Marketnews Gadget Talk 

Apple Stores Might Go Naked

Reports hitting the ‘Net starting yesterday claim that Apple Stores are planning to rid the shelves of protective screen overlays, and any cases that come with protective screen overlays, starting this May. Is it true?

While Apple has not officially commented on the matter (to anyone, not just me!), this hasn't stopped many from pushing ahead with speculation as to why such a move would be made.

Some predict that the move could be in an attempt to avoid perpetuating the perception that the iPhone's screen (and, no doubt, that of the upcoming iPad as well), isn't durable enough on its own, and thus requires added protection. Others think perhaps it has to do with Apple planning to market its own, proprietary product that will be sold through its stores. Another theory: perhaps worry that some products might not meet Apple's standards for quality, and pose the risk of damaging the device's screen. If not damage, maybe the problem is the potential for ruining the clean look of Apple's products via nasty air bubbles or improper adhesion. Or perhaps Apple wants to avoid having third-party products that might interfere with the accuracy of touch response. In other words: Apple products are just fine as they are; no protection required.

Whatever the reason, if this is true, it could be a major blow to manufacturers and distributors. Plenty of cases and wraparound skins now come with screen overlays in their boxes; an appreciated add-on. Does this mean companies now need to take back all those cases, and create separate packaging that doesn't include the screen protector just for The Apple Store? What's more, a quick jaunt through the 2010 International CES this January would have made it pretty apparent that protective skins on their own are all the rage right now, especially for the iPhone; from options like the invisibleSHIELD to case-mate's go Bare protective film.

Note, however, that most articles flooding the Web (if not all) point back to iLounge as the source of this information. It's a pretty reputable Website, but let's take this information with a grain of salt, since it hasn't officially been confirmed by Apple.

Until then, rest assured that you will be able to buy protective skins elsewhere should you want some added protection for your precious Apple gear...regardless of who might think you don't need it.

Published: 03/18/2010 04:37:43 PM UTC By Christine Persaud

Paint it Black

Audiophiles and videophiles can be a little obsessive, endlessly analyzing and assessing various aspects of their favourite gear. The Internet magnifies that tendency, because it makes it easy for 'philes to share their observations - and obsessions.

A recent example involves Panasonic's 2009 plasmas. Last summer, some knowledgeable posters on AVS Forum began discussing a sudden increase in the black levels of certain Panasonic plasma TVs. TVs that had delivered very deep blacks when new now produced blacks that looked greyish. Included in these posts were careful measurements and photographs documenting the change. The story has been picked up by various technology Websites, notably CNET and Ultimate AV.

Panasonic acknowledges the issue. Responding to a CNET inquiry in early February, the company said that the TVs' firmware includes "an automatic control that adjusts the internal driving voltage at preset intervals of operational hours." The intent is to maintain reliable performance and optimal picture quality as the TV ages. The first automatic adjustment occurs after somewhere between 300 and 350 hours of operation. There are other adjustments at later intervals, until the TV is completely stabilized, after about three years of typical use.

Panasonic agrees that the adjustments affect visible black level, but maintains that even after the adjustments are complete, the televisions still deliver excellent performance. These assurances have not been enough to pacify concerned owners of these TVs. In early February, a group of them launched a class-action lawsuit against Panasonic in the U.S. Panasonic's stance is that the TVs work as designed, and so there is "nothing to fix." Panasonic's Canadian subsidiary says it has had service requests on this issue. The change in black level cannot be altered by adjustments to brightness or other controls, or any other kind of calibration.

I reviewed one of the affected televisions last summer. I liked the Panasonic TC-P50V10 well enough to name it (and other models in the series) as one of my Gear of the Year picks for 2009. That television is still in my home theatre, and has accumulated enough hours for it to have had at least one automatic voltage adjustment. In day-to-day viewing (as opposed to reviewing), I have not noticed any increase in black level. But most of my viewing is done in a room with subdued lighting, rather than a completely dark room. After following the story, I was curious to see whether black levels had changed.

Unlike the AVS Forum posters, I hadn't measured Minimum Luminance Level of the TV - the amount of light it produces when the picture is completely black; nor had I photographed the screen on a black picture. But I had taken detailed notes of my viewing impressions on a variety of Blu-ray Discs and recorded HDTV shows. Referring to my notes, I played the same or similar discs (the recorded shows were long gone).

My conclusions: whatever changes in black level have occurred, they are not visible except in a very dark (pitch-black or close) room. Even with subdued room lighting, I don't think they are visible. Nor are the changes in black level apparent with bright program material. At night, with all the lights turned off, it seemed to me that blacks weren't quite as deep on some content. The black bars above and below the picture in dark sections of wide-aspect-ratio movies like Casino Royale were a little greyer than I remembered. I had the same impression in other programs with predominantly dark content, including rolling credits against a black background. But other high-contrast HD content with dark elements on the screen, such as the Shallow Seas episode of Planet Earth, looked every bit as wonderful as I remembered, and as I had recorded in my notes.

I can understand that serious videophiles who do all their viewing in darkened rooms, who seek a truly cinematic experience, and who have invested in one of these TVs after careful research might feel kind of ticked. But most viewers will be delighted even with the shifted black levels.

In the end, there is a time to obsess and a time to enjoy. This controversy has not made me reconsider my choice of the V10 plasma as a Gear of the Year pick, nor has it detracted from my enjoyment of this set whenever I watch it.

Published: 03/16/2010 02:34:48 PM UTC By Gordon Brockhouse

Could Google Be the One to Change China's Censorship Laws?

It seems to be an almost ludicrous assumption, but could online media company Google actually be the one to force China to adjust its penchant for censorship?

Two months ago, I reported that Google was at odds with the Asian country because the Government was censoring search results. A hack into the Gmail system that was traced back to China, however, was the last straw for Google. The company has been dealing with the Chinese Government since, and has threatened to pull its search engine out of the country if the censorship doesn't stop.

The issue is still ongoing, and it remains to be seen what will happen. As noted, it seems unlikely that China will decide censorship is no longer required just to keep Google in the country. But the thought of a country without Google seems almost as strange. Almost.

Of course this is great news for rival services like Microsoft's Bing and Yahoo! But perhaps what we really need is a united front from all these companies to stand up and say "enough is enough" and force China to make changes. After all, without any search engines, how will residents be able to navigate through anything on the World Wide Web? What could happen, however, is that the Government doesn't care, and China becomes disconnected, literally, from the Web. Or worse, the country developers its own, in-country search engine, and censors the information that filters through it even further, limiting the content that people in China can access to a greater degree.

It's a scary thought. For now, the future of Google.cn remains hanging somewhere in Web purgatory.

Published: 03/16/2010 10:44:52 AM UTC By Christine Persaud

See the Titanic Sink in 3D

Talk about striking when the iron is hot. Canadian-born Hollywood movie director James Cameron is taking his other major record-breaking film out of retirement, and plans to release a 3D version of it.

Yes, I'm talking about the Titanic. Cameron says he's planning to re-release the immensely popular film about the iconic sinking ship next year so that viewers can share Leonardo Di Caprio's experience of what it feels like to be king of the world up close and personal. Coincidentally. 2012 marks the 100-year anniversary of the ship's sail.

Naturally, Cameron's move is in direct response to his new hit flick Avatar, which has not only broken records at the box office (and will likely continue to do so), but has also brought much attention to the emerging 3D format. The industry is trying to capitalize on 3D not just in commercial theatres, but also in the home with new 3D-capable TVs, Blu-ray players, and movies coming to market this year.

While new films like Avatar and the animated flick Monsters vs. Aliens will be released in full 3D Blu-ray glory, could this move spark interest in re-releasing other movies from the past in 3D? Indeed, The Lion King is supposedly set for a comeback with a three-dimensional Simba. Cameron is even hoping to capitalize even more on Avatar's success by re-releasing that film (yes, there are talks of this before the film has even completed its first run) with added scenes.

Much like the music industry, the movie industry has been stuck in a lull of lost creativity, re-releasing remakes and redos of old movies in hopes that they'll be sure bets for box office success. After all, if the story worked the first time with the last generation, chances are it will work again with this one. With 3D, these moves could help rejuvenate the commercial theatre industry: if you can't afford to get 3D in the home just yet, the ability to catch a fave flick, even if you already saw it 10 years ago, could bring many back to the Cineplex.

This isn't to imply that tweaking a film to 3D generates a quick buck: it costs lots of money, and requires tons of resources, to rework a film. In some respects, it's much like making a stop motion film. If you've ever tried to do that manually, it's a lengthy process that takes upwards of an hour just to create a minute or two of footage. One mess up and the film looks like a choppy mess. Of course with Hollywood budgets and staff who are dedicated solely to undertaking this task, the result will be a bit different than a teen making fun films in his basement with dolls. And the benefits reaped could be massive.

But the hard work involved aside, what about creativity? Or should I say the lack thereof. I've already noted before in this blog how I'm hard-pressed these days to find a film that isn't based on a novel, or, as noted above, isn't a remake of an old film. I'm all for re-releasing movies from the olden days if there's a logical reason, like adding an edge with 3D. But let's not spend all our resources on that, and forget about original ideas that take viewers to places they've never been before. After all, this is what set the movie industry sailing in the first place.

Published: 03/15/2010 11:29:20 AM UTC By Christine Persaud

Horror Movie That Calls for Audience Participation to Hit Theatres

Remember the old Choose Your Own Adventure Series of books? You'd reach a pivotal point in the storyline, and the author would allow you to control what the character does. Turn to page 32 if you want him to agree to the proposed plan, or to page 74 if you want him to say no. Combine this with the interactive nature of today's tech-savvy society, and you'll get this latest innovation in horror flicks.

A horror movie called 13th Street will hit theatres in Germany, and afford audience members, or rather one lucky (or unlucky, depending on how you look at it) audience member the chance to interact with the film's main character and change the outcome. Before entering the theatre, each patron gets a flyer that invites him to enter his cell phone number into a database. Then, at a pivotal point in the film, one person will receive the phone call to choose the adventure theatre-goers will partake in. The caller will speak to the on-screen character. "You have to help me!" the scared actress cries out to the patron who's answered her desperate call in the YouTube demo of the film.

The caller hears her heavy breathing as she navigates through a cold, dark basement. "Should I go left or right?," she asks. The movie-watcher dictates his selection (with lots of audience members coaxing him to advise one way or the other), and, via special voice recognition software, the movie continues with the character following his instructions. This, say the producers, results in a different movie every time.

"In regular movies, the viewer's role is always the same," reads the promo video for the flick. "With 13th Street, the horror film becomes an interactive thrill. The viewers play their own part, and are able to communicate with the protagonist."

While it sounds neat, I have a few issues with this. First, it requires that people break one of the cardinal rules of watching a movie in a theatre: turning their cell phones off. Unless everyone is diligent enough to put the devices on vibrate, this could get annoying as other calls come through. Imagine hearing your ringtone go off and excitedly answering the device thinking you're the "chosen one", only to find out that it's mom on the other line wanting to know what time you'll be home for dinner. Whoops, sorry guys. False alarm. Continue on with the film. Third, adding your cell phone number to this database could prove regretful: do you really want to give out your digits to a third-party that may use it for other purposes?

From the theatre's perspective, though, it's smart. Word-of-mouth about the concept could result in more ticket sales as people attend in groups, hoping to be the lucky person that gets to determine the outcome of the film. People may be likely to see the movie more than once as well, in order to see what other possible outcomes there are. What's more, they can't really knock the film once it's over. After all, the audience is the one that controlled the storyline, so the onus is on them to deliver. Right? Finally, collecting all of these valuable customer cell phone numbers? Brilliant.

In theory, the concept is neat, pushing the boundaries of interactivity to a level we've never really seen. We always want to be involved, to feel we have control, and to keep in constant contact with our devices. God forbid we'd have to go 2-hours without pulling out the mobile to check e-mails or answer a text! This way, everyone can keep the gadgets firmly in hand, and have a legitimate excuse for doing so.

Published: 03/11/2010 12:22:58 PM UTC By Christine Persaud

The 10 Most Common Misconceptions About 3D

3D is all the rage these days as products hit retailers in U.S., and are about to make their way to Canada as well. However, there's a lot of customer confusion surrounding the technology. Here are the 10 most common misconceptions and myths, along with a few clarifications, about 3D in the home:

You can only watch 3D with a 3D TV: This is wrong. 3D-ready TVs are the top-of-the-line models for most manufacturers, but they are first and foremost, regular 2D TVs. You can watch everything you would with any other LCD or plasma display, in standard 2D fashion. There's just the added benefit of being able to also watch 3D content should you wish to do so, and when it becomes available. Even if you never watch 3D content, the latest models represent the best of the best in current lineups.

The price is high: True, 3D-ready displays are slightly higher in price than other TVs on the market. But note that you're not just paying for 3D capability, and the ability for the displays to communicate with 3D glasses. You're also paying for advanced features like, in many cases, LED backlighting, which affords a better picture, thinner design, and less energy consumption. There are also features like Internet connectivity, and faster refresh rates for better producing fast action scenes without the issue of motion blur. Bottom line: you're paying for a premium TV, not just for a 3D TV.

You can watch anything in 3D: While some companies, like Toshiba, are claiming to offer technologies that will allow you to convert any 2D program to 3D for viewing (by splitting the image in two, essentially), the 3D technology you're hearing about most requires active shutter glasses that are somewhat pricy, but that offer better separation between the image you see in the left and right eyes, flickering it rapidly and in alternating fashion to avoid seeing double. These run on batteries and can communicate with a separate transmitter you connect to the TV (or with technology built into the TV itself.) Passive glasses are the cheaper version you are likely more familiar with that require double images on the screen, where you see one in each eye to create the perception of depth. They result in an image that isn't as realistic and enticing, and can also lead to some motion sickness, so to speak. If you caught the Michael Jackson tribute at the Grammy Awards this year that was offered in 3D, or you watched Avatar at the theatre, you'll note that you were using passive glasses. Most manufacturers are supporting the active format, although some, like LG, say they will offer TVs that support a passive system as well.

You need to buy all new equipment: This is true. Watching 3D content requires, of course, a flat-panel TV that's capable of playing back 3D content, and communicating with partner glasses. Thus, you also need 3D glasses; some manufacturers, like Samsung, will be bundling a few pairs (for a limited time, at least) with the purchase of a 3D-ready LCD or plasma and Blu-ray player. But for the most part, you'll need to buy them separately. Pricing is still up in the air, but they could run anywhere from $100-$250 per pair. Speaking of Blu-ray, you'll also need a source device. While companies like DirecTV and Discovery Channel plan to offer 3D broadcasts later this year and into 2011, initially, you'll need a 3D-capable Blu-ray player to enjoy content. Following from this is of course the 3D Blu-ray disc to insert into the player. Monsters vs. Aliens will be the first title to be released on 3D Blu-ray, but we can expect more to become available, like Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and, of course, Avatar. Finally, the last part of the equation is an HDMI 1.4 cable. Any 3D product supports this specification, but you will need to buy the new cables as well.* Note that if your home theatre system includes an A/V receiver, you'll also need to upgrade that to one that supports HDMI 1.4 if you wish to pass the 3D content signal through it.**

You can watch any 3D TV with any pair of glasses: This is not true. With active shutter glasses, each is specific to the TV manufacturer, so not every pair will work with every 3D TV.) It's similar to video game systems: you can't use a Wii controller with the PlayStation 3, for example. It is possible, however, that third-party companies could make glasses that work with a variety of 3DTVs.

You have to wear the glasses to watch regular TV: It sounds silly, but plenty of people believe that the glasses need to be worn to watch anything on a 3D TV. Remember: 3D TVs are just regular 2D TVs that can also play back 3D content when you want to watch it. When you don't, they function just like standard TVs; they just look much nicer! However, if you want to watch 3D content then yes, you do need to wear the glasses.

3D is cheesy: If you think back to the fun amusement park rides and 3D content of yesteryear, you're bound to viewe 3D as just a cheesy way of watching movies that looks artificial and in-your-face. 3D has come a long way, and many of the demos I've seen look spectacular. 3D adds depth to the picture and, in some cases, like with sports or action movies, you feel like you're right in the action. With animation, it adds a fun element to the viewing experience. It has a realistic quality to it that really draws you in, much like high-definition does with a hockey game or frightening scene in a horror movie. It represents another level; a step above HD.

3D is easy to integrate for broadcasters: You might think it's a simple process, so why aren't broadcasters on the ball? 3D uses about twice the amount of spectrum that a regular TV channel uses, which poses obvious issues for broadcasters. But they are indeed actively looking into offering content. In Canada, Rogers has said that it may even launch a 3D demo channel this year.

You'll be able to watch 3D content through a PlayStation 3: This is true. Sony has confirmed that all that will be required is a firmware upgrade for the popular gaming console to be able to support 3D Blu-ray discs. In fact, the company is already demonstrating 3D gaming through a PS3 at select Sony Style locations in Canada.

Published: 03/10/2010 01:15:53 PM UTC By Christine Persaud