I talked with one of my friends, and I found out something shocking. I’ve had many computers. The majority of them have simply died on me (5 out of 9, what can I say? I’m hard on computers). However, another point that has come to light is that it was hard for me to become accustomed to the form factor of many of the units I was using. I had an iPaq and found the unit was tough to use with a stylus. The Psion was also tough to use due to its monochromatic screen and the lighting, along with the design, made it tough to see the screen. I’ve always problems with computers that were smaller than a laptop. This year, I found two systems that worked for me.
The first system that I am referring to would fall under the category of netbooks. They’re small, versatile and now are powerful enough to handle most of the applications that I require while on the road. The one that I’m using is the Acer Aspire One. I was impressed with the style of the unit and the flexibility of options it had. The toughest decisions when selecting which version I wanted was the hard drive and operating system. I wanted to experiment with the Linux operating environment, to play around with the configuration and try to build my operating system from the ground up. However, I decided on Windows XP because it was reliable and many of the programs that I needed would not be supported in the Linux environment. The second decision was the traditional laptop hard drive, instead of an SSD. It was quickly apparent that I need more than 16 gigabytes of hard drive space to be functional on the road. Therefore, the SSD system was eliminated. Netbooks, despite what Steve Jobs has claimed, will be a future of mobile computing. I now can take a computer, along with a spiral notebook and binder, in my messenger bag and allow those items to fit nicely. Also, the netbook systems are powerful enough to be a portable workstation on the road. The final selling point for me was that at the last conference I attended, there were at least 30 people using netbooks to type up the events at the meeting.
The second system that has been an excellent addition to my workflow is the iPhone. The iPhone has already received numerous amounts of praise and adoration for the way it has redefined to the mobile phone. I believe it is a good starting point in the development of a mobile computing platform. However, there are still a few limitations that need to be addressed before it breaks the threshold of being considered a mobile computing system.
1.) iPhone does not contain a mobile operating system. It can be argued successfully that the Windows CE was a relative failure concerning developing a mobile computing culture (the OS was very buggy, the system did not allow for a fluidic transition between programs, it was relativity hard to write applications for, etc., etc.). However, the interface for Windows CE was more than a simple shell designed to host the icons of the programs. There was limited flexibility in the development of the home screen, and there was also the ability to create themes in the structure of most of the phones that ran Windows CE. The iPhone OS is a simple shell with a lack of accessibility to the root structure of the system. Therefore, the iPhone is a shell that allows programs to be run, but it is not a computer.
2.) iPhone does not contain an open operating system. One of the critical arguments against the iPhone is that the only way to introduce programs into the iPhone is through the iTunes Store. It seemed to limit the ecology of development by Apple. The argument made by Apple is that the filtering allows Apple to conduct simple QC on the programs, prevent viruses from being spread and ensure that no problem can break the entire system. Another argument against the closed computing system set up by Apple was the control on most of the aspects of the program development. The Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) prevented all of the developers from discussing their projects, which in turn stunned the growth of knowledge with regards to programming on the iPhone. Many processes were overlapped as one developer could not easily ask other developers for help without breaking the NDA. This closed system of control and development would make the argument that the iPhone has a closed operating shell controlled by Apple.
3.) The iPhone lacks contain a mobile operating system. It can be argued successfully that the Windows CE was a relative failure in terms of developing a mobile computing culture (the OS was very buggy, the system did not allow for a fluidic transition between programs, it was relativity hard to write applications for, etc., etc.). However, the interface for Windows CE was more than a simple shell designed to host the icons of the programs. There was limited flexibility in the development of the home screen, and there was also the ability to create themes in the structure of most of the phones that ran Windows CE. The iPhone OS is a simple shell with a lack of accessibility to the root structure of the system. Therefore, the iPhone is a shell that allows programs to be run, but it is not a computer.
One of the challenges to the iPhone is Google’s Android system of phones. It seems that this is also a good start in the development of a mobile computing system. There does not seem to be the level of excitement regarding the Android system when compared to the iPhone. I believe that the mobile phone will cross the threshold into becoming portable computers. I don’t think we’re there yet.
