Apple's new iPhone has an improved camera, which is great. Underneath the hood, developers can get access to the camera to use in their own applications, which will lead to some neat stuff beyond just taking pictures. But what I thought about while watching the keynote was that while cameras on phones continue to improve, cameras themselves are still bound to a closed operating system bundled with the camera. Occasionally there are firmware updates, and in the past there have been hacked versions of firmware for cameras that unlocked features that manufacturers chose not to include.
Having a development platform that gives access to the camera allows for such things as custom processing (aka Camerabag) or more sophisticated stuff such as follow focus for video recording. Thinking of a camera as a development platform is an intriguing idea that has been explored in the past - both Kodak and Apple shipped cameras that developers could write apps for (such as the DC265 etc), but that idea never really caught on. It may be a neat trick to be able to run Doom on a phone, but really - is that really that compelling? Evidentially not.
I think that is about to change. Again - the gap between point and shoot cameras and cell phones is closing - and it won't be much longer before many people will simply not buy a new point and shoot, since their phone will do as good a job - and can get new features via the App store. This is certainly the case with me - I love my Fuji point and shoot with it's great EXR mode (instant HDR photography) but I am expecting that my new iPhone will do much the same thing - and much more. Sure - I will halve the number of pixels of my camera - but at least 70% of the pictures I take now are with my old iPhone 3G.
I am not predicting the demise of point and shoots - there are always compelling reasons to have devices optimized for tasks - but it going to be a challenge to make buying that new sub-$200 camera a compelling choice. The maxim is true - the best camera is the one you have with you. Indeed.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
One Month with an iPad
I was fortunate enough be given an iPad through work. It was easy to justify based on what I do for a living. The reality was that I was prepared to buy one for myself, so I am sitting on the money to do just that at a later date.
-We haven't seen a significant change in how we interact with computers since the keyboard and mouse (a late 1960's invention). We can point to tablet PC's as the early innovators, but ultimately that isn't true. They did feature pointing devices and a flat screen, but the operating system and user interface was pretty much the same interface that was designed for a keyboard and mouse. There was little or no attempt to rethink how something would work without a physical keyboard. Like many things Apple, the iPhone/iPad is not as revolutionary as profoundly evolutionary. With the iPad developers now have a successful model for how a touch interface can work on a tablet. This is good for everyone.
-The iPad represents the shift from computer platform to computing appliance. There are many examples of this now, but the iPad represents the most blatant. The Tivo is a computing appliance in that it runs an operating system, has a processor, ram and storage, and a modest amount of 3rd party support. However, unlike a personal computer, it is a "closed" environment that not just anyone can write for. Videogame systems, to some extent, represent the same idea. It is possible to hack these to run 3rd party applications, but it's really not the intended use. The iPad represents a further shift in this idea, whether someone agrees with it or not.
-There are notable gaps in the experience. Flash is the most hotly contested. It is a disservice to not support embedded flash applications in the browser. There are legitimate technical reasons to exclude flash, but at the end of the day I would have included Flash application support in the browser, but not necessarily for stand-alone apps. As for flash as a video player - I think that bird has flown. The HTML video tag has too many benefits to not adopt it. The "which format" issue will sort itself out - I root for the open source alternatives - but the pragmatist in me says that h264 will win - hardware acceleration, better tools, more content.
-Battery life on the device is a game-changer. I am watching my battery go down on my macbook right no, but on the iPad I am forgetting to check because the battery life is so phenomenal. It will be a deciding factor for some as they consider buying a tablet.
-Some applications really shine on the device. My music apps (such as megasynth, bebot etc) work fantastically on the iPad - megasynth has become something that is actually more than just a novelty - truly useful. I can't see what midi support for it could be like. I am running these in pixel doubled mode, but the double size make it more useful. I look forward to seeing what kinds of graphic applications show up on the device.
It will take about a year before the other manufacturers begin to ship truly competitive products to the iPad. HP's purchase of Palm (and WebOS) has some attraction. Most of the tablets out now are using hardware that is not nearly as power efficient - just netbooks in a different form factor. Price will be a factor - but just like is the case with netbooks - there is definitely a price/peformance tipping point. The $150 netbooks aren't selling because they are too underpowered for what people want them for. A $200 tablet versus a $350 tablet may be a world of difference. Apple figured this out.
-We haven't seen a significant change in how we interact with computers since the keyboard and mouse (a late 1960's invention). We can point to tablet PC's as the early innovators, but ultimately that isn't true. They did feature pointing devices and a flat screen, but the operating system and user interface was pretty much the same interface that was designed for a keyboard and mouse. There was little or no attempt to rethink how something would work without a physical keyboard. Like many things Apple, the iPhone/iPad is not as revolutionary as profoundly evolutionary. With the iPad developers now have a successful model for how a touch interface can work on a tablet. This is good for everyone.
-The iPad represents the shift from computer platform to computing appliance. There are many examples of this now, but the iPad represents the most blatant. The Tivo is a computing appliance in that it runs an operating system, has a processor, ram and storage, and a modest amount of 3rd party support. However, unlike a personal computer, it is a "closed" environment that not just anyone can write for. Videogame systems, to some extent, represent the same idea. It is possible to hack these to run 3rd party applications, but it's really not the intended use. The iPad represents a further shift in this idea, whether someone agrees with it or not.
-There are notable gaps in the experience. Flash is the most hotly contested. It is a disservice to not support embedded flash applications in the browser. There are legitimate technical reasons to exclude flash, but at the end of the day I would have included Flash application support in the browser, but not necessarily for stand-alone apps. As for flash as a video player - I think that bird has flown. The HTML video tag has too many benefits to not adopt it. The "which format" issue will sort itself out - I root for the open source alternatives - but the pragmatist in me says that h264 will win - hardware acceleration, better tools, more content.
-Battery life on the device is a game-changer. I am watching my battery go down on my macbook right no, but on the iPad I am forgetting to check because the battery life is so phenomenal. It will be a deciding factor for some as they consider buying a tablet.
-Some applications really shine on the device. My music apps (such as megasynth, bebot etc) work fantastically on the iPad - megasynth has become something that is actually more than just a novelty - truly useful. I can't see what midi support for it could be like. I am running these in pixel doubled mode, but the double size make it more useful. I look forward to seeing what kinds of graphic applications show up on the device.
It will take about a year before the other manufacturers begin to ship truly competitive products to the iPad. HP's purchase of Palm (and WebOS) has some attraction. Most of the tablets out now are using hardware that is not nearly as power efficient - just netbooks in a different form factor. Price will be a factor - but just like is the case with netbooks - there is definitely a price/peformance tipping point. The $150 netbooks aren't selling because they are too underpowered for what people want them for. A $200 tablet versus a $350 tablet may be a world of difference. Apple figured this out.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
3D as the next medium
With the onset of home 3D television sets, and the commercially successful use of 3D in feature films, we will see another shift in medium - as was with film, radio, television and youtube. We recognize how artifacts of each of these impacted the other, and when we consider 3D, the early utilization of it will be to mimic what has come before. 3D television and film are an extension of existing methodologies and composition, but soon enough a new visual language will be developed to accompany what this technology will bring us.
I think, given the pervasive use of digital media tools, and the imminent release of consumer 3D cameras, we will see content that has only a tenuous relationship with what came before. It will become more than film in 3D.
The addition of spacial beyond the use of the lens will have a profound emotional impact on how we participate as viewers - indeed the line between audience and performer can be and will be blurred. Our perception of our world will be forever changed; these ghost-projections that exist in visual space, but are but wisps of light. In time, of course, we will be comfortable with them, see them as another part of our everyday life.
What dawned on me (thanks to a email from my nephew Dane) was how quickly this is happening. There are several competing technologies - which is unfortunate, but an inevitable of free market. Wax cylinders vs records, betamax vs vhs, the numerous standards for HDTV; we see this happen again and again. Sometimes we see a convergence around a single technology, such as the ascension of mpeg4/h264 as a defacto standard for web video (either via html5, flash or quicktime).
I am fairly excited about this. There will be a tremendous surge in the next few years as we move to this new medium, away from the gimmickry to the opportunities which will be available once the technology is commonplace. My nephew talks about capturing the best minds of time for the ages; I think that will be a great place to start (think TED in 3D). Performance art, documentaries, artifacts of our lives recorded forever - it seems to me to be the next leap. I think I need to be there.
I think, given the pervasive use of digital media tools, and the imminent release of consumer 3D cameras, we will see content that has only a tenuous relationship with what came before. It will become more than film in 3D.
The addition of spacial beyond the use of the lens will have a profound emotional impact on how we participate as viewers - indeed the line between audience and performer can be and will be blurred. Our perception of our world will be forever changed; these ghost-projections that exist in visual space, but are but wisps of light. In time, of course, we will be comfortable with them, see them as another part of our everyday life.
What dawned on me (thanks to a email from my nephew Dane) was how quickly this is happening. There are several competing technologies - which is unfortunate, but an inevitable of free market. Wax cylinders vs records, betamax vs vhs, the numerous standards for HDTV; we see this happen again and again. Sometimes we see a convergence around a single technology, such as the ascension of mpeg4/h264 as a defacto standard for web video (either via html5, flash or quicktime).
I am fairly excited about this. There will be a tremendous surge in the next few years as we move to this new medium, away from the gimmickry to the opportunities which will be available once the technology is commonplace. My nephew talks about capturing the best minds of time for the ages; I think that will be a great place to start (think TED in 3D). Performance art, documentaries, artifacts of our lives recorded forever - it seems to me to be the next leap. I think I need to be there.
Monday, February 01, 2010
Flash, iPad and publication
IEEE weighs in on the iPad
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/01/29/behind-the-adobe-apple-cold-war/
A very long posting follows. Sorry.
-Flash has grown from a nice vector animation program with some handy scriptability into an application development environment. In the process, a lot of what made sense before doesn't. To make an app for Flash, you first have to add an event to a timeline. Inside that one frame can live all of your application code. It is incredibly loopy. The programming environment itself has been plagued with bugs. I speak from experience here.
-Flash is indeed a memory and CPU pig. That is why Adobe developed Flash Lite, which is what many of these smartphones will be running. Adobe has a "device central" environment to help developers. I would prefer this on the iPhone etc although some might complain - it is enough though to write games, and I think stream video.
-Apple is put a lot of it's focus on retail revenue. The stores (online and real) are profitable. They have developed this incredible ecosystem that everyone wants to emulate (including Microsoft, Google, Palm, Amazon, etc.). Flash cuts into this - you can have flash games running from web pages, effectively cutting Apple out for some things - although the best experiences will always be native applications that can effectively use Apple's hardware and software underpinnings. Some of the apps are big as well.
I think an excellent compromise would be a version of flashlite that allows for basic embedded functionality - playback of video, slideshows etc, but greatly limiting other flash development.
I really do think Apple needs to address this because it significantly damages the iPad web experience. Seeing lots of pages with blue lego blocks leaves the customer going "why doesn't this work?".
Other than this, and a missing video camera for web conferencing, I am satisfied with the iPad. I read the iEEE spectrum article you mention, and the focus was on "is this a Kindle killer". That is really not the right question. Can the iPad be used read books satisfactorily? That remains to be seen. My guess is that it will be "fine" - not astonishing good - not necessarily a replacement for real books for those that are picky - but good enough to make it comfortable.
Really - the question is - is it something that people will buy? Tablet computers have been a "holy grail" since Alan Kay's dynabook, but no one has figured out the right balance of functionality. Apple tried it before and failed. In my estimation, Microsoft has failed as well - the most popular tablet pc's are those that are "convertible" - essentially laptops with a writable screen that required a stylus to use. Microsoft didn't go far enough to ditch Windows interface for something that was pen-centric - at the risk of alienating hard-core Windows users - but making a device that ultimately could be more compelling.
Apple took what they learned from the iPhone and applied it to a new device. Exactly the thing to do, despite what all the pundits say. There are a lot of iPhone developers that suddenly have a new device to write for without having to learn a bunch of new stuff. I think we will see some very innovative software for the device, since a bigger surface opens more possibilities. I am amazed at times at what developers have done with the little screen on the iPhone - this will let them take it to a whole new level.
The hype was so much that it would have been impossible for Apple to deliver on it. OLED displays in the size that Apple needed are crazy expensive. It would have killed the product/platform immediately. Something more powerful would have been heavier and had a shorter power life - 10 hours is pretty compelling. Handwriting recognition has never really been there - remember graffiti - you had to learn it's characters - instead of the device learning yours.
I guess I am writing so much about this because it is not so much the iPad itself - it is the potential change in the periodical market it could help usher in. I will actually start subscribing to magazines again if I can avoid the paper - my subscription to Automobile is a mere $12.00 a year - I would pay that exact same amount in a digital form. While the pundits say that "no one will pay for content ever again", that is quite untrue. People still buy music, still watch movies; some even still buy a newspaper. I think a compelling case can be made for a digital publication that features quality writing that has gone through a editorial process, excellent graphics and photographs, and - on top of all that - a modest amount of interactivity and dynamic content. Plus they can still sell Ads - I am fine with that.
This is important to me because I think at some point someone has to get paid. People say "newspapers are dead", and think they are being profound - but the reality is that most of the news they read on the internet was written by a professional journalist that works for a publication - they are simply getting the second-hand version of it through their favorite blogs or web sites.
I want to see all of these writers, photographers, editors, researchers and artists get paid for their work - what they do is even more important than ever before. If paper publications go away (and they will) there has to be some model that can support something more than a blog full of someone's opinions.
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2010/01/29/behind-the-adobe-apple-cold-war/
A very long posting follows. Sorry.
-Flash has grown from a nice vector animation program with some handy scriptability into an application development environment. In the process, a lot of what made sense before doesn't. To make an app for Flash, you first have to add an event to a timeline. Inside that one frame can live all of your application code. It is incredibly loopy. The programming environment itself has been plagued with bugs. I speak from experience here.
-Flash is indeed a memory and CPU pig. That is why Adobe developed Flash Lite, which is what many of these smartphones will be running. Adobe has a "device central" environment to help developers. I would prefer this on the iPhone etc although some might complain - it is enough though to write games, and I think stream video.
-Apple is put a lot of it's focus on retail revenue. The stores (online and real) are profitable. They have developed this incredible ecosystem that everyone wants to emulate (including Microsoft, Google, Palm, Amazon, etc.). Flash cuts into this - you can have flash games running from web pages, effectively cutting Apple out for some things - although the best experiences will always be native applications that can effectively use Apple's hardware and software underpinnings. Some of the apps are big as well.
I think an excellent compromise would be a version of flashlite that allows for basic embedded functionality - playback of video, slideshows etc, but greatly limiting other flash development.
I really do think Apple needs to address this because it significantly damages the iPad web experience. Seeing lots of pages with blue lego blocks leaves the customer going "why doesn't this work?".
Other than this, and a missing video camera for web conferencing, I am satisfied with the iPad. I read the iEEE spectrum article you mention, and the focus was on "is this a Kindle killer". That is really not the right question. Can the iPad be used read books satisfactorily? That remains to be seen. My guess is that it will be "fine" - not astonishing good - not necessarily a replacement for real books for those that are picky - but good enough to make it comfortable.
Really - the question is - is it something that people will buy? Tablet computers have been a "holy grail" since Alan Kay's dynabook, but no one has figured out the right balance of functionality. Apple tried it before and failed. In my estimation, Microsoft has failed as well - the most popular tablet pc's are those that are "convertible" - essentially laptops with a writable screen that required a stylus to use. Microsoft didn't go far enough to ditch Windows interface for something that was pen-centric - at the risk of alienating hard-core Windows users - but making a device that ultimately could be more compelling.
Apple took what they learned from the iPhone and applied it to a new device. Exactly the thing to do, despite what all the pundits say. There are a lot of iPhone developers that suddenly have a new device to write for without having to learn a bunch of new stuff. I think we will see some very innovative software for the device, since a bigger surface opens more possibilities. I am amazed at times at what developers have done with the little screen on the iPhone - this will let them take it to a whole new level.
The hype was so much that it would have been impossible for Apple to deliver on it. OLED displays in the size that Apple needed are crazy expensive. It would have killed the product/platform immediately. Something more powerful would have been heavier and had a shorter power life - 10 hours is pretty compelling. Handwriting recognition has never really been there - remember graffiti - you had to learn it's characters - instead of the device learning yours.
I guess I am writing so much about this because it is not so much the iPad itself - it is the potential change in the periodical market it could help usher in. I will actually start subscribing to magazines again if I can avoid the paper - my subscription to Automobile is a mere $12.00 a year - I would pay that exact same amount in a digital form. While the pundits say that "no one will pay for content ever again", that is quite untrue. People still buy music, still watch movies; some even still buy a newspaper. I think a compelling case can be made for a digital publication that features quality writing that has gone through a editorial process, excellent graphics and photographs, and - on top of all that - a modest amount of interactivity and dynamic content. Plus they can still sell Ads - I am fine with that.
This is important to me because I think at some point someone has to get paid. People say "newspapers are dead", and think they are being profound - but the reality is that most of the news they read on the internet was written by a professional journalist that works for a publication - they are simply getting the second-hand version of it through their favorite blogs or web sites.
I want to see all of these writers, photographers, editors, researchers and artists get paid for their work - what they do is even more important than ever before. If paper publications go away (and they will) there has to be some model that can support something more than a blog full of someone's opinions.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
iPad
There is already a lot that has been said about Apple's new tablet. A surprising amount of it is negative. Or perhaps, it isn't that surprising given all the conflicting wishes that people had for this device.
The history of the tablet based computing devices has been in itself underwhelming. It is a conceptual device that has a certain amount of visceral appeal, but the compelling functionality and cost hasn't been there. Apple tried once with the Newton, and learned a lot from the experience.
It is very hard to deploy a new user interface that employs new modalities for use. Newton's concept that everything was a database is a very forward thinking idea (and is still somewhat alive in apple's search technology) but required some shift in thinking. Microsoft chose to simply deploy a "tablet enhanced" version of windows as it's solution, which buried the devices with design decisions that assumed a keyboard and mouse, thus the predominance of "convertible" tablet/laptop devices. Pure Windows based tablets with no keyboard simply aren't that popular (I know, I had one and gave it away).
Apple wisely built on what they already do well. The iPad really is just a bigger iphone/itouch. I have heard many complaints about that. Apple has a methodology where it appears that their products are often revolutionary, but in essence they are not - they are simply the result of informed design decisions and paying attention to what and does not work - learning from other's mistakes. There were many digital music players before the iPod, but Apple made a critical decision to not just make the device a pleasure to use, but more importantly - provide a sensible way for users to manage their content on their devices via a computer. Most of the software that shipped with other players, and even microsoft's own media management software, was dreadful. To Microsoft's credit, it has improved quite a bit - but only because Apple pushed them to do it.
There are a tremendous number of potential developers for the device. For some, it will mean nothing more than tweaking code. For others, the additional screen area will allow them to do things that they previously could not have imagined. No one has start over, and the clearly defined interaction and look and feel guidelines in place, combined with a good development environment and a way to directly market your applications makes the device even more attractive.
The tablet is not a replacement for a laptop. Everyone has tried to make that happen and has failed. Apple made the intelligent choice to not make a diluted device that tries to serve many needs, but does none of those well. Pricing in this light is critical; it can't cost the same as a laptop because people won't buy it. As it is, it is a bit too expensive for a device that competes with a laptop for someone's dollars.
I own a desktop, a laptop and a netbook. I will be replacing the netbook with an iTablet because it more closely maps to what I was using the netbook for, which was couch surfing, taking a lightweight and compact device with me that could display web pages better than my iPhone, and looking at images I just show with my camera. For these limited (but frequently used on my part) needs, the iTablet actually fits the bill.
It doesn't have multitasking. That requires more horsepower, which equates with less battery life and additional cost. Limited background tasking would be nice though, and it is not a foregone conclusion that this won't show up at some point. It doesn't have a camera, which I wish it had for teleconferencing.
I do look forward to see what Apple does in publication space. I hope to be able to subscribe to digital version of magazines for the device. Part of my hesitancy in subscribing to magazines these days is the paper. I am willing to pay for access to high quality, editorially vetted content - beyond the stuff I can already get from blogs for free - which is of widely variable quality. I want high quality imagery and good writing from someone who truly knows their subject, and has made writing about these subjects their primary career. There is a decided difference here - and I am optimistic that people will pay for it, just like they will pay for professionally performed music and film/video.
I do think everyone who is crashingly negative about the iPad is jumping the gun. They haven't even touched one yet. It needs to be given a year or so to see where it settles. It may never be the major success story that the iPod/iPhone has, but my guess is that it will sell fairly well.
I plan on buying one.
The history of the tablet based computing devices has been in itself underwhelming. It is a conceptual device that has a certain amount of visceral appeal, but the compelling functionality and cost hasn't been there. Apple tried once with the Newton, and learned a lot from the experience.
It is very hard to deploy a new user interface that employs new modalities for use. Newton's concept that everything was a database is a very forward thinking idea (and is still somewhat alive in apple's search technology) but required some shift in thinking. Microsoft chose to simply deploy a "tablet enhanced" version of windows as it's solution, which buried the devices with design decisions that assumed a keyboard and mouse, thus the predominance of "convertible" tablet/laptop devices. Pure Windows based tablets with no keyboard simply aren't that popular (I know, I had one and gave it away).
Apple wisely built on what they already do well. The iPad really is just a bigger iphone/itouch. I have heard many complaints about that. Apple has a methodology where it appears that their products are often revolutionary, but in essence they are not - they are simply the result of informed design decisions and paying attention to what and does not work - learning from other's mistakes. There were many digital music players before the iPod, but Apple made a critical decision to not just make the device a pleasure to use, but more importantly - provide a sensible way for users to manage their content on their devices via a computer. Most of the software that shipped with other players, and even microsoft's own media management software, was dreadful. To Microsoft's credit, it has improved quite a bit - but only because Apple pushed them to do it.
There are a tremendous number of potential developers for the device. For some, it will mean nothing more than tweaking code. For others, the additional screen area will allow them to do things that they previously could not have imagined. No one has start over, and the clearly defined interaction and look and feel guidelines in place, combined with a good development environment and a way to directly market your applications makes the device even more attractive.
The tablet is not a replacement for a laptop. Everyone has tried to make that happen and has failed. Apple made the intelligent choice to not make a diluted device that tries to serve many needs, but does none of those well. Pricing in this light is critical; it can't cost the same as a laptop because people won't buy it. As it is, it is a bit too expensive for a device that competes with a laptop for someone's dollars.
I own a desktop, a laptop and a netbook. I will be replacing the netbook with an iTablet because it more closely maps to what I was using the netbook for, which was couch surfing, taking a lightweight and compact device with me that could display web pages better than my iPhone, and looking at images I just show with my camera. For these limited (but frequently used on my part) needs, the iTablet actually fits the bill.
It doesn't have multitasking. That requires more horsepower, which equates with less battery life and additional cost. Limited background tasking would be nice though, and it is not a foregone conclusion that this won't show up at some point. It doesn't have a camera, which I wish it had for teleconferencing.
I do look forward to see what Apple does in publication space. I hope to be able to subscribe to digital version of magazines for the device. Part of my hesitancy in subscribing to magazines these days is the paper. I am willing to pay for access to high quality, editorially vetted content - beyond the stuff I can already get from blogs for free - which is of widely variable quality. I want high quality imagery and good writing from someone who truly knows their subject, and has made writing about these subjects their primary career. There is a decided difference here - and I am optimistic that people will pay for it, just like they will pay for professionally performed music and film/video.
I do think everyone who is crashingly negative about the iPad is jumping the gun. They haven't even touched one yet. It needs to be given a year or so to see where it settles. It may never be the major success story that the iPod/iPhone has, but my guess is that it will sell fairly well.
I plan on buying one.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Irony is Dead. Hal has an OLPC.
No kidding. Really. It is just as bad and good as I thought. Tragically already outdated. It is sluggish and at times flaky. And cute as hell.
I am spending time with it to be objective about works and what does not. It is an interesting design challenge, and I admit I can't be totally fair as my adult expectations will color things. I have already been a bit disappointed, and a couple of times been impressed (the way that networking is handled is very clever). I want to take this as an opportunity to step into the heads of the people who put this together and hopefully learn something.
Here's a help ticket worth reading:
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/1053
I am spending time with it to be objective about works and what does not. It is an interesting design challenge, and I admit I can't be totally fair as my adult expectations will color things. I have already been a bit disappointed, and a couple of times been impressed (the way that networking is handled is very clever). I want to take this as an opportunity to step into the heads of the people who put this together and hopefully learn something.
Here's a help ticket worth reading:
http://dev.laptop.org/ticket/1053
Friday, December 11, 2009
It's Sugar, Baby
As you know, I like following the OLPC saga. Sugar Labs, the maker(s) of the UI/Environment for the OLPC has released their new version of Sugar in a form where it can be easily put on an inexpensive flash drive. It will work with just about any PC (and intel Macs). I think it is pretty great, although I am still not quite sold on the Sugar UI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)