Disqus - Latest Comments for jcieplinski

Re: Mad Men: Shut The Door. Have A Seat.

jcieplinski — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:01:38 -0000

That's a great point about father figures. Hadn't thought of that.

I'd love to see more office, less home life in the next season. No reason why Betty needs so much screen time.

I also think Trudy is going to be a more interesting character moving forward. I think the fact that she fully supported Pete through the failed promotion and his big risk jumping ship with Don has made their marriage stronger. Pete's finally starting to appreciate her.

Weiner has done a heck of a job setting up for the next season. He's basically put himself in an excellent negotiating position with AMC. They can't let the show go now or get someone else to produce it.

Maintaining that level of interest and quality can't be easy. Almost no one else manages to do it. I think the real trick is knowing when you've said all you can say, and ending the show gracefully at the right time. Clearly, this show isn't over yet. I keep asking myself where they can possibly go next, but this time Weiner has already answered that question.

Viet Nam, the assassinations of MLK, Bobby Kennedy, the hippy movement, Civil Rights—we still have a lot more 60s to explore. I'm assuming that Joan's husband will be killed in Viet Nam. That much seems obvious. And that marriage doesn't work, anyway. (Amazing how many bad matchups this show has. Seems like Bert Cooper has the right idea being single.)

Re: Mad Men: Shut The Door. Have A Seat.

Webomatica — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:12:52 -0000

Overall Don is turning out to be an incredible, complex character. I alternately root for and dislike things about him, which is totally okay, it makes for great drama. Actually, when he started creating his own company, poaching employees, and described himself as an "idea man" who wasn't good with relationships, I thought of Steve Jobs, another guy with recognized business genius but an infamously prickly personality.

I also hope Betty becomes a secondary character in season 4, representing the fading 50s. That would not be impossible, seeing how Roger and Pete didn't have as much screen time in season 3 as the previous episodes.

Now I'm actually more interested in how Sally and Bobby react to the divorce. We've seen over and over Betty's questionable parenting skills (basically ignore the kids / treat them like idiots) and as Sally gets older she's prepped to be the worst form of rebellious teen.

(Now that I think of it, this episode had several goodbyes to father figures - Don remembered the death of his dad, Connie rejected Don, and Bobby said goodbye to Don. There's a deep feeling of living up to parental expectations, and trying to be better than the generation before)

Also - yeah, totally want Sal to come back. Maybe they can work out some way to have him work at the new company but not let lucky strike know? I remember Joan saying nobody was to come to the "office" itself and all meetings should happen elsewhere.

In addition to seeing Joan back, I'm also amused to see Pete's wife Trudy possibly playing a bigger role in the new firm. And the show has a good chance to return to advertising and office antics that got kind of sidelined during season 3.

Although I liked Paul and Ken, it would be stretching it if all the main characters ended up at the new firm. I guess we can keep an ear out for which actors still have contract with the show as season 4 approaches.

Anyhow it's pretty amazing that this is the third season and the show still manages to keep things interesting. I know the comparison is a reach, but Battlestar Galactica got relatively convoluted in season 4, meanwhile Mad Men has the oddly amazing feeling that it's just getting started.

Re: Mad Men: Shut The Door. Have A Seat.

jcieplinski — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:51:01 -0000

Best season finale so far. Amazing, how Weiner managed to put all the pieces back together in a way that I should have seen coming but didn't.

At the end of the day, no one wants to watch a show about Don Draper the loser who lets everyone bulldoze him all the time. When the time came, Don remembered himself. He took back the power, harnessed his keen ability to sway people in a particular direction, and took a huge risk. The difference this time is that he's learned the value of other people. He knows he can't take on the world alone. While he may have lost his wife (good riddance. She was getting severely annoying, anyway) he gained very valuable assets in Peggy and Pete, who have both learned a lot about negotiating from Don. He can't take them for granted anymore, but he doesn't have to. They will work tirelessly for the good of the new company, now that they have a real stake in it.

I can't see Betty's tryst with this politician lasting long. It's just not that interesting, from a plot perspective. And seeing Don as a weekend dad, taking the kids to the park, sounds really boring, too. My only hope is that Betty comes running back to Don, and he rejects her. Then just write her off the show. If they get back together again, then Betty has to do something more interesting than yell at Sally and complain about her life being so unfulfilling. She has to grow up sometime and take a real interest in something other than horseback riding.

The fact of the matter is that Don is finally in a position to be in a good relationship. He's learning to value relationships, despite Roger's accusation to the contrary. So instead of Betty, the trophy wife who he married to complete the suburban businessman facade, he can find himself a Rachel Menken. Someone who can challenge him. Someone he can respect.

That scene in the bedroom was so powerful, when Don calls Betty a "whore." This isn't hypocrisy on Don's part. He's slept around, but he's never sold himself the way Betty has. He's betrayed Betty, but he hasn't betrayed himself.

She can talk all she wants about her reasons for leaving Don. It has nothing whatsoever to do with his infidelity. She knew about that last season. It's not because of the secret identity, either. If she had a problem with secrets she wouldn't have married a guy who had told her nothing about his past. It's about trading in Don for something she sees as better. It's complete selfishness.

I really would like to see Sal make a comeback, but Lucky Strike is Sterling Cooper Draper Price's ace client. Unless that guy dies, or something, Weiner's going to have to do some serious writing to make that work. I'd also like to know the fates of Cosgrove and Paul Kinsey. Are they finished? Will we see some competition from the rival firms, or will Don try to recruit them? The possibilities are endless.

After an entire season of things falling apart, Weiner has managed to bring us right back to where the show started. Only different. Season 4 makes total sense now, whereas it didn't look too promising just a few episodes ago. I can't believe we have to wait until next August to see what happens next. And I can't believe I'm looking forward to it already.

Re: iPhone Replaces Newspapers; Magazines Next

Webomatica — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:22:12 -0000

yeah the comparison to the music industry is apt. And that said, even with a CD one can rip it and put it on the iPhone. Meanwhile, there isn't an easy way to copy a whole dead tree magazine and load it onto the iPhone. And yes, in my world at least, things are getting to where if isn't on a computer, let alone an iPhone, it isn't worth dealing with. That's your whole point about physical copies becoming a hassle.

And this has nothing to do with the content quality. There's obviously great and important writing going on in mainstream newspapers and magazines. It's the distribution that's a problem.

I have no idea how Apple will approach a print publishing model with iTunes / iPhone Apps on a tablet. Maybe there are some clues in how they do television show subscriptions?

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

webomatica — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 23:40:04 -0000

Well, despite thinking Betty is pretty immature, I'm more on her side than Don's. Dick became Don before he ever met Betty, and Don's affairs were what instigated her investigations in the first place. And I don't think it's Betty's fault that Don cheats.

I don't foresee their marriage becoming stronger. I could see Don thinking his confession will bring their marriage closer together, but it seems Betty is going in the opposite direction, becoming more aware and testing the waters of an affair herself. She's really close to having Harry on that fainting couch.

I'm pretty certain Don is representative of the dying ways of fifties, and his character will inevitably become more marginalized and as you say, emasculated, as the sixties wear on - unless his character reaches some epiphany or transformation that allows him to change with the changing times. He does seem to be okay with drugs and likes California.

But I definitely agree Peggy will rise in a big way. Duck, yeah, that's got to be important, and very soon. Maybe she'll work for Duck and hire Sal. I'd love to see Peggy, a duck, and an Ann-Margaret wanna-be competing with Don for clients.

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?

webomatica — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:33:50 -0000

Well you're one vote for 3 years being reasonable. I'd like to think I took
good care of this particular MacBook but on further thought I did take it
traveling a few times a year and even spilled water on it once.
Contrary to your experience I have had very good luck with iPods and
iPhones, the current 3G I have is still kicking at the 1 1/2 year mark and I
hope to upgrade next summer. Think there are some iPods lying around the
house we don't even use any more.

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

Webomatica — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:08:24 -0000

am now feeling a bit nostalgic and wondering what other Apple kit I should have held onto. The 7100, Purple iMac, and graphite "toilet seat" iBook are all history.

Better check the sofa cushions for those missing iPod Shuffles...

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

webomatica — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:50:36 -0000

Yeah, it definitely still sounds crazy. Perhaps some of our grasping is the
idea that Apple has some uber master plan in the works - as in, the reason
why the Apple TV has not seen a major update in some time, or why the
portables are all called "MacBook Pro" is because this tablet has some
overlap with the Apple TV and MacBook. But probably, not.
At this point I just must have faith that Apple has some angle on this that
none of us have thought of yet. Maybe it's the return of the Newton...

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

webomatica — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 15:14:16 -0000

Good point. After reading your comment, I may be too hasty in tossing
out the baby (Apple TV) with the bathwater in the quest for one box to
rule them all. One possibility might be to keep the Apple TV for
renting Apple movies and TV shows and using the Mac Mini for
"everything else." By doing that I could delete all the music and
photos currently stored locally on the Apple TV.

Hulu desktop on the Mini works really well, plus with the Apple Remote
- better than Hulu via Boxee on the Apple TV. Lastly, this Plex
program is currently wooing me big time. If I can bend it to my will
(it is skinnable) it could be better than the Apple TV interface.

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

webomatica — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:08:35 -0000

Yes, I was interested in a netbook earlier this year, but still haven't
purchased one. After looking at different models and even fiddling around
with Linux in VM Ware fusion to see what it would be like, researching OS X
installation options on netbooks, and checking out some hardware in stores
(some are shockingly "calculator like") - I decided to just wait and see
what Apple's answer might be, if any. I still hold out hope they're working
on something. And if not I'll just end up with a MacBook - I seem to have
come around that they're worth the "extra" hundred dollars through running
OS X and better quality hardware.

I am with you on holding back on the cloud. You raise another good reason
why, which is connectivity and infrastructure. WiFi is nowhere near
ubiquitous (what happened to all the free WiFi plans here in the bay area
alone?), the cellphone companies have their own issues, and even broadband
is pretty weak penetration wise.

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

webomatica — Thu, 21 May 2009 22:22:09 -0000

So you're definitely not getting a Pre right? :)

Interesting point about Pre apps being similar to Web Apps, the iPhone
has come so far since those early days I forgot about that. And I
definitely agree the "lock in" situation holds very true. Apple made
it so easy for people to buy, install, and get hooked on iPhone Apps,
but not only as a service to users - every app downloaded makes it
harder to switch to another platform.

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

webomatica — Tue, 05 May 2009 15:53:24 -0000

Yeah... anybody who has observed Apple's modus operandi for more than a year
and does even the smallest amount of research could see this rumor is
ridiculous.
I still think someone will purchase Twitter, but it will be a company with a
past history of a hype-driven move: Microsoft, Google, Yahoo!, etc. It won't
be Apple.

Zune + Twitter. Now that's a rumor I'd believe...

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?

webomatica — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:44:13 -0000

Glad I'm not alone, however, the comparison to desktop apps or Palm
apps now has me realizing that the iPhone apps are a relative bargain.
I think I'll venture a bit more into that 5 - 10 range and explore.

As far as number of apps, a brief check in iTunes shows I have 136
apps. Not all installed on my iPhone right this second, but my iPhone
is up to 8 screens which is admittedly on the ridiculous side :|