Change cover and View Photo // Android apps for Facebook (video) – thnxz cnet.com – @cnet


By 
At long last Android users can change their Facebook cover photo using the Android app — a feature still missing from the iOS app. Here’s a quick video showing you how it works.

Anuncios

‘Phablets’ | manualdeestilo.com


ESTILO, Manual de estilo para los nuevos medios
Manual de Estilo

Los titulares no dejan lugar a dudas: «Comienza la era phablet», «Losphablets son el futuro de los dispositivos móviles», «La phablet más fina y a un precio razonable» e, incluso, con ansiedad comprensible, «¿Veremos unphablet de Apple?». A lo que un despistado podría añadir: «Si no es mucha molestia, ¿alguien me explica qué es un phablet?».

Por supuesto, basta una consulta rápida para averiguar que esta palabra se emplea al designar a aquellos dispositivos móviles que combinan las prestaciones de un teléfono (phone) y una tableta (tablet). El resultado, no obstante, no es por completo castizo.Concretamente de términos que aspiran a traducir la voz inglesa original: ¿tabletófono?, ¿tablófono?, ¿alguien apuesta por tebleta o telebleta?
Leer más “‘Phablets’ | manualdeestilo.com”

Face-off: 1979 Apple Graphics Tablet vs. 2010 Apple iPad

The Apple Graphics Tablet (left) was released in 1979 and cost $650. It connects to any Apple II and can be used to draw images at a resolution of 280 by 192 pixels. The tablet draws power directly from the Apple II and cannot be used when disconnected.

The Apple II was originally designed to be used with televisions rather than computer monitors, but the Apple Graphics Tablet produced interference that could disrupt reception of television signals. A later model was identical to its predecessor except for one notable new feature: FCC compliance.

The Apple iPad (right) was released in 2010 in six models ranging from $499 to $829. Equipped with a 1-GHz A4 system-on-a-chip and a 16GB, 32GB or 64GB flash drive, it syncs with any Macintosh or Windows machine capable of running iTunes and can run thousands of iOS applications. Its resolution is 1024 by 768 pixels on a 9.7-in. LED-backlit glossy widescreen display.


30-year-old technology struts its stuff beside today’s state-of-the-art tablet computer

By Ken Gagne

old and new Apple logos When Apple launched the iPad earlier this year, it was the culmination of fans’ long wait for the company to enter the tablet computer market. There’s no doubt that Apple‘s iPad is a revolutionary computing device that’s ushering in a new era of tablet computing.

But in 1979, an earlier generation of Apple users used a different kind of Apple tablet, back when the word meant something else entirely.

The Apple Graphics Tablet was designed by Summagraphics and sold by Apple Computer Inc. for the Apple II personal microcomputer. (Summagraphics also marketed the device for other platforms as the BitPad.) To be clear, this tablet was not a stand-alone computing device like the iPad. Instead, it was an input device for creating images on the Apple II’s screen, and it predated the Apple II’s mouse by six years.

Apple II fan Tony Diaz had an Apple Graphics Tablet on hand at last month’s KansasFest, an annual convention for diehard Apple II users. He and Computerworld‘s Ken Gagne, the event’s marketing director, compared and contrasted Apple’s original tablet with the iPad, snapping photos as they went.

Despite the three decades of technology advancements that separate the two devices, some fun comparisons are still possible. Join us for a photo face-off between the two tablets.

Meet the tablets

Apple II Graphics Tablet and iPad side by side

The Apple Graphics Tablet (left) was released in 1979 and cost $650. It connects to any Apple II and can be used to draw images at a resolution of 280 by 192 pixels. The tablet draws power directly from the Apple II and cannot be used when disconnected.

The Apple II was originally designed to be used with televisions rather than computer monitors, but the Apple Graphics Tablet produced interference that could disrupt reception of television signals. A later model was identical to its predecessor except for one notable new feature: FCC compliance.

The Apple iPad (right) was released in 2010 in six models ranging from $499 to $829. Equipped with a 1-GHz A4 system-on-a-chip and a 16GB, 32GB or 64GB flash drive, it syncs with any Macintosh or Windows machine capable of running iTunes and can run thousands of iOS applications. Its resolution is 1024 by 768 pixels on a 9.7-in. LED-backlit glossy widescreen display. Leer más “Face-off: 1979 Apple Graphics Tablet vs. 2010 Apple iPad”

What We’re Reading: Relationships


Image representing New York Times as depicted ...
Image via CrunchBase

By THE NEW YORK TIMES

The tech reporters and editors of The New York Times found these articles on the Web provocative… Leer más “What We’re Reading: Relationships”

The Perils of Disruption

Why is it so difficult for established firms to deal with disruptive innovation? In general, I think that Clayton Christensen’s model of disruptive innovation is correct. His basic idea is that since disruptions generally start in niches, the economics of pursuing disruptive innovations look really bad for large incumbents:

Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.

Because the new niche doesn’t look very attractive, it makes rational economic sense to let someone else fill it. And also, you wouldn’t want to cannibalise your existing products, would you?

Well, yes, actually – you would. Or at least you should. Here are some examples from Wired’s articles about tablet computers.

First off, this is from the discussion of Microsoft’s approach to tablet computing:

Incremental change, however, can ultimately mean no change. A decade ago, Microsoft came up with its own vision of a tablet computer. But the company tried to have it both ways: a new category of device that ran an old style of software — specifically, a modified version of Windows. (Using Windows, computer pioneer Alan Kay says, was “a very bad idea for this kind of interaction.”) The Tablet PC, introduced in 2002, was a flop. Meanwhile, advances from Microsoft’s labs can approach bar mitzvah age before finding their way into products. Surface is the most exciting product out of Redmond in years, but the company has been shockingly timid in pushing it into the marketplace. Almost three years after it was announced, Surface is still a novelty in a few hotel lobbies and retail stores. Apple all but announced that the iPad could damage its own desktop and laptop business, but Microsoft never seems to put all its weight behind groundbreaking products — especially if success may come at the expense of its Windows and Office cash cows.


Why is it so difficult for established firms to deal with disruptive innovation? In general, I think that Clayton Christensen’s model of disruptive innovation is correct. His basic idea is that since disruptions generally start in niches, the economics of pursuing disruptive innovations look really bad for large incumbents:

Characteristics of disruptive businesses, at least in their initial stages, can include: lower gross margins, smaller target markets, and simpler products and services that may not appear as attractive as existing solutions when compared against traditional performance metrics.

Because the new niche doesn’t look very attractive, it makes rational economic sense to let someone else fill it. And also, you wouldn’t want to cannibalise your existing products, would you?

Well, yes, actually – you would. Or at least you should. Here are some examples from Wired’s articles about tablet computers.

First off, this is from the discussion of Microsoft’s approach to tablet computing:

Incremental change, however, can ultimately mean no change. A decade ago, Microsoft came up with its own vision of a tablet computer. But the company tried to have it both ways: a new category of device that ran an old style of software — specifically, a modified version of Windows. (Using Windows, computer pioneer Alan Kay says, was “a very bad idea for this kind of interaction.”) The Tablet PC, introduced in 2002, was a flop. Meanwhile, advances from Microsoft’s labs can approach bar mitzvah age before finding their way into products. Surface is the most exciting product out of Redmond in years, but the company has been shockingly timid in pushing it into the marketplace. Almost three years after it was announced, Surface is still a novelty in a few hotel lobbies and retail stores. Apple all but announced that the iPad could damage its own desktop and laptop business, but Microsoft never seems to put all its weight behind groundbreaking products — especially if success may come at the expense of its Windows and Office cash cows. Leer más “The Perils of Disruption”