Say It 'Aint So!

Now I'm not one typically to complain about the evolution of our everyday gadgetry, but a touchscreen DSLR!? This just makes no sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the applicability of a touchscreen as a supplementary input, but I touchscreen alone cannot encompass all input features necessary on high-end digital imaging devices. That which makes a DSLR so much different than your typical point and shoot (aside from a much larger sensor) is the viewfinder. With the viewfinder accuracy is upheld - which is of utmost importance in photography.

To add a touchscreen input, would mean we would need to sacrifice using the viewfinder as much, or develop some alternative that allows us to view the image and use input controls simultaneously. If such technologies were to be employed in a vastly different design (such as the concept I posted a few days ago) then I could see this as a viable inclusion. But without some very necessary structural changes, the incorporation is in essence pushing the evolution of the device backward.

Don't get me wrong, with or without such technologies pros will continue to use the device with phenomenal results, but the growing population of amateur photographers will find and use easier, and less accurate methods in which to take their photography. Granted I do see such technology as a good stepping stone from your typical point-and-shoot, I find it more consumer-friendly option than a true improvement in design.

Though haptic feedback is not always necessary, as the iPhone has showed us, there are limitations - particularly if we look at gaming for instance. As successful as games are on the iPhone, it is the type of game allowable by design that constricts these games. Yes, buttons are a thing of the past, something that one day will probably be replaced with fewer moving parts, meaning fewer complications in the future. But feedback in touch is still needed; we cannot remove the sense of touch by compensating more visuals. There comes a time and point where all of our sensing should be accounted for in digital design.

Digital doesn't mean only visual, yet for some reason it seems that many companies are migrating towards these designs - given slimmer form factors and customization abilities. Yet the need for haptic feedback remains!

I did a little research of haptics, and it seems a number of concepts are currently being developed by various companies to combat this problem. I will be posting a new entry with an overview and thoughts on the issue in the near future.

Video Chat, Coming to a Phone Near You?

Much media attention (well at least in the tech world) has recently surfaced in regards to a front-facing camera, or lack thereof, on the iPhone 3GS. The debates that follow bring up a good question. Is video chatting on our phones, like in those classic sci-fi movies, coming in the near future, or is it a niche market never to see mainstream use?

Initially, I thought, sure. Of course it will be adopted. I mean, why wouldn't it be? New technologies are often adopted, and video streaming capabilities and corresponding compression codecs are constantly being improved. Yet the resounding question still remains... would I use it?

iChat, a video chat messaging client provided on all Mac's for quite a few year now, has yet to truly take over communication in computing. I have iChat and Skype, I've used video chats before, yet honestly, there seem to be far more instances in which I would rather not use it than use it.

Of course I would love those face to face conversations with loved ones and friends, but on the phone with the At&t guy?! When I'm in my underwear? After I just woke up? Etc. The list of circumstances in which I would prefer not to use it are obviously quite large.. thus reiterating that resounding question... would I use it?

If it were to become commonplace, would we not feel as though we had to use it, even if we wished we didn't have to?

As technology progresses, it seems that most people are gravitating towards efficiency. Widespread tweets to all your friends about something or another. Sure individual phone calls or made, yet even those are being replaced by quicker, more efficient texts.

I'll be honest, I would much rather e-mail one of my professors than speak to them face to face. And definitely much more than talking to them on the phone!

So would this technology be adopted?.... hmmm...

After much thinking, I feel as though it is not on the immediate horizon. I do imagine it will eventually be adopted, yet possibly in a manner different than the one-on-one conversations we are expectant of. Instead I would imagine it would be used in large scale conference situations in which "real-time" interaction is optimal. I could see such technology being incorporated into a real-time chat medium in social networking utilities such a facebook.

Regardless, I think the technology is coming... and will come... but in the next iPhone iteration? Probably not. Do we have the technology? Well... yes... (providing At&t's network was as stable as Verizon's).. but do we have the medium from which to use it as efficiently as we oh-so-desire? No... not yet anyway...

Zune HD

Just a few days ago the new Zune HD by Microsoft was released. With a capacitive touch screen, HD radio, HD video output, wifi, and of course 16 and 32 Gb music varieties it definitely sets itself in the path of Apple's iPod. But does it have what it takes to take a chunk of Apple's increasing market share?

As a music player. The design of the new Zune HD is beautiful. Its metal alloy shell and glass screen give it a solid feel as well as a clean minimalistic asthetic. No longer does it feel like a huge chunk of plastic, but instead a fine electronic device - of a build similar to that of say the HTC Hero or of course the original iPhone. The UI has been updated to 3.0 giving many muchly appreciated changes, fewer glitches, and speedier screen flow; ultimately, the Zune's interface has become quite organized and optimized for finger usage - a nod I wish the Windows Mobile development community would take.

The device has begun to approach the appeal popular in the iPhone, or maybe more accurately the iPod Touch. With gaming capabilities and Wi-Fi, the gap between a computer, telephone, and music playing device is increasingly narrowing - as are Apple's competitors.

Regardless, the Zune HD does have much room for improvement. On the forefront is the lack of web-browser and of course telephone chip set. No web browser puts the Zune HD at an immediate disadvantage of both the Apple iPhone and iPod Touch. And the muchly anticipated Zune Phone seems yet another year or more to the horizon.

It amazes me with Microsoft's work force that they are unable to employ the necessary means to quickly catch up to, and surpass Apple devices in the mobile music device sector - yet alas, this seems to continually be the reality of the situation.

The Zune HD does not display HD, contrary to the name. This bothers me the most. HD radio is nothing more than radio at a different signal, and an HD output is about as useful as carrying around a second monitor with you. The misuse of the term HD has bothered me to no end, yet alas it seems the corporate world is continuously able to trick the everyday consumer into thinking "HD" means something ground-breaking and revolutionary.

This successive jump onto the HD bandwagon naming strategy is quite saddening and a pore reflection of honest, creative design.

I've gotta go eat lunch now.... in HD.....

Source: http://www.zune.net/en-us/products/zunehd/default.htm