Journeyman

Journeyman is another one of those shows in NBC's Fall lineup that could have been awful if not executed perfectly, but again, NBC has another potential smash hit on their hands, and Monday nights are going to be hard for the other networks to beat.

The premise is similar to the old show Quantum Leap, but without the futuristic aspect to it, but it feels even more human, as they show the strain that the time travel takes on Dan and his family and friends. That makes the show even more engrossing that Quantum Leap ever was, and it's only the first episode.

After watching these three shows, Journeyman, Chuck, and Bionic Woman, I find myself incredibly thankful that these shows are on NBC and not Fox. Fox would have probably found a way to cancel them after just an episode or two, and the world would miss out on great drama (and in Chuck's case, comedy, too).

One funny thing I noticed ... when Dan jumps through time, his items go with him, including his Apple iPhone. It signals several times when he jumps because you can see that there's no digital cell signal back in the past. However, in once scene in particular, you can see that he's holding the phone upside down, but the text is right side up.

iPhone or iFlop?

Today marks the launch of the ridiculously hyped iPhone, and while it's certainly the sexiest consumer electronics product to launch in quite some time, it also marks the triumph of form over function that Apple started with the Mac Cube some years ago.

Apple fans always tout the ease of use as the hallmark of an Apple product, and the multi-touch screen of the iPhone was the ultimate culmination of that philosophy. It certainly looks easy to use in those commercials, and initial reviews seem to be fairly positive. But then there was it's first major failure, televised for all to see, no less. Meridith Viera, pretty much exactly the type of person Apple would like to appeal to with the iPhone, was completely unable to get this easy-to-use phone to work in a live demonstration on TODAY. Worse yet, she couldn't get the single function to work that is most important ... she couldn't answer a call. Intuitive or not, the lack of tactile feedback that you get with a hard button has kept other touch devices from reaching a mass-market. Apple has that, plus a limited partner and high price to contend with. Past that, if the phone just isn't as easy to use as they make it look, there could be a significant problem. I mean, why else would Apple start posting tutorial videos on their website showing people how to perform very basic functions.

Add to the problem that even the tech savvy are going to notice pretty quick that this $500-600 phone is a full generation behind other phones in basic phone functionality. Walt Mossberg and others complained of slow internet speeds (admittedly before AT&T turned on their "Fine Edge" speed upgrade), and that's before thousands of people with the new device are flooding the network with Google Maps data. People don't like to hear that they cutting-edge gadget they just bought was obsolete the minute they bought it, and for the iPhone, it's a no-brainer that a more advanced version that uses 3G and possibly has GPS will be coming in a year or two.

Once that reality sinks in, people will realize that they've paid six bills (and all those service charges) for smoke and mirrors. iPhone is NOT revolutionary. It is lipstick on a pig, and sure, that's some gorgeous shade of lipstick. But all the iPhone does is make incredibly basic functions of a phone a lot prettier to look at. Even the more advanced stuff, like how you can earch in Google Maps and make a call from from that result, is sure to come to other devices like Windows Mobile sooner than later, and for no other reason than that Windows Mobile is an open platform. And that's the real rub ... unless you're going to make a basic web application, you can't write programs for the iPhone. The ability to get Java and other sorts of apps on just about any other phone platform means that people may start wondering why they're getting nickeled and dimed for things after having already missed a mortgage payment to buy their phone.

Yes, today the iBacklash is sure to begin.

What's AMD Up To? Barcelona.

So it's been driving me crazy for a while now. AMD took on a relatively high-profile when they partnered with Microsoft for the Windows Vista launch. Smart move, strategically, especially since Intel has their fingers in other pies on the Apple side of things. What was really confusing me was ... why? AMD really wasn't that big anymore when it comes to mindshare.

Talking with Chris Aarons, he said a bit about their 4x4 initiative, and how important it was to get the enthusiasts involved. This was in response to my very frank question about exactly what the heck AMD is doing. They used to be the kings in the processor space, lauded for their fantastic gaming performance, when Intel took back the crown in a bloody coup and never looked back.

In many ways, the AMD hardware is still superior, especially in how dual-cores are handled, but Intel just keeps beating the pants off of them performance-wise. So when Chris mentioned 4x4, the first thing that came to mind is, "That's all well and good, but I can't afford that!" Turns out, Chris was keeping his cards closer to his chest than I thought.

So what exactly is AMD up to? It's called Barcelona, and it's a brand-new chip design for AMD. See, part of the problem with trying to innovate in the processor space is that you're tied to the current applications and operating systems that people expect will just plain work. AMD took a long, hard look at the x86 architecture, and tried to figure out what they could reinvent while maintaining compatability. Barcelona is the answer.

Essentially a quad-core Opteron chip, Barcelona raises the bar by boosting the SSE unit (Streaming SIMD Extensions) to 128bits ... doubling them in size. And there's four of them, one per core. The SSE unit is important because they're floating-point math units, which is where AMD used to really shine. According to Infoworld, floating point performance is improved by 80 pecent over the previous Opteron. Per Core. I can hear the hardcore gamers out there salivating now.

One of the other things that's becoming a hot topic is virtualization. My other big complaint to Chris was that it's all well and good to have all of this computing power, but my trusty 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 and old ATI X800XT run everything I need just fine. I even get decent scores in Vista. Why on earth would I need to buy anything else? Well, virtualization is supposedly the answer. Virtualization is the ability to run something similar to copies of your operating system (or other operating systems) in protected memory space.

Now, that sounds kind of boring, but think of it this way ... have you ever wanted to try out some piece of software, or play around with something in your computer, but you were afraid it would break everything? That's where virtualization comes in. When you end a virtual session, it just goes away. Poof. When you load it back up again, it goes right back where it was before you started the first time. Or you can save the session if you like the results. This may not be something that the average home user would need, but as a gamer, the idea of having my main computer running all of my productivity and creation apps, and running my games in a fully-optimized virtual machine is kind of compelling. Of course, no gamer in their right mind would do this, because performance is everything. That's where Barcelona comes in ... AMD added something called nesting paging tables, and essentially, it allows you to flip between these protected virtual machines as quickly and easily as you might change the channel on your TV. As a gamer, this means that I can continue using Windows Vista as my main operating system, and when I want to play games, either fire up another copy of Vista, or load up an optimized Windows XP session. That's cool.

That's not all AMD has in its bag of tricks. Power savings is a big concern as well. The faster computers get, the more power they want, and it was kind of sickening to hear that a top-of-the-line gaming machine today needs around a 600-watt power supply to feed the video cards and main processor. Part of the reason is the archaic way processors currently save on power ... they simply throttle down the entire chip. In a dual-core machine, this doesn't work because even if you're only using one core, the other has to run at the same speed. Barcelona improves on that by slowing down only the cores that are running idle, and it does it a lot faster. But they didn't stop there ... they can also throttle individual parts of each core, so only what's currently being used is running at full-speed. That's really incredible.

Last, but certainly not least, Barcelona gives each individual core it's own Level 2 cache (on-chip memory), while Intel is still spreading the cache across their cores. Right idea, but wrong place to do it. AMD figured that out, and added a Level 3 cache that does get spread across the cores, giving the chip a place to store information that any core can access quickly.

So OK, Chris ... you guys have got my attention again. If Barcelona performs as well as expected, it could open up a whole new world of software development, similar to how HyperThreading opened up the world to "content creation" applications like making movies, photo manipulation, and CD ripping by allowing you to do a lot of those tasks in the background.

This is going to be an interesting year.

Cisco Suing Apple Over iPhone ... and they'll LOSE

I called my buddy Mike an idiot when he messaged me yesterday and told me that Cisco was suing Apple. No, Cisco is licensing the name to Apple, and even if they did file suit, it's just a squeeze play. Now, just about everyone on the internet is talking about the lawsuit and what it means to Apple.

I'd just like to say this, and with the caveat that I'm most certainly not a lawyer (althought I watch them on TV) ...

This lawsuit would fail what's referred to as the "reasonable person" test. A reasonable person would find that "iPhone" would be far more likely to have been associated with Apple than Cisco, Linksys, or the previous trademark holder. Apple's iWhatever branding is just that strong. Plus, Apple already had history of defending that branding.

This lawsuit isn't going anywhere.

Apple Computer Inc. is now ... Apple Inc.

Why'd Steve Jobs go through an entire MacWorld keynote without introducing a Mac product? Because like it or now, Microsoft just spent five years building an irrelevant product in Windows Vista. Apple, just two hours, and with one product ... moved the playing field entirely. Companies like Microsoft and Sony have been trying to do it for years. Problem is, they've been trying to move the battlefield to the living room.

In retrospect, it's obvious. In a global world, your living room isn't how you reach out. It's not going to be in front of a giant screen. It's going to be in front of a tiny one, big enough to fit in your pocket. Look at the sales figures Apple touted. Cell phones trump everything. People are out of the living room more than they're in it. It makes perfect sense that the real fight is for that one device you have in your pocket.

What, then, of Apple TV? Consider it a hedged bet, but it isn't, really. Notice how Apple TV, right down to the name, is all about entertainment. iPhone is about information, connectivity ... reaching people. iPhone is everything a convergence device is supposed to be.

I hardly use my Xbox 360 or even my Wii as of late. I'm too busy, and when I'm at home, I'm probably asleep. My phone is my constant guide. Apple's the one that gets that. Me, a die-hard Windows guy, who's only wish is that his iPod were a phone and that he could get down to one device. Make it play games (watch your ass, Nintendo), and you've got me.

Nuclear War?

I'd heard a quote thrown around in the wee morning hours about Apple's MacWorld event.

Apple's going to start a Nuclear War.

Normally, I hear something like that, and the hype alarms go off. Something told me this would be different. I had absolutely no idea.

Apple could charge anything they wanted for iPhone, and they'd get it. The device is VERY high-res, 160dpi which is even better than my laptop screen. They appear to be using sub-pixel rendering as well, so everything looks amazingly smooth. If the user-interface lives up to the MacWorld demo, they'll have managed to kill the entire iPod line all at once. THIS is the iPod now.

I'm a Microsoft fan. I've got ton's of Microsoft stuff, save for Zune, because that thing was stillborn. But even if it wasn't, Apple just put a bullet in it. Nothing on the planet, and nothing at CES, is sexier than the iPhone.

And I, for one, welcome my new widescreen, touchscreen overlord.

Update: Nuclear War indeed. Apple just announced that the reason the Google functionality is so pervasive and seamless in the iPhone is because they've been working with them, and Google's CEO just took the stage.

That there in the distance? That's the mushroom cloud over Redmond. Even Vista isn't sexier than this phone. I keep calling it that. Apple calls it an "internet communicator". It's neither. This is a computer, and it's the best looking computer around. People will buy these instead of laptops.

Apple Announces iPhone

From Engadget's coverage of MacWorld ...

9:42am - "Well today, we're introducing THREE revolutionary new products. The first one is a widescreen ipod with touch controls" The crowd goes wild. "The second is a revolutinoary new mobile phone."

9:43am - "And the third is a breakthrough internet communications device." Tepid response on that last one, but he almost got a standing ovation on the phone.

"An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator. An iPod, a phone, an internet mobile communicator.... these are NOT three separate devices!"

"And we are calling it iPhone!"

More soon ...

"The second thing we're doing is we've learned from the iPod, it syncs with iTunes. People know how to sync all their media with their iPod. iTunes is going to sync all your media to your iPhone -- but also a ton of data. Contacts, calendars, photos, notes, bookmarks, email accounts..."

9:52am - "We do that through iTunes." It shows 8GB on the screen.

9:52 - "The third thing -- I want to talk a little about design. We've designed something wonderful." 3.5-inch screen, highest resolution screen we've ever shipped, 160ppi. There's only one button, the "home" button.

"It's really thin, thinner than any smartphone. 11.6mm, thinner than the Q and the BlackJack, all of them. Ring and silent, volume up and down."

9:53am - "We have a 2 megapixel camera built right in, let's take a look at the top. A headset jack, 3.5mm, SIM tray, and a sleep-wake switch. Let's look at the bottom, we've got a speaker, mic input, and an iPod connector."

9:54am - We've also got some stuff you can't see -- 3 advanced sensors. It's got a proximity sensor, bring the iPhone to your ear and your display shuts off and toushccreen shuts down. Ambient light sensor -- adjusts brightness, saves power. Third thing is an accellerometer, it can tell whether you're in landscape and portraid. Let's turn it on."

Apple Suprises and Underwhelms at the Same Time

Apple announced a bunch of much-desired features today, including downloadable movies through iTunes, Gapless Playback (a BIG pet peeve of mine), transfer of iTunes purchases via your iPod (another issue I've had to deal with), and new iPod models across the whole line.

What they didn't announce was a new widescreen Video iPod.  And I just don't get why.

They upgraded the video quality through iTunes to 640x480, which is still a standard-def video format.  (No word on whether the new iPods have 640x480 screens.)  But every time they said (640x480), I kept thinking ... this is the only non-widescreen product in their product line, computers included.  Apple understands how important widescreen is when it comes to field of view, but they just keep dropping the ball on the iPod.

I was hoping to get a new one of these for my graduation from the UW, and while the new 80GB model is compelling, I have to think that they're just perfecting the technology.  So why wouldn't I wait?  Sure, my current iPod is absolutely full, but that's not a big enough determiner for me.

The big surprise?  The rumored set-top box, codenamed iTV.  Thinner than the Mac Mini (less than half as thick, it seems), built-in wireless, an designed to bring movie content to your HDTV.  Again, what's the point when iTunes is limited to 640x480?  Even 720x480 would have been a start, but that probably would have made the lack of a widescreen iPod even more apparent.

I'll download the new iTunes when I get home from work and see if the old 4G iPods will support the Gapless playback.  Jobs made it sound during the keynote that it was some sort of secret sauce in iTunes7 that makes it work.  We'll see.