I know this sounds a bit heretical, but my tech wish for 2011 is for things to slow down a bit.
I realize that the pace of innovation is getting forever faster but there are times when it's a bit overwhelming. And if a veteran technology journalist like me feels that way, I can't help think others might as well.
Android phones, for example, seem to be coming out constantly as are new versions of the Android operating system. I'd be happier if there were fewer phones and instead of constant software upgrades, how about one or two a year that are really solid and noticeably better than what they replace.
The Apple iPad was clearly the most significant tech product of 2010 and rumor has it that there may be an iPad 2 coming out shortly. Personally, I'd prefer they wait until mid-2011. Many iPad owners are just starting to take advantage of the features on the device that came out last summer. Besides, rumors of a new iPad are causing some people I know to hold off buying the current version.
2011 will see lots of new tablets from other companies and I'm hoping that at least one or two will be a worthy rival for the iPad. What I don't want to see are lots of mediocre products, but I suspect we will.
There is a constant parade of digital cameras hitting the market but few of them are significantly better than the ones they replace. Usually all they have are more megapixels which -- after say 8 megapixels or so -- has no noticeable impact on the quality of photos. I'd rather camera companies put efforts into better lenses, larger and more light sensitive sensors and bringing back optical view finders (an invention of the early 20th century) so we don't have to hold the camera out in front of us and frame everything using the LCD screen.
There were a few years when new features on high-definition TVs were being introduced regularly but that, thankfully, slowed down once 1080p resolution became mainstream. Now the industry is pushing us all to buy 3-D TVs but most of us aren't buying. Consumers aren't stupid. When it comes to spending our hard-earned money, we need to see some serious value from our dollars and having to put on special glasses to get images to pop-out of the string doesn't cut it for most people.
And speaking of slowing down, it's time for Facebook engineers to take a well-deserved rest. They came out with an enormous number of new features in 2010 -- many of which confused users and sparked outrage over privacy. I'm not saying that there isn't room for improvement at Facebook but maybe it's time to stop fixing what isn't broken and leave the user interface alone for awhile.
Leaving (for) Las Vegas and CES
As I write, I'm packing for my annual pilgrimage to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas where I expect to see still more products, most of which will never garner much market share. Still, hope springs eternal and entrepreneurs from start-ups to big companies will do their best to dazzle the CES attendees with great new products that promise to make our lives better. A few will make it out of the starting gate but most will be part of the noise and will be long forgotten by CES 2012.
Follow Larry Magid on Twitter: www.twitter.com/larrymagid
Alex Pasternack: Why Obama Dissed the Internet, and Why the Internet Doesn't Get It
Jonathan Rettinger: iPad 2 Rumors -- What to Expect
Jeffrey Evans: The Apple of Big Brother's Eye (Or, They Now Have a Camera in My Bedroom)
It's not a call for going back to the stone age, but it's a matter of asking...do I NEED it? Will it truly make my life easier or the other way around?
You are in a unique position to actually DO something about this.
REAL innovation is great. The problem, it seems to me, is the incremental, the trivial and the hyperbolic.
No tech company can ignore you (and a handful of other writers) they basically HAVE to give you review copies. BUT you can call it the way it really is -- just call 'em the way you see 'em.
1. Anything less than, say, a 20 percent improvement in range, speed, display size or whatever, is incremental and should be called such.
2. Moving the icon or button to a different place, changing the icon's or button's color, or similar user interface tweaks are trivial and should be called such.
3. If somebody says they have a "magical" device, demand proof -- like, it must defy the laws of physics -- or they are hyperbolic snake oil sellers and should be called such.
Thanking you in advance . . .
Microsoft has the ability to basically eliminate "tracking" and other programs that spy and dump unwanted (and unknown) programs onto your computer in their operating systems. But they do not want to do that at all...because they profit from these things. Microsoft makes more money off of advertising and marketing then they do from hardware; the hardware is just a means of putting their money printing tool into your hands. They are not that much different than the "slap chop" info-mercial....Those info -mercials don't care about what chinese product they are selling you, the priority and important part is to get you on the phone. And when they're done, that 19 dollar piece of crap just cost you 54 dollars (shipping and robbing charges) and if you're lucky, you didn't unknowingly join some type of club that extracts and additional 19 dollars a month out of your checking account.
Isn't advertising a manipulating, legal but criminal, offense because it takes advantage of our social instincts to fall in with the herd like you see people behave in a restaurant fire, and someone points you to the fire exit; that is, if their perfectly sane, God knows they could just as easily point you to the fire.
I was once in a fire, and sure enough, all my marbles clattered out of my head and down my pant leg, like a deer caught in the proverbial headlight!
I get that same sensation from technology, its that adrenaline arousing fire alarm kicking off our Pavlovian response where every new products shouts "here's the exit!!!"
And find it amazing that nobody even mentions the real driver behind the constantly increasing pace in tech changes - quarterly profits.
The stockholders of these tech companies, some of which may be the commentors, are always looking for increased profits, and looking for them on a quarterly basis.
How can a tech company do what's best in a long-term way when the people they report to think short-term and stock profit/ROI before moving on to the next?
How much of the need to advance, and have the next best thing, is fueled by the demands of the stock holder to increase value?
If you have XYZ stock, do you want them coming out with a new product only every 3 years, or do you want them bringing new things out every year to raise the value of your stock every year?
Are those that are both technology consumers and investors conflicted in what they actually want to happen?