaining about, it’s really not a big deal. Yes, Google was pretty shady in skimming over that bit of information during the announcement, but if you have a USB port on your TV, it’s seriously not a huge problem at all. Even if you have to plug it into an outlet, it’s plug-and-forget.
Obviously, the Chromecast may not be anything too special right now, except for it’s extremely-low price point, but I can only see the device getting better and better as time goes on. Thanks to the accompanying SDK, we should be seeing more and more apps support the Chromecast, and we wouldn’t be surprised if hackers got their hands on it as well and did some really neat stuff with it. And of course, we reckon you’ll be able to grab a Chromecast for next to nothing on eBay once the hype settles.
Chromecast is a viable STB replacement, but not for everyone is written by Craig Lloyd & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
It wasn’t long ago that Microsoft supporters and fans would laugh at Apple and Steve Jobs, saying that as wonderful as he was believed to be, he never had the kind of money that Bill Gates did. At the end of the day, those people would argue, it was software that sold products and actually mattered; not hardware.
For a long time, that was true. Dell and HP might have made their cash on hardware, but if it weren’t for Windows, who would have bought the PCs? And Microsoft was able to build an entire business on the idea that delivering software was preferable to delivering hardware. Even now, Microsoft is generating billions of dollars every quarter by following that plan.
But things are starting to change. The world is becoming increasingly focused on hardware to the detriment of software. And in far more cases than ever, the number of companies that are benefiting from their hardware is on the rise. In other words, hardware is starting to drive much of what consumers and even enterprise users think about certain products.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in the case of Apple. There was a time when Microsoft was the industry’s biggest company, due mainly to its software strategy. But for the last few years, Apple has reigned supreme. And although it generates significant cash from software through its App Store, it’s the company’s hardware that has driven its profits. Without the stellar hardware, Apple wouldn’t be Apple.
“Without the stellar hardware, Apple wouldn’t be Apple.”
A similar scenario plays out when one examines Samsung Electronics. That company is using the same Android that’s available in countless other devices. But what’s drawing customers to its products is the hardware. To not acknowledge that would be a huge mistake.
Which, of course, brings us to Microsoft. As I’ve mentioned, Microsoft was always the benchmark by which all other companies were judged. And when arguments were made that software was better than hardware, Microsoft was the trump card all debaters would use. And why not? With billions of dollars in profits each quarter, it was an easy play.
But recently, Microsoft changed everything when it announced that it was initiating a massive restructure that would focus the company not so much on software, but on hardware. What’s more, Steve Ballmer said that as time goes on, Microsoft will become even more hardware-friendly than it has in the past.
“Hardware has become the new software. And even Microsoft knows it.”
Microsoft’s announcement represented a seismic shift in the technology industry. The one company that, years ago, drove the idea that software development was best, is now the firm that believes the future is in hardware. In an odd turn of events, hardware has become the new software. And even Microsoft knows it.
So, what does the future look like for companies that are focused on software? Not too bad. Software is still a highly profitable and important part of the industry. But to not acknowledge that hardware is the best way to attract customers nowadays would be a huge mistake.
Just ask BlackBerry.
Who Knew? Hardware Is the New Software is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
In addition to announcing the Moto X’s official unveil date, this week the folks at Motorola Mobility have had a bit of a spill. This spill – if you could call it that – consists of details surrounding their next generation of smart devices, particularly sitting in the “wearables” realm. Could it be time to see what was most recently hoped for in the Motorola MOTOACTV rebooted here in 2013 to mix it up well with the company’s newest fully fashionable hero smartphone release?
This spill comes in the form of a list of hires, job postings made by the company that are looking to help with the expansion of “a new world-class wearables design group within Motorola.” If that’s not a good indicator for a possible big-time expansion of the sector we’ve not yet heard of, we’d like to hear what is.
“Create beautiful, Functional and Desirable objects.”
What you’ll see in the job listing – if it’s still up by the time you see this article – is a suggestion that Motorola’s search requires, first and foremost, a person that will “provide strategic leadership, champion innovation and institute best practices to create a new world-class wearable’s design group within Motorola.”
“Specifically, the Industrial Design Team collaborates closely with our internal work partners to create compelling, usable and innovative products that define our brand with over a million consumers worldwide. The wearables design team will lead the establishment of our brand in the massive competitive and growing space of wearable connected products.”
So what’s this all got to do with Moto X?
Have a peek at the Moto X reveal event invite and observe the design language:
Can you spot the smartphones?
You’ll find the white version and the black version of Moto X in the hands of these hipsters, and you’ll find at least one accessory – in addition to the phone – on each of these young, cool fashionistas. Even the fellow (we’ll assume it’s a fellow) to the left is wearing a tank-top – certainly not something you wear to the office.
Add to this original Moto X advertisement released on the 3rd of July. Both humans – we’ll assume they’re humans, anyway – are wearing straight black as they jump into the sparkling greatness that is the future, straight above them the brand new Motorola logo complete with rainbow ring.
Click image for full-sized JPG file.
A posting to Motorola’s Google+ page shared on the 11th of July dropped this image tied to the note: “3D printers, Velcro vans, and really smart people. +MAKEwithMOTO, we like your style.” Of course MAKEwithMOTO has been around for a while longer than this tip, it’s not hard to imagine the initiative crossing paths with Moto X quite easily in the very near future. How about for those back smartphone casings, fully customizable the lot of them?
This equation is adding up quick: soon after the Moto X is launched and Motorola’s new aim – the user – becomes more important than making the device destroy all other devices with specifications alone, the company will set its sights on attaching itself to another appendage.
While it’s not immediately clear how Motorola, a Google company, will aim to release any sort of wearable device with Google aiming to release the ideal unit – Glass – this notoriously resilient company will make another move that’s unique.
Will it be another smartwatch? Something to keep track of your steps when you head out for your daily run – or lack thereof? Hardly.
Motorola will be getting a bit more under your skin than that.
Moto X then wearables: here’s how Motorola gets fashionable is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
When I look around the technology space, I can’t think of any single product that is so poorly associated with another device than Microsoft’s Kinect. The sensor, which is supposedly designed with gamers in mind, actually delivers very little value to gamers nowadays. In fact, the Kinect is designed for computers and entertainment – gaming is an afterthought.
Since its release years ago, the Kinect has been bundled with Microsoft’s Xbox 360 and will make a showing in the Xbox One box. Microsoft, meanwhile, continues to pretend that the Kinect is a great tool for gamers who want to get more out of their titles.
Unfortunately, a few game developers have helped Microsoft extend this myth. Electronic Arts, for example, used the Kinect in all kinds of ways in its last version of Madden NFL. But after the novelty wore off and wives got tired of their husbands calling an audible in the middle of the night, gamers went back to their controller and stopped the nonsense.
Let me be clear: Microsoft’s Kinect is by no means a bad product. In fact, it’s arguably one of the most sophisticated devices on the market, and one that’s worth trying out for just about anyone. But to say that it’s a gaming product ignores the true value of the device and what it can offer to tech lovers around the world.
“To say that it’s a gaming product ignores the true value of the device.”
As Microsoft showed with its Xbox One presentation, the Kinect thrives as an entertainment device. Its support for voice commands means controlling devices and entertainment is simple. And with a few waves of a hand, the Kinect can perform all kinds of functions for those who need a more intuitive experience. Gaming, meanwhile, never comes into play.
On the PC side, the Kinect is even more compelling. The device is being used by developers in all kinds of interesting ways, including allowing folks who are used to the mouse and keyboard to enjoy a more intuitive experience when interacting with Windows. More entertaining developers have found ways to leverage its camera for all kinds of fun tricks.
Meanwhile, developers continue to bundle some Kinect functionality into their video games. However, the vast majority of those installations have proven to be unnecessary add-ons that lack innovation and uniqueness and seem like they were tacked on for the sake of placating Microsoft.
The Wii’s dramatic rise and fall should prove to us all that while motion gaming was fun for awhile, it’s yet another idea that has been ignored by savvy gamers.
Getting more out of consoles, however, is not something that savvy gamers mind. In fact, it’s what they’re coming to expect. And in that regard, the Kinect is delivering. The device is the ideal living room companion, the best alternative to a remote, and is quickly becoming a gateway to entertaining content.
In other words, the Kinect has less and less to do with gaming each passing day.
Let’s Stop Pretending the Kinect Is A Gaming Device is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
Elon Musk’s next big idea has been making the rounds lately. It’s actually an idea that’s been around for a while, but it’s just now gaining some real steam across the internet, mostly thanks to an announcement by Musk that he would be unveiling plans for the Hyperloop system by August 12, leaving us waiting in anticipation. While the idea sounds really cool and it makes sense on paper, is Hyperloop something that can realistically happen?
A quick primer on the basic idea of Hyperloop: It would essentially consist of a network of tubes spanning across the US, and capsules would be shot through these tubes at tremendous speeds (similar to how the capsule and tube system works at your local drive-thru bank). These capsules would be able to fit 6-8 people at a time, leaving room for luggage as well. Musk calls the Hyperloop system “a cross between a Concorde, a rail gun, and an air hockey table.”
How fast would these capsules be able to travel? The theoretical speed we’re talking about is somewhere around 4,000 mph, and this would be possible using Maglev technology that is currently used on bullet trains that allows them to travel at over 350 mph. However, since the tubes will be vacuumed and airless, the capsules will be able to travel at much higher speeds, similar to how a spacecraft can zoom through space at ridiculous speeds, thanks to the lack of air friction.
On top of that, Musk has said that the entire system would be incredibly low-powered, and it could run off of solar panels placed above the tubes, leaving energy costs at a minimum. Based on the speed that these capsules could travel at, a 2,500-mile trip from New York to Los Angeles would take only 30-45 minutes — a trip that normally takes 5-6 hours by commercial plane. People have been sketching out what a Hyperloop system would look like, and Elon Musk has pointed out a sketch that’s the closest anyone has gotten so far:
Another sketch shows the possible network of Hyperloop tubes stretched out across the US, with main hubs in New York, Chicago, Amarillo (in Texas), and Los Angeles. Then, each of these hubs would have separate branches extending out that could take passengers to surrounding cities. For instance, you could stop at the Chicago hub and get on another capsule that would take you to either Minneapolis, Detroit, Cincinnati, or St. Louis.
Plus, since the energy costs of Hyperloop would be so low, Musk says that a trip from New York to Los Angeles in one of the capsules would cost much less than an airline ticket. It also wouldn’t experience delays due to weather, since the tube system would be able to withstand most forms of bad weather. We’ll see how robust the system will be, but we wouldn’t be surprised if a tornado or hurricane caused a bit of damage.
This all sounds quite amazing, and it seems to work on paper, but is it practical and realistic? The US is having a hard time as it is just to bring high-speed rail into the country, mostly because the US doesn’t have the money and infrastructure for such a big project, and Hyperloop would cost just as much as (possibly even more than) a high-speed rail network.
However, if Musk ended up funding the project himself, this could be something that may actually get built, but it would also have to get approval from the government, and who knows how long that would take.
Check out our other recent coverage below for more on Elon Musk’s latest happenings.
Hyperloop: great on paper, but is it practical? is written by Craig Lloyd & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
If you’re planning on picking up the Verizon iteration of the HTC One, you’ll do well to know the battle said phone will be facing when it appears amongst the 4G LTE smartphone ranks of the big red carrier. What we’ve done here is to run down the rest of the devices that will be carried by Verizon at the time the HTC One will be released (likely August 1st), along with reviews if we’ve got them (if they’re on the market already, that is), or connections to information on potential specifications if they’re not.
Before we get too far into this competition and analysis, lets go ahead and get the devices NOT running Android out of the way. If you’re here in the summer of 2013 looking for a smartphone and are considering the HTC One, you already know you’re not going to want to pick up anything with iOS or Windows Phone 8 running on it. That much can be readily assumed.
If on the other hand you’re one of the odd folks out there that’ve found yourself in a predicament where you absolutely must decide between the operating systems, there really are only a few devices you’ll be deciding between.
Starting with the iPhone 5 and the iPhone 4S, you’ll either be paying $199.99 for the newest in new or $99.99 for the next-best thing. There’s always the iPhone 4 if you only want the form factor and the cool factor, and that’s free, but as far as getting anywhere near the processing and photo/video power that the HTC One has, the iPhone 5 is your only choice.
If you’re all about Windows Phone 8, Nokia’s 920 family entry with the Lumia 928 will indeed be the cure you’re looking for. It has a display that comes nowhere near the sharpness of the HTC One – or the iPhone, for that matter – but if you’re looking for high-quality photos and video and the most solid package running this mobile OS, the Lumia 928 far and away beats any other Verizon-bound machine at this time.
There’s also the BlackBerry Z10 and the BlackBerry Q10. If you’re thinking about purchasing the HTC One and you’ve also got either one of these devices on your “maybe” list, please do yourself a favor and hold either of them in your hand and the HTC One in the other. Mobile OS completely aside, the HTC One makes both of these BlackBerry devices appear as though they’ve been released more than a year ago – they’d be better suited to do battle with the original HTC One S, and even then your humble narrator would choose the latter based solely on software ecosystem – and the HTC One S wasn’t even carried by Verizon. You’d be better off waiting for the BlackBerry A10 instead.
With the Samsung Galaxy S 4 and the Samsung Galaxy Note II, HTC’s biggest competition comes in two hero-styled form factors. You’ll be able to see our full Samsung Galaxy S 4 vs HTC One run-down in a separate article – such is the nature of this topmost competitor for the HTC device. Both machines have the same processor, both have nearly the same display sharpness and size, and both are aimed squarely at being king of the heap.
The Samsung Galaxy S 4 rings in at $199.99 while the Galaxy Note II still costs $299.99 – a surprising price point given its makeup vs the GS4 and the notion that a next-generation Galaxy Note III is well on the way. The Galaxy Note II remains a high-powered beast of a unique addition to the Verizon lineup, on the other hand, continuing to be the one machine to offer a stylus built in to its body – and not some half-effort capacitive pen, either, a real value of an accessory in and of itself.
Have a peek at our Samsung Galaxy Note II review and Verizon hands-on to see why this device has only yet been size-checked by the HTC-made DROID DNA on Verizon – we’ll get to that soon.
At the moment there’s no real competitor both made by LG and carried Verizon that can compare to the HTC One. There’s always the LG Intuition if you want to, once again, just be as unique as possible, but if you’re going to that device for its stylus, you’ll still be better off with a Galaxy Note II based solely on its software updates and relatively solid future-proof styling.
Verizon may get the LG Optimus G2 later this year, but it’ll be – at the very least – two months after the release of the HTC One that this fabled powerhouse is set loose with any carrier – and there’s no guarantee it’ll be released with Verizon either way. The LG Optimus G2 event is set for August 7th, if you’d like to follow along.
There are three devices running on Verizon’s 4G LTE network right this moment that could very well be updated in kind by the end of September – or very soon thereafter. There’s a Verizon event scheduled for July 23rd to bring DROID back up to speed and based on every leak and tip we’ve come in contact with over the past few weeks, it would appear that these three machines are on the docket for replacement.
There’s the DROID RAZR HD, the slightly larger battery capacity-toting DROID RAZR HD MAXX, and the palm-ready smallest family member of the pack in the DROID RAZR M. As each of these smartphones runs with the same software, the same processor, and has effectively the same update schedule set from Motorola and Verizon, we must recommend them all the same.
Each has proven itself to be a top-to-bottom solid experience, and though they’re certainly not going to win any photography contests, each device has proven itself an effective workhorse for our everyday mobile communication device needs.
• Motorola DROID RAZR HD Review
• Motorola DROID RAZR HD MAXX Review (vs RAZR HD)
• Motorola DROID RAZR M Review
If you’ve waited this long for the HTC One to hit Verizon and you’re willing to wait a little longer for this DROID trio to bring on a reboot, we certainly wouldn’t hold it against you.
Until that reboot is made official, keep this in mind: if the DROID RAZR HD MAXX can back up both Chris Burns here on SlashGear and Android Community’s Cory Gunther through the entirety of CES 2013 (earlier this year, that being the most intense week of on-site tech reporting of the year), this line is certainly good enough to continue trucking into a competition with the HTC One.
Though they may not be as stylish – depending on your perspective – as the HTC One or the Samsung Galaxy S 4, the DROID RAZR HD family is a high-class match of 2013 smartphone abilities with rugged cant-bust-em bodies to boot. That’s a rarity on the market today, and we’re expecting Google to make the most of it with the DROID line reboot – not to mention the Moto X.
You’ll also want to check out the Moto X since it’s tipped to be hitting Verizon before the end of August as well – there you’ll find what’s essentially a cousin of this DROID family reboot, only made to seem of paramount importance to the future of Android in its push by Google as they push Motorola, a Google company. Expect the Moto X to seem a lot cooler than the DROID family reboot, though a specifications battle it will not win, by any means (that’s not the idea, after all).
Here at the birth of the Verizon HTC One ends Verizon’s push of the DROID DNA. It was because of the DROID DNA, make no mistake, that the HTC One was so very “delayed” as such. Whenever Verizon has a hero smartphone like the DROID DNA (aka the HTC Butterfly J, as it’s known internationally), you’ll find a frame of time that’s placed between it and any other smartphone that directly conflicts with its specifications – this is especially true when there’s another phone made by the first phone’s same manufacturer.
Because the DROID DNA and the HTC One are so very similar, Verizon’s release of the HTC One will soon be followed by a distinct lack of interest by the public – and by Verizon – in the larger smartphone. If you’re not too worried about software updates – especially if you’re a hacking-friendly user – the DROID DNA remains a lovely device in its own right. Especially since it’s current price at $49.99 is well below any other device rolling with a 5-inch display with sharpness so HD.
The DROID DNA offers the same amount of pixels that the HTC One does, spread out a bit more (so it’s just slightly less sharp) with a set of specifications that are more than ready to continue feeling impressive through the end of the year. Of course with the HTC One you’re getting better external speakers, a better set of cameras, a processor that’s literally the next generation replacement of the one living in the DROID DNA, and you’ve got a metal body instead of the DROID DNA’s plastic, too.
But maybe plastic – polycarbonate, that is – is more your style. For you there’s also the competition in the Samsung Galaxy Note II, a device with a rather similarly-sized display and the added bonus of Samsung’s own S-Pen. If you’re not all about Samsung’s software family and don’t feel the need to write with an accessory such as that, the DROID DNA still has a feature set that’ll continue to fight with the Samsung “handheld.”
The HTC One is one of the most celebrated smartphones of the year, and it continues to be a smartphone worth releasing by Verizon even though it’s been out on several other carriers for weeks – and out internationally for months. As it also appears as a pure-Android HTC One Google Play edition, it should be clear how good a job it was that HTC did with this smartphone.
We’re expecting HTC to release a smaller and a larger edition of the HTC One by the end of the year – code-named for now (only because the company hasn’t given them full official final names) HTC One Mini and HTC One Max. Though these devices may offer unique perks in and of themselves when they’re revealed fully, they’ll be based in hardware and software largely on the HTC One, the original hero for HTC’s 2013 generation of smart mobile devices.
You can expect HTC to continue to support the HTC One’s software for many moons, as its placed so much of its faith in this machine that it’s all but annihilated any other efforts they’ve pushed for the rest of the year. Remember any other HTC smartphone releases since the HTC One was made official earlier this year? There certainly have been a few, but none championed nearly so hard as the One.
Expect the HTC One to grow in its software abilities well into the future while the hardware remains a solid package through the next several seasons with ease. Don’t go away without making sure you’re up-to-date with our AT&T HTC One Review and our original HTC One Review (international edition) before we get our hands on the Verizon edition – soon, and very soon!
Verizon HTC One prepares for civil war: here’s what it’s up against is written by Chris Burns & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
I know what I’m about to say will annoy millions of Nintendo fans around the globe and maybe even make some of the executives at the company scoff, but the way I see it, there’s no other way out for Nintendo than to end its love affair with consoles and go multiplatform with its hit titles.
I understand that, for years, Nintendo has rebuffed all suggestions that it should bring its titles to other multiple platforms. The company believes that it’s still going to benefit most from offering hardware and software on a single product and can’t fathom the thought of putting Mario or Zelda on an Xbox or PlayStation. First-party titles are the secret to its success, after all.
But I think it’s time that we and Nintendo start acknowledging that all of that “success” has been fleeting over the last decade. I’ll freely admit that the Wii was, surprisingly, a hit. And chances are, neither the Xbox 360 nor the PlayStation 3 will match it in total sales when everything is said and done. But should we discount the fact that in its latter years, the Wii was losing steam? And perhaps most importantly, should we discount the fact that the Wii U has gotten off to an abysmal start?
Although Nintendo has not officially released console sales data for the U.S., each month when NPD releases its console sales figures, one thing becomes immediately apparent: things are not going well. In fact, it’s believed that Nintendo has sold less than 100,000 Wii U units nearly every month this year. For a console that’s not even a year old, that’s a huge problem.
So, what happened to the Wii U? Blame it on mobile games, blame it on its core customer base getting older, and perhaps blame it on Nintendo’s own inability to see the changing times. As EA COO Peter Moore said recently, the Wii U is a decidedly “offline” box despite claiming to feature online components that gamers would want. In reality, it’s a vestige of what gaming used to be like – and isn’t anymore.
“Nintendo had every opportunity to do something special with the Wii U”
Nintendo had every opportunity to do something special with the Wii U. The console could have picked up casual gamers and appeal to the hardcore segment by delivering better online features. Instead, Nintendo stuck to the same, tired strategy. And now it’s in deep trouble because of it.
In fact, EA and Activision have both said that they have no games – that’s right, no games – in the pipeline for the Wii U. Even Ubisoft said that it needs to see what happens before it continues to invest in the console.
The way I see it, unless something miraculous happens, the Wii U might soon die a slow and agonizing death. And at that point, if Nintendo wants to continue on, it’ll need to go multiplatform and bring its popular titles to other consoles. In fact, the smart move might be to do that now and generate boatloads of cash by bringing titles to other devices. If Rovio and countless other mobile game companies can succeed and generate all kinds of cash, why can’t Nintendo?
At some point, Iwata and Miyamoto need to put aside their pride and accept failure. More importantly, they need to acknowledge that the market is changing and there’s an opportunity for Nintendo to transition its business and stay alive to continue to make games.
It’ll be OK, guys. Really, it will.
Why Nintendo Has No Choice But to Go Multiplatform is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
When I was a kid, I was obsessed with technology. Any product I could get my hands on, I would use. And when I had a chance to pick up a game console, you can bet I was rushing to the stores to get one. Technology ruled much of my childhood.
Still, I was able to handle the real world. I could converse with both kids and adults, and I was engaged enough in school to know that there was a time and place for my technology. I also understood that getting too obsessed with tech could make me socially awkward, which prompted me to question how much time I should be spending around it.
In other words, as tech-obsessed as I might have been, I think I had a healthy relationship with gadgets.
At a July 4 party, however, I came to realize that kids today have a much different experience with technology. When I was a kid, having a cell phone in high school was unheard of. At this recent party, which was attended by kids of all ages, even the 4-year-old was holding an iPod touch and texting her sister.
Every kid at the party was holding a smartphone or iPod rouch, and they were either playing games on it or texting their friends. At no point did they look up to see what was happening at the party, and when asked a question, they would wait to finish their text message before answering it. The adults in the room were understandably displeased by the behavior, but as the parents put it – “it’s their generation.”
If that’s the case, I’m worried about that generation. During dinner, we were all sitting at the table, having a nice discussion. I look over and see two of the older kids laughing with their phones in their hand. I asked what was up, and they promptly told me that they were texting each other from across the table. Rather than have a real conversation, they opted to type it from five feet apart.
“In the old days, if a kid was bullied, it wasn’t recorded”
Of course, it’s not just the kids who were at that party. A quick search on YouTube reveals countless videos of kids taking videos in school. An overwhelming number of those videos shows kids being ridiculed or bullied in some way. In the old days, if a kid was bullied, it wasn’t recorded. Now, the whole school sees what’s happening.
And since most devices today contain cameras and the ability to capture video, students are finding themselves in compromising positions when they send photos of themselves to others that are quickly sent around the school to fellow students.
Unfortunately, I think we’ve taken a hands-off approach to this growing, dangerous relationship between technology and kids. Most device makers realize that children are a key revenue generator, and parents are content today to placate their kids, rather than explain to them that having real conversations and acting like a human being is actually a better thing.
When I was a kid, the only time you saw a child with that zoned-out look on his or her face, they were playing a video game. And in many cases, parents were alarmed by it and told them it was time to go outside and play.
Nowadays, I see it wherever I go. And parents, shockingly enough, have the same look on their faces.
After all, if you want to talk to your kids nowadays, the best way is to text them, right?
IMAGE Summer Skyes 11
Kids and Tech: Is It Going Too Far? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
The “cheap” iPhone isn’t actually about being cheap at all: it’s about retiring the 3.5-inch screen. Apple has a long-running love of standardization, and with good reason. The company built the iPad mini around a display size, aspect, and most importantly resolution that allowed the greatest parity – and the fewest developer headaches – with the existing, full-sized iPad, after all. It’s not just in the name of control-freak tyranny, either: the iPad mini came out the gate with a full catalog of compatible apps, which is more than the Nexus 7 could claim.
Soon, Apple will announce a new iPhone, and the range of phones it has on sale will shift again. All signs point to it being the “iPhone 5S“, though no matter the name, we’re expecting the current iPhone 5 to slip down a tier and become the mid-range option. That would, if Apple was true to previous form, leave the iPhone 4S to take up the iPhone 4′s position as the “entry-level” handset, free-with-agreement.
Thing is, the iPhone 4S has a 3.5-inch screen – a leftover of the old design – while the iPhone 5 and 5S are going to use the newer 4-inch Retina. The 4S is also not the cheapest to make, and there’s a good reason Apple switched from the precarious glass casing of that generation to the sturdier metal of the iPhone 5.
“Full specifications are yet to leak, but a 4-inch display is a safe assumption”
Is there a better reason to ditch the iPhone 4S altogether, and introduce a new design completely: one which can cherry-pick the key elements of the iPhone 5 but wrap them up in a chassis that’s cheaper to make and thus cheaper to sell? Full specifications of the “low cost” iPhone are still yet to leak, but a 4-inch display is a safe assumption, meaning developers will be able to focus their efforts on a single, current resolution of 1136 x 640.
Price is important, of course. Apple figured that out back when it opted to keep the older iPhone around to create an instant tiered range, though not in the same way that Samsung or others might, by constantly developing multiple slightly differentiated models. Cheaper variations are also a mainstay of the iPod line-up: see, for instance, the cheaper iPod touch, which drops the camera and other elements to meet a price target.
It’s even more essential when you consider the next big battleground in smartphones: the so-called developing markets. Countries like China are the target for most of the big names in mobile – Samsung wants a piece of the pie, Nokia is counting on them to buoy up Windows Phone, and ZTE and Huawei are already staking their claim with budget Android phones – and the requirement for something affordable means keeping costs to a minimum is essential.
It’s a precarious line to walk. Apple has to deliver enough to make the new, affordable iPhone competitive with rivals, but also not so good as to eclipse any reason for users to upgrade to its more expensive versions. Still, the iPad mini has “cannibalized” full-sized iPad sales, but Apple is still sitting pretty in financial terms, and the entry-level iPhone is arguably more of a gateway drug for the premium models than the two tablets, which are relatively different propositions given their screen sizes.
Apple’s strategy involves more than just making the cheapest phone possible. If the new, “cheap” iPhone plays just as nicely with the App Store (which remains a key differentiator for the brand) as its more expensive siblings; if it’s as appealing to budget buyers in established markets as the iPhone 4 has been in this past generation, then it serves two purposes. Ticks the box for taking on developing markets as well as offering something different and – thanks to those candy colored shells we’re expecting – eye-catching for more saturated markets.
IMAGE Techdy
Apple’s “budget” iPhone is about screen control, not cash is written by Chris Davies & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2013, SlashGear. All right reserved.
This is site is run by Sascha Endlicher, M.A., during ungodly late night hours. Wanna know more about him? Connect via Social Media by jumping to about.me/sascha.endlicher.
