Should LG mess with the V30?

Posted on by Adam Doud

Last week, on the Pocketnow Weekly, we talked about the LG V30 and a slide out second screen it might have.  Juan Carlos Bagnell Jules Wang had a conversation about flagship phones and established brands and whether or not it was a good idea to muck with those devices. For example, the LG V series is a solid brand, entering its third year of Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and suddenly there’s talk of doing something crazy with the flagship. But is it necessarily crazy?

Don’t spoil a good thing

On the one hand, you’re messing with success. The LG V and G series of phones are, quite frankly, your money makers. And if there is anything we have learned it’s never touch the principle. Put another way, if you have a steady source of income, it’s best not to mess with that steady source. LG has been gaining a lot of traction lately with its smartphones, if you count out one minor speedbump.

You see, people fear change – they hate change. Granted, you can’t point to the LG G5 as an example of this – the LG G5 was a bad concept from the start. But it’s important to realize that LG tried to do something new with the G5, and it tanked. People voted with their wallets and they decidedly did not vote for the G5. That hurt LG as a brand, and it’s a remarkable how much the LG G6 has turned that around. LG realized it made a mistake, and backtracked as it should have.

People who are familiar with a brand, especially in that key third year of a brand, don’t want change. They want safe. And the LG V30 with a slide out screen is not safe. It’s bold. And bold is rarely what sells. Safe sells. Considering how the experiment of the G5 went, perhaps now is not the right time to fiddle again.

And yet…

But take the LG out of this equation and let’s just talk about flagships in general. Flagships sell. Flagships come with a built-in audience, and what better way to sell a new feature than with a built-in audience. By the third year of a line of phones, people are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. That’s the only way the LG G5 sold as much as it did. And people got burned, picking up accessories that will not be useful in a generation.

But when you consider that built-in audience, that’s the best was to get a concept to catch on. If you want a success story when it comes to fiddling with flagships, look no further than Samsung. The Samsung Galaxy Note Edge is the prime example of a concept phone being applied to a flagship. First, we saw the Note Edge, then we saw the S6 Edge, then the S6 Edge plus. Today, every Samsung flagship has an edge screen, and they are looking good.

Captivated

But in general, having a built-in audience like that can make or break a new concept in [...]

The post Should LG mess with the V30? appeared first on Pocketnow.

Do we really want transparent phones in the future?

Posted on by Adam Doud

Let’s take a moment and step into the future, shall we? When you think about what the future might hold for mobile technology, there are a couple of things that emerge as “futuristic”. I want to address one of those things here, as we decide now whether we’ll be better off with transparent tech in the future. Seems like every time we watch a movie that has anything to do with the future, we’re always seeing these crystal-clear phones and tablets that are basically sheets of glass, or plastic that display information on them. It’s probably the next step after we finally get that edge-to-edge, top to bottom screen we all seem to want.

A mysterious engineer from Edinburgh, known as Professor Scott, provided the formula for transparent aluminum

Cool factor

Look, I get it. Transparent tech is pretty cool. Beyond all practicality, it would be just awesome to carry around a glass slab that comes to life on command. It’d be like magic, making information appear out of thin air. Trust me, I’m on board with this. Plus, just think about the potential applications of such tech.

With it you can integrate displays and touch screens into just about anything – your windshield, your coffee table, your bathroom mirror, etc. The fact that it’s transparent gives it the main selling point that I look for in tech – there when you need it, out of the way when you don’t. When you think about the kinds of things you could overlay transparent tech onto, it’s really incredible what’s possible.

I could go into paragraphs and paragraphs about what we could integrate the tech into, but I won’t – use your imagination. The fact of the matter is, this kind of tech would be everywhere you need it to be. Phones, tablets, wearables, surfaces, you name it. It would allow you to have information at your fingertips almost anywhere you were. No longer would home devices have to integrate a screen or electronics into their design – they could be overlaid on top. Pretty powerful stuff.

And yet…

But then we have to consider if we need to have all this information everywhere? Do we need to have a touch sensitive screen on your toaster that can read you the latest headlines from Pocketnow.com? It makes me wonder how far the technology would go until it became ridiculous. Dining room tables that could stream Netflix. Doors that can display a “Back in one hour” sign. We’re already at a point where most restaurants are installing LCD TVs to display their menus. I don’t know about you, but I’m not convinced that this is a better experience.

Plus, when you consider the key characteristic of these transparent displays, it should give you pause. It’s not always so easy to read off a transparent display, depending on the background you are holding it against. Black text won’t show up very well if you’re sitting on a train with a grey floor, etc. It’s a usability issue. Perhaps you’re thinking, [...]

The post Do we really want transparent phones in the future? appeared first on Pocketnow.

Should we allow phone calls on airplanes?

Posted on by Adam Doud

Some talk has come up lately about the United States allowing voice calls – or more accurately VOIP calls while on airplanes. This seems to be a natural extension to adding WiFi on flights. If you can connect to the internet, why not use that connection to stay in touch. Many devices are capable of WiFi calling, so this is the next step, right? But is this necessarily the best move for the travel industry? That’s what we wanted to talk about – and debate about – today.

Keep in touch

Right off the bat, there is something pretty cool about this. Staying entertained on an airplane has always been a challenge, especially in today’s connected society. Making final phone calls from the tarmac is almost a rite of passage to frequent flyers. Cramming in those last minute phone calls and finishing up important business things before the flight attendant comes on – let’s just stay the struggle is real.

So why not allow those communications to flow freely while you’re otherwise confined in a flying tube at 550 mph. Flying across the country – let alone around the world – can be maddening, having to be out of touch with loved ones and colleagues. The tech is there, so why not use it? If we can be that much more productive while travelling, then let’s go ahead and jump on the phone for a few hours.

Not like it’s a quiet car

It’s not like people don’t talk on airplanes. Last year for CES, I was seated next to a delightful woman, travelling with her family for her daughter’s 21st birthday. We talked for probably an hour of the three hour flight, and it was really nice. If talking is going to happen anyway, what difference does it make whether it’s directed into a phone, or to the seat next to you?

Air travel can be stressful enough as it is. Allowing passengers to stay in touch can be just the stress reliever a flyer needs to stay calm.

And yet…

On the other hand, flying is stressful enough, without having to listen to Mr. Professional Business buy low and sell high all the way from Chicago to Las Vegas. Non-stop chit chat can be maddening, especially when it’s one-sided. There’s something natural about the drone of a conversation among friends. But hearing only one side of a conversation can be maddening with stops and starts, and interruptions, and raised voiices. I’m having a panic attack just writing about it.

True story – I ride the train for about two hours every day during rush hour. These trains are packed. And Metra, my local train provider, supplies two cars on every rush hour train designated as quiet cars. If you are on these cars, shut up. If you talk to a neighbor or on the phone, passengers will shut that down pronto. I’m not even kidding about how serious a violation this is among the Metra faithful. At first, you’ll get a polite, “Excuse me, you’re on the quiet car.” Then you’ll get the evil eye. Then, it can come to blows. I’m not even kidding about this (FYI: NSFW).

Kick back and relax

The reason is because quiet == relaxing. Quiet is nice. We talked about how stress inducing flying can be. Imaging flying next to Fran Drescher on the phone with – well really anyone because that would be awful. This is the part where I should tell you that personally, I don’t mind riding the train outside of quiet cars. I have two kids – they haven’t invented a noise that can distract me from work. Well, there was that one time when the teenage had the Hunger Games whistle as a text tone. That almost made me dive out of the car. But for the most part, I’m cool.

But I’m not everyone. Far from it. I am a model of patience and tolerance. But in general, people will hate you if you insist on chatting while riding an airplane. Or at least, I think they will – what about you? Do you think we should allow our fingers to do the walking while cruising at 35,000 feet? Or should we all just shut up and sit in purgatory with our little snack packs of peanuts. There are good arguments for both sides, which is what a good debate is all about. So sound off down below, and let’s see if we can figure this out.

The post Should we allow phone calls on airplanes? appeared first on Pocketnow.

Should Microsoft still try to make a 3-in-1 device?

Posted on by Adam Doud

I gotta say, things are getting interesting. First, you had phones that plugged into dumb terminals to make a laptop. Then you have a Continuum which allows you to use your phone as a CPU for a…well, ok we’ll call it a computer. Now, we have full Windows running on a Snapdragon processor. For those who don’t keep up, that’s a big deal. Snapdragon processors run a fair number of phones in the world, and a desktop OS is running on it. Let that sink in.

At the same time, I have to wonder if we’re ready for this. Or more accurately if this is ready for this. What I mean is, sure we can run Windows on an ARM processor, and therefore a phone. But the question remains, should we? I mean, that is a lot of heavy lifting for a processor to manage.

windows10-qualcomm-snapdragon-1024x576Lagging behind

Take, for example, my Dell XPS 13 laptop. I love this laptop. But it is a core i3 processor in there (spoiler alert: because it was cheap) and while Windows 10 runs great on it, and I love Windows 10 on it, when push comes to shove and I start doing some real work on here, it shows. Get a few browsers open with multiple windows/tabs each, Slack, and a couple of other apps, and suddenly smooth isn’t so smooth. I expect this because this is not a top of the line laptop, but I suspect it’ll be just as bad or worse on a phone.

We’ve seen Windows running on a Snapdragon processor, and I noticed that the demo included exactly one app at a time. Granted, one of those apps was Photoshop, so honestly, I’m impressed. But demos are one thing, real world experience is quite another. As I illustrated above, actual work/productive sessions can be quite different than lab-conditions and demos. This is no fault of the processor or the device. Windows 10 wasn’t built to be on a phone or even an ARM processor.

And yet…

But maybe this is one of those “have it and not need it” situations. I tend to think it is. Let’s take a step back here and realize something. We are living in a great time. We are living in a world that is quickly starting to resemble the future that movies and TV showed us years ago. We’re lacking the flying cars, but the Cubs have won the World Series, which is probably less believable than a phone running Windows 10. Nevertheless, we are walking around with computers in our pockets – we have been for quite some time. Maybe it’s time we actually started carrying around computers in our pockets.

After all, it’s not like we’re going to stop building PCs tomorrow. This is a concept that will help in a pinch. Please, let’s not talk about editing PowerPoints on the go. No one does that. Or at least, no one should. Because PowerPoints are yuck, but that’s a different editorial. But for those times that you need a computer, or you need to run a full Windows app on your phone, the tech should be there. And when you don’t, you can stick with the lighter, more mobile centric apps.

Windows 10 MobileUnicorn: now

The dream is still alive. Using one device to handle all your processing needs is still a unicorn in this industry. But Microsoft is pushing further and further toward that unicorn. And we’re starting to see results of that pushing. Microsoft is making a lot possible that people assumed were only pipe dreams. This brings us another step closer to that dream, and that’s a wonderful thing. If I can set my phone down and have it become my Dell XPS 13, I think I’ll be pretty happy in that future.

Think also of the cost savings. It has been said over and over that for many people around the world, their phone is their only computer. Bringing a robust operating system to their only computing device is a powerful prospect indeed. Instead of buying a computer and a phone, we can virtually eliminate that first purchase and make full-bodied computing accessible to that many more people.

But what do you think? Are we ready for our phones to become our computers? Do we even need our phones to become our computers? Is there a very good reason why companies like Apple and Google are not chasing this dream? Is Microsoft on to something? Sound off below in the comments and let’s get a good conversation going. This isn’t a clear-cut concept, so let’s see if we can figure this out.

The post Should Microsoft still try to make a 3-in-1 device? appeared first on Pocketnow.

Will cost kill the Smart Home? Or is it already destined to happen?

Posted on by Adam Doud

The Smart Home is a thing now. With Google Home and Amazon Echo Dot in my home, I’m acutely aware of Smart Home technologies and the promise and potential they offer. Nest, Phillips, Samsung, all of these technologies can make life so compelling. But there is a cost with bringing that technology to your home. Good grief is there a cost.

USBPoweredBulb_780x473Sum is the operative word

The Smart Home is one of those things the whole is very much greater than the sum of its parts. It’s one of those experiences that can be really addictive and really hard to wait for. Fully investing in a Smart Home is not an insignificant project. Sure, it’s great if you can turn of the porch light when you get home after dark. But after you turn on the porch light, you want to turn on the hall light, and the living room light, and all the lights between the door and your bedroom. When you crash on the sofa you want to go into “movie mode” which dims the lights and closes all the blinds.

One component here or there is not going to do all that. So where do you start? And that’s the crux of the issue. Take a look at your home. Just look around and think about all the things a Smart Home can control: lights, curtains, outlets, TVs, garage doors, door locks. You know what all of those things have in common? In most homes (except the garage door of course) there is more than one. In fact, for most of those things, the number is in the dozens. You don’t have one outlet, you have 30 of them. Heck, from where I’m sitting in my kitchen I can see seven of them.

6OutletSurge_780x473Where to start?

Ultimately, this is what is stopping people from adopting the smart home here and now. It’s not the automation, or the complexity. It’s dollar signs, plain and simple. When you want to turn on a light with Google Home, do you buy a smart outlet, or a smart light bulb? Light bulbs go out, so then you have to replace it with another $20 light bulb. But an outlet might not give you the kind of control you want. Plus, an outlet doesn’t travel with you.

It’s not like you can afford to get both. And so on. Which outlet do you convert? Which light? Sure, drop $100 and get five light bulbs. Again, I can see 13 lightbulbs from where I’m sitting right now. It’s an overwhelming thing to think about. Suddenly you have to prioritize your light bulbs. Be honest, when you were growing up, did you ever think you would need to prioritize your light bulbs? It’s this kind of paradox of choice that has prevented Smart Homes from becoming anything more than a niche concept.

And yet…

But the last time I checked, time was moving forward into the future. That’s still the case, right? The fact of the matter is that yes, IoT is really expensive. But each purchase is a step in the right direction. Plus, there are things that can be bought over time. They can be adapted into your lifestyle one piece at a time until eventually, yes, you do have a Smart Home.

The obvious place to start is with the thermostat. Nest, Ecobee, and other smart thermostats offer benefits above and beyond just being able to tell Google to turn up the heat. They come with cost savings on your heat and electric bill, which is why such devices are usually the first into the home. As other smart devices offer benefits above and beyond just being cool, these pieces will start to fall into place.

nest-cam-dlIt’s coming

Now, homes are being built with smart technology already in place. That is the next step in the evolution of the Smart Home. The cost of upgrading an existing home with smart devices is not insignificant, but if new homes are being built and those homes absorb the cost of the smart technology, that will make it more commonplace and accepted. We are marching into the future and our homes will start to reflect that.

Plus, consider that like all smart technology, costs will come down. All technology becomes easier and cheaper to produce the more it is developed. Pretty soon we’ll be seeing reviews for high-end and midrange light bulbs. Won’t that be something to see? Smart technology is here to stay, whether you buy it piece at a time, or all at once in a new home.

But what do you think? Is the Smart Home doomed by high prices? Smart bulbs cost a lot more than regular bulbs after all. Or is this already a thing that’s dragging us into the future whether we like it or not? Do you have any Smart Home devices? How do you like them? How did you decide what to upgrade first? Sound off below – we’re always looking for tips – and let’s see if we can figure this out.

The post Will cost kill the Smart Home? Or is it already destined to happen? appeared first on Pocketnow.