Robbo's Gadget Roundup

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

I have heard them doing this for video games for awhile now, sounds interesting.

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

But you will still need the glasses to use the feature.

That kills it for me. I've actually never seen anything done in 3D and worn the specs. I already wear glasses and I'm not going to wrestle two pairs at once.

So until they come up with true 3D projection I'll never spend a nickel supporting 3D entertainment.

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Imo, they won't be able to create proper 3D until they explore multi-layer screens.

It might take several transparent imaging layers adding depth over a final opaque primary layer to create that full effect.

But that would mean your flatscreen wouldn't be as flat anymore. While maybe not as deep as old CRT's the new thickness would limit the technology to full size TV sets as it would make the pc ungainly again if monitors were going back to many inches deep.

s_stabeler · Knight of the Realm

So they have maximised the use of the senses of sight and sound, what next? smell? Touch? taste would be impossible, I think ( though who knows?

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Hoping for that whole body Pr0n experience real soon? Razz

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

I just want a holodeck from Star Trek

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Sooner than expected!

Samsung, Panasonic start selling 3-D TVs this week

NEW YORK – Want to be the first one on your block with a 3-D television? It will cost you about $3,000.

Samsung and Panasonic will start selling 3-D TVs in U.S. stores this week, inaugurating what manufacturers hope is the era of 3-D viewing in the living room. But because the sets require bulky glasses, and there is for now little to watch in the enhanced format, it will take at least a few years for the technology to become mainstream, if that happens at all.

Samsung Electronics Co. announced Tuesday that it is selling two 3-D sets this week. For $3,000, buyers get a 46-inch set, two pairs of glasses and a 3-D Blu-ray player.

Panasonic Corp. has said it will start selling 3-D sets Wednesday.

The sales debut comes as moviegoers have shown considerable enthusiasm for the latest wave of 3-D titles in the theater. Last weekend, "Alice in Wonderland" grossed an estimated $116.2 million at the box office, beating the first-weekend receipts of "Avatar," the winter's 3-D blockbuster.

Although it's clear that 3-D sets for the home will appeal to technology and home-theater enthusiasts, it remains to be seen whether other consumers will be enticed to spend at least $500 above the price of a comparably sized standard TV and Blu-ray player.

TV makers hope so, because sets with the last big technological improvement — high definition — have come way down in price, below $500.

One challenge will be that the 3-D effect requires viewers to wear relatively bulky battery-operated glasses that need to be recharged occasionally. They are not like the cheap throwaways that have been used in theaters since the 1950s.

When you're wearing these 3-D TV glasses, room lights and computer screens may look like they're flickering, making it difficult to combine 3-D viewing with other household activities. Anyone who's not wearing the glasses when the set is in 3-D mode will see a blurry screen. (The sets can be used in 2-D mode as well, with no glasses required.)

To give buyers something to watch, Samsung is including a 3-D copy of "Monsters vs. Aliens" on Blu-ray disc with its packages, in a deal with the studio, DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. Its CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, said it will convert its "Shrek" movies to 3-D for Samsung TV buyers later this year.

"We continue to see this amazing level of enthusiasm and excitement for 3-D. The rate of adoption for this into the cinema has been a rocket ship these last couple of months," Katzenberg said in an interview.

Sets with 3-D-capability have been available for a few years from Mitsubishi Corp. But 3-D for the home is now coming together as a complete package with the arrival of more 3-D television models, as well as 3-D video players and 3-D movies.

But there's still a notable lack of 3-D material to watch.

Eventually, sports and other programming that will benefit from a more immersive experience should be offered in 3-D. ESPN has said it will start a channel that will broadcast live events using the technology, starting with FIFA World Cup soccer in June. The sets could also be used for 3-D video games, when game consoles catch up to the new technology.

Samsung, the world's largest maker of TVs, has high hopes for 3-D. Tim Baxter, head of the company's U.S. electronics division, said he expects 3-D systems to be in 3 million to 4 million of the 35 million TV sets sold in the U.S. this year by all manufacturers.

Research firm iSuppli Corp. puts the figure at 4.2 million units globally this year. It expects the numbers to ramp quickly, to 12.9 million next year and 27 million in 2012. For comparison, there were more than 210 million TVs sold worldwide year.

Sony Corp. said Tuesday it will start selling 3-D televisions in June. U.S. prices were not revealed, but the sets will cost $3,200 and up in Japan. The company hopes that 10 percent of the TVs it sells in the next fiscal year will be 3-D units.

Sony also plans to issue software upgrades for its PlayStation 3 game consoles and some of its Blu-ray players so they will be able to play 3-D discs.

Panasonic has not revealed what its sets will cost. It's taking a slightly different tack than Samsung, by introducing 3-D only on plasma screens, for maximum image quality. And rather than selling 3-D sets broadly, it's going only through Best Buy Inc.'s Magnolia Home Theater stores.

Samsung's two new sets will be followed by another 13 3-D-capable models in the next two months. Soon, 3-D packages with plasma sets will be available for about $2,000, Baxter said.

ISuppli analyst Randy Lawson said it's a fairly simple, inexpensive move for manufacturers to modify their high-end sets to be 3-D-capable. That's part of the reason iSuppli expects a quick increase in sales of such 3-D TVs. Whether people will use the feature is another matter, he said.

Consumers should be more interested in the ability to connect the TV to the Internet, Lawson said. That feature, which started showing up last year, is more immediately useful, because it gives access to a vast array of online movies and TV shows.

"I don't believe that everyone will be watching 3-D all the time in two to three years," he said. "I don't think it will be a predominant" concern among average consumers.

Copyright © 2010 AP Technology

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Court to decide if Calif. can regulate video games

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, wading into a clash between free-speech rights and laws protecting children, agreed Monday to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The court will review a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law violated minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.

The law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.

Schwarzenegger said he was pleased the high court will review that decision. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said.

Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that the video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says were played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment.

The decision to hear this case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue that could affect the high court's consideration.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos.

Given last week's ruling, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said.

Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If they thought that, he said, the justices would not be reviewing the Ninth Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban.

"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat.

California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research.

"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling.

Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games.

The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing M-rated, or mature-rated games designed for adults.

But courts in other states have struck down similar laws.

The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

The court will hear arguments in this case in the fall.

The case is Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448.

Copyright © 2010 Associated Press

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Steve Jobs attacks Adobe Flash as unfit for iPhone

NEW YORK – For iPhone users who've been wondering whether their devices will support Flash technology for Web video and games anytime soon, the answer is finally here, straight from Steve Jobs: No.

In a detailed offensive against the technology owned by Adobe Systems Inc., Apple's CEO wrote Thursday that Flash has too many bugs, drains batteries too quickly and is too oriented to personal computers to work on the iPhone and iPad.

This is not the first time Jobs has publicly criticized Flash, but the statement was his clearest, most definitive — and longest — on the subject.

In his 1,685-word "Thoughts on Flash," Jobs laid out his reasons for excluding Flash — the most widely used vehicle for videos and games on the Internet — from Apple's blockbuster handheld devices.

He cited "reliability, security and performance," and the fact that Flash was designed "for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers" as some of the reasons Apple will continue to keep the program off its devices.

But he said the most important reason is Flash puts a third party between Apple and software developers. In other words, developers can take advantage of improvements from Apple only if Adobe upgrades its own software, Jobs wrote.

Adobe representatives did not have an immediate comment Thursday. But in a March 23 conference call, President and CEO Shantanu Narayen said his company is "committed to bringing Flash to any platform on which there is a screen."

That certainly includes Apple's devices, and Narayen said at the time the Flash ban "has nothing to do with technology."

"It's an Apple issue and I think you'll have to check with them on that," he said.

Adobe has owned Flash since buying its creator, Macromedia Inc., in 2005. Flash is one of the slew of software tools Adobe sells to professional designers and Web developers as part of its Creative Suite software package, which also includes Photoshop, Illustrator and other programs, and brings in more than half of Adobe's revenue. Adobe benefits from Flash's wide use because it means Web developers will keep buying the tools they need to create Flash content.

Apple has been criticized for the omission of Flash because that limits what the iPhone can do. Hulu.com, the popular video viewing site, uses Flash, for example, as do many restaurant websites. But thanks to the immense popularity of the iPhone, game and application developers are pouring their creations onto Apple's devices without using Flash.

In his rebuttal, Jobs said that with an abundance of media outlets offering their content on iPhones and iPads, "Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of Web content."

"And the 200,000 apps on Apple's App Store proves that Flash isn't necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games," he wrote.

For consumers, Apple's move means they will have to decide whether or not they want Flash content, and if they do, they'll have to use devices other than Apple's.

"It doesn't mean this is the end of Flash," said Sheri McLeish, an analyst with Forrester Research. "Apple is not the only game in town, and PC and Windows devices continue to dominate the market."

She called Apple's move a business decision, even though Jobs stressed it is based on technology: It is, after all, up to Apple to control how users experience its products.

"They have the momentum to do it today," McLeish said. "A few years ago they wouldn't have been able to."

Although many websites use Flash to display videos, animation and Internet ads, this may change in the years to come. HTML5, a new Web standard — that is, a way to create Web pages — will have built-in support for video and audio files.

But it could take as long as 10 years for HTML5 to be fully adopted, McLeish said. What Apple is banking on is that HTML5 will eventually win out, making Flash obsolete.

"Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind," Jobs wrote.

Shares of San Jose, Calif.-based Adobe dropped 82 cents, or 2.3 percent, to $34.65 in midday trading. They have traded between $24.78 and $38.20 in the past 52 weeks.

Copyright © 2010 Associated Press

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

Yeah I heard about that, but I think while Flash is getting outdated like Jobs believes, it should be the consumer who decides if they want to use it, not Apple, if the device can run it, the consumer should be allowed to run it if they wish.

Put warnings all over your device of the horrors of what may happen with Flash saying you are not responsible if flash products are used and something bad happens blah blah blah, but don't yank it just cause you think it sucks.

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Jobs should just buy Flash and be done with it.

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

That's doubtful, Adobe became a much larger company once they bought Macromedia, with Flash being such a bread and butter of that deal, to loose it would be such a huge thing, even if the price was super sweet.

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

So buy Adobe then.

ExarKun · Knight of the Realm

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Well then he really needs to create a better version of Flash.

Btw, him buying Adobe would also get him the Reader software too. Given his choice for smaller interactive devices these days that could be real handy. His IPad is competing directly with Kindle and owning the ability to control pdf software would give him a fat edge.

JuntaJoe · Site Admin

Era of anonymous prepaid cell phones may end

Prepaid cell phones with plans that can be purchased with cash and sans identification have long been the communication medium of choice for criminals and such, and for obvious reasons. Without a known cell phone number to tie a crook to, getting a wiretap becomes almost impossible, and such villains can generally operate with complete impunity, gabbing away in plain sight with no one able to listen in. And we're not just talking about crack dealers. The convenience and anonymity of prepaid plans has reportedly even made them popular with Wall Street types engaging in insider trading activity. Naturally, terrorism is a major concern, too. The FBI says it found that the recent Times Square bomb scare was arranged through the use of a prepaid cell phone, as well.

Frustrated with this loophole, now lawmakers are looking to make prepaid cell phones considerably less anonymous, AFP reports. A bipartisan bill announced this week in the Senate would require prepaid cell phone buyers to provide ID before a purchase.

This is unlikely to sit well with many legitimate users of prepaid phones, who often don't have the money for a regular, subscription-based, post-paid plan. Anonymity is prized by many prepaid users, whether they are using the phone to evade an abusive partner, to blow the whistle on dangerous working conditions, or simply to avoid telemarketers and political pollsters.

But Ars Technica notes that for many governments, the criminal risks of anonymous phone usage outweigh such concerns: Collecting registration date from prepaid customers is already required by at least nine of the 24 countries that belong to the Organization for Cooperation and Economic Development. And several states have laws requiring papers when you buy a cell phone of any kind.

Will this legislation go federal? With few people stepping up to complain about the proposal, it certainly seems likely.

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc.