Bloomberg Report That Will Unveil iPhone Along With iPad At the Same Time Is Wrong Unless...

Bloomberg reported today that Apple will introduce the iPhone and iPad simultaneously at the same September 10th event that has been widely acknowledge by true Apple bloggers and insiders.  However, while the September 10th event is not in doubt, personally, I think the Bloomberg claim is.

This why I'm not linking to the false information.  However, just for fun, let's speculate a bit, small bit, about this.  Suppose if Bloomberg happens to be right, again money is that they're not, then we are looking at a likelihood that Apple has a window of opportunity in October to introduce a new product.

If so, many Wall Street analysts will speculate it to be the iWatch or, iWear, a device that is long rumored to be the product that Apple may introduce to replace the iPod or even compliment the iPhone through Bluetooth.

Then there's the famed Gene Munster, of Piper Jaffray, who not only believes in the unicorn, tooth fairy and that Apple will introduce an HDTV each year for the last, what, five years.

Those are the only two products that I can think of that Apple could be working on that might fit in the October slot to begin selling for the Holidays.

However, Bloomberg is wrong.  Apple isn't about to let two of its most recent and iconic devices share the same limelight.  On top of that, there doesn't appear to be a strong content deal for an Apple TV or HDTV announcement nor is Apple ready with the iWear or iWatch.

Still, like Gene Munster, I can dream.

Mobile Gaming: How Desperate Is Nintendo To Compete Against Android, iPhone, iPod Touch, And the iPad? 2DSesperate!

Source:  Game Squad.

I ask again how desperate Nintendo is right now to find an answer against the onslaught of Android and Apple's iOS devices, iPhone, iPod touch, and the iPad, against the traditional mobile gaming market?

This desperate.

I'm not kidding.  I wish I was.  Meet the Nintendo 2DS.  It's a 3DS without the 3D and without the hinge to fold it. The good thing is that this is only $130.  The bad thing is that it's a $130 mobile gaming device from Nintendo that no one will buy.

Comments from Nintendo-centric sites seem generally supportive - finding the positive.  But then again, we're generally a family-friendly bunch.

In other news, Nintendo also dropped $50 off the Wii U.

My Nephews Are Gonna Go Nuts: Angry Birds Go Kart

Source:  Droid-Life.

Should have known this was coming.  I'm excited to see Rovio's take on this with the birds and piggies.  

Yeah, my nephews will go nuts when they find out.  

Chinese Baby Monitors, More Than Forty Thousand Of Them, Vulnerable to Hacking

Source: Forbes.

Parents' worst night - a predator near their child.  In their room.  Not physically but this particular violation could be just as bad.  Through security opening in a Foscam baby monitor, complete with video and sound, a creep called a baby all sort of names.

And the flaw was only covered up after media reports and even then, through an Internet scan, most owners of these Foscam monitors are still vulnerable to hacks - more than 40,000 of them.

I've heard good things about Foscam from friends but I don't think we were expecting this kind of security hole.

Honestly, I think these devices are going to be a part of future homes - the smart homes that I think will be one of the next battle ground between tech rivals like Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Samsung.

So, if you own one of Foscam's devices, best to go their website and look for a patch.

Recently bought cam for a friend.  Gotta warn them tonight!

Government Issues Virus/Malware Warning About Android - Apple Should Take Advantage

The US government has released a report on the dangers that Android poses to users - viruses, malware, and other exploits.

Perhaps, Apple should consolidate its hold on corporate and government users by highlighting better security and additional features more publicly.

Source:  Clouding Around.

iPhone 5S (iPhone 6): Rumors, Move Aside - What About the Battery Life?

I love the rumors (except ones about the colors) about the next iPhone, whether Apple calls it iPhone 5S or iPhone 6, just as much as the next guy.  But fingerprint scanners and colors aside, I want to know one thing that should matter to every mobile warrior:  what's the battery life going to be like for the 2013 iPhone?

And the only number I care about is the hours of standard use.  I don't care at all about standby time.  I charge, on average, my iPhone 5 every 30-36 hours.  Not bad.  Under heavy use, I can get through the battery in about 12-15 hours.  Again, not bad but I also would not mind a longer battery as an insurance against unforeseen heavy uses.

I'm sure battery life is a very important factor for Apple when it comes to iPhone, iPad, and, yes, Macbooks.  Just recently, Apple updated the 2013 Macbook Airs and gave them between nine to twelve hours of use.

I argued that Apple not only has upped the ante for its competitors but also other Apple products as well - expected updates this fall are Macbook Pro and iPads.  And I argued they also need to see significant battery life improvements.

Hence, it stands to reason that we should expect the same of the 2013 iPhone as well.  After all, copying or not by its competitors, Apple should try to distance itself from its competitors with better iPhone battery life because, unlike Samsung, Nokia, or HTC, Apple owns its hardware and software development that could drive speed and efficiency further than anyone else without making compromises.  And should Apple find a way to make the iPhone last longer than anyone else, significantly longer, it will not be a feature that can be copied.

This is why I have high hopes that Apple will give the iPhone 5S (or iPhone 6) a major battery improvement.  Also, consider that Motorola, owned by Google, just released its Moto X with a reported 24-hour battery life.

Now, I know that no two manufacturers conduct and report their battery uses the same.  I also know that Google fudges its numbers quite a bit as well.  So, whether Moto X really can last a full 24-hour of real work use or not, it does have repercussions.  Motorola/Google was willing to make compromises to Moto X that Apple is not willing, like using dated (two-year old) mobile tech.  Clearly, anyone who is mobile savvy will know this fact.  However, not all tech journalists and tech bloggers are industrious enough do a bit of research and realize that.

Right now, the iPhone 5 has a talk time of 8 hours, 8 hours of Web use on LTE and 10 hours on Wi-Fi, and 10 hours of video play back.  (Apple)

The talk time is well short of competitors but who truly talks that much anyway?  So, to mobile users these days, video and use hours are more important.  As far as web browsing is concerned, it's about a draw.  The iPhone 5 might have most beaten except for Sony's Xperia ZR (GSM Arena). Most other flagship devices lasted around 8 hours.  I said "might" because we don't know how GSM Arena conducted their tests - using only the cell antenna or Wi-Fi. (GSM Arena)

However, it came to video play back, the iPhone 5 is near the middle of the pack with the newer flagship devices lasting about an hour more.

So, as you can see, you can get the 24-hour claim from the iPhone 5 as well but those kinds of battery claims are just people playing games and it's not what Apple is about.  As an iPhone user, I'm used to getting Apple's more real world hours of usage.

Personally, I don't care to watch 10 hours of video straight.  However, with a combination of GPS use during runs four to five times a day for an hour, maybe one or two mapping use with GPS for a 30-minute trip a week, an average of 20-30 pictures and 5-10 minutes of video capture during events or get-togethers, 10 messages an hour and checking e-mail every 30 minutes, catching up on news and sports, and maybe a bit of blogging or Evernote uses or tweeting, and about an hour of gameplay or video, I like to see Apple improve the next iPhone battery life for my kind of mobile use by about 50%.

Maybe I'm an optimist but I think we're gonna get that this year.

iPad mini: Who's Idea Was It? Steve Jobs or Tim Cook?

The iPad mini will be a year old soon and be replaced with an upgrade by Apple this fall.  What I want to explore here is whether the decision to rlease mini, obviously having been in the works of years even when Steve Jobs was alive and at Apple, planned all along or Tim Cook's after he become CEO.

I've got a 2013 Nexus 7 that has fit nicely into my daily workflow.  The battery is subpar given what Google advertised but it's still good enough where I can get through the day safely without running out of juice.

Having said that, the Nexus 7 is a pleasant surprise.  I can live on the Nexus, if I had not been exposed to the iPad.

That is not to say that I won't be getting a new iPad this fall.  The reason is because as good as the Nexus is, the Android tablet experience leaves one with much to desire because of the lack of a true tablet experience I'm used to with the iPad.

Still, that's not the issue here.  The issue is the iPad mini.  Steve Jobs had blasted 7" tablets as too small to use and the media bought his argument for the most part.  But the consumers did.  And 7" tablets, much cheaper than the iPad, became an issue for Apple.

So, let me throw this out there.  When Apple released the iPad mini last year, was it planned all along with Steve Jobs' blessing?  Or was it Tim Cook's own after he saw where the market was headed in terms of screen sizes and prices and decided to rush it out?

My theory?  The 7.85" iPad mini was in the works for years along with a host of other screen sizes.  But priority was given to the iPad since it was the flagship device and growing at a fast click while cannibalizing PC sales.

But with the rise of 7" Android tablets price in the $200s, Apple was compelled to respond.  First with the $399 iPad 2 to buy time until it could release the mini last year.

And to some, the iPad mini was full of compromises which leads me to conclude that the iPad mini is Tim's product, not Steve's.  First, no Retina Display.  Second, it was using an older iPad 2 system.  And lastly, the battery life was not up to the usual iPad standard.  All that together, the 2012 iPad mini felt compromised.

That isn't to say that its a bad product.  It just isn't the iPad mini with Retina Display and 10+ hours of battery life that we were expecting.  But it did its job.  It opened up the tablet market to more Apple tablets and to a wider range of consumers.