Craig Mathias

A question we're hearing with increasing frequency concerns the upcoming 802.11ac standard, which promises to do to 802.11n what .11n did to .11g. While the IEEE 802.11ac standard likely won't be completely finished before the end of 2013, and, while the Wi-Fi Alliance similarly has issued no interoperability criteria for 802.11ac, consumer-grade products claiming compliance with the aforementioned 802.11ac standard could be on store shelves as soon as the middle of 2012.

We should be used to this reversed-from-the-expected order of developments that define progress in the world of wireless LANs (products, then specs from the Wi-Fi Alliance, and finally the standard itself), but the .11ac announcements we're seeing now bring new relevance to the debate.

Last week's Interop New York conference, as is always the case, featured a number of very interesting discussions of wireless and mobile security, including an excellent "deep dive" in the form of Lisa Phifer's overview of best practices for WLAN security. Bottom line: nothing's perfect, but we've got really good tools and strategies available today, and, while I'll never tell you that one can achieve absolute security, because one can't, we can do a pretty good job when we set our minds to it. Annoyances like viruses can indeed be minimized - or so we assume.

So how come the US military is still unable, despite budgets that are well beyond the reach of us mere mortals, to secure critical systems? I previously wrote about the unsecured (in fact, wide-open) video stream transmitted by the mission-critical Predator UAVs (sometimes incorrectly called "drones"), and why anyone stupid enough to design (as well as specify and approve) such a solution shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a critical national-security system (hell, I wouldn't trust them with a smartphone). Well, it appears that nothing's changed in the past two years, and these critical systems are still at risk.

You've probably by now seen the video clip of the woman walking into a fountain at a shopping mall while texting on her handset (no link here because I have reason to believe that the video was illicitly and perhaps illegally released, violating the woman's privacy, but that's another matter); it's actually pretty funny. This one has been all over the TV news, along with other more serious stories about various legislative efforts to criminalize (via a fine) walking or biking (and perhaps other outdoor activities) while distracted by a handset, music player, or similar device. This looks to me like little more than another effort by cash-strapped municipalities to raise revenue, wrapped up in this-is-for-your-own-good paternalism. I think this is an absolutely idiotic idea, although at first blush it's not that different from bans on talking or texting while driving, which I wholeheartedly support. After all, both involve simple common sense, don't they?

Indeed they do -- but there's big difference. The operator of a motor vehicle has a fundamental responsibility to those around them to above all else do no harm, and the law should enforce this principle in spades. But someone walking while texting, talking, or listening to music is in far greater danger of harming themselves as a result of inattention to their surroundings, with relatively little damage potential with respect to others. Of course, anyone causing harm to the person or property of another, no matter the circumstances, should be forced to pay up. But causing harm to oneself due to stupidity? Should that be a crime?

Despite my disapproval of Apple's tight (read: monopolistic) control over software for the iPhone and iPad, I felt it important to have an iPad here to run software that might be of interest to clients. So I bought one (32 GB, no 3G, I mean, what's the point if I can tether it to my handset; more on that shortly) and I've been casually exploring it -- no production use yet, although it might get a little at Interop next week. I like the screen -- absolutely gorgeous, clear, and bright, although the default background has streaks (I presume these are meteor trails or some such) that make it look like it's scratched. Overall, it's cute, but it's no replacement for a PC. In fact, at this point it's just a big iPod.

Most obvious, right out of the box the iPad must be synced with a PC running iTunes. Hmmm. No PC would require that. Synching calendars and contacts similarly goes through iTunes. OK, after years of ActiveSync, I can live with that, but there's a subtle message in all of this to buy more stuff via said iTunes.

I spent yesterday at the Embedded Systems Conference in Boston, which is both nerd heaven and a great place for design engineers to get up to speed on the latest developments in components. The highlight for me was meeting with a couple of Product Managers from Microsoft, who spent a bit of time discussing the latest incarnations of embedded Windows 7 (Enterprise and Server) and Windows CE 6.0 R3. They key question I had for them is why anyone would use a Microsoft OS for embedded applications when Linux is free - and depending upon the specific distribution, quite robust, open source, and familiar to essentially every computer-science graduate on the planet these days.

The boys from Redmond didn't do too bad here. Their key message is that Windows is a known quantity with broad adoption across the planet (true), and that Microsoft's development, training, and support ecosystem is robust enough to handle essentially any application (also true). They cited new features like multitouch and gesture and Silverlight on CE, and they countered that Linux is a fragmented community (also true) that might be OK for some applications, but the robust, supported nature of both W7 and CE make these OSes the obvious choice even though they cost money (and, no, they wouldn't reveal anything about pricing, not even a ballpark, citing the OEM, custom-quotation nature of Windows embedded products).

I was recently mildly surprised to see a TV ad proclaiming that "BlackBerry Loves U2", but with little additional explanation other than a reference to a Web site with similarly little value other than to tease a "U2 Mobile Album" which hasn't yet been released. Why is the king of corporate mobility hyping a rock band via the vaporware route?

One can only assume that RIM is responding to Apple's incursion into the enterprise space with a similar thrust into the consumer market. But these teaser ads and promotions aren't really useful, IMHO - assuming someone wants whatever it is they're providing, they want it now, not a vague linkage between two worlds whose collision probably won't matter all that much. In the interest of full disclosure, I personally don't want whatever it is they're selling at all. I don't use a BlackBerry, although I've got nothing against RIM or the device - BlackBerry just doesn't suit my needs. But I'm certainly not going to run out to buy a BlackBerry because RIM sponsors a band's tour or offers me a few songs to listen to when I should really be working with that BlackBerry my boss gave me. And, for the record (so to speak), I'm not a huge U2 fan. OK, the music is, well, OK, with occasional moments worth humming, but Bono's style and attitude are insufferable. I do like the Edge's sound; I play a little guitar myself and he's really developed a unique tone and presence. But as a band they've not produced an album that I've bought since their fourth (Blood Red Sky), and that was in 1983. I do think their first, Boy, is absolutely brilliant, but from Unforgettable Fire forward we've had only flashes of brilliance swimming in a sea of self-indulgence.

I generally don't comment on rumors, but, well, let's face it, Apple is the most important company in consumer electronics today, and my phone's been ringing continually lately with press, analysts, clients, and assorted others looking for insight on what Apple is doing with regard to a tablet PC or similar product. Officially, I have no idea what Apple is doing here. But, in what appears on its way to becoming yet another worst-kept secret in tech, there are plenty of folks who seem to be hinting that they know all about this unannounced product which, again let's face it, would clearly be an important direction for the company. But there is really only one question that matters here, and it's not whether Apple is developing a tablet. Of course they are, and, if they're not, heads should be rolling in the marketing department at One Infinite Loop. Rather, the question is whether such a device should be a big iPod Touch (or even an iPhone), or a highly-mobile "netbook" Mac

Apple has a great big hole in its product line between the iPod Touch, which is really an iPhone minus the cellular radio, and the low-end MacBook, a ghastly-white plastic relic of a placeholder (who, really, would buy this when the entry-level MacBook Pro is available for just US$200 more?) that is clearly not long for this world. From a pricing perspective, this gap stretches from the US$399 32GB Touch, to the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro at US$1199 (or to the above-mentioned plastic relic starting at US$999 if you disagree with me on ghastliness or relicdom). Netbooks (or whatever other name they are currently being called) are selling really, really well, but almost all have that horrible, obsolete Windows XP on them and an unknown future WRT Win 7. Apple could thus, I believe, have a field day with a Mac product in the US$700-$900 range, business they otherwise lose today. Sure, you can get a netbook much cheaper than that, but Apple can always command a higher price because they present the impression of greater value (Microsoft's current TV advertising campaign to the contrary notwithstanding).

I'm not sure we should be thinking of handsets as little PCs and trying to get a zillion applications running on them, but, OK, if we're going to run apps on our handsets, then what's the right model for distributing those apps? Apple has shown that the vertically-integrated hardware/software/services model has real legs, and other app stores from handset vendors, carriers, and OS developers are appearing. This of course leads to two key questions: do app stores concentrate too much power (even to the point of monopoly) in one place, and what's the best model for the app store itself -- handset vendor, carrier, OS developer, or perhaps something else altogether?

I have for some time argued that any given vendor should not be allowed to monopolize a "natural" interface in their products. Openness has traditionally been the case with PCs, where one is free to run whatever OS one wants (assuming one builds one's own PC or otherwise ignores the expense associated with a bundled OS that is not used), and equally free to run whatever applications one wants, whether self-developed or obtained from any (and I do mean any) source. The natural interfaces of the hardware and OS APIs encourage innovation and ultimately enable the offering of the greatest flexibility and value to the consumer. They also prevent too much power from being concentrated in the hands of any given player in the hardware/systems software/OS food chain, which could (and, in Microsoft's case, does) result in an effective monopoly. In other words, vendors, build what you want, but keep in mind that you're here first and foremost to serve a customer and optimize for the customer experience and to satisfy, at the lower possible cost, customer needs - and not just to make money via the artificial restraint of trade.

PC cases come in many form factors, but they're all basically boxes that lack personality. This doesn't have to be the case (pun intended), as my Carpet Cleaner PC very well proves. Yes, this is a working Ubuntu PC built out of an old Bissell Carpet Machine.

Enough people have asked me about the CCCP (Carpet Cleaner Computer that's Personal), including Julie Bort, who's handles all things blog at Network World, that here's a little more on the topic of building your own PC out of, well, almost anything.

I've been saying it for a long time: cell phones and driving do not mix. The evidence grows daily. Some moron train operator in Boston decides to text his girlfriend while operating a passenger train, injures dozens of people, and causes US$9 million in damage -- to say nothing of the damage to the lives of the injured. It should be obvious that driving anything while distracted is a bad idea. Common sense should indeed be more common. And, while the cellular industry has paid lip service to this issue, they've not done enough, perhaps because so doing might impact their bottom line. Hey, I'll be the first to agree that capitalism has its virtues, but not if innocent people are injured or killed in the process.

So, while it's been obvious for some time to many (I can't be the only one here) that something needs to be done, even I was shocked to learn yesterday that the federal government has had proof of the relationship between cell phones and "accidents" for a very long time, but, obviously for political reasons, sat on this evidence. Check out this article in the venerable New York Times. In research dating from 2002 (!), it was reported that "The highway safety researchers estimated that cellphone use by drivers caused around 955 fatalities and 240,000 accidents over all in 2002."

Google's indication (hardly an announcement) that they're getting into the OS business comes as no surprise. It's already got Android. It's got Web-based apps that are now (finally) out of beta. It's got the right vision, IMHO, for mobility. They have the potential at the very least to put a thumbtack on Microsoft's chair, if not actually kick them in the butt.

And that's because MS thinks that an operating system is a destination rather than simply a facility to abstract hardware and network services into metaphors that programmers and end-users alike can deal with. The two key directions for mobility -- netbooks (or at least lighter clients, which includes handhelds) and Web services -- really don't require MS's vision of bloated, complex, buggy, slow, inefficient, unreliable, and expensive operating systems. Because they've been competing in the PC, rather than the Web-centric, era, Microsoft has only two options to address this opportunity -- Windows Mobile, which I still think is doomed for reasons of cost, and Windows 7, which would need several passes through the shrink-o-tron to work here, leaving it much less than Microsoft's vision (and, in fact, business and financial requirement) of OS as destination.

As you know from my previous misadventures with Apple's wireless keyboard and mouse (which, BTW, seem to be fixed now), I am a big fan of these wireless peripherals -- but, let's face it, they don't always work all that well. Wireless input is usually the most desirable alternative, whether in a home entertainment/HTPC environment, a regular office setting (no wires to get in the way of everything you have in front of you), or simply working from a comfy chair. I'm presently using, as is required, a wireless keyboard in our Wireless Media Facility, and it's a bit clunky due to the inclusion of a joystick for pointing and suffers from dead spots, meaning one is always moving and checking the screen to be sure one isn't wasting one's time pressing keys to no end. The radios on wireless keyboards and mice - Bluetooth or not - are notoriously weak WRT transmit power, and the lack of a two-way protocol means you've got to keep looking up to see what (if) you're typing and if there's a need to continue your search for a reliable keyboard and mouse - which for me, anyway, has been perpetural. Well, my quest may be at an end.

My preference in such devices is an all-in-one design, with the pointing device integrated into the keyboard. While trackballs are OK, a touchpad is clearly the best alternative here. That's why I was pleased to have the chance to try Adesso's new WKB-4100UB. It's a one-piece design with that trendy (and perhaps useful, for real typists) reverse-curved keyboard and a definitely useful integrated touchpad. Range and reliability are very good indeed. I like the feel of the keyboard - a nice combination of travel and click, and it has a lot of additional multimedia keys for use with Windows, assuming you use Windows.