Speeds and Feeds

Mobile data traffic is doubling every nine months, according to Cisco Systems. By 2013, mobile traffic will hit 2 exabytes--2 million terabytes--per month.

For some vendors, the growth rate is even higher. AT&T says its network load has been growing by 4.5x per year for the last two years, in large part (I assume) because of iPhone sales. You may have read about AT&T's pledge to spend over $12 billion this year to expand its wireless and broadband networks, including new 3G spectrum with better coverage and trials of 4G service.

At the Linley Group's Tech Processor Conference this week in San Jose, Calif., we learned what effect this growth is having on equipment makers, especially the companies making the microprocessors that go into network gear.

According to that same Cisco study, the problem goes well beyond iPhones. A 3G-equipped laptop "can generate as much traffic as 450 basic-feature phones" and 15 times the traffic of an iPhone or BlackBerry.

Networks have also gotten smarter, so network processors have much more work to do. Instead of just hundreds or thousands of clock cycles of work per packet on the network, new functions like firewalls, intrusion detection, and antivirus scanning to keep smartphones and laptops safe can require 100,000 cycles of processing on each packet.

Factoring in the growth in the network itself, Michael Coward of Continuous Computing, a company that sells equipment, software, and services to the telecom market, said that network operators need to achieve a 1,200x boost in processing performance between the systems deployed in 2008 and those that will be needed in 2013.

If you've flown on a commercial airline since 2000, you've probably seen people wearing Bose QuietComfort headphones. They're expensive and large, and I don't like them.

Their noise-cancellation circuitry actually generates noise of its own, and my ears are good enough to hear it as long as I'm not seated too near the engines.

I started wearing earplugs on airplanes in the 1980s when I discovered the squishy memory-foam type. They block noise better than headphones ever could, and they don't make any noise themselves.

Klipsch Image S4i In-Ear Headset

(Credit: Klipsch Group)

But when I bought my first iPod, that strategy didn't seem quite so perfect anymore. The ear-bud headphones that came with the iPod never fit me at all; they just fell out. After some experimentation with small folding travel headphones, I decided I was happiest with in-ear headphones. They gave me most of the noise reduction of the foam earplugs along with the ability to listen to music.

The problem with in-ear headphones is finding a model that fits me. I gather that this is a common problem with this type of product. I went through several low- and mid-priced models before settling on the old Apple In-Ear headphones--they just worked the best for me. (Interestingly, I had the same experience as CNET's Steve Guttenberg when he reviewed them: they only fit well when inserted upside-down.)... Read more

Apple's announcements this week expanded the range of the MacBook Pro product line, which now covers starting prices from $1,199 to $2,499.

In effect, the Pro line has absorbed the aluminum-cased models from the MacBook line, which is now reduced to a single model with a white plastic case, a look that debuted over three years ago.

Apple's 13-inch MacBook Pro.

(Credit: Apple)

Some "Pro" models now have features that used to be hallmarks of the basic MacBook notebooks: integrated graphics and no ExpressCard slot. I think of these as consumer-oriented choices, and I'll throw in the standard glossy screen finish on the 13-inch and 15-inch models. A glossy screen looks better for movies, but it's unacceptable for some professional users.

Consumers should be happy to migrate to the MacBook Pro line, since they can now get features and options never before offered on MacBooks: FireWire 800, for example, and support for up to 8GB of DRAM.

Professional users, on the other hand, are now reduced to just one good choice: the 17-inch MacBook Pro, which includes an ExpressCard slot and can be ordered with an antiglare screen.

So in a way, Apple's newly expanded notebook line is narrower than it used to be -- there's room both above and below, especially if the plastic MacBook is allowed to fade gracefully into history.

... Read more

The annual Maker Faire, which lies somewhere between San Francisco's counterculture tradition and Silicon Valley's materialism, is set for this weekend in San Mateo, Calif.

Now in its fourth year, the event is organized by Make magazine and showcases the work of people who build everything from wooden bicycles to life-size robotic critters.

I've been making some fun things myself since I bought a small milling machine awhile back. Here's a titanium adapter I made to attach a small commercial USB flash drive to my keychain:

A USB flash drive (right) with keychain adapters milled out of titanium.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

The assembled titanium-reinforced drive fits into any USB jack.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

Not long ago I found some blocks of aluminum bar stock at HSC Electronics in Santa Clara and had the idea to turn one into a stand for my iPhone. I had the standard iPhone dock, but it's not very stable, and I wanted something better. I realized I could mill a pocket into the aluminum block for the dock, plus create a face for the iPhone to lean against. The result was nice, stable stand.

I decided to preserve the original finish on the block for an industrial look:

The first-generation iPhone stand, made from a cylindrical block of aluminum and Apple's iPhone dock.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

After making that first one, I thought of some other ways to apply the same idea:

Another design. The Apple iPhone stand slots into the recess at the bottom, between the "wings."

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

Another design, polished up a little.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

This one's my favorite so far:

Yet another design, also with wings.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

A side view.

(Credit: Peter N. Glaskowsky)

There's always something at the Maker Faire to inspire more projects. Come back to Speeds & Feeds next week for a review of the event.

If you have an iPhone 3G configured for use in English, open up a new Note or Mail message and type the word "neat."

Your finger missed the "t"--didn't it? You typed "r" instead, for "near." That's OK. Backspace over the word and try again.

Oops. Missed it again, didn't you? Never mind, try again.

Apple's iPhone 3G

(Credit: Apple)

That "t" sure is difficult to hit, isn't it? Well, you can always try the tap-hold-drag method of typing. Backspace over the word again, type "nea", then tap the T and as soon as you see the letter appear above your finger (it'll probably be an "R" again), drag your finger around the keyboard.

Pretty amazing, huh? Any letter but "t" can be typed in. That's right. Some iPhones simply won't let you type the word "neat" without using the backspace.

The problem isn't limited to this word or this character. I discovered the problem for myself recently when trying to enter the name of a restaurant ("Quattro") into a new calendar event. Further experimentation revealed many other impossible sequences.

I'm used to mistyping things on my iPhone; errors are inevitable with such a small keyboard and no physical feedback, and I tend to just blaze along as fast as my fingers will go. But occasionally, it seems to me that I hit the key I wanted but get something else instead.

I knew I hadn't missed the "t" because I was typing "Quattro" relatively slowly. I backed up, typed the word again even more carefully, and suddenly realized that some of my typing errors aren't my errors at all!

After fiddling around with my phone for a while, I realized that the iPhone virtual keyboard code attempts to predict what key(s) you'll type next and prefers the more likely keys over the less likely keys.

In extreme cases, when the code thinks a certain letter is pretty much impossible, it'll block that letter entirely.

This works well when you're typing a word like "fish" and you type "fisj" instead. Nobody likes getting fisj when they are hoping for fish, right?

I don't really understand all of the decisions built into the code. For example, "abcf" is not allowed, but any other final letter is fine. Is this because "abc" is most commonly followed by "d" and, thus, "f" is just too close for comfort? But then why isn't "abcs" blocked?

But the real problem is that sometimes--as with the word "neat"--this code doesn't anticipate all the legitimate letter choices.

Oddly, it isn't that the iPhone doesn't like the word "neat." If you accidentally type "neay," it'll suggest that you really meant "neat." So the character-predicting code must be separate from the dictionary.

I also established that there are some places where this character prediction routine doesn't operate, such as when you're typing into password dialogs and short text boxes in Web pages. But when typing into large text boxes, like the Comment boxes on these blog posts, the "neat" problem returns.

I looked around online after discovering the problem with "Quattro" and found very few references to the problem. However, one page on the Mobile Computer magazine site ("Is the iPhone's predictive text too clever for its own good?") has not only an explanation but a video of the problem. That's also where I learned about "neat," which is the worst case I've seen so far--a perfectly good, common word that you just can't type into an iPhone.

I figure this issue deserves wider attention, hence this post. I've also asked a few people I know with iPhones to test the problem. Two people with 3G models saw exactly the same behavior. One person with a first-generation model didn't. If your phone doesn't behave as I've described here, add a comment below to let me know.

This is the second part to my early analysis of the new Kindle DX large-format e-book reader. In the first post ("Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: Overview") I discussed the physical and software features of the new device. In the third post, "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-textbooks", I'll talk about how the DX will fit into the educational market.

The new Kindle DX is larger than the Kindle 2 with more than twice the screen resolution.

(Credit: Amazon.com)

But here, let's talk about the DX's suitability for reading electronic newspapers.

Newspapers are about text, and there's only a moderate need for interactivity. For each story, the reader views the headline and perhaps skims the opening paragraph, and if it doesn't look interesting, moves on to the next story.

Even with these relatively undemanding requirements, the Kindle DX isn't as good for reading newspapers as a real newspaper. We're all used to the ability to glance over a full newspaper page worth of articles at once. You can't do that with the Kindle.

This issue boils down to the amount of time we spend reading articles vs. the amount of time we spend glancing at headlines and turning pages. Call that the "reading ratio." A real newspaper offers a very high reading ratio even if we're not reading much of the paper, because it takes so little time to flip through the pages looking for articles to read.

On the Kindle DX, the ratio will depend very heavily on how much of the paper we're reading. For those who just read through the whole paper, the ratio can be fairly high, probably 90 percent or better. It'll still be lower than a real newspaper because it takes a certain amount of time to turn the virtual pages of the Kindle, and page turning is much more frequent.

(Demonstration videos seem to show that page turning takes about the same amount of time on the DX as on the earlier Kindles.)

For those who read only a fraction of the stories in the day's paper, the reading ratio of the Kindle DX will be much worse than a real newspaper because the experience will be dominated by page turning. Since most of us can't simply increase the amount of time we spend reading the paper each day, I'm afraid that the Kindle approach to e-news will actually reduce the amount of news we read.

It's also worth comparing the Kindle e-news experience with that of the iPhone and a laptop. These devices have active displays with fast update rates, greatly reducing the page-turning delays. I use The New York Times application on my iPhone pretty regularly (once or twice a week, at least), and it's really quite easy to flick through the day's top stories, which appear on the iPhone with the headline, a thumbnail photo, and usually about half of the lede.

On the other hand, the delay to read the story itself is quite long, since the Times' iPhone software is not designed to pre-load the stories, as the Kindle does. The iPhone takes about 10 seconds to bring up a story once selected, but once it's in, there are no further delays. The rest of the story scrolls past as fast as I want to flick through it.

At home, on my laptop, The New York Times Web site is even faster. It's easy to skim the titles and ledes of about a dozen stories on the main page for each "section," and loading a story takes no more than a second or two. Once loaded, again, there are no further delays.

The Kindle DX simply can't deliver that kind of e-news experience because the screen technology is inherently too slow to support scrolling or fast page-turning.

In fact, it looks like the Kindle DX isn't even taking full advantage of its own capabilities. The newspaper interface is very basic: one wide column of text, not the multiple narrow columns that help us skim through real newspapers. I wonder why?

But again, I think the DX will do an adequate job for people who like to read most of the day's news stories. How much of the market that is, I can't guess, but I suspect it's a higher fraction among older, wealthier customers.

(Now, continue on to "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-textbooks", or return to "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: Overview".)

This is the third part to my early analysis of the new Kindle DX large-format e-book reader. In the first post ("Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: Overview") I discussed the physical and software features of the new device. In the second post, "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-news", I described the limitations of the DX for news reading.

The textbook market represents an even greater challenge for the Kindle DX. There's a lot of variety among textbooks. Some textbooks will work well enough on the DX's display, but most, I think, will not.

The new Kindle DX is larger than the Kindle 2 with over twice the screen resolution.

(Credit: Amazon.com, Inc.)

I think the key issues here are how each textbook is used, and what kind of illustrations are present in it.

Textbooks that are fundamentally like collections of stories, such as those in sociology, history, and literature, will likely be most suitable for use as e-books. These texts are read sequentially, so that the reading ratio (the time spent reading vs. the time spent finding the next thing to read or waiting for the display to update) can be high, and they can usually be written so as not to rely on complex color illustrations. (Though complex color illustrations are still valuable, and the Kindle DX doesn't support them.)

Texts for the natural and formal sciences will not work so well.

A biology textbook without color is almost inconceivable, except that if you have a Kindle, it's pretty easy to see how that works. Just download the sample for the Kindle edition of Steven Daniel Garber's "Biology: A Self-Teaching Guide".

Right up front, you'll get a hint that all may not be well. The e-book includes a disclaimer: "Due to the nature of digital conversion, some of the images included in this e-book may lack the detail and clarity of the originals."

And indeed, that's true. Much of the fine detail that would be visible in a printed copy of this book is lost here. Remember, textbooks are commonly printed on offset presses with more than ten times the linear resolution of a Kindle display.

And even if a reader were willing to zoom in to see the fine detail on an illustration (and if the Kindle DX allows it, which the earlier Kindle models often don't), the lack of color is utterly crippling. Biology textbooks rely on photomicrographs of cells in which subtle color gradations are essential to understanding the cell structure.

Perhaps some of these figures could be replaced by line drawings carefully crafted to communicate the same facts without relying on color, but some photographs are irreplaceable.

And line drawings have their own problems. I downloaded the Kindle sample version of "History of the Ancient World" by Susan Wise Bauer and looked at the book's maps on my Kindle. Some are fine, but many have notations that are virtually illegible at a normal reading distance, to the point where I can be sure that 50% more linear resolution isn't going to help enough.

For math, science, and engineering, I think the Kindle DX will also be inadequate. I remember studying these subjects, and what I remember about using the textbooks is frequently flipping back and forth through the pages to compare new material to old and find the applicable explanations and formulas when answering review questions at the end of each chapter.

The Kindle DX simply doesn't support page flipping. Backing up twenty pages takes two seconds with a paper textbook, but most of a minute on a Kindle.

Amazon has made deals with several major publishers to bring texts to the Kindle DX, and with several major universities to support the DX in some classes next fall. These are encouraging announcements, but these are just experiments, not evidence of the DX's suitability.

I'll be interested to see whether Amazon, its publishing partners, and these universities initially limit themselves to the low-hanging fruit in history and literature classes, or go after some of the more challenging courses.

Ultimately, I don't think any e-book reader is really the right answer for educational use. The better solution is to adapt textbooks and other educational materials such as exams to notebook computers, which can support more types of content (including full-motion video) and provide valuable interactivity.

And the even better answer, in the long run, is to develop systems that are even more tightly focused on education, with long-life batteries, rugged construction, and specific software and hardware features that aren't generally found in laptop PCs. I've been studying this problem for a long time (since I was in college myself!) and if there's interest, I'll go into more detail in a future post.

As expected, Amazon rolled out its new large-screen e-book reader, the Kindle DX. See Caroline McCarthy's coverage of the announcement here on CNET: "Amazon's big-screen Kindle DX makes its debut." I've spent much of the day reviewing the available information, and here are my first thoughts on the announcement.

Inevitably, the DX isn't exactly what I expected when I wrote my predictions earlier this week ("What to expect from Amazon and Apple"), but I got most of the major points right.

The new Kindle DX is larger than the Kindle 2 with over twice the screen resolution.

(Credit: Amazon.com, Inc.)

Here are the basic facts:

It's 7.2" wide and 10.4" tall, just a little smaller than I expected. With so many things in our lives adapted to the size of a standard 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper, it seems to me that would have been a better target for the DX. (Internationally, A4 paper serves the same purpose at 8.3 x 11.7 inches, so perhaps 8.3 x 11.0 inches would have been a good compromise.)

The DX's monochrome E Ink display is much smaller than I was hoping for, only 9.7" diagonal. Like the original Kindle, much of the space on the front of the unit is occupied by page-turning buttons and a physical keyboard.

The screen has 1,200 x 824 pixels, about the number on the LCD of a 12" Dell Latitude E4200 laptop, so the Kindle DX's linear resolution is significantly higher than that of most notebook displays. However, it's about 10% lower than that of the 6" E Ink display on the Kindle 2 (150 dpi vs. 167 dpi).

As Amazon says, the DX's display is about 2.5 times larger than the Kindle 2's screen. But that's in square inches. In pixels, it's only 50% taller and 37% wider.

That's a key point, I think, because of the markets Amazon says the DX was developed for: newspapers and textbooks. I'll deal with these topics in two subsequent posts ("Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-news" and "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-textbooks").

The Kindle DX does have a few unique advantages over the earlier Kindles. It supports rotation, providing a landscape display mode, a feature long available on Sony's Reader. Also like the Sony Reader, the DX has PDF support. On the Reader, PDF documents support zooming to a certain point, but even when zoomed in all the way in landscape mode, illustrations in PDFs of technical books are often unreadable. I expect the same will be true of the Kindle DX.

Oddly, Amazon isn't retrofitting these features to the Kindle 2. The Kindle 2 may lack the position sensor that makes rotation automatic on the Kindle DX, but it could still allow manual rotation. PDF support should be even easier to add.

Perhaps Amazon is holding these features back from the Kindle 2 to promote sales of the DX, but if so, I think that's extremely short-sighted.

Although it isn't particularly a Kindle DX feature, I'll mention something disappointing that I came across while browsing through Amazon's Kindle pages just now. Since the Kindle was launched, users have been able to email documents in various formats such as Word, HTML, PDF, and JPEG to their Kindles to name@kindle.com, where they go through an Amazon server that converts them, if necessary, into a Kindle-friendly format and downloads them automatically to the user's Kindle.

The fee for this super-convenient conversion and download service was ten cents per document. But now, Amazon charges $0.15 per megabyte, rounded up to the next megabyte. For PDF files and image-rich Word documents that exceed a megabyte in size-- a common situation-- the cost of this convenience has tripled or worse. Fortunately, Amazon still supports the "name@free.kindle.com" method, which results in the converted documents showing up in the user's email, from where they can be manually moved to the Kindle via USB.

I'm surprised that Amazon didn't equip the DX with an improved web browser. As far as I can tell, the DX has the same browser as the Kindle 2. It's still called "experimental," at least. The screen size of the Kindle 2 (800 x 600 pixels) is a little on the small side for effective web browsing, but the Kindle DX's screen is big enough to display almost any web page, especially in landscape mode.

Now, I'll move on to the two new markets for which the Kindle DX was developed. See "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-news" and "Early analysis of Amazon's Kindle DX: E-textbooks".

The New York Times reported this weekend, in an article titled "Looking to Big-Screen E-Readers to Help Save the Daily Press," that Amazon.com is on the verge of introducing a new larger-screen Kindle e-book reader.

A blog post from CNET's David Carnoy ("Amazon to introduce larger Kindle this week?") says that Amazon has scheduled a press event for Wednesday that may be the venue for this announcement.

The larger Kindle (which I think of as a "Kindle Pro," although I really have no idea what Amazon might call it) should be about the size of the Plastic Logic e-book reader I've written about here ("E-books: The flexible future"), with a screen in the 12-inch-diagonal range. Apart from the larger display, it's expected to work just like the current Kindle 2, sharing its paper-like E Ink display and software, perhaps with another round of improvements that could apply to the Kindle 2 as well.

Carnoy also mentions the recent spate of rumors that Apple will be introducing a new "media pad" this spring or summer--rumors he covered in an earlier piece ("Apple prepping two wireless devices with Verizon?"). This gizmo (I'll call it the iPad, following the lead of some other stories on this subject) is said to be smaller than a Kindle 2, but with a larger screen--a combination not difficult to achieve given the Kindle 2's large keyboard.

Amazon's Kindle 2 e-book reader

(Credit: Amazon.com)

That suggests dimensions around 5 inches by 8 inches with a 7-inch screen, similar to the Viliv X70 I wrote about in January ("The mobile Internet device: In search of itself").

As I noted at the time, the Viliv X70 is actually a little smaller than the Apple Newton MessagePad 2100 I carried for seven years during my time with the Microprocessor Report newsletter.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about the relative merits of these two device types, so I figured I'd go on record here before Amazon and Apple make their announcements and try to explain what kind of applications and customers will be the best fit for each type.

Here are the major differences I expect to see:

• Displays. Monochrome E Ink for Kindle Pro. Color LCD for the iPad.

• Size. About 8.5 inches by 11 inches for Kindle Pro. About 5 inches by 8 inches for the iPad (less than half the size).

• Software. Amazon's port of Linux for Kindle Pro. Apple's port of Mac OS X for the iPad.

• Media types. E-book and audio support for Kindle Pro. Video, audio, and e-books on the iPad.

Everything else follows from the display choice. I've seen E Ink's color prototypes with video-friendly update rates, but they can't match the quality of an LCD, and I wouldn't watch a TV show on one. I don't expect to see a fast color display on the new Kindle.

With a larger but otherwise familiar monochrome E Ink display, the new member of the Kindle family will not be able to play video or support a wide range of PC or smartphone applications (regardless of the underlying software), at least not with results that would be acceptable to most users.

Still, the smaller display expected to appear on Apple's media pad could handle lightly modified iPhone applications, but the need for a backlight means it can't match the low-power characteristics of an E Ink display. An iPad might get only four to six hours of operation on a charge--enough for a couple of movies and some gaming, but that's about it.

That's probably enough, though. A laptop might be used all day at work and for hours in the evening, but few people would spend that much time staring at a 7-inch LCD. I expect Apple has done its research, designing in a battery just large enough to satisfy most users without making the iPad (or whatever they actually call it) any bigger or heavier than necessary.

One thing I'm really not sure about is whether the iPad will be based on an x86 processor like Apple's MacBooks or an ARM processor like the iPhone. If the iPad was a Windows machine, there'd be no question: x86 all the way, to provide compatibility with Windows 7. Windows Mobile just doesn't have the features or the third-party app support to compete.

But Apple's done a fine job adapting Mac OS X to the iPhone platform, and with iPhone OS 3.0 coming soon, this would be a fine time to apply this OS to devices other than the iPhone and iPod Touch.

The iPad's likely superior variety of software gives it an inherently larger market, but the Kindle Pro's focus on text display could still make it the preferred choice for e-books.

Newspapers--the ostensible reason for a big-screen Kindle--are an interesting in-between case, though. Reading a newspaper isn't like reading a novel. It's a far more interactive process. Most newspaper readers generally don't proceed from the first word of the first story all the way through the last word of the last story; they skim headlines and opening paragraphs and pick only some articles to read fully.

The still-hypothetical Kindle Pro would do a better job of displaying newspaper-style content than the current Kindle 2. Readers would have more headlines to choose from and more text to read between the relatively slow page turns. But the process still can't be as quick as it is with a real newspaper. If newspapers are part of the plan, I hope Amazon has figured out how to take full advantage of the Kindle's underlying compute platform, for example, with intelligent article sorting and highlighting against keyword lists. Will it be good enough? I can't predict that, but we may find out soon.

One rumor I simply don't believe is that the new Kindle might also handle textbooks. Even an 12-inch E Ink display doesn't have enough resolution for most of the textbooks and technical books I've seen. The fine details in figures and the fine print in captions and equations simply wouldn't work out. Also, color would be absolutely necessary for that application, and E Ink's color displays have lower resolution than the monochrome versions. In theory, publishers could be willing to create Kindle-optimized editions from scratch, but I just don't see the business case for such a deal. So I think textbooks are out of the question.

In the long run, I think it'll be possible to merge these two products into one device that can do a good job with text and still support movies and full-featured software. OLED displays consume energy only for "on" pixels, so text display is much more efficient than on an LCD, yet OLEDs can update fast enough for television. (I wrote about OLED and e-paper displays here a couple of years ago; see "Displays have a long way to go".)

In the meantime, the market will remain divided between e-book readers and media players, so watch the news and make your choice. Or just keep reading books and watching TV--there's nothing wrong with that!