Firmwarez

So the iPhone 3.0 OS rolled out yesterday and despite my many protestations I've come to accept that its a necessary upgrade. I'm not gonna get much from many of the features, like MMS, voice memos, internet tethering (although none of you will see that one either), stereo bluetooth, or "find my iphone". I mostly wanted the update so I can continue to pay Apple and developers for apps to run on my iPod touch. Never you mind that I already paid them $20 to update my fresh out-of-the-box device with a current OS; charging customers for the privilege of giving you money doesn't seem like a very good strategy. But I digress.

I really wanted to point out a feature that I wasn't very pumped up about till about 5 minutes ago. The Spotlight Search. I've been pretty annoyed with apple's system for organizing apps on the iphone, which basically consists of one list that stretches for as many pages as is necessary to show all the icons. You can drag them around, but its pretty much a pain and they don't stay sorted well as new apps are purchased. But now with search I can type in the first few letters of the app I want and up it pops. Pretty nice actually, considering its fixing such a stupid problem.

• Apple - iPhone - New features in the iPhone 3.0 Software Update.
• Apple - iPod touch - Software Update

UpdateHoly crap, it searches through your music too! No more scrolling through the alphabet like a sucker!

Touch Me Twice.

I could see Apple being the type of company that restricts users and intellectual "property" to keep them tethered to its own devices. Which is what most lends credence to this rumor of Apple asking Google to remove multi-touch from its Android OS. And that's what it looks like happened, the feature was implemented and then commented out of the release. Although its not that big a deal if you really care about it. Android is open source, just uncomment the feature and run your own build. The real question is whether Android developers will anticipate an audience of "hacked" multi-touch users and include functions to take advantage.

Some people raise flags that Apple could seemingly command partner Google, and rather than risk the fickle reprisals in which Apple is known to engage. Yeah, that's kinda silly, but I'd rather keep my Google brand iPod apps and the G1 not be tied up in litigation, so I'm fine with Google's decision. I think the real problem is that Apple thinks it owns multi-touch to begin with. Folks have been working on multi-touch since 1982, and sure, Apple brought a device to maket with the technology after buying up a company that made then since 1999. But come on, using more than one finger to interact with a device? How in the hell is that not obvious? Hmmm... I've made a touch screen that responds when I touch it with my finger... I have ten fingers... I guess I'm all done here.

And even if you are an Apple fanboy, this shouldn't seem cool because now instead of dreaming up that next great feature, Apple can sit around on the multi-touch hill, making sure no one else tries to climb it.

• Did Google Leave Multi-Touch Out Of Android At Apple's Behest? | Techdirt

I Was Right.

Think back.  As far as you can remember.  To a time of darkness and desperation.  Yes, all the way back to 2005 in the days prior to the iPhone.  In today's 'I Was Right' we're examining Jon Rubinstein's ridiculous claim that convergence devices just wouldn't pan out and didn't offer any benefits.  A claim that I think we can all agree at this point was completely and utterly wrong.  So, Jon, I was right.

• Daily Placebo- September 2005
  
• Jon's Apple Insider interview

Uh Oh.

So I accidentally bought an iPod a couple weeks ago; breaking my self-imposed "no iPods in my car" ban. Its pretty nice though. I've had a little troubl finding an FM transmitter of the same quality/ power as the old one I had, but that's Griffin and the FCC's fault, not Apple's. All the little games and other apps you can download are a nice bonus too, although I haven't really seen the need to pay any money for one yet.

Anyway, I finally busted out the iTunes store over WiFi last night to search for an artist someone told me about. Searches as you type, stream clips of each song, only 7.99? Okay... Downloaded in about 3 mins and its already on my iPod read to roll. Shit; I may have just relapsed into my itunes addiction. And't I'd kicked it so well; for so long!

Emusic sends me to a reactivate page when I head to their site. For 12 bucks I'd get 30 songs a month (40 cents each) in pure MP3 format, instead of 99 cents each for DRMed up itunes tracks. Half as much for freeer (three "e's", really?) content doesn't seem like much of a contest, but honestly the ease and instant gratification of mobile iTunes is a much bigger draw than I thought it would be.

So I guess I've got some soul searching to do. Reactivate with Emusic? Pay through the nose with Apple? What I really need is an Emusic iPod app to search and download just like I do with the built-in iTunes app. I actually find getting music on the computer easier with Emusic since my machine runs firefox better than iTunes. But Apple has control over the walled iPod app garden and this is exactly the kind of app I could see them not letting through the gate.

P.S. New organic options at the store, you gotta get your torso on these badboys

Snake In The Phone.

See?  Now this is the kind of noise that makes me not want to be a wireless customer.  They've got "sticky downwards" pricing, which means its much easier for the customer charge to go up than down.  There are all kinds of taxes in your phone bill that tack on extra charges and they don't hesitate to pass new taxes right on to their customers rather than take a hit on the bottom line.  But don't go thinking, even for a second, that you'll see the friendly end of a tax-break on that bill.  Those go straight in the snake's pockets.

• Techdirt: Sprint Passes Along Tax Increases To Customers, But Conveniently Ignores Tax Cuts

I can't wait till someone takes the wind out of these guys' sails and tells it like it is.  They're a "bit pipe" like TechDirt says in discussing the reasons that Verizon declines on the iPhone earlier.  They want to be content providers and are getting dragged kicking and screaming into providing only a connection.  ( Like when we recently reset our Comcast connection and they needed our Comcast email address to complete it.  We don't know our Comcast address.  We don't use our Comcast address and we never will.)  Anyway, that's apparently why Apple went with Cingular over Verizon, the latter wasn't willing to be more of a "bit pipe" letting Apple handle more content and service than ever before.  The Verizon CEO said "They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat … on hardware and service support,"  Shit, that's the best sales pitch Verizon could've made to me.  "We're not really in charge of anything."  Where do I sign up for that?

• Techdirt: Verizon Implies Cingular's Giving Up Way Too Much To Carry The iPhone
• Verizon rejected Apple iPhone deal - USATODAY.com

iBet.

There's a little back and forth over at Wired about the impending impact of the iPhone. Some think it'll be big, catering to a new type of user, while others think that they're missing the mark and trying to take the smartphone market in a direction it might not want to go. There's lots of nice points about economics and precedents that I'm not going to be able to match. All I know is what I like.

"If Apple listened to their customers, we'd have a boring phone that looks like an iPod, click-wheel and all -- that's how most envisioned the iPhone."

Uh, no. If they listened to me they'd be making bluetooth video iPods with full length touchscreens. I can wait a few years for full phone convergence, I just want my damn gadgets to play nice in the meantime. Click wheels were novel, but now they're passé. I want color tactile displays that change content if not some type of holographic flavor.

He is right about some things though, I don't give a crap about what's already out there in the smartphone market. I'm not looking for a tiny keyboard or a stylus. I don't care about syncing with outlook or continuous email contact. I want to choose the options that I need and don't care about "features" that are marketed to other demographics. Give me a wifi connection and some hardware that makes it reasonable to use the Internet and I'll scout my own hotspots and use my choice of messaging medium. That'd make for a great iPod right there, but to make an iPhone we're talking network. I'm pretty sure that monkeys in Korea can make the hardware for phones today, so unlike the iPhone's groundbreaking user interface, the GSM innards are the same old crap.

And herein lies the problem. I have an innate distrust of wireless providers. I perceive them as parasites trying to suck as much life out of me without making me pissed off enough to do something about it. The iPhone is different from an iPod not just in its interface, but in its dependence on a parasite. I don't have to use the iTunes Music Store to use my iPod. (And I don't.) Heck I don't even have to use the iTunes software to load content onto my iPod if I don't want to. But throw down for a wireless phone and you must hitch your wagon to one of these providers. Its an entirely different kind of product (with a service) and an entirely different level or customer commitment.

So we can talk all day about these things, whether or not the design is too far fetched to curry existing smartphone customers, whether its different enough to persuade new users into the market. But in the end Apple isn't even selling these things, Cingular is, so arguing about whether the iPhone will have a similar impact on the market is almost silly. Of course the phone market is more established than the portable mp3 player market was. And of course there's a larger entry hurdle for buyers to get over than with an iPod. But if you look at this from a User Interface trend perspective, screens are getting larger, functions are more familiar, and input devices are becoming more varied. People that want to peck away at tiny keys have their devices, while the rest of us have been waiting out something else. Of course someone was going to make a mobile touchscreen. Apple just got one to market first and they've got the "disruptive technology" chops to make everyone start arguing about whether this is the new wave. Its an option. If you don't like it, wait it out and the voice recognition and holographic input folks will be around the corner in a little bit.

• WIRED Blogs: Cult of Mac

To Repair Or To Replace, That Is The Question.

Reader mail, that'd be a gold mine of material.  But no, you chumps just wait till the next time you see me to ask questions.  (For you guys in Colorado, just keep waiting, I swear I'll swing by soon.)  Well Dave Zatz is flush with mail, so he's doling out advice left and right.  Take this iPod question for example.

It costs more for Apple to repair an old iPod than to buy a new one.  What do I do? 

Well for me the answer is pretty clear.  I was thinking about buying a new one two months after I bought mine and Apple came out with double the battery life.  It never had stellar endurance but now it won't last 3 metro rides (70 mins) using my bluetooth (read: external power source) headphones.  That's some weak shite.  The only reason I can stand it is that I use it at my desk(firewire), in my car (firewire FM transmitter), and at my work desk(USB 2) and pretty much nowhere else.

Anyway, Dave gives some well advised answers.  I really like the "slap the ipod against something" suggestion, although I'm not too sure about his entirely reasonable rationalization.  I'm pretty sure nothing like that is running though my head when I smack a dysfunctional piece of equipment.  Although I do check to see if it fixed the problem.  But after that, the best advice is to move on.  The iPod is so popular because it just works.  There isn't a whole bunch of configuring and tweaking.  And if it doesn't 'just work' its time to get rid of it.  I mean you could buy a Zune if you'd wanted a doorstop.

Despite my ownership of their product and plans to redouble that involvement, you may know that I've got beef with Apple's accelerated obsolescence scheme.  But this is just being sneaky about it.  Charging more to fix an old one than it costs to buy a better model.  I mean, come on!  I'd rather you tell me, 'sorry we no longer repair that kind of iPod.'

We all know how Apple has managed to squeeze so much extra play time into the newer models.  Marginally better batteries, more efficent screens, storage technology and power schemes.  Oh and by avoiding an obvious features.  I may be wrong but it sounds like Dave is a little pissed about the lack of an FM transmitter too.  They're getting to the point where there are so many models they might as well have another one with FM.  You buy that model, you sacrifice a little battery life, raise your hand if you're ok with that.  But of course I've been holding out on buying a new one in the naive belief that there's a bluetooth model coming.  Its not coming; it wouldn't 'just work.'  There are so many minor improvements that are so much easier than creating robust bluetooth compatibility; and they won't detract from the raw play time stats.   Is it too much to ask for a device that talks to my wireless headphones, car and cell phone?  Yes, yes it is.

• Zatz Not Funny: question of the day

Secur-umor-pple-ity

Ok, so I'm going to do a security post combined with a small rant against Apple, bisected with a little Australian humor.

I really don't like those commercials with the two guys and one says he's a Mac and the other says he's a PC. Sure it illustrates some of the key differences in a semi-abstract way, but it also misleads consumers into poor assumptions based on incomplete information. Like that one where the PC is sick and the Mac says that he doesn't get sick. Yeah, that's cause there aren't enough of you to make viruses worthwhile, not cause you've got bulletproof security. Its kind of a security through obscurity tact, which isn't really the best policy. So check out this Mac adware proof of concept. The company that produced it says it was actually easier to do than on a PC, someone just had to get around to doing it.

• Techdirt: Even Security Breaches Are Easier On Macs

Next, you know about Trojans. Yeah, they're banana sheaths (huh, I'd never though of that product in the context of slipping something in unnoticed before) , but I mean the kind of computer virus. They ride in disguised as something else, a reference (everyone knows) to the Trojan horse. Watch this clip of an Australian show that decided to see if anyone would still fall for the old Trojan Horse stunt.

• YouTube - Chasers - Trojan Horse

And lastly, back to Mac security. On Tuesday Apple released a patch for 22 security holes in OS X. Yeah, that slick talking young-type person in the commercial didn't say anything about that, did he? And I know that Microsoft is constantly releasing patches (for many more security holes) but what do you think when they do? That's right. "Sure they got these ones, but how many more are still at large?" Well the answer is that there will always be holes wherever people apply themselves. Sure you could be completely secure, but what good is a castle without gates? Sounds like a prison.

So to all you Mac owners out there rubbing your Powerbooks in my face, quit advertising how great Macs are. Your best hope for security is the continued unpopularity of the brand. Remember, just cause no one takes the time to smell your shit, doesn't mean it don't stink.

• AppleInsider | Apple patches 22 security holes in Mac OS X