Tag Archives: ideas

Bring back the Cube

Posted on by

The Mac Mini is a very nice piece of engineering. It’s a diminutive computer that takes up very little space, looks nice, and is very quiet. The only problem? It is limited by its size. It uses laptop hard drives which means you pay a premium for a small hard drive. Additionally, Apple stuck to its odd clip system to keep the case together. Four tiny screws on the bottom of the machine would have been nice for user upgrades.

While I think the form-factor is great, perhaps another Mac should exist. It already existed – and as you can tell by the title of this article – the PowerMac Cube should return. I guess with the new naming convention it would be the Mac Pro Cube or iMac Cube or Mac Cube. The cube was a user-serviceable machine. Maybe a larger form factor – maybe the size of two Mac Minis stacked on top of each other would be the right size. The motherboard could reside in the lower part of the new Cube. The hard drive could be mounted below the slot loading DVD burner. Use your imagination for the rest of the engineering. With a larger size comes full sized desktop hard drives that reach 750GB these days.

This poises the new Mac as a true media center. While I’m coming up with ideas, maybe with the purchase of your new Mac you get special software that allows you to LEGALLY rip your DVDs for your convenience. Apple must pay a royalty for their DVD player application. They could probably wrangle a deal with the movie studios and come up with an authorized DVD-Ripping application. Now that I think about it, a Hollywood-sanctioned DVD ripping application would allow the MPAA to track who is pirating and who is not (with P2P) by using a signature. But, I digress.

The Mac Cube could be a media center with a TV Tuner. Alternatively, the cube shape may look odd with video components. So perhaps a throwback to the pizza-box style desktop computers would benefit Apple. I had read this idea on someone else’s blog (I’d give them credit if I remembered where). That blog discussed the idea of the upcoming Mac Pro in the standard desktop form-factor in a move to differentiate the Apple product in a world of towers.

Since the Cube may not be the right shape, the component style format may work. If Apple felt wishy-washy they could go with a similar idea as the XBox 360 and have a machine that could lay on its side or as a tower and look snazzy.

In short, Apple needs to come out with a new mac that is a headless iMac. A mac in between the Mac Mini and the Power Mac or Mac Pro that can use standard desktop parts and allows users to easy access to upgrade their Mac. It could be in cube form or pizza-box with a TV Tuner with an official DVD-Ripping software. What should we call this mythical Mac? Let’s just call it Macintosh. Just “Mac.”

Google and Microsoft

Posted on by

Google has its new Spreadsheet web-application and it’s ruffling feathers at Microsoft. People are saying that this is Google firing a shot across Microsoft’s bow (I didn’t know that they had boats, but whatever). So, Google’s got their Spreadsheet and it’s supposed to be a competitor of MS Office’s Excel (and of course Writely is a competitor to MS Word). Well, here I am (a Microsoft shareholder and former Google shareholder) giving my opinion.

In general, webapps are a great idea. You can access your programs anywhere, from any computer, from any operating system. It’s a wonderful idea – however, there is a problem. These webapps depend on online connectivity. It does not matter that these webapps are almost good enough to replace the expensive Microsoft Office. Feel free to be paranoid that your files are saved on Google’s servers. With the U.S. Government breathing down the necks of ISPs, do you really want your data on Google’s servers? You could just keep it on your local hard drive and avoid this entire problem. If the NSA wants my hard drive, they have to get MY hard drive that is in my laptop or desktop. Why make it easier for the government to grab your data?

It does not matter if Google goes ahead with their Spreadsheet. If Microsoft wants to destroy a product, they can. Case in point: Netscape. How did Microsoft destroy Netscape? Internet Explorer was free. It was the underdog – it was the rebel browser for a while. If Google has its free Spreadsheet program and it starts eating away at Microsoft’s market share, then Microsoft will make Office incredibly cheap. MS may not make it free – would you pay $2 per license for the full functioning MS Excel versus the free Google Spreadsheet that is close to (but not exactly) MS Excel? Microsoft knows how to beat their competition to death.

At worst, Microsoft and Google will become the biggest company in the world. Micro-Google could exist one day. Their market capitalization would be amazing. The fun thing about tech companies is that they are smart. Microsoft and Google could one day become ONE company. Google could own the web and Microsoft could own the desktop (save for the 5% Mac contingency – which I am a part of). Either way, these webapps cannot replace local applications just yet. So if anyone from Microsoft is reading, just relax – everything will be fine. [BTW, Microsoft’s Windows CE or Mobile or whatever it’s called – their PocketPC OS is terrific – just make it work with Macs]. If anyone from Google is reading – you have an excellent search engine – think about joining with Microsoft. There’s no need to compete if you’re part of the same company. Plus, even if you decide to stay on your own, the world appreciates that there’s a company out there that forces Microsoft to have a better product. Good luck, msft and goog.

Digital Picture Frames Stink.

Posted on by

I know I’ve talked on and on about how cool it would be to have a digital picture frame that could display hundreds of pictures. Even with my cheap portable DVD Player solution, it still costs around $90 (US). Well, for $90, you could get a ton of pictures printed and a some frames if you shop around.

Why use regular pictures and frames? Well, regular pictures in frames don’t create any increases in your electric bill. Also, you don’t have to figure out a way for the frames to turn off when the lights are off. With old-school low-tech pictures in frames, when the lights turn off the pictures don’t let off any light – these pictures don’t require any special light-sensitive sensors to turn off automatically. They don’t create a problem. Spending some cash and a great amount of time to recreate something that is so simple can be pointless.

There’s no real need for digital picture frames. While they are a cool idea – the item they replace are amazingly efficient and simple. After all, regular pictures in picture frames are wireless – they’re not that bad.

Movie Distribution

Posted on by

On Friday, I watched “X-Men 3: The Last Stand.” Today, I wanted to watch it again. However, I don’t feel like going to the theater again to watch the movie. I would like to be able to own it on DVD already. I wish movie studios would release the movie on DVD when the movie is released in theaters. So here’s my plan for a new movie distribution model [I don’t claim these are my exclusive ideas – in fact, my ideas have been influenced by so many tech shows that my plan is probably a mish-mash of those ideas].

As I understand it, the current concern of movie theaters is if the studios release the films as DVDs when the movies first open, then the movie theaters will die because no one will go to the theaters again.

The way to fix this problem – make the movie theater the distributor of the DVDs. Here’s how this would work: the movie studios still release their films to movie theaters. The theaters would also get DVDs of the films that were just released. These DVDs would not be available in stores, but only movie theaters. Thus, the movie theater would not die off – they would adapt.

I have two models of the content of the opening-day DVD (“ODVD”). The first model of the ODVD would be a movie only disc. No extras, no commentaries, nothing except maybe subtitles. That way – the impatient could purchase the movie just as they would see it in the theaters. The movie theater would sell the ODVDs at the price of a regular DVD.

The second model is the ODVD as the regular DVD, complete with extras. After watching a movie, many people want to know what the directors were thinking, or see an extended version of the film and an ODVD could operate in the same way the current DVDs do. Once again, the studios would release these ODVDs only to the theaters. The normal movie retailers would get the staggered release DVD (“SDVD”) about three or four months post release, just as they do now.

The theaters could benefit from adapting to a new model of the movie experience. Theaters can still offer an experience that cannot easily be replicated at home. Certain movies are meant for a sixty-foot screen like “King Kong” or “Braveheart.” Others are can easily be enjoyed at home. Additionally, purchasing a DVD or renting it while it is still out in theaters may cause people to go the theater. I know if I saw “X-Men 3” on my television, I would want to go the theater to see the film on a bigger screen.

Movie studios could also benefit from promoting the release of the DVD and film at the same time. Why promote a movie twice? Just push the movie once. Let the trailers and TV ads promote a film efficiently. I could see the movie studios backing my first model of the ODVD – the stripped down version because it gives them a chance to make money on the movie multiple times. They already release multiple versions of the same movie such as the “Special Edition,” the “Ultimate Edition,” the “Extended Cut,” etc. They could easily release the ODVD and then promote a beefed-up version months later if they so chose.

This is a simple idea. I do not care if the movie industry takes this idea and uses it. I have not patented this process. Feel free to take this and use it as a model.