My Theory On Why The iPhone Is Late

A lot of people have asked me why the iPhone is coming out later than normal this year. People have gotten used to getting an iPhone update every summer and can't think of why it's not happening this time. I have an idea as to why Apple is switching things up, so I'm going to post it here. This, of course, is just a hypothesis. Apple has the right to do things however they want.

There are rumors swirling that have led me to my current opinion. First, that a new iPhone will be announced and/or released in September. Second, that Apple is already getting another iPad ready to launch by the end of the year. This release window has historically been reserved for iPod and iTunes updates. The idea being that people buy iPods for holiday gifts. I suspect that Apple is going to switch their release schedules around a bit so that the iPhone and iPad are fresh and new when the big shopping season comes.

In the begining, the iPhone was around Macworld or WWDC. Apple stopped attending Macworld in order to do their keynotes independently. WWDC is a conference specifically for iOS and Mac developers. I can understand the iPhone being announced around that time when it was new. Developers needed to know in advance what they were working with. Now, people have a pretty good handle on the iPhone and only need to be updated to changes in iOS. We saw this happen at this year's WWDC.

If I had to guess, I'd say Apple will start doing product refreshes on their computers earlier in the year and save the more gift-able items for the holiday season. They may keep iPods for this time frame too, but they aren't selling as many of those as they once did. Everyone wants iOS devices now.

So that's my quick theory. We'll see if it happens like that. Either way, I'm not going to be hapy if they release a new iPad the same year I bought mine.

Are PC Makers Targeting the Wrong Demographic?

If you keep up with the tech industry you've probably heard a lot of manufacturers say they wanted to make things simpler. UI's are being stripped down to a basic interface and some companies are going so far as to move away from a file system. Now, I'm all for making things better and simple may be what we all need right now, but there is a limit. A lot of what I'm hearing makes it clear that the manufacturers are targeting people who have never used a computer before. This is where I start to get weary.

When I try to imagine who might be the group that will most benefit from a simpler computer experience I come up with two possibilities: old people and people who have never needed or wanted a computer in their lives. My fear is that we are targeting groups that will not benefit from all the attention we are giving them.

For older people, it's fairly obvious. They have been around a lot longer than computers and never had an opportunity to learn how to use them. It's not their fault. Some have been able to pick up a device and become competent users, but many remain unable to step into future we live in today. So, companies are making it easier for this group by making the UI as simple as possible and making all the technical stuff happen automatically in the background. This is great, don't get me wrong. I'm all for getting things done faster and easier. I just don't want programmers to focus so much on one group that the power users get trapped. If a company goes too far to try and capture this audience, what will happen when it doesn't exsist? It's not something we like to think about, but this demographic isn't going to be around forever. Once the current group of 65+ people is replaced with the next round, all these changes we've made for them will be unnecessary. The people who will be moving into this age group will have more tech know-how than the previous occupants did. They can handle current interfaces more readily. There will of course be a few in the same boat as before, but that number will forever be decreasing.

For people who never needed or wanted a computer it seems more pointless. A simple interface isn't going to attract people who never wanted a computer before. Yes there are a few who were too intimidated to take the plunge, but I would wager there are more who simply don't care too. If I had to guess, I would say that most of the non-pc households are in rural areas. These places are known for low income habitants. They may be low income because they are not well educated. So here we have a group of people who don't understand computers, never used them, and couldn't afford them if they wanted to. Again, a demographic that probably won't help the companies targeting them very much. A great case to make here is for the children of these families. If we get them access to computers maybe they can learn more and achieve more than their elders. I understand that, but that is a problem for a different day and these kids don't need an overly simplified UI when they are first starting out. They can learn more about computers than the adults and don't need to be handed an environment where everything is taken care of for them. That is, of course, my opinion on the matter.

We can all take advantage of some of these changes, but what happens if the operating systems take it too far and the users who know the ins and outs of their systems become relegated to a walled garden that, to us, might feel more like a daycare? I'm not saying we shouldn't make technology more accessible for the elderly or the under educated, but we shouldn't sacrifice the people who can handle more complicated systems. Without the more technical knowledge, I believe fewer people will get into programming. If they spend their early years on the computer having everything technical handed to them, what will make them want to learn more for themselves? Maybe that's exactly what happened and all the people who wanted to learn more did. Then they went and made everything simpler. The way they wanted to have it when they were learning so much in the beginning.

Relax. They're Games.

I've been a gamer for a long time. Since I was a kid it has been one of my favorite hobbies and, over the years, ithas morphed into a big part of my life. I don't spend all my time playing games, but I do have a real passion, not just for the games themselves, but for the industry as a whole. I probably spend more time keeping up with game news and reviews than I do actually playing the games. Recently, though, a change in priorities and a changing perception of the industry have made me realize that I don't agree with what video game journalism has become.

I personally feel like video game coverage has become too serious. I know this is a big business and people want details on the newest games, but I sometimes think that the majority of gaming focused websites have forgotten that the medium they are covering was meant to be fun. The reviews I've read lately have centered on technical aspects like mechanics, themes, and (more notably) graphics. Few of these reviews seemed to look at the games as simple entertainment devices. They hardly talk about whether the game is fun to play or not.

I understand that those elements impact how much you enjoy a game and if the whole game is riddled with bugs it won't be fun, but I don't think the individual elements are as important as these reviews lead you to believe. For example, a review I recently read about Alice: Madness Returns made a big point of complaining about the textures used on a certain level. Is that really a big deal? Did a repeated or badly rendered pattern really change your experience with the game so much that you didn't enjoy it? Yes, I like games to look good, but if I'm having a good time playing the game, some bad texture patterns fade into the background. Game play mechanics have an understandably bigger impact on the enjoyment of a game, but one bad climbing sequence won't ruin an entire experience for me. 

I do understand why people want to know these details, and I'm not saying I'm not interested in learning some facts like these, but I think they are taken a little too seriously. I would like to see some websites take a step back and talk about the games as a whole. Why do we have to break reviews down into categories like graphics, audio, game play mechanics, etc.? I'd rather know about the experience itself. If something stood out, sure, mention it, but I want to know if the game is fun and if the experience as a whole is worth the money we have to spend on games. Maybe I don't represent the target demographic anymore, but I'm ready for something new.

One of my favorite ways to learn about games is listening to gaming podcasts. Shows like Rebel FM, IGN Game Scoop, and Uncle Gamer give me more information than I get from previews. The hosts talk about their experience with the games and not just the bullet points that read like press releases. I don't just hear about how it looks and runs, I get an idea of how much they enjoyed actually playing it. This is the kind of content I'm looking for. Few websites have been able to deliver the kind of content that I want to consume.

Maybe this type of site wouldn't speak to the masses or the hardcore audience, making the risk more than the current sites want to take on. If no one else is going to do it, perhaps it's time I take it upon myself to start the ball rolling.

Site Changes

If you came here by way of the mitchpoe.com url, you've already seen the changes. If not, click here to check them out.

I know it's a little buggy. It's my first attempt at HTML 5 programing and animation. When I was designing the page, I wanted to put basic information about myself in it. This gives visitors the choice to see the blog as apposed to just landing on it with no introduction. 

I've thought about doing some mobile apps, but I'm not sure what I'd want to do in that area.

Let me know what you think of the changes and if you have any questions feel free to ask.

Time to Re-Work My Site?

Things have changed for me in the past few months, and it looks like they will change even more in the months to follow. I've had to give up buying comic books. The money I was spending to keep up with them became a little too much for me to want to continue. Unfortunately, I couldn't scale back the number of books I bought because I felt I would miss too much from the ones I dropped. It was easier for me just to call it quits altogether. I'll still buy trades every now and again, but weekly singles are out of the picture. Because of this, I probably won't post anything about comics anymore. I can't keep up with what's happening and there is no point in me writing about old stuff.

I'm also going to cut back how much software I buy including apps, video games, programs, etc. Again, I've been trying to save money for something special and an endless parade of 99 cent apps is not what I have in mind. Like trades for comics, I'll still get useful or "too good to pass up" things.

So this leaves me with a question for myself. What will I do with this site? I didn't do much to start with and haven't posted anything in weeks. I thought about just shutting it down once and for all, but I feel like I need a presence on the internet. It may not be useful now, but it may pay off in the future.

For the time being I'm going to leave it, posting whatever comes to mind. If nothing else, it will be good typing practice. If something happens or a product comes out that I have a strong opinion on, I'll post my comments here. Other than that, we will just have to see what happens.