Apple, Please Release A 5" or 5.5" iPhone

My mom called me today and said the iPhone 5 sucked.  Well, she didn't exactly used those words but I know the lady, giving birth to me and all.  In fact, I gave up the iPhone 5 and took her iPhone 4S for my own.  I think she considers the 4S to be Steve Jobs' last iPhone.  But that's not the reason why she wants to give up the iPhone 5.

She thinks the screen is too small.  I think she saw more and more of her friends with Galaxy devices from Samsung.  Maybe even the Note 2.  I don't blame her.  I've thought for months about getting a Note and I'm think I'll wait for the Note 3.


My only issue for not getting her the Note 2 is because she's overseas a lot and if she has a problem now, I would not know how to deal with it because I don't have a reference unit here to help walk her through it.

So, Apple, you may have to think twice about the perfect size for the iPhone.  I do think the 3.5-4" screen is perfect for a major of the mobile market.  But I think there is a segment of the market who would like to have a 5" or greater screen that still fit into one's pocket.

Okay, no stylus.  I don't need a stylus.  It's too limited unless Apple can really work some magic on that front.

A 5" screen or greater iPhone with LTE would be something that would sell like hotcakes and may even revitalize the market's confidence in Apple, especially Wall Street despite their stupidity.

For my mom, her interest in Note had to do with gaming.  She plays tons of game on her iPad mini.  However, when she's out and about, she doesn't want to be carry the iPad mini around with her all the time.  It's not convenient.

So, the has her iPhone 5 with her.  However, playing games from the 7.85" iPad mini screen down to the 4" iPhone 5 screen did not offer the same experience.  I'm not sure a 5" screen would either but it still is better than a 4" screen.

More and more of my friends are switching over the Android because of the screen size.  Sure, they complain about the experience from time to time but I think Google will one day close that experience gap.  After that, there would be nothing to keep some users from sticking with the iPhone.

Game Center Should Become Social Center

I have been thinking long and hard about this for a while.  Even before Facebook released Home for Android.  But I think Apple should do something about Game Center and I'm not talking about the look of GC but about what it can offer.  From day one, I thought it would make sense for Apple to allow messaging.  Then of course, we got iMessage instead.

What Apple should do is turn GC into Social Center.  Notifications, messages, widgets, game updates, and social components that give Apple users, Mac and iOS, a place where their social networks like Twitter, Facebook, and even Apple's own updates, can be located in one place.

It is possible?

I don't know if that's the direction Apple would ever consider taking but it does make sense to do this.  Social Center would gather up iTunes, Messages, social networks, gaming and media into one place.

And what's more, the value of Social Center will only serve to augment other features and products that Apple wants to push out.  As it stands now, I don't know how many people actually use Game Center but with Social Center, maybe more people will discover the value Game Center offers which could lead to more engagement and game sales.

Adding a component for music and other media sharing from friends and family could also lead to iTunes sales.

Apple should also add its own social layer that provides updates.  Think of Path, a social network app, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

With Path, you can upload pictures, update status, sharing locations, and tell your friends what you're watching or listen to.  Apple should adopt a similar approach (or buy Path outright).  And Apple should be able to allow users to update that information to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Google+ or other social networks.

The bottom line is that Apple would then also have its own social network that could make sure it doesn't have to be at the mercy of competitors like Facebook or Google.

Social Center would instantly give Apple an added cool appeal that some said has been sorely missing in the last couple of years.

The question in people's mind is whether this could happen.  Sadly, no.  This is not in Apple's DNA.  In all likelihood, Apple got stung by the failure of Ping and has sworn off social media services and apps.  Game Center is as close as it'll ever come to that.  To a lesser extent, iMessages is as social as Apple will get.  Furthermore, Apple seems content to leave creating social apps and services to third party developers.

It's a shame.  A native social layer would greatly enhance the values of not only Apple's hardware but its services like iTunes, iCloud, and future media pushes.  Social Center would be the kind of next step achievements that Apple should be going after.

Should Apple's Share Price Be A Concern For Mobile Users, Not Just iOS Users?

Apple's price has been down and out of Wall Street favor for a long time now.  Maybe a better part of a year since reaching high into the 700s.  Personally, while I like to see stocks rise, not just Apple but for Google, Microsoft, or any other company, I take a particular interest in Apple because I've been a long time Apple product user and have lived through the "dark days".  Yeah, you know what I mean and that brought back bad memories for those of you who knows what I'm talking about.

The difference here is that Apple today is in a much stronger position than the Apple in the 90s that was weeks away from bankruptcy before Steve Jobs successfully turned things around.  And that took years to do.  Today's Apple was not an overnight success.  It took around seven years before people started to believe.

It's not Apple's successful story that I want to discuss here.  Rather, it's Apple's lost decade in the late 80s and 90s that I am afraid may be repeated.  The creative juice and innovative energy that Steve Jobs instilled in Apple endures and will probably do so under Tim Cook.  However, I do see Apple today more as a company than a creative shop that was under Steve Jobs.  

Jobs cared nothing about money.  About dividends and stock prices.  Maybe it was easier when things were better and the rise of Apple's value was the sky.  And through not Tim Cook's fault, Apple's stock prices today may force Tim Cook to waiver a bit from Steve Jobs' vision for Apple and innovation in general and stir Apple more towards being a corporation and less of a place where magical devices are created.

Investor pressure could for Cook to direct his teams to make products that sell for short term gains like the fabled "cheap iPhone" rather than telling them to make products that will continue Apple's legacy.

Make no mistake, however, that what I am expressing is only a fear that it can happen.  I'm not saying that it absolutely will happen or that there are signs it is already happening.  But should that happen, mobile warriors could be used to see innovation in the mobile market happening at neck breaking speed in the last five years come to a slower pace.  

Even now, Apple fans are increasingly more vocal about the stale state of look and function of iOS.  Make no mistake that we are talking about wholesale defections from Apple to other platforms.  It's just that while the UI for iOS works, it has gotten boring while others like Windows Phone and Android have tried doing different things to differentiate themselves from Apple and each other.

And while I'm not a fan of Facebook, I have to say that Home is definitely something I like to see in the mobile market.  It offers a different perspective on mobile use even as it takes a frightful attempt to obliterate privacy.  

In the next twelve to eighteen months, we will see where Apple goes.  As a matter of fact, the same can be said of Google.  Both of their mobile heads were replaced within months of each other which suggests change of pace or direction where Apple and Google wants their mobile efforts to move respectively.  One might assume that big changes are coming.  

Maybe.

We won't know what mobile users can expect from Apple until the second half of 2013.  Yeah, aside from increasing the iPad's top-end mobile with 128 GB, there has been a dry spell.  Apple's annual World Wide Developer Conference in June is the earliest when we should see any new product from Apple this year.  And they're probably going to be Macs and Macbooks, not iOS devices like the iPhone or iPad.

For those, we will have to wait until fall.  Hopefully, Apple will grace us with a glimpse of what iOS 7 going to be like and that will only be a partial unveiling.  We won't know if Apple will continue to care not about the stock price and exist as it currently does now or becoming a company that cares more about the bottom line until the next iPhones and iPads are released.  

Microsoft Tries To Be Helpful By Saying Google Will (Or Should) Block Facebook Home

Source:  The Guardian.

Here is a must read post regarding Google, Facebook, and Android.  The gist of the post stemmed from statements from Microsoft’s head of Windows Phone division.  Needless to say, Terry Myerson provided some analysis and statements that took digs at Google while promoting how Windows Phone was actually doing.  The Guardian went to Google chairman, Eric Schmidt, for his response.

I agree Schmidt who at one point asked who was anyone listening to Microsoft about Google.  Google isn’t doing a thing to stop Facebook from making Home more widely available on Android.  It runs counter to Google’s claim that Android is open.  So, it can’t and won’t stop Facebook doing Home or eventually forking it or adding its own app store if it wanted to.  Just like Google could not stop Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or the plethora of Chinese vendors making their own Android variants.  However, it remains to be seen if Facebook won’t eventually overtake Google in monetizing the mobile platform in ways that Samsung is doing by selling Android-based hardware.

As for Microsoft, well, let’s just say that Windows Phone is treading water right now and further analysis will have to wait for another post on another day.

One more thing.  You can forget about any talk that Facebook will bring Home to the iPhone or Windows Phone as it currently exists on Android.  Yes, further integration will likely happen between Facebook, Twitter, Weibo, or any other social networks on iPhone or Windows Phone but only in small increments as allowed by Cupertino or Redmond.

Forget Richards, Rodman, or Schmidt. Maybe It’s Tim Cook Who Should Go To North Korea

This picture (Tuaw) says it all.  Maybe Tim Cook should have been the one to visit North Korea all along to talk the “Great Leader” down from his cliff.

Mobile: Atlantic Wire Does A "China" In Hit Piece Against T-Mobile's New Plans

This is a horribly written article from the Atlantic Wire comparing AT&T and T-Mobile's new no-contract rates.  We’ll go through the errors and come to the conclusion that the writer or even the AW is bending over backward to make T-Mobile look bad and AT&T, probably a big sponsor for the site, look good.

The gist of the post is about how T-Mobile’s new plan is bad compared to AT&T for users and even trying to point out that T-Mobile could end up costing users more.  Let’s start shredding this post apart piece by piece.

First, even if the numbers used by the writer is correct, paying a bit more to get out of the thumb of AT&T’s draconian domain is worth it.  That in and of itself is a great advertising tagline.  Fortunately for folks looking at the T-Mobile plans, it’s actually cheaper to go with T-Mobile and AT&T's plans are actually more expensive.

Second, the numbers used by AW are wrong because while they’re comparing the same device, an iPhone 5, the device can be anything others.  A Blackberry or Galaxy S 3 which both carriers have.  So the cost of the device doesn't matter.  It’s the plans.  And this is where the writer is trying to make AT&T look better.

The writer used AT&T’s lowest $40 unlimited 450 min plan to compared with T-Mobile’s $50 unlimited talk and text plan.  The writer should have used the equivalent $70 plan from AT&T.  On top of that, the writer should have also included the $20 unlimited texting plan as well on top of whatever AT&T plan a subscriber picks.  The omission of the texting plan alone blatantly showed that the post was either paid for by AT&T or something far more sinister.

Had the writer used AT&T rates that are closer to what T-Mobile offers, it would come out to $2360 for two years for the 450 minutes plan with texting and $3080 for the unlimited talk plan.  Using the writer’s $60 plan to get the 2 GB data and the total cost of $2020 for T-Mobile, that’s still lower than AT&T’s lowest plan by $340 and a whopping $1060 less than AT&T’s unlimited talk plan over two years.

Okay, let’s take this a step further.  Let’s go with T-Mobile’s unlimited $70 talk, text, and data.  That’s true unlimited data which AT&T doesn’t offer.  That cost comes out to $2350 for 24 months – beating AT&T”s 2 GB with unlimited talk plan by $730.

Let’s go even a step further and add more data on top of AT&T’s unlimited talk plan.  AT&T doesn’t offer unlimited data because it knows that its data network is crap and it knows that we know it.  But it does offer incremental higher data allotments with higher costs.  Again, nothing unlimited.

So, to come as close as we can to T-Mobile’s $70 unlimited data, voice, and texting, we would have to pay AT&T $70 for unlimited voice, $20 for unlimited texting, and $50 to get 5 GB of data.  Again, AT&T doesn’t offer unlimited data.  That total comes out to $140.

For 24 months, the subscriber gets jacked $3560 by AT&T to come as close as possible to what a T-Mobile user would have to pay.  I’ll make you do the math to figure out the difference.

That’s only the cost comparisons that matter, which the writer worked hard to avoid to make AT&T stand out.

However, the last point is the most important of all.  Regardless of whatever plan you get from T-Mobile and savings aside, the user isn't beholden to AT&T.  Again, the skewed comparison the Atlantic Wire writer tried so hard to keep users on it.  This point is pretty much the same as the first one I made above.

Yes, being freed of contracts and free of AT&T is just that important to me.

Now, this would be a perfect place to end the post.  But I also like to point out that even the writer's $1916 total doesn't make sense at all.

Note:  While you can argue that I've got an ax to grind against AT&T, that may be true but the numbers themselves don't lie.

Mobile: T-Mobile's No-Contract Plans And Phone Payments Works Offer Better Transparency

I think the $99 down payment for flagship and top-selling devices like the iPhone, HTC One, Z10, and the forthcoming Galaxy S 4 is going to be a major hit for users looking to migrate to T-Mobile's new no contract plan.  For the reason that in-depth discussion about T-Mobile's new mobile plans isn't needed here, you're welcome to visit T-Mobile for more information.


What the new plans offer is greater transparency about subsidies and where your monthly payments to carriers go to.  In the past, you might pay $80 for plan and get a phone for free, $99, or even $199.  You sign a contract with the carrier and that’s it.  Locked in for two years.  While it might be kinda nice to know the breakdown of your $80, it’s was not something the carriers are obligated to tell us.

With T-Mobile’s plans, you know you’re pay, say $60 a month plus whatever amount you owe to cover the cost of the device you bought from T-Mobile for 20 months.  You see where that money is going towards and the diminishing balance of whatever device you bought from T-Mobile.

That’s kinda nice.  In the current plans offered by AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint, you pay $80 a month and even after your contract is over, you’re still paying $80 a month.  Just because you fulfilled your contract does not mean you automatically get a lower rate.  In fact, you still have to pay $80 a month to continue using the service under the same terms of your expired two year contract.  The extra money just goes into the carriers’ pocket.

After paying off your phone under T-Mobile’s plan, your rate remains the same but you’re no longer paying for your phone.  It’s how it should work.  It’s a fair deal.  And this is why I think T-Mobile’s new plans are very Apple-like in that they going to disrupt how carriers deal with its users from now on.

You pay the rate of your plan, the down payment of your device, monthly payment for the remaining balance of the device, and done.  I know many bloggers even now as looking for a “but…” but so far so good.