Linked List: August 13, 2012

Monday, 13 August 2012

“RobbCab”, posting in The Verge forums, argues that “Surface Pro has a better retina display than the iPad”:

What Apple has done here is create a “density war”, much like the mega pixel war that raged in the digital camera world a few years ago. We all know there are 9MP cameras that take much better pictures than 21MP cameras. The same applies. Apple did what they always do. They took the path of least resistance and sold it as a “feature”. They chose 2048 × 1536 because it gave them an easy way to handle scaling of applications as they just doubled everything. It was not because it was the best resolution for viewing their devices.

It never ceases to amaze me the logical hoops Apple critics will jump through to paint the company’s decisions in a poor light. You can argue that the iPad (3)’s retina display is overkill, that the Surface Pro’s denser-than-the-old-iPad-but-not-as-dense-as-the-new-iPad display dot-pitch makes a better tradeoff between pixel size (smaller is better) and battery life and graphics performance (more pixels consume more energy and computation time). But to say that Apple went to 2048 × 1536 with the iPad (3) as the “path of least resistance”? That’s something. (Me, I disagree entirely. The point of Apple’s push toward “retina displays” across its product line is simply that they look so much better.)

Also, again with the “let’s judge the Surface before anyone outside Microsoft has actually used one”.

On Surface Auguring a Resurgent Microsoft ★

Anil Dash, writing for Wired, is hopeful that the Surface portends a return of the Microsoft of old, and throws in a new-to-me theory that their consent decree with the DOJ hamstrung them over the past decade:

The government meddling was necessary, given Microsoft’s history of stretching/flouting the law, and it forced the company into some valuable concessions — like giving users more choice over their default browsers and supporting open standards for web pages. But it exacted a heavy toll on Microsoft’s ability to adapt and innovate.

The tech scene since then has been all about Apple. True, Steve Jobs headed up what is arguably the most remarkably innovative decade of any company in history. But it’s worth noting that Microsoft was handcuffed that entire time. While Windows is still the most popular OS on the desktop, it’s struggling for relevance on phones and has barely gotten started on tablets. Microsoft has become an underdog in all of the most interesting areas of technology.

But I don’t see how the consent decree held them back in the areas where Apple has thrived. Microsoft has not “barely gotten started on tablets” — they’ve been touting tablet computers longer and more emphatically than any technology company in the world. They had a mobile OS for smartphones on the market throughout the entire period of the consent decree. The problem wasn’t that the DOJ consent decree prevented the company from getting into the tablet and mobile phone space — the problem is that Microsoft’s entries in those spaces sucked. I haven’t read the whole thing, but I’m pretty sure the consent decree doesn’t contain any restrictions along the lines of “You can make tablets and smartphones, but they have to suck.”

If anyone questioned whether Microsoft could get back in the fight once the cuffs finally came off, Surface should put those doubts to rest. The gorgeous PC/tablet hybrid is the only example in recent memory of a company clearly and emphatically going toe to toe with Apple on the industrial design front. The iPad will have to improve. Android tablets will have to improve. Surface isn’t another me-too device — it moves the entire category forward.

Maybe. In fact, I hope so. But let’s wait until we get to, you know, actually use the thing before we declare it a winner. For all we know at this point, Surface might be the new Zune.

Top Ten Differences Between White Terrorists and Others ★

Handy list from Juan Cole.

Samsung’s ‘Smart TV’ IDE ★

They should call that app “S-Code”.

On the Planting of a Ridiculous Apple Rumor That Many Fell For ★

Lukasz Lindell, of the design company Day4:

One afternoon we sketched out a screw in our 3D program, a very strange screw where the head was neither a star, tracks, pentalobe or whatever, but a unique form, also very impractical. We rendered the image, put it in an email, sent it to ourselves, took a picture of the screen with the mail and anonymously uploaded the image to the forum Reddit with the text “A friend took a photo a while ago at that fruit company, they are obviously even creating their own screws”.

Then we waited …

First hit, John Brownlee at Cult of Mac, with the delightful headline “Apple May Be Working on a Top Secret Asymmetric Screw to Lock You Out of Your Devices Forever”.

(Via Jim Dalrymple.)

When Documents in the Cloud Aren’t ★

Chris Breen on how to send a PDF file to nowhere with iCloud.

‘It’s Not Me Sitting at a Desk With a Calculator’ ★

Dan Levine and Edwin Chan, reporting for Reuters:

Accountant Terry Musika, citing Samsung records and testifying as an Apple expert witness, estimated that $8.16 billion in revenue, or 22.7 million of those total unit sales over that two-year period, came from products that infringed Apple patents, such as the first Galaxy S smartphone in July 2010. Samsung earned roughly 35.5 percent gross profit margin on that revenue, between June 2010 through March 2012, Musika said.

“It’s not me sitting at a desk with a calculator,” Musika, a former KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers accounting partner, told the court.

“There are literally hundreds of millions of calculations,” he said, adding that it took more than $1.75 million to employ a team of 20 programmers, accountants, statisticians and economists to work out damages over a plethora of gadgets.

$1.75 million just to tabulate the damages.

Voting for a Winner ★

Seth Godin, regarding some interesting Kickstarter project statistics:

Two lessons:

It’s important to create inevitability around the projects you launch, wherever you launch them.

One way to appear inevitable is to set a lower minimum threshold for success. Setting a huge number feels bold and even macho, but it’s clear that your fans would prefer to pile on after you’ve reached your goal, not sweat or be begged to be sure you reach it in the first place.

I noticed that piling-on effect over the weekend with App.net’s fundkicker. (Via Alex Hillman.)