Skip to main content

Why PCs Do Not Make Good Gadget Makers

I think this CNET story hits it on the head: "reality still trails Microsoft's ambitions"

I will say - I was very excited about the potential of Origami, a light-weight device that was as functional as a regular laptop but designed for hand-held use. An intelligent user interface, much like the one that appears to be happening with the Origami Program Launcher would be welcome for many businesses and end-users. But PC people who keep on thinking that users (even though this one is very positive about it) will shell out big bucks for these devices are just out of their heads.

It killed me this year to have to shell out over $600 for a mobile phone PDA when my original Blackberry only costs $189. Yea, I know Microsoft wanted to make the device under $500 - but just like Apple's Newton (which was similarly overpriced), $800-$1100 (for Samsung's Q1) is just way to ridiculous. Even if they had managed to offer ONE that was under $500 (as they did with the xBox), they could have saved some face.

But it did tell me one thing: I have no reason whatsoever to look at a Tablet PC. So with one swoop, MS managed to kill two products at once. The Tablet PC is still overpriced and now, they come out with this device which makes laptops even more attractive. Maybe even three if you consider that the Portable Media PCs may be a little cheaper but far less functional. And it's not even Microsoft's own.

Now don't get me wrong - I would love an Origami device but at that price, Microsoft has just opened the door for a company who does understand gadget pricing ( and one that reminds me I need to eat some fruit today ) and now runs on the Intel platform to really shake up the world of portable devices. Or maybe someone else.

Too bad.

Reality check for the much-hyped Origami PC | CNET News.com

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Elevating Project Specifications with Three Insightful ChatGPT Prompts

For developers and testers, ChatGPT, the freely accessible tool from OpenAI, is game-changing. If you want to learn a new programming language, ask for samples or have it convert your existing code. This can be done in Visual Studio Code (using GitHub CoPilot) or directly in the ChatGPT app or web site.  If you’re a tester, ChatGPT can write a test spec or actual test code (if you use Jest or Cypress) based on existing code, copied and pasted into the input area. But ChatGPT can be of huge value for analysts (whether system or business) who need to validate their needs. There’s often a disconnect between developers and analysts. Analysts complain that developers don’t build what they asked for or ask too many questions. Developers complain that analysts haven’t thought of obvious things. In these situations, ChatGPT can be a great intermediary. At its worst, it forces you to think about and then discount obvious issues. At best, it clarifies the needs into documented requirements. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Respect

Respect is something humans give to each other through personal connection. It’s the bond that forms when we recognize something—or someone—as significant, relatable, or worthy of care. This connection doesn’t have to be limited to people. There was an  article  recently that described the differing attitudes towards AI tools such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini (formerly Bard). Some people treat them like a standard search while others form a sort of personal relationship — being courteous, saying “please” and “thank you”. Occasionally, people share extra details unrelated to their question, like, ‘I’m going to a wedding. What flower goes well with a tuxedo?’ Does an AI “care” how you respond to it? Of course not — it reflects the patterns it’s trained on. Yet our interaction shapes how these tools evolve, and that influence is something we should take seriously. Most of us have all expressed frustration when an AI “hallucinates”. Real or not, the larger issue is that we have hi...
Post a Comment
Read more

When A Machine Starts To Care

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” Arthur C. Clarke (1962)  I first used that quote when I was starting out in the tech industry. Back then, it was a way to illustrate just how fast and powerful computers had become. Querying large datasets in seconds felt magical—at least to those who didn’t build them.  Today, we’re facing something even more extraordinary. Large Language Models (LLMs) can now carry on conversations that approach human-level fluency. Clarke’s quote applies again. And just as importantly, many researchers argue that LLMs meet—or at least brush up against—the criteria of the Turing Test.  We tend to criticize LLMs for their “hallucinations,” their sometimes-confident inaccuracies. But let’s be honest: we also complain when our friends misremember facts or recount things inaccurately. This doesn’t excuse LLMs—it simply highlights that the behavior isn’t entirely alien. In some ways, it mirrors our own cognitive limits....
Post a Comment
Read more