But unlike its chief competitors, Sony has decided against showing off the design of its next console. The company announced the device earlier this year, talked about its specs, but wouldn’t show what it actually looked like. And when the console was recently featured in a teaser for the upcoming E3 gaming trade show, Sony once again decided against showing off the device.

It’s not immediately clear why Sony hasn’t shown off the PlayStation 4. The company has, of course, been asked numerous times why it doesn’t want to show the console yet and each time, it has sidestepped the question. The move is unprecedented, if nothing else, and could be either good or bad.

See, now that we have seen the Wii U and Xbox One, the onus is on Sony to shock us. The PlayStation 4’s design can’t be something that bores us or doesn’t have as good a look as its competitors. And by hiding it under a shroud of mystery, Sony is only calling more attention to the console than it otherwise would.

That puts extra pressure on Sony at the E3 gaming show. If the console is truly something that blows our socks off, all the secrecy would have been worth it. But if Sony’s PlayStation 3 ends up being just another black box that doesn’t have anything special built-in and lacks some unique design quality, we’ll all be rather bored. And being bored in the world of gaming is a very, very bad thing.

Sony needs to take the attention away from its product design and start focusing more on its game library. The move the company should be making right now is to show off the PlayStation 4’s design and be done with it. To make the discussion surrounding Sony’s next console all about hardware couldn’t be worse for the company.

If history has taught us anything, it’s that software sells hardware. The Dreamcast died off because its software library was sub-par compared to that of its competitors. Sony’s PlayStation became such a hit because it had so many games available. The console’s design didn’t really matter all that much.

In this case, I’m going to give Sony the benefit of the doubt. I think the PlayStation maker truly understands the dynamics of the gaming industry and doesn’t want to take too much focus off the games. I believe, therefore, that Sony has something quite special up its sleeve. And rather than just let Microsoft and Nintendo take E3 by storm, it wants to show off something that we’ve never even thought about from a hardware perspective.

Of course, all of that could be wishful thinking. But if history serves us correctly, it tells us that Sony can pull off some miracles. And it needs another one right now.

But since his tenure as Apple’s chief executive, Cook has done little to be like his predecessor. Cook doesn’t like to gloat about the current state of affairs at Apple, and design is not necessarily something that he thinks constantly about. When he holds keynote addresses or events for the press, Cook is content to offer up only some information, and then leave the big product announcements to his executives.

Even in his calls with investors or interviews with the media, Cook plays a downplayed rule, deciding to allow his company’s strong performance to do the talking. It’s a significant departure from his predecessor’s tack, and something that has taken some getting used to for the millions of Apple fans around the globe.

But given Apple’s recent troubles and the fact that Samsung and Google are increasingly causing trouble for Cook, might it be a good time for some change? Apple might still be the most important technology company in the world, but it’s in no way the dominating presence that it once was. And much of that seems to be due to Cook’s leadership.

Now, that’s not to say that Tim Cook is not a good leader. As we’ve seen in recent quarters, Apple’s sales and profit figures are hitting new heights, and his shareholders appear to be happy with his performance. But since Cook took over, Apple has lost something. The things that made the company so compelling in the first place are now a shadow of their former selves. And it might have everything to do with who is sitting in the CEO’s chair.

The problem is, Tim Cook doesn’t have the charisma or the attitude that Steve Jobs had. Part of Apple’s success was due to Jobs willingly telling anyone that would listen that his company was best. And when given the chance to show off the latest and greatest product, it was Jobs who captivated audiences, not his executives.

Tim Cook’s more subdued role might prove to be a mistake in the grand scheme of things. Apple seems to be a company that needs to have a chip on its shoulder. And Cook is lacking that certain chip.

The truth is, Apple is slipping. The company that was once the only dominant force in several markets is looking like one of a few competitors. Apple doesn’t appear to have the same air about it that it once did. And that might be due to Tim Cook’s desire to be, well, less Steve Jobs-like. But if you ask me, he needs to be more like Steve Jobs.

Lifelogging isn’t new – Microsoft Research’s Gordon Bell, for instance, has been sporting a wearable camera and tracking his life digitally since the early-2000s – but its component parts are finally coalescing into something the mainstream could handle. Cheap camera technology – sufficiently power-frugal to run all day, but still with sufficiently high resolution and bracketed with sensor data like location – has met plentiful cloud storage to handle the masses of photos and video.

More importantly, the public interest in recording and sharing memorable moments has flourished over the past few years, with Facebook over-sharing going from an embarrassment to commonplace, and Twitter and Tumblr evolving into stream-of-consciousness. For better or for worse, an event or occasion isn’t quite real enough for us unless we’re telling somebody else about it, preferably with the photos to prove it.

Into that arrives Glass. It’s not the only wearable project, and in fact it’s not even trying to immediately document your every movement, conversation, and activity. Out of the box, Glass doesn’t actually work as a lifelogger, at least not automatically. However, it hasn’t taken long before Explorer Edition users have tweaked the wearable to grant it those perpetual-memory skills, though we need to wait for Google’s part of the puzzle before we see the true shift take place.

Kickstarter project Memoto, which raised over half a million dollars for its wearable lifelogging camera that fires off two frames a minute all day, every day, isn’t really a hardware challenge – though the startup might disagree with that somewhat, given the slight delays caused by squeezing power-efficient camera tech into a tiny little geek-pendant – but a software one. The issue isn’t one of taking photos, or of storing them: it’s of then organizing them in a way that’s anywhere near manageable for the wearer.

Think about your last set of holiday photos. You probably took many more than you did in the days of traditional film cameras. Maybe you synchronized them with iPhoto, or uploaded them to a Dropbox or Picasa gallery. Perhaps they went on Facebook, either sorted through or – more likely, maybe – simply dumped en-masse. How many times have you looked through them, or shown them to somebody else?

Now, imagine having a whole day’s worth of photos to deal with. We’ll be conservative and assume you’re sleeping for eight hours – lucky you – and maybe have a couple of hours “privacy” time during which you’re showering, getting changed, or otherwise not camera-ready. Fourteen hours when you could be wearing your Memoto, then, or some other camera: 840 minutes, or 1,680 individual photos. In the course of a week, you’ve snapped 11,760 shots.

By the end of the year, you’ve got over four million of them. Sure, plenty of them will be of the same thing, or blurry because you were running across the road at the time, or too dark to make out details. Many, many of them will just be plain dull. But they’ll all be there, sitting in the cloud waiting to be looked at.

Nobody is going to sift through four million photos. And so the really clever thing the Memoto team is working on is the relevance processing all of those images are fed through. The exact details of the algorithm haven’t been confirmed – in fact it’s still something of a work-in-progress, and likely will be even when the first units start shipping out to Kickstarter backers – but it takes into account the location each image was taken at (there’s geotagging for each shot), the direction you’re facing, what interesting things are in the frame, and more.

That way, you get the best of both worlds, or at least in theory. “All photos are stored and organized for you,” Memoto promises. “None are deleted, but the best ones are more visible.”

As Memoto sees it, that all amounts to about thirty frames per day. Thirty potentially review-worthy shots out of more than sixteen-hundred. Now, there’s no way of knowing quite how well the system will actually operate, and we’re bound to miss out some gems and have out attention drawn to some duffers, but make no mistake: we need this layer of abstraction if lifelogging is to be more than just a boon for those selling hard-drives.

For a while, Google didn’t seem to have given managing the extra photos from wearables like Glass much consideration. In fact, the first evidence of photo sharing – automatically uploading to Google+, and being posted out with the generic #throughglass tag – was one of the more half-baked of the company’s implementations. That all changed, though, at I/O this week.

Google+ is the glue for Google’s ecosystem – what I call the “context ecosystem” – not least Glass; you may not want to use it as a social network, replacing or augmenting Facebook and Twitter, but if you want Google services or hardware you’re going to end up a Google+ user on some level. The new Highlights feature in Google+ is the key to unlocking Glass’ usefulness as a lifelogger.

“The Highlights tab helps you find photos you’ll want to share by automatically curating the images you upload to Google+ photos” Google explained. “Highlights works by de-emphasizing duplicates, blurry images, and poor exposures while focusing on pictures with the people you care about, landmarks, and other positive attributes.”

For the moment, for most users, Highlights is a way of quickly cutting out duplicated shots. Take three or four pictures of your kids in the park, just to make sure they were all looking at the camera at the right time? Google+ Highlights will make sure you only see one, not all of the nearly-identical frames. No need to delete the others, just – as Gmail taught us with achive-not-delete email, a privilege of copious space and effective search – hide them from regular sight.

As the flow of photos into Google+ turns into a torrent, fueled not least by wearables, those vague “other positive attributes” Google mentions will become most important, however. Highlights is going to become not only a curator of your galleries, but of how you reminisce; how you look back on what you did, where you did it, and who you did it with.

Google can already identify buildings, and locations, and people. It knows who your friends are. Factor in Events, and the communal photo sharing feature, and that will help Google+ fill in even more of the gaps. If it knows you were with your best friend, and your best friend was in Paris at the time, and what a number of famous Parisian landmarks look like, it’ll be able to do a pretty good job at piecing together a curated “holiday memories” album that’s probably more detailed than your own recollection of the trip.

If you’re clenching various parts of your anatomy over fears about privacy, you’re probably right to. Even with only about 2,000 Glass Explorer Edition headsets made, the degree of controversy over what the rights and responsibilities around having photos taken in public and in private are is already exponentially greater. Those at Google I/O this past week are undoubtedly a tech-savvy, open-minded bunch, but the range of comfort levels reported about being in the Glass gaze is a telling sign that there’s more to this than just old-school versus new-school.

The discussion is going to be broader than Google, of course – a Memoto camera is arguably more discrete, clipped to your coat or shirt, and it’s almost certainly not going to be the last wearable camera – but how the companies involved process the data created is likely to be the biggest factor, and Google has a track-record of giving privacy advocates sleepless nights.

If Glass – and wearables along with lifelogging in general – is to succeed, however, this is a discussion that will have to be settled. We’re not talking about “how okay” it is for your email account to talk to your calendar account. If the EU decides there should be a clear division between those in the name of user privacy, then you might have to manually create appointments based on email conversations; if the huge and inevitable rush of photos and video that wearables will facilitate aren’t addressed, then Glass and its ilk will stumble and fail. Our new digital brain needs permission to work its magic, but we’re still in the early days of seeing just how magical that might be.

I have a couple gadgets inside of me. One was forced on me; the other I chose. I made the choice in much the same way you’d choose a computer. I tried to future-proof myself. I chose an option that I could upgrade later. In the end, I made a decision that was not entirely rational, but rather based on passion and branding and aesthetics over performance. Like I said, just like a computer.

I’ll start with my leg, because it’s easier for me to talk about. I broke my ankle a few years ago. I was walking the dog on a very, very cold night in Newton, Mass, and the sidewalk all around the block was a track of ice fit for a speed skater. I took a bad step and slipped off the curb, and my tibia rotated wrong and crashed into my fibula, snapping it in multiple spots. I fell to the ground immediately, and that’s when I learned a couple things about myself.

First, I learned that I do indeed have a high tolerance for pain, something I’d always suspected but never bothered to prove. When the paramedics arrived to put me on a stretcher, they asked me to rate my pain on a scale of one to ten. I gave it a six. The worst pain I’ve ever felt, by the way, is a cracked tooth, which is about an 8, and it’s a great story, but for another time.

The second thing I learned about myself is that my body is capable of destroying itself with hardly any intervention from my mind. When they lifted me into the ambulance, with my foot askance and twisted, I asked if there was any possibility I could have dislocated it, instead of a break.

The paramedic told me: “well, anything you can locate you can dislocate.” But it was obviously broken.

I had titanium installed. The x-ray is awesome. I have an erector set in my leg, with screws holding me together. There’s no chance it can break again, I’m part fighter jet down there. I couldn’t walk for four months, and I was in pain and using a cane for another 2 months. I had an awesome rolling aid instead of crutches called a Roll-A-Bout. I highly recommend it if you break your ankle. I was faster on that rollabout than I ever was on both feet. When I needed a cane, I bought a high-tech, carbon fiber walking stick with spring loaded shocks and other features only useful for orienteering and nature photography. It made the suffering more palatable.

Now my only limitation is that I can’t stand on my tiptoe on that leg. When I tell people this they look at me like I’m telling them the old joke about the guy who breaks his hands and says to the doctor: “Doc, will I be able to play the piano when I’m healed?” The doctor says “Sure,” to which the patient replies “That’s great, because I could never play before.”

See, I’m a big guy. When people are meeting me for the first time, I’ll sometimes tell them to look for the biggest guy in the room, and that’s probably me. For the six months I was recovering from my broken ankle, nobody explicitly said it, but I know that my size must have been the reason such a shallow fall caused such a horrible injury. I’m not a 6’2″ basketball player jumping eight feet in the air to block a shot. I’m a six foot schlub who slipped off a sidewalk walking a 40 pound dog.

This brings me to the other gadget inside me. I have a device implanted in me called a lap-band. It’s like an inflatable donut . . . mmm, donuts . . . wrapped around my stomach. It makes my stomach smaller, and divides it into a small portion up top and the rest down below. This is supposed to be a weight loss surgery. You fill the donut with saline and it expands, contracting your stomach. Then, you eat less.

If you don’t eat less, you throw up. That’s actually a feature of the lap-band. It’s supposed to make you throw up. Also, because of where it’s located, higher up than your normal stomach, a full stomach actually feels more like choking on something at the bottom of your throat.

Is it any wonder this device doesn’t work? It sounds like high-tech torture. In fact, the lap-band has a shockingly low success rate. 70% of people who get a lap-band fail to lose weight. Your body adjusts to it. Your body naturally learns how to make you more comfortable, and you resume your old, horrible habits again. When I got the band installed, I lost a bunch of weight, then it came back.

I had other options for surgery, but they all involved heavy cutting and removing massive parts of me that would never grow back. The lap-band is reversible. In fact, I’m having it removed soon. I’ve already had it replaced once with a newer, better model. Now I’m having it taken out altogether. Time to try something different.

When you make the decision to have this band removed, the doctors will exclaim that the lap-band has failed. The euphemism of this choice is not lost on me. Let’s be honest, the band didn’t fail. My body didn’t fail. They did exactly what they were supposed to. They succeeded. I failed the band. The psychology of my thinking and habits overcame my physiology. I am weak. I take the blame. I have failed myself.

Perhaps this is why I’m sensitive to the power that psychology has over our choices, especially when it comes to technology. Technology buying should be a completely rational decision. I need this, therefore I buy it. I do not need to do that, so I will not buy something that does that.

We look down on people who make decisions they cannot rationally explain. We justify our purchases after the fact with rational arguments. I bought this phone because I have large hands. I needed a 60-inch television because I could not read the text on screen. I bought this watch because it is high quality and it will last longer.

We look down on the passionate, the irrational. We look down on people like me whose psychology has failed them. You bought a device you cannot understand, and you are a failure for not learning how to use it. You bought something because your friends all had one, and it made you feel good when you bought it, but you are missing out on all the capabilities of this other thing, the thing I carry with me every day.

I failed my band. The problems I have, which I pretend to understand, and for which I am regularly judged by people who also believe they understand, defeated me. I let them win. I am weak. I am passionate and I give in to irrational urges and desire. I have failed.

One day we’re going to see the utter stupidity in this form of judgment. One day we will understand the true power our subconscious minds hold over us. We will stop blaming people, and hating people, for making decisions based on emotion and passion. We won’t blame them when they fail the gadget, when we realize they may never have had the power to succeed.

As I write this, I’m working on a Mac Pro that I bought several years ago. At the time, the computer was state-of-the-art and capable of handling all kinds of tasks. For me, it was a perfect solution: it offered me the flexibility to run three monitors, had the power to handle some video editing, and was running OS X – an operating system, I believe, is superior to Windows.

But now years later, I’m lamenting my purchase of the Mac Pro. Although it’s still chugging along, it’s not working as well as it once did. And despite my best attempts to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of this supposedly high-end computer, it’s falling short on several fronts.

While all this has been going on, Apple has been launching new Macs at a torrid pace. Since my Mac Pro purchase, the company has launched two new Mac designs – the MacBook Air and the MacBook Pro with Retina Display – and continued to update the iMac with outstanding design ideas. But it’s the Mac Pro that, save for a slight upgrade, has been ignored by Apple.

Now, I know that I’m not alone in wondering what is happening in Cupertino. Over the last few years, we’ve all been watching with baited breath as Apple hits the stage to unveil new Macs, hoping that a Mac Pro will be one of them. But each time, we’ve been disappointed. Apple’s customers have even e-mailed CEO Tim Cook to ask what in the world is going on. His response? Be patient.

Still, it’s hard for us to be patient. We’re watching our friends running Windows doing far more than we can with the Mac Pro. And it’s making us think twice about making the leap to a custom-built Windows desktop that, while not ideal, could actually deliver the enhanced power we need.

I’ve been holding off taking that plunge because I believe Apple has something up its sleeve for the Mac Pro. The trouble is, I just don’t know how much longer I can hang on. Yes, my Mac Pro is still doing its job, but it’s getting harder and harder to complete tasks. And I’m becoming more frustrated by the computer by the day.

So, I need to ask, Apple: where in the world is my new Mac Pro? If you’re not going to launch a new one, just put us out of our misery and tell us. If you are, make it quick; we’re losing faith that you’re actually going to launch a replacement. And the sooner we lose faith, the sooner you lose us to a Windows PC.

I never thought I’d say it, but it’s possible that I might just have to ditch my Mac Pro for a custom-built PC. Don’t make me do it, Apple. Don’t. Make. Me. Do. It.

It really wouldn’t have to be much. A programmable RFID-type key that I could then use for a variety of purposes. I could tap my finger on the electronic gates to get into work. I could get into my car and start the engine simply by touching the door handle, then the steering wheel. It could be fun to pay with a finger. Just magically tap upon the NFC reader at the register and I’m good to go. Wave my bare hand at the gas pump. The possibilities are endless.

Also, a little dull. I love NFC in my phones and I guarantee I use it more than almost anyone else you know (spoiler alert: my day job is with Samsung). I’m talking about implanting something in my finger. It needs to be a step beyond the latest and greatest.

An LED would be fun. Something multicolor that I could control. I wouldn’t need mind control to change the hue or brightness. Bluetooth would be fine. I program my finger on my phone and when I tap against something it lights up. The E.T. effect alone would be worth the price of admission. I wonder if my son would laugh when I touch his bumped head with my finger and as it glows softly I whisper “Oooooouuuuchhh.” Probably he’d run screaming from the room, because Daddy’s fingers aren’t supposed to light up, and he hasn’t seen E.T. yet. So, maybe light-up finger is not the way to go. I need something more personal, less showy.

Therefore, laser pointer finger is also out. This is unfortunate, because the minute I thought of it I knew it had vastly more potential than LED finger. If it’s going to be my finger, I’d spring for the 1W blue-laser type, the one that can pop a balloon from less than 1 foot. I’d need a way to dial it back on command. Bluetooth again, perhaps, or a touch sensitive control. After all, you don’t want to fire off an astonishingly potent laser from your fingertip at the wrong time. You could be wiping an eyelash out of somebody’s face, or picking your nose, or dancing in some sprinkler-like fashion and end up causing serious harm. Sorry, closest-I’ll-come-to-having-a-real-lightsaber finger, it just isn’t meant to be.

I need to think more creatively. How about a camera? There is great potential in a camera that is a continual part of my body. I’ve occasionally imagined replacing one of my eyes with a camera – haven’t we all? I’ve never considered replacing one of my fingers. It would be easier to control the shot with a finger cam. The eyes are somewhat involuntary. If something crazy catches your eye, it will rush to the scene immediately. A finger, on the other hand, can take some direction. There is control and flexibility. I could control the perspective, the angle, the aperture.

Unfortunately, there are also many places a finger goes that should not be filmed. I’m going to let that last statement float in the air until you get my meaning. Actually, I didn’t have any specific meaning in mind. There are a ton of disgusting places you would stick your finger that should not be filmed, but you just thought of the worst of them. You are a sick weirdo. I was thinking of when I’m cleaning out a whole raw chicken. You, on the other hand, are a disgusting person. That is exactly why fingertip cameras will never work.

If not a camera, a speaker, perhaps? A small wireless speaker? There’s a lot of useful potential in a speaker. I could play music, then stick my finger in my ear to hear it. I could make a phone call, then stick my finger in my ear. If I wanted to whisper something to you without being obvious, I could record a quiet message, then stick my finger in your ear. Basically, what I’m saying is that my finger is going in an ear, like it or not.

What you’d really want with a fingertip speaker, though, is volume. Like enough power to get your groove on. I would love to point my finger at a crowd of people standing around at a bus stop and have my tiny speaker blast the opening from C+C Music Factory’s song “Everybody Dance Now!” If you’re too young to remember that one, it was like the 80′s version of “Harlem Shake.”

I also thought it would be cool to use my finger as a megaphone. I could talk into my phone and my voice would come booming from my hand. Unfortunately, when I think of practical applications, I only imagine myself shouting “Muad’dib!” over and over again.

In the end, if I could implant something, I would implant a whistle. That’s it. Nothing electric, just a simple whistle. Perhaps a slide whistle. Because the best part of having something implanted in my fingertip would be showing it off to kids. It would be friendly and unintimidating. Fun at parties. Great for impromptu sound effects. I imagine my son telling his friends about the cool trick Daddy can do, and then I use my finger to make a brilliant whistle, and watch while a bunch of 4-year olds stick their fingers in their mouths and blow heartily, trying to make a sound.

Wearables are new to quite a few folks. Although they’ve seen (and perhaps used) pedometers or those wristbands that track their movements, the average customer has never really thought about wearing glasses that would allow for communication and all of the other features Glass boasts. And thanks to some smart marketing on Google’s part, quite a few people are now saying that they’d jump at the chance to buy Google Glass when it hits store shelves.

But I’d ask all of those people to truly consider what they’re saying. Yes, Google Glass appears to be a nice-looking device for those who don’t mind wearing an oddly shaped lens on one eye, but for the rest of us walking around town, doing so doesn’t exactly tell the world that we’re the most fashionable people.

Aside from that, I just don’t see the value in all that Google is promoting with Glass. Sure, it’d be nice to look at directions through one lens, and having the ability to snap a photo or record video is great and all, but I can do that with my smartphone. And when I don’t want to do any of that, I can just slip my smartphone into my pocket and not worry all that much about it getting damaged.

Google Glass, on the other hand, looks like an expensive, broken piece of tech waiting to happen. As those of us who wear glasses know, it’s not that hard for them to get all kinds of screwed up in our pockets or when they fall off the coffee table. When it’s a $100 pair of glasses, that’s not such a bad thing. But if we’re talking about Google Glass, which could be exceedingly expensive, it’s a much, much different story. And I just don’t see how Google is going to sidestep that issue.

Beyond that, I guess I’m not sold on the whole wearable technology craze. Yes, I know analysts are saying that the marketplace will grow in leaps and bounds in the coming years and billions of dollars will be spent, but I’m not convinced. Save for a few products, wearable technology is still very much a niche product category. And I don’t think that even Google can change that.

To me, Google Glass is more a novelty device than something that can truly be groundbreaking in the technology world. It’s a neat idea and it’s something that I can see people getting excited about, but does it really deliver value in practice? Theoretically, it’s cool, but I just don’t see it actually appealing to people who want the latest and greatest execution of wearable technology. On that front, I think Google Glass will fall short.

So, I’m not really sure Google Glass is worth it. I suppose I’ll be able to make a final decision when I know exactly how much Google Glass costs. But until then, I’m not expecting too much value.

Soon, things changed, and homes had more telephones, providing a bit more leeway in the way communication was handled. It wasn’t until the introduction of the mobile phone that dramatically changed how we would communicate with others, and it caused a radical change in our lives.

Now, though, everywhere I turn, I find people with smartphones. From elders who grew up in a time when phone lines were shared to priests, just about everyone around us has a smartphone on their hip, in their pocket, or hiding in their purse. A smartphone isn’t just an accessory to many people, it’s an extension of their lives. And without it, there would be no way to live.

For me, such a scenario would be impossible to even fathom. Each morning, the first thing I do after saying good morning to my wife is check my smartphone to see if I’ve missed any important e-mails. I might also check the news to see what’s happening around the world. During the day, my smartphone is with me wherever I go, so I can send off a quick text, check e-mail when away from a computer, and surf the Web when I need to. Oh, and I might also place a call from time to time.

So, earlier this week as I was on my smartphone, I questioned whether I could stay away from it for just one week. What would my week be like, I thought. How would my life be different? Would things be better or worse?

I decided after thinking that that it was time I explored the possibility of living without my smartphone for a week. So, for the rest of the day and a bit into the next day, I was smartphone-free. It wasn’t long, though, that I was desiring holding my smartphone in my hand and checking things. It also wasn’t long before I had what might only be called “technology withdrawals” — a seemingly chemical response in the brain to not having something I rely on to such a huge degree.

So, before long, I gave in and got my smartphone. I’m weak, perhaps, or just not very good at controlling myself. In either case, I realized that, for me, living without a smartphone isn’t even an option.

The next question, though, is, such an addiction good or bad? I can be more productive with my smartphone, but that I actually have it in-hand at all times and can’t let it go might liken it to something much worse.

So, I pose the question to you: can you (or, perhaps, would you) want to live without a smartphone for a week? Is it easier said than done? Don’t scoff so quickly and think it’ll be an easy task; it won’t. Be ready for a challenge. And be ready for the withdrawals.

But there’s more to it than that. A Kickstarter-funded company is selling a device known as Ouya that promises to combine the benefits of mobile and console gaming into one device that connects to the television. Steam is working on a console that will bring PC titles to the living room. There have even been rumors that Apple is planning a gaming push.

The Apple rumors are arguably the most interesting. They seem to indicate that Apple is going to bring iOS gaming to the console market and all of its developers will come along with it. And since the iPhone maker has become such a force in the gaming space in such a short amount of time with iOS, there’s no reason to suggest it wouldn’t make a similar splash in the console space.

Although I’d agree with that sentiment, I think we might all be missing the obvious here: Google might just sweep into the console space and win the war.

Now, I know that we’ve heard no indication that Google actually has plans to get into the console market, but is it such a stretch to say that it could? First off, the company has tried to make inroads into the console space with Google TV. And although that hasn’t been the most successful launch, it’s proven that Google is at least thinking about branching out into the living room.

At the same time, we mustn’t forget that Google has been taking some changes lately in the hardware market. The company now has smartphones and tablets that it’s selling and its acquisition of Motorola was a not-so-subtle attempt by the search giant to break into the hardware side.

And then there’s Android. The operating system that has worked so well on smartphones, tablets, and other devices, seems perfectly suited for the console market. And with mobile processors getting more powerful by the day, it’s not such a leap for a game company to bring their top titles on Android to a device running that operating system from Google.

Oh, and one more thing: don’t you think that more than anything, Google would love to take Microsoft down in the console market? If there’s anything we know about Google, it’s that the company can’t stand Microsoft. And beating the software giant out on something is its favorite feat. By bringing Android to the console market and delivering its own device, Google might just have a shot at it.

Call me crazy, but I think Google could actually perform quite well in the console market.

Such demand already might surprise some folks. After all, it took a long time for the PlayStation 3 to truly get off the ground and although it’ll likely end this generation with more worldwide sales than the Xbox 360, in the U.S., especially, it’s no match for Microsoft’s console.

To make matters worse, it appears that gamers aren’t all that excited about the next generation of consoles across the board. The Wii U, after all, has been watching its sales slow to crawl and even GameStop said publicly that it’s been disappointed by the Wii U. What in the world would make the PlayStation 4 different?

Well, I think there are a host of reasons. I’m a firm believer that Sony is still a household name in the U.S. and in Japan – its two key markets – and people buy products from the company solely because they trust the name. And despite the PlayStation 3’s initial troubles, the console turned out to be quite a success, allowing its predecessor to deliver solid results next time around.

It’s also unfair to compare the PlayStation 4 with the Wii U. Nintendo’s console is one that’s a barely updated alternative to the predecessor. As I’ve said here before, I believe the Wii U is a catch-up device. And historically, catch-up devices don’t really perform all that well on store shelves.

The PlayStation 4, however, is a high-end product with all kinds of graphical firepower; it’s the kind of device that true gamers really want. And chances are, Sony will once again have the full support of the developer community to ensure it doesn’t fall short from a library perspective.

Most importantly, though, I think the strong demand for the PlayStation 4 tells us that, despite conventional wisdom suggesting that mobile and casual gaming is the future, console gamers are still extremely engrossed in their favored way of playing games. And that’s not going to change anytime soon.

The fact is that console gaming has a long way to go to ultimately match the promise gamers have been hoping for all this time. And companies like Sony and Microsoft are willing to push the envelope and put themselves in a position where they can capitalize on customers that want a true next-generation device, and not something that’s simply labeled as one.

So yes, I understand the excitement surrounding the PlayStation 4, and I can say without any hesitation that I’m one of those folks that’s excited to see what’s coming next from Sony. The future is now. And Sony is one of the few companies in the gaming industry that’s willing to embrace it.

Then again, I thought the same with my former iPhone, which came with a smaller 3.5-inch display. I thought for sure that I wouldn’t need a larger screen. But when I got my hands on the bigger display, I decided otherwise.

Now, though, I’m looking at new devices from companies like LG and Samsung, like the Galaxy S 4, that come with screen sizes that hit 5 inches, and I can’t help but wonder why anyone would need a device featuring a screen size that large. Let’s face it – there comes a point when screen sizes become too big and unwieldy. And I wonder if a 5-inch display from Samsung is one such device.

Of course, those who love Android will have a much different opinion on the matter. They believe that Apple is delivering products that only come with 4-inch screens is absolutely ridiculous. It’s too small a screen, the critics say, and it’s the kind of limitation that Apple places on products that make them want an Android handset.

I can understand both points. Apple ostensibly believes that a 4-inch tablet makes sense for customers. Samsung and others, however, see that as one of the issues with Apple’s products, and believe that customers want the biggest display they can get. While I agree that there are literally millions of people around the globe that do want the larger screens, at what point do they become too big?

The way I see it, we’ve pushed the envelope to a point where there might not be much more room for larger screens. Most people today put their devices into their pockets or in small places in their purses. They don’t have the room, necessarily, to keep putting larger and larger products into those places. It comes to a point when a device has such a large screen that using it becomes ridiculous. And there comes a point when companies have to realize that and find other ways to attract us. It’s not easy, for sure, but it’s absolutely necessary.

So, I think we should examine whether smartphone screen sizes are getting too big. As I said earlier, I’ll be the first to admit that I like a nice, big screen. But after 5 inches, I don’t think it makes sense for companies to deliver products that deliver anything bigger. And I’m not so sure that consumers will respond favorably to such a move.

So, before you buy that 5-inch-screen-equipped screen, think twice. Will it be too big? Will it be just right? Everyone is different. But not acknowledging the possibility of screen sizes being too big for their own good is a mistake.

Before you say anything – though I understand you may instantly have raced to the comments section before you even reached the period in my first sentence, desperate to berate me – I’m not a luddite. I love smartphones; I like Android, iOS, Windows Phone, and even have a soft spot for BlackBerry 10 in places. I don’t leave the house without at least one phone in my pocket. It – and its ringing alarm – is the first thing I reach for in the morning; with the exception of the light switch it’s probably the last thing at night.

That devotion, or maybe obsession, doesn’t mean I’m blind to the limitations of what we have today, however. The modern smartphone is faster, lighter, runs longer, has more apps, sensors, radios, and gadgetry than any before it, but all that complexity has only served to pull us in closer, to enmesh us more with the digital world on its terms.

Your phone still, generally, demands you reach for it and proactively consult it. If it has something for you, it’ll beep to let you know, but it’ll generally do that on its own timescale. Many devices have a “do not disturb” mode, which blanks all (or all but the most important) notifications between certain periods, and some can “intelligently” manage alerts depending on what you’re doing at the time, though that tends to amount to little more than bashing calendar entries against the clock and keeping quiet when you’ve remembered to log a meeting taking place.

Beyond that, for all their sensors and smarts, most phones are pretty dumb in how they understand context. Right now, they’re portable terminals for the internet, for the most part: a smaller window than our regular browser, or one we view through the medium of function-specific apps. Much of the development we’ve seen from phone software and hardware over the past 3-5 years has been in translating the internet into something that fits onto a smartphone-scale screen.

And yet, our needs from a companion device are surely different from those we have of a regular computer. I don’t necessarily want every single piece of information out there delivered to the palm of my hand; I just want the right, most relevant information. You can find that on a phone, certainly, but for it to be a true companion it really should be one step ahead of what you need. Some emails, or IMs, or calls, are more important than others, but my phone beeps for all of them. Sometimes I don’t know what the most relevant information actually is, or that it’s even out there, and my digital wingman should be using everything it knows about me to fill in those gaps of its own accord.

That’s something all of the platforms fall down on, for the most part. Yes, iOS has Siri, and its clever digital personal assistant can certainly hook into your agenda, contacts, location, and other data to give better advice, but it only happens when you ask for it. BlackBerry is terribly excited about its “peek” system for better handling notifications on your own terms, but it still leaves you in the thrall of the beep and the blinking light.

There are glimmers of a change ahead, though only faint. Google Now for the most part still waits for you to check its curated cards, showing nearby businesses and scenic spots, flight times and reminders of when you might need to leave to make your next appointment, but it does at least try to fumble some sort of contextual link between what you’re doing, where you’re doing it, and what you might be interested in knowing given those factors.

At least, that’s the theory. I gave Google Now a whole homescreen pane of its own to play with on the HTC One recently – the only widget Android offers takes up the entire page – and, in all the time I’ve been using the phone, I haven’t seen a single card pop up. I’ve played with all the settings to try to coax something more out of it, but it doesn’t seem particularly keen to talk to me.

I know Google has more ambitious plans. When I sat down with Mattias Duarte and talked about Now and how it essentially forms the basis of Google Glass, it was clear that the company sees its mobile strategy evolving from one where it gives all the possible answers, to giving more specific results based on greater confidence that it knows what you’re likely looking for. That makes perfect sense for a bleeding-edge wearable, but it’s also something the mass market needs to tame the gush through to our everyday phones.

Faster, lighter, just plain shinier phones aren’t enough now. Squeezing in another core, or adding a couple of extra megapixels, isn’t going to address the underlying issue: today’s “smartphone” is a small, relatively dumb computer, not smart at all. Certainly, there was a time – and it wasn’t long ago – when firms were making groundbreaking steps with each generation of device, pushing the boundaries of mobile tech. Revamping hardware has become the easy way out, however, and we need to stop letting companies off the hook for not tackling what have now become the new shortcomings. Sure, it won’t be as easy as slapping a bigger display on the front, but until the question of context is addressed, we’ll forever be ruled by our phones, not liberated.

Now, I’m sure that Apple fans won’t want to hear such a thing. After all, for years, they’ve been supporting Apple’s iOS platform and to hear that Android could possibly come with features that surpass those of iOS is anathema to them. But perhaps it’s time that we all agree that, at the very least, Android and iOS are in a neck-and-neck battle for mobile operating system dominance.

But how did Android get here? The fact is, Android wasn’t even close to iOS in terms of featureset when it launched. But over the last several years, as more vendors brought the operating system to their devices, it gained on Apple. And now, it’s far and away the most dominant operating system in the land.

Although many reasons for Android’s dominance can be drawn, and many of those are valid, I just don’t think any of them are as important or as noteworthy as Google’s shepherding of the platform. Without Google, Android wouldn’t be what it is today.

If we’ve learned anything of the technology industry over the last few years, it’s that big companies determine the fate of most products. Save for a few cool Kickstarter ideas, the vast majority of successful products today come from major companies. It’s unfortunate that an industry created by startups is now so dominated by major companies, but it’s the reality. And we must begrudgingly accept that.

If an unknown company trying to deliver a new operating system to mobile vendors had delivered Android to the marketplace, it’s unlikely that it would have succeeded. At its launch, few tech media outlets would have picked up the news because of the company’s lack of notoriety, and vendors would have been suspect of such a small firm. A perfect storm would have developed that would have scuttled Android from the outset.

But with Google behind the operating system, everything is different. When a company of that size and importance in the industry delivers an operating system, people listen. And because of its clout, the company has the unique ability to sign deals with other major firms and get its operating system out to the wild in no time. Success was practically guaranteed when Google, not a small, unknown company, delivered Android.

Now, I’ll freely admit that there have been other major companies that have brought up mobile operating systems, including the company formerly known as Palm and Samsung. And those two companies watched their operating systems fall short. But that’s more about time and a desire to control the hardware-software complex than about winning the OS market. The same might be said for BlackBerry. But Google is different. And its success has proven that.

But, I want to pose this question to you: would Android be Android if not for Google? I’d agree that other major companies could have made it work, but do you think smaller firms would have, as well?

Let us know in the comments below.

I’m bad at taking photos, especially when I’m away. All too often I’ll come back from a trip and realize I have nothing – bar the memories in my own head – to show for it. Stills seldom capture the emotion of a moment, while video gets long and unwieldy, and thus goes unwatched.

Zoe, though, combines a burst of twenty stills with about three and a half seconds of Full HD video. You can shoot just stills, or just HD video, but HTC expects most One users to give up on regular images and instead use Zoe mode: once you’ve captured a cluster of shots, you can then scroll through and pick out the one with the best framing or facial expressions, or indeed combine features from two stills into one. The One also automatically combines a selection of Zoes into a highlight reel, 30s of curated content complete with music, effects, and transitions.

What Zoe is particularly great at, though, is putting photography into a framework. You’re not just snapping hundreds of stills and recording dozens of videos – which, if you’re anything like me, you have a strong suspicion that you’ll never actually look through or share after you’re home. Instead, you start to think about photography in terms of easily snackable chunks of content: a simple 30 second highlight reel that you can imagine actually showing someone without having to worry that you’re boring them.

Find out all the details on the UltraPixel camera and Zoe system here

It also makes you think of your life in terms of events. On every other phone I’ve used, I’ve never bothered with albums: all of my images and videos have been left in one long stream of content (and one I seldom bother scrolling back through). On the One, though, you start to consider how an event might look when seen as a highlight reel: I started purposefully shooting panning shots that I knew would be particularly good at setting the scene, for instance, and tried to take more photos of people and their reactions, rather than just impressive landscapes.

The result is a gallery I actually want to flick back through, and photos I actually want to show to people. Highlight videos that require less than a minute’s investment in time are perfect for attention-short social networks like Facebook, Google+, and Twitter, and of course since it’s Android there’s fully baked-in sharing with whatever service you have installed.

It’s not all perfect, however. As we noted in our review, right now the One gives you no control over what resolution the Zoe highlight reel is encoded at – it’s Full HD or nothing – and that makes for a big video. When you’re roaming abroad, it means finding a (fast) WiFi connection is essential unless you want to bankrupt yourself with foreign data fees.

That’s not the only upload-related headache. Zoe doesn’t work at all well with automatic-upload systems; I love how Google+ pushes new photos and videos to the cloud in the background, ready for me to share them later, but on the One every single shot is queued up for the same online treatment. Given each Zoe consists of twenty stills as well as the brief video, that means a whole lot of unnecessary duplication when you browse through online. “You have 3825 new photos ready to share” Google+ eagerly informed me, after suggesting that I might want to pay to upgrade my Google Drive storage.

In fact, there’s a sense that HTC only really thought about the photography experience on the One itself, not that people might want to explore their shots outside of the handset. Having spent a couple of hours sifting through all of the multiple Zoe shots after dumping them over to my computer, picking out the best/least blurry/most interesting to share with family, the comparative value of the highlight reels began to wane. For every scene there were twenty shots to key through, and the HTC Sync Manager app does nothing but push everything into iPhoto.

HTC really needs to offer more granular – and straightforward to use – control over which photos are treated as the default by other apps and services, particularly given the shortcomings of the current highlight reel selection process. Eventually, you should be able to pick out which images are used to build the automagically-edited video; right now, though, the only way to manually control what’s included and what isn’t is to sort them manually into different Event albums (the One splits up events that are at different times and locations automatically, but I found it still mixed together activities while I was away).

Those Events can then be used to create more specific highlight reels, but then you miss out on auto-uploading, since most such services only look at content in the root Photos folder. Events on the One are organized into subfolders, unless you copy rather than move them, in which case you run into storage limitations (which, since there’s no memory card slot, could quickly become an issue given the size of each single Zoe cluster).

I’d love to see HDR support in Zoe mode (at the moment, you can only use it in standard camera mode); that generally works well, though it sometimes left the sky oddly colored in brighter scenes. The ability to opt for longer highlight reels would be great too: a minute or 90 seconds, perhaps, to fit in more media from longer Events.

The fumbles and glitches don’t undermine the overall experience, however. HTC’s decision to opt for a 4-megapixel-equivalent sensor might mean we get stuck with awkward “UltraPixel” branding, but it doesn’t stop the One from taking solid shots and delivering great low-light images (useful for when you’re taking food photos in restaurants; yes, I know it’s a cliché, but I still did it).

Zoe seemed like a gimmick at first, but it’s enough to make me reach for the HTC One in preference to the iPhone 5 or any other Android handset when I know I’m likely to be taking photos. Now HTC just needs to bring its sync app up to speed too, as well as do a better job of explaining to potential consumers why they might end up thinking the same, if they’d only give the One a try.

But now, with the Samsung Galaxy S4’s unveiling almost upon us, we’re here wondering if there will ever be a day when Samsung and Apple aren’t going for each other’s necks. The companies literally can’t stand each other. And although they’re both generating all of the profits in the mobile space, they’d like nothing more than to take each other down.

The issue is, neither company is succeeding at even putting a dent in the other’s business. And although the iPhone and Apple now have true competitors in the Galaxy S and Samsung, each year brings new devices and new opportunities for one of them to pull ahead.

Which brings us to the Galaxy S4.

Samsung’s upcoming device looks – at least according to the rumor mill – to be the kind of device that we might all want. The handset, the reports claim, will come with a 5-inch screen, a beefed-up processor, and all of the Samsung bells and whistles that we’ve come to expect. The device, in other words, could be even better than the already popular Samsung Galaxy S3.

But what does that mean for Apple? The iPhone maker has for years now been the leader in the smartphone market, but Samsung is coming on strong, and in some quarters, actually beating out Apple’s smartphones. What’s worse for Apple, an increasing number of consumers who years ago would only consider the iPhone are now saying that the Samsung Galaxy S3 (and soon, the S4) are the kinds of devices they would want to buy.

So, is it time for Apple to fear Samsung and its upcoming smartphone? The folks out in Cupertino, always ready to prove their confidence, would scoff at such a claim. But let’s not let that go to our heads. If Samsung wasn’t such a big threat, Apple wouldn’t be suing its pants off everywhere in the world. And if Samsung’s products weren’t selling so well, Apple might not find so much trouble with the company. In other words, Samsung is a threat.

But being a threat and being enough for Apple to fear Samsung are two entirely different things. And it’s important that we point that out. Apple and Samsung are certainly at odds and there’s a chance that the companies’ battle will only get worse over time. But it’s also important to note that Apple is extremely strong. And its products, despite the challenges Samsung presents, are no slouches in their own right.

It’s hard to say what the future holds for the mobile market. On one hand, Apple could very well become the dominant force and prove that Samsung is nothing to worry about. On the other, Apple might quickly find that yes, it should fear the Galaxy S4, and there is something very, very serious to worry about.

I guess we’ll find out soon when Samsung unveils its new smartphone and Apple has a chance to respond with one of its own.

$200 has become the “norm” for a new high-end phone launch. The Galaxy S III arrived at $199.99; the iPhone 5 did too. HTC’s One will likely command the same amount when it hits US carriers in the coming months. The carriers have settled on a figure that has proved to be psychologically acceptable for the mass market (even if that mass market would probably save itself some money by paying full-whack for its new phone rather than expecting a network subsidy).

Whether it’s AT&T, Verizon, or BlackBerry itself, however, the pricing for the Z10 seems to have been knee-jerk rather than fully thought-through. Yes, $200 may be the expected price, but the Z10 comes to the market as a challenger, not as another proven quantity. Price was the first point at which the networks could properly express that challenger appetite, but they opted not to.

Sure, the BlackBerry faithful will probably stomach two-hundred bucks to get their hands on what’s a significant improvement over their existing phones. Yet selling to the same, minority-share market – one which has seen many deserters already jump ship to Android or iPhone – isn’t a strategy for growth. BlackBerry 10 needs fresh blood attracted to the platform, not just more of the same.

The closest comparison is probably Windows Phone, which is also fighting to build its share in the smartphone segment. Verizon will sell you an HTC 8X for $99.99 with a new agreement, however, while AT&T will happily hand over a Nokia 920 at the same price. Like the Z10, neither is a perfect device, but Windows Phone undoubtedly has its strengths and with the pricing, both carriers are making them look especially appealing for new smartphone users.

BlackBerry took the decision to eschew Android and use its own platform; I can respect that. However, it also needs to wake up to the reality of the situation it thus finds itself in as a company, trying to break into a hectic and aggressive market with an unproven OS. That’s a tough fight at the best of times, but pushing for premium pricing as well seems at best an unnecessary challenge and at worst a clear misreading of the mobile industry today.

Why can’t I just wear a purse? I certainly can, there’s nothing illegal or wrong about it. In technology and gadgetry, there’s an assumed scale of masculinity to femininity. I don’t agree with the scale, and I generally try to ignore or actively buck these trends. Still, they exist, and here they are, laid bare.

First, there is the outright masculine end of the scale. Don’t think about male body parts, think Jeeps. Jeeps are very ugly and highly functional. They have little aesthetic decoration, but every detail serves a purpose. There is a teeter-totter of utility on one end and aesthetic on the other. As we give up utility in favor of beauty, our gadgets are widely perceived as more feminine. Add colors design finishes, start removing features and wanton capabilities of questionable benefit and you end up with a feminized device.

There is also a question of color, which makes far less sense to me. I’ll never understand how colors became gendered, in the same way I wouldn’t understand gendered flavors or gendered musical notes. Some colors carry an undeniable association with gender, though, even when the color seems completely neutral. Pink is the most obvious gendered color. Purple comes a close second. Mix colors with red, it seems, and you remove their male potency.

Some gendered colors surprise me. I remember the first product I purchased that carried a gender stigma of which I was unaware: the white iPhone 3G. I loved that device in that color. Black seemed too industrial. Black was too normal, like so many other smartphones on the market. It was uninviting and, frankly, for my tastes, too masculine. So, I shouldn’t have been surprised or embarrassed when I showed off my brand new iToy and was greeted with some harmless ribbing by my male colleagues. Even some women I showed it to, including my now-ex-wife, thought it was a bit too feminine, even for their own tastes. Personally, I just liked it better. When it comes to deciding which color gadget to buy, I make an entirely emotional decision. Whichever color appeals to me most at the moment I make the purchase is the one I take home.

I believe in the legitimacy of this emotional response to our gadgets, and that’s certainly what I was feeling when I decided to buy my new tablet a purse … I mean, a carrying case. I scoped out my favorite bag makers and decided on either a Tom Bihn Ristretto or a Waterfield Ultimate SleeveCase. Both seemed a little effeminate for my needs, but both were exactly what I wanted.

Here’s my full disclosure. Usually here’s where I mention day job is with Samsung blah blah blah. Today, though, I’m disclosing that my father used to carry a purse. A satchel. A man’s carry-all bag, in the European style. He had many of these, leather and canvas. His use of the purse predated tablets or even smartphones, so there was no form-fitted purpose to his carrying a purse. It simply made sense as a way to store his wallet, keys, StarTAC, and a few papers or receipts or whatnot. He gave it up a few years ago, and I have little doubt he was simply tired of the comments. He was tired of being labeled the guy with the purse. He still has the bags, stuffed away somewhere, holding onto receipts that predate Check Cards and email.

Why can’t I just carry a purse? Actually, I can. There’s nothing really stopping me except the ideas in my own head. I can ignore looks and comments from people around me and simply do what I like. It’s just that easy. Right? Unfortunately, no. We’re humans, and humans are coded to work better in groups. We hardwired to be acutely aware of those around us and how they are responding to us. We’re supposed to change and conform. We feel awkward. We stick out. In prehistoric cave times, this instinct keeps you from being culled from the herd by a hungry tiger. Today, it makes me feel awkward about carrying a purse.

It’s especially weird that I should feel awkward about this because I already own plenty of pink. I have pink iPods. I have pink phone cases (that I use with my big white smartphone). I have shirts and gadgets and decorations at home that veer into the feminine end of the color spectrum, though I wouldn’t say they are especially feminine in design, if there is such a thing.

There is also a strange divide between fashion and utility when it comes to bags. I may feel like my Ultimate Sleeve Case looks too feminine wearing it about, but it’s nothing compared to a Coach bag or a fancy Italian designer case. When a bag literally borrows materials and design accents from a famous women’s clothing house, it falls deeper into feminine territory.

At once, my free-thinking and liberal mind is watching all of the sinkholes open in my argument. The secularization of men’s and women’s clothing is problematic. My definitions of masculine and feminine in design, with utility on the masculine end and aesthetic on the feminine, is reductive and perhaps dangerous. It results in pink versions of under-specced phones with dangly accessories tacked onto them. There are problems with my color assignments, especially as color and design preferences vary greatly by culture.

I know it. I see the pitfalls. I understand this is an argument about which I’m hardly qualified to rave from a distressed male perspective. But the bottom line is that I just want to carry a nice purse. I love my tablet, I want to pare down so I can just carry my tablet and some essentials, and I want to sling that all over my shoulder. To meet my needs, I’ll buy whatever I need. I’ll just buy it in black, with some distressed hide leather. And I’ll get a really ugly, utilitarian strap.

At the same time, issues are arising at Apple. The company’s $700+ stock price is now in the $400s. And although the iPhone was able to outpace Samsung’s Galaxy S III in the fourth quarter, it appears to be fighting a battle against Android that it can’t win.

So, I pose this question: is it getting easier or harder to not buy Apple products?

Those who say it’s getting harder might be making a good point. Apple is delivering some of the best products out there, and it’s doing so in the industries that excite us most. For instance, Apple is delivering the most popular smartphone on the market as smartphones increasingly gain traction among consumers and enterprise users. And although several Android tablet vendors are trying to take down the iPad, so far, they’ve been incapable.

Even on the computing side, Apple is making it harder to buy competing products. The MacBook Air is still the best thin and lightweight computer on the market, and its software is top-notch. When compared to Windows 8, it’s getting harder and harder to buy a PC over a Mac. Apple has a secret weapon in its battle with Microsoft – Windows 8.

Others, however, disagree. They say that the logic that Apple is still making the best products in the mobile space and thus is the only worthwhile choice is outdated. They point to devices like the Samsung Galaxy S III, Google’s Nexus 10, the Amazon Kindle Fire HD, and others to prove their point. And although Android didn’t necessarily top iOS when it first launched years ago, it’s now delivering more (and perhaps better) features than its chief competitor.

On the PC side, Apple detractors point to the increasing popularity of Ultrabooks to question the desire to buy a Mac. Ultrabooks, after all, are well-designed and lightweight and later this year, will deliver tablet-like functionality, giving them an advantage over devices like the MacBook Air and MacBook Pro with Retina Display.

In the end, though, I still think Apple wins out. The company’s sales seem to indicate that people are still finding a lot of value in its products. And try as competitors might, they’ve yet to find a way to beat Apple in terms of design. And in today’s technology industry, that truly matters.

So, perhaps it really is getting hard to not buy Apple products. And Apple is laughing all the way to the bank because of it.

Soon, DVRs entered the marketplace and everything changed. My cable company provided me with a DVR, allowing me to record a show at a given time. Best of all, it was recorded on a hard drive, so I didn’t need to worry about using my tapes. The transition was incredible, and it was something that I thought could never get better.

[Image credit: Steve Garfield]

But then things got better. Each year, it seemed better software kept coming to my cable company’s DVR, and with a few upgrades here and there, the device seemed to work better. I even bought a TiVo and realized just how well that product worked.

But now things are different. Perhaps it’s because I’m spoiled or because I’m asking too much, but my DVR today sucks. And what’s worse, just about every DVR I’ve used is downright awful.

For a few days last week, my Motorola DVR has not recorded a single show, despite the fact that I have set it to record several series. Then suddenly, just yesterday, it started recording my shows as if nothing happened. It was a hiccup, my cable company said, and something that was worked out.

As happy as I am to see the fix, I know I’ve been in this position before. The DVR works well for a while and then suddenly, stops. In some cases, that means my hard drive gets filled up extremely quickly, despite the fact that I have only five shows saved. And when that happens, it doesn’t take long before shows I recorded have been deleted.

When my hard drive is functioning properly, I find that my series recordings get screwed up. And if I want to record too many shows at once, the DVR software doesn’t seem to follow the rules I’ve placed for hierarchy of importance.

I’ll freely admit that my TiVo, which is in another room, works much better than my cable company’s DVR. But even that product has its issues. Sometimes, for no apparent reason, the tuning adapter I need to have connected to the device stops working and my TiVo doesn’t record anything. I’ve also had TiVo delete shows I haven’t watched for, well, some reason.

I’ve come to the unhappy conclusion that DVRs, in far too many cases, are simply disappointing. And over the last few years, I haven’t seen the kind of improvements that would make me believe that the companies are trying to improve things.

Worst of all, I know I’m not alone. Just Google “DVR problems” and you’ll find millions of people suffering from the same woes as me. And each one of them has discovered that, as many complaint calls as they make, nothing changes.

So, I think it’s time for something new. The DVR is far from perfect and perhaps moving away from even satisfactory. DVRs suck. And unfortunately, I’m forced to live with them. That sucks, too.

Of course. First, let me tackle that last and most ridiculous point. It’s not a PlayStation launch if they didn’t show the hardware, right? No, that’s completely wrong. What is the hardware? It’s a box with a gaming computer inside and a bunch of ports on the outside. It should look reasonably attractive sitting underneath my television, but if it doesn’t I’ll just hide it behind something else, like my Xbox. It should be slim enough to fit in my cabinet, but my receiver is pretty big, so I don’t mind a little heft. Since the Xbox 360, design has become more important, as gamers realized they could have a console that wouldn’t offend the sensibilities of non-gaming spouses; but if this is a priority for you, you’ve gotten your priorities screwed up.

You know what I really want from my PlayStation box? I want it to play really freaking awesome games for the next 6 years. Every time I turn it on, I will spend exactly 5 seconds looking at the box and 30 minutes to 8 hours looking at the content it blasts onto my TV screen. If the box protrudes hairy tentacles and screams obscenities at me every time I turn it on, I can live with that if the games are good. If the ports are covered with Man-O-War tentacles that sting me every time I plug in a controller, I’ll buy some ointment and keep playing. If reaching into the box is worse than pushing my arm into the foul and stinking moist womb of Beelzebub’s mother, who the heck cares if it plays games that make me forget the horrors of my life and the cruelty of my own impending mortality for more than 15 minutes!?

If you care so much about the box, you are the problem with the games industry: style over substance.

For disclosure sake, my day job is with Samsung Mobile, so I know a thing or two about launches. As a former tech journalist, I covered Apple events and Nokia events, so I’ve seen the best and worst a launch event can be. But launching a phone is very different. The problem is that the tech press has grown accustomed to fast-paced phone launches. Every 4 weeks the coolest phone you’ve ever seen hits the market. The tech press is spoiled. They want cool hardware design, which is much more important with a phone. They want a full explanation of the device in 30 minutes or less. They want to leave the press room and walk into a store to buy it (or at least walk into their Brooklyn apartment to review a sample unit).

That doesn’t just mean that our press is jaded. That means you don’t have to say as much with each phone launch. You don’t have to detail every feature. You can build on what the audience already knows. You can highlight the new and confirm the old.

A phone is a very personal device. You will touch and caress it for the next two years. You will tell it your secrets, share your relationship photos, and stick it in your pants. When you buy it, you expect to know much of what it can already do.

Sony is not selling you the hardware. You need the hardware to play the games, but for the first year or so, Sony will lose money on the hardware. A lot of money; maybe a couple hundred dollars per console. Where do they make their money? Games. The money comes from the games they make internally and the licenses they sell to EA, Ubisoft, Blizzard and others.

So, when Sony hosts a launch event, they aren’t selling you on the box hardware. The box is a necessary evil to get you to buy and play the game. If you only bought the box and watched Netflix and never played any games, Sony’s PlayStation division would be out of business in this generation.

Games are a hard sell, especially when they cost $60 a piece, brand new. They cost as much to make as a Hollywood blockbuster, and like a hot movie they make most of their money in the first week they are available. What’s worse, the movie producers make a ton of money months later when the movie goes to DVD, but game producers don’t see that kind of profit. Why should Sony ever support used games with the economics of the gaming market already tilted so heavily against them?

At a PlayStation launch event, Sony needs to prove that a 20-60 hour game on unproven hardware is worth 4 to 6 times the price of a movie ticket. How can you possibly fault them for showing 2 hours of game previews? Sure, the jaded press in the audience will get bored, but diehard fans will pore over those previews for 7 months until the console is in stores.

Go ahead, Sony, be proud of your launch event and ignore the critics. Every one of them is a fan. They all lusted over at least one of those games, and lamented the beloved titles you didn’t show, but probably will at another 2-hour event at E3. The same press will complain again there, because it’s their job to by cynical; but they’ll be first in line to buy one. In the end, it’s not about the event, or the box. It’s all about the games.

But seriously, Sony, enough with the updates. Just let me play the game and forget that the rest of it – the box, the controller, the world – exists, even if it’s only for 30 minutes.

But all of that debate and all of the talk about the success or failure of devices like the Wii U make me question what the future looks like. We’re expected to see more game consoles hit the marketplace in the next year or so, and Steam is also planning to enter the fray. Add that to OUYA and the possibility of Apple gaming, and it becomes clear that the console market will only grow in the coming years.

All of that growth in the number of consoles might sound nice to gamers. But what if I told you that the future – the ideal future – would not rest on more game consoles, but on less?

The way I see it, a single, universal console should dominate the future.

I know I’m not the only person to ask for a universal game console, but I think it’s for the best. In order to get the most out of our gaming experiences, we’re forced to buy several devices costing hundreds of dollars. From there, we need to buy extra controllers and sign up for Web-based services. And that’s all before we even buy different games for the consoles.

In a world I’d like to see, all of that would be stripped away. We’d have just one new console to buy every few years and the top game publishers in the world would deliver titles for that device. We’d only have to buy one set of controllers and sign up for one online-gaming experience.

Industry observers might reason that such a scenario would actually hurt the gaming industry. After all, we’d be spending a lot less cash in that scenario than the current one, they say.

But is that really true? By saving all of the cash on hardware and online services, we might be able to dedicate the same amount of money to the games themselves. All of the savings would increase spending across the software market. The result? The possibility of an even stronger game industry.

Of course, which company would actually deliver the console is up for debate. Some might say that Nintendo is the best option, since it’s been building consoles for years. Others might suspect that Microsoft or Sony could get the job done. Even Apple might be a candidate.

The nice thing about a universal console is that it really doesn’t matter which company builds the hardware. In my dream world, gaming goes back to, well, gaming, and does away with the obsession with hardware.

The game industry needs to change. And it needs to realize that the console wars need to go. If they do, we all win.

Now there’s nothing wrong with making smartphone notifications more useful or easy to consume: that, after all, is why interest in Pebble and other smartwatches has been so high. Yet the initial promise of Glass had been so much more than that, harnessing the power of Android and ubiquitous connectivity and wearer-attention to augment your daily life in persistent ways a smartphone could never manage.

Okay, so the first promo video was ridiculously far-fetched, but as time went on – and the Google team members lucky enough to have access to Glass prototypes teased us with photos, videos, and sky-dives filmed using the headset – it began to look more like Glass was a camera first rather than a wearable computer. Those fears were compounded after early hands-on reports began to trickle out, with talk of little more than email alerts and other notifications dropping into the corner of your vision.

That seemed, frankly, a waste, and so it’s great to see a more realistic explanation of what Glass will do in Google’s new campaign. The display isn’t just a notification pane, it turns out, but a proper screen (albeit transparent) capable of showing Google search results, color navigation directions, and more.

Google Glass walkthrough:

Best of all, it’s very much a two-way stream of information. Glass isn’t just showing you data and then expecting you to pull out your phone to respond to it, as per most smartwatches we’ve seen, but uses voice commands of impressive complexity to operate. The instruction “OK Glass” apparently wakes the headset up, and then you can ask for Google searches, photographs and video, and even for language translations, with the headset discretely whispering the foreign phrases in your ear.

In fact, there’s little suggestion that the trackpad on the side of Glass plays much part, with Google showing only voice commands to navigate through the modified Android OS. It’s worth noting that the video chops together only the key features, however; the actual transitions between them – jumping back to whatever homescreen Glass has, and stepping through pages of search results, for instance – isn’t shown. That may well demand some touchpad stroking. There’s also the question of whether Glass works with touch controls alone, or if you have to give it vocal instructions: that could undermine discrete use of the headset, in situations when speaking out loud isn’t really acceptable. At least one of the pictures Google has freshly released today shows what appears to be an eye-tracking camera on the inside of the eyepiece.

One thing that’s clear already is that this isn’t really “augmented reality“, at least not as we generally conceive of it. Glass doesn’t modify your view of the world, or do any clever floating of glyphs or data around people or objects in your eyeline; it can’t change the way you see things. Instead, it’s more akin to a smartphone that’s been squeezed, extruded, and generally reshaped to fit your face rather than in your pocket: assisting your hunt for digital information, yes, but leaving it up to you as to how it integrates into your life.

Google seems keen to involve more than just developers in the latest round of Glass Explorer Edition presales; whereas only coders had the chance to slap down $1,500 back at Google I/O 2012, this time around the company tells us it’s looking for a more diverse group. In fact, the #ifihadglass campaign doesn’t even require those 8,000 picked to commit to producing their application suggestions. Instead, they’ll be selected on the basis of creativity, the social reach of them having devices (i.e. the scale of the audience they could preach the good Glass message to), and how compelling and original their ideas are.

There’s still plenty to be learned about Glass. Google has teased its cloud-based engine for the headset, but has otherwise said little about the development environment involved, and the biggest concern – battery life – is still conspicuously overlooked anytime the search giant mentions wearables publicly. We also don’t know when the Explorer Edition headsets will be released, though Google tells us that those people who ordered at Google I/O last year are first in line to get their units. Still, the huge amount of “geek” interest bodes well for the commercial launch, whenever that might be, and while Glass may not be the mainstream push for augmented reality we initially expected, the potential is still there to change the way we interact with the world – real, and digital – forever.

First the good news. The One feels excellent in the hand, and while people have commented that – in the leaked shots at least – it bears a resemblance to the iPhone 5, in the metal it’s very different. It’s one of the sturdiest, most premium-feeling Android devices we can recall, and that effort will hopefully pay dividends when it comes to distinguishing itself against other phones in-store.

It takes us back to the days of the HTC Hero, which was an incredibly exciting device, one that encapsulated the idea that Android was tremendously liberating in some way. That Google pushed out this platform which gave manufacturers great breadth of freedom to innovate on top of it. Android at the time looked relatively basic, and things like HTC Sense weren’t just reskins for the sake of differentiation but a completely new environment in which to operate.

Since then, of course, Google hasn’t been standing still. Most of the key elements that HTC introduced with Sense – the social networking integration, for instance – got gradually integrated into the core OS, and over time HTC’s software felt more like visual change for the sake of it. New UIs aren’t a bad thing in and of themselves – one of Android’s strengths is its flexibility, after all – but when they delay firmware updates then users unsurprisingly sour on them.

HTC One overview:

HTC has moved to address that, building in support for incremental updates into Sense 5, and giving its engineers the ability to tweak preloaded apps like BlinkFeed and the Zoe photography system without having to wait for a full ROM to be carrier tested and distributed. Meanwhile, the apps themselves are the most compelling we’ve seen on an HTC device for some time: BlinkFeed, and its “snackable” approach to news and social consumption does make some sense considering how people use their phones today, while Zoe – though initially confusing – gets more fun the longer you interact with it.

HTC could still shoot itself in the foot, if it doesn’t make good on its promise to develop what its shown us in fledgling status today. I’ve criticized the company in the past for introducing with solid ideas but then failing to capitalize on them – OnLive gaming, for instance, or Sense Online – and so while Sense 5 is a welcome revamp, only time will tell whether HTC has the sticking power to give it the refinement it deserves and the longevity users demand.

That’s not the big problem, though; that has a Samsung logo. The Korean company’s marketing spend around the Galaxy S III has been vast, and shows little sign of abating as the much-rumored Galaxy S4 approaches. No matter how good last year’s HTC One X and One X+ might have been – and we were pretty impressed at the time – they were simply buried by the Galaxy hype, to the point where the smartphone market became in effect a two-horse race: do you go iPhone or do you go Galaxy S III?

HTC undoubtedly recognises that marketing and promotion is its weak link; unfortunately, the knowledge you have a problem doesn’t put any more cash in the war-chest, and HTC simply can’t afford to match Samsung’s huge campaigns. That’s bad enough when you have devices, like the One X, which directly compete on specifications with rivals, but it’s a potential kiss of death when, in the case of the HTC One, you’re having to explain complex and confusing decisions you’ve made, such as UltraPixels and the whole Zoe system.

Specifications may “be dead” as we’re regularly told, but consumers still play spec-sheet bingo in stores, comparing the raw numbers of one to the numbers of another. Will they spend the time to figure out why HTC’s 4-megapixels might, in fact, be better than the 8- or 13-megapixels of another device? Or will HTC’s phone simply earn a spot at the bottom of the table?

The only way to compete on that front is education: teaching customer services reps how to teach would-be buyers why they should care about one thing and not just take numbers at face value. That’s not something HTC’s “Quietly Brilliant’ marketing strategy of old has proved particularly good at, and there’re expensive lessons to give, when few sales people will ever be criticized for recommending Apple or Samsung.

If all things were equal, the HTC One would be an inescapable contender in 2013. The hardware is incredible, the software a promising return to old form, and for once there’s a sense that a manufacturer has stopped to consider what users actually do, not what might sound best in “mine is bigger” advertising. Equality is a pipe-dream, though, and the HTC One will have to fight tooth and nail – and HTC make the very most of its limited marketing budget – if it wants to raise its head above the rest of the smartphone noise.

Find out more on the HTC One in our hardware hands-on, plus our rundown of Zoe and UltraPixels, and the new Sense 5 and BlinkFeed technology.

Broder’s review of the Model S pulled up the car for its supposedly unreliable range, forcing drastic energy-saving driving styles and, eventually, a rescue on a low-loader when the Tesla couldn’t finish the journey. Unsurprisingly, Tesla wasn’t too impressed; however, unlike most cars, the Model S doesn’t just put its technology front-and-center, in the shape of the dash-dominating touchscreen, but in the on-board computer that keeps track of just about every element of the driving process.

So, Musk was able to point to battery charge statistics to show exactly what sort of range Broder experienced – and what the estimated remaining range displayed would be – as well as his average speed and driving style. The Model S even tattled on its cabin comfort settings, with the NYT writer supposedly turning up the heating even when he wrote that he reduced it to save power.

This isn’t the first time Tesla has pulled out hard data to demonstrate car reviewers haven’t been entirely upfront with the cars’ performance. UK show Top Gear incurred the wrath of Musk back in 2011, after the irreverent hosts claimed the original Tesla Roadster left them stranded whereas, according to the car’s own logs, there was still around 50 miles worth of charge left in the “tank.”

In a vehicle that’s one part car, one part motorised computer, that sort of tracking isn’t perhaps unusual. For the moment, Musk says, “data logging is only turned on with explicit written permission” in customers cars, with the policy to activate it by default in media loaners stemming from the Top Gear debacle. Nonetheless, it’s not hard to see the climate around driver privacy evolving toward a world where the default is quite different.

Schemes that exchange driving anonymity for other benefits already exist, though they’re generally targeted at new, young, or at-risk motorists. Several insurance companies now offer discounted plans for drivers willing to install a “black box” to track their usage: that ensures no driving at night, for instance, outside of a specific area, or in unsafe ways. For the target audience, who could be facing typical insurance costs running to thousands of dollars, it’s a tempting proposition.

Regular drivers, however, have grown used to the idea of the car – bar being stopped by the police or snapped on a speed camera – being a silent accomplice for their road habits. That anonymity is likely to be short-lived, however, particularly as onboard systems become more complex, self-driving technology grows in popularity and mainstream penetration, and human error becomes the biggest flaw in the mobility story.

It’s a generally-accepted inevitability that, when self-driving cars such as those in the pipeline from Google finally hit the road in earnest, they’ll be an insurance nightmare. If they crash, or run someone over, or if the occupants are hurt in some way, who’s to blame: the driver, or the car manufacturer? When the sort of mesh networks Toyota and others are experimenting with – which will allow self-driving cars to communicate between themselves – appear, that will have a big impact (cutting the meat factor out often does that), but it’s not likely to happen for a good few years yet.

Still, the cars don’t need to be entirely autonomous in order to demand logging. Intelligent cruise-control and traffic following technology which can maintain dynamic distances from other cars; assisted accident avoidance which boosts braking effort; radar guided self-parking: they all take some of the responsibility of the person in the driver’s seat, and give it to the computer under the hood instead. And, where computers go, logging comes hand-in-hand, and it’s not hard to envisage a time when comprehensive, Tesla-style record keeping will be mandatory from insurers, not optional.

Perhaps that’s not a bad thing. Maybe it’s about time we stopped thinking of the roads as the great freedom network, but instead a shared resource that’s as potentially dangerous as it is useful. Perhaps, just as car manufacturers are doing their part in making new models more and more intelligent – safer, and more environmentally friendly, too – it’s time we as the fallible meat-pilots behind the wheel did our part to tidy up our own game.

A cynic might well be justified in their pessimism, however, whether that might actually take place. Instead, expect a tug of war between expectations of individual rights and demands of group responsibility, helpfully confused by the mercenary ambitions of insurance firms. Nonetheless, just as smartphones get faster and tablets get skinnier, the move toward intelligent cars is likely to be inescapable. Today, that’s giving a New York Times writer a headache; tomorrow, it’s going to be us that the car is talking back to.

As with other Apple rumors, the iWatch is exciting the company’s fans. Surely Apple has something great up its sleeve with the watch, those fans might say. Others are already predicting that they’ll buy one and wear it each day, and before long, just about everyone else will, too. The iWatch has somehow joined the pantheon of Apple greats, like the iPod and iPhone, before it’s even launched.

[Image concept by ADR Studio]

But perhaps we need to come back down to reality. Apple’s iWatch idea is probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time. And I, for one, wouldn’t be caught in public wearing the company’s watch.

Now, I’m sure there are many people who will respond to this column by saying that many industry observers believe that wearable technology is the future. And I can’t disagree with that. But is a watch really the product to deliver the next giant leap in technology?

The beauty of Apple products is that they can be used anywhere a person goes. The iPhone is a work and home device. The same can be said for the iPod and iPad. Macs have even found a way to bridge the gap between consumers and enterprise users.

But a watch is a different story altogether. I’ve yet to find a tech-lover’s watch that actually looks good on the wrist. More importantly, it fails to deliver the kind of end-to-end solution that Apple’s many other products might.

For example, would you really wear the iWatch to work? Sure, it’ll help you keep the time and maybe check your e-mails, but you already have an iPhone and iPad for that. And if you’re in a client-facing business, would a big, bulky Apple watch really send the right message? Perhaps. But it depends on the industry. I don’t necessarily see financial-industry bigshots putting down their Rolex for an Apple iWatch.

To me, the iWatch sounds like a gimmick. It’s something that I could see someone wear while on a run or perhaps working around the house. But to wear it as the central part of an outfit each day doesn’t quite add up.

Of course, the technology industry is littered with people like me who have doubted Apple’s ability to score big and succeed. But I think the iWatch is an attempt by Apple to bite off more than it can chew. I get the smartphone, the tablet, the music player, and the television idea. But I don’t get the company’s reported desire to make a push for timepieces.

I’m impressed by Apple’s ability to make smart decisions year in, year out. But if the iWatch launches sometime this year, I couldn’t help but wonder if the best ideas have already been revealed.

To recap, if you’ve been wearing your Apple rumor tin-foil hat: speculation around an Apple-branded smartwatch reawakened over the weekend, with both the WSJ and NYT chiming in with sources claiming a digital timepiece accessory was in testing. Adding to the intrigue is the suggestion that Apple is already talking production plans with long-time manufacturing partner Foxconn, and that the wrist-worn gadget is believed to use a special curved glass display.

That curved display – which has already seen connections drawn with Corning’s Willow Glass, a super-thin, super-flexible material that could feasibly be used to produce wraparound devices – would be a slick differentiator, given we’re still generally waiting for the technology to reach the mass-market. Other smartwatches, such as Pebble, have curved fascias but the displays themselves underneath are flat.

There’s always been some degree of excess bulk, then, balancing the desired usability of a larger screen with the aim of making as small a watch as possible. Pebble is one of the best designs for that we’ve seen so-far, but it’s still not tiny, and that could dissuade less geeky users from wearing it.

With a curved screen, however, Apple could wrap its iWatch around the wrist, rather than have the display sitting atop it in one lump. That’s not to say the likely form factor will be akin to the eye-catching render above by ADR Studio, twisting fully around the wrist. Instead, it’s far more likely that Apple might form a partial loop from Willow Glass, hugging the edge of the wrist to minimize bulk, with a more traditional strap arrangement closing the remaining gap.

Having clever friends in the components and manufacturing industries is a good start, but it takes more than slick hardware to get people to buy your gadget: you need solid functionality if you want users to ditch their existing watch and strap on an iWatch instead. Apple’s two strengths there are the tight control it has over the iOS architecture, and the only-partially-tapped functionality offered by Siri.

Ruling iOS with an iron rod has paid dividends for Apple, enabling the sort of smooth user-experience only really delivered when hardware and software are carefully tailored to each other. When you’re talking about adding another persistent wireless connection – even if it’s Bluetooth 4.0 based, the most power-frugal iteration so far – you’re also adding another potential source of battery misery. It’s the same issue that has left previous smartwatch attempts dumped, unloved, in desk drawers.

If, however, Apple can effect that sort of continuous connectivity without necessarily wiping out the iPhone’s battery life, that’s one considerable reason to opt for the official accessory. An own-brand iWatch would also be able to bypass the data access frustrations that have made companion apps, such as the software iOS users must run in order to use Pebble, such a tricky business. Apple is cautious with what third-party developers can get their digital fingers into, but its own coders have no such limitations.

Once you’ve got that tight integration, Siri steps in. Apple’s voice control system is already making inroads as a safer way of using a phone or tablet while in the car; divorced from the iPhone or iPad itself, it could be even more useful. Pebble, Sony’s SmartWatch, and other models all suffer the same problem: they’re useful for showing you information, but not so great at letting you react to it.

So, you can can generally see emails, calls, messages, and other alerts come in, but if you want to do anything especially meaningful with that information, you’ll need to get your phone out of your pocket. With remote Siri access baked in, however, Apple’s smartwatch could bypass the limitations of its display and/or physical controls, and allow you to respond to new data by voice.

It’s broad two-way interaction that is Apple’s real advantage here, though the possibility of course don’t end there. The onboard Nike + iPod functionality built into the iPhone could obviously be expanded with wrist support, both collecting pedometer and other information, and displaying your fitness progress in a more persistent way. Then there’s the possibility of apps on your wrist, a small secondary display for third-party developers to experiment with.

Apple undoubtedly plays with prototype designs all the time, and not everything makes it to stores. The company is also known for waiting until there’s a wide market, not necessarily a small quorum of geeks, to sell to. So far, the smartwatch audience has been a small one, but with a little Siri and some styling magic, Apple could blow it wide open.

[Image credit: Just Design Things]

Admittedly, I’m quite pleased with both my iPad and Kindle Fire. And although it’s easy to simply pick the iPad and be done with it, Apple’s latest announcement of a 128GB iPad has gotten me thinking.

When I first learned that Apple was planning to sell a 128GB iPad, I was excited. For years now, I’ve been waiting for a company to deliver ample storage for all of my videos and movies, and now, Apple is doing it. Although 64GB was nice, it wasn’t enough for someone like me who has all kinds of video. With 128GB, I should be good for at least the next couple of years.

But then I saw the price. For the Wi-Fi-only version of the 128GB iPad, I’d need to drop $799. For the Wi-Fi-and-cellular model, I’d be set back $929.

Needless to say, those prices gave me more than just a little sticker shock. Yes, I realize that I’m getting double the storage for only $100 more than the 64GB option, but I can’t help but think that paying nearly $1,000 for a tablet is ridiculous. I’m all for paying a fair price for a high-quality product, but dropping that much cash makes me wonder why I just don’t buy a notebook and be done with it.

Apple’s high pricing, however, brings up an important consideration: at what point do tablets become too expensive?

Like it or not, tablets are not full replacements for high-end notebooks. And yet, Apple would want us to pay a price that, in some cases, is much higher than the cost of a notebook.

Tablets are still mobile products that don’t quite deliver all of the features (or convenience) of a full-featured notebook. That’s precisely why I was just find paying around $500 or $600 for an iPad, but take pause when the company tries to get me to pay nearly $1,000 for a device with more storage. There is a ceiling in the land of tablet pricing, and I’m not quite sure Apple understands that.

Of course, I might just be cheap. Perhaps I’m too old school and don’t understand that as tablets become more sophisticated, their prices will rise. But I see tablets as complements to the computers I’m using at home. To price them at levels that make tablets more expensive than notebooks makes me think twice about buying a slate.

I’d like to think I’m not alone. I realize that we’re talking about Apple here and no matter what the company does, many people believe it’s the right thing. But isn’t $929 too expensive for a tablet?

Let me know in the comments below.

In a radio interview with BBC Radio 5′s Nicky Campbell, Bates refused to address questions around the impact of the iPhone, preferring to list BlackBerry 10′s work/life balance functionality and position the OS as the platform RIM needs for the next decade. In a separate interview with BBC Breakfast [region-locked to the UK], Bates faced a similar repeated question – this time, “what went wrong” in RIM’s past to bring it from, as the executive himself argued, creating the smartphone segment to having a minority share – but again pushed the party line rather than addressing the criticisms head-on.

Neither interview paints either RIM or the BBC interviewers in a particularly positive light. For Bates, the reluctance to address what are legitimate talking points – the role of the iPhone and the missteps RIM has made in the past – suggests the BlackBerry maker may not in fact know, or understand, how the marketplace changed. As for the interviewers, the aggressive and challenging tone failed to achieve anything significant in terms of real insight into BlackBerry 10.

Nonetheless, while there will be more opportunities for the smartphone buying public to get information about the new platform, RIM’s opportunities to show it understands the ways the ecosystem it is in has changed are dwindling. Android and iOS monopolize the lion’s share – 92-percent - of the global smartphone market, and for all rivals like Microsoft and RIM insist that carriers, retailers, and consumers want a “third contender” there’s little to show RIM has figured out how it will sell itself as that underdog option.

That’s not to say the BlackBerry 10 OS is either without merit or without its differentiators. As the company itself explained to us back in October 2012, one of the key elements of the new platform is its ability to satisfy both work and personal use, while keeping a firewall of sorts between the two. There, arguably, is RIM’s biggest education from the rise of the iPhone and from watching the smartphone market as a whole: that people now carry their phones at all times, and want them to do all things, and while BlackBerry devices of yesterday may have been fit for one half of that, they fell short in the other.

Clarity of mission is all the more important when you consider that BlackBerry 10′s success probably isn’t going to be based on its strengths as a technical platform, but instead the halo of context RIM builds around it. We’ve already seen OSes with great potential rise and fall – MeeGo is a solid example, offering a far better user-experience than Nokia had with Symbian or even Windows Phone, but still eventually sidelined – because, in part, the companies behind them lacked the clarity of message that would convince consumers and businesses that they were worthy of consideration.

For RIM, with Microsoft directly aiming for its corporate audience with Windows Phone, and the mass market already addicted to the wide array of Android devices and the consistency and “halo brand” of the iPhone, it’s time to work hard on rebuilding perceived relevance. Trying to ignore the landscape of the mobile industry today – no matter how aggressive the interviewer – doesn’t distract potential customers to the reality of the market, it only leaves you looking like you don’t know where you went wrong.

SlashGear will be at RIM’s BlackBerry 10 launch today, bringing you the highlights from the new platform.

And yet, the rumor persists that Apple – either later this year or sometime in 2014 – will launch the long-speculated set. That device, its supporters say, will be the product that television buyers have been waiting for, complete with access to apps and high-quality specs. Apple will find a way, the company’s supporters insist, to revolutionize the television industry.

But perhaps those supporters are wrong.

If Apple is indeed working on a television, the company finds itself in No Man’s Land. In the television market right now, plasmas, while still delivering great picture quality, are seeing their sales dwindle. LCDs and LED-backlit screens are performing relatively well, but also seem to be waning. If CES 2013 taught us anything, it’s that vendors believe the future of television relies in OLED and 4K (Ultra HD).

The problem with OLED and 4K is that televisions featuring those technologies are wildly expensive. Currently, some Ultra HD sets are on sale for tens of thousands of dollars. And although OLED delivers an incredible visual experience, models using that technology are similarly cost-prohibitive to the average consumers.

However, most of the folks in the television industry believe that there’s a good chance that by the end of 2014, those prices will be down to levels that some consumers would find acceptable. Interestingly, it’s possible that the Ultra HD sets will be cheaper than OLEDs at first, simply because of the issues vendors are having producing OLED panels.

Still, it identifies a potential issue for Apple: if the company launches a standard 1080p, LED-backlit screen this year or next, it might get some traction in the marketplace for a time, but it’ll quickly become obsolete. If Apple waits until 2015 to launch an OLED or 4K television to capitalize on that new trend, all of the hype the company has been taking advantage of over the last few years will be lost.

Realizing that, I can’t help but wonder if Apple’s television efforts are in trouble. Granted, the company will deliver a software experience in the television that will likely top anything in the marketplace, and Apple has the ability to succeed in spots where others might not, but the television industry is highly competitive and notorious for its low margins. If Apple can’t find a way to deliver the right product at the right price for the right value to consumers, it’ll lose.

Tim Cook and his executive team must know that. They must also realize that the ideal time to launch an Apple television was not 2013 or 2014, but 2012, when the new technologies were still years off.

Like it or not, Apple might have missed its best opportunity to succeed in the television market.

As I’ve said here before, I’ve been playing games as long as I can remember. And as an owner of the Nintendo Entertainment System, SNES, Nintendo 64, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U, I’ve played just about every first-party game Nintendo has ever launched. For years, Nintendo games have been entertaining me.

[Image credit: Andrew Becraft]

Still, I can’t help but shrug whenever the company announces a new Mario game or, as it did today, updates to its Legend of Zelda line. And yet, as I looked around the Web for the reactions to the news of an updated Wind Waker and a new Legend of Zelda title designed specifically for the Wii U, I was shocked by what I found.

Nearly everywhere I looked, people were expressing their excitement for the new title, and that Wind Waker was to be updated with HD graphics. Around the world, people seemed to be anxious to see the titles at E3, and couldn’t wait to finally get their hands on them. It wasn’t the standard, run-of-the-mill excitement, either; it was as if the greatest news in the history of gaming had just been passed down.

Of course, I expect such a reaction from the Nintendo faithful. For decades now, Nintendo’s fans have remained loyal to their favorite company, and anything short of outright excitement wouldn’t be enough for those folks.

But I’m not quite sure the Legend of Zelda and the Super Mario franchise truly deserve all the hype. I can’t help but wonder if all of the excitement has more to do with the past and nostalgia than the actual quality of the titles.

Those who make the quality argument certainly have the numbers on their side. According to data from Metacritic, there hasn’t been a single Legend of Zelda console game launched in over the last decade that hasn’t scored in the 90s (out of 100). And although New Super Mario Bros. U could only muster an 84 on Metacritic, its predecessors scored well into the 90s.

Nintendo supporters would say that such scores prove that the excitement surrounding new titles is justified. After all, if the franchises are delivering such great experiences, why wouldn’t we be excited for the future?

But perhaps those numbers tell a different story. For the most part, reviewers are of the age that grew up playing Nintendo games. And I, like so many others of my generation, tend to give Nintendo’s first-party titles some passes because, well, we remember the good ol’ days. There’s something special about Link and Mario, and saving the world with those characters. We have a deep-seated love for them that will not – and cannot – go away.

Perhaps that’s why we tend to forgive the fact that we’re playing basically the same game every few years. Although Nintendo has done a good job of bringing some new mechanics to the titles, for the most part, a Mario game is a Mario game, regardless of whether you played it 15 years ago or today. The same is true with Zelda.

If the titles weren’t Mario and Zelda, would we have viewed them as favorably? Some might say no. Others, of course, wouldn’t believe that a Nintendo game would get any special treatment.

But perhaps it’s something to consider. Nintendo’s flagship franchises have affected an entire generation unlike any other game to other generations. And that could – could – be playing a role in our feelings towards the Zelda news.

What do you think?

As each project tracks toward release, however, the ecosystem of more straightforward body-worn gadgetry such as activity monitors like Jawbone’s UP picks up for what’s predicted to be a bumper year of sales. Still, among sensor ubiquity and the specter of power paucity, the fledgling wearables industry hasn’t apparently decided whether it’ll face this brave new augmented world hand-in-hand, or jealously guarding its data.

[Original Sergey Brin image via Noah Zerkin]

Project Glass and Memoto both take photos, but otherwise they come at the wearables space in a very different way. The Google headset shoots stills and video on-demand, but isn’t – as far as we know – intended for permanent streaming. Memoto’s camera, however, is intended as a life-logging tool, periodically snapping shots and tagging them with location and direction; earlier today, the team behind the project confirmed there’d now be a digital compass in there too. Other wearables take their own routes to your wrist, jacket lapel, or elsewhere on the body, such as UP or other digital activity monitors.

Though the ethos may be different, much of the hardware is the same. Headset, wearable camera, and wrist-born pedometer-on-steroids all have motion sensors; both Glass and Memoto have digital compasses, and GPS. There’s a huge degree of overlap, even more when you factor in that most users of wearables will also be carrying a smartphone, with its own battery of sensors and radios.

So, with Memoto’s new-found digital compass, how does its hardware differ from that of an UP, or Fitbit’s Flex? All three have the ability to monitor patterns of movement and figure out if you’re running, or walking, or sleeping; all that’s missing is the software to do the crunching of that data on the camera. Why should tomorrow’s wearables enthusiast carry two, or three, or more accelerometers and magnetometers, when the data from one is sufficient?

Of course, sharing sensors is only one element of what convergence demands: there’s a bigger compromise to be made, when fewer gadgets perform more tasks. Battery life continues to be the bane of the consumer electronics world, and that headache is only going to be magnified when it comes to body-worn technology. A hefty smartphone with a big screen and a 3,000mAh+ battery might be acceptable in your jacket pocket, but a power pack of that size simply isn’t going to fly when you’re wearing it on the side of your head.

In many ways, then, the PAN – or Personal Area Network – is inescapable. The early iterations of wearables are naively insular in their approach: they try to do everything themselves, with little reliance and few expectations of the other gadgetry on your person. Take, for example, Vuzix’s Smart Glasses M100, a prototype of which we played with at CES earlier this month. Inside the chunky headset there’s a full Android computer, with all the connectivity you’d expect from a reasonably recent smartphone, bar the cellular data.

That makes for a wearable with impressive standalone abilities, but also one that’s greedy for power. Vuzix’s headline estimate is up to eight hours of “typical use”; however, what’s “typical” in the manufacturer’s opinion is sporadic activation summing just two hours in total, or even half that if you want to use both display and camera. All that despite the fact that your smartphone – which you’ll probably need anyway, since Vuzix supplies a remote control app to more easily navigate the M100′s apps – has a processor, battery, radios, sensors, and other hardware already.

Bluetooth 4.0, the most power-frugal iteration of the technology, may go some way to popularizing PANs. Still, that’s just the virtual cable: the glaring omission is any sort of wearables standardization, which would allow your eyepiece from manufacturer X to output the information from smartphone Y, having called upon sensors Za, Zb, and Zc dotted around your body (not to mention in spread around the ecosystem around you).

Predictions have it that the wearables market will explode over the next 4-5 years, albeit beginning with more humble tech like activity tracking bracelets, but building to Glass-style headsets once the technology gets in line with affordable pricing. That may well be the case, but it will take more than slick hardware and project execs that drink the Kool-Aid to motivate the industry. We’ve put up with silo’d ecosystems in smartphones, and stomached it in tablets, but if wearables are to succeed the consumer electronics industry will need to set aside its appetite for insularity and embrace openness in augmentation.

[Image courtesy VintageComputing]

But over the last decade or so, I’ve seen a shift in the technology industry that makes me worry about the future. The technology industry was once a haven for folks like me (and perhaps you) that wanted to immerse themselves in electronics and use them as much as possible to get work done. For us, technology wasn’t an interest; it was a way of life.

Back then, those of us who loved technology had formed a special bond. We were speaking another language that many folks didn’t quite understand, and we were able to solve problems that others couldn’t. It was a special thing. And it was ours.

But over the last decade, I’ve watched my beloved technology industry become awfully commercial. Products are no longer judged solely on their usability or component power. Instead, products are judged based on their looks and how “intuitive” they are for the average technology user. Value has won out over power. And those of us who remember the old days are left scratching our heads.

See, the technology industry is now a key component of pop culture. There’s not a day that goes by that someone on the news or a late night show or on MTV won’t mention an iPhone, iPad, or Android-based device. Computers were once purely functional pieces of equipment that helped us get work done. Now, they’re extensions of our personality, and have branding and design features to reflect that.

It’s now cool to go to school with the latest gadget in hand and show it off to friends. While discussing “gigabytes” and “Flash” and other topics were once reserved for the so-called “geeks,” they’re now commonplace in discussions with supposedly ordinary people.

Of course, some in the industry believe this is a good thing. As technology has become more accepted, major companies have generated more cash. Small companies built out of the success of larger firms are thriving. And more and more people are being employed by the industry.

It’s hard to argue with that. The technology industry really has become the cornerstone of the world economy. And companies like Apple, Google, Facebook, and Samsung are employing thousands of people that, 20 years ago, wouldn’t have had a job.

But excuse me for believing that maybe – just maybe – there was something special about the old days. The technology industry might not have been “cool,” but it was fun and exciting. And it was unique.

Maybe the old days are gone. But there’s something to be said about remembering – and honoring – your history.

Lately, though, some things have changed. Apple, once the most Teflon of companies in the technology world, is starting to create some doubt in the minds of supporters. While the company might still be generating billions of dollars and its sales are still strong, there’s some concern that the future might not be as bright as the past.

Nowhere is that more apparent than in the finance world, where Apple’s shares have dropped significantly over the last year. The company’s stock price was over $700 at one point in the last 12 months, but is now below $500. Even as Apple generates billions of dollars each quarter, investors worry that the company might not be as solid an investment as it once was.

Apple’s iOS is also starting to be criticized in some circles. Those who evaluate the operating system realize that it lacks many of the features found in Android. And with Google’s operating system downright dominating iOS in terms of quarterly shipments, some are wondering if the mobile space might become the computing market, and Apple will be only able to muster a small slice of the space.

The iPhone isn’t even getting the kind of love that it once did. Consumer Reports has ranked it lower than some of its chief competitors, and there’s speculation that companies like Samsung could actually be putting pressure on Apple.

So, what has happened? Apple is supposed to be the company that its supporters can always count on. Apple isn’t the kind of firm that can make major mistakes or see its businesses decline; Apple is a company that knows how to grow like gangbusters. And no matter what the company touches, it turns to gold.

Admittedly, Apple hasn’t really done much to disappoint its core supporters. The company’s products are still top-notch, and despite investor concerns, it’s generating billions of dollars each quarter and beating its internal estimates. By all measure, Apple is still a wildly successful force in the technology world.

And yet, some doubt is creeping in. Apple doesn’t necessarily look like the company that can never be beaten any longer. And companies like Samsung and Google have been able to at least get a few blows in on the iPhone maker. Whether it will continue remains to be seen. But for the first time in a long time, Apple might just be capable of feeling the sting from competitors.

Before the free voice calls, there was voice messaging in the Facebook mobile app, and before that Poke, which sends time-limited text, photo, and video messages that auto-destruct and warn users if the recipient attempts to save them. Dubbed Facebook’s “sexting app” it had an early stumble after being found to secretly cache concent, though the social site did quickly move to patch the bug.

Then there was Nearby, a Foursquare-style location service, and just ahead of that Photo Sync, to make it even easier to suck photos from your phone to your Facebook gallery. That’s not to mention Facebook’s $1bn grab of Instagram, despite the fact that it had just pushed out its own Camera app which replicated most of the features of its expensive acquisition.

Facebook is seldom first to offer each mobile feature. Poke was the most obviously “inspired” product, closely following in the footsteps of earlier app Snapchat, but Google has been offering free voice calls in the US for some years now, through its Gmail voice system. (That Google deal has again been extended, now covering 2013.) Facebook Camera’s similarity to Instagram and Facebook Messenger’s overlap with the huge number of IM apps – whether iMessage, GChat, WhatsApp, or even good old fashioned SMS – hardly portray the social site as the most innovative of companies.

Then again, arguably it doesn’t need to be. Facebook isn’t some naive, cash-strapped startup desperate for attention and users; it’s a multi-billion dollar business with a vast user-base much of which, despite periodic outcry and calls for mass defection, shows high degrees of addiction.

Where its been struggling is in making the most of its mobile users. That’s not the same as acquiring mobile users – in fact, Facebook has plenty already, it just hasn’t been too hot at extracting some sort of financial return from them. CEO Mark Zuckerberg has fingered commerce as one potential option, but right now everything about Facebook’s mobile suite reeks of lock-in – making users keep using Facebook, and for an increasing proportion of their everyday mobile activities – rather than revolution.

Viewed in those terms, spreading itself across the common applications regularly demanded of a smartphone (calls, messaging, photo and video sharing) makes perfect sense for Facebook. A mobile commerce push would fit in with that nicely, though we can maybe excuse Facebook for not being there yet: few manufacturers, vendors, or carriers have got commerce quite right yet.

What Graph Search might do for Facebook’s mobile strategy, however, is give it an all-important injection of context. Your friends and family are arguably the best recommendation engine you know, and if they don’t know the answers themselves, they may very well have “Liked” the sites, reviews, and other sources that do. Context is another area no company has nailed so far, though Google Now is perhaps one of the better approaches we’ve seen.

There’s plenty that’s been said about the importance of controlling the hardware and the software you offer, if you want to succeed in today’s mobile market. That, we’re told, is what gives Samsung sleepless nights over Android, gives Apple its edge with the tight integration of iOS and iPhone, and what Nokia has sacrificed in throwing in with Microsoft and Windows Phone. Is it not more important, though, to own the users themselves? To have a platform considered so essential, so integral to their everyday lives, that users shape their device and service shopping lists on the basis of who supports it?

Facebook could still screw up: the mobile industry moves fast, and while that makes for interesting times both as a consumer and a company, there’s little space for second-chances if you get it wrong. For all spreading itself across dozens of apps, numerous services, and a handful of platforms might not satisfy in the gut like a Facebook phone might, though, like the cuckoo chick stealing warmth, food, and ultimately attention in a foreign nest, a strategy based on mobile inclusion is just what Facebook needs.

The Xbox 360’s staying power in the U.S. is nothing short of astounding. In December, alone, Microsoft sold 1.4 million consoles in the U.S., indicating gamers see no reason to hold off on buying the device until the Xbox 720 launches later this year. Better yet for Microsoft, many of those folks sign up for Xbox Live, providing the software giant with a steady stream of revenue over the course of its lifecycle.

All of that success, however, has me thinking: why is the Xbox 360 – a console that, at launch, some thought would be trounced by the PlayStation 3 – so popular in the U.S.?

Perhaps the first reason is its core market. Microsoft isn’t trying to take on Nintendo’s more casual gamers. Instead, Microsoft has found a loyal following in the hardcore segment, where gamers like to play online, pick up shooters, and play for hours. To those gamers, the Xbox 360 is a device worthy of its success.

According to NPD, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 was the most popular game in the industry last year. And for the fourth year in a row, the Xbox 360 version was the most popular option among U.S.-based consumers. That’s perhaps as much a testament to the console as it is its robust online-gaming service that delivers the features today’s customers want far more effectively than on competing consoles.

Speaking of competing consoles, is it possible that they’re causing the Xbox 360 to be so popular? Granted, the PlayStation 3 has sold more units worldwide than the Xbox 360, but let’s not forget that that is due mainly to Sony’s international success. In the U.S., the Xbox 360 is still the dominant force.

Perhaps that’s due to Sony’s sluggish online services. Although they’ve been around for years, Sony’s online services haven’t really caught on until recently. Plus, with the hacking scandal that rocked the platform, gamers became a bit more wary of the PlayStation Network.

The Wii and Wii U might also be pushing gamers to Microsoft. As mentioned, those consoles cater to a casual sector of the market – one that Microsoft doesn’t really care about. At the same time, hardcore gamers who have played the Wii and Wii U and try to stick with it have trouble. Like it or not, the consoles just aren’t capable of keeping their attention as much as the Xbox.

Finally, I think we should point to the Xbox 360’s strong library. For years now, it has offered just about every major franchise, and exclusives like Halo have kept customers coming back. Hardware might get all of the attention in the marketplace, but it’s software that drives customers to buy the consoles. And on that front, Microsoft is winning handily.

Of course, the Xbox 360’s success might be due to several other factors. Why do you think Microsoft’s console is so popular today?

And yet, CES is a necessary evil. Like it or not, the show is what the industry needs to ensure that the average non-Apple company can actually get some attention in a world dominated by the iPhone maker.

In some ways, the technology industry has become a sad place. Apple’s success has tossed all other companies in its growing shadow, and those firms can only hope to come out when the iPhone maker isn’t looking. Each year around this year, such an event happens.

CES is the opportunity that small vendors and even large companies like LG, Dish, and so many others, need to finally communicate their products to customers. For once, those companies can sit in front of a packed audience and show off their plans for the years. Better yet, they can get in touch with journalists, hold one-to-one meetings, and (hopefully) excite them into thinking that their latest inventions are the next big things in technology.

All of the rest of the year, things are much different for those companies. They’ll send out a press release here and there and typically receive a story or two. If they’re lucky, the average consumer will pay attention long enough to find out when the product will launch and how much it costs. If they’re really lucky, those companies might even be able to get the consumer out of their home and into the store to try the product out. And if they’re really, really lucky, those folks might just buy the respective device.

That’s the world that Apple, Microsoft, and Google has created. The big three are garnering all of the attention in the technology industry, and just about anything they have to say is newsworthy. All other companies are hoping to fill in the ever-smaller gaps that line up around them.

CES, though, levels the playing field. Apple is nowhere to be seen at the show, and Google and Microsoft hardly have a presence. CES, therefore, is open to smaller or less important companies that want to share off their wares while the giants are off working on products that will steal the world’s attention all the other days of the year.

That’s precisely why CES should not – and cannot – be shuttered. As big and annoying as it is, the show serves a very important purpose in the technology industry. And without CES, it’s hard to see how companies will be able to get their products out there and into our increasingly busy lives.

So, perhaps we should have a little patience with CES. Sure, it’s not what it used to be and there are increasingly boring aspects to it, but it’s an important event, nonetheless. And we can’t discount that.

Find all of our CES 2013 news at our CES Hub!

I can understand why manufacturers like Samsung, Sony, Panasonic, and others push TVs as the perfect vehicle for Ultra HD. They’re huge products – physically speaking – and in the charged, competitive, genital-waving atmosphere of Las Vegas, having The Biggest is a fair way to being seen as having The Best. A vast TV looks great on a stage during your keynote, and it provides a great focus point for gawping visitors to your booth.

Practically, though, when you need a huge set to actually take advantage of the technology you’re positioning as the Next Evolution for home entertainment, you’re already irrelevant to a huge swathe of your audience. The most common size was 84-inches - eighty four! – and they started to look small in comparison to the few 110-inch monsters. Worse still, every company did a grossly poor job telling us why we need Ultra HD, relying on big numbers to sell the technology alone.

That’s why, despite the majestic monsters from the main culprits, it was a far smaller – and quite different – interpretation of 4K that I left CES feeling was the best implementation of the technology. Panasonic’s 20-inch Windows 8 tablet may be a fraction of the size of, say, the company’s own Ultra HD TVs, but for once the 4K context made sense. The detailed resolution would be great for digital artists, Panasonic pointed out, as well as those in medical professions and architects.

Samsung even hinted at that alternative strategy itself; when Joe Stinziano, the company’s EVP, told us he saw mass-market relevance for Ultra HD perhaps five years out, he highlighted those fields as potential early-adopters, not people with playing field-scale living rooms.

A 20-inch tablet doesn’t leave you with the feeling that you need to wear sunscreen when you’re basking in its glow, however. And CES is perhaps the place where context has no role: we make these things because we can, is the unspoken message from manufacturers, not because you necessarily realized you needed it, or even wanted it. It’s proof of concept without pause for practicality.

And yet… what will they show us in January 2014? When Ultra HD sets are still the stuff of vastly expensive, niche, 84-inch irrelevance – because, let’s face it, 1080p is going to be the beginning and end for 99.999-percent of consumers this year – what will the TV industry wow us with? It’s an arms race of idiocy, when there are still plenty of far more worthy areas of attention (the broadly appalling smart TV performance of most internet-connected sets, for instance) which affect far more people but are just less attention-grabbing than a $20k luxury toy.

For now, though, the message is simple. Don’t worry about Ultra HD. It really doesn’t matter.

But I’m here to tell Sony something. I can appreciate that the company wants to jump on the motion bandwagon made popular by the Wii and arguably better by the Kinect, but bundling such a feature into the PlayStation 4 makes absolutely no sense.

[Image credit: Tai Chiem]

Sony is to gaming what a Mercedes-Benz is to cars. The company has for years been delivering the most expensive consoles and its customer base has come to expect a certain level of technical achievement not available elsewhere. Whereas Nintendo appeals to the casual gamer looking for simpler experiences, Sony is trying to woo the hardcore segment that won’t be caught tossing around a Wii Remote.

That’s precisely why the Move controller was such a bad idea. Yes, I know that Sony was trying to catch up to its competitors and it thought that the Move would work, but it’s proven to be a bad idea. The Move is largely ignored by gamers and developers, and there isn’t a single person I know that feels the PlayStation 3 would be better with the Move than without it.

So, why should Sony deliver a console that aims at delivering everything but the kitchen sink? Sony can be successful by delivering a good-looking product with high-end specs that customers actually want. And as long as it plays nice with developers – something Nintendo hasn’t historically been so great at – the company should have a respectable level of success in the next generation.

Motion gaming is a gimmick. It’s something that, after a few fun plays, becomes old and annoying. It’s also something that really only makes sense for kids or those who like to throw parties and make fun of drunken fools jumping around the living room with a wand in their hands. Motion gaming like what we find in the Wii and PlayStation 3 has done nothing to improve the overall playability of a game. After a few plays, the neat idea a developer has come up with is tossed aside for traditional play.

The time has come for Sony to acknowledge what its brand and its hardware are really all about. The future resides not in all of the features Sony can add to a console, but in the quality of those features. And motion gaming delivers no added quality that the average PlayStation 4 owner will care about.

So, don’t even think about bringing motion gaming to the PlayStation 4, Sony. Believe me – it’s one hugely bad idea.

The reality is, used games aren’t really all that bad. In fact, there’s a good chance that the continued growth of used games is helping the industry in an immense way.

Unfortunately, being a gamer is an expensive proposition. In order to even start having the chance to play games, consumers must purchase a console that will set them back several hundred dollars, and then buy games that cost $60. If they want to play handheld titles, buying a device like the PlayStation Vita or Nintendo 3DS XL will once again cost them hundreds.

In a world where economies are slow to turn around and the future is decidedly in doubt, spending that kind of money on video games isn’t always a top priority. And as much as folks might want to enjoy the entertainment value provided by games, dropping $60 for a new title just doesn’t fit into budgets every month.

With used games, though, that changes. Used titles are notably cheaper than their new counterparts, making it more possible for gamers to get titles. And as those folks get titles, they become more invested in certain hardware, developers, and franchises. The result? A more engaged and entertained gaming community.

A more engaged and entertained gaming community means more customers that will sign up for online services, like Xbox Live. It also means that there will be a broader base of customers to whom developers can sell add-on packs and other goodies.

Now, I understand that the main issue with used games is that developers, who spend years of their lives creating games, aren’t actually getting anything in secondary sales. And I would fully agree that that’s wrong. But that’s not enough of a reason for me to believe that used games should be stricken from the industry.

Like it or not, I do believe that retailers have a responsibility to developers and publishers to share some of the revenue generated from used games. Yes, I know that such a move bucks a longstanding trend and GameStop and Amazon hate the thought of it, but there’s something to be said for being fair. And fairness would dictate paying developers for used sales.

How will such an agreement be made? I don’t know. How will the revenue split work? No idea. But it’s about time both sides – developers and retailers – come together and come to an agreement. The fact is, both parties benefit from used games. And it’s about time we all acknowledge that.

If you missed it first time around, Leap Motion’s eponymous gizmo is a tiny, $70 box that hooks up via USB and creates a four cubic foot area above itself within which individual finger movements can be tracked. That’s at an accuracy of within 1/100th of a millimeter, and the system can differentiate between fingers and, say, a stylus being held for mid-air handwriting, as well as recognize when finger movements are intended to be linked, such as for pinch-zooming.

Leap Motion walkthrough:

So why would Apple be interested in Leap Motion’s tracking technology? It’s all down to the Cupertino firm’s dual stance on touchscreens. On the iPhone and iPad, Apple hasn’t been slow to adopt touch, driving the adoption of capacitive technology, but its Mac desktop and notebook ranges have stubbornly avoided finger-friendly displays.

Apple’s argument has always been that the ergonomics of touch simply aren’t suited to a notebook or desktop form-factor. Reaching out across to a display – whether to your MacBook screen or to stab at an all-in-one – isn’t comfortable, so their argument goes, when compared with a large trackpad such as the company’s own Magic Trackpad.

It’s a strategy entirely at odds with where Microsoft has pushed Windows 8, with the new Metro-style interface of the latest OS expressly designed for touchscreen computing. ASUS’ deal with Leap Motion, however, means its future laptops and all-in-ones will also support gestural interaction, waving and grabbing at the air in front of the display so as to manipulate what’s on-screen.

That’s actually an area of research that Apple isn’t unfamiliar with: the company has previously filed patents for Kinect-like navigation, including around a 3D display, or by using infrared light bouncing off your hands above a keyboard. None of that research has actually ended up in shipping hardware, however.

OS X has borrowed an increasing number of features and usage concepts from iOS in its latest iterations; that’s only expected to increase with the launch of OS X 10.9 later this year. With iOS so finger-focused, however, the limitations of a trackpad or Magic Mouse will continue to keep the reach-out-and-tweak-it immediacy iPhone and iPad users are familiar with from the desktop experience. Leap Motion’s approach would’ve fit that paradigm perfectly, though I’d be surprised if Apple wasn’t cooking up its own approach as the gap between mobile and traditional computing narrows.