Over the years, a lot has been said about Android’s fragmentation problem. Manufacturers and carriers often took months to deliver operating system updates, if they delivered them at all. Thankfully, the Android update scenario seems to have taken a turn for the better. Manufacturers like Sony Ericsson have cleaned up their act in a big way, and have promised to deliver quick updates. Google has also begun to wield its influence to nudge manufacturers and careers in the right direction. However, now that the software fragmentation problem is showing signs of settling down, another major issue is rearing its ugly head hardware fragmentation.

Google has very little say over the hardware configuration of Android devices. Current generation Android handsets run on everything from ARM A9 to ARM A6 and ARM A11. Google wants Android to be ubiquitous. It wants Android handsets to dominate every segment from basic low-end devices to cutting edge high-end smartphones. This is in stark contrast to the approach taken by Apple and even Microsoft. Apple restricts iOS to handsets manufactured in-house (i.e. iPhone). Microsoft on the other hand has laid out stringent minimum hardware specifications that all Windows Phone handsets must satisfy.

In theory, Google’s approach has some significant advantages like affordability and diversity. It allows for healthy competition between hardware manufactures, and it fosters innovation and rapid improvements in hardware capability. Hardware fragmentation by its own isn’t a major headache. However, as always, vested interests have found ways to exploit the freedom offered to them by Google to gain unfair competitive advantages.

Hardware manufacturers are tying up with game developers to artificially restrict games to their own platforms. The biggest culprit is probably nVidia, which has roped in several big names to launch Tegra exclusive titles (often called Tegra HD or THD games). Quite obviously, no one expects a budget handset to be able to run graphics intensive games like Riptide GP. However, thanks to the Tegra exclusive tag, even beasts like the Samsung Galaxy S II aren’t capable of running the jaw dropping ski racer from Vector Unit. Imagine shelling out big bucks to purchase the latest and the greatest Android smart phone in the market, and then discovering that you can’t play most of uber cool games for Android, as you have an Exynos chip instead of Tegra 2. This is an entirely artificially imposed restriction that if not checked will be a major deterrent for mobile gaming enthusiasts.

It is one thing to optimize a game for a specific platform, but it is quite something else to cripple it or make it unplayable on other equivalent platforms. Unlike in the PC gaming segment where games are often optimized for either nVidia or ATI (AMD) graphics cards, but run pretty well on both, nVidia is making some games simply unavailable for other platforms.

Earlier this month, an enterprising developer at XDA found a way to fake the graphics capabilities of the handset. His app, called ChainFire3D, can manipulate OpenGL feature identifiers with the press of a button. With the help of proper plugins it can run Tegra 2 exclusive games like Samurai Vengeance 2, Guerrilla Bob THD, and Riptide GP on several non-Tegra handsets including Samsung Galaxy S, Samsung Galaxy S II, Sony Ericsson Xperia X10, HTC G2, HTC Desire, and Nexus One.

Sony Ericsson has also been doing something similar with its Xperia Play exclusive games (mainly published by Gameloft). Sure some of the games require hardware keys for full gratification, but most of them are perfectly enjoyable even without dedicated hardware keys.

Tegra Zone Games on Nexus One with ChainFire3D

Google has indicated in the past that it is serious about Android as a gaming platform. However, if Android wants to take on iOS in the mobile gaming segment, then it will have to deal with this artificially created hardware fragmentation problem. The purpose of the operating system and graphics libraries like OpenGL is to abstract the hardware from the software. Whether a game runs on a given handset should be determined by the capability of the hardware, and not some other superficial restriction. If Google wants to retain even a semblance of openness in the Android ecosystem, then it must step in, and prevent this artificial fragmentation.

Video via Android Police

If you look up the word geek’ on Wikipedia you will find the following listed as one of the definitions:

A person with a devotion to something in a way that places him or her outside the mainstream

Although in days gone by, you might have described anyone who had an unhealthy obsession with gadgets as geeky’, it would be highly inaccurate to describe gadgets to be outside the mainstream’ in this day and age. Despite an economic downturn in recent years, people are still buying gadgets like never before. In fact you might say we are living in the age of the gadget.

So how have gadgets gone from being geeky to mainstream? Here are 3 very good reasons:

1) The iPod

When Apple, then a down on its luck computer company, launched a quirky new portable music playing device in 2001 the reaction from industry analysts was one of general bemusement. The consensus at the time was that Apple had come too late to market and that the new gadget had little commercial potential, especially as the first generation was only compatible with less than 5% of the computers in the USA. At the official launch Apple CEO Steve Jobs told the assembled journalists that Apple was going to be the market leader. Few of them took any notice.

As a result of the success of the iPod, and later on the iPhone and iPad, Apple is now one of the world’s largest companies with an estimated worth of over $100 billion and a market share of around three quarters of the portable music player market. So how and why did this happen?

Essentially what Apple did was to simplify two processes. Firstly, they simplified the process of using the device itself with its easy-to-use dial system. Secondly they simplified the process of purchasing and getting music onto the device using the revolutionary iTunes software. In short, they made a music player that non-geeks could use.

A brilliant marketing campaign which the music business to promote Apple’s brand personality worked like a charm. This was a device that was easy to use. This was a device that was cool. This was a device that everybody wanted. With one product, Apple had changed the entire gadget market.

2) Celebrity Endorsements

When Oprah Winfrey gave a glowing review of The Kindle on her TV show, Amazon sold out of their ebook reader due to unanticipated demand from an army of Oprah fans. A-list celebrities from Miley Cyrus to Justin Timberlake have been photographed out and about carrying their iPads. Paris Hilton and Barack Obama never go anywhere without their Blackberries. Celebrity endorsements, especially ones where no money has changed hands, are very powerful indeed. Gadget endorsements by celebrities, both intentional and unintentional, are now commonplace.

Not only are endorsements such as these a signal of quality for potential gadget consumers, but they also appeal to a part of our brain which seeks a connection with our heroes. They have also done a great deal to spread the view that gadgets aren’t just for geeks.

3) Social Networking

The statistics regarding the number of Facebook and Twitter users are astonishing with Twitter approaching 200 million users and Facebook accumulating a mind blowing 500 million users. The enormous growth of social networking has affected the gadget market in two ways.

Firstly, as the use of such social networking sites grew, so did the demand for accessing these sites on the move. Social media addicts want the ability to let people know where they are and what they are doing at any given time. They want to live tweet events. They also want to know what their friends are up to. The integration of social media with gadgets such as mobile phones, tablet pc’s and even video cameras is now a huge selling point.

The second way social media has affected the gadget market is through the power of word of mouth’ endorsements from friends and followers. You see your friend has bought something on a social network your natural reaction is to want to buy it too. Companies have cottoned onto this and are now actively using social media in an attempt to start the conversation’ about their gadgets. Expect to see a lot more of this in the near future.

=== About the Author ===

MSM Software, is an award winning UK software development company that provides custom application design and management.

Even as the number of engineers in the US continues to shrink, India is churning out engineers by the hundreds of thousands. Much has already been said and written about the quality of engineering graduates in India. Much more qualified people than me have penned their frustration with the state of engineers in India. Nevertheless, as a Computer Science and Engineering student who is at the brink of graduating, I couldn’t help but jump into the discussion.

In 2008, India produced 3.5 lakh (350 thousand) engineers. However, raw numbers don’t tell the entire story. When it comes to number of engineers per million people, there are only 214 engineers in India, compared to 1435 in South Korea and 765 in Japan. Of course, this isn’t all that surprising, given that the percentage of secondary and higher secondary pass outs in India is also significantly lower than in other developed nations. The real worrying statistic is that even after one year of graduation, 30% of Engineers in India remain unemployed. According to the Wall Street Journal, 75% of technical graduates and more than 85% of general graduates are unemployable by India’s high-growth global industries. The situation is so dire that leading IT Services companies like Tata Consultancy Services, Infosys and Wipro have been forced to extend their initial training program for freshers in order to impart basic skills required on the job. And these are not companies that are not known for doing a lot of real engineering work. You can imagine how hard it must be for fledgling startups and software companies to attract real talent.

While opining on the state of engineering in India, most pundits have ripped apart the Indian education system. Right from the grassroots level, India’s education system ignores all the key facets of engineering, viz. curiosity, learning by experimentation, and problem solving. The explosion in the number of colleges handing out B. Tech degrees have resulted in a dire shortage of qualified teachers. The bar for becoming a teacher at the under graduate level has been lowered so much that it has become a folklore that students who don’t get recruited are the ones who end up becoming teachers.

However, the poor quality of education is not the sole reason for the current situation in India. The other driving factor is the attitude of the society. While, in the US, students are comfortable taking up courses like Humanities and Social Studies, Communications, and Media Arts, in India, most students believe (or are forced to believe) that the only two real career options before them are to become a doctor or an engineer. As a result, students who don’t have the will or the aptitude to become an engineer enroll for an engineering degree. This increase in demand has lead to the increase in the number of colleges, which in turn has lead to the lowering of the bar. It’s the lure of an offer from TCS and Infosys, rather than the attraction of building something that motivates engineering students in India. Even the criteria for getting into these colleges is misplaced. If you can mug up a few organic chemistry formulae, and have practised enough to solve some mechanics problem in Physics, chances are that you can get into a fairly esteemed institute of engineering.

Here are three completely random observations that I have made during my interaction with other Computer Science and Engineering students from several colleges across India:

1. A staggering portion of the graduates aren’t even capable of accomplishing basic tasks like installing Windows or Linux operating system. Yes, many of the CSE graduates being produced by the Indian colleges are technically challenged.
2. Most of the students in colleges around India, can’t even write simple algorithms like Bubble Sort or Binary Search, even if their life depended on it.
3. Worse still, many of the lab instructors, who have been entrusted with the responsibility of teaching programming can’t write real code.

I am not suggesting that all engineers in India are clueless, or that all of the academicians are incompetent. However, a disappointingly large fraction is. Installing an Operating System has very little to do with Engineering. However, it does exemplify a lack of willingness or aptitude for even very rudimentary problem solving.

Undoubtedly, there is a lot that is wrong about the education system in India. However, it will also be wrong to ignore the positive impact that education has already had on India. Yes, quantity currently supersedes quality in India. However, most people will probably prefer the current situation over the situation ten or fifteen years back. Sridhar Vembu, the founder of ZOHO, very effectively pointed out the positive impact that even these substandard educational institutes are having on the society. In his own words,

The education for the most part was of poor quality, but that does not matter, because of what I have called the Placebo effect of education. What it confers is confidence, while the real knowledge is gained on the job – which is why dropping out of college doesn’t do much damage to upper-middle-class kids, who presumably already have an ample supply of confidence.

Most good things in India happen in spite of the government, and not because of it. When the quality of Engineering graduates picks up, it will also be because of a combination of factors that will have very little to do with the ministry of education. It might be because some premier institute decided to lead the way by encouraging hacker culture, instead of learning by rote. It might be because of the opening up of new lucrative career paths as the Indian economy grows and flourishes, which will reduce the (false) compulsion that most students feel to get into an engineering college, which in turn will lead to new batches of engineering students who will study engineering not because it will improve their chances of getting a job, but because they truly want to understand how stuff works and they want to build things. Among those will be several brilliant minds that will be able to dream big enough to change the world.

Image via OpenClipArt

On my way to work, I usually pick up two free dailies and read them. The amount of news these provide get me started for the day. Now, I am not a cheapo, but I prefer to read most of the news online rather than using a full-fledged newspaper. These free dailies are small and I finish reading them by the time I reach my work place.

Now, for the past couple of days, there has been a big news going around in the tech industry about a new paywall being implemented by New York Times starting from March 28.

Once the new paywall has been implemented, non-print subscription users will have to pay $15 a month for accessing NY Times content on their computers or a mobile device, $20 a month to access it on a computer or through the NY Times iPad app, or $35 a month to access it from any device. So, starting from March 28, 2011, users will have to pay $180 a year on the lower side or $420 a year on the higher side to read the NY Times. However, you get free access to online content if you are a print edition subscriber.

Now that is not a small amount and it may definitely mean that NY Times will lose out on several users in the coming few months. On the other hand, NY Times will also get a lot of serious people to subscribe to their services and tap into new sources of revenues.

The Wall Street Journal has had this feature for a long time now, however, they allow certain sections of their website to be accessed for free, whilst providing access to certain articles to paid users.

Will You Pay For NY Times Subscription?

There is no doubt that NY Times news quality and coverage is the best in the industry and you might not get to read exclusive articles from them if you don’t agree to pay for it. However, considering that news is freely available on the Internet, would you pay for a subscription of NY Times?

What if other news sites go paid too, would you keep subscribing to all of them? Agreed that everyone has to make money, but most of the websites survive on advertisements. Of course, making content paid is a way to earn more revenue, but will it be successful? Well only time will tell.

Accessing NY Times for Free

So does this mean that it the end of free news on NY Times? Well not exactly, NY Times will allow users to read up-to 20 stories for free in a month. However, it is unclear on how they will manage this quota and whether it will require users to create an account or they will track this through cookies or IP addresses.

However, there is also another way to access NY Times content for free. While this is not exactly a hack, it is basically a loophole which has been in use for a long time on sites like WSJ and more. People who visit NY Times through a search engine like Google or Bing will be able to read the articles for free and it will not count towards their monthly quota of 20 articles.

In addition to that NY Times may also offer free articles to users if they click a link leading to NY Times on a blog, Twitter or Facebook. However, it is not clear on how long this feature will be made available.

If you are a Twitter user, you have probably heard about the sweeping changes made by Twitter to the Twitter API ToS (Terms of Service). In one fell swoop, Twitter’s platform lead Ryan Sarver outlawed all new Twitter clients. The justification offered was that Twitter wants to provide a consistent user experience in order to avoid confusing users. Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Twitter’s real motivation is something a lot less noble.

Back in 2009, when Twitter was experiencing tearaway growth, the billion dollar question in everyone’s mind was how will Twitter manage to generate enough revenue to become profitable. Two years on, we have a better idea. Besides selling access to search engines like Google and Bing, Twitter is using various promoted products (promoted trends, promoted accounts and promoted tweets) to generate revenue. The recent inclusion of the #dickbar in the iOS app suggests that Twitter is about to get more aggressive about monetization. Unfortunately, if a large number of users continue to prefer third party apps, Twitter might find it harder to generate enough revenue. And, that is the single biggest motivation for Twitter’s recent ToS changes. If maintaining consistent user experience is all they were worried about, they could have easily made third party apps fall in line by introducing a few additional clauses to the ToS, instead of abolishing them.

MG Siegler has done a comparison of the old ToS with the new one. The most telling bit is that Twitter has gone from wanting to empower our ecosystem partners to build valuable businessesto empower our ecosystem partners to build valuable tools.

As you might expect, most developers aren’t bemused. Twitter started off as simple service intended for sharing what you are currently doing with your friends. Now, it is being used for everything from organizing protests to proposing one’s girlfriend. Twitter itself has gone from asking “What are you doing?” to “What’s happening?. The credit for the evolution of Twitter lies with its ecosystem, which includes both users and third-party developers.

Fred Oliveira eloquently explained why the recent ToS change is a #dickmove in an open letter to Twitter. Twitter’s dramatic change of policy will not only anger developers, but also users. To quote Oliveira:

Lack of trust (like what developers are feeling right now) trickles down through the ecosystem and to the users’ ears.
I just don’t see this as a time when you can just tell developers you don’t need their clients anymore. Find ways to monetize your service by putting up sensible rules and guidelines, not walls.

However, there is another issue that Oliveira missed. From the very beginning, it is the ecosystem that defined and redefined Twitter. The list of features that were first seen in third-party clients and were later adopted by Twitter is fairly lengthy. It includes features like retweets, trends, lists, flickr integration, YouTube integration, URL shortening and so on. In brief, Twitter clients have been responsible for major innovations, and they have helped shape Twitter. By preventing the entry of third-party apps, Twitter will also be stifling innovation.

Twitter raised large sums of money in its funding rounds. It is obviously under pressure to start generating serious revenue soon. However, it seems to be willing to betray developers, annoy users, and damage the entire ecosystem in the process. The big question is can they afford to continue pissing off developers and users? Is the core product compelling enough to make users and developers stick around irrespective of Twitter’s betrayal? I have a feeling that if Twitter continues to be irreverent towards developers, in the long run, these very decisions might come back to haunt Dick Costolo and Twitter.

I have had some really big ideas to build around WordPress. I had wireframes ready for them, had all business plans ready and more. However, when I went to an investor to get funding for it, I came back empty handed. The reason was because though my ideas were not innovative, but no one willing to put much money into it because of the fact that it relied on someone else’s business.

This rejection thought me a big lesson in life and there were several things I learnt from the Investors who rejected my idea. One of the most important lessons I learnt was to never build a business based on someone else’s business. There are quite a few problems. I’ll quote some reasons below:

• You rely on someone else’s business for your own business. This is the cardinal sin of creating a business in the first place.
• When the business in question builds something you have built, your business is potentially killed rendering all your hard work and marketing useless.
• There will be competitors who will try to do better (remember first is not always best in startups) and take off and your business may collapse.
• The business you are building around could just collapse rendering all your hard work useless.
• The business you built around could change their terms of use rendering all your hard work useless.

Well, these are just some of the lessons I learnt from a brilliant idea which collapsed like a pack of cards. The idea would work, it would have worked great in the short term, but in the end it would collapse because of the fact that I don’t really have control over how things would work out considering all the above problems I listed out.

Also Read: Is Twitter a Reliable Service to Build Your Business Around?

Of course there are success stories which are built upon these businesses, for example on Facebook we all came across Farmville at some point of time. The game was created by Zynga, a company which relied solely on Facebook for it’s income before diversifying and becoming a billion dollar company today. There are more examples like these which will lure you into building around someone else, but there are also 100 times more failures.

Quite recently, Twitter asked developers to stop developing new apps to display Tweets because they wanted to control how tweets are displayed and how information is delivered to their users. This new change has caused quite a lot of hue and cry among the developer community, and for valid reasons.

However, the storm will die and developers will stop developing apps for Twitter, but what about people who already put in years of efforts into developing those great clients? Does everything go to waste? Would the folks behind TweetDeck have to shut shop? Well, most likely the popular clients will survive, but the smaller clients would eventually wind up. In the end, Twitter can block your service like they did recently with UberTwitter and twidroyd and render your app/business useless.

Of course, this does not mean that you should not use Twitter or Facebook as part of your business. However, it is better to limit the amount of functionality they bring to your business. Building your business solely around Twitter or Facebook or for that matter any other service would be disastrous in the long run and is definitely best avoided.

I am not a businessman per se, but I have seen enough in the past 10-12 years to really understand that it is always better to build something and then integrate other services as part of it, rather than building a service around something.

I would be more than interested in knowing your thoughts about this and would love to learn your experiences on developing apps and your feelings about Twitter’s recent move. The comments form are all yours.

Image Credit: Contractor Business Profits

Firefox, once the darling of the tech and IT crowd is slowly but surely losing love from the same people who used it because of the crappy Internet Explorer. In the years since it launched, Firefox has become a browser loved and used by a broader range of people. At one point of time, Firefox looked all set to conquer the world and overtake IE.

However, in the past two years, a browser called Google Chrome has been making dents into both Firefox and IE’s market share. The browser which is barely 2 years old almost has 10% market share. This is definitely something that is worth talking about.

Also Read: Google Chrome Extensions vs. Firefox Add-ons: Head to Head Comparison

So where is Chrome winning users from? Chrome is winning over the same users that Firefox stole from IE, the tech and IT crowd. This has been made more than clear with recent Tech powerhouse sites like TechCrunch and Techmeme reporting that most of their users now use Google Chrome, pushing Firefox to the second position.

So why this change? When Firefox came out more than 6 years ago, it brought about a fresh perspective to a software in which we spent most of our time in on a computer. It also introduced add-ons which made our lives easier. However, with all those additions, Firefox in itself started to become bloated, eating precious memory and CPU.

Once Chrome came in, it defined a minimalistic approach to browsing. It got rid of unwanted toolbars and presented users with a simple way of browsing and searching. It also brought a much more sleeker look which helped users focus more on what they needed to have rather than what they should have had.

One of the key reasons people I had talked to who were not switching to Chrome was the lack of extensions, which made them stick with Firefox. However, once Chrome came out with extensions, many users switched to it. Top that with cloud sync and security and it made Chrome a darling of the tech crowd.

Frankly speaking, for the past two years I have used Firefox only when necessary. I hate the fact that it is so bloated that it makes me less productive than I would like to be.

I would say that Mozilla and Nokia are two similar companies who were sitting on the top of the pile, but have been struggling to keep up ever since competition has cropped up. I admit that Firefox 4 does provide a better experience, however, people would now ask the question; Why should I switch to Firefox 4 from Chrome when they have delaying it for so long and Chrome is dedicated to adding features every 6 weeks?

Once again, Chrome is bound to grow leaps and bounds in the future. With the Google Web Store around the corner, it would bring more and more people towards it. Alas, Firefox 4 is still a long way from release, hopefully once it comes out it should make the competition more even.

In the end, this is my honest opinion about a browser I loved at one point of time. I have been struggling to find reasons to use it now and I feel that several other users do the same which is why Chrome is gaining over Firefox. There are few questions though which only you can answer. Do you use Google Chrome? Do you prefer it over Firefox now? Would you switch back to Firefox 4 when it comes out? Do let me know your thoughts.

I have been a blogger for almost 4 years now, and in that period I have met incredible people online, one of them being Amit Agarwal from Digital Inspiration, who I have not yet met in person, but will do sooner rather than later.

However, knowing Amit online has been a pleasure and we have interacted several times in the past. One thing I can tell you about him is that, he is a person who researches well enough before writing articles, we all do, but Amit has a incredible knack of getting things right, and I have had first hand experience of it.

A recent post Amit wrote has blown into a controversy, the post in question was about TechCrunch not displaying comments on posts older than 10 days, you can read it here. It was a well researched post and quickly made it to TechMeme (who ignores several of our posts :-( ).

Once you get into the TechMeme river, it is more than natural for every Tech guru to notice it, and it was, by a TechCrunch blogger, Robin Wauters, who wrote a counter post titled "Your Comments Are Safe With Us", which you can read here. Now in that post Robin took the liberty to call it "an allegation", however, it was not an allegation, it was just information that we all would like to know.

Being a regular commentator on TechCrunch and having viewed the enormous amounts of information that is passed on in comments, it would more than affect me that comments on older posts were not being displayed, if I would have got the news first, I would have published it too.

Robin wrote this, emphasis added by him:

I’ll start with the part that checks out: yes, comments on older blog posts are not being displayed at the moment, although they are still stored in the database on our side. But no, we did not remove them because we were looking to decrease our page load time although we’re constantly looking for ways to do so and there’s no big search engine optimization conspiracy behind it either.

Well, if you read Amit’s post, no where in his post did he say that TechCrunch had deleted comments, he just mentioned that (emphasis added by me):

If you are a frequent commenter on TechCrunch blog, here’s a slightly disheartening news for you TechCrunch has stopped displaying user comments on all stories that are older than 10 days. Your comments have not been deleted from the actual WordPress database but they aren’t putting them on the site anymore.

Also, the rest of the post did not make an assumption as to why TechCrunch removed their comments, it just stated some reason’s as to why someone would get rid of comments. It also quoted on why Engadget had to stop comments on their posts.

Agreed that the title was a little bit misleading, however, you just cannot blame or demean anyone without reading the article properly. We all want to know how TechCrunch works and what they do, and Michael has been more than transparent in that area, but accusing Amit without fully reading the post, just because it made to TechMeme was totally wrong.

This post is a silent protest against TechCrunch. And no, I am not asking for any apologies to be sent out or anything, that matter has to be between Amit and Michael. However, I could not sit around and be a silent observer when someone who I know does his job thoroughly and without doubt, being accused of being wrong, when there was only a slight hint of problem in the title of the post.

Rest is up to you.

Logos used in this posts are courtesy TechCrunch and Digital Inspiration

Let’s be honest, since Apple announced the iPad earlier today, people have talked about it a lot, however, not much because of the features the device has, but because of it’s name. iPad has quickly become one of the biggest butt of Apple jokes across the Internet.

Take for example, just around the same time when the Apple Event was underway, iTampon started trending on Twitter after Steve Jobs officially announced the iPad. Not just that, every other person has been cracking up some joke about Apple’s “latest creation”, and have come up with names like iPill, iFail, iJokes and so on.

A lot of women are not happy with the name Apple chose for obvious reasons, which makes me wonder whether Apple did not have any women on the team that came up with the product name? Apple had certainly wanted to name the product iSlate initially, did the HP Slate name make them change their decision? Nevertheless, the product name Apple chose will definitely continue to be debated for a long time, just wish that had spend some more time into getting it right.

And if things could not get any rosier, Mad TV had predicted about the iPad being released by Apple quite sometime back, albeit the product was totally different. Watch the video below (mildly mature content).

What do you think? Is the iPad name something you like? Do you feel Apple could have done a better job at naming the product?