Disqus - Latest Comments for jcieplinski

Re: iPhone Replaces Newspapers; Magazines Next

jcieplinski — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 13:42:48 -0000

I'm guessing this is exactly why Apple execs have been rumored to be in talks with major publishers of magazines and newspapers. Print publishing is facing a similar situation to the music industry a few years back, with fewer an fewer people buying physical copies of their product.

Rather than close shop altogether, they might be tempted to try a new business model with the iTunes store and a new tablet device/iPhone/iPod Touch for distribution.

The tablet will be so much more than a magazine and newspaper reader, I'm sure. But if Apple does with the tablet what it did with the iPod, and somehow makes it worth paying for all this content instead of getting it for free on web sites, then we really could see the death of dead tree publishing in a few years. At least for periodicals. Books will live longer in physical form, but I can't see magazines and newspapers holding out much longer.

The only question remaining is how will Apple structure this deal? Will they offer free subscriptions with ads, and pro paid versions without? Will larger print establishments still be forced to downsize to a much smaller operation?

I have no doubt many magazines will still close shop or consolidate. And many of the great journalists out there will simply go rogue and start their own blogs, which they could easily live off of, since they won't have to pay for all the overhead of a major newspaper or magazine.

Either way, I don't think there will suddenly be a shortage of great writing out there. But you will see fewer and fewer newspapers and magazines in dentists' offices and public transportation.

Re: Mad Men: The Gypsy And The Hobo

jcieplinski — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:43:25 -0000

That's exactly what I see. Peggy becoming the Don Draper to Duck's Roger Sterling. Adding in Sal would be a very good move. I was hoping he wasn't written off the show permanently.

I also don't think it's Betty's fault that Don cheats. But Don's secrets about his past made it impossible for him to bond with anyone. Now that the secret is out, he stands to lose more by leaving Betty than by staying with her. Whether or not she is strong enough to move on without him is another matter. I don't give her that much credit. She's no Rachel Menken.

I agree that Don's persona won't blend well with the new freedoms of the 60s. But that's the beauty of his character. It's easy to forget that the counterculture in America was the minority throughout the 60s. There were a lot more Don Drapers than Paul Kinseys. And yet the freedom was what caught the attention. It dominated the press. It changed the country, even if the country wasn't ready.

I think a character like Don is always able to adapt to the times in which he lives. And, because he's the ultimate pitch man, he'll be able to cut through the crap of the hippy movement the same way he saw through the beatniks in season 1. He has his faults, but we admire his keen knowledge of human nature and his innate talent for getting the most out of any situation. So I vote for an epiphany over continued emasculation. Weak male characters surrounded by smarter women are all too trendy nowadays. I'll take Don Draper or Tony Soprano over Ray Romano any day.

Re: Mad Men: The Gypsy And The Hobo

jcieplinski — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:52:11 -0000

Nah. Don already ran away in season 2. No need to repeat that plot line.

I have to disagree with you about Betty. I didn't see her as standing firm to learn the truth. I saw her as once again the selfish, self-righteous child who confronted Don without giving a thought to her own fault in the situation. She completely disrespected Don's privacy by snooping into his things, and then she immediately assumed the worst instead of giving Don a chance to explain his past to her. The pictures of his family in the box should have given her a clue that there was more to the story than just an affair and a past marriage.

And it's not like Betty has been completely faithful to Don over the past three seasons, anyway. I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to be upset, but most people would at least be slightly embarrassed at how they came about the information; Betty doesn't even conceive of the possibility that she's done anything wrong.

As far as the future goes, if anything, I think now that the truth about Don is finally out, the two of them will likely become closer than they ever have been. The real reason Don has never felt loyal to Betty, or his company, or anyone, is that he's been carrying around this secret for so long. You can't be close to people who don't know who you are. Now that the big burden is off his shoulders, and now that Betty knows something about him that very few other people know, they can finally be more intimate.

This is why Don immediately ends the affair with Suzanne. After all, he hasn't been "caught" in this affair. So there's no reason to end it completely, unless he suddenly realizes that staying with Betty is inevitable now.

Just as Burt Cooper's knowledge of Don's secret forced Don's hand into signing a contract, Betty's knowledge forces his hand into finally taking his marriage seriously.

So season three has been mostly about Don losing the considerable power he's enjoyed over everyone in his life thus far. He no longer lives life completely on his own terms. It's interesting to watch Don in a vulnerable state; I just hope he doesn't remain completely emasculated for too long.

Meanwhile, I really hope Weiner doesn't just drop the whole Duck Phillips thing. I think Peggy needs to quit Sterling Cooper if her character is to move forward. Campbell is the more obvious person to leave, but he won't, because that's too obvious.

Joan's husband will die in Viet Nam, but that probably won't happen until midway through season 4. She'll come back to Sterling Cooper in some higher capacity, also in season 4.

The Kennedy Assassination, on the day of Sterling's daughter's wedding, has to play some part in the finale. What effect that will have is hard to say. I'm looking forward to it.

Re: How Long Should A Computer Last, Anyhow?

jcieplinski — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:05:21 -0000

Sure, your old computers from twenty years ago lasted longer, but they weren't laptops. Laptops endure a lot more torture than desktop machines, even if you do baby them. All that heat compressed into such a small area is bound to take its toll.

I'm holding on to my current MacBook Pro past the one-year mark for the first time in a long time. While it will suck if it dies on me now that it's out of warranty, I have to agree with you that I wouldn't be too upset about it. Sure, it cost me over two grand, but I make my living with my computers, so it's paid for itself several times over already.

I've known people who keep their laptops for five years or more with no problems. I've known others who end up with bad logic boards after a year. It seems to be the luck of the draw, in many cases.

The reason you hear more about Apple computers failing than you used to is that Apple is selling a lot more computers these days. More customers = more issues. No way of getting around that.

I have yet to buy an iPod or an iPhone (and I've bought a LOT of them) that didn't need to be replaced under warranty at least once. Again, mobile devices are definitely more prone to failure.

Re: Feeling Nostalgic For Uh, 2001? 5GB iPod Available

jcieplinski — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:33:21 -0000

If this had been the ORIGINAL 5GB iPod, I might have been interested. I often wish I hadn't sold my original iPod. I usually don't hang on to old relics of technology. But that one was a piece of history.

Re: Yet Another Reason Why OS X Proper On The Tablet Would Be Nice

jcieplinski — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:04:56 -0000

Exactly. There are all kinds of reasons not to do a tablet. But there were all kinds of reasons not to do a phone or a music player, too.

This could very well have a strong link to the Apple TV.

I think the change of all metal laptops to MacBook Pro definitely has something to do with this new product's place in the lineup. It would at least hint at a price point (somewhere between $400 and $900) and at the audience (consumers). So our dreams of doing Photoshop on this thing may be unrealistic. Maybe it's really targeted at the people who are now buying netbooks—people who simply want to get on the web and do email and word documents on the road. Personally, I think the iPhone covers that ground perfectly for me. But I may not be the target for this product.

Re: Yet Another Reason Why OS X Proper On The Tablet Would Be Nice

jcieplinski — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:36:02 -0000

The "lockdown" of software in the App store has two major benefits. 1)For developers, it practically guarantees that apps won't be pirated. 2)That in turn allows developers to charge far less per app. So we get apps much more cheaply than we ordinarily would, and developers make plenty of money selling at a lower unit price and reaching a much bigger audience.

Adobe has screamed for years that Photoshop would be $100 if 70% of people didn't pirate it and pay them nothing. The App Store is proving that would work, at least in theory.

As far as this tablet goes, I trust Apple to be smart enough to know what will work or not. Personally, I still can't see ANY advantage of a tablet over a laptop like the Air. But there has to be some new market for this thing beyond the tech geeks who have been clamoring for it for ages. Otherwise, Apple wouldn't bother creating it.

Full OS X sounds like a great idea. The only problem I foresee with that is that OS X wasn't meant to be navigated with your fingers. There are far too many small target areas that need to be clicked. And we all know how Steve Jobs feels about the idea of a stylus, so I don't think it's likely that we'll be using a stylus with this thing. But you never know.

Some sort of hybrid? An entirely new UI built on top of OS X? Could be, but that sounds crazy, too.

This whole project sounds crazy to me. So I'm just going to sit back and let Apple explain it to me when the time comes.

Re: Swapping Out The Apple TV For A Mac Mini

jcieplinski — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:25:15 -0000

Why not do both? I've had both a Mac mini and an Apple TV hooked up to my television for a while now, and it works great. The mini has a terabyte drive plugged into it, where I keep all of my media. Then, I just keep iTunes running on that mini, which is linked to the Apple TV. One activity on my Harmony remote is set for Apple TV mode, where all my iTunes content is accessible. Another activity is programmed to switch over to the mini, where I can either use a wireless mouse and keyboard or remote access in with my laptop. I threw in an EyeTV from Elgato on the mini, too, so now I can use that to watch and record standard cable tv shows without the need for a TiVo. And, the EyeTV unit works great with the Harmony as well. I leave the EyeTV running in full screen most of the time, so my girlfriend and I can easily control it like any cable box from the Harmony. No complications, unless I'm doing a software update, or I want to do something more complicated.

I haven't tried the whole Hulu thing, but I imagine this solution would work if you just switch to the mini for the Hulu stuff. The only complicated part is remembering which content is in iTunes, and which is only on the mini. I usually set programs I record through the EyeTV on the mini to automatically export to iTunes, so I don't have to think about it much. I get whatever I've recorded on the EyeTV on my Apple TV with zero effort.

So the only time I really end up on the mini is when I want to watch live tv, which is fairly rare.

The only thing I need to improve this set up is a good RAID system for my media. My terabyte drive is getting pretty full, and I really should have a redundant backup system in place. It would totally suck to lose all those movies and tv shows. I'm thinking about a Drobo for that.

I'll say again what I've always said about the Apple TV. It doesn't need anything, except more content available to it. That's the studio's fault, not Apple's. I would be more than happy to get all my content directly from iTunes, if only the networks and movie studios would make it available to me. This idea of some shows being on one service and others being on another is what complicates everything. Make all the shows and all the movies available everywhere, and let the people decide which service is the best for their needs.

Re: Google Chrome OS: Let The Waiting Begin

jcieplinski — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 12:29:04 -0000

I'm surprised that you aren't into this announcement, considering how often you've expressed being on the fence about getting a netbook. Chrome OS appears to me to be the ultimate netbook operating system.

I agree that Chrome OS isn't going to be any threat to Apple. I do think, however, that the extremely price-conscious PC users out there who only use their computers for email and web surfing will be attracted to this enough that MS will loose quite a bit of market share and money here.

Android and the iPhone are killing Windows Mobile. Chrome will kill XP on the netbook.

This is a much bigger shot at MS than Apple. No, it won't stop businesses from running Windows on PC desktops, but it will eat into laptop and netbook Windows licenses. And anything that puts another dent in the MS monopoly is good for the planet, as far as I'm concerned.

I, for one, HATE the idea of the whole computing experience being in the browser. People have been trying to sell me on this since the early 2000s, and I'm still not buying it. I still use separate apps for my mail, chat, and Twitter. Whenever a Web 2.0 service is available in a separate app (as is the case with Evernote), I use the app. So there's no way I'm going to do my word processing and Photo editing in a browser.

But I think I'm the exception. People seem to like the GMail browser client. They seem to use web sites for all kinds of crazy things. HTML 5 is going to make web apps even more powerful.

I think Google's biggest barrier to success here is infrastructure. I still can't get the "cloud" from a parking garage, or on my train commute to work. HTML5's offline features will help with this, but there will still be times where people will "NEED" connectivity and won't be able to get it. Google needs to be lobbying Washington to make broadband connectivity absolutely ubiquitous across the entire US if they really want to make cloud computing a reality.

Re: As A Happy iPhone User, I Have Zero Interest In A Palm Pre

jcieplinski — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:33:19 -0000

Apple simply has too much of a head start on Palm at this point. Which is crazy, if you think about the fact that Palm/Handspring was making smart phones before literally ANYONE else was. (I should know, I had a VisorPhone back in the day.)

Having had several Palm OS Treos over the years, and greatly preferring them to any Windows Mobile phone that ever came to market, I didn't struggle for more than two seconds when the iPhone came out; it was clearly an advanced product, while the Palm was built on ancient ideas and ancient software. Palm had squandered more than five years with little or no innovation under its belt since the original Treo design, and no software innovation since the original Palm OS arrived. It had been even less a mover and shaker in the market than Microsoft, which is hard to accomplish.

The Pre is essentially five years too late to matter. (Which makes its name rather ironic.)

And though everyone hypes the fact that the Pre lets developers code using web standards, what that essentially translates to is what Apple offered on the iPhone before the App store. Web apps. The same exact thing that Apple was blasted for offering as a stop-gap measure for iPhone development is that for which Palm is now being praised. The Pre's entire OS is basically Safari. A web browser with multiple tabs. Cool as that may be, it's going to limit the Pre's capabilities.

And that's if anyone decides to develop for it. It's already a bad sign that Palm had to engineer a Palm OS simulator inside the Pre, so that people could still run their legacy apps. Shows you how far down the hole Palm has fallen. (Apple was once in a similar situation with OS X and the Classic environment.) That's not a sign that developers are ready to jump in; it's a desperation move to get old developers to keep interest instead of moving over to other platforms. Most of them already have.

Now, Classic worked for Apple back in the days of the OS X transition. But this isn't 2000. The only competition Apple had at the time was Windows, which while dominant in the market, was a rather lazy and unimaginative foe. Apple fans, people who actually cared about the software on their computers, wouldn't have been caught dead with a Windows box. But old-school Palm users have the Blackberry, an assortment of Google phones, and of course the iPhone, all of which are comparable if not superior to the Pre. That's a far worse position.

What do I get with a Pre that I don't get with an iPhone? A removable battery and a keyboard. Two things I don't consider a problem on the iPhone. And two things that other smartphone makers also offer.

So as much as I'd like to see the Pre succeed, and as much as I'd like to get some play time with the Pre, just out of curiosity and respect for Jon Rubenstein, I have absolutely no plans to drop the iPhone anytime soon. Especially now that I've invested so much time and money into the App store.

Now that I think about that, the App Store just proves Steve's genius again. While the whole world was slamming Apple for taking its time adding Cut, Copy, and Paste, Apple was building the ultimate lock-in factor with the App Store. Priorities.

Anyone who wanted to create an iPhone killer needed to do it at least a year ago. It's too late now to be any serious threat.

Re: Apple + Twitter? No

jcieplinski — Tue, 05 May 2009 16:09:51 -0000

Microsoft buying Twitter makes absolute sense. They are fond of buying companies with a buzz, just to make it look like they have a handle on whatever new hot trends arrive on the scene. Microsoft is all about the amazing product they're going to release two years from now. But that product never seems to materialize.

And they have scores of divisions within the company that bleed money every month.

I only hope this doesn't happen, though, because I like Twitter, and I see any company that gets acquired by MSoft these days as a soon-to-be-dead company. This is the same reason I opposed the purchase of Yahoo!

Microsoft is the past. It has no future. It is the Great Britain of the computer industry.

Re: Apple + Twitter? No

jcieplinski — Tue, 05 May 2009 12:51:11 -0000

Couldn't agree more. Not to mention, every article on this rumor goes out of its way to say that its sources are completely unverified. In other words, someone completely pulled this one out of his butt.

And it really does make no sense. Every division of Apple is profitable. Even when Apple gives away an app, like iPhoto, that app still generates revenue via photo print and photo book sales. Even Garageband now sells music lessons. There's always some sort of revenue stream from just about everything they do.

Twitter, no matter how good an idea it is, no matter how many Oprahs and Aston Kushers sign up, has no business model whatsoever. It functions purely on venture capital. That's not the Apple way of doing things.

Unless someone at Apple has figured out some brilliant way to make money off twitter that no one else has, this is never going to happen. And to be honest, I don't know how anyone could make money off of twitter. You can't attach ads to tweets, and you can't charge people subscription fees, because they'd all just quit using it. It's a dead-end business. Maybe someone like Google or Facebook could incorporate it into a larger overall social media strategy, and run it at a loss in order to enhance the big picture. But Apple has no need for that, and more importantly, no history of ever doing something like that.

Twitter should have jumped on the Facebook deal while it had the chance.

Re: How Much Is Too Much For An iPhone App?

jcieplinski — Sat, 02 May 2009 11:59:06 -0000

For me, it definitely depends on the app. I've paid $20 for some apps and not been upset about it. But most of the apps I've bought have been $.99.

I'll definitely hesitate more if the app is more than $4.99.

It all depends on what the app does, and how useful I perceive it to be. An app like Omnifocus, which syncs with my desktop Omnifocus, is indispensable to me. And it will improve over time, as Apple allows the developer new features, like push notifications.

Some apps are really useful, but only once in a while. Like Guitar Toolkit. I only use it once every few weeks, but I'm so glad I have it when I need to tune my guitar, or figure out a chord I've forgotten. So much easier than digging out my tuner or looking a chord up on my desktop.

For games, I've paid as much as $9.99 for a commercial full-fledged PSP-comparable game, but I do think that the $.99 games tend to be more suitable for mobile use, and I tend to get a lot more use out of them as a result.

Having come from many years of Palms and Treos, iPhone apps are surprisingly cheap. I used to pay $40 or more for many of the better Palm OS Apps. (And most of those apps were necessary to fill the gaping holes in the built-in software.) I think Apple has created a market where a developer can make a return by selling an app cheaper, because piracy is so much harder. Adobe always argues that if everyone paid for Photoshop instead of copying it illegally, they'd be able to charge $100 for it. Apple is sort of proving that true with the app store.

Any way you slice it, iPhone apps are a lot cheaper than desktop apps. I find it hard to deny a developer income, especially since I've spent just a little time researching iPhone development, so I know how hard writing these apps can be.

At the same time, I'd call myself a "moderate" app purchaser. Not quite an addict yet. So maybe I've avoided price sensitivity so far. There are only so many apps you can keep on an iPhone at once before it becomes overkill. I find myself spending 90% of my time in the same five or six apps, so there's not much room for more, unless someone comes up with something I really need that I don't already have.

Re: ABC On Hulu Makes Apple TV Look Bad

jcieplinski — Fri, 01 May 2009 16:21:06 -0000

The thing you're missing here is that without an unsanctioned Apple TV hack to get Boxee, and thus Hulu, onto your Apple TV, Hulu wouldn't be nearly as satisfying. You'd be watching TV on a computer screen, which no one really wants to do. Which is why networks permit it to happen. They way they see it, only a niche audience will completely drop standard TV and its ad-driven model for Hulu on a computer. They think of Hulu as a side-show. Something people use to catch an episode they accidentally missed.

So of course all the shows you want are available via Hulu. There's no threat there to the network's lifestyle. For Apple to get access to that content, they'd have to convince the networks that your scenario described above, with you dropping cable for all-streaming, all-the-time subscription plan, WOULDN'T happen. Because if that were to become the norm for TV watchers, TV networks would no longer need to exist. Shows could be produced independently, distributed via Apple, and survive based on quality, not corporate backing and giant budgets. The way indie record labels are now given equal opportunity to the big four.

In other words, the people would be in control of their collective entertainment destiny. And no one would have to pay the million-dollar salaries of NBC/ABC fat-cat execs. Would you let that happen if you were CEO of CBS?

There's no doubt in my mind Apple wants to make the Apple TV a better solution. But TV execs know their recent history. They watched Apple practically take over the music industry over the last few years. They don't want to see themselves similarly marginalized. So they offer competing services better deals, in order to keep the power centered around themselves. If no one company wins the distribution fight, they all have to keep coming to them for content.

And don't think the cable companies aren't putting enormous pressure on the networks, either. They have a lot to lose in this battle, as well.

The customer will continue to lose in the short run, but eventually, digital distribution and the end of traditional advertising as a way to fund TV is inevitable. Sooner or later, we'll all be streaming shows on-demand, watching no commercials, and paying a-la-carte. And everyone in every show will be drinking a Pepsi, going to Starbucks, eating at MacDonald's, etc.

Re: Gee, I May Not Buy The New iPhone After All

jcieplinski — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 22:09:21 -0000

Apple won't make an iPhone for Verizon until Verizon switches over to its 4G network, which will (finally) be compatible with all the other networks in Europe and elsewhere. Apple doesn't want to develop multiple iPhones with multiple radios. Too much hassle. Too many quality control issues.

Verizon doesn't plan to switch to 4G until more than a year out. Probably more like 2 or 3.

My bet is this rumor is going around because Apple and AT&T are in negotiations to extend their exclusivity deal. AT&T knows that Apple doesn't want to make a CDMA iPhone, so Apple has to let word leak out that it's in talks with Verizon to scare AT&T into offering better terms. Otherwise, AT&T has the upper hand.

Anything is possible, but I'd be really shocked if we saw iPhone on anything other than AT&T in the next 2 years or more.

Re: Still Haven’t Gotten On Board With Blu-Ray: YADF

jcieplinski — Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:58:20 -0000

Your ultimate realization is what the market on the whole has realized as well. I love HD content, but most of the time my standard def DVDs aren't bad enough to warrant buying the movie all over again. Especially not in a physical form.

Even though the digital downloads are a lower-quality HD than Blu-ray offers, they are more than enough to look good on my 32-inch LCD.

People are tired of the YADF situation. The music and movie industries really killed the goose on that one. I can't even count how many different versions of the Star Wars movies I've purchased over the years. So for me, it's downloads or nothing from here on out.

I just sold my entire CD collection a few months ago, and I'm so happy I did. No more boxes of plastic to haul around whenever I move. No more trouble trying to keep dics alphabetized. It's very liberating.

Re: The iPhone Upgrade Treadmill

jcieplinski — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 00:56:11 -0000

I would go for the 20-year plan just to avoid the upgrade process. The last time I upgraded to the 3G, it was more than an hour that my Apple Store rep was on the phone with the AT&T reps, trying to figure out what was wrong with my account. Hopefully they'll have that process figured out this time around. Or let us activate from home on launch again.

"Various states of cat toy" is a wonderful turn of phrase, by the way. Well done.

Re: Microsoft’s New Ad: Tell Me Something I Don’t Already Know

jcieplinski — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:00:05 -0000

My problem is that the premise is completely contrived. What computer buyer's only two criteria are 1) spend less than $1,000, and 2) get a 17" screen? Right. No one.

17" laptop users are mainly graphics pros and hi-end nerds like me. This girl just wants a computer for writing Word docs. Is she willing to cart around an 8 lb. monster laptop just to get the larger screen? And a larger screen that is only 1440 x 900, no less?

In the real world, people like her want the smallest laptop possible. If MS wanted to really make this ad effective, they would have had her try to buy a Macbook Air. The problem is, small PC laptops are either just as expensive as the Air, or they are netbooks running Linux. So they can't make that argument.

Re: Thoughts On An Apple Tablet: Full OS X, Please

jcieplinski — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:29:58 -0000

Your wish list here demonstrates exactly why Apple shouldn't make a tablet at all. Because no one really wants a bigger iPhone, so it has to run Mac OS X. Which means it can't be cheap, or else it will be severely underpowered. And it would have to be operated with a stylus, since OS X isn't designed with big targets in mind.

I recall a certain CEO dismissing the stylus with a "yuck" a few years back. He was right then, and he'd be right now. Styli suck.

Not to mention that several years of Windows Tablet PCs have been an utter failure. And not just because they run Windows. This is one of those products that sounds a lot better on paper than it does in reality.

No device Apple can deliver is going to replace both my phone and my laptop, the two computing devices I travel with every day. I can't fathom adding a third device to that equation, unless it does something important that neither my laptop nor my iPhone can do.

Re: My Personal iPhone OS 3.0 Wish List

jcieplinski — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:20:16 -0000

The biggest thing I want on my iPhone is smarter WiFi handling.

In an ideal world, WiFi networks would all be set up to be either 100% free (with no login web page required) or locked down with a password. The locked down ones are easily detected by the iPhone and ignored by the auto connection feature unless you know the password, so they are not a problem. The completely free log-in-less ones are fine, as well. The problem comes when you have a network that appears to be free but needs some manual web form action to log in and get it working. Log into that network once in your favorite coffee shop, or wherever, and your iPhone will automatically connect to that network every time you are in range of it. Why is that a problem? Well, let's say you're in line and you just want to check the weather really quickly. You launch the weather app, and—nothing. The app can't update its info, because while you are technically connected to the network, you aren't online yet. You need to quit out of the weather app, launch Safari, go through the login page or whatever it takes, and then go back to weather. Even worse, after you do that, if you switch off your phone's screen when you are done, you'll need to log in AGAIN if you want to check your stocks or email.

Meanwhile, where you are standing is a perfectly good signal area for 3G, but because the iPhone ASSUMES that WiFi is faster, it spins its wheels endlessly until you log in.

This happens to me in far too many of the places I frequent. It even happens at my desk at work, which just so happens to be within range of a Starbucks. Even with a great login app like Easy Wi-Fi, I still need that extra step of launching this app EVERY TIME I turn on my phone at work, or else I get no data. Extraordinarily frustrating. I could shut off my WiFi whenever I get to work, but I shouldn't have to do that.

The problem gets even worse when you realize that the iPhone remembers network NAMES, not their locations, so any two networks with the same name will appear to be the same network to the iPhone. Thus, a login-free network you use in one location will cause your phone to try and connect to a login-required network with the same name in another location. Maddening.

What the iPhone needs is a way to intelligently switch back to the AT&T network once it realizes that data is being requested but not received via WiFi.

That's my number 1 request. Other than that:

Copy and Paste — I almost never need it, but just to shut everyone else up about it
Push notifications
A way to email vCards from your Address Book, or trade vCards with other iPhone users via bluetooth, like Palm's old beaming capability.
Properly formatted phone numbers and html links in the notes app should be hyperlinks, just as they are in mail. That way, I can jot down a number during a phone call on the notepad, and then dial it later by tapping.
Notes should sync with OS X Mail Notes or a standalone app of some sort.
Folders on the home screen, as opposed to just apps. Would make organizing much easier. Jump to any page of apps in one tap.
Voice Dialing.
Easier way to switch between mailboxes in Mail—integrated inBox would be nice, as long as it's a choice to switch on or off.
A one-or-two-tap way to switch in and out of Airplane mode from any home screen, without having to put Settings on the Dock. Just put a button in the title bar, or something.
Calendar Week View.
More widgets/apps: The app store is amazing, but I'd like to see Apple build and bundle some more of its own apps, particularly a movie widget like the one on the Dashboard, or an iWork document reader.

And while this isn't just Apple's problem, I'd like to point out that coverage/signal strength has actually gotten WORSE over the past year here in San Francisco. AT&T desperately needs to fix these gaping holes in its service. They're everywhere. Even DOWNTOWN in the City, for crying out loud, there are several spots where I can't make phone calls or get data.

Re: iPhone App: Vector Tanks

jcieplinski — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:41:50 -0000

Just messing with you, man. As a non-cat owner (but avid cat fan) I have, on your recommendation, downloaded quite a few of those cat apps myself. I consider you the world's foremost expert on iPhone cat apps.

Maybe you should start another blog devoted to cat apps?

Re: iPhone App: Vector Tanks

jcieplinski — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 12:58:02 -0000

What, no cats?

Re: Our Cat Would Quickly Render The New iPod Shuffle Pointless

jcieplinski — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:13:51 -0000

I don't have a cat, and I probably have no use for a Shuffle, anyway, but I'm still scratching my head over the new "controls on the headphone cord" decision.

Apple's earbuds are absolutely useless to me. I have no idea if they sound good or not, because they don't stay in place long enough for me to find out. And that's when I'm standing still. When I walk, they fall out almost immediately.

More importantly, even if that weren't the case, they wouldn't fit or sound nearly as good as the $750 custom-molded Sensaphonics earphones that I use every day with my iPod.

All morning, I heard people making the argument that third parties were sure to make other earbuds that would have controls that were compatible sooner or later, so it was no big deal. But what about those of us who already HAVE the perfect earphones and don't want to trade them for something inferior just to be able to pause and change volume?

Word on the street is that Apple will make an adapter cable that will include the controls, but that will cost extra, of course. Moreover, it will be a kludgy hack for a problem that doesn't need to exist. Didn't Apple learn anything from the original iPhone's unorthodox headphone port?

Here's a really bonehead simple idea: Take the three buttons on the headphone cord and PUT THEM ON THE SHUFFLE ITSELF. Problem solved.

Re: Random Stuff: Pepsi Logo, Cat Piano, Nazi Bankers

jcieplinski — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:41:09 -0000

TiVo is dying because it has always been a failing niche product. Yes, the widespread availability of content on Hulu, iTunes, and other places, combined with cable companies offering their own DVRs is accelerating the decline, but even at its peak, TiVo was losing money. Kind of proves all those people who insisted that Apple should buy TiVo or add DVR capabilities to the AppleTV wrong, doesn't it?

Watching TV for the average person is sort of like using Internet Explorer. Sure, the experience sucks, but it came pre-installed, so why bother adding something new, which involves a learning curve or maybe costs more money, even if it is way better?

Most people never learned how to program the clocks on their VCRs back in the 80s, either. They weren't about to learn how to use the TiVo.

It's hard enough getting people to CHANGE CHANNELS every now and then. They couldn't care less about watching commercials. They complain about it all day long, but when it comes time to DO something about it, nothing.

These are the same people who still type out URLS in their browsers for sites they go to every day, because they don't bother learning how to create bookmarks. Why are we surprised that the majority of people don't know what an RSS feed is?

It's an odd but common form of laziness. People are so reluctant to invest a little bit of effort into learning something new, even if that new thing would make their lives significantly easier in a short while.

So the TiVo, while a brilliant concept, was doomed to fail from the get go.

Re: Interesting Video Of The Death Of The Rocky Mountain News

jcieplinski — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 18:09:55 -0000

I agree that the medium of the paper, not the concept of journalism, is dead. However, to date, there is no sustainably profitable way to make money on the web if you're going to hire professional journalists, do the proper research, etc. Web ads, for the second time, are proving to be ineffective. So how can newspapers survive as RSS entities? No one seems to have figured that out yet. Whoever does is going to be pretty rich.

As long as the public demands content for free, content providers are going to go bankrupt.