When the iPad was released in the spring of 2010, many people didn’t know what to make of it. Some would point to my iPad and ask: Why do I need a giant iPod touch? Or, why can’t I see more than one app on this big screen? These questions faded away as the usefulness of the iPad became clearer in the months that followed.
That said, the iPad didn’t work like a “real” desktop computer, and nowhere was that more evident than in its lack of multitasking. Every now and then, some developer would scratch the itch of wanting to see two different things on the iPad’s display at the same time. One that caught my eye back in 2012 was Tapose, a then-$2.99 app (now priced at $9.99) that let an iPad user see two window panes. One pane generally was for the main journal editor, while the second window pane contained a browser, map, or some simple tool like a calculator to use as a reference when creating a journal entry. That app’s developer wasn’t allowed to touch the iPad’s operating system to let it work with other apps, though.
That brings us to today. Apple doesn’t have the restrictions Tapose’s developers did, naturally, and announced this week at WWDC 2015 that iOS 9 will let iPad users display two apps side-by-side. A swiping gesture Apple refers to as Slide Over lets you slide in one of the built-in Apple apps into a second window pane while keeping Safari in a larger window. The gesture and effect is reminiscent of Microsoft’s Windows 8 split-paned window view which, quite honestly, I could never use effectively, because I could never remember which app it would bring into the second window pane. Apple’s pull-down gesture, however, lets you easily see which other apps can be brought into this Slide Over view alongside the Safari Web browser. In Slide Over mode, the Safari browser is inactive while the second app is used in the second pane.

There’s a second split-screen mode Apple calls Split View on an iPad that is activated by tapping on the divider between two apps. It lets two apps be active at the same time on a single screen. And, the two screens can interact. Apple’s examples involved tapping on links in the Notepad app that appeared in the Safari pane, as well as tapping on a location that appeared in the Maps app.
Then there’s Picture-in-Picture, which lets you conduct a FaceTime call in one small window that overlaps another app you’re using in a larger second window. It looks much like the picture-in-picture feature you may have used on a TV set. While Apple’s own apps will support multitasking when iOS 9 is released later this year, third-party app developers will need to add support for multitasking in their own apps.
Apple says you can upgrade any device currently running iOS 8 to iOS 9. But these new multitasking features will only work on relatively recently released iPad models. Slide Over and Picture-in-Picture will work on an iPad mini 2, iPad mini 3, iPad air, or iPad air 2. But the dual-pane multitasking Split View will only work with the iPad air 2 and, presumably, whatever new iPad Apple introduces later this year. If you’re running an older model iPad like me, you’ll need to start saving your nickels and dimes for a newer model if you want to multitask in iOS 9.

First, do you want a watch?
Second, do you want a digital wearable device you can use to transform your life, pay for coffee, live healthier, and make the rest of the world think you're actually paying more attention than you really are?
If the second question is more important to you, then you're probably going to be disappointed with the Apple Watch.
Unless you're an extreme Apple-focused tech geek, that is -- willing to bend your life and expectations to what the Apple Watch does, and then to get really good at appreciating the Apple Watch for what it is, rather than swearing at it in public for what it clearly is not.

Phase 1: Frustration

Confused yet? Don't worry. If you're like me -- a guy who waited in line for the first Apple iPhone and has used Apple products for his entire adult life -- you're going to be scratching your head a few times during your first week with the Apple Watch. And once you buy one, you'll need to plan on spending some quality time learning how to use it.
Here's one simple example. At least a few times per day, I tend to expect and look for a particular email message -- it's just part of my job. I find it quite handy to be able to look at incoming mail messages on my Apple Watch. Yet when I want this ability, I'm often using my hands to do something else, like making a sandwich or walking down the street carrying something in one hand. So pressing the Digital Crown then tapping the Mail icon is not an option. Instead, I'll use Siri, saying, "Hey Siri, show me my mail."
Which gives me a maddening response: "I can search your mail on your iPhone... just use Handoff." There's a button that tells you what Handoff is, which lets you start a task on one device and continue with it on the iPhone. So if I use the phrase above, if I want to see my mail, I have to pull out my iPhone and use Handoff to let Siri show me a list of new mail on my iPhone. That works pretty well, but the point was not pulling out my iPhone!
What I really want to do is ask Siri to "launch mail." If you ask Siri to launch mail, Siri does the intended thing and launches Mail. Perfect. Except when there is some background noise and Siri thinks you said, "launch map," in which case the Map app will launch, slowly loading to show you where you are in the world. At this point in your Apple Watch education, passersby will look at you and wonder why you're suddenly swearing at your wrist.
There are dozens of little nuances to using your Apple Watch that are similar to this -- figuring out what causes a particular chime or type of vibration... and when and why. Fortunately, there are hundreds or thousands of articles online about all of these things, plus a lot of Apple's own documentation and video. The point is, pretty much everyone who has not already purchased an Apple Watch will find themselves confused at some point.
Don't let that confusion -- and a feeling of buyer's remorse -- win the day. Why? On the other side, if you're like me, you'll slowly begin to appreciate your Apple Watch... for being a watch.

Learning to Love the Apple Watch

First and foremost, before you buy an Apple Watch, you need to be damn sure that you're ready to wear a watch again. I hadn't worn a watch for any serious amount of time in the last eight years. At first, I was annoyed at how it banged on the counter, on my MacBook, on the insides of the coffee pot while cleaning it. You'll have this problem with any watch, and you'll get over it.
Next, you've probably already spent far too many brain cycles trying to figure out which model you want with which band. If the Apple Watch is really about looks to you -- really all about having a fashion accessory -- then by all means, pick the model you want and get on with it. You can't really go wrong, because the Apple Watch is seriously well-made. The precision for a US$400 smartwatch is truly great.
On the flip side, my 42mm Apple Watch Sport with the space gray aluminum case and black sport band flies under the radar. It's not flashy, and most people don't notice it or pay any attention to it when I'm out and about in public.
You can buy other bands for the Apple Watch, of course, to change the look and feel to make it more appropriate for different occasions if you so desire. As for Apple's Sport Band, I must say, the fluoroelastomer band is astoundingly comfortable. Apple went to great lengths to create a watch system that is customizable through bands and materials in order to let us make it more personal. Plus, we'll be able to buy new third-party bands to make it even better and more versatile.
For me, though, the Apple Watch look is just OK. I don't find my Apple Watch particularly inspiring or see it as a reflection or modifier of my personality. For starters, 42mm is too small. I'd much prefer a larger watch face with a form factor that was slightly thicker to accommodate a bigger battery.
And round. I'd rather have a round watch, something that looks far more robust and masculine. Just saying. But Apple builds for the masses, not necessarily for guys like me. Plus, for outdoor activities, I'm going to need some sort of bumper case to protect the rounded glass edges. No way I'll trust the Apple Watch's edges as I'm scrambling around rocks.
Then there are the watch faces, which you can configure by adding additional details, like the date, weather, battery life, or your activity data. Unfortunately, to conserve battery, the watch faces are not lit up unless you activate your Apple Watch. So most of the time your Apple Watch face is a flat black and shiny rectangle. At first I was irritated that I could not just glance at my Apple Watch and see the glorious watch face and note the time -- but I got over that. Instead, I raise my wrist and the face lights up.
How well does that work? Surprisingly well. It's pretty smart, actually, but not foolproof. For instance, I can whip my wrists into a frenzy while tying my shoes and the face won't light up. It's not confused. But when I drive with my left hand on top of the steering wheel and make a right turn, boom, the watch face lights up.

Usability for Different Kinds of People

The problem with the Apple Watch is that it's mostly good for most people for most things -- but diehard Apple fans tend to want Apple to produce a product that's right for them. Here's one example: If you're a swimmer, for instance, you're not going to be able to track your workouts because the Apple Watch isn't waterproof enough to handle it. You would need a different watch, like say, the Garmin Swim. Trouble is, the Garmin Swim doesn't have all the other Apple goodness you want. So no lap counting with your Apple Watch for you.
For me, the Workout and Activity apps will be forever only marginally useful. Why? My major workouts come from playing pickup basketball games where I don't wear a watch. I could secure the Apple Watch with athletic tape or cover it with a wrist band, but that's not going to happen.
I can still use the activity tracking to figure out my non-workout activity... and maybe use the Apple Watch as a catalyst to be a bit more active. If you're mostly sedentary, the Apple Watch could certainly help you become more active.
I was irritated by my positive reaction to receiving an alert that told me I had achieved my stand goal for the day -- wahoo! Are you kidding me? I'm a grown man who experienced a slight sense of satisfaction at being praised by a damn watch. That experience leads me to believe that the Apple Watch could be effective for health apps and workouts for people who really need the assistance -- positive reminders and workout tracking.

Connecting to Others

One of the coolest features of the Apple Watch is the ability to communicate in new ways. For instance, you can draw a picture on your Apple Watch and send it to a contact. Or send your heartbeat to a contact. The trouble is, you can only do this with people who also have Apple Watches. Why can't I send a heartbeat to an iPhone owner? That's a natural question. I hope Apple creates that ability or lets other apps do it.
So for now, the Apple Watch is a closed community for one of its most innovative features. That's mildly disappointing.
On the other hand, the Apple Watch lets me text message others super easily -- since "OK" is one of my most common text responses, I'm far less likely to ignore incoming texts and get back to people more quickly.
Which brings me to what I like best about my Apple Watch: I can use it to filter out not-so important messages and calls... but I know when something truly important comes through that I need to answer or address. That is handy. Now, a natural question arises -- is it $400 worth of handy?
I'm not so sure using your Apple Watch as a filter is worth $400 -- at least, not for me personally.

But Wait, There Is So Much More!

Of course, there are many more apps on an Apple Watch. For instance, Maps. It's handy for keeping track of where you are in a city, but is it game changing? I don't know. How often will you need turn-by-turn directions on your wrist? A tap to go left or right? I'm guessing not often for most people -- but it could be amazing for some.
One app I like is Remote, which lets me swipe to control my Apple TV. Nice. I'm guessing the navigation is a bit of a preview for a new remote for the rumored next Apple TV. Either way, as I sat down on the couch -- with a sandwich -- and realized that the tiny Apple TV remote had disappeared, I didn't have to go hunting for it. I could use my Apple Watch!
But again, is that feature worth $400?
The point is, the Apple Watch is first and foremost just a fancy digital watch. Do you want something like that? Do you want a watch that's handy, sometimes cool, and occasionally downright pleasing?
If you do, great. The Apple Watch might be for you. If you're banking on the Apple Watch to change your life, though, to make it better in any significant, critically important way, odds are, it's not going to do that.
Instead, the Apple Watch has the potential to make dozens of tiny little improvements here or there, none of which will likely change your life in ways that you couldn't accomplish with an iPhone or a bit of willpower or a habit-building technique.
So unless you're buying for fashion, I believe that for most people, buying the Apple Watch is more about a willingness to wear a watch once again -- and maybe improve your life in small ways. Just remember that the Apple Watch is not about what you need. None of the features are so critically important that they can justify a purchase. This what people do -- how careful thinkers and fence sitters buy. They consider the features, try to figure out the benefits, try to imagine their future with the purchase, and divine whether the benefits will outweigh the costs.

What's a Chromebook?

Performance

Build Quality and Design

Display

Battery Life

While there is no getting around the creep factor when it comes to topics like artificial limbs and regenerative medicine, advancement in these spheres holds out enormous potential for improving human welfare. With the stakes so high, it’s hardly surprising that research dollars have been pouring into these areas in the last few years. The fruits of such investment are just now coming into focus, and for those with a weak stomach, that focus maybe a little too sharp. A medical experiment taking place at Massachusetts General Hospital whose findings were released this week certainly falls into this category.

The MGH team announced this week that they had made the first steps towards the development of bioartificial replacement limbs suitable for transplantation. The limb in question, a strange looking rat appendage replete with muscle, bone, and ligaments is pictured below.
If you haven’t been following the field of regenerative medicine, it’s been experiencing something of a boom since the 2006 discovery by a Japanese researcher that normal somatic cells in humans could be induced to become pluripotent cells. From this state, the cells can go onto to become tissues of almost any organ in the body. The Japanese discovery circumvented the difficulty regarding limb or organ rejection by the host, since the regenerated tissues would belong to the patient themselves and therefore not set off any alarm bells in the immune system. It also sidestepped the political football concerning harvesting stem cells from unborn fetuses.
But there is another hurdle holding regenerative medicine back, and this one relates to the advances made by the MGH team. It turns out that cultivating the right tissue isn’t enough for limb or organ regeneration, that tissue needs a biological matrix to form and grow around. Even organs lacking bone support, like the liver, contain a matrix of cells that forms the scaffolding over which the liver grows. In the case of an entire limb, the complications get even thicker, with numerous types of tissues involved as well as bone and scaffolding.
To circumvent the scaffolding issue, the scientists at MGH used a process called decellularization. Decellularization works by flushing a detergent solution through the vasculature of a limb or organ, in this case, the amputated arm of a deceased rate (at least we hope it was deceased). This solution strips away all the cells belonging to the dead rat and leaves only the matrix behind. The matrix of the rat arm is then bathed in a nutrient solution where the progenerator cells of another rat (the client/recipient) were injected into the scaffolding.
In a moment straight out of Frankenstein, the bioreactor containing the rat arm was stimulated with electrical charges and low and behold, new muscles, nerves, and sinews commenced to grow. After two weeks, the arm was deemed complete and removed for examination. Much to the researchers’ glee, the new rat arm appeared to have developed nerves and tissue in all the correct places, and when stimulated with electricity, contracted to 80 percent of what would be expected in a newborn.
While there are still some issues to tweak with the process, the MGH team sees no reason why the same technique cannot be applied to growing human limbs. Creepy or not, we can fully expect such experiments to be taking place in the near future. With the prospect of growing human arms in a bioreactor, it seems the 21^st century is going to be every bit as weird as some of us hoped it would be.

This time, however, Windows 10 is looking better than any OS I've ever reviewed, and it is largely because Microsoft did two things I've been requesting since Windows 95.
I'll share my thoughts on these "features" and Windows 10 in general this week, since we now know it is showing up two days after my birthday on July 29 (I think I'll still call it my "birthday present"). I'll close with my product of the week, an offering that reminds me of Bill Gates' house.

Microsoft's 1st Strategic Mistake

The Apple fans, even inside my own company, as well as the Unix and OS/2 fans, wanted me killed, and I became really famous (and surprisingly wasn't killed).
However, the first time and most every time I sat down with the Windows folks, I pointed out that they had a critical strategic weakness they had to correct. I'd been a competitive analyst for years, and one of the things that job entails is looking for things that either could enhance our firm's success or cause the firm to fail.
The thing I pointed out was that the PC industry, including Microsoft, lived on churn. In other words, it wasn't new sales but hardware replacements that increasingly drove the market. Windows was painful to upgrade, but it was excessively painful when you bought a new PC.

It could take up to a day to get anyplace close to where you were on the old hardware, and people started locking down their PCs. I can recall talking to an IT manager at Intel who said employees were refusing new PCs, because they didn't have the time to get them running. When that happens at a tech company, you have a problem.
The other issue is that if it is really hard to move to a new Windows PC, then moving to an Apple PC isn't that scary, because you have to pretty much go through the same mess. However, if you spoke to an Apple user, Apple migrations were drop-dead easy by comparison. Apple understood that churn was important, and it didn't have that problem.

Microsoft's 2nd Strategic Mistake

A related issue was the fact that if you were part of the beta program for Windows, you could install the beta product over your existing version pretty easily -- but when the beta was over, you had to do a clean installation.
Often, that meant you had to run down the earlier copy of Windows to validate you qualified for the upgrade price, and then, as with every new machine, run down every disk related to a program you used.
As a result, even at Microsoft, testers had two machines -- one running the beta, which they rarely if ever touched, and one they actually did work on. So, while Microsoft thought it had a legion of folks, both internal and external, testing the product, there were only a few of us -- I was typically one -- running the product in actual production. When we few complained about a problem, our voice was lost among the masses of folks who seemed to be testing the product but rarely touched it.

Windows 10 Fixed Both

Migrations started to get a lot better with Windows 7, but they are brilliant with Windows 10. You basically log in with your Microsoft -- or if you're on a work PC, your work ID -- and all of your settings, apps and personalities transfer down from the server (be aware that this doesn't apply to legacy apps or if you are coming from Windows XP).
Once on Windows 10, getting one, two or six PCs is login-easy, and as you move to the newer apps, the experience is similar to what you currently get with iOS or Android. You buy a new PC, log in, and after a short wait, your new PC looks like your old one.
The even bigger move, at least when it comes to creating a reliable product, is that those of us testing Windows 10 automatically will get upgraded to the final version with Windows Update. Since we started with a valid version of Windows 7 or 8, we still get a free upgrade to Windows 10 without having to figure out what happened to our old Windows disks.
This means more of us actually are using Windows 10 in production, and that the number of testers Microsoft thinks it has internally and externally is one hell of a lot closer to the number it actually does have. I do think it is likely going to take a while for some people to break a decades-old habit of using two machines, but it is still a huge step in the right direction.

Wrapping Up

Just like the testers, I too am going to now have to break a decades-old habit of whining about the upgrade and new hardware process for Windows. There are a lot of new features in the offering that fix issues with Windows 8 -- like Continuum, which morphs the product between tablet and PC mode.
However, the one that I think is the most powerful, because it fixes a problem that is decades old, is the feature that lets you almost painlessly migrate from an old to a new PC. That's something that should have been fixed in the first version of the product but actually did get fixed in this one.

We all have a lot of regrets. I have two with regard to Microsoft: One is not going on an interview there in the late 70s; the other is turning down a tour of Bill Gates' house. He'd offered to take me, but I'd thrown out my back and was in massive pain and felt I needed to address that first.
In hindsight, I should have sucked it up. Even though I was given a rain check, I was never able to call it in. The part of the house I really wanted to see was the home automation component, particularly with regard to entertainment.
Gates had a unique system. The pictures on the walls were flat-panel displays, and music changed automatically with the pictures, according to the tastes of the person viewing them. You wore a badge that told the system who you were, and it knew your preferences. I always thought it would be really cool to have something like that.
Well, a startup called "Artkick" has launched a crowdfunding project on Kickstarter for Look-- a next-generation large form digital picture frame (up to 40 inches) that can bring you art personalized to taste, and take feeds from your -- or anyone else's -- social network account.
It doesn't yet change based on who is viewing it, and there is no music aspect, but those could be future features -- and given the cost is in the display, likely not very expensive ones to add.
I'm thinking that if you had a lot of kids who were away, rather than mounting a large picture of each child on the wall, you might enjoy a dynamic digital picture frame showing what they're posting on their social network. That would let you feel like you were in touch with them -- or perhaps occasionally have the crap scared out of you (kids can do some crazy things).