Yesterday I was playing around on gdgt, the gadget site we previewed a couple weeks ago on Symbiotek. My particular page doesn't have as many gadgets as I would like, so I started browsing around and found myself looking for the Flip UltraHD. All I found was a Flip Ultra, a sub-standard model of the mini-camcorder in this age of Blue-Ray burners and high-def youtube. The native resolution for the latter is listed at 640x480 rather than 1280x720, and while that's the most significant difference I can come up with, the list goes on and on. I don't know about you guys, but as a techy, the difference in resolutions makes the Ultra a much different product. Imagine my surprise then, when my rather laborious gdgt entry on the UltraHD, (as opposed to the Ultra) was rejected. I was told one was a variant of the other. Ridiculous. Ridiculous!!
Here's mine on the Flip UltraHD: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/b1c27/specs/
Here's the original on the Flip Ultra: http://gdgt.com/pure-digital/flip/ultra/2nd-gen/specs/
There's nothing "Ultra" about the latter.
One thing that really bugged me was that In terms of quality of the entry, mine serves much more specification detail than the Flip Ultra entry, regardless of the actual product. I've been to the manufacturer's site and all the information for the Flip UltraHd that I listed is there for the regular old FLip Ultra-- the person who inputted the Flip Ultra just neglected to enter everything in.
As for the particulars of the device: storage, Img qual, even the price (price wrongly reflected in my entry (due to their price tracker's error)-- it should be in the $199 range) is different. They may have the same form factor but that's where the similarities end. I mean, the Lexus RX and the Toyota Highlander sit on the same platform and can use the same tires but would you say one is simply a 'variant' of the other? This is ridiculous.
Moreover, how can I trust gdgt to lead me to the products I want when the specs they have laid down are off and when they reject superior information?
At the very least it needs a wiki function where logged in members can add to the specs of a device. That wouldn't directly solve my gripe, but it would help. If indeed my device is simply a variant of the Flip Ultra, then there should be a tree or something, where the specs for the obviously superior "variant" can be laid bare.
EDIT: I just realised that only I can see my proposed entry, so here it is, pasted below:
General
Type: ConsumerForm factor: Handheld
Sensor
Sensor type: CMOSMinimum illumination: 1.4 lux
Video format
Native resolution: 1280 x 720Framerates supported (max resolution): 30pVideo codec support: h.264 / AVC, MPEG-4
Media
Media type: Internal storage (8 GB, Flash)Recording time: 120 mins at lowest quality
120 mins at highest quality
Viewfinder
Viewfinder type: LCDScreen size: 2 inchesScreen resolution: 960 x 240Screen type: LCD (Active, Color, Backlit)
Optics
Zoom: 2 x (digital)
Size and weight
Dimensions: 4.25 inches (h)
2.19 inches (w)
1.17 inches (d)Weight: 6 ounces
Availability
Availability: AvailableOriginal MSRP: $1.99 USDProduct site: www.theflip.com
Additional specs
Power
Battery size: RechargeableBattery type: NiMH (Removable)Recording time: 190 mins
11 August 2009
01 August 2009
Tag Team Tech Brawl: Google and the FCC v. Apple and AT&T
By now you've no doubt heard about Apple's refusal to let Google distribute its Google Voice Application on the iTunes store. In addition, Apple's pulled 3rd party Google Voice apps that had already been accepted to the store at partner AT&T's request.
The ire is through the roof. Earlier today Duke Arrington of TechCrunch fame, a prominent fan of Apple's iPhone, loudly and openly pulled the plug on his support of the product. At first, it seemed like a run of the mill Technorati squabble. But now the FCC's involved.
Why? Why would the top governing power of the United States get involved with what Apple and AT&T allow or don't allow on their hardware and services? Because at least on the surface, it doesn't seem fair. Not to sound like an indignant fourth grader or anything, but Steven F and Arrington are right.
Apple's laid out a series of guidelines about exactly what is and what is not passable where its iTunes applications were concerned. Skype has made it through with a VoIP calling system that allows users to text and make phone calls without using Plan Text messages or Plan minutes.
As for AT&T, they allow Google Voice applications to run on RIM's Blackberry-- why not the iPhone?
I'll tell you why. Because with normal smartphone users, the demand for such applications is minimal. While the average Blackberry can do much of what the iPhone does, the users who own Blackberries don't, for the most part, want to install myriad applications to add functionality to their phone. They want some email, some text messaging, a GPS featured map and maybe some web browsing and a game to pass the time in the subway or airport. But iPhone users are different. They not only want any and every bit of functionality they can get, but they plan to use that functionality-- over and over and over again. And that's why the phenomenal potential of the iPhone has been limited time and time again by both AT&T and Apple.
The details of the FCC inquiry into this issue can be seen here, while a short list of the limitations AT&T and Apple have implemented on the iPhone can be seen listed on one of my recent Tumblr posts. It's highly likely we'll be talking about these issues and how they affect the geeks and those beyond that spectrum during the next Symbiotek Podcast.
What's most clear is that collusion on the part of the AA Syndicate is harming relevant innovation in the software and telecom industries. Apple needs to remember what happened the last time an Operating System manufacturer got in the way of progress via anti-competitive practices, and AT&T needs to remember what happened to it last time it got too big for its britches. One would think that companies with products the likes of Time Machine and that companies which have defended themselves before Congress about illegally recording data and conversations should have much, much more profound understandings of their own recent history.
The ire is through the roof. Earlier today Duke Arrington of TechCrunch fame, a prominent fan of Apple's iPhone, loudly and openly pulled the plug on his support of the product. At first, it seemed like a run of the mill Technorati squabble. But now the FCC's involved.
Why? Why would the top governing power of the United States get involved with what Apple and AT&T allow or don't allow on their hardware and services? Because at least on the surface, it doesn't seem fair. Not to sound like an indignant fourth grader or anything, but Steven F and Arrington are right.
Apple's laid out a series of guidelines about exactly what is and what is not passable where its iTunes applications were concerned. Skype has made it through with a VoIP calling system that allows users to text and make phone calls without using Plan Text messages or Plan minutes.
As for AT&T, they allow Google Voice applications to run on RIM's Blackberry-- why not the iPhone?
I'll tell you why. Because with normal smartphone users, the demand for such applications is minimal. While the average Blackberry can do much of what the iPhone does, the users who own Blackberries don't, for the most part, want to install myriad applications to add functionality to their phone. They want some email, some text messaging, a GPS featured map and maybe some web browsing and a game to pass the time in the subway or airport. But iPhone users are different. They not only want any and every bit of functionality they can get, but they plan to use that functionality-- over and over and over again. And that's why the phenomenal potential of the iPhone has been limited time and time again by both AT&T and Apple.
The details of the FCC inquiry into this issue can be seen here, while a short list of the limitations AT&T and Apple have implemented on the iPhone can be seen listed on one of my recent Tumblr posts. It's highly likely we'll be talking about these issues and how they affect the geeks and those beyond that spectrum during the next Symbiotek Podcast.
What's most clear is that collusion on the part of the AA Syndicate is harming relevant innovation in the software and telecom industries. Apple needs to remember what happened the last time an Operating System manufacturer got in the way of progress via anti-competitive practices, and AT&T needs to remember what happened to it last time it got too big for its britches. One would think that companies with products the likes of Time Machine and that companies which have defended themselves before Congress about illegally recording data and conversations should have much, much more profound understandings of their own recent history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)