Oh my goodness! Taking everything at face-value, Apple has just dropped the equivalent of a thermo-nuclear bomb into the mobile phone market. The Apple iPhone is now available at a very cheap price of just $99 (RM350). This will be so disruptive on so very many fronts.

Firstly, in the traditional mobile phone market. Most new entry level phones are priced at around RM300 or so. This is true of all brands from Nokia to LG. The only phones priced below this price-point are really basic phones for the cost conscious who do not really need any functions in their phones. However, at $99, the iPhone is set to disrupt this entire market segment.

Every other phone maker would need to respond. Otherwise, they risk losing all their market-share to Apple. Normal users would now be faced with the decision of getting a well-designed, sexy and cheap iPhone or a sadly-designed decidedly-stoic looking entry level phone from any other company. Power users would be faced with the decision of shelling out $500 for a power hungry smart-phone or $99 for an Apple device. I’m sure that the other handset makers are cursing Apple for doing this.

Seriously disruptive.

Secondly, this will open up the Apple phone for more than just uses as a mobile/smart-phone. I can now imagine the iPhone as the platform of choice for legions of developers. With the kind of features that the iPhone has at $99, you can imagine building all sorts of applications around the iPhone base platform. I can certainly imagine quite a number of non-phone related uses for a $99 phone.

I’m talking about opening up new markets. If apple moves to provide documentation and development kits based off the iPhone, we can expect to see a flood of new tools that are built on the iPhone – things that we have not even begun to imagine. It will move technology away from being PC centric to really being phone centric. We’ve talked about this for ages but this is the first time that we have the hand-set to base it on.

Seriously disruptive.

Finally, the only question that I have is – the catch. Obviously there is one, or more. Unless we’ve been scammed all this time, phones this good, do cost a bit to make. According to iSuppli, the iPhone 3G costs around $173 to build. Turns out that you will only get that price for new subscriptions of specific phone plan packages in the US.

So much for being seriously disruptive.

PS: So, don’t expect Maxis to be selling you RM350 iPhones anytime soon.

I am re-evaluating the possibility of using an Apple-TV for my HTPC. The advantage is that this is a device that was designed to be a HTPC from day one. It has all the right connections and is also low-powered. Furthermore, it turns out that XBMC is supported on the Apple-TV. The Apple-TV can be had for about RM1250 (GBP 216) from certain re-sellers in Malaysia (it is listed at RM1450 at the Apple store).

The only potential disadvantage is the lack of support for full-HD content. All references point to the fact that the Apple-TV is only able to decode HD-ready (720p) content but will upscale it to full-HD (1080p). This is not a serious problem at the moment for all of my available media are mainly SD content. Furthermore, I don’t see this situation changing anytime soon simply because there isn’t that much full-HD content available anyway.

Another difficulty may be with the ability to integrate the Apple-TV onto my home network. If I were to get the Apple-TV, I would be getting the 40GB one, which severely limits the amount of media it can store. So, the Apple-TV would need to stream the data off the network. It has got both wired and wireless network connections. However, it would need the correct software to be running on the network in order to work properly. Firefly doesn’t seem to support streaming videos at the moment.

This may be solved by installing XBMC on the Apple-TV. It is certainly capable of running as a standalone application.

Certainly something to consider. It would be easier to get this than some of the other options.

I had this short conversation with several people the other day, where I mentioned about Windows. I wondered why Microsoft has not decided to build the next version of Windows on the BSD kernel. Besides the sin of pride, I really couldn’t think of any technical reason not to.

BSD is a distribution of Unix created by UC Berkeley. Unix is an operating system developed in 1969. Through the years, it has evolved into an extremely secure and stable OS. People who use real computers (not toy computers) use variants of Unix. There is no technical reason why Microsoft cannot just use BSD and rid the whole world of numerous security problems. A company that has finally decided to do exactly that, after going their own way, is Apple. Just in case you didn’t know, Apple uses a BSD operating system. They then designed a ultra cool user interface on top of it. Microsoft could always copy Apple – they do it all the time anyway.

1. Backwards Compatibility
   Some people may think that Microsoft needs to maintain backwards compatibility. Therefore, it cannot make a major architectural change like that. I laugh inside whenever I hear this. However, most people are not familiar with the Church-Turing thesis and therefore, I must forgive them. Microsoft is not the scion of backwards compatibility. They often break compatibility within their own products.

   Apple has shown us that backwards compatibility is certainly possible. Few people realise that you can run Apple II software on a modern Mac. This is ultimate backwards compatibility. The Apple used to use a Motorola 68K microprocessor, then moved onto the IBM PowerPC before finally turning to Intel x86 today. Apple has shown that not only is backwards compatibility possible, even software written for an entirely different computer architecture can be kept compatible.

2. Proprietary Software
   Some people may think that Microsoft has a lot of secret sauce that it needs to keep hidden and using an open source OS like any of the modern BSDs will force it to reveal its hand. This is a myth because the BSDs are distributed under a very permissive BSD license, which basically allows you to do whatever you want with it, including building proprietary software out of it.

   In fact, Apple again has shown how to do it. Apple has plenty of secret sauces that Microsoft is still failing to copy successfully. Apple has built them all on top of BSD and does not need to share it with the world if it does not want to. It all comes down to the terms of the BSD license. It is more commercial friendly than say, the GPL that is used by Linux. That’s why I’m suggesting BSD instead of Linux Windows

3. Technical Superiority
   This is another laughable excuse. While many people are heralding the technical superiority of Windows 7, please remember that they are comparing it against Vista, not any of the Unices. While they herald the resource savings of Windows 7, please remember that a full fledge BSD install with graphical user interface can fit inside 128Mb of hard disk space or less, using even less memory. While users try to fight off the ‘infection of the day’ on Windows, the Unix people are free to do something useful with their time instead.

So, I sometimes wonder why Microsoft still wants to go it alone and re-design their OS from the ground up so many times and still fail to get it right. Their track record has shown that they just cannot write quality software. Since there is already a proven 40 year-old OS out there for the taking, it is really stupid not to just customise it and use it.

The other day, a friend of mine tried out Linux for the first time and asked me what anti-virus he needed to install. He did not quite believe me when I told him that there was no such thing. Those that are written for Linux, such as ClamAV and F-Prot, are actually designed to kill Windows viruses, not Linux ones. Seriously. You do not know what it is like to live in a virus free world until you have entered the world of Unix. It is totally refreshing and fun.

Microsoft should seriously consider doing an Apple. It will end up doing the whole world a favour by introducing ‘safe computing’ to the masses instead of introducing new infections with every new version of Windows.

I saw GINA on the TV for the first time last week and I immediately fell in love. There is nothing else quite like her and when she winks, it is like a stab through the heart. Her curves are like none other and her skin is as smooth as silk.

Seriously, GINA is a great concept car. The fundamental question that it tries to answer is what happens when the traditional skin is removed. The safety and stability aspects of a car is taken care of with the main frame. So, BMW replaced the skin with a rubberised fabric.

As a result, the car takes on the shape of the frame. By making parts of the frame movable, the car is able to morph its shape and adjust its size for different applications. It can raise a rear spoiler for those high speed runs on the freeway, or broaden its luggage compartment when extra space is needed.

In addition, light is able to feed through the fabric. Therefore, the lights can shine through even when they are hidden under the fabric. This diffuses the light and produces a soft glow, which is suitable for the brake lights and indicators. The headlamps light the way through an opening in the fabric – the eyes.

This got me thinking that, the same concept can also be applied to other things. If it can be used on a car, it can most certainly be used on consumer electronics. I would love to see someone like Apple, maybe take this up and make things with fabric skins instead of plastics. That would be truly fashionable.

Man, this is a machine that is aiming straight for my heart! Ignoring for a moment, the blatantly cheesy name “Eee Monitor”, it is still a svelte and sexy machine. Photos of it are just making the rounds around the Internet. It’s not just a monitor, but carries a full blown PC inside it. Plus, it will come standard with Linux for under $500!

This machine is definitely going to give the iMac a run for it’s money. Some people may complain about the fact that these machines are a little underpowered compared to the iMac. That is true as the Eee will only come with an Atom processor, which is the new line of low-powered mobile focused processor chips from Chipzilla. It is a processor that is essentially a Pentium inside the body of a i386. So, it is certainly underpowered for computational fluid dynamics. But it’s more than enough for your everyday applications.

Furthermore, people should stop thinking of computers as singular entities whose computing powers are limited to what’s inside the box. Think clusters. If someone were to be setting up a small office, for example, networking 10 of these machines with a single quad core computer server, would actually be more efficient and powerful than having 10 top end boxes individually. Not to mention, it would look far cooler than having 10 regular beige boxes sitting on the desk.

Personally, I think that ASUS has been doing a great job recently, innovating like crazy and opening up new market niches where no one has gone before, which is forcing everyone else to follow along. They started with the Eee PC, which has opened up a market that is now known as the “NetBook” market. This has forced everyone else, from HP, Dell, Acer, MSI to play catch-up. Then, ASUS released it’s Eee Box, which is trying to give the Apple mini, a run for it’s money. And now this!

Whomever says that the PC computing market is dead, is obviously wrong. Although the Eee PC may be a novelty that appeals mainly to road-warriors and hacker-like people, I can potentially see an Eee Monitor in every home and office. I’d like to see Acer come up with an equivalent device at a $400 price point instead. That would be just snazzy and I’ll grab one or more of these for myself.

PS: They should fire their marketing department though, for coming up with such lame names as Eee PC, Eee Box and Eee Monitor. What will they think of next?

This is a spoof AirBook ad made by the people at Lenovo. It’s so true.

The items plugged into the USB hub are stuff that the X300 comes with, which are not found in the AirBook. However, there’s still one thing that the ThinkPads lack: the sex appeal. The AirBook just looks sexy as hell, compared to the drab looking X300. On top of that, I have to really wonder about the additional stuff that the X300 has and ask if I’d really need the stuff.

The official plus points listed for the X300 are:

• Replaceable battery.
  This is certainly a plus point as laptop batteries tend to die rather a quick death, regardless of how much precaution is taken to prolong it’s life.
• 30g lighter.
  Harping on a trivial 30g eeks of desperation. I doubt that many would be able to appreciate the miniscule difference.
• 4Gb of memory
  Few people need this much memory. Vista may benefit from it, but OSX sure wouldn’t.
• Optical drive.
  I honestly cannot remember when was the last time I used the DVD drive to read/burn DVDs.
• 3 USB ports.
  This is the second real advantage, if somebody was looking for a desktop replacement, to plug a keyboard, mouse and other peripherals into. But nobody would buy either of these laptops as a desktop replacement.
• Management software.
  Would not really be required if the operating system is good enough, to not require any management anyway.
• TPM security.
  There are few applications for the TPM module and fingerprint reader.
• Ethernet port.
  Only a minor advantage as it can be easily circumvented with a £15 wireless access point and nobody buying a mobility laptop wants to be bogged down by a network cable.
• Wireless options.
  Although the X300 can handle all kinds of wireless options, from Bluetooth to Wireless WAN, most of it does not come standard anyway.
• Superior cooling.
  Unless you took the words “lap-top” literally, you aren’t going to be sticking it on your lap. If you are, you should stop frying your nuts.
• Stronger case.
  Regardless of how strong either machine is, neither one is likely to survive being run over by a car. Toughbooks they are not.

So, in the end. The X300 does not provide a significant advantage over the AirBook. I will admit that replaceable batteries are important. However, the AirBook is sexy. So, if they were comparatively priced, I’d expect the AirBook to win.

However, the cheapest AirBook retails for £1,199 while the cheapest X300 retails for £1,997. Honestly, I think that the battle for the thin-and-light laptop category has been won, hands down.