August Mueller:

So when we watch the Microsoft keynote, we don't get excited because we know what to expect. We've learned from past behavior not to completely believe what Microsoft is selling.

And this is why so many people love what Apple delivers. When Apple gives demos of their new product, they aren't throwing in CG showing how they hope things will happen some day in the future. Instead they show the real deal. How it's being used yesterday. And it's those possibilities that get us excited. And Apple frames it so well. The product demos never show us at work (because who wants to get excited about work?), instead the demos show us how the product will be used in our life. How it can make the things we enjoy even better.

And that is probably the biggest difference between Apple and Microsoft. Apple knows when it's time to show a new product. Apple knows when something is ready for real world use, and Apple won't rush something out the door because of market pressures.

Apple is your favorite aunt or uncle, who isn't talking about crazy future ideas, but is instead showing you how to hold a pencil correctly, or a tie your shoe. Something you can do today. Apple isn't flailing about trying to grab onto whatever it can so, yelling out for attention. Apple is solid, reliable, dependable.

As an introvert, I've always loved this about Apple. They don't announce anything unless they have something worth announcing, the same way I don't say anything unless I have something worth saying.

And when Apple does speak, they speak with purpose. They speak to set expectations. They speak not to build up hype, but to paint a picture of how their products will fit into your life.

As a web developer, I LOVE having dual monitors at my workstation. For my next workstation, I'm even considering a triple monitor setup. But I've often wondered, what if computers weren't bound by screens? What if we could have our entire peripheral vision as our digital screens?

Recently, I've been reading venture capitalists hyping up virtual reality like, "You guys won't fucking believe what kind of stuff Oculus Rift is working on right now!" But I have a hard time picturing everyone wearing goggles on their heads, completely cutting off the real world around them. It just doesn't seem mainstream-ready.

Last year, I borrowed my friend's' Google Glass. Being able to do hands-free video recording of my puppy was pretty awesome, but other than that, the apps didn't improve my life in any meaningful way. Plus, Google Glass seems like it's designed to be used outdoors, but it's too damn creepy and socially awkward to be worn out in public.

Enter Microsoft HoloLens.

Today's demo by Microsoft was impressive. For the first time, I could get a sense of how virtual/augmented reality could be meaningful in the real world. And unlike Google Glass, HoloLens is designed to be used in the privacy of your own home or office (i.e. not creepy at all).

I loved the part when they showed a Skype video session floating on a table top. Having these virtual items stay in position like physical objects is much more practical than constantly having windows fixated in the middle of your vision, ala Google Glass.

I want to live in a world where my entire home office becomes my computer screen. I want my code editor windows, browser windows, and PSD files virtually hanging on my wall. When I get a Skype video call from my boss to go over designs, I can pick up and place the Skype window a little off to the side and focus on the designs in front of me. And when I want to watch TV while working, I can have a virtual TV appear on the other side of my room. For the first time ever, that dream feels like it will become a reality.

It’s still early for HoloLens and this is only a demo video, but their live demo shows promise and I'm excited to see what this will be like in another 5-7 years.

AppleInsider:

Apple has taken two different but complimentary approaches to this problem. The first is the iBeacon system, which depends on small palm-sized Bluetooth transmitters placed around a particular space.

When an iOS device sees an iBeacon, it can analyze the signal to determine approximately how far away from that beacon it is. Using multiple iBeacons with known locations, developers can roughly triangulate the user's position.

This isn't very helpful on a large scale, however, since there is no central database of iBeacon locations — such data is by and large only usable by the owner of the beacons. To address the larger problem, Apple acquired small indoor mapping firm WiFiSLAM in early 2013.

WiFiSLAM's technology combines data from on-device sensors with Wi-Fi signal trilateration to plot a user's path. The Wi-Fi signals provide relative positioning, while on-board sensors record movement.

Here's an example: your iPhone could analyze the signal strength of Wi-Fi networks around your house to determine approximately how far you are from each access point. As you move around, the accelerometer, magnetometer, and gyroscope on the handset measure forces exerted by maneuvers like turning left and then right again to avoid a coffee table.

Combining all of that data together over a period of time can bring detailed patterns to light; e.g. "there is an obstacle three feet from point A that can be avoided by moving left two feet." Extending that data capture and pattern recognition to many users — say, the thousands of iPhone owners that visit a shopping mall in a given day — allows for the development of detailed and highly accurate maps without the aid of overhead satellites or dedicated data gathering initiatives.

iBeacons, another "boring" feature announced two summers ago, will really shine when this indoor mapping system gains traction. Apple wants to be Google Maps, but for all indoor venues.

Benedict Evans:

One way to look at this is that iOS and Android have been converging - they arrived with more or less the same capabilities despite starting from opposite ends. Apple has given up control where Google has taken it. And of course Google has had to add lots to Android just as Apple had to add lots to iOS (and they've generally 'inspired' each other on the way), and just as Apple has added cloud services Google has redesigned the user interface (twice, so far).

But the underlying philosophies remain very different - for Apple the device is smart and the cloud is dumb storage, while for Google the cloud is smart and the device is dumb glass. Those assumptions and trade-offs remain very strongly entrenched. Meanwhile, the next phases of smartphones (messaging apps as platforms and watches as a dominant interface?) will test all the assumptions again.

Killian Bell, Cult of Android (emphasis mine):

Samsung’s TouchWiz user interface for Android is universally mocked for being bloated and slow, but it would appear the South Korean company is finally set to do something about it. Sources say it won’t just be overhauling its hardware for the upcoming Galaxy S6, but also its software as well as it aims to deliver an experience as smooth as pure Android.

TouchWiz isn’t just a skin on top of Android; almost every element of the user interface has been modified by Samsung in some way, and it comes with a whole bunch of Samsung apps and features — the vast majority of which are never used by the average consumer.

It doesn’t just make for a poor user experience, but it means that even on the latest hardware, TouchWiz can be slow and inefficient. Many Android fans — including me — will avoid Samsung devices just because of the software, or use third-party ROMs like CyanogenMod to provide a better experience.

Looks like Samsung's Next Big Thing is backtracking on all the gimmicky crap that they used to promote as The Next Big Thing.

More doesn't always mean more, folks. Samsung is learning this the hard way.

Thomas Fox-Brewster, Forbes:

Android smartphone owners who aren’t running the latest version of their operating system might get some nasty surprises from malicious hackers in 2015. That’s because one of the core components of their phones won’t be getting any security updates from Google, the owner of the Android operating system. Without openly warning any of the 939 million affected, Google has decided to stop pushing out security updates for the WebView tool within Android to those on Android 4.3, better known as Jelly Bean, or below, according to appalled security researchers. That means two-thirds of users won’t receive cover from Google, the researchers noted.

The WebView piece of the messy Android jigsaw allows apps to display web pages without having to open another application. Many apps and ad networks use the component, which the Google Android team even advocates in its developer documentation on rendering web pages. It’s also the favored vector for attack for nearly any remote code execution vulnerability in the mobile OS, according to Rapid7 engineering manager Tod Beardsley. “WebView, for many, many attackers, is Android, just as Internet Explorer [Microsoft's browser] is usually the best vector for attackers who want to compromise Windows client desktops,” he told Forbes.

Software weaknesses have repeatedly been uncovered in Android and WebView, making the lack of updates even more dangerous. Rapid7 has added numerous exploits to its penetration testing kit Metasploit. The most recent version comes with 11 different WebView exploits bundled in, meaning both ethical and criminal hackers could easily exploit the tool and subsequently Android operating systems.

This is the part that really sucks about having such an open platform. Too many hardware choices = too much hardware diversity = too many devices running different versions of the software = too much fragmentation to maintain a secure and consistent experience.

Open doesn't always win.

Tim Bajarin:

Another way to think of this is that smart phones or pocket computers connecting the next two billion people to the internet is similar to what the Gutenberg Press and the Bible were to the masses in the Middle Ages. Before the Gutenberg Press, knowledge and control of the people was in the hands of a select few who controlled the flow of information. As a result, they lorded it over the populace and made them beholden to the church or more educated authorities who ruled them. But once the Bible and other documents could be dispersed to a larger audience, those authoritarian rulers were challenged and eventually marginalized as more and more power went to the people over time.

Steve Jobs was wrong. The iPad isn't the most important thing he has ever done; the iPhone is.

And Samsung was right. The next big thing is already here — smartphones.

Andrew Watts, a teen, breaks down how his generation views all of the different social networks. Here are my highlights:

Facebook:

It’s dead to us. Facebook is something we all got in middle school because it was cool but now is seen as an awkward family dinner party we can't really leave.

Instagram:

Facebook gets all of the photos we took — the good, the bad, etc—while Instagram just gets the one that really summed up the event we went to. It is much more selective, and honestly people spend more time on the captions to make them relevant/funny.

Snapchat:

Snapchat is a somewhat intimate network of friends who I don't care if they see me at a party having fun. [...]

There aren't likes you have to worry about or comments—it’s all taken away. Snapchat has a lot less social pressure attached to it compared to every other popular social media network out there. This is what makes it so addicting and liberating. If I don’t get any likes on my Instagram photo or Facebook post within 15 minutes you can sure bet I'll delete it. Snapchat isn't like that at all and really focuses on creating the Story of a day in your life, not some filtered/altered/handpicked highlight. It’s the real you.

Tumblr:

Tumblr is like a secret society that everyone is in, but no one talks about. Tumblr is where you are your true self and surround yourself (through who you follow) with people who have similar interests. It’s often seen as a “judgment-free zone” where, due to the lack of identity on the site, you can really be who you want to be.

Neil Cybart:

There has been a trend to either mock, or make fun of people, that want to buy products simply because a certain company makes them. Some will say this type of buyer is being guided by marketing, or is just a follower, but in reality it comes down to trust. Many people trust Apple. It is this very important connection with users that will likely get people to at least try the Apple Watch, and for Apple that is the best outcome they can wish for.

It's the same thing as fans pledging on Kickstarter for a new album by their favorite indie musician. Fans don't know exactly what they'll be getting but they trust it will be as good as past albums.

In response to reports of TAG Heuer looking into selling smartwatches, Matt Richman writes:

TAG Heuer’s smartwatch won’t sell. There’s no market for it.

Apple Watch requires pairing with an iPhone, and TAG’s smartwatch will need to pair with a smartphone to even have a chance of being as feature-rich as Apple Watch.

Apple isn’t going to re-engineer iOS for TAG’s benefit, so TAG’s smartwatch won’t pair with an iPhone the way Apple Watch does.

In order to have even stand a chance of being as feature-rich as Apple Watch, then, TAG’s smartwatch will have to pair with an Android phone. However, TAG wearers aren’t Android users. Rich people buy TAG watches, but rich people don’t buy Android phones.

I didn't even think about that. But another thought: how luxurious will Android Wear ever get?

If Android Wear makers don't go for luxury, they probably won't be very fashionable, which means we'll just be seeing more of what we already see right now — uber geeky watches that are too big and/or too masculine for the common female shopper.

If Android Wear goes for luxury, then, as Matt has pointed out, Android Wear makers would be trying to sell luxury smartwatches to a customer base that doesn't really appreciate luxury products.