Is it really iPad mini vs Nexus 7 or iOS vs Android or is it Google vs Apple?

The iPad Mini was launched on 23rd of October 2012 and the Google Nexus 7 was launched a couple of months back. We had bought a 16 GB Nexus 7 for my Dad's 50th Birthday a month back from Amazon since it has not yet been released in India (Else I would have bought it from the Google PlayStore).

For the past couple of days there has been a lot of comparison between the iPad mini and other tablets in the market. From all the comparison we can see that the competition has narrowed down between Google's Nexus 7 and Apple's iPad mini. There have been a lot of mixed reviews, some say iPad is better and the others favour the Nexus 7.

Its not the tech specs comparison between the tablets we have to look at. We have to look at the greater picture here, and the greater picture is the operating systems. The question we have to ask is what makes an iPad an iPad and a Nexus 7 a Nexus 7? The answer is the OS they are operating on. So the main comparison is between iOS and Android.

I was gifted a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.0 plus by my father in early 2012. The tab operates on Android Honeycomb 3.2 OS. It was smooth in the beginning but sometimes it used to behave sluggish and a little unresponsive. Though it rarely occurred, this flaw existed. But I did not pay too much attention to it thinking that it was the function of the memory being full and the multiple tasks it handled. Then when I used the Nexus 7 which runs on Android Jelly Bean 4.1 OS, this did not occur even once. This OS is as smooth as butter. I can say that the experience is at par or much better than an iPad.

I have done an analysis of tech specs of the iPad mini and the Nexus 7. See the image below-

As I was saying, its the OS that matters in Tablets. The OS is what gives the Tabs its versatility. Apple products operate on closed systems. If you need to put one song into your iPhone or iPad or iPod, you need a computer, iTunes and an Apple cable. Else you cannot transfer a single song into your Apple product. On the other hand, if you are using an Android device, you could just get the song transferred via Bluetooth. It does not matter which OS the transferring device is using. You need not go through the tedious task of connecting to iTunes.
This tells us that an Apple user does not have flexibility. He is being restricted by Apple even after he has paid through his nose for the device. This is not fair!

Android offers plug and play option. In other words, you can just connect a pen drive using a USB connector and transfer files onto your Tab or watch movies. You do not even need a computer, forget a a sync software for transfer. Apple iPad or any other Apple device does not offer this. WHY? I don't think it would cost Apple anything to provide this to their users. I agree the user interface of Apple is great and if you have the money and would like to be restricted by Apple to use iTunes, go for an Apple product. But I can tell you this- Now that Jelly Bean 4.1 is out, do buy an Android device. This OS is fantastic.

I would also like to know why Apple charges for the same apps which are available on Android for FREE! My cousin who is just 4 years old plays games on his iPad. He is a great fan of Angry Birds and could play the game all throughout the day. Just yesterday he told me with a sad face that he wants to play the new game developed by Rovio called "Bad Piggies" but cannot download it on his iPad because it costs money ($2.99) and his mother won't let him. I told him that he could come to my place and play it on my Tab. His face lit up immediately! The app is available on Google Play for free.

All of us know that Android is developed by Google. And in today's world we simply cannot dispense using Google, be it Google Search, GMail, YouTube, Google Chrome, Google Calendar, Picasa etc.... The list is endless. Google has made our life simply so easy! We just cannot thank them enough!!
I think you all would agree with me! Be ready because Google is going to blow you all away!

PS: This blog I am writing and you are reading is offered to me by Google, and that too free of cost. Also, I had made the above comparison chart using Google Drive! Just wondering if Apple could ever become so versatile......

How Bankers cheated Schools in Denver, Colorado

Here is a story of bankers' greed -- where they sold sophisticated derivatives to a School Board who lacked the expertise to assess the risks of such products -- while the bankers laughed all the way back to their offices!!

LIC to set up bank: Nothing more foolish!

The recent news item to the effect that LIC wants to set up a bank is imprudent and unwise. Let's briefly see why this is so.

A bank lends illiquid (its loans are invested in illiquid assets like property, stocks and receivables of its borrowers) and borrows liquid (its deposits have to be repaid anytime the depositor asks for it). Hence, the major objective of an insurance company is to be liquid when no one else is.

An insurance company is very liquid in good times. When disaster strikes, this liquidity is drawn on suddenly. An insurance company manages this huge risk primarily by spreading the risk over a large number of lives or properties as the case may be, in its areas of operation; and distributing some part of the risk globally through reinsurance. Hence the objective of an insurance company is to be liquid when nobody else is. 

We now know that banks are more vulnerable to financial crises than believed before Bear Stearns' demise in 2007.  

We have also seen that natural disasters of all kinds have increased significantly (maybe because of climate change effect). For example, the two deadliest earthquakes in recorded history have happened in the last two years itself (Sumatra, Chile). Hence, we can say that there is a high chance of disasters hitting, resulting in claims for the insurance industry worldwide.

Today, banking and insurance are the riskiest businesses globally. We have seen how RBI's is not allowing banks to become exposed to toxic derivative securities helped India to be insulated from the global financial meltdown. We have also seen the stupidity (it seems in hindsight) of AIG taking on risks of the banking industry by insuring bonds. 

It simply is foolish to expose the liquidity of India's most liquid entity in the riskiest industry by allowing it to diversify into banking, which is almost as risky as the insurance business.