The Best of Macworld SF 2006

ptorrone writes "We podcasted live, we posted over 100 photos real time via a WiFi camera + EVDO as we walked around and now we've picked the top 5 products we liked the most at Macworld San Fran 2006. It's safe to say our picks aren't likely to be the same ones you'll see in the usual "best of" lists. We gave top marks to products, services and software that we think fit the "Maker" mindset - technology on your time and a bit of news from the future... Here they are..."

Comments

sensors

[pimpimpim]

These environmental sensors should have some wireless functionality, it looks rather tedious to collect them all the time, by the time you put them in the reader, you stop the datamining. It would be much nicer if you could just but the reader closeby and read out the data over bluetooth or something. And who needs something like that anyway? Weather fanatics?

Re:sensors

[dorsey]

You'd have to collect them periodically anyway to replace/recharge the batteries. And you'd have to collect them more frequently if the batteries also had to power a transmitter.

Google doesn't "get it"

[pomo monster]

I've had this thought before, but nothing crystallizes it like Google Earth for OS X. The application is ugly. The interface is cluttered and somewhat inscrutable. It looks like a direct port from the Windows version with no regard for Mac UI conventions, up-to-date widgets (the 10.0-style tabs and sliders, in particular), or even alignment (scrollbars that overlap with adjacent elements? WTF).

This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.

Don't get me wrong, I love Google for what it is, but not what it ain't: particularly tasteful or particularly elegant.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[ShamusYoung]

This, to me, only reflects Google's broader philosophy. They don't release products that give people what they need, or solve problems they didn't know they had. Google releases whatever products the technology allows them to build, without regard of how, where, or even why it fits into people's lives. Google has a "because we can" mentality rather than one of "because it would help." Hence the bare-walls interfaces and inexplicable feature spammage. In this, Google behaves remarkably like Microsoft.

Ow. Harsh.

I would suggest that while both are famous for numerous features covered in uglyness, the reasons differ. Microsoft looks at the market and thinks "how can we control this?" Google is more like a bunch of engineers sitting around saying "you know what would be cool to build?". In both cases the thing is ugly, but in the case of Google it's just a lack of asthetics. Everything feels sort of proto-typish.

Now that I've said it, I admit that I don't see how it matters.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[poot_rootbeer]

Practically all of your comments about Google would be true of Open Source Software as well, with slight alterations. Would it be fair to say that OSS doesn't "get it"? To compare them to Microsoft?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[IamTheRealMike]

It's based on Qt, which doesn't use the native rendering APIs on the Mac, hence the old style and slightly odd rendering glitches.

That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Kadin2048]

I think that's pretty much true; within OSS projects, there are the projects that were designed because somebody needed to "do something" in particular, and then there are those projects which were designed and built because somebody thought it would be "cool to do." The subtle difference in motivation produces very different products in the end. "Do something" products are inherently limited in scope, and tend to focus inwards after a time, refining and refining a core idea. "Cool to do" projects tend to expand outwards; once they've done one thing, they expand outwards to do more things. In a completely FOSS environment, you need both -- the former to provide little bits of well-done functionality and the latter to connect them all together into something larger.

Overall I'm going to second others and say that I've always been impressed at the 'fit and finish' of Mac OS X. It's not perfect (in particular I wish they made it easier to run X apps on top of Aqua) but despite some people's claims to the contrary, in my experience it's far easier to configure, mostly because of its consistency. Linux will always have an Achilles' heel because its flexibility also breeds complexity. For example, configuring wireless on a Mac is a no-brainer, because there is basically only one option for the cards: Apple.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

That said, I find it rich that Mac users whinge when getting ports of Windows apps yet when Apple ports Mac apps to Windows blatant HIG/toolkit violations are the order of the day. *cough* QuickTime *cough*

Why would a Mac user care how software acts on Windows?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

The Mac is like Linux would be if huge amounts of care were poured into its design.

No - the Mac is a very nice Unix-like o/s with lovely eye-candy.

It is however nothing like linux.

Does it run in embedded environments? Can I access the source? Can I port it to sparc? If there's a bug can I fix it?

Under linux - the answer to all of them is yes, under Apple no.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tigersha]

Sigh. You are right about the general trend is geekdom. The problem lies in the whole Style vs Substance thing. It is generally true that substance is better than style. But for some reason, geeks think that this implies that any style whatsoever detracts from substance.

This is the same mentality that makes my colleagues force my co-workers to type their stuff in HTML instead of using a simple Rich Text Editor, use a green screen instead of a GUI, tell them that typing a command is easier than pressing a button. "Don't worry, its not hard". The mentality that a HTML app is better than a Swing app. "Look, you can do this from anywhere in the world now!". Ok, so the UI and usability is crap, but you can do it from orbit?? WHO CARES? 99% of the time the work is done from the same bloody machine in the office!

My favourite bugbear, produce all their documents in Arial (on a printer) instead of using, I don't know, readable fonts. "You BOUGHT a font??!!!" Yes, hell, I did. I value my personal corrspondence. "How can you PAY for something like that". I don't know, the typographer has to eat and creating a good readable font is a long hard project? Maybe?

Style is a good thing, and makes the substance better. SUBSITUTING style for substance is not a good idea. That is not the same thing though. And no, typing a command is not easier than pressing a button. More powerful, maybe, but not easier.

To summarize, Easy != Dumb

Making things really Easy and Powerful at the same time, is the real challenge here.

So... only 2 of the 5 things are Mac specific.

[spoco2]

Erm... how was this list a super Mac related list? Only the first and last items (the Sketch thing and the iPod dock) are specifically for Apple products, the other three are general use USB and video items that have to alegence to Mac or PC specifically...

Pretty darn lacking I think.

My favorite

[DurendalMac]

Is that Powerlogix came out as the first to announce that they have everything in place for 7448 based CPU upgrades (the latest revision of the G4) and will start selling them once Motorola gets their head out of their ass and starts putting them out in volume. Funny, that was supposed to happen in October. Moto hit the usual goddamn production issues. I guess spinning off into Freescale did nothing for their chip production. Anyway, I'm drooling over the prospect of a 2+ghz dual G4 upgrade...

Re:Go wild...

[Cheviot]

Now I remember why I don't read the -1 posts.

Live Podcast

[Jazzer_Techie]

Maybe it's just me, but doesn't the phrase "live podcast" contradict itself? The files are recorded, posted online, linked to by an RSS feed, and then downloaded by the listener. Some podcasts could certainly be posted quickly, but they can't be live. (Just another case of buzzword hype, IMHO.)

Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

My favorite part about MacWorld 2006 is that ThinkSecret didn't get anything right.

They spent weeks talking about 13.3" widescreen iBooks and Mac minis with DVR capabilities, and high-def streaming from .Mac, and Final Cut Pro 6, and this and that. Other rumor sites hyped plasma TVs and spreadsheet applications and updated iPod shuffles.

And none of them got anything right.

Maybe now people will realize that rumor sites make everything up.

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe Apple just MASSIVLY dissapointed by bringing essentially nothing anyone wanted or expected to the show!

One friend described the show as the iPod cover show. In fact the entire show should have just been called iPodWorld :(

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[vux984]

One friend described the show as the iPod cover show. In fact the entire show should have just been called iPodWorld :(

vs

"This is Mac-world," Jobs said in emphasizing that Tuesday would be about Mac hardware and software and not at all about the music player that's had such a vital role in bolstering Apple's fortunes. And so it was that the iPod, usually at the center of any Apple news event, went through the day without a single update or new release.

MacWorld Article

Hrmmm... one of you is lying.

Re:New Laptop

[stevencbrown]

I wouldn't worry.

I bought a PB around the same time as you, well, actually just after the announcement.

I personally think first revision stuff is a bit flaky, and I doubt you will actually see a 4 fold improvement in performance.

I would also expect a lot more heat/noise than the PB.

Plus, you've had your PB for 6 months - another couple of revisions of the MacBook Pro, probably take you up to about 2 years from when you bought it, and you'll be entitled to upgrade to it.

Um... wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Google purchases company which makes this earth-overhead-view program thing.
2. Google, wanting to be nice, releases program as freeware.
3. Mac users look at program, go "Wow, that's great! But why can't we use it?"
4. Google, wanting to be nice, gets someone to do a quick dirty mac port, because they are a web technology company and don't have a team of mac engineers or anything.
5. Guy on slashdot yells mercilessly at Google for not having gone all-out to re-engineer this free application they didn't even write to conform to the interface standards of an operating system they don't even officially support.

YAY!

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[rho]

An architect friend swears by Sketchup. He's been using it for several years, and preferred it to the new Revit from Autodesk.

I know this is Slashdot, and OSS is the best thing in the world, but programs that charge sometimes really are worth it. I used to use Strata StudioPro. The productivity increase between it and the other 3D programs at the time (mid- late-1990s) was ridiculously high. (As it happened, Strata was at least half the price of the Autodesk tools.) Based on my friend's recommendation, I'd not hesitate to at least try the software. If your business is in design mockups, it's well worth the $500.