While we're still in the middle of the Ashes (well 80% through but you get my point) tomorrow the Premier League returns and with it the Saints second season after promotion starts.
So what do I think will happen this season? Well here's my views on the team.
Goalkeeper - Boruc picks himself as first choice and has shown himself to be a reliable shot stopper and he is an imposing presence. Communication is vital going forward but he needs to stay fit as Davis is not consistent enough & Gazzaniga still has lots of developing to do to be a Premier league keeper.
Defence - The full backs, Luke Shaw and Nathaniel Clyne, pick themselves so it's in the centre of the defence that decisions need to be made. Dejan Lovren has been bought in from Lyon at some cost and therefore should have one spot. Who plays along side him is less certain. Fonte always looked a Premier league player in the lower leagues but has had a drop on form (or he is not that good). Hooiveld will be important when we play tall teams (Andy Carroll, Peter Crouch etc) but he scores too many own goals for a regular spot! Which leaves Maya Yoshida and he would be my choice to partner Lovren as he has international experience with Japan and got better the longer last season progressed.
Midfield - The biggest debate surrounds the midfield. Last season, in Jack Cork and Morgan Schneiderlin, Saints had a great defensive midfield duo and much of lasts season's success followed their pairing up. In the summer however Victor Wanyama was signed from Celtic and given what we paid for him (£12.5m?) he will start. Having seen him in last weeks friendly he looks a great addition (a bigger stronger Michael Essien!!) and he looks likely to replace Cork alongside Schneiderlin. That's tough on Cork but the squad will all get a chance and he'll need to take his when it's offered. Schneiderlin will get more chance to break forward and this could be a very special season for him. Lallana has had a good pre season and looks fit, which he didn't appear to be after his knee injury last season, so he could start. The final place will be rotated, I suspect, around, Ramirez, Guly, Davis and Puncheon. depending on the specific needs of the game.
Attack - England's Rickie Lambert (how good is it to read that??) and Jay Rodriguez will make a natural partnership, with again, Mayuka and now Isgrove bringing impact from the bench. We probably do need another striker but as the number 11 is vacant I expect that to be resolved before the transfer window closes.
The players are there to finish in the top half of the table if not higher but a good start is important as we don't have the tough start of last season and we need to have won points before those harder games do come along. Certainly the high pressing game we now play will allow more possession but some teams will work us out (like QPR, of all teams, did last season). It's the changes that Pochettino makes against those teams that could spell the difference between a great season or a "meh" one
Friday, 16 August 2013
Friday, 28 June 2013
The stars and stripes
I went to my first Saints game on March 16th 1967, when on my 8th birthday my Dad (not really a football fan) took me to watch that days home game against West Ham. I have been a fan ever since and will be for the rest of my life. One of the things that any neutral fan would say if you asked them to identify the Saints would be "red and white stripes" There have been variations on a theme, particularly in the 1980's, but red and white shirts, black shorts and red/white/black socks has been by and large the Saints kit since 1900.
For our 125th anniversary the club, as a mark of respect to our heritage, did a "one off' home kit of a white shirt with a red sash, which reflected the very earliest kits that the club wore. Fans understood that and largely it was welcomed and looked very good. The next year though they went back to a red and white striped shirt and all was well.
Last season the club broke with tradition and changed the home kit to an all red one, with an all white kit away kit to keep the tradition of red and white but that season it was strips not stripes. In the same way as the 125th anniversary kit was accepted, fans accepted looking like Liverpool as it was "only for one season"
Today this years kit was revealed and we discovered that an all red kit was not just for last season as this years is again all red, albeit the sleeves have white on them so that we look like Arsenal as well as Liverpool. You can see it here. The design is OK ( but Bristol City have gone for exactly the same shirt design) but there are no stripes, no black shorts and the socks are red and white hoops and look horrible! It appears that red and white stripes, the hallmark of the Saints image are gone for the foreseeable future and that saddens me in a way that took me by surprise. It doesn't feel like I'm watching the Saints when they're not in red and white stripes. it feels like they're...well anybody!
It appears that I'm not alone in this thought as most comments that I have read on both Facebook and the Echo website seem to agree (by about 8 out every 10 being against it), many saying they'll wear old striped shirts to make a point.
I'll get used to it I guess, but it would be good to see them when they win the Premier league in red and white stripes not look like Arsenapool!
The main thing is, as Richard that I work with said (and he was, rightly, fed up with me going on about the lack of stripes - sorry) "it's how they play this season that really matters, not what they wear".
For our 125th anniversary the club, as a mark of respect to our heritage, did a "one off' home kit of a white shirt with a red sash, which reflected the very earliest kits that the club wore. Fans understood that and largely it was welcomed and looked very good. The next year though they went back to a red and white striped shirt and all was well.
Last season the club broke with tradition and changed the home kit to an all red one, with an all white kit away kit to keep the tradition of red and white but that season it was strips not stripes. In the same way as the 125th anniversary kit was accepted, fans accepted looking like Liverpool as it was "only for one season"
Today this years kit was revealed and we discovered that an all red kit was not just for last season as this years is again all red, albeit the sleeves have white on them so that we look like Arsenal as well as Liverpool. You can see it here. The design is OK ( but Bristol City have gone for exactly the same shirt design) but there are no stripes, no black shorts and the socks are red and white hoops and look horrible! It appears that red and white stripes, the hallmark of the Saints image are gone for the foreseeable future and that saddens me in a way that took me by surprise. It doesn't feel like I'm watching the Saints when they're not in red and white stripes. it feels like they're...well anybody!
It appears that I'm not alone in this thought as most comments that I have read on both Facebook and the Echo website seem to agree (by about 8 out every 10 being against it), many saying they'll wear old striped shirts to make a point.
I'll get used to it I guess, but it would be good to see them when they win the Premier league in red and white stripes not look like Arsenapool!
The main thing is, as Richard that I work with said (and he was, rightly, fed up with me going on about the lack of stripes - sorry) "it's how they play this season that really matters, not what they wear".
Saturday, 15 June 2013
Radio nowhere
I'm of an age where most of my early musical knowledge came from either listening to music on the radio or from gathering in friends bedrooms listening to vinyl albums (or singles).
This meant that to me the radio was the prime source of listening to music and that stayed with me for years. In the car, in the house, in the office, the radio played the music. That's why Radio 1 was so important to me as a teenager and in my twenties and why Steve Wright, Johnnie Walker, Simon Bates, John Peel, DLT (!), Annie Nightingale, David "Kid" Jensen and Alan "Fluff" Freeman were household names and drew (by todays standards) huge audiences. I remember first hearing tracks from the keenly awaited new Yes album (Tormato) on the Saturday Rock show courtesy of Alan Freeman. I first heard Bohemian Rhapsody, while doing homework, on Annie Nightingale's Sunday afternoon show. (I actually thought that she had played two tracks by mistake such was the wow factor it left me with. 6 minute rock epics were not released as singles before then!!)
Technology has changed all of that of course and now we can have music when we want it , where we want it and how we want it. The only time that I attempt to listen to music on the radio is if it is either via a commercial station that effectively plays my iTunes library (Jack FM, Planet Rock and Wave FM (but only the Teenage Kicks programme on a Sunday night!!) Occasionally Radio 2 gets a listen, but I would prefer to listen to Radio 5 Live given the choice. I never, through choice, listen to the radio stations that play chart music and I suspect that I'm not alone in that and that's across an increasing demographic. My sons use Spotify, YouTube, Soundcloud and Bandcamp in addition to iTunes libraries.
Life for radio stations that play music is, however, about to get a whole lot harder following Apple announcing the arrival of iTunes Radio earlier this week. It will allow users to stream music based on the their iTunes library. So as I understand it, if for example, I play "Open Arms" by Elbow, iTunes radio will then stream songs similar to that and the more that I play, the more that it will build around my tastes. This will be free but you will get adverts dropped in (unless like me, you subscribe to iTunes Match).
Let's be clear, this is not new, Spotify and in America, Pandora ( and others) have been doing this for at least the last couple of years and music radio has survived largely intact, so why is Apple getting involved so potentially serious.
Well firstly iTunes is the default music player for most digital content. If you buy your music from an online shop other than iTunes, such as Amazon o other online music stores, they normally download via software that magically puts the music in your iTunes library. Thus most of my friends use iTunes to listen to music.
Secondly, large numbers of music listeners have at least one Apple device on which they also listen to their music. Even if you have a smartphone that is not made by Apple, you will most likely have either an iPod or iPad that is and via which you listen to music.
Well all of those devices will have iTunes radio embedded in them. It will be easy to use and will also help you find new music (assuming it's on iTunes).
To me that feels like a big change, Apple make things easy to use, intuitive and they market it well. It won't be an overnight change (the initial launch is only in the US but it won't be long before we have it in the UK) but in say five years time we may well look back on this launch as the beginning of the end for many of our music radio stations.
This meant that to me the radio was the prime source of listening to music and that stayed with me for years. In the car, in the house, in the office, the radio played the music. That's why Radio 1 was so important to me as a teenager and in my twenties and why Steve Wright, Johnnie Walker, Simon Bates, John Peel, DLT (!), Annie Nightingale, David "Kid" Jensen and Alan "Fluff" Freeman were household names and drew (by todays standards) huge audiences. I remember first hearing tracks from the keenly awaited new Yes album (Tormato) on the Saturday Rock show courtesy of Alan Freeman. I first heard Bohemian Rhapsody, while doing homework, on Annie Nightingale's Sunday afternoon show. (I actually thought that she had played two tracks by mistake such was the wow factor it left me with. 6 minute rock epics were not released as singles before then!!)
Technology has changed all of that of course and now we can have music when we want it , where we want it and how we want it. The only time that I attempt to listen to music on the radio is if it is either via a commercial station that effectively plays my iTunes library (Jack FM, Planet Rock and Wave FM (but only the Teenage Kicks programme on a Sunday night!!) Occasionally Radio 2 gets a listen, but I would prefer to listen to Radio 5 Live given the choice. I never, through choice, listen to the radio stations that play chart music and I suspect that I'm not alone in that and that's across an increasing demographic. My sons use Spotify, YouTube, Soundcloud and Bandcamp in addition to iTunes libraries.
Life for radio stations that play music is, however, about to get a whole lot harder following Apple announcing the arrival of iTunes Radio earlier this week. It will allow users to stream music based on the their iTunes library. So as I understand it, if for example, I play "Open Arms" by Elbow, iTunes radio will then stream songs similar to that and the more that I play, the more that it will build around my tastes. This will be free but you will get adverts dropped in (unless like me, you subscribe to iTunes Match).
Let's be clear, this is not new, Spotify and in America, Pandora ( and others) have been doing this for at least the last couple of years and music radio has survived largely intact, so why is Apple getting involved so potentially serious.
Well firstly iTunes is the default music player for most digital content. If you buy your music from an online shop other than iTunes, such as Amazon o other online music stores, they normally download via software that magically puts the music in your iTunes library. Thus most of my friends use iTunes to listen to music.
Secondly, large numbers of music listeners have at least one Apple device on which they also listen to their music. Even if you have a smartphone that is not made by Apple, you will most likely have either an iPod or iPad that is and via which you listen to music.
Well all of those devices will have iTunes radio embedded in them. It will be easy to use and will also help you find new music (assuming it's on iTunes).
To me that feels like a big change, Apple make things easy to use, intuitive and they market it well. It won't be an overnight change (the initial launch is only in the US but it won't be long before we have it in the UK) but in say five years time we may well look back on this launch as the beginning of the end for many of our music radio stations.
Thursday, 4 April 2013
The sound of the crowd
Seven games to go and all is still to play for in Saints return to the Premier League. Mathematically we can still qualify for the Champions League but to be honest mid-table mediocrity will do very nicely thank you.
As I write this we sit 12th in the League, which is our highest position all season and bodes well for the remaining games. Our last two games have given us home wins over Liverpool and Chelsea (reigning European Champions!!) and we have been recognised for playing "good" football in both games.
Next up comes an away game against Reading, who were promoted with us last season. They currently sit bottom of the table 11 points behind us, so they need to win fairly desperately to have any chance of staying up. They recently sacked their manager and appointed ex Saints manager, Nigel Adkins, in his place, so this game now has lots of extra significance. It's rare as a sacked manager, that you get to shake the hand of the guy who replaced you, but that will happen on Saturday. It's also an oddity for Saints fans as they never got the chance to say goodbye to Adkins, so the pre-game chanting of his name may well be from all round the stadium. Finally it's a chance for Mauricio Pochettino, to show that he was the right choice to take over from Adkins, by his Saints beating Reading and beating them well. Last season's game at Reading ended 1-1, I think that this game will end the same.
After Saturday these are our remaining fixtures and my predictions:-
West Ham (home) - 3-1
Swansea (away) - 0-0
West Brom (home) - 2-1
Spurs (away) - 3-1 (though I really really want us to win this game, given the number of people that I know who follow Spurs)
Sunderland (away) 0-1
Stoke (home) 3-0
If I'm correct with my scores above that will see us finish with 48 points and end somewhere in mid table.
Of course we are only 4 points above the relegation zone, so a couple of losses and we could yet end up playing Stoke needing to win to stay in the Premier League, but my instinct is that we'll be safe by the time we go to Sunderland.
Come on you Reds!
As I write this we sit 12th in the League, which is our highest position all season and bodes well for the remaining games. Our last two games have given us home wins over Liverpool and Chelsea (reigning European Champions!!) and we have been recognised for playing "good" football in both games.
Next up comes an away game against Reading, who were promoted with us last season. They currently sit bottom of the table 11 points behind us, so they need to win fairly desperately to have any chance of staying up. They recently sacked their manager and appointed ex Saints manager, Nigel Adkins, in his place, so this game now has lots of extra significance. It's rare as a sacked manager, that you get to shake the hand of the guy who replaced you, but that will happen on Saturday. It's also an oddity for Saints fans as they never got the chance to say goodbye to Adkins, so the pre-game chanting of his name may well be from all round the stadium. Finally it's a chance for Mauricio Pochettino, to show that he was the right choice to take over from Adkins, by his Saints beating Reading and beating them well. Last season's game at Reading ended 1-1, I think that this game will end the same.
After Saturday these are our remaining fixtures and my predictions:-
West Ham (home) - 3-1
Swansea (away) - 0-0
West Brom (home) - 2-1
Spurs (away) - 3-1 (though I really really want us to win this game, given the number of people that I know who follow Spurs)
Sunderland (away) 0-1
Stoke (home) 3-0
If I'm correct with my scores above that will see us finish with 48 points and end somewhere in mid table.
Of course we are only 4 points above the relegation zone, so a couple of losses and we could yet end up playing Stoke needing to win to stay in the Premier League, but my instinct is that we'll be safe by the time we go to Sunderland.
Come on you Reds!
Monday, 1 April 2013
In through the out door
I was walking last summer with my friend Steve when we fell into a conversation about Led Zeppelin. He had been involved in the music industry for most of his working career and he confessed to me that he only really "got" Led Zeppelin fairly recently. That got me thinking and If I'm honest that's the same for me.
I think the reason for that is that I never saw them live. By the time that I was fully appreciative of their music, John Bonham had passed away, and in effect the band was over. While the albums were great, similar to many bands today such as U2 and Muse, it was the live experience that took them to another level. it wasn't until last year that I had the chance to experience some of what that felt like.
Last year they released "Celebration day" a film and live album of a concert they performed in 2008 at the O2 area in London. As part of the launch it had a cinema release and I went to see it with another friend. It was wonderful! The three surviving members all looked fit, healthy and younger then their years. Jimmy Page in particular defined cool, starting the gig in frock coat, shades and with his grey/white hair styled to look like he could have been an 18th Century highwayman!
The concert rocks! Pure and simple it shows a band (that hasn't played together for nearly 30 years) at the height of it's powers. They play all the songs that fans would have demanded, but the power and downright size of the performance is breathtaking. Robert Plant's voice is exactly as it should be for music on this scale, but bearing in mind that he's a man in his 60's, it puts to shame contemporaries such as Knights of the realm, Elton John and Paul McCartney. Besides looking as cool as, Jimmy Page's guitar playing reminds everyone why every spotty teenage guitarist growing up in the 70's wanted to be him.
The real revelation, however, is John Paul Jones. Having thought of him as "the bass player", it was a real surprise to see and hear exactly how much of the "sound" of Led Zep actually emanates from his performance. The keyboard parts to "Trampled Underfoot" & "Kashmir" are the centrepieces around which the vocals and guitar parts build the monuments they become.
Underpinning all of this are the drums, played by John Bonham's son, Jason. His dad would be very proud! Much of my favourite moments on Led Zep songs have been the drums (the intro to "When the Levee breaks for example) and Jason Bonham replicates the sound and power as if it was his father sat on the drum stool.
As a record of that one night, this is as good as it could have been. As a demonstration of why the band were so revered, this is as good a testimony as you could find. As a line drawn under the Led Zep story then this is the perfect ending.
The trouble is that it is so good, the management must have seen the ability to tour and wipe out all top grossing records. Plant says that he's not interested but then hints that he's not up to much in 2014! This story may not yet be over.....
I think the reason for that is that I never saw them live. By the time that I was fully appreciative of their music, John Bonham had passed away, and in effect the band was over. While the albums were great, similar to many bands today such as U2 and Muse, it was the live experience that took them to another level. it wasn't until last year that I had the chance to experience some of what that felt like.
Last year they released "Celebration day" a film and live album of a concert they performed in 2008 at the O2 area in London. As part of the launch it had a cinema release and I went to see it with another friend. It was wonderful! The three surviving members all looked fit, healthy and younger then their years. Jimmy Page in particular defined cool, starting the gig in frock coat, shades and with his grey/white hair styled to look like he could have been an 18th Century highwayman!
The concert rocks! Pure and simple it shows a band (that hasn't played together for nearly 30 years) at the height of it's powers. They play all the songs that fans would have demanded, but the power and downright size of the performance is breathtaking. Robert Plant's voice is exactly as it should be for music on this scale, but bearing in mind that he's a man in his 60's, it puts to shame contemporaries such as Knights of the realm, Elton John and Paul McCartney. Besides looking as cool as, Jimmy Page's guitar playing reminds everyone why every spotty teenage guitarist growing up in the 70's wanted to be him.
The real revelation, however, is John Paul Jones. Having thought of him as "the bass player", it was a real surprise to see and hear exactly how much of the "sound" of Led Zep actually emanates from his performance. The keyboard parts to "Trampled Underfoot" & "Kashmir" are the centrepieces around which the vocals and guitar parts build the monuments they become.
Underpinning all of this are the drums, played by John Bonham's son, Jason. His dad would be very proud! Much of my favourite moments on Led Zep songs have been the drums (the intro to "When the Levee breaks for example) and Jason Bonham replicates the sound and power as if it was his father sat on the drum stool.
As a record of that one night, this is as good as it could have been. As a demonstration of why the band were so revered, this is as good a testimony as you could find. As a line drawn under the Led Zep story then this is the perfect ending.
The trouble is that it is so good, the management must have seen the ability to tour and wipe out all top grossing records. Plant says that he's not interested but then hints that he's not up to much in 2014! This story may not yet be over.....
Monday, 4 February 2013
Anyway anyhow anywhere.
1 February marked a potential turning point in broadcasting. That may sound a very grandiose statement but history may show it to be true. That day, Netflix the video subscription service, which up until that point had only broadcast films and old TV series, put on it's service a brand-new political drama series "House of cards' on which it is reported it cost $100m to produce.
House of cards was originally a BBC TV series which starred the late Ian Richardson. In it he played the role of the government's chief whip, Francis Urquart, whose Machiavellian manipulations of the government served his political purpose. His character became best known for his Catchphrase "you might say that, I couldn't possibly comment."
Netflix have transferred it to the American government and it stars the US actor Kevin Spacey in the lead role. It's directed by David Fincher, best known for his film work and besides Kevin Spacey has a host of well-known American actors featured in it. The script is very sharp but surprisingly Aaron Sorkin's not involved despite his working with the Director on The Social Network. It is beautifully filmed and one of my friends has already referred to it as being the best TV programme is since The Wire.
That's the main point though, is it a TV program? It isn't actually being broadcast on any TV channels (yet) as it's only available through the Internet via Netflix. What's more they've made 13 episodes and all 13 are readily available now. So this also takes away the "waiting until next week to see what happens" syndrome. As long as you have 13 hours readily available you can watch the whole series in one sitting!
This is the next stage In being incomplete control of what you watch and when you watch it. While many of us either record items to watch when we choose to or use catch up services to watch things at a time that suits us, this takes things to the next natural stage of just being out there on the Internet for us to pick up when we want to. Do programmes actually need to be broadcast?
Netflix are rumoured to have five original series to be released this year and this is a fascinating development in "How we watch, what we watch and when we watch it."
I suspect in no time at all, a growing percentage of what we watch through our TV, may come via the Internet and not have been shown first on a TV channel.
House of cards was originally a BBC TV series which starred the late Ian Richardson. In it he played the role of the government's chief whip, Francis Urquart, whose Machiavellian manipulations of the government served his political purpose. His character became best known for his Catchphrase "you might say that, I couldn't possibly comment."
Netflix have transferred it to the American government and it stars the US actor Kevin Spacey in the lead role. It's directed by David Fincher, best known for his film work and besides Kevin Spacey has a host of well-known American actors featured in it. The script is very sharp but surprisingly Aaron Sorkin's not involved despite his working with the Director on The Social Network. It is beautifully filmed and one of my friends has already referred to it as being the best TV programme is since The Wire.
That's the main point though, is it a TV program? It isn't actually being broadcast on any TV channels (yet) as it's only available through the Internet via Netflix. What's more they've made 13 episodes and all 13 are readily available now. So this also takes away the "waiting until next week to see what happens" syndrome. As long as you have 13 hours readily available you can watch the whole series in one sitting!
This is the next stage In being incomplete control of what you watch and when you watch it. While many of us either record items to watch when we choose to or use catch up services to watch things at a time that suits us, this takes things to the next natural stage of just being out there on the Internet for us to pick up when we want to. Do programmes actually need to be broadcast?
Netflix are rumoured to have five original series to be released this year and this is a fascinating development in "How we watch, what we watch and when we watch it."
I suspect in no time at all, a growing percentage of what we watch through our TV, may come via the Internet and not have been shown first on a TV channel.
Sunday, 20 January 2013
A change is gonna' come.
Some of my best football related moments in the last two years have come courtesy of Nigel Atkins. He took over my football team, Southampton, when they were near the bottom of League One. First season in charge, he got them promoted to the Championship. Next season in charge he then got them promoted to the Premier league. "Back to back" promotions, no other Southampton manager has ever done that. In fact very few football managers have ever done that!
On Friday, because of the snow, I was working from home. During a break for coffee, I briefly checked Twitter. This tweet popped up. "Southampton Football Club has appointed Mauricio Pochettino as First Team Manager having relieved Nigel Adkins of his duties." My jaw dropped and and I mouthed "what!!!!!" I stared at the screen unable to take what I was reading in. On Wednesday night we had gone to the home of the European Champions (Chelsea) and having gone 2-0 down came back to earn a 2-2 draw. To me that was the night I felt we could rightly sing "We are Southampton, we're Premier League" and get taken seriously.
Now Saints Chairman, Nicola Cortese, has form in sacking managers. Adkins predecessor, Alan Pardew, was sacked after winning 4-0 away from home! That had been a shock, but worked out very well by his appointing Adkins. This was worse though, we had only lost 2 of our last 12 games and were 15th in the League.
Reaction to the sacking has been generally appalled at what we have done to a "good and honest manager". That's from the media and from fans of both Saints and other clubs. Everyone wishes Adkins all the best in the future and he will always be greeted like a hero at St Mary's, even if he turned up as Pompey manager.
Thank you Nigel for all the happy moments that you gave me and all other Saints fans.
On Friday, because of the snow, I was working from home. During a break for coffee, I briefly checked Twitter. This tweet popped up. "Southampton Football Club has appointed Mauricio Pochettino as First Team Manager having relieved Nigel Adkins of his duties." My jaw dropped and and I mouthed "what!!!!!" I stared at the screen unable to take what I was reading in. On Wednesday night we had gone to the home of the European Champions (Chelsea) and having gone 2-0 down came back to earn a 2-2 draw. To me that was the night I felt we could rightly sing "We are Southampton, we're Premier League" and get taken seriously.
Now Saints Chairman, Nicola Cortese, has form in sacking managers. Adkins predecessor, Alan Pardew, was sacked after winning 4-0 away from home! That had been a shock, but worked out very well by his appointing Adkins. This was worse though, we had only lost 2 of our last 12 games and were 15th in the League.
Reaction to the sacking has been generally appalled at what we have done to a "good and honest manager". That's from the media and from fans of both Saints and other clubs. Everyone wishes Adkins all the best in the future and he will always be greeted like a hero at St Mary's, even if he turned up as Pompey manager.
Thank you Nigel for all the happy moments that you gave me and all other Saints fans.
Saturday, 5 January 2013
Madman at the screens
Like thousands of others, maybe millions, this Christmas has bought me an iPad mini.
My eldest son, Matthew, bought one on the day that they were released and yes he did queue up outside the Apple store at 7 o'clock in the morning! Seeing the joy that he has got from his, made me convinced that this was the next addition that I needed to my gadget life.
My first impressions are very favourable. I've rarely turned on my laptop since I've owned it and can see that remaining the case. The screen is big enough to see almost every website very clearly and apps designed specifically for it are generally very impressive.
I also have an iPhone so a bit of the "Wow" factor was reduced, some of it is just what I've experienced on the iPhone on a bigger screen.
So what is different?
Firstly the newsstand app. I now read the Guardian on a daily basis, have a free copy of Stuff magazine and I'm considering subscribing to GQ again. Reading a newspaper or a magazine on a tablet is a very different but fun experience.
Next is the improvement in using the Apple browser, Safari. It's always been difficult on my PC, let's remember is not designed for a PC. It's fairly basic on an iPhone, but it is excellent on the iPad. It also means that through iCloud, articles I've read on my iPad I can also carry on reading on my iPhone if I don't get a chance to finish them.
The final initial benefit I've seen of the iPad is reading books. I have a Sony e-reader and that's been great but let's be honest, it's limited to just reading books. It's also very slow. If you copy a PDF onto it to use that in a meeting, it better be a very slow meeting, otherwise you'll be way behind. Through differing apps the iPad allows you to read PDF's, Kindle, iBooks and EPUB books.
So, so far so good. A very good investment.
PS this blog was mainly dictated using Siri!
My eldest son, Matthew, bought one on the day that they were released and yes he did queue up outside the Apple store at 7 o'clock in the morning! Seeing the joy that he has got from his, made me convinced that this was the next addition that I needed to my gadget life.
My first impressions are very favourable. I've rarely turned on my laptop since I've owned it and can see that remaining the case. The screen is big enough to see almost every website very clearly and apps designed specifically for it are generally very impressive.
I also have an iPhone so a bit of the "Wow" factor was reduced, some of it is just what I've experienced on the iPhone on a bigger screen.
So what is different?
Firstly the newsstand app. I now read the Guardian on a daily basis, have a free copy of Stuff magazine and I'm considering subscribing to GQ again. Reading a newspaper or a magazine on a tablet is a very different but fun experience.
Next is the improvement in using the Apple browser, Safari. It's always been difficult on my PC, let's remember is not designed for a PC. It's fairly basic on an iPhone, but it is excellent on the iPad. It also means that through iCloud, articles I've read on my iPad I can also carry on reading on my iPhone if I don't get a chance to finish them.
The final initial benefit I've seen of the iPad is reading books. I have a Sony e-reader and that's been great but let's be honest, it's limited to just reading books. It's also very slow. If you copy a PDF onto it to use that in a meeting, it better be a very slow meeting, otherwise you'll be way behind. Through differing apps the iPad allows you to read PDF's, Kindle, iBooks and EPUB books.
So, so far so good. A very good investment.
PS this blog was mainly dictated using Siri!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Little pink houses
Im a bit behind with my travels, so I’ll cover a few stops in this one blog. After Pontevedra, I participated in some time travel. Unbeknow...
-
As a teenager in the 70's Monty Python was part of my formative years and the ability to be able to recite various sketches verbatim w...
-
I’m currently travelling in Northern Spain and my first stop was a costal town called Llanes. And as you can see there were boats and trai...
-
The global banking crisis is effecting everybody it appears and I have tried twice to write a blog that expresses my feelings..but nothing I...