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

Party like its 1985

[ShamusYoung]

The VR glasses are good for a laugh. From TFA:

Sure, there's a little bit of a Jordie LaForge factor, but the 50 or so people we watched try these on at the booth all pretty much said "these ain't that bad, I could wear them."

Yes, but they are all geeks. This isn't going to take off the way the iPod did. The iPod is sexy. The glasses are more like an ersatz contraceptive.

But if nobody was looking, I would try them out for sure!

Re:Party like its 1985

[OldManAndTheC]

The glasses are more like an ersatz contraceptive.

You know that's something I've never understood: if geeks aren't able to reproduce, where do the new geeks come from??? It's not like there's ever any shortage of geeks, new ones are cropping up all the time.

Is there some sort of recessive mutation? Some little gene with thick glasses and a lisp that randomly takes over the Y chromosome and then WHOOPS the blonde hunky adonis dad looks down and sees that (gulp) his newborn son is a geek?

Re:Party like its 1985

[timeOday]

I still think goggles will make it, simply because nothing else can do what they do. A huge 3d display in a pocketable form factor? Sorry, but there's nothing on the horizon besides goggles to do that.

If nothing else, they should revolutionize video games. Experiencing the virtual world through a small motionless rectangle is so limiting... we only accept it because we don't know better.

Re:Google Earth + SketchUp

[ptorrone]

sketchup is $495: http://www.sketchup.com/cgi-bin/store/trybuy.html

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.

Re:sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

Biologists use these to monitor environmental conditions at research sites. I used them 8 years ago as an undergrad, so I am rather surprised they are being treated as "new". These guys have been around forever, and their product was exceptional 8 years ago. WIFI would kick ass since you could also use it to find the sensor rather than flagging it and have to worry about somebody wandering off with your 200 dollar thermometer/humidity sensor (they do other things too like light level).

Re:sensors

[stefanlasiewski]

And who needs something like that anyway? Weather fanatics?

Scientists and science students. I spent many many hours of my college life driving/walking/travelling into a field to check the rainmeter and temperature. This would have saved me a ton of time, if I could afford them.

And to emphasize what the other poster said, wireless is very power hungry and would increase the battery requirements by quite a bit. Those little sensors wouldn't be so little anymore.

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"

[webzone]

Indeed, it is a direct port from Windows. A real Mac developer sane in their mind would break all the OS X design conventions like Google does with Google Earth. It is not only the UI, but also everything underneath.

The dialogs are bundled in the executable instead of being attached as Interface Builder files. There are a bunch of icons, like the "info" icon (i in a speech bubble), take right from Windows 2000. The buttons are placed at the wrong locations in dialogs and the default buttons are not always selected like they should be. There's more but my eyes bleed because of this Windowish UI so I'll just say that it is a beta and stay optimistic.

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"

[daviddennis]

This is certainly a good summary of why I prefer the Mac to Linux. The Mac is like Linux would be if huge amounts of care were poured into its design.

D

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[Blakey Rat]

Firefox "gets" the home market, but totally misses the corporate market. For instance, it can't be deployed with roaming profiles, because it roams the cache instead of putting it in Local Settings where it belongs.

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"

[eikonos]

I'm a Mac user too, and I dislike brushed metal so much (if I wanted big and clunky widgets I'd switch back to Windows) that I installed Iridium. http://www.sagefire.org/C1827030151/E2005081220104 6/index.html

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"

[tpgp]

Sure you can access the source, to the extent you would want to for embedded environments, anyway.

What? You think you don't need a gui in an embedded environment?

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Well thanks for pointing that out Captain Obvious.

I was trying to point out that OSX is not just linux with lots of polish - because it lacks the one of the things that makes linux really great - access to the source.

Your arguments that I don't want the source, have no need for the source, etc are not relevant to this thread.

Now, on to your point.

I think Apple's GUI is way too high-overhead for a portable device, so I think the desirablity of such in embedded environments would be questionable at best.

Embedded is not the same as portable. Wikipedia says An embedded system is a special-purpose computer system, which is completely encapsulated by the device it controls. And lists ATMs, Security monitoring systems and DVD recorders amongst embedded devices. OSX would be suitable for many of these - if you had access to the Aqua source.

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.

Re:Google doesn't "get it"

[tpgp]

Now, the part of OS X that you wanted open sourced wasn't Cocoa, it was Aqua

1) I specifically said that I was not asking Apple to open anything.

2) I stated that OSX was a great system, but was not 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.

3) Embedded was an an example of what you can do with access to the source.

Anyway, the original post, to which you replied rudely, by the way,

I think you need to read the entire thread - the post you refer to was not the original post, but a reply to a posting of mine. I called the poster Captain Obvious (I presume this is the bit you meant was rude) because his reply was both obvious and not particularly relevant to the thread.

simply stated a belief that Apple's GUI (not just their widget toolkit) was too high-overhead for an embedded device.

You (like C.O.) missed the point, if you had access to the GUI source along with Darwin you could use the parts you liked. Expose, Quartz, Cocoa, whatever. Surely its not all so heavyweight that some of it wouldn't be useful?

your statement that the source to OS X is not available is not entirely correct,

No, it is entirely correct. The source to Mac OS X is not available. Darwin + GTK + X is not OS X.

The rest of your post I generally agree with (allthough I'm not really sure why you wrote it) - Yup, cocoa is pretty cool & it would be nice if it was cross platform.

Again, I'll reiterate that I am not asking Apple to open-source OS X - simply stating that OSX is not simply 'linux with lots of polish' because it lacked one of the things that made linux great - access to the source.

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.

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

[Dynedain]

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...

And Sketchup has been a cross platform app for several years. It might have been Windows first, but I can't remember. Oh, and the Google Earth plugin for Sketchup has been available for the Windows version since mid-November.

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...

New Laptop

[Professor_UNIX]

Let me just start off by saying that I'm relieved that my 6 month old Powerbook G4 is now the base for their benchmarks for the "4x faster" MacBook Pro. The funniest thing is that I finally broke down and bought it 3 weeks before they announced a complete switch to Intel chips because I was getting sick of the slow 800MHz G3 iBook I was using. Hahahaha. I wonder how much my $2500 Powerbook G4 is worth in trade-in value towards a MacBook Pro... $2000? $1500? It's only 6 months new! *sob*

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.

Re:New Laptop

[Feelgood]

So far, I've got 6 beefs with the new laptops:
1) MacBook Pro? That's what you're calling it?
2) Remote - cool (if of limited use); no cleverly designed place to stow it on/in the laptop - not cool (it will get quickly misplaced)
3) No FW800? I thought this was the pro model?
4) No PC card slot, just ExpressCard? (see #6)
5) No S-Vid out? I have to buy an additional adapter?
6) No modem?? I have to buy the external USB modem. I can't even use a PC card.

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.)

Re:Live Podcast

[wadetemp]

Well live TV isn't live either, but they still call it live TV. It's got to pass through nipple filters, and then it has to do that electromatic waves transmission thing.

Hell, given the speed of light being as slow as it is, life isn't live either.

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

[hyfe]

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

Yes, it is amazing how rumour sites seem to consist of rumours. Mind-boggling it is!

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:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[geniusj]

Kevin Rose (of TechTV fame) got everything right . . .

Re:Rumor Sites Are Bogus

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It doesn't make sense to introduce Final Cut 6 at a consumer show, though MacBook Pro doesn't make sense in that light. I don't really think MacBook Pro is a pro media unit though except for use by early adopters and developers, because running pro apps under emulation is stupid, those apps need to be updated first.

Anyway, usually the pro stuff is announced at pro events, such as Final Cut 5 being announced at NAB 2005, Aperture and dual core Powermacs were announced at a major pro photography convention in NYC. I don't know where or when they'd announce a Mac with DVR features, I hope Apple does release DVR Mac hardware, but I wonder if they would shirk from the idea to appease their iTunes video partners.

My favourite

[Moby Cock]

I think the best part of Macworld so far, for me, we hearing that Apple's stock closed at $80.86 on the day they unveiled Intel Macs.

what

[schroet]

Podcasted? lol.

Windows Media Plugin for Quicktime

[NutscrapeSucks]

Microsoft seems to have given up on Windows Media Player for Mac, and instead released a free plugin for QuickTime. Unlike WMP/Mac, this supports WM9 and the latest stuff.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/play er/flip4mac.mspx

Supposedly some incompatibilities with QuickTime 7.04 (released yesterday).

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!

My favorite thing at Macworld so far...

[aarku]

Is a little company hidden away in the ATI rooms demoing a wicked game engine called Unity. I can't begin to say how great this thing looks. They'll be demoing on Thursday and Friday, too.

New site in town

[smurfsurf]

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

Yeah. But I heard there is a new site up that is supposed to be better than the rest. Even with a podcast. "Super Secret Apple Rumours" or such some.

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.

Re:new mac question

[Aqua OS X]

"cha-ching"

But Google wants me to buy it

[SuperKendall]

Yes Google Earth is free. But if you look the reason is that Google would very much like me to purchase Google Earth + for $20 (or a pro version for $400).

If it looks bad it's a damn poor enticement for me to spend more money. Not to mention that parts do not even work, like To and From hardly ever working with addresses that are valid for "Fly To".