Ok, so I'm due to change my mobile soon (contract expires at last!) and I had thought that I would get an iPhone, as they seem to be the default choice at the moment, but I've had second thoughts.
Now, I like Apple's products as a rule - they are usually easy to use, stylish and well-made, but the iPhone just doesn't grip me, even after it's much-vaunted 3G makeover. The simple fact is that it makes a very expensive phone, or a very poor PDA, but it doesn't actually do enough to warrant me giving up a decent phone and my iPod Touch. I know it can sync with Microsoft Exchange now, but email is not the be-all and end-all. Where is the handwriting recognition for faster note-taking? Where is the pocket office suite to allow Word, Excel and Powerpoint to be viewed and/or edited (at least Apple could bring out an iPhone/iPod Touch version of iWork, if they don't want to go down the MS Office route)? In short, the iPhone is not a PDA, it's not even really a smart phone. In fact, what it is frequently escapes me - it's just an iPhone that makes calls. Think about it - you can already check email, watch video and play games on your iPod Touch, but that's not a PDA - it lacks a lot of PDA functions. Exactly like the iPhone.
So, what am I going to get? Well, I currently like the idea of the latest Motorola Razr or a similar slimline flip-phone and I'm digging out some batteries for my old Newton Messagepad 110 - it'll do as a PDA until I think of a better option...
I know that we've had the eight-core Mac Pros and the the MacBook Air and, in fairness, the aluminium iMac (a machine I think is stunning, but I really don't like the keyboard), but they aren't, well, new.
Bear with me, as I think this needs some explanation - yes, we have had a myriad new products, but we haven't had anything to change the world in the same way that the original Macintosh did. Or, I suppose, the Macintosh II in the way it overturned the entire print and design industry and made Desktop Publishing mainstream. The iPhone is lovely, especially now it has 3G and GPS, but it's really nothing more than a logical extension of the Newton, although the Newton had handwriting recognition and the iPhone doesn't. I love my Blue Dalmation iMac G3, but the all-in-one form factor and simple, easy-to-use-yet-powerful design ethos are merely an update of the original Macintosh and all successive iMacs are iterative, rather than revolutionary. The Mac Pro is based on the Power Macintosh, which evolved from the Quadra series which grew from the ashes of the Macintosh II, whilst the consumer/low-end systems went from Macintosh to....well, Macintosh Classic, Colour Classic, LC, Performa (essentially reboxing the same technology), to the iMac. All compact, all usefully quick without setting your hair on fire and all pretty well designed and screwed together.
So where is the new paradigm shift? It's easy to watch the launch of the original Macintosh on youtube and think of it as hokey and rather sweet in a "aww, look at them going mad over something with less power than my phone" manner, but in 1984 the technology being unveiled was a world apart. In those days, even so-called "Personal" computers required expertise to use, as you loaded your games via a command line, or had to use a DOS Prompt to find your text documents and disparate interfaces and menus for your different packages. To put it in context, your PC keyboard used to have a clear plastic flap at the top under which you'd put your inlay (that shipped with each package you used) that told you what the 12 function keys did (at least three commands per key - the key, the key with Shift held and the key with ALT held). The Macintosh changed all that at a stroke. A child could use it, it worked logically and the interface was consistent across all packages. One of the least thought-about and most beneficial things that Microsoft hijacked when they pillaged Apple's IP during the creation of Windows was that idea of a consistent set of commands - CTRL+C for copy, CTRL+S for save, etc.
It is very hard for those people who grew up after the fallout of the introduction of Macintosh to understand just how far-reaching its impact was - they expect things like copy/paste and drag and drop. They expect their standard key commands to be consistent and they really fail to grasp the fact that all of it, every single thing they now see as "computing" is, in some way, linked back to that little beige box that spoke like Stephen Hawking and played a bleepy version of "Chariots of Fire" when an excitable guy with floppy hair and glasses pulled it out of a bag. Yes, I am sure that people will come out of the woodwork to point out that Xerox Parc had developed the bones of the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointer) interface and that, no doubt, some guy had created a full windowing, multitasking interfaces for UNIX in the 1970s that I don't know about, but the original Macintosh created the desktop computer revolution as we know it.
The Newton created the first usable PDA (before we even know we needed one) and the Mac Portable was, despite the execution, the first attempt to make a portable computer that was a full equivalent to a desktop machine (remember, at the time you could buy an Collosus PC which had a 10" CRT monochrome screen and an 8086 CPU and a couple of floppy drives and that was about the size of a suitcase, so the Mac Portable wasn't that bad).
So, the question remains, what's the next paradigm shift? Personally, I don't think it's the "cloud", with everything on the web and computers just accessing information and applications when needed - the restriction of bandwidth precludes any idea of it being faster than a decent machine on your desk working with local files. Besides, we already have web-based applications and data storage, so it's nothing new. Touch and gesture control is just a way of integrating the trackpad or mouse to the screen, so it doesn't really bring anything new and whilst we are already seeing some convergence with data push/pull from handheld/phone to web to desktop and back, you could sync your Newton to your Macintosh many moons ago. I think that where we'll see the next revolution will be in convenience. Think about it - at the moment you might have a MacPro or iMac, a MacBook of some kind for working away from your desk and an iPhone/PDA phone for keeping in touch when you are travelling. This means you have at least three devices, but imagine if you had something like and iMac with a Wacom Cintiq (the display/tablet) that acted as your keyboard/input and document "dock". If you wanted to save a web page you drag it off the main screen and onto an area of the "tablet", which might have a keyboard attached (given how thin the new mac keyboard is, it could slide out). When you then go out of the office, you unplug the tablet and take it with you and it's a fully functioning mobile Mac - low power CPU (like a MacBook Air), maybe even built-in 3G, with an iPhone-esque interface for your stored web pages, documents, etc, but which has fully-functioning desktop applications and, say, 20gb of flash drive - enough to store a few tunes, your presentations and your documents for the meeting, all in a tough A4 sized slab that fits in your bag neatly, unlike a laptop - hell it could even have solar cells to top up the battery. If it's got 3G, you could bluetooth a headest to it and make calls, then get back to the office and dock it back to the main part of your Mac where it automatically updates your files with any changes made to the copies on the tablet and recharges the tablet battery.
From a users perspective, your work becomes seamless, you're not having to use USB sticks, or email yourself files to transfer from desktop to laptop and you don't even need a phone. It's nothing new, really, as it's a logical extension of the old Powerbook Duo/Duo Dock system, but I think it's something that would appeal to home users (surf the net from the sofa or stream movies to the tablet whilst the main machine burns tunes to CD or suchlike) and business users, for the reasons described previously, alike.
I know that it's technically not a new paradigm in computing in the same way that the original Macintosh was, but I think that something that is so flexible and useful would become indispensible to consumers, students and professionals and the fact you wouldn't need to physically transfer files from one machine to another takes a lot of the pain out of using a computer for practical tasks and makes it much more acceptable to those resistant to technology. I think it would be the first step towards making the Macintosh as ubiquitous as the TV remote or the microwave - which is no bad thing, as such a product would form a sound base for stronger Pro-grade machines, or even tie-ins with car manufacturers to create in-car Mac/GPS entertainment systems, for example.
After a fairly heavy weekend, this seemed like a sensible suggestion, but I'm willing to hear your point of view!
Ok, so it's not my usual lightweight fare, but I've been thinking recently about this (what with the huge round of media coverage in the UK following record GCSE results that was then followed by the usual backlash from Universities and businesses saying that more and more children have low literacy rates and no actual knowledge of the subjects they have just gotten all A* grades in). Now, I for one do believe that the current government is more concerned about pass rates, especially with the idea of having higher pass rates than their predecessor administration, and less about the quality of education given, but I also realise that this is not the fault of the children and that if they were given the appropriate tools and support, they would no doubt be just as intelligent and capable as earlier generations.
So, what does this have to do with computer games? Well, first of all, you'll know that I have no real issue with computer games as I frequently review them here and I make my living in what can loosely be called "the computer industry". With that i mind, it is safe to say that I don't think that games should be banned and I certainly don't want us heap games consoles on a bonfire in some grotesque parody of the book-burnings in Nuremberg. No, I think what really sparked off this line of thought was the fact that I had recently wandered over to the Macintosh Garden (a great repository for old abandonware games) and grabbed a few text adventures as something to do on the train home from work instead of the usual Sudoku book. As I sat staring at the opening screen of The Hobbit, waves of nostalgia washing over me, the thought suddenly struck me that this would be a great way of encouraging imagination and reading skills in the child(ren) I hope to raise with my wife soon. Not only that, but it's a great way of spending an hour or so with a child that doesn't involve sitting in front of a DVD of "In The Night Garden" or "Bob The Builder".
As I thought about it more, I realised that, as a thirtysomething, I had played such games as a child, often with a friend, and we'd talk about them, draw out maps and make notes, work out the puzzles and enjoy the storyline. I also remember the fun to be had with the old Fighting Fantasy adventure books (recently republished), but I digress. The fact is that these games made literacy, reading and logic fun for us, without trying to be "educational" and, whilst such learning titles might be worthy and even viewed as the best option for entertainment at school, the truth is that anything labelled as "educational" is likely to be avoided at all costs by children unless they are forcibly made to play the game. So, instead they sit in front of their Playstations or Wiis and watch colourful event unfold that, whist they teach logic and hand-eye coordination, do not promote literacy in any way. Ok, maybe the child has to read the menu system, but that's about it - the fact is that most of their leisure time is spent pressing buttons repeatedly whilst shooting zombies, or collecting stars, or whatever.
Books such as Harry Potter, the Alex Rider and Young James Bond series' and the like have proved that, if it is done correctly, there is money to be made in things that get children into reading and using their imagination, so why is the computer industry so reluctant to revisit the parser-based interface? With PCs in every school and most homes having some sort of computer, there is no barrier to accessiblity and, if the technology used was, say, Flash-based, then there would be no reliance on having to have the latest hardware. Costs would be lower due to reduced development work being required and you could always combine conversation using a text parser with point-and-click interactions in the way titles such as Douglas Adams' Starship Titanic did. Providing the interface was simple enough, the graphics appealing enough and the script/gameplay enjoyable, I see no reason why such a venture wouldn't gain momentum - think of something like Monkey Island, but with more interactive dialogue, for example - wouldn't you want to give it a go? Of course you would, so your kids would be happy to try it too, especially if Mum and Dad joined in.
I might even dust down my copy of Flash and see if I can build something myself!
