Disqus - Latest Comments for Tom

Re: Radiohead pulls in $10-million in a day

Tom — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 23:03:33 -0000

I'm one of those buyers (paid $7). Like the album, but Radiohead deceived those who bought the download. In retrospect it's clear this was a well-orchestrated ploy on their part:

Dear Radiohead: How Does It Feel To Out-Label The Labels?

If a LABEL had orchestrated this, everyone would be up in arms, but since it was a popular band no one seems to care. Oh well, I learned my lesson.

Re: Did Adobe snub Apple with Flash 10, Palm Pre, and Dev Fund announcements?

Tom — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:14:15 -0000

A full Adobe Flash (as oposed to the worthless Flash Lite) has not run on a mobile device yet. Let's wait and see if it performs worth a darn before crowing, 'K?

Further, even if it does so, you should point out that Adobe's Flash on the Mac runs about a bajillion times slower than its Windows counterpart. Adobe has only in the last three years or so even bothered to even acknowledge the Mac's existence again. It may be a while before they get Flash working well on the Mac desktop, let alone the iPhone.

Finally, it wasn't a snub. Adobe goes out of their way to beg, er, I mean, to state that they'll put Flash on the iPhone as soon as Apple lets them.

Re: An ode to great photographers

Tom — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:18:04 -0000

One of your best posts ever. Great pictures. Looks like you had a helluva walk.

Re: Apple has a PR nightmare brewing…

Tom — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:22:43 -0000

Update worked great for me. Some very good new features that I'll make use of. I also tried the iTunes WiFi store and bought an album (Iron and Wine's The Shepherd's Dog). Downloaded in 3-4 minutes, synced back to the desktop Mac flawlessly.

Re: Think Different Apple

Tom — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 03:31:50 -0000

I'd already seen one of them, and the other's no better. Weak stuff, really.

Why doesn't the development community quit making silly videos and writing ridiculous screeds against Apple and write something else instead like, oh, I don't know, maybe applications?

The wailing from the development community would have you believe that every application ever worth having has already been written on every platform except the iPhone. The iPhone is, apparently, the last platform on Earth. Please.

When Apple opens it up (and they will in time), knock yourselves out. Until then, is there nothing else to do?

Re: The you-don’t-need-more-friends lobby

Tom — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:06:37 -0000

Are you insane? I couldn't care less how many "friends" you have, but you're asking Facebook to support what you and "thousands" have when their service has MILLIONS of users. They'd be NUTS to cater to such a tiny percentage of their base no matter how whiney those users become. And, believe me, you're being pretty whiney.

While they're busy building a site that scales for you and a few thousand others, Google or somebody else will offer a site with added features for the millions of users who will desert Facebook for it. Features Facebook would have had if they weren't wasting their time trying to keep you happy.

Facebook still hasn't figured out how to make money, but I can guarantee them that wasting resources on such a small fraction of their base in not it. Unless they charged for the "Facebook Pro" you want them to build.

Re: Caught in Apple restart hell

Tom — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:52:21 -0000

Yes, I know you've never had problems with Microsoft's software, or anybody else's hardware.

Yes, we know you're The Great Scoble, and everybody should be begging you to run their stuff and having their representatives follow behind you to make sure your every whim is catered to.

Whatever.

As for Apple's "controlling PR machine", are you insane? The moron brought up a question of a non-existent monopoly which Schiller did answer (and was polite enough to point out that the reporter only asked again only because he didn't get the answer he wanted). Exactly how long should Apple have let him remain asking the same question, Robert? How long would Microsoft? How long would any company? Hell, he asked it solely for the purpose of getting the reaction on film (which was obvious) so he could put it on YouTube and have knee-jerkers like you think it's "newsworthy" enough to link to. Looks like it worked. So much for relying on alleged "A-list" bloggers separating the wheat from the chaff.

This blog has become little more than a point from which you try to show people how cool, hip, now, and happening you are, and apparently to take pot shots at companies you're pissed at because they don't recognize your greatness and offer you free stuff. Ooooh, you had to actually BUY your Apple hardware. How tragic for you. The rest of us, of course, get ours for free.

Re: Idiocy and blogging

Tom — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 16:50:41 -0000

This looks like an apology for your ridiculous Apple tirade yesterday.

Truth is, Robert, I don't expect you to be "smart" anywhere any more. You're all over the map in an attempt not to miss any "new wave" trend or event. PR departments fawn over you because they know this, and can usually get a good word from you or a video interview at the drop of a hat. You've become a PR whore. How can anyone take your latest views on what's new and happening seriously? You like them ALL.

Being an idiot at blogging doesn't mean not being wrong. It means not posting idiotic stuff. From your latest post it would seem you don't understand the distinction.

Re: The brand promise of Apple

Tom — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:30:13 -0000

Robert,

You're in full-bore Apple-bashing mode now and it doesn't become you. Nobody seriously believes that Apple is perfect and that there are no hardware or software issues. All one has to do is go to numerous Mac-related problem sites or even Apple's own discussion boards to see that.

Apple's "it just works" springs from a relative position compared to PCs with Windows, and in that comparison is absolutely true.

Also, I'm tired of all the crying of Apple-bashers over the "ARMY" of Apple fans and what they post. Have you ever SEEN what the anti-Apple crowd posts? Guess what? It's the same stuff. And there are a lot more of them than Apple fans.

Despite all your posting of cults and blind beliefs by Apple's "army", these facts remain:

- Mac OS X Tiger (and now Leopard) is more favorably looked upon in review after review when compared to Vista.
- Vista was not the success Microsoft hoped for, no matter the PR spin of Microsoft's finest.
- Mac hardware is extremely well-designed and price competitive. Reviews from even non-Apple-friendly sites confirm this. In fact, the MacBook Pro is the fastest Vista laptop there is at the moment.
- Apple's iLife surpasses away anything like it on the PC, and is a huge advantage in getting a Mac.
- Apple Pro software such as Final Cut Studio and Logic Studio are highly respected and among the leaders in their field.
- The iPod has ruled the roost through many generations. People keep going back to it. Is it because they have maybe 30 songs purchased from iTunes? No, It's because the whole package has worked better than anything else available.
- There are more, but I'll close with the one always overlooked: Apple's outstanding customer service. Yes, you can find war stories here and there, but at the end of the day I see and hear more good stories about Apple's customer service than from any other tech company (maybe even all of them combined). Countless polls and reviews confirm this as well. And not just by a small margin, Apple overwhelmingly leads in customer service.

Bottom line is try to look past the Apple fans that lean to unreasonable (as I've looked past unreasonable Microsoft apologists for 25 years) and just look at Apple for what it is. Take off the tin-foil conspiracy hat and you’ll see all the "smug", "controlling", fanatical crap is just BS.

Apple is a company firing on all cylinders right now. Great hardware, software, products, customer support, etc., and it's easy to take pot shots at them. But when you put on the tin-foil and rail against the "cult" only two things are true: 1) You’ll get lots of page hits; and 2) You're no better than the fanatics on the Apple side you rail against.

Re: The brand promise of Apple

Tom — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 18:17:12 -0000

#45,

"Contrary to #43, Apple is riding on only one cylinder, they’ve got everyone mesmerised with the Steve Jobs turtle neck sweater cult."

Thanks for proving my point. This is the kind of nonsense I was talking about; pulling out the old argument of a "cult" is BS and not a real argument at all. I posted a number of points, and am "countered" with a one-liner modeled after the same tired garbage Apple-bashers have been spewing for 20 years. Whatever.

Re: Caught in Apple restart hell

Tom — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:31:02 -0000

Robert,

"Be a dutiful little Apple FanBoi and step back in line."

I see you got the Apple-bashers memo that says the preferred spelling is to use an "i" because it looks more hip and trendy.

When you post this kind of crap you weaken any argument you may be trying to make. It makes you look like the kind of Apple posters you rail against.

Re: Idiocy and blogging

Tom — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 16:45:11 -0000

Hugh (#17),

Did you have a point to make? If so, please make it.

Meanwhile, Robert's recent Apple rants are far, FAR, closer to trolling (though I didn't clam them to be such) than anything I have on my blog or elsewhere.

With friends like you, Robert apparently doesn't need any arguments.

Re: Amazon does yet another thing Microsoft wanted to do (my April Fools turns out to be true)

Tom — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:29:07 -0000

As I look at the small stack of books on my desk, the larger stack of books on the floor by my reading chair, and the bookcases that are too full to hold any more, this device appeals to me greatly.

Re: Amazon Reader Hate

Tom — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:59:43 -0000

Google Reader would be a natural.

I'm surprised at the price. To be honest, I'm not sure what I was expecting, but it wasn't $400. And of course I'll need to hold it, see it in action, etc, but it still intrigues me a lot.

I agree that even if it fails it will still serve to push the concept further. Frequently the best devices are those that come around in the third or fourth iteration. I look forward to the day when something like this will be affordable and practical.

Re: Amazon Reader Hate

Tom — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:29:46 -0000

Nima (#3),

Toeman's article made some good points, but why isn't portability itself a selling point? Isn't that the only "problem" the original iPod "solved"? There was no shortage of CDs, nor any difficulty in buying them. We simply wanted to have more and more of our music wherever we went.

In my case, I have many books with no room on my bookcases in which to put them. The thought of a "book iPod" that could hold a few hundred books appeals to me greatly. Going out of town? No need to decide which books to bring, you grab the device and you have them all. No need to buy some crappy book or magazine at the airport because you didn't bring an extra, etc.

I understand completely the Kindle may not be THAT device, but if not then someone else will develop it, and I look forward to having one.

Re: Did Verizon kneecap Google’s Android?

Tom — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 15:35:15 -0000

Wilcox was wrong to give all the credit to Google, and so are you.

What just happened is Verizon announcing something in an attempt to stay relevant in the industry. The iPhone put pressure on everyone (moreso now with it's clear success), Google is getting plenty of press over vapor that's unavailable for another year, and into this Verizon's new "iPhone-killer" Voyager phone was just received with a resounding thud.

So Verizon announces something unheard of pre-iPhone (indeed, it goes against everything U.S. carriers stand for) because if they don't do something this drastic, they'll be drowned out in the post-iPhone world.

Make no mistake, this is a Good Thing, but attributing it all to Google's efforts is ludicrous.

Re: Did Verizon kneecap Google’s Android?

Tom — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 01:10:59 -0000

Steve,

It's difficult to imagine a scenario where Verizon makes such a drastic announcement a mere 16 DAYS after Google announces its vapor. Not just because this is a mighty big response to an imagined phone a year off (and one most people are dubious about anyway), but also because it's simply not a decision Verizon made in 16 days.

Further, Google's initiative is an alliance; one Verizon did not join. If they wanted a piece of that action they could just join the alliance. There was no reason to throw their gates open just for that.

As for the iPhone, it changed the rules for how hardware makers can deal with the carriers. I have no doubt Verizon is getting pressure from hardware makers for more freedom in building phones. And that freedom would reduce the user's dependence on their network.

Meanwhile, the new phones Verizon's offered have not been received that well. Heck, Verizon even agreed to pay Broadcom $6 a phone just to sell the super new Razr that was tied up in Qualcomm patents! How desperate do you have to be for new products to pay off patent disputes that were still in court?

It didn't help anyway. The new Razr is not doing nearly as well as the venerable v3.

Verizon's (indeed, all U.S. carriers') world currently revolves around ensuring the phone they sell you can't do much without their network. They go dirt cheap on the hardware to sell the service. The iPhone broke those rules, Verizon has nothing to counter it, and hardware makers want more freedom. Not a good scenario for Verizon to be in. I give Verizon a ton of credit for seeing this writing on the wall.

Now, consider all the unlocking of iPhones in the U.S. (and now even abroad: T-Mobile in Germany will sell an unlocked iPhone for $1,400!). Verizon sees this all unfold the last few months and thinks maybe they should just sell what they have (the signal), and not care so much what device is on it. Sure, they'll lose some VCAST revenue, etc., but if they sign up that many more people on their network (which by all accounts is the best in the U.S.) it's worth it. In my opinion this is what all U.S. carriers should do.

I don't claim the iPhone by itself is the cause of all this, but it was absolutely the first hole in the dyke. And I believe it's not unrealistic to refer to the U.S. carriers in terms of what they did pre-iPhone and what they'll do post-iPhone.

Re: Oh, no…

Tom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:16:42 -0000

I do not know the man, but things like this make us realize we have a lot more to unite us than divide.

It also makes us realize the technology we're so passionate about really doesn't mean sh!t in the grand scheme of things (except to the extent that technology can help save lives).

Here's hoping Marc gets through this, and all my thoughts to his family and loved ones.

Re: Amazon kicks iTunes in the butt

Tom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:26:40 -0000

I don't know what the cutoff time is (I think it may be 7 minutes), but after that threshold Amazon simply bumps the price of the track up, whereas iTunes doesn't sell it at all, making it album only. I have found exceptions to the rule above on both sites, but it seems to hold true a lot of the time.

I prefer Amazon's approach. Ideally, it would still be 99 cents no matter how long it is, but I can see the idea of crossing some sort of time threshold. In Amazon's case they stil let you buy the song, it just costs a little more. In iTunes case they don't let you buy it at all.

This may have to do with Jobs not wanting any price other than 99 cents. However, while that made things easy when the iTunes store was opened in 2003, it makes less sense now. After all, iTunes already introduced a second price for DRM-free songs (they've since changed it).

As for the album price, I've seen plenty of examples where Amazon or iTunes has a lower price an any given alum. My advice would always be to check both stores before buying (assuming iTunes has it DRM free, otherwise I'd go with Amazon).

Re: Amazon kicks iTunes in the butt

Tom — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:30:07 -0000

Rob (#8),

I agree whole-heartedly on your comments re: eMusic.

Further, eMusic bests Amazon and iTunes by having no time threshold at all. No matter how long the song is, it's still just one download.

Re: Warning: your calendar is in danger with Apple’s Mobile Me

Tom — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:19:14 -0000

"Apple’s secrecy keeps them from properly testing out their apps with tons of users, the way other companies do who aren’t so worried about secrecy."

What a silly thing to say. You don't know how many people tested Mobile Me, nor how much of it had to do with "secrecy". Further, good QA has less to do with the number of testers than it does with the test cases employed. Microsoft has half the planet test their stuff, and you'd be hard pressed to convince anyone their quality is any better than Apple's.

I've been vocal in my complaints about MMe, but your statement is nothing but a shot at Apple's secrecy for reasons I guess only you know.

To make your post worse, the link to "other people" "reporting the same thing" is a joke. It's nothing but you asking the question! As I write this, only person replied that it actually happened to him. He says it happened twice! (Presumably he restored from a backup and then lost it all again.)

You don't have to look far to find complaints about MMe, how about taking the time and posting to something legitimate? If you don't have the time, then just post you lost your calendar items (assuming they're really deleted). It's a legitimate issue, but linking to alleged "others" and ascribing this all to "secrecy" is BS.

Re: 7 Ways Zune Beats iPod?

Tom — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:37:48 -0000

Let's take these in order:

#1 - Podcast has had the ability to be top-level on the iPod for ages. In fact, the whole top-level menu is customizable. Since you didn't know that, how wrong is the rest of this list gonna be?

#2 - If you're device is PLUGGED INTO an approved dock you can wirelessly sync it. Swell. As for letting wireless do what it was meant to do, that would be the ability to browse and purchase music on WiFi. Oops, Zune doesn't do that.

#3 - They are still DRM-infested files that explode on your device after three days. And there are still many restrictions as to what can and cannot be shared. This feature was and still is a complete bust.

#4 - Subscription music has failed everywhere it's been tried. It's a hopeless model clung to by the labels in the hope they can sucker enough people into paying them money every month.

#5 - The ability to integrate into a gaming platform (any gaming platform) is useless to 99% of the music player's intended market. It's just another stupid "feature" MS added to plug the Xbox. Counting all brands and models, are there 150 million MP3 players in use now? How many of their owners even THOUGHT about a gaming platform tie-in? Oh well, not understanding their customer is a Microsoft hallmark.

#6 - Don't fool yourself. MS had so many of the Boat Anchor 30 Zunes in the channel they couldn't just toss them all. Since the upgrade to Zune 2 wasn't that radical anyway, they made it available for the BA30 in order to clear all that dead inventory from their system.

#7 - Are you kidding me? This has been touted as an alleged missing feature of the iPod since Day 1. And guess what? NOBODY CARES. It's never been an issue because OTA radio is all but dead.

I'm glad you put a question mark at the end of the article title. Posing these as a question allows you to squirm out from under them when you realize the answer to the question is "no".

Re: 7 Ways Zune Beats iPod?

Tom — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 23:51:19 -0000

"The point of the wireless sync is that you can sync without being plugged into anything. Having wireless syncing and sharing on a $250 player is pretty cool - even if it doesnt have an apple logo on it."

Or a Zune logo, for that matter. It needs to be plugged into an acceptable dock, you can't just wave it by your computer.

"Yes, the "DRM infested files" "Explode" after 3 days. Yes, I wish they would last forever, but that's a file you would have never had on a regular ipod. "

Good point. No one ever shared music before, EVER, until the Zune came along. Microsoft invented it. Too bad the only way to do it is to "squirt" somebody, and too bad there are MANY songs restricted from being shared.

"The subscription plan is not the only way to get music on your Zune. Some peolple [sic] actually like it though and its one more option. How is having more options a bad thing?"

It's not a "bad" thing. The article in question touted it as one of the seven advantages the Zune has over the iPod. Since subscription models fail everywhere, if it's REALLY one of the "advantages" Zune has over iPod, then the Zune is doomed.

"I actually use the radio occaisionally on my Zune. Not a lot, but since it didnt cost me more, its nice that its there. Again, how is having more options bad?"

Because the iPod never had a radio and rules the market. Therefore implying the market wants a radio (remember, this feature was claimed as one of the seven advantages) is dead wrong. The market doesn't care about having a radio anymore than they care about renting their music. As I said before, misunderstanding their market is a Microsoft hallmark.

"Ability to upgrade to the latest firmware has been a design feature from the beginning and part of the Zune product philosophy. Personally, I'm glad MS didnt take the Steve Jobs "buy a new iPod every year if you want to be hip" approach."

Apple has updated the iPod firmware numerous times. They just never needed to clear the sales channels of inventory nobody wants.

"Sure the XBox thing thing is marketing hype as well as many other Zune features, but its a great player with a nice screen, a great interface, and excellent sound quality."

It may very well be a great gaming box. But the gaming market is like pissing in the Atlantic compared to the size of the MP3 market. Suggesting that a tie-in between the two is one of seven advantages is asinine.

Bottom line is Microsoft's "7 advantages" talking points memo as published by this astroturfing site was stupid. It's dripping with Microsoft's ignorance of the MP3 player market.

Re: 7 Ways Zune Beats iPod?

Tom — Fri, 16 Nov 2007 17:12:59 -0000

Pallen,

Thanks for the response. We'll certainly have to agree to disagree on this one. I do not think the Zune is a "laughable piece of junk", but I do think this article was.

Of the seven reasons, one of them (Podcast on top menu) is just flat wrong, and three others (Subscription music service, Xbox tie-in, and Radio) are of no value to the overall MP3-player market.

For an individual such as yourself, maybe one of them is enough to push you in the Zune direction, and that's fine. But for the market as a whole, the items above have been available for a while and overwhelmingly passed over. Therefore, for this article to state that they are bona-fide advantages over the iPod is horribly mistaken.

Re: Apple Surprisingly Approves Landscape Email App BdEmailer [U]

Tom — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 18:51:33 -0000

As the author of the TheAppleBlog piece I can't say that I assumed Apple "played by the rules" for banning applications. In fact, I linked to an example that alleges one app was rejected by Apple, and then accepted later with no changes. Like many bloggers, I'm not yet clear on just what "the rules" even are.

I just think that BDEmailer is not the shining example of inconsistency that early blog posts made it out to be. I believe people were either looking too hard for such examples or giving the app credit for something it cannot do. The latter is easy to do, given the app's description on their web site.

Re: Apple Surprisingly Approves Landscape Email App BdEmailer [U]

Tom — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 02:49:41 -0000

Bad Dog Apps,

You submitted an app for the App Store and it was accepted. Neither you nor Apple owe any explanations for that.

I was surprised that some questioned its acceptance on the Store, and wrote The Apple Blog piece to explain why. In that article I specifically avoided judging the app.

If BDEmailer is getting bad reviews on the App Store, complaining to me or Aviv isn't going to help that.