iPad Mini - worth the hype?

It's official, after months of speculation Apple have officially unveiled the iPad mini, but will the specs have buyers keen to part with their cash or will it leave them asking the question "why"?

Intended to compete with the likes of Googles Nexus 7 (£189 for 16 gigabyte model) and Amazons Kindle Fire HD (£169 for 16 gigabyte model) the new iPad Mini starts at £269 (for the lowest ,16 gigabyte, model) but unfortunately for Apple it's unlikely that tablet buyers keen on reading ebooks or watching high definition video will be tempted should they look in detail at just what they get for the extra money.

The main reason is the Mini's resolution which is not, as might have been expected, a retina display but is instead 1024 x 768 with a pixel density of 163 ppi.

Compared to the 1280 x 800 of the Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire HD (both of which also have a pixel density of 216 ppi) the iPad Mini loses out to its two main rivals in what is a key area for consumers, with both key challengers having screens that display more detail and at a higher resolution.

As expected there is no NFC but this isn't going to be an issue as although Googles Nexus 7 does have it most similar size tablets to Apples 7.9 inch entry model don't and the majority of potential customers are unlikely to be deterred by the lack of it.

The iPad mini has one key advantage over most rivals, a five mega pixel rear facing camera in addition to the front facing camera it and all its competitors also have, something that may attract those that fancy being able to snap some pics with their tablet but what about the meat of the iPad Mini, the key elements that can make or break a sale?

While it loses out on screen resolution and density it does have a decent cpu and gpu, the dual core A5 processor found in the iPhone 4S which is no slouch and compares well to the Tegra 3 processor used in the  Nexus 7 and the Omap 4460 used in the Kindle Fire HD (the larger 8.9 inch version of the Kindle uses an Omap 4470).

By not having to drive a retina display Apples A5 processor easily competes when it comes to games and processor intensive applications.

Apples trade off here is that to give the processor that edge in performance, and improve battery life (the Mini's battery life, between charges, is ten hours) they use a lower resolution screen so that where the processor usually has to power a high resolution retina screen here it can conserve that energy albeit by losing out to the competition in terms of screen quality, or more specifically the amount of detail it can display in comparison to competing tablets of a similar size.

It is important to note here that dearer models of the Mini will be available that have more storage and also 3G and 4G connectivity but for purposes of comparison we're just looking at the starter level wifi only iPad mini and the two main competitors that have the same storage and similar size.

Apples iPad mini has a slightly larger display size, physically, despite its lower resolution and that means that when it comes to on screen graphics it offers less detail but does so on a bigger screen which makes that lower resolution more noticeable.

For this reason extended viewing of documents (such as e-books or pdf files) is going to be easier on the eyes and more enjoyable on a Nexus 7 or Kindle Fire HD than it is on an iPad Mini and with Apple apparently aiming at these devices it seems something of an oversight not to compete on resolution (all the tablets mentioned, including the Mini use an IPS display).

The truth is that some people will buy the iPad mini simply because they want an Apple product, regardless of the specs, and it does have advantages (for example iOS devices often get games and other applications before their competitors do) but that lower quality screen is what will likely be the deciding factor for many potential buyers.

Lacking the high clarity screen typically associated with Apple products this could be the Achilles heel of the new  model, overall the product is a decent offering but with a significantly higher starting price than the competition  for what is, ignoring the screen, a similar specced device (as regards actual performance) to them customers might well wonder just why the iPad Mini deserves their cash.

The iPad mini can be pre ordered from November the second.

Apples new patent puts old foes back in the firing line

Apples newest slide to unlock patent not only sets the scene for yet more lawsuits against Android rivals but puts old ones, who implemented alternative slide to unlock methods in order to avoid legal action, back in the Cupertino giants firing line.

Apples new unlock patent gives them exclusive ownership of using a slide motion in any way to unlock a device, Android device maker had previously been able to work around the patents and avoid legal conflict but with the new patent this will be much harder for them to do.

Patent 8286103B2 is a clever, if sneaky, move by Apple. Android device makers changed their unlock methods to use different motions such as up and down or circular, Apple cottoned on to this and now have a patent that means these workaround methods still violate at least one Apple patent and, as a result, any mobile device manufacturer using slide to unlock methods of any type can now, in theory, be successfully sued by the company.

It may have surprised many that Apple were awarded its original slide to unlock patents when they were clearly invalidated by examples of prior art such as the NeoNode n1m (announced two years before the iPhones release, and eleven months before Apples original patent filing) but what may be even more surprising is that the company have managed to patent their rivals already existing workaround methods so as to invalidate them.

[Review] CoPilot Live Premium for Android

Googles satellite navigation app for Android is pretty good. The price can't be beaten (it's free), the directions are spoken well in advance of when you need to take them and it does a good job at getting you from A to B, so can an app that you have to pay for, such as CoPilot, really compete?

The first note worthy difference between Googles offering and CoPilot is that CoPilot can navigate without needing a data connection, for many users this won't be an issue but for those with no mobile data connection or for those who travel in areas where a network signal is sometimes unavailable this will undoubtedly be a big tick in its favour.

The second note worthy difference is that CoPilot has a wide variety of very good voices to choose from so that you aren't stuck with just the voice, or voices, that you already have installed on your Android. It also has another very big advantage over its free Google rival, customisation.

You can customise the speeds for any type of road, set it to avoid specific types of road (such as motorways, dual carriage ways, toll roads, etcetera) and do so for specific vehicle types. So if you want to avoid motorways when riding a motorcycle but not when driving a car, you can.

Further customisation options include the ability to show specific points of interest, the ability to edit your route to either add or remove specific locations, being able to have the application automatically switch from showing a list of directions to showing a layout of the road ahead and highlight the exact turn you need to take (complete with a visual depiction of what lane you should be in), the ability to choose from a variety of different map styles as well as being able to change the units of measurement used (metric or imperial).

You can also tell the app how far in advance of turns you wish to be notified, enable or disable its ClearView feature which, if enabled, will show you the lane you need to be in before a turn or customise the view of the maps so that they adapt to the time of day, making them easier to navigate with whether it is day or night.

The amount of time it takes the app to lock on to the gps satellites will vary depending on the device you're using it on, but on an LG P920 it acquires a signal as quickly as Googles free application does, the first time the devices gps is switched on it will naturally take longer but even then it finds a signal within thirty seconds (on the P920) which is surprisingly quick.

Setting a destination is easy, however you have to enter a town or city name, then it will offer a list of streets and then a list of addresses so it is a little regimented although you can also navigate to any point of interest CoPilot finds or to coordinates that are found encoded in a photograph.

If you visit the Play store to buy the app you'll see a couple of comments referring to it being a drain on the battery. These comments were for an older version than the newest version being reviewed here and so I can't confirm or deny whether they are accurate or not, my own use has found that the battery does drain noticeably quicker than when using Googles navigation app and I would recommend that if you plan on using it for more than say two hours it would be a wise precaution to have a way of charging your Android.

However an hour long trip uses up approximately twelve percent of the battery, that's with the screen on all the time, you can set the application to not show the directions all the time or even just speak them to you which would significantly reduce battery drain however in reality if you are making a long journey and using the app to navigate it is likely you will also have a charging cable available for your device and so possible battery drain may not be a concern for you.

Accuracy is an important feature of any navigation app and having been updated with newer navteq maps CoPilot should guide you to your destination with a minimum of fuss and seems to know the right routes although it is always possible that some new local features such as a new bypass etcetera may not be included in maps for the area in which you wish to travel but in testing this has been fine.

The combination of customisation, offline navigation and useful features such as ClearView all add up to make the app an attractive proposition.

For those who do have a mobile data connection you can use CoPilots active traffic feature to reroute you should any traffic jams arise on your planned routes, it's a subscription service but free for twelve months although users have reported that it isn't always very reliable and in reviewing this app I haven't used it, preferring instead to test the features that are included in the price (yes you get twelve months free but after that it costs money and so for this review only features that do not incur any additional charge have been tested).

There are of course other offline features you can use for free including being warned when approaching speed traps (which works well although will also warn there is a speed trap in locations where speed traps are not always present, ie places with speed camera signs but no actual speed cameras).

There is also the option to navigate to gps coordinates that have been encoded into a photograph, something which may be useful if you see a photograph you like and want to get to where the picture was taken.

Rerouting is instant, another advantage of using an offline app that doesn't need to communicate with a server to check how to get you back on track.

Directions wise it gives them clearly and well in advance, annoyingly it doesn't tell you to turn left or right as expected but says keep left or keep right which could be confusing if you were meant to keep to one side of a road ready to take a turn later and mistakenly take a turn early.

Back to the maps and they are definitely more up to date than those of similar apps, easily identifying and routing through a local bypass which other navigation apps had problems recognising although the POI's (points of interest) are sometimes out of date, for example a local garage is shown which hasn't been open for a few years so while the maps themselves are fine the POI's are a little less up to date and so may not be as useful.

But back to that question of whether CoPilot can really compete with Googles app, and the answer is that yes it can, and does. At twenty pounds it may seem a little steep but is still cheaper than rivals such as Navigon which are less intuitive to use and is as good as (and of course cheaper than) a standalone sat nav system.

If you're looking for a good offline satellite navigation app with plenty of useful features and up to date maps CoPilot is certainly the best available although it does have its quirks such as the whole keep right instead of turn right thing.

That said however, and having tried most of the alternative apps, CoPilot has definitely become my sat nav of choice and is well worth a look. You can't get a free trial but there is a free CoPilot app on the Play store that gives an idea of what to expect from the premium version.

Red Dwarf returns, but is it worth a look?

Red Dwarf returned to UK tv screens this week for its first new series in thirteen years (unless you include the three part "Back to Earth" story from 2009), but with the original cast now noticeably older could they rekindle the magic that made the show so popular back in the late eighties and early nineties?

While some critics have written off the new series as okay but not great the majority of them have hailed the new series as a welcome return to form, as have the majority of fans.

Episode one of the new series, titled "Trojan", sees Lister Kryten Rimmer and Cat come to the aid of Rimmers brother, Howard, with the help of an advanced spaceship they discover (The "Trojan" of the title).

While the episode felt like it was trying to be more of a standard sitcom than before, perhaps trying to hard to appeal to markets other than the UK, it did feel more like an early series of Red Dwarf with the majority of gags working well, some laugh out loud funny scenes, good chemistry between the cast members and it had that old magic back that fans were hoping for from its heyday.

The crew look surprisingly good for their ages, Rimmer (Chris Barrie) and Cat (Danny John Jules) are both 52, Craig Charles is 48 and Robert Llewellyn is 56 yet the fact they were obviously older didn't have the negative effect some had expected.

The first episode centred around Rimmer, a nod to previous series where some of the best episodes were those centred around one of the key characters (quite often Rimmer), and saw him finally best one of his bullying brothers in that weasel like yet strangely endearing way that only he could.

Along the way there were of course some well set up comedy moments, most notably the exam question concerning a Swede, Arnolds attempt at being captain like on the radio (only to be thwarted by a chair) and of course his final words to Howard.

The show was very much a return to form, not perfect but close enough that it bodes well for the rest of the series being enjoyable and having watched it twice myself I can confirm that as with the earlier series it holds up well to repeat viewings.

If you're a fan then chances are you'll enjoy it, if you're not well then maybe you won't but with just shy of one and a half million viewers tuning in to watch the return of Red Dwarf, giving Dave its second highest audience figure since the 2009 Red Dwarf mini series "Back to Earth", it's clear that a lot of fans were keen to give the show another chance.

It will be interesting to see how many return for the second episode, which will give an idea of whether the show can be a commercial success, but if early impressions and comments are anything to go by it looks like Red Dwarf has a good chance of repeating its earlier successes.