DISQUS

It's funny how people such as Alex Curtis want to FORCE every device to operate the way they want it to, but they make their demands in the name of freedom. Personally, I don't WANT to tinker with my phone. I just want it to work very well and provide me with interesting tools that are USABLE. The iPhone provides that. Curtis and people of his ilk want to take away the freedom that I have to CHOOSE a phone ecosystem that is safer and easier and just plain better. (Of course, I have this same argument with the GPL advocates who insist that only by forcing people to do things their way can be have freedom.)

Tim, my experience with the iPhone mirrors yours, but it was last year when the first model came out. I also was using a RAZR at the time (and was reasonably happy with it, at least as compared to other phones I'd tried). Stepping up to the iPhone was like going from a Model T to a modern car.

I think the thing that most iPhone detractors don't understand is that it isn't about features, at least not in the sense that most people mean -- a list of features to be checked off for a box or a review. There are certainly missing features and there are certainly flaws. But when I've tried other smartphones in the past, it was clear that I'd never use them to do what they were capable of doing, because they were so stinking awkward (and illogical) to use. Apple hasn't gotten everything perfect, but its engineers have implemented the features they've done so far in a way that normal people can easily use them.

With desktop computers, there was a time when you had to be a computer expert to use them. That's the way smartphones were before the iPhone. It had to be something of a hobby or obsession for you. You almost had to be a gadget freak to enjoy using them. The iPhone is the first smartphone for normal people who just want to use the device as a tool for getting things done.

On the subject of typing on the keyboard, I really can't figure out what the fuss is about it being difficult. I was hesitant about it before I used it, but it's been a breeze after I learned to "trust" it.

BTW, if you want to see a real UI train wreck, take a look at this little video about the UI on the new Linux-based OpenMoko. (In fairness, it's not finished, but it's laughable that anything this bad was shipped.)

http://www.vimeo.com/1366042?pg=embed&sec=1...

The newspaper industry is very stubborn and slow to change. I used to be a newspaper editor, but I've been out of it 15 years, so I have a different perspective than those who are still in it. With that said, I think that technologists fail to understand the primary value that newspapers bring to media distribution -- and that's the power of editorial judgment. Software doesn't have that same judgment, and it never will. As human editorial judgment is replaced with software to sift the junk online in order to find the good stuff, the results aren't going to be pretty. No matter how good the code is, it can't see connections and make judgments that editors can.

I say this as someone who's one of the biggest critics around of the state of modern newspapers. They're getting worse, in many respects, not better. I can't even remember the last time I bought a physical copy of a newspaper, because I get all my news online. Despite that, I still know that the best and most trustworthy news still TENDS to come from those trained in the newspaper editorial tradition. If we can take those same skills and put them into the people who are editing news web sites, newspapers (in the traditional sense) won't matter. But to think that some combination of blogs and RSS feeds of a billion web sites is going to reasonably take their place seems insane. You'll end up with the equivalent of sites such as Digg and Slashdot, which are both interesting (and I use both), but are places where the loudest opinions prevail.

I'm sure the rule you cite (requiring a story to have appeared in print) will change eventually. But even if it does, I suspect the prizes will still mostly go to print journalists. Despite the fact that the electronic media are rapidly growing (in influence and audience size), I find that the quality of print journalism is still much better, especially as compared to the shoddy standards of "TV news" (which I consider somewhat of an oxymoron). Newspaper writing and editing are getting worse, but they're still better than the vast majority of what's cranked out by those with no print background. Of course, I'm terribly biased, because I was one of those print dinosaurs until I realized which way the winds were blowing about 16 years ago. :-)

Tim, I suspect you could easily solve your problem by creating a "smart playlist" of recently played podcasts. The rules that you can create are extremely flexible and you can create something that will include whatever is currently being removed. Then add that playlist to the items to be synced to the iPod. In the future, it will include those recent items. Although you'll never listen to the playlist as a playlist, the items you want (podcasts, in this case) will appear in the list with other similar (unplayed) podcasts. I hope I haven't muddled my explanation of this, but if I understand your needs, some use of smart playlists should work for you.

If you don't want people to share your WiFi connection, don't leave it open. How difficult is that simple rule? If you are opening your connection in such a way that it is free and clear to anybody from outside your property, I can't see how anybody can be faulted for using the signal. If these so-called poachers had to encroach on your private property to use the signal, it would be different, but if you're putting a signal out there onto public air waves that's open for the world to use, it's fair for the taking, IMO. Laws that try to criminalize this make no more sense than laws that might try to criminalize using light that falls from a floodlight on private property.

In my view, this analogy breaks down for one simple reason. In the case of eminent domain, there are existing owners who have property rights to the area of the development. In the case of a patent, it's supposed to be granted only for something that is a new idea -- before anyone else has gained rights to the idea. It's more like homesteading new and undeveloped territory than eminent domain. I would agree that patents are being granted far too widely today (and I'd even agree that there are other problems with patents), but this analogy just doesn't work, IMO.

As people argue about whether or not an "invasion of privacy" has occurred, be sure to remember that there is no real definition of this vague term. It doesn't have much of a legal meaning, so it's more about a social definition. Most people would agree that a person who minds his own business and doesn't put himself out there in the public has a reasonable expectation of SOME degree of privacy. However, when an anonymous person creates an intentional public sensation by mocking the personality and life of another public figure, what sane person would expect that the anonymous person has the "right" to remain unknown and unpursued?

If you put yourself out there in public, you expect to lose some degree of privacy. It just comes with the territory. The person behind FSJ has played his role to the hilt, and he's used his anonymity to get attention. If you're going to play this game, you have to expect that people are going to come after you. I have no idea if there's anything other than the "IP trap" at issue, but it's impossible to feel sorry for the guy or be impressed with his privacy argument when he's gone to great lengths to publicize his fictitious character.

If you want to avoid a contract with AT&T;, you can still buy prepaid minutes. The option is hidden, but here's how to do it if you're interested:

http://www.tuaw.com/2007/07/02/iphone-prepay-th...

This would be a lot more interesting if there were some sort of EVIDENCE about this. I mean, how is this any different from when MS makes vague charges about Linux violating patents? If you have specific and provable facts, let's have them. Otherwise, tell the crazy man to shut up.

It amazes me that some people think they're comparing a product when they simply list the specs. It's the overall user experience that counts, not necessarily just whether one device has a longer list of features. In many cases, adding features makes a product worse, even though it allows its fans (and marketing department) to crow about something. Anybody who has been reading Robert Scoble's evaluation of the iPhone in the past few days can easily figure out why he says the iPhone is better than the N95. He's clearly said that the iPhone has its flaws and that other devices (including the N95) are superior on some features. He is saying that using the iPhone -- for the things that matter to him -- presents the best overall experience. Such a real-world evaluation isn't about marketing check-box lists. It's about how useful a device is and how it makes you feel about it. Scoble is to be commended for being even-handed in his evaluation. Whether you agree with him or not, he's presenting a reasonable point of view. Your conclusion might differ if your needs and wants are different. But it's silly to attack him for offering a reasonable and honest opinion.

This is just a minor thing (and doesn't deal with the main arguments here), but I want to point out that Apple doesn't sell MP3s of any kind. The iTunes store sells Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format files. AAC is the audio component of the MPEG-4 spec. Not all digital audio files are MP3s, contrary to common assummptions and usage. :-)

Yes, amateur fans of a show will put effort into creating a mashup purely for fun, but professionals (real actors, directors, cinematophraphers, etc.) aren't going to put much time into efforts that they can't be paid for. And investors certainly aren't going to put the money up for something that they can't be compensated for. So this little mocking paragraph is creating a straw man, not making a real point.

There are quite a number of non-Apple options for out-of-warranty iPods. For instance, take a look at these places that can fix or buy your dead iPod:

http://www.iresq.com/ipod/
http://podswap.com/
http://www.ipodrepairsquad.com/

I strongly disagree with Richard. The more posts there are on here, the happier I am. I don't agree with every post (from Tim or anybody else), but I learn a lot from the links and the opinions. Please keep the frequent posts coming, Tim. I appreciate your efforts.

Xerox was compensated for letting Apple has a look at its technology, if I'm not badly mistaken. I can't find a link at the moment, but it seems that Xerox was given some benefit related to buying Apple stock at a low price (or maybe just stock options). The notion that Apple engineers were just randomly shown Xerox technology that they were allowed to "steal" does not appear to be close to the truth. (And if you think about the story, it wouldn't make sense that Apple engineers were allowed close-up access to Xerox technology for any other reason.)

In all fairness, Jim, your attempt was a much closer approximation of a real AP story than most that try to pass as such. If I hadn't spent years as a newspaper reporter and editor, I'm sure I'd have never noticed those details. Sadly for me, spotting the fake was less about being smart and more about having been trained to look for such details to fix. :-)

I submitted this to digg in the music category just to get a few people to check out TLF (with the excuse that WSJ requires a paid sub), so everybody please digg it if you'd like to maybe get a link to TLF. Of course, the TLF servers might not like that, but more readers is always a good thing.

This is one April 1 story that I HOPE isn't an April fool's joke. :-)

I'm not sure if this is a fairly obscure April fool's joke or not, but it's not a real AP story. A real AP story wouldn't have two spaces between each sentence. That's not how typeset copy is done but is a holdover from the days when typing was taught with the assumption that type was monospace (as on old-fashioned typewriters). In addition, an AP writer almost certainly wouldn't have made the statements in the second graf without some form of attribution (since this is a hard-news story instead of an analysis). There's also at least one minor punctuation error in a quote, but AP copyediting has gotten so bad that that part COULD be legit. :)

Those who turn open source into a religion are the ones who are blocking its further adoption. One of the most bizarre things about some open source zealots is that they refuse to acknowledge that someone else can come to a different position honestly and rationally. On the other hand, I see what they want and understand their position. I just find it absurd to claim that an end user is being enslaved if he doesn't have access to the source code for any software he uses. There's no basis for making this claim. It's an invention that's purely pulled out of thin air. It's pretty arrogant to claim that I don't "attempt to understand" a postion that I clearly understand, but find stupid.

It's also absurd to claim that owning code and owning slaves is a valid comparison. Owning code that no one has access to isn't depriving anyone of any right. Owning a human being is. So that comparison is bizarre in every way.

I'm perfectly happy restricting others when it's reasonable and ethical. If I own a car, I'm perfectly happy to prevent others from using it. If I own land, I'm perfectly happy to prevent others from coming onto it against my will. The idea that "restricting others" is such a terrible thing doesn't make any sense without a lot of qualifiers that open source advocates conveniently ignore.

Nobody has the RIGHT to my work unless I grant the person that right. If I write a program -- or a book or a song or any such thing -- I deserve to control how my work is used, at least for a limited amount of time. Modern extensions of copyright are silly and unreasonable, because they're clearly designed to do nothing other than continue to enrich copyright holders forever. But the notion that creators don't deserve ANY control over their work is unreasonable and unworkable in a real economy. Besides, the GPL supporters clearly believe that THEY have the right to control their work, because the GPL puts restrictions on how code can be used. Isn't it convenient that these people believe that THEY can enforce THEIR views about how code should be used, but people with other views aren't legitimate is making their own decisions about their own work?

If you TRULY believe that it's not right to control how code is used, release it into the public domain. Then anyone can use it as he pleases -- for ANY kind of project. But you're not going to do that, because that wouldn't restrict what others can do with it in the way that YOU want to. The FSF and its acolytes are all about trying to force others to accept their view of intellectual property (which is basically that no ideas can ever be property). It's ironic that they use a contract to restrict what can be done with ideas in order to prove their notion that no one can restrict what can be done with ideas.

The BSD license makes SO much more sense -- if your goal is to give ANY user the right to take software and use it freely. With the BSD license, I can take code and do whatever I want with it. I can incorporate it into a software product that I then make proprietary, but my use of that code doesn't mean that the original code is no longer totally free for everyone else. The GPL lets you do what you want with code, but ONLY if you go along with the FSF's notions about software being open source. You can't incorporate that code into a product whose source isn't released, so you're prevented from using it in anything you don't intend to give away.

The BSD license gives people true freedom about what THEY want to do with code. The GPL is primarily designed to enforce the FSF's philosophy about open source. The BSD license gives power to the user. The GPL gives power to those who write the license. It's clear to me which gives more freedom.

Gary, you're totally changing the subject. There's no comparison between phishing attempts and somebody using an iSight camera to spy on people. Phishing happens all the time and it's frequently successful. Less often, snooping can be successful when people hack (crack, really) into other people's systems, but it still happens pretty much every day. Can you show me even ONE example where someone has hacked into a Mac and taken over the iSight camera? Until you can show that (or at LEAST show that it's being seriously attempted,) then I'll continue to called it an oddball theoretical possibility. It's not happening yet, and I don't see evidence yet that it is likely to happen.

Your use of the word "spying" is so generic that it's useless in this discussion. Do you consider phishing attempts to be spying? Do you consider keyloggers to be spying? THOSE sorts of things are certainly cheap and easy. But getting photos or video of someone from the camera built into a Mac is NOT common, cheap or even shown to be possible.

Gary, I can also imagine aliens landing and blasting us all to bits with giant ray guns, but that doesn't mean there's a realistic chance of it happening. It's the same with this. And in the unlikely event that this happens, I suspect you'll hear about it in time to cover your iSight camera, if you have one. :-)

It's interesting to me that people get creeped out by oddball theoretical possibilities and ignore everyday possibilities that have been around for years. For instance, somebody COULD sneak up to the outside of your house and attach a small camera rigged to automatically take pictures through your window every now and then, but nobody reasonable worries about THAT.

This seems like an extremely easy problem to fix. Simply sell accounts with a certain amount of transfer (whatever the very high number is that the ISPs currently allow) and have those wishing to get more capacity to buy business accounts or something similar. It seems that much of the problem stems from the fact that the broadband providers won't just come out and tell what the limits are. Pretending that this is "abuse" is absurd, because customers are merely using the allegedly unlimited service they think they're buying. Of course, the mental midgets at the providers are likely to use something like this as an excuse to introduce another layer of tiered pricing to confuse everyone, but if they could simply name a limit for a consumer account, that should solve the issue for both them and the customers.