Tablets! the new fad? Or useless tech?

Hold on a sec -- let me preface all of this with a quick reminder that I'm speaking on a personal level, and I'm absolutely certain that slates have a place in this world somewhere. We could go back and forth for hours with use-case scenarios (and the same could be done with cars, time machines or your luxury good of choice), but this isn't about proving that a tablet can do one or two things; it's about the limitations and awkwardness of using one that no one seems to talk about.

After years of watching the masses fawn over the iPad (and every other PC maker scramble to come out with something that serves a similar purpose), I still can't ever imagine myself investing in one, let alone actually using one in place of a smartphone or laptop. I've met quite a few folks in my line of work that all ask me the same thing: "Should I buy an iPad?" It's worth noting that no one actually asks if "they should buy a tablet," but that's speaking more about Apple's absurdly enviable mind (and in turn, market) share than anything else. My response is always the same: "If you can't think of a reason you'd need it, you don't need it."
Tablets, for whatever reason, seem to defy logic when it comes to purchase rationalization in the consumer electronics realm. I've yet to meet a person who purchased an ultraportable without knowing full-well that they would take advantage of enhanced battery life and a highly mobile chassis. Everyone I've know that invested in a high-end gaming rig knew why they were shelling out on that $500 GPU (read: frames-per-second). And all of my movie cuttin' pals knew precisely why they just had to have a Thunderbolt RAID setup. But tablets? People are just buying these things in a fit of hysteria -- does anyone actually know why this "third device" is such a necessity? Let's dive a little deeper, shall we?

 The obvious answers (and the not-so-obvious question)Look, I'm not disputing that tablets serve a purpose. I would've leaped for ever-loving joy if my middle school classes were delivered on one, and my photographing wife uses hers to show example poses to nervous brides and grooms who want to look good in their wedding album. But when it comes to using one as a tool for myself -- a device which should make me more productive -- slates have failed to provide me with a compelling reason to drop $500+ on yet another computing instrument.

And here's why. With qHD displays becoming the norm, most modern smartphones can nearly match even the highest-resolution tablet display. Pixel-for-pixel, I can see almost as much information in the palm of my hand as I can with an unwieldy screen that requires two hands to use with any precision whatsoever. And then, there's typing. Let's say I'm at work , or at a conference, or at a side job, and I'm attempting to jot a few notes down for later. If needed, I can peck away with a shocking amount of accuracy using SwiftKey's magical prediction keyboard on insert-your-Android-phone-here... with one hand. Is it really worth the pocketbook hit to bring something else in there to do the same thing?

If you're asking what the big deal is with using both of your arms to operate a handheld computing apparatus, you're asking the wrong question. What you should be asking is this: "Why did I just spend $500 on a device that's just marginally easier to get work done on than the smartphone I already own, while being entirely more limiting than even a netbook from an OS standpoint?" If anything, it's just a testament to how immensely useful, longevous and mobile the modern day laptop truly is.

Look, tablets are weird to useC'mon, admit it. Slates are silly to hold and silly to operate. Ever tried taking a photo with a tablet? You're guaranteed to get perfect facial expressions for tomorrow's highlight image on Awkward Family Photos, but that's about it. Without a case, it's even awkward to type on a tablet. You're usually left with two options: propping it up against your leg, or laying it flat on a table and forcing yourself to hover directly over it, neither of which strike me as "natural." You might say that using one is no less strange than pecking away on a laptop, but if I have to sit down with it I might as well use something with a keyboard.

I'll confess that using one as an in-flight entertainment device looks pretty practical, but my 4.3-inch smartphone screen would accomplish the same task with a lot less fuss

I also can't seem to find anyone to justify the value in spending half a grand on something with a souped-up mobile OS. Marketers have stated from the start that a tablet is a "third device" -- something that's worth owning even if you already posses a smartphone and a laptop. I'm guessing it's because they know tablets aren't capable of replacing either. It's too big to fit into any pair of pants I own (unless you own Mc Hammer pants) and it's downright frustrating to use as a netbook replacement.

Even something as basic as chewing through unread emails proves to be a gigantic pain on a tablet. I typically get through eight or nine messages before I need to a) add an attachment from a file system that doesn't exist or b) open up a new browser to complete an inbox search whilst keeping the existing message open in a nearby window. Foiled again. This also brings up the point of multitasking; even with webOS' absolutely laudatory "Cards" system on the now-defunct TouchPad, there's no actual multi-window, multi-app multitasking. I can grab a 10-inch netbook -- priced at $300 or less, usually -- and multitask in ways that iOS could only dream of. Again, I'm looking at this strictly from a productivity standpoint, and if you're still trying to convince me that I need a "third device," you're barking up the wrong tree. I also won't argue that the "experience" of using iOS on a tablet is exemplary, but at most, it's a novelty in my world.
The "third device" requirement is manufacturedApple, and everyone else trying their best to hawk tablets, would have you believe that there's a huge hole in your technophile lifestyle that can only be filled by hauling around yet another contraption. I beg to differ. For consumers who don't consider themselves power users, you might be able to get away with using a tablet in place of a laptop. If that's you, fantastic. You just figured out a way to stick with only two devices, and you made the second one a good bit more compact. But if use things like Photoshop and Windows Movie Maker (real esoteric stuff, I tell ya), or you like to actually add attachments to your email from a file system, you'll probably find yourself in a place like myself: wondering what the heck the fuss is all about.

I'm not disputing the fact that the iPad is a runaway hit; Apple has sold millions, and it'll continue to dominate this landscape for the foreseeable future. It's shareholders are obviously thrilled with the demand. But here's a genuine question: how many of you actually use your tablet (of any brand) for productivity tasks as much as you thought you would when you lined up around the block to buy it? And after you invest a couple hundred in accessories to make it halfway useful, aren't you better off (financially and otherwise) with a bona fide laptop? For me, that answer is "yes". you can even check craigslist for selling offers on ipad. the number one reason will for selling will always be "I just done use it"Even in a world where posting your every moment and thaught a tablet is still not a third device of choice


Pictures provided by: Psymoon

cloud computing and the future of data storage

Cloud computing is all the rage. "It's become the phrase du jour," says Gartner senior analyst Ben Pring, echoing many of his peers. The problem is that (as with Web 2.0) everyone seems to have a different definition.

As a metaphor for the Internet, "the cloud" is a familiar cliché, but when combined with "computing," the meaning gets bigger and fuzzier. Some analysts and vendors define cloud computing narrowly as an updated version of utility computing: basically virtual servers available over the Internet. Others go very broad, arguing anything you consume outside the firewall is "in the cloud," including conventional outsourcing.

Cloud computing comes into focus only when you think about what IT always needs: a way to increase capacity or add capabilities on the fly without investing in new infrastructure, training new personnel, or licensing new software. Cloud computing encompasses any subscription-based or pay-per-use service that, in real time over the Internet, extends IT's existing capabilities.

Cloud computing is at an early stage, with a motley crew of providers large and small delivering a slew of cloud-based services, from full-blown applications to storage services to spam filtering. Yes, utility-style infrastructure providers are part of the mix, but so are SaaS (software as a service) providers such as Salesforce.com. Today, for the most part, IT must plug into cloud-based services individually, but cloud computing aggregators and integrators are already emerging.

InfoWorld talked to dozens of vendors, analysts, and IT customers to tease out the various components of cloud computing. Based on those discussions, here's a rough breakdown of what cloud computing is all about:
1. SaaSThis type of cloud computing delivers a single application through the browser to thousands of customers using a multitenant architecture. On the customer side, it means no upfront investment in servers or software licensing; on the provider side, with just one app to maintain, costs are low compared to conventional hosting. Salesforce.com is by far the best-known example among enterprise applications, but SaaS is also common for HR apps and has even worked its way up the food chain to ERP, with players such as Workday. And who could have predicted the sudden rise of SaaS "desktop" applications, such as Google Apps and Zoho Office
2. Utility computingThe idea is not new, but this form of cloud computing is getting new life from Amazon.com, Sun, IBM, and others who now offer storage and virtual servers that IT can access on demand. Early enterprise adopters mainly use utility computing for supplemental, non-mission-critical needs, but one day, they may replace parts of the datacenter. Other providers offer solutions that help IT create virtual datacenters from commodity servers, such as 3Tera's AppLogic and Cohesive Flexible Technologies' Elastic Server on Demand. Liquid Computing's LiquidQ offers similar capabilities, enabling IT to stitch together memory, I/O, storage, and computational capacity as a virtualized resource pool available over the network.
4. Platform as a serviceAnother SaaS variation, this form of cloud computing delivers development environments as a service. You build your own applications that run on the provider's infrastructure and are delivered to your users via the Internet from the provider's servers. Like Legos, these services are constrained by the vendor's design and capabilities, so you don't get complete freedom, but you do get predictability and pre-integration. Prime examples include Salesforce.com's Force.com, Coghead and the new Google App Engine. For extremely lightweight development, cloud-based mashup platforms abound, such as Yahoo Pipes or Dapper.net.
5. MSP (managed service providers)One of the oldest forms of cloud computing, a managed service is basically an application exposed to IT rather than to end-users, such as a virus scanning service for e-mail or an application monitoring service (which Mercury, among others, provides). Managed security services delivered by SecureWorks, IBM, and Verizon fall into this category, as do such cloud-based anti-spam services as Postini, recently acquired by Google. Other offerings include desktop management services, such as those offered by CenterBeam or Everdream.
6. Service commerce platformsA hybrid of SaaS and MSP, this cloud computing service offers a service hub that users interact with. They're most common in trading environments, such as expense management systems that allow users to order travel or secretarial services from a common platform that then coordinates the service delivery and pricing within the specifications set by the user. Think of it as an automated service bureau. Well-known examples include Rearden Commerce and Ariba.

7. Internet integrationThe integration of cloud-based services is in its early days. OpSource, which mainly concerns itself with serving SaaS providers, recently introduced the OpSource Services Bus, which employs in-the-cloud integration technology from a little startup called Boomi. SaaS provider Workday recently acquired another player in this space, CapeClear, an ESB (enterprise service bus) provider that was edging toward b-to-b integration. Way ahead of its time, Grand Central -- which wanted to be a universal "bus in the cloud" to connect SaaS providers and provide integrated solutions to customers -- flamed out in 2005.

Today, with such cloud-based interconnection seldom in evidence, cloud computing might be more accurately described as "sky computing," with many isolated clouds of services which IT customers must plug into individually. On the other hand, as virtualization and SOA permeate the enterprise, the idea of loosely coupled services running on an agile, scalable infrastructure should eventually make every enterprise a node in the cloud. It's a long-running trend with a far-out horizon. But among big metatrends, cloud computing is the hardest one to argue with in the long term.

Cloud based services are becomeing a standard in not only the IT world but also in the consumer market. While there are pros and cons to this tech services the investment that major brands like Apple and Microsoft it is becomeing more main stream. Due to it potential to surpass records in data transfer rate sizes and speeds it will be main stream soon.