At first blush it would seem all Apple has done is remove monitors from their offerings that may or may not be their highest sellers in their monitor lineup. Certainly the 27" inch iMac is one of their biggest sellers amongst both the general consumer and amateur visual creative people so it stands to reason that a stand-alone 27" inch monitor would also sell well.
As I've said many times both publicly and privately, no visual-creative professional worth their salt would want - or need - a glossy screen throwing back reflections at them and creating annoying and often times impossible-to-remove glare which occludes the very details we're trying to look at during our work. Anyone who's been forced to move their head around or, reposition a glossy-screened monitor to try and avoid this issue knows of the headaches this "pretty" type of screen creates. And by the way, sometimes the headaches are literal, caused by eyestrain in dealing with these glaring reflections.
So thanks, Apple, for once again proving that "Beauty is more important than functionality.", and that if the device doesn't look like an iPhone, you won't make it.
If you're a creative pro then don't waste your money on Apple's "I wanna-be an iPhone when I grow up" monitor and get a Dell or Samsung instead.
Reviews for Professional Editors, Producers, Camera Operators and anyone involved in the commercial filmmaking community. Often you'll find some stuff not related to filmmaking... but fun anyway.
Showing posts with label Opinion Editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Opinion Editorial. Show all posts
Jun 30, 2010
Why the SmartCar just isn't smart
Chances are you've seen one, this diminutive, cute, clown-car-sized auto buzzing around town or the inner-city freeways, the "Smart" car. It looks barely big enough to hold 2 average sized humans - and not much else.
I remember the first time I saw one around 2006, I figured (as many probably did) that it was a european electric import. In fact, Smart actually paid several people in many large US metro areas to simply drive around the Smart car in place of their regular vehicle, just to start the buzz about it's existence. And it worked, people all over were gawking at it, asking questions and doing millions of web-searches trying to find out more about it.
Europeans have been used to these uber-small 4-wheelers for decades as several brands have and do make autos of the pint-sized variety for decades, and it wasn't just because fuel costs were higher than here in the US, but simply because most of europe is very tightly compacted, with narrow streets, limited road access in rural areas and overly congested cities with little wriggle-room for the typical US-style sedans to move around.
But the Smart Car isn't the first teeny-weeny-sized auto to hit US shores. If you're older than 35 you might remember the Renault "Le Car" which was introduced in the late '70's to the US market or even the Yugo. Neither of which went over very well, mostly due to quality and reliability issues, but also people here just couldn't get done what they thought they needed to with such minimal carrying capacity. It was great for students or that second kick-around car to do errands in but you'd never trust one on the highway - hopefully.
So here we are in 2010 and the Smart Car has not only gone from hard-to-find oddity to being a regular sighting in our daily commute. But is the Smart Car really all it's cracked up to be, or is it just another example of glossy & cute marketing hype that people have bought into? Let's break it down and find out:
First, if someone wants a Smart Car simply because it's cool looking, cute or just fun to drive around then you can't argue that "I want one" mentality. But if you're thinking that it's a "smart" choice because of it's purported economy or low-cost of ownership you might be in for a surprise when you run the numbers.
Compare the mid-level Smart Car model they call the "ForTwo Coupe" to it's closest rival in size and price, the Toyota Yaris.
The ForTwo Coupe price they list on SmartUSA is $14,700, not including tax, title or license fees; even though it is NOT the cheapest model Smart makes it does represent what most americans consider a "base model" with normal amenities that we expect from a new car. That model has an EPA MPG rating of 33 city / 41 freeway. It can only accommodate 2 people and just enough room behind the main seats for a few groceries and or smallish luggage such as a few laptop cases or the like. No back seat at all, it's a 2-person ride, period.
The Yaris 5-Door Hatch lists for $12,605 not including TT&L. It's EPA rating is 29 city / 36 highway. It can hold 4 people plus small luggage/groceries in the rear or, the rear seats fold down allowing for more than double the cargo space. Heck you could easily put a couple Pelican 1650 large cases back there and still have room for extras.
So the right off the bat the Yaris costs less money, can hold double the number of people and has 3 times the cargo capacity of the Smart TwoFor Coupe. "Ah, but what of the superior gas mileage of the Smart Car?", you say? OK, let's look at that then:
It's simple math: According to the government site, www.fueleconomy.gov , the Smart Car will cost you $1241 dollars in fuel annually to drive; the Yaris will cost you $1412 of fuel per year to drive. That's with a fuel price of $2.73 per gallon and driving an average of 15,000 miles per year and, based on the EPA CITY ratings for both cars.
So let's make this comparison clearer: The Smart Car TwoFor Coupe costs $2100 more than the Yaris, yet yields only a $171 dollar per-year savings on fuel. That means you'd have to drive it 12 years to make up that cost difference! Huh? Is that what you'd call, "smart"?!? C'mon now.
Oh but the fun doesn't stop there, you can still only hold 2 people in a Smart Car for that $2100 premium and, you've got virtually no cargo capacity at all. Not to mention that it's 70-horsepower motor has virtually no get-up-and-go and can't go faster than 85-90 mph. Granted, you really wouldn't want nor do you need to travel faster than 70mph on the freeway, but that also means you've got no power available to pass, drive up in the mountains or carry heavy loads - such as two of yours truly! (laughs)
I have a Honda Reflex scooter than can out-accelerate the Smart Car, can hold two people and with the quick-release trunk on the back can hold just about the same amount of luggage and, gets about 60mpg. All while costing about $11,000 less than the Smart Car. Granted, it's only got 2 wheels and doesn't have a fully enclosed frame around it like a car does, but just exactly how safe is a Smart Car supposed to be at a 40mph head-on impact with less room in front of the driver than a Mini Cooper?
Exactly what is "smart" about the Smart Car? From my perspective, absolutely nothing. It's an over-priced motorcycle on 4 wheels.
If you want something that's small, has great fuel economy and can actually do more than a motorcycle on 4 wheels then either a Toyota Yaris or better still, a Honda Fit should be in your sights. But a Smart Car? I'd call that a stupid purchase, not a smart one.
I remember the first time I saw one around 2006, I figured (as many probably did) that it was a european electric import. In fact, Smart actually paid several people in many large US metro areas to simply drive around the Smart car in place of their regular vehicle, just to start the buzz about it's existence. And it worked, people all over were gawking at it, asking questions and doing millions of web-searches trying to find out more about it.
Europeans have been used to these uber-small 4-wheelers for decades as several brands have and do make autos of the pint-sized variety for decades, and it wasn't just because fuel costs were higher than here in the US, but simply because most of europe is very tightly compacted, with narrow streets, limited road access in rural areas and overly congested cities with little wriggle-room for the typical US-style sedans to move around.
But the Smart Car isn't the first teeny-weeny-sized auto to hit US shores. If you're older than 35 you might remember the Renault "Le Car" which was introduced in the late '70's to the US market or even the Yugo. Neither of which went over very well, mostly due to quality and reliability issues, but also people here just couldn't get done what they thought they needed to with such minimal carrying capacity. It was great for students or that second kick-around car to do errands in but you'd never trust one on the highway - hopefully.
So here we are in 2010 and the Smart Car has not only gone from hard-to-find oddity to being a regular sighting in our daily commute. But is the Smart Car really all it's cracked up to be, or is it just another example of glossy & cute marketing hype that people have bought into? Let's break it down and find out:
First, if someone wants a Smart Car simply because it's cool looking, cute or just fun to drive around then you can't argue that "I want one" mentality. But if you're thinking that it's a "smart" choice because of it's purported economy or low-cost of ownership you might be in for a surprise when you run the numbers.
Compare the mid-level Smart Car model they call the "ForTwo Coupe" to it's closest rival in size and price, the Toyota Yaris.
The ForTwo Coupe price they list on SmartUSA is $14,700, not including tax, title or license fees; even though it is NOT the cheapest model Smart makes it does represent what most americans consider a "base model" with normal amenities that we expect from a new car. That model has an EPA MPG rating of 33 city / 41 freeway. It can only accommodate 2 people and just enough room behind the main seats for a few groceries and or smallish luggage such as a few laptop cases or the like. No back seat at all, it's a 2-person ride, period.
The Yaris 5-Door Hatch lists for $12,605 not including TT&L. It's EPA rating is 29 city / 36 highway. It can hold 4 people plus small luggage/groceries in the rear or, the rear seats fold down allowing for more than double the cargo space. Heck you could easily put a couple Pelican 1650 large cases back there and still have room for extras.
So the right off the bat the Yaris costs less money, can hold double the number of people and has 3 times the cargo capacity of the Smart TwoFor Coupe. "Ah, but what of the superior gas mileage of the Smart Car?", you say? OK, let's look at that then:
It's simple math: According to the government site, www.fueleconomy.gov , the Smart Car will cost you $1241 dollars in fuel annually to drive; the Yaris will cost you $1412 of fuel per year to drive. That's with a fuel price of $2.73 per gallon and driving an average of 15,000 miles per year and, based on the EPA CITY ratings for both cars.
So let's make this comparison clearer: The Smart Car TwoFor Coupe costs $2100 more than the Yaris, yet yields only a $171 dollar per-year savings on fuel. That means you'd have to drive it 12 years to make up that cost difference! Huh? Is that what you'd call, "smart"?!? C'mon now.
Oh but the fun doesn't stop there, you can still only hold 2 people in a Smart Car for that $2100 premium and, you've got virtually no cargo capacity at all. Not to mention that it's 70-horsepower motor has virtually no get-up-and-go and can't go faster than 85-90 mph. Granted, you really wouldn't want nor do you need to travel faster than 70mph on the freeway, but that also means you've got no power available to pass, drive up in the mountains or carry heavy loads - such as two of yours truly! (laughs)
I have a Honda Reflex scooter than can out-accelerate the Smart Car, can hold two people and with the quick-release trunk on the back can hold just about the same amount of luggage and, gets about 60mpg. All while costing about $11,000 less than the Smart Car. Granted, it's only got 2 wheels and doesn't have a fully enclosed frame around it like a car does, but just exactly how safe is a Smart Car supposed to be at a 40mph head-on impact with less room in front of the driver than a Mini Cooper?
Exactly what is "smart" about the Smart Car? From my perspective, absolutely nothing. It's an over-priced motorcycle on 4 wheels.
If you want something that's small, has great fuel economy and can actually do more than a motorcycle on 4 wheels then either a Toyota Yaris or better still, a Honda Fit should be in your sights. But a Smart Car? I'd call that a stupid purchase, not a smart one.
Jun 25, 2010
The New Apple: "Mac" is out, "i-Product" is in
Apple's new 4G iPhone has just been released and already it's breaking sales records with the media quoting Apple's stats as the launch date being, "the most successful launch of any Apple product to date...". How wonderful for the billion-dollar mega-computing giant.
But the apparent initial success of this new "i-Toy" not totally surprising; ever since the introduction of the iTunes and then the iPod Apple has been on a skyrocketing trajectory of popularity with consumers which recently went to fever pitch with the release of the iPad. And now with the iPhone 4G consumer interest in Apple i-Products it's most likely reached critical mass: How could Apple possibly out-do itself now with this much unfettered success? One way would be to get back to what used to be the core of Apple's business, it's Macintosh-based hardware and software offerings.
To wit, several of Apple's products - which still sell well and are highly popular - have all but gone ignored by "Father Jobs" as he's clearly spent the lion-share of Apple's resources and attention with the iPad and iPhone development and marketing, leaving many of Apple's Macintosh line customers feeling left out in the cold and wondering if there's anything new on the horizon for them outside of the gooey, glossy world of i-Products.
Two cases in point, the iLife and iWork mini-suites. Typically (albeit not *always*) Apple releases updates to those applications at least once a year. We're now solidly through half of 2010 and both the those i-suites are still on their '09 versions with no hint of an update on the horizon.
For professionals things are even more bleak; the Final Cut Studio professional video editing suite is now 2.5 generations behind it's competitors, namely Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid, in it's feature set and competitive offerings. And although FCP version 7 was released not too long ago it was merely a service pack rather than a suite-wide refresh of what's quickly becoming an aging application. In fact, at the NAB convention in '07 Adobe and others took a giant leap forward in front of Final Cut by offering Blu-Ray authoring and a few other very cool features that to date Final Cut is still incapable of.
But the video pros aren't the only ones feeling the pain, Logic was supposed to have been given a refresh also only to find out that the "update" never happened and it too is lagging behind it's pro competitors.
Speaking of Blu-Ray, Apple remains the *only* company on the planet who still refuses to play nice with the only high-definition disc format available. Those who are technically oriented will well remember the duel between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with BR coming out the clear winner. Yet 3 years later and Steve Jobs still considers Blu-Ray "a bag of hurt" and refuses to adopt the format into Mac OS X. PC's have been playing Blu-Ray discs ever since the first BR drives became available what... 5 years ago now?
Do you have a MacBook Pro and constantly get comments about how "gorgeous" it is. And do those same people seem astounded that the most beautiful and "technologically advanced laptop ever made"... *can't* play a Blu-Ray disc? Now doesn't that just seem ludicrous? It does to me.
And about those uber-gorgeous, glossy-screened "pro" laptops Apple touts as being so technically advanced: Do you know that they lack professional connections currently available on more than 80% percent of PC laptops and, that they still do not have a second internal hard-disk, not even in the most expensive 17" inch option?
And by the way, creative professionals especially who are in film, video or photography DO NOT want a glossy screen throwing glare and reflections back in their faces when trying to do critical VISUAL work. No, we need matte or "anti-glare" screens, as Apple now calls it. Before the unibody MacBook Pro that anti-glare screen was the default choice; now you have to PAY an additional fee to NOT have a glossy screen. WTF?? Really?! Why is that?
Well, it's all because Steve Jobs wants all Apple products to be "gorgeous". How they look externally is far more important than actual functionality. The laptops look more like iPhones or even iPads all the time and that's purposeful, not coincidence.
So what's happening in Apple-land? Why are Mac-based products becoming so goofy and software suites going without updates for such a long period of time? It's all because Apple has transformed itself away from computers, indeed they changed the company name from "Apple Computer" to simply "Apple", and instead are now nearly 100% focused on it's iProduct offerings.
Indeed, why shouldn't Apple become tunnel-visioned on it's i-Toys? It is in point of fact where their billions of dollars are being made and with each new i-Product release their market-share in consumer electronics grows by leaps and bounds. The downside unfortunately is that many of their Macintosh based products are now either aging and behind the curve or, as in the case with laptop design, are so overly aesthetic-centric that functionality and usability suffers.
So what's a Mac-user to do? Not much unfortunately. Unless there's a massive migration away from Macintosh hardware/software back to Windows platforms Steve Jobs simply won't have an incentive to refocus his attention to the Mac platform.
But then again, maybe personal computers and professional software are just no longer part of the Apple business model. I mean, you can email, take photos, shoot and edit video and browse the web all on the new iPhone. So who needs a computer and pro-level software anyway. I mean, according to Steve Jobs, YouTube plays HD videos so nobody really wants or needs a Blu-Ray player either.
Right? Ugh.
But the apparent initial success of this new "i-Toy" not totally surprising; ever since the introduction of the iTunes and then the iPod Apple has been on a skyrocketing trajectory of popularity with consumers which recently went to fever pitch with the release of the iPad. And now with the iPhone 4G consumer interest in Apple i-Products it's most likely reached critical mass: How could Apple possibly out-do itself now with this much unfettered success? One way would be to get back to what used to be the core of Apple's business, it's Macintosh-based hardware and software offerings.
To wit, several of Apple's products - which still sell well and are highly popular - have all but gone ignored by "Father Jobs" as he's clearly spent the lion-share of Apple's resources and attention with the iPad and iPhone development and marketing, leaving many of Apple's Macintosh line customers feeling left out in the cold and wondering if there's anything new on the horizon for them outside of the gooey, glossy world of i-Products.
Two cases in point, the iLife and iWork mini-suites. Typically (albeit not *always*) Apple releases updates to those applications at least once a year. We're now solidly through half of 2010 and both the those i-suites are still on their '09 versions with no hint of an update on the horizon.
For professionals things are even more bleak; the Final Cut Studio professional video editing suite is now 2.5 generations behind it's competitors, namely Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid, in it's feature set and competitive offerings. And although FCP version 7 was released not too long ago it was merely a service pack rather than a suite-wide refresh of what's quickly becoming an aging application. In fact, at the NAB convention in '07 Adobe and others took a giant leap forward in front of Final Cut by offering Blu-Ray authoring and a few other very cool features that to date Final Cut is still incapable of.
But the video pros aren't the only ones feeling the pain, Logic was supposed to have been given a refresh also only to find out that the "update" never happened and it too is lagging behind it's pro competitors.
Speaking of Blu-Ray, Apple remains the *only* company on the planet who still refuses to play nice with the only high-definition disc format available. Those who are technically oriented will well remember the duel between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray with BR coming out the clear winner. Yet 3 years later and Steve Jobs still considers Blu-Ray "a bag of hurt" and refuses to adopt the format into Mac OS X. PC's have been playing Blu-Ray discs ever since the first BR drives became available what... 5 years ago now?
Do you have a MacBook Pro and constantly get comments about how "gorgeous" it is. And do those same people seem astounded that the most beautiful and "technologically advanced laptop ever made"... *can't* play a Blu-Ray disc? Now doesn't that just seem ludicrous? It does to me.
And about those uber-gorgeous, glossy-screened "pro" laptops Apple touts as being so technically advanced: Do you know that they lack professional connections currently available on more than 80% percent of PC laptops and, that they still do not have a second internal hard-disk, not even in the most expensive 17" inch option?
And by the way, creative professionals especially who are in film, video or photography DO NOT want a glossy screen throwing glare and reflections back in their faces when trying to do critical VISUAL work. No, we need matte or "anti-glare" screens, as Apple now calls it. Before the unibody MacBook Pro that anti-glare screen was the default choice; now you have to PAY an additional fee to NOT have a glossy screen. WTF?? Really?! Why is that?
Well, it's all because Steve Jobs wants all Apple products to be "gorgeous". How they look externally is far more important than actual functionality. The laptops look more like iPhones or even iPads all the time and that's purposeful, not coincidence.
So what's happening in Apple-land? Why are Mac-based products becoming so goofy and software suites going without updates for such a long period of time? It's all because Apple has transformed itself away from computers, indeed they changed the company name from "Apple Computer" to simply "Apple", and instead are now nearly 100% focused on it's iProduct offerings.
Indeed, why shouldn't Apple become tunnel-visioned on it's i-Toys? It is in point of fact where their billions of dollars are being made and with each new i-Product release their market-share in consumer electronics grows by leaps and bounds. The downside unfortunately is that many of their Macintosh based products are now either aging and behind the curve or, as in the case with laptop design, are so overly aesthetic-centric that functionality and usability suffers.
So what's a Mac-user to do? Not much unfortunately. Unless there's a massive migration away from Macintosh hardware/software back to Windows platforms Steve Jobs simply won't have an incentive to refocus his attention to the Mac platform.
But then again, maybe personal computers and professional software are just no longer part of the Apple business model. I mean, you can email, take photos, shoot and edit video and browse the web all on the new iPhone. So who needs a computer and pro-level software anyway. I mean, according to Steve Jobs, YouTube plays HD videos so nobody really wants or needs a Blu-Ray player either.
Right? Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)