Batteries

Batteries are something of a conundrum. On the one hand, there is the continuing need for better batteries in mobile devices, longer last, storing more energy in a smaller space and with reduced weight. On the other hand, batteries can sometimes fail catastrophically. The higher the energy density (the more energy stored per gram or per unit volume) the greater the consequences of a catastrophic failure. In fact a bomb can be considered something of a battery, lots of energy stored in a compact space. Though the reaction that releases the energy is not reversible and it is hard, though not theoretically impossible to power a car with gunpowder (per Huygens), it is an efficient energy storage device. Today's batteries are less efficient but still share some properties with explosives, especially when they fail. With rechargeable batteries, dependent on a reversible chemical reaction, there is always the possibility that physical structures embodied in the two chemistries (anode and cathode)will bridge, resulting in a short. They can generate high temperatures, melting themselves, melting the device they are in, and potentially starting fires. This is a rare event, but, again, major increases in energy density would make a catastrophic battery failure much more consequential.

Of course, aside from better batteries, the best way to deal with battery life is to lower the energy drain. As the most energy intensive part of most mobile devices, the primary focus has been on the display and display related subsystems. Monumental progress has been made here and further progress continues to come. A second path has been to remove the mechanical components from the device, specifically the optical drive. Spinning up the drive, takes substantial energy. Further, as removable storage is more a form of communication, simply relying on the internet rather than a disc makes sense along several factors.

Battery improvements and reductions in power drain can carry battery life only so far. Most likely, in the future, there will be more ubiquitous application of wireless battery charging. However, wireless battery charging only gets rid of the power connector, not the need to access a wired power source. The original "One Laptop per Child" design had a hand crank to generate power as a wired source for the intended user set might be unavailable not just inconvenient. Of course, cars used to be hand cranked to get them started and watches had to be wound. There is another watch technology that might be relevant as well, energy harvesting. Self winding watches are less popular, as watch batteries have gotten better, but it is still viable. With improvements in micro-machining and 3D printing, energy harvesters can be mad very small and durable, I would think just the thing for a mobile device. As with better sunlight viewability, I expect someone will at least try marketing a device more adapted to actual usage models. Perhaps energy harvesting will not show up until the mobile market fully turns its attention to wearable computing.

More is Better

Today's lead article in VentureBeat discusses the new iPad Mini. Though the term "display" is used 5 times in the article, extolling the importance of the display, the lead-in photo (shown here) shows just how challenging it is using a mobile device outdoors. As seen in the photo, the contrast could not be much more than 10 to 1. In "Wither Pixel Qi" I discuss my surprise that the mobile industry does not move toward displays with better outdoor visibility. Though generating good color in an outdoor display is something of a challenge, there are alternatives to a standard LCD that provide trade-offs that might be more appropriate for a mobile device.

The author also goes on to give a generic definition of a "retina display","...instead of the lush Retina Display resolutions of 2048 by 1536, we get the same 1024 by 768 resolution we were so happy to run away from two years ago. (Since the iPad Mini’s screen is smaller, its resolution still looks sharper than on previous iPads.) It is described as a pixel format rather than a pixel density (pixels per inch) or a brand name. In, "Your existing HDTV is already a true 'Retina Display' ” in August's High Resolution Raymond Soneira explains the human factors of the pixel density perspective on classifying displays. In describing how the display "looks sharper than previous iPads" the VentureBeat author also makes reference to the human factors but at the same time ascribes the 2048 x 1536 resolution as "lush" apparently independent of screen size or pixel density.

As display professionals, we know, that especially in small displays, more pixels = less aperture which equals a dimmer screen. The challenged performance of the screen in daylight, as seen in the image would be that much worse with a "retina display" per the author's terms. However, in the minds of many, more is always better even when their eye's tell them such is not the case.

In "Trinitron, Retina, & What do you call an Apple TV" I compare the Trinitron name with the marketing mojo in "retina display". In a large sense, Trintron had an advantage in that most consumers had no idea what a Trintron was, only that it was better. Others could introduce sets using the trinitron technology (such as Mitsubishi's Diamondtron); however, because they could not use the Trintron trade name, Sony was in an unassailable position. If consumers have a specific idea what "retina" means, a specific number, then it is a small matter to equal or even out-do "retina" with a "more is better" spec.

Even better, someone can fix or improve the daylight performance. As I have related before, in TV set marketing, frequently the industry will focus on a specific spec, pushing it to performance levels beyond human comprehension.... until someone steps out of line and starts pushing a different spec. Brightness wars, were followed by contrast wars until the CRT industry settled on Black level. In the mobile wars, fixing the resolution issue was an obvious first step to enabling smartphones as a platform. Now that the issue is fixed, I expect that the device makers will move on. If more is better, how about some more outdoor contrast.

Federated Media Abandoning Banner Ads

"Federated Media plans to refocus all its resources into the two areas of advertising it believes is growing. The first is its premium conversational & native advertising, which includes sponsored posts, special coverage sections, and ads/promotions that are more directly integrated with a publisher’s content. The second area is in less expensive, “programmatic” advertising, which automatically displays ads on websites at all times. The ad agency purchased startup Lijit in October 2011 as a response to the growing demand for programmatic ad buying."

Personally, I have pop-up blocking enabled and other ad blocking software. On most sites I never see the advertising except for that which is integrated with the content. In "Cross Platform Portability" I relate why it is important to have consistent screen aspect ratios to enable ads on the content periphery. With banner ads not proving their worth, frequently not actually being visible, programmatic ads become that much more important.

Will NFC "Sweep Away" QR Codes?

In "Can We Talk?, I discuss various means of linking mobile devices to both TV and digital signage. The posting concludes that there will be a diversity of communications methodologies. Recently, I saw a news article suggesting the resurrection of IR, as I had discussed. This comes to mind as I read today's "Digital Signage Today" proclaiming NFC will sweep away QR codes.

NFC is, of course, more versatile than a QR code as it can be an active data link rather than a signal and can be bi-directional rather than one way. However the one way and the opt-in nature of QR codes gives inherent security. The one instance where security is mentioned in the "Digital Signage Today" article it refers to a mobile device emulating a secure card such as a hotel key. It seems to me that, although I have never had my pocket picked, capturing someone's NFC information would be easier. Line of sight optical communications such as reading or displaying a QR code seems inherently more secure. Airlines allow a bar code display as a boarding pass. We shall see if they expand this to include NFC. As to Hotel rooms, my preference would be a QR code reader.

This is not to say that NFC use is not going to expand rapidly, but some applications seem much better suited to QR codes.