Hasta La Gadget!

Evidence continues to mount that Apple will deliver a touchscreen tablet next year, with an analyst laying out solid reasoning for this rumored device to become a reality. It appears more likely to be an oversized iPod Touch, not a tabletized MacBook.

“Between indications from our component contacts in Asia, recent patents relating to multi-touch sensitivity for more complex computing devices, comments from [chief operating officer] Tim Cook on the April 22 conference call, and Apple’s acquisition of PA Semi along with other recent chip-related hires, it is increasingly clear that Apple is investing more in its mobile-computing franchise,” Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said in a research statement issued to clients.

Apple’s next step in mobile computing will likely be the release of a touchscreen tablet featuring a 7-to-10-inch display sometime in the first half of 2010, Munster predicts.

Apple enthusiasts have been gossiping about a Mac tablet since July 2008, when the first rumor about the fabled device surfaced at MacDailyNews. Since then, a stream of clues, rumors and statements from Apple suggest this product will indeed join the Apple product family soon, as Gadget Lab has been reporting for several months.

Apple itself has steadfastly refused to confirm or deny any hint of an Apple tablet.

While in theory Apple could simply make a larger-screen iPod Touch, Munster believes creating a tablet will be more complex. He speculates the operating system will be a hybrid between the iPhone’s mobile operating system and Mac OS X. Or, Apple could optimize a version of Mac OS X for the multitouch interface.

Price range? Munster is guessing between $500 and $700, positioning this device as Apple’s response to netbooks.

At its recent quarterly earnings call, Apple chief operating officer Tim Cook said the company had no plans to release a netbook, calling the device category “junky.”

“For us, it’s about doing great products,” Cook said. “And when I look at what is being sold in the netbook space today, I see cramped keyboards, terrible software, junky hardware, very small screens and just not a consumer experience … that we would put the Mac brand on, quite frankly.”

Other indications that it’s an upsized-iPod-Touch–style tablet in the works (rather than a “junky” netbook) involve Apple’s recent hiring of several chip designers, as well as its acquisition of PA Semi to develop mobile processors.

Would a touchscreen tablet be worth putting the Mac brand on? We think so.

Apple Tablet in 2010 [Silicon Alley Insider]

See Also:

• Large-Screen Kindle Won’t Mean Squat if Apple Tablet Arrives …
• Apple COO Reveals Plans for Touch Tablet — Kinda
• Apple Quietly Recruits Chip Designers for In-House Tech
• Apple’s Core Could Soon Include In-House Chips
• iPhone 3.0 Event Revives Tablet Rumors
• Rumor: Mac Tablet Coming Fall 2009
• Intel Germany ‘Confirms’ Apple Tablet
• Leaked: Apple Filing Illustrates Multitouch Tablet Technology …
• Apple Rumors: Snow Leopard in June, Touch Screen Netbook This Year …

llustration of an imaginary iPhone tablet: Flickr/vernhart

Here we go again with the Apple-inspired housewares! Add some skip to your loo with the iShower Curtain, which turns your bathroom into a billboard via those crazy dancing silhouette people from Apple’s familiar ads. Of course, these silhouette people are iScrubbing, iWashing, and iSinging into their loofahs instead of jamming with their iPods, but you get the drift. 

The 100-percent-polyester curtain measures about 70 inches square, comes with 12 hanging rings, and costs about $21 at the U.K.-based site Paramount Zone.

[via Outblush]

There will be no judgment in this post. No sound snobbery. I’m simply asking the age-old question: At what bitrate should we encode MP3s? And I need your help.

This test is occurring in two parts. In part one, I’m sampling three songs chosen from vastly different genres, encoded from CD and transcoded into the various popular bitrates available for MP3s (64k, 96, 128, 160, 192, 256, and 320kbps with VBR off). I tell you what I hear, then you sample the files yourself, and tell me what you hear.

Part I – My Test
I’m sitting here with Pioneer’s brand-new VSX-1019AH-K receiver, a $500 model that actually pulls the MP3 data off of USB drives and iProducts for decoding within the receiver itself. (According to Pioneer, this “Advanced Sound Retriever” technology restores sound lost in the MP3 conversion process, so I figure it’s the best MP3 experience I’m gonna get.)

The sound is being sent through 14 gauge Monoprice speaker wire to twin Definitive Mythos STS Supertowers ($3,000/pair). We wanted to assemble an ideal, nice home audio system that could make MP3s sound their best. We feel that this combination of superb speakers and MP3 decoding reaches a reasonable benchmark for the reasonable enough price of around $3,500. Since most readers including me aren’t going to run out and buy anything nicer, it represents a decent ceiling of audio quality.

Pure Prairie League – Woman
My first pass, I couldn’t hear a difference beyond 128. And it was a little worrisome. But no judgment, that’s the rule! I took another pass…things did seem to get better…but was I imagining it?

So I skipped from 128 to 192. Then I could hear an improvement as the instruments were unchanged but the vocals grew more lifelike. Songs encoded beyond 192 sounded different in terms of balance, but not necessarily any better. I wonder if, since the song was “digitally remastered,” studio technicians compressed the audio to begin with.
My conclusion: 192

Gorillaz – Feel Good Inc.
It was a total shock. I could hear the differences in bitrates, all the way to the top, the first pass through the list. I had assumed, whatever, some electronic type music. It won’t matter. But even the jump from 192 to 256 was dramatic on my system, with every enhancement giving me more detail in the laugh and a richer, wetter bass line.
My conclusion: 320

Bizet – Carmen Suite #1
During my quick first pass, I didn’t hear a difference beyond 160. Skipping intervals, I found no improvement going from 160 to 192, but a noticeable improvement from 160 to 256. The middle just feels fuller, with a far more lifelike reverb to the low to mid horn section. I’d like to say that I heard a difference up to 320, but I’m willing to chalk that up to the power of suggestion.
My conclusion: 256

Also, I compared the 320kbps recordings to their uncompressed WAV counterparts. The only difference I could hear was in the Pure Prairie League’s Woman. The vocals and high level instrumentation felt ever so less harsh. It’s a bit ironic, as that was the song I had the biggest problem distinguishing bitrates in the first place.

Back when I tested my ear in college, I found the cutoff to be 160, and have since encoded all of my music at that level (though it’s become less of an issue now that MP3s are more often downloaded than ripped from CDs). Now, however, it’s pretty apparent that with more hard drive space and a nicer audio system—my earlier testing was just on a set of decent computer speakers—it might be worth reassessing my encoding rates. In just these three songs, I found a huge fluctuation, and not in any way I intended. Honestly, I figured that Carmen would require the best bitrate to assuage my ear.

Now, I wouldn’t encode lower than 192kbps, and I’d be tempted to push the boundaries to 256kbps and 320kbps on the music I planned on listening to very closely, though my laptop’s hard drive would probably hate me for it.

Part II – Your Test
Enough with me talking, now it’s your turn. You’ll find the files you need below alongside an accompanying poll. Please don’t vote based upon past experience or my subjective impressions, and feel free to test on any system you like (as long as you note it in the survey).

Oh, and the easiest way to peruse the files quickly is to click the first audio link, let it load in your browser, then just change the bitrate number in the filename up in the address bar—fast and easy to do any side-by-side comparison you like. Well, at least on your crappy computer speakers.

TEST FILES

DOWNLOAD THEM IN ONE BIG ZIP HERE (MediaFire), or use individual links through your browser below:

Woman 64
Woman 96
Woman 128
Woman 160
Woman 192
Woman 256
Woman 320
Woman WAV

Feel Good 64
Feel Good 96
Feel Good 128
Feel Good 160
Feel Good 192
Feel Good 256
Feel Good 320
Feel Good WAV

Carmen 64
Carmen 96
Carmen 128
Carmen 160
Carmen 192
Carmen 256
Carmen 320
Carmen WAV

And here is the survey (CLICK THROUGH TO NEW PAGE)

We’ve been wondering when we’d see the next Laptop Hunters ad from Microsoft, but it looks like the company’s throwing a change-up: its latest 30-second spot features Wes Moss, Certified Financial Planner, explaining that iTunes “costs a lot” while Zune Pass “costs a little.” The argument, of course, is that at a buck a song (or more), filling up your iPod costs way more than the $15 / month cost of the Zune subscription service, but we’ve got a feeling that Wes just won’t convince as many people as Lauren and Giampaulo — while we certainly think Zune Pass is a great deal, especially with the 10 free tracks a month now included, most people have plenty of music from all kinds of sources already, and an additional monthly bill in the current economy doesn’t seem all too appealing. Plus, well, this argument has never really worked for services like Yahoo and Rhapsody in the past, so we’re not sure it’s going to work now. But that’s just us — we’re sure you’ve got your own opinions, so check out the vid after the break and sound off.

P.S. If Wes looks familiar it’s because he was a contestant on Donald Trump’s The Apprentice. He was fired.

[Via Ars Technica; thanks Travis and Michael S.]

Continue reading Microsoft’s latest ad: iTunes and the iPod are crazy expensive

Filed under: Portable Audio, Portable Video

Microsoft’s latest ad: iTunes and the iPod are crazy expensive originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 11 May 2009 18:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Here’s an interesting new mandate for all of Missouri School of Journalism’s incoming freshman: equip themselves with iPhones and iPod touches. Actually, let’s go ahead and clarify what “mandate” means here, as associate dean Brian Brooks has stated that no one will a be punished for not buying / owning one. While noting the audio recording and playback capabilities were motivation for this decision, he explains the reason it’s classified as a requirement is because it lets students include it in their financial need estimate — wholly beneficial when you’re figuring out scholarships and loans. It doens’t look like there’ll be any direct discounts from U of M, however, unlike some other schools with similar initiatives. It’s a clever loophole, to be sure, but we’d wager there’s more than a few undergraduates who are none too pleased at the Apple favoritism, and to be honest, we love nothing more right now than imagining a large group of S60 and Zune supporters gathering in a field for frisbee, picnic, and lots of protesting.

[Via Macworld]

Filed under: Cellphones

Missouri School of Journalism’s iPhone “requirement” a clever interpretation of financial aid rules originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 09 May 2009 10:02:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments