Book Review: "Columbine" by David Cullen

"Columbine" By David Cullen is an unsettling book. It does not come off as profiteering on the misery of the event. Instead it seems a serious attempt to provide a definitive account of what happened. Not all stories that need to be told are about good things and this one, more than most, needed to be told right. Most importantly in my mind this book attempts to give real insight into the lives of the two young men who left an entire nation scratching their heads and wondering "Why?". For some those questions are answered according to the common stories of the days of the event. It was Dorks vrs Jocks, it was atheist vrs believers, it was violent music and video games, it was racist, it was negligent parenting.

If you still believe any of those after reading Cullen's book I will be amazed. Little that came out about Columbine during, shortly after, or even years after the event bore any real similarity to the reality of what occurred at a previously un-remarkable corner of american suburbia in April 1999. At least not if you subscribe to David Cullen's take. He does not really offer answers. He offers facts. He offers various perspectives. He debunks obviously incorrect Columbine 'myths' and challenges others. There is nothing simple about what happened. There is nothing simple about how it came to happen. And there is nothing simple about how people coped with the aftermath of the event. Whether or not you think he is in a position to do so will determine just how much stock you place in what he has to say. From my perspective he comes across as extremely credible. He was there as a part of the press corp covering the story and has followed it every step of the way in the years since. This is a story that has been 10 years in the making for Cullen and the painstaking work to uncover the full story should be very apparent.

If Columbine is an event you want to understand better. This is at the very least a very good book to start with. It may very well become 'The Book" when it comes to this tragic story.

iPad: Big Touch or something else?

iPad: Big iPod touch or something more?

I hate trying to review a device that has not even hit the market yet. But this one has already got me to spout off a couple of time already so I couldn’t resist taking another shot at this now that the actual device is out in the open.

Job’s big tagline for his new device is “Our most advanced technology in a magical and revolutionary device at an unbelievable price”. Lets take a closer look at this...

1. Most advanced? - Quite possible this is a true statement of fact here. Apple’s first silicon in a good while and a vibrant 9.7 inch VGA resolution display with 10 hours video playback in a 1.5lbs package. That is pretty advanced.
2. Magical and revolutionary? - Ok lets just skip past the unicorn statement and dive into the important one of revolutionary. I will argue that it is more revolution than evolution but the ties to its younger siblings are obvious.
3. Unbelievable price? - Try the only possible price if they didn’t want another ‘Lisa’ on their hands. And they still come close to hosing this one up. If the iPad is to be a revolution then the cheapest price to pay attention to is $629, not $499.

Advanced?

1.5lbs, full VGA high quality multi touch capacitive screen with enough battery to last 10 hours of video playback (read real usage). Any one of those things on its own is no great feat. But the resolution, high quality, light weight AND enough wireless juice freedom to fly from Cupertino to Tokyo watching video the whole way is damned impressive and advanced. I have not heard of anyone claiming this kind of battery life with video playback except for maybe some dedicated video devices and none of those with this size screen. This is probably one of the single biggest things I will be looking for once these hit store shelves and true hands on reviews. If the battery life bears out in real life use this is going to be a very interesting device. 10 hours real use meets my 8 hours with 20% reserve need in my last Apple Tablet post.

9.7 inch capacitive multitouch over an IPS panel in this package is nothing to sneeze at either. And of course rounding it off is the in house (well purchased to be in house) development of custom mobile silicon running the whole thing. This package of beginning to end design with hardware and OS built in lockstep is probably what has been missing from the tablet market to date.

Magical?

Well I suppose Apple could not resist the magical tag... the iPad has after all proven to be one of the more sought after Apple ‘unicorn devices’. By that I mean this thing has probably supported more than one apple rumor sites by itself. Among the mac heads this thing is mythical in proportions and it has those that think it is the second coming on both ends of the spectrum... ie that this device represents the downfall or redemption of Apple. I suppose in that sense the device is ‘magical’... it was hard to watch the keynote and accept that the day had finally arrived even for me and I just think it is potentially some cool tech. Corny... but this was about as ‘magical’ as you get these days.

Revolutionary?

At first glance this seems an odd moniker to attach to the device. It literally looks like an expanded iPod Touch/ iPhone. It runs the same OS (3.2 was on the device at the unveiling). Same home key and lack of damn near anything else and even the same dock connector we have all come to know and love/hate. If that is the case then how the hell can Jobs claim this is ‘revolutionary’ with a straight face? I think it depends on how you look at the birth of this device. Is Apple trying to just make a successful product line bigger (ie this is an iPhone derivative device)? Or did Apple create the market for this device with its preliminary tablet devices (iPhone was the derivative... just produced first)? I hold to the latter. If you believe the iPhone and Touch grew out of Apple’s desire to make a tablet computer then it is easy to see how one could consider the iPad a revolutionary device. The iPhone and iTouch are just precursors, not the revolution itself though they did revolutionize their respective areas. The iPad I think ultimately aims to re-define the basic cornerstone of personal computing. That is revolutionary at its finest. I think the iPad may ultimately be a 'transitional device'... but it is still looking to be a game changer.

If you think the iPad is just a big Touch that is aimed at consuming you really need to think about what it means that Jobs had the iWork team spend the time to do a ground up build of iWork specifically for this new device. Consumption is what will get the iPad into peoples hands because it is what they understand. Apps specifically for the iPad are what will determine if consumption is all it is good for. If it works Apple may succeed in redefining the basic interface of computing. If it doesn't they probably will make a bunch of money on a 'big iPod"... pretty good game plan if you ask me.

All in all the iPad looks evolutionary only if you look at it in direct comparison to the iPhone. If you pull back and look at what Apple is positioning the device to do it is easy to see how in 4-5 years it will clearly be viewed as revolutionary and the iPhone and touch as precursor devices that fleshed out the touch UI concept... if it works.

Unbelievable Price?

The only thing unbelievable about this price is what it seems to indicate for the future of this market provided it takes hold. Pundits predicted the iPad at $1000. Based on windows Laptops that would have been ridiculous for what is being pitched as an accessory rather than main device. Even $500 is pretty pricey when you think of it as an addition to your phone and/or laptop... much less costs ranging up to $829. And don’t even get started on the potential added monthly connectivity costs to get the most from it.

Make no mistake this is typical Apple early adopter pricing (read nose bleed high). In the long run this level of pricing may well continue to define the upper end. But based on these numbers I expect to see mobile tablets in the $100-300 range with more capability than the initial iPad inside of 2 years. E-ink is either going to step up its game (color, refresh rates), go sub $100 (sub $50?) or disappear all together. If E-ink gets to color refresh rates on par with LCD technology and remains lower power it will fold into this market quickly.

Side Issue: iBooks, is this really a good ebook platform?

The quality of the screen and 10 hours of display life (if real) should make this a pretty darn good reading platform. The fact it is not a reflective display like e-ink will make it less friendly on the eyes, but the more I have encountered quality mobile screens the more I have come to the conclusion the real problem with LCDs is not the back light. It is the fixed nature of desktop displays and the distance from your eyes. Low power backlights on mobile devices with high pixel density and more flexible location are not much worse than e-ink. I have a nokia N810, iPhone and HTC Touch Pro 2 and the only real problem with reading on them is battery life sucks, and you have to constantly flip pages because the screens are to small. The iPad size and advertised battery life should solve both issues. There is a lot to like here and the pricing is smack dab between the Kindle 2 and the Kindle Dx. Toss in the fact you can run the Kindle App on the iPad (easy transition for any existing library) and this seems like a real winner. Hands on testing will be the deciding factor but I am seriously considering this as as replacement for my Kindle 2 .

Apple Tablet Madness and general Tech Ramble...

Seems like everyone is going ga ga over the possibility of an Apple Tablet. Why? Microsoft tried this and it tanked.... TWICE. Tablet PC's have eeked out a slight niche market and Oragami UMPC types have all but vanished. So why is the media absolutely salivating over the possibility of an Apple PC? Why are OEM manufactures pre-emptively presenting reference design tablet hardware just on the possibility apple will release a tablet?

Content consumption.

What ?

Content Consumption.

PC's have a major problem when it comes to content consumption. Even Laptops that can go with us to the sofa do. They are compromised designs that are first and foremost aimed at content creation from the OS all the way to the hardware form factors. Typing, Video Editing, etc... Think of that ubiquitous office work horse the word processor. You create content on the computer that is to this day often printed out for consumption. Reading long documents in word or other processors sucks. Mostly because the program and the systems it runs on simply are not designed for content consumption.

A laptop is a great portable content creation device... it is a mediocre content consumption device. A Smart Phone (Apple iPhone in particular) is a mediocre content consumption device and a HORRIBLE content creation device. Hence the superiority of the iPhone at producing a mobile consumption device over laptops. They both are about as good I would say but the phone is completely mobile in a way a laptop just cannot dream of. 3g has connected them to the web in a meaningful way. But they are still just middling at consumption. The smaller form factor, low battery life etc... all conspire to hinder it just enough to make people think there is a better solution.

Netbooks are cute but simply have to many problems with form factor and useability... they neither produce or consume particularly well but they show the promise of a larger screen in a highly portable form factor. The iPhone/Touch success has shown how to drop a key board and still provide enough input capability to get by.... hence the tablet form that seems to continually be pushed on a public that has routinely rejected it.

What Apple has the potential to produce in a tablet is a good content consumption device. Not a great one... that requires something more than a single company can provide... but a good one. 3g access to Apps (or some equivalent) is a neat and tidy packaged way to present content for consumption in optimized bite sized selections. The iPhone and Touch (or Pre, Droid, Win Mo super phone) small form factor has a high limitation on just how far that can go. But a handheld device as responsive as those devices with a smaller than hard back form factor has a serious potential to provide a long lasting content consumption model. The question is will the size lose to the phone based on mobility and or connectivity. Phones go EVERYWHERE and as a result are the first connection fee paid. Any other device will be secondary which quickly relegates it to 'luxury' status. Without connectivity a tablet is a non-starter in terms of mass market appeal. Because of their small market appeal nobody has yet had the ability to establish a stable market from which to grow the concept.

But Apple is now in a position to do that. They probably have enough credit with their fans that a connected tablet design will garner a considerable audience that has the potential to provide a critical mass for a tablet eco system. 3g connectivity, App Store and personal media integration (Itunes, Iphoto etc...) on a device with a much more usable screen space will be dead sexy. But the numbers to make it fly are Tough. 3g contracts are still to expensive to think double accounts (iPhone and a Tablet) will be common even with Apple fans accustomed to costly computing habits. But it is possible that a wifi connection device designed for less mobile connection options will be sufficient (ala scaled up touch) and the ability to have a 3g enabled one will be explored by those with sufficient disposable income on a smaller scale.

If they do it and it works it puts Apple on the bleeding edge of what could be the next major paradigm shift in computing. They already are riding this wave with the iPod -> iPhone/Touch. Amazon and B&N are riding a somewhat related wave (explosion of electronic Content Consumption) with e-Ink book devices. The question is where this change stops. Are phones the long term solution because we have them with us everywhere? Or is a larger device still going to be needed for replacing the likes of magazines etc... Whoever gets it right will be huge in the years to come.

I talked a while back about what I thought an ideal Tablet would be like but here goes another (probably unrelated stab)...

3g connected device ($20 or less monthly cost of connection, or included tether to phone for $5-10) on a hard back size display (10-11") that is sunlight readable, lasts 8 hours with reasonable power reserve (15-20%) , capacitive multi touch interface, GPS, USB, SD/CF memory expansion, Solid State memory, Dual Mobile Computing core (Say Dual Arm 8) with 2gb+ of RAM, Multi-band Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Blue Tooth, Zigbee, RF and IR (think most flexible wireless communications setup possible).

The use of such a device will be the consumption and correlation of content. Their weakness will be creation. The device above will be a second/third or greater device if the tablet ever actually proves a successful form factor. Ubiquity will never happen until the technology is so cheap it can become so widespread it permeates society like paper.

The concept I really would like to see is a 'phone' based computing solution. The phone provides the brains and connectivity and then we can augment it as needed according to the task at hand. Content consumption tends toward the tablet type device used in concert with the phone and content creation remains more with the traditional keyboard, mouse etc... solutions pending a breakthrough in input technology . All the connectivity between the phone and these adjunct devices is wireless (including display etc...). Ultimately this would probably end up in a silly level of convergence into the device space we use for a 'phone' today. Wallet, ID, PC, Walkman, Picture Album, Archive etc... In short it becomes your universal interface to the digital world.

Is it realistic? I don't know. I think it will be technologically feasible in a very short time. less than 5 years with the correct battery technology or efficient enough high power computing capability (ie make current batteries last...). 20 years at the most. Social uptake is another matter entirely. The sudden surge to iPhone and similar devices indicates there could be a swift move to such a technology shift... but it wouldn't take much in the way of scare stories to keep the masses from adopting such a major shift away from more tangible interactions.