Digital Revolution

Many people are thinking about replacing the iPhone. Various technologies are proposed as substitutes, like wearables, voice control, smart glasses, etc. These technologies are supposed to work together so that people no longer need the iPhone. However, there is no evidence that smartphones are more like iPods that would eventually go away, rather than like emails that probably would stay with us in some form or another, forever. A alternative is presented here. Rather than thinking about these technologies as substitutes, it's more constructive to think about them as complements to the iPhone. The reason why iPhone isn't going away is deep. It's about ergonomics. No proposed technologies combined can replace the simplicity and elegance of touch controls. Yet there are certainly circumstances that a smartwatch may outperform a smartphone. That's why complementary thinking is constructive. Actually, it's natural to speculate that, if designed well, smartphones, tab

Recently, in the name of increasing competition, USA politicians proposed a bill to transform the App Store so that it behaves more like Microsoft's concept of a App Store. The irony should raise alarm for those who are serious about government regulation. Why does a bill aiming at increasing competition end up endorsing Microsoft's business strategy? Part of it is political cynicism, but it seems that the obscurity of iPhone's nature and significance is at play. Following Apple's advertisement, the public perceived the iPhone as a magical success, which served Apple well for market expansion, but the concealment also gave regulators a false sense that they are regulating a familiar, albeit extraordinarily successful, product. Magic doesn't explain why the issue of surveillance and privacy was so acute for the iPhone. Magic doesn't explain why security of the iPhone is of prime importance. Magic doesn't explain why the regulator's drive for increasin

Apple published a web page showcasing the advantages of Mac at work. Macs are great home computers, great student computers, partly because the simplicity of home and school environments allowed Macs to be judged by its own virtues. It's not the case at work. Work environments contain lots of peripherals, databases, and devices that interoperability poses serious problems. Apple is excellent at Apple device interoperability, but often doesn't work with other technologies. Despite all the advantages Apple showcased, Mac at work is still a tough topic to talk about. Currently, there are several classes of people who used Macs consistently at work. Graphic designers and app developers used Macs for obvious reasons. Macs also have some popularity with managers that may leave interoperability issues to IT. Better interoperability is clearly the way to go for Macs to be more workplace friendly. There are several issues. The simplest is peripherals like printers. Because Apple is not