This Will Change Your Life

Don't ever tell me that the iPad is not a powerful and fun tool.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYq97enkdx0&w=640&h=385]

I'm well aware that I just changed your life.

-B

Fitting Into Societal Norms

Throughout my life, I've struggled with a lack of discipline in many areas of my life. I was never one who thoroughly enjoyed exercise or the simple discipline of it and I LOVED eating. As time has progressed and my metabolism has been unable to keep up with my poor habits, my body has taken the brunt force of those "bad" habits and it has become a factor of embarrassment for me as I try to relearn what it means to take care of my body, from the way that certainly seemed more "natural".

So, recently, I've been watching what seems to be the new trend in television: shows on losing weight. After all, when A&E does a series, you know it is the trend. I suppose it most likely started with "The Biggest Loser", but "Extreme Makeover: Weight Loss Edition" and A&E's own "Heavy" have been most popular in recent months. I've watched significant portions of each show, trying to wrestle with how these people came to be in the position they are, what lifestyle decisions they've made, and why it is that they can't seem to change themselves, by themselves.

All of the participants in these shows are significantly overweight. More than I ever hope to be. Yet, I still find it intriguing because I recognize their lack of desire to work and equate it with my struggle as well. No, I'm not 500 pounds, I'm not even that close to half of that, but I figure that if I can learn about what it is they need to change about themselves, perhaps it will assist me in changing myself as well.

The question always seems to be begged: why is the change necessary?

These people break down into two distinct groups (as I can see it). About half of them have been overweight since birth. The other half had some sort of traumatic experience in their lives that has driven them to compulsive eating. Most of the second group deal with some sort of depression.

The first group, though, is the most interesting to me. They've always been overweight. They've always eaten a lot. They've rarely exercised. Surely some of that is due to their upbringing, the sudden growth of fast food, etc. However, it makes me wonder, why is it that they never exercised? Why is it that they ate more than a normal human should? And I wonder these things because I wonder them about myself as well. Why is it that I chose to go play the piano or guitar before going for a run? Did I not find running interesting? Did I find running painful? Why is it that some people are encouraged when the pain sets in? Why is it that some people can easily fight through the pain when others of us cower in fear? If it is "natural" to exercise, why is it that most of us don't? Why is it that we come up with easier ways to get around so that we can avoid exercise at all cost?

Surely when our societies were hunters and gatherers, we were in great shape because we had to hunt down the food we were going to eat that night. And we weren't eating fried potatoes.

But that wasn't sustainable for the long haul. It seemed easier, and profitable, to do the hunting FOR other people. Then we'd sell them the food. That'd make it easier. Then we'd be able to feed more people more efficiently. And we are humans...we love efficiency. We build tools to help us be more efficient.

It's obvious what has occurred: we've built tools to help make our lives easier. That's why we are all addicted to our smart phones and iPads. We spend more time inside than any generation before us. We walk and run less than any other generation because there are enough distractions other than exercise. And it has come to the point that when we are walking around the mall our mood goes down when we see stairs, because we'd rather ride the escalator.

But I return to my original thought: discipline. Have we become undisciplined and lazy?

Or, has laziness simply become a byproduct of progress? Or "naturally", are we more inclined to create tools to help us? Or is the hunting and gathering mindset what is really "natural"?

Which leads me to my ultimate thought: does what is "natural" always fit into a societal norm? And, is what is "natural" always the high road and good?

Some people are born with a chemical imbalance that leads them to abuse alcohol. We all know the phrase, even after you're clean, "Once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." On ABC Family's "Switched at Birth", one of the characters is an alcoholic. She's hard on her biological daughter who chose to drink prior to being an adult. The daughter didn't understand why she was being so hard on her. But the mother explained that she simply doesn't have luxury of being able to have one drink. It's not possible because of who she is. But just because her bodily inclinations and behavior lead her to act in certain ways, doesn't mean that society thinks it is okay to be an alcoholic. We look down on drunks.

The same is true of drug users.

The same has been said of gay people.

And so, I suppose the question ought to be asked of societal norms: are societal norms (and accepted practices) based on what we might consider "destructive" behavior? In other words, do we judge others' actions because what they do puts them (and often others) at risk of dying sooner than they might?

The extremely obese people will die because their body and heart simply can't keep up. Alcohol abusers will drive themselves out of house, home, and family, because they use alcohol to cope. Drug abusers run the very real risk of overdosing or taking something that they thought was something else.

And they all become addicts. They become so engorged in what they are doing that they don't care about anything. They lose their families, they lose their jobs, they lose their lives.

Because these things...the unnatural foods, the copious amounts of alcohol, the drugs, all seem...unnatural.

The laziness is unnatural. Because that's not how we once lived.

And we draw this line to connect the dots between "unnatural" and "destructive". And we assume, in almost every instance, that these two are inherently connected.

And if we think under that paradigm, we can perhaps see why homosexuality has been treated, in our society, the way it has. Biblically, it seems unnatural. Many of the conservative voices have argued time and time again that it is "destructive" to our society because it breaks down how we view humanity and the design of a family. Many view it as an addiction, one that can be "treated" (see Michele Bachmann's husband).

Because we've connected those dots. We operate under that mindset. We equate "unnatural" with "bad". We think everything that is "unnatural" is "destructive".

There's no doubt in my mind that many of the Biblical writers (for the most part) consider being gay (or participating in homosexual acts) "unnatural". AND, because of the societal norms of their culture, and the cultures working against them, they equated "unnatural" with "bad" or "sinful".

So the question becomes: can we read "unnatural" in the Scriptures and equate it with our definition of unnatural now...post French Fry? Can we read into God's creation of Adam and Eve and assume that that is what is "natural"?

Because that is what we are doing. We are reading texts out of context. We are placing our own 21st century definitions on words used thousands of years ago. And we assume, that because what seems unnatural now has proven itself to be destructive, that that's what "unnatural" has always and will always mean. And we assume that what society currently considers "normal" behavior is the correct way to be. And when we do that, we lose sight of humanity and of God's creation of it.

It's a tough thought process, one with unclear implications and most likely more divisiveness than unity. It's troubling.

I was not born with an inherent desire to exercise. I have always been a fan of progress. This is the "unnatural" reality I live in. At the end of the day, I really like my iPad...but I still need to exercise.

-B

Yes, I know this doesn't make a clear and decisive argument, as you might be used to getting. That's because I'm not sure this can all be answered.

My Favorite Steve Pictures

As I was looking through my iPhoto library, I realized that I've saved many many pictures of Steve Jobs from google searches, articles, etc. I thought that I'd share some of my favorites.

I do not own these pictures, I do not make any money from this website, and I'm sure that this breaks all kinds of copyright rules. I'm almost positive that any of these can be found fairly easily in a google image search, so I have not taken any care of referencing where they came from. Deal with it.

We may one day (maybe today) remember this as the product that saved Apple.

What an elegant shot of him during one of his assumedly stressful keynote presentations.

We will one day look back on this day as the day the computer industry changed forever.

A classic of him and Woz.

I think that it was at this point that he knew he had something great.

His baby, and what eventually got him fired.

His D Conference interviews were outstanding.

Steve reflecting on stage about where his company came from.

The Pirates Of Silicon Valley movie portrays this day as the day he became a true salesman.

TIME magazine always has the best photos. If you disagree, you're wrong.

The presence and prominence of the wedding band here is most intriguing.


Without a doubt, my favorite. So young, so much spunk, such a smirk, it sums it all up so nicely.



-B

Auto-Tuned Steve Jobs

Steve's famous words from his Stanford Commencement speech, put to music.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4VTZx5jcnQ&]

-B

Steve Steps Down

Over the past six years or so, I've become increasingly obsessed with Apple Computer (of course, they dropped the "computer" part of their name several years back).

Of it, probably, my greatest obsession has been with one of its cofounders, Steve Jobs.

The man is remarkable. He has a keen sense of taste, a clear vision for the future, he is unapologetic about his decision making, and Apple has been, thus far in history, unable to turn profit and survive without his leadership. He literally took a company on the verge of disaster and bankruptcy and spent ten years growing it into the colossal giant that it is today. He knows how to hire great people who design and build great products that help us with our everyday lives.

Today, Steve stepped down as CEO. He's leaving his highly influential position (some might say, controlling) in the company that he built. In his parents' garage.

His letter:

To the Apple Board of Directors and the Apple Community:

I have always said if there ever came a day when I could no longer meet my duties and expectations as Apple’s CEO, I would be the first to let you know. Unfortunately, that day has come.

I hereby resign as CEO of Apple. I would like to serve, if the Board sees fit, as Chairman of the Board, director and Apple employee.

As far as my successor goes, I strongly recommend that we execute our succession plan and name Tim Cook as CEO of Apple.

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it. And I look forward to watching and contributing to its success in a new role.

I have made some of the best friends of my life at Apple, and I thank you all for the many years of being able to work alongside you.

Steve

Short and sweet, to the point, as usual.

I have often referenced Steve's leadership and vision for the company in regards to Walt Disney's influence in the monstrosity that is Disney. I have even mentioned before that I feared the way that Steve might leave Apple, as Walt left Disney. But at this point it is clear that this won't be the way it will go.

While this knowledge might make this a little easier, it doesn't truly make the concept of losing the man who brought all this into being any easier to swallow. Steve will no longer be leading this company. It will be weird, it will be difficult, and it will be uneasy.

Is it a rough day? Yes. Is it a sad day? I don't think so.

I suppose the real question is: where does Apple, as a company, go from here?

Undoubtedly Tim Cook will step in as Apple's CEO, and Steve will continue to have a significant amount of influence in the accountability of Cook and future product decisions. The truth remains though...the boat has a new captain.

Here's where we are fortunate: Cook knows what he is doing. Cook has been managing operations for quite some time now and has brought Apple the sales numbers that we keep hearing about. Cook managed product shortages when people just HAVE to get their hands on them, and he certainly added to the continuing profit gains Apple's been reporting. The good news is that I think Apple is going to be alright.

One of the things that I've done a lot of in the past few years is listen to every extended interview Steve Jobs has given throughout time. There aren't many of them, but Steve has always chosen his words and actions carefully, and that makes these presentations and interviews unbelievably interesting to parse.

Even the biggest anti-Apple pundit you might encounter will admit that Steve has preached, yes...preached, a mindset and attitude to his people: Great products, great products, great products. He has always defended Apple by preaching and evangelizing about the products. He has an eye for beauty, simplicity, and innovation and is unafraid to make difficult decisions. He has always believed that if Apple makes good products, and they tell people about them, people will buy them. If enough people buy them, he gets to come to work tomorrow. This is his understanding of capitalism and a free market. This is his understanding of the world.

And so, the questions remains: will Steve's vision be carried through into the future?

This question, obviously, remains to be answered. Tim Cook is not the stage man that Jobs is. Tim Cook does not have persona that Jobs has. But Tim Cook has proven himself as a businessman. Tim Cook has proven himself as a manager. Tim Cook has proven himself as an unbelievable CEO.

Apple is going to be more than alright. Apple is going to be stellar.

What's my proof? Apple's culture.

Steve has left a message and mission. Steve has left a culture. Steve's words, thoughts, and dreams will forever be captured in his interviews, products, and legacy. If you meet someone at the Apple store, or any employee of Apple, you will know what I am talking about. It becomes more than a selling point. It becomes a life, a system, a love.

Outsiders think we are crazy. We probably are.

"While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE&]

Steve said it best:

I believe Apple’s brightest and most innovative days are ahead of it.

-B

Friends, I'd like to leave you with my favorite of Steve's videos. This is why I think he "gets it".

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob_GX50Za6c&]

To honor Steve, I wrote this entirely on my iPad. The future, friends. The future.

The iPad, errrr, "Tablet" Market

You may have heard. HP, the company who likely made many of the laptops you see in day to day ongoings, announced yesterday that they are completely going out of the consumer product business.

The Wall Street Journal writes this of the conference call:

“The tablet effect is real, and sales of the TouchPad are not meeting our expectations,” Apotheker says, explaining the movement of consumers from PCs to tablets as one of the problems with the PC division. So H-P is exploring options for its unit that “may include separation through spinoff or other transactions.”

The iPad is killing computer sales. HP thought they could be a part of this paradigm shift, but they've proven that they can't.

Only problem: HP spent a significant amount of money on producing their tablet, the HP TouchPad, which was reported as having abysmal sales since its introduction 49 days before its demise.

Literally, this thing was on the market for 49 days before HP threw in the towel. 49 days. They dropped the price by $100. They promoted the heck out of it. 49 days.

Absolute failure.

And it's really a shame. the TouchPad was easily (in my opinion) the best iPad competitor. It was behind in speed, app market, thickness, OS robustness, and physical locations to buy it, but it was easily better than anything else on the market. Besides the iPad.

And when someone goes to buy a tablet with $500 in hand, they're going to choose the iPad over the TouchPad. This is reality.

Today, HP dropped the price to $99. $99! It made even me think about buying one. Because a full tablet (no matter whether it is dead end or not) for $99 is a clear steal.

Problem? You can't find them. All the retail chains are reporting to be out of them, and the geeks are going crazy buying them up. Because for $99, why not?

Then I see this nonsense on Facebook:

Well HP has proven one thing: There's a LOT of interest in tablets, just not at $500. Which is...exactly what a lot of us have been saying all along: Apple fanboys would buy the iPad at $20,000; the rest of us would only buy it at $200 or less.

Wrong.

Apple announced several months ago that they'd sold 25 million iPads. Some at $499. Some at $829. That's more than fanboys. That's more than Apple elite. It's because Apple came into a brand new market with a price that competed SIGNIFICANTLY with anything ANYONE ELSE would be able to create. Why? Because Apple bought a huge supply of flash memory in bulk, lowering their cost. Why? Because they integrate the hardware and software better than anyone else.

Apple created a market, an interest, and a device that completely changed who Apple is and the future the tech industry is taking. They did it at a competitive price (one others couldn't match) and sold the heck out of it.

HP isn't proving that there is an interest in tablets. HP is proving that if you create a product that is worse than a competitor's and sell it at the same price, people won't buy it; then if you lower the price by $400 and sell it significantly under your own cost, then you might be able to sell the remaining tiny stock you have already produced, at what could eventually be a several million dollar (perhaps billion dollar) company loss. Cool work, HP.

There is a tablet market, but HP didn't prove anything. Apple did, and they did it in the way that counts...profit.

25 million. And that's before my dad bought one.

-B

Google Buys Motorola, Forgets What "Open" Means

Since Android made its public debut in Google's hands, it has been touted as being the up and coming "open" system of the future.  Inside of all of us, we all like a little bit of socialism, so it made sense for Google to use this to market themselves. When Android first popped up on the G1, it was clear (from its design alone) who its major competitor was going to be...Apple. Apple is not a company that would ever describe themselves as "open". In fact, Apple uses the fact that they are defiantly "closed" to have more control over their products.  It allows them to have a true...taste...to their products and the market has proven that this had made for very successful products.

Google touts itself as being free, existent for the masses, and "open". This is their marketing ploy.

But it's not that they're really open. The way they've handled Android has been anything but a true "open" system. You might say that when they say "open", they really mean, "We aren't Apple."

Today, Google made a move that supports these thoughts. Google announced that they are going to be purchasing Motorola Mobile, the company that has been manufacturing some of their Android handsets since the beginning of the DROID movement. Google says that they purchased Motorola because of their patents, as a way to "protect" Android from the evil "AppleSoft" hand that has come down on them recently. You'll remember my take on it.

It is true that Motorola had a bunch of patents that will help strengthen Android's arms (because as of late, the amount of patents you own correlates directly with how well you do and how little you get sued).

What's curious to me is that Google almost immediately posted comments from the other manufacturers that make Android handsets. Here's a few examples:

“We welcome today’s news, which demonstrates Google’s deep commitment to defending Android, its partners, and the ecosystem.”

– J.K. Shin President, Samsung, Mobile Communications Division

 

“We welcome the news of today‘s acquisition, which demonstrates that Google is deeply committed to defending Android, its partners, and the entire ecosystem.”

– Peter Chou CEO, HTC Corp.

 

“We welcome Google‘s commitment to defending Android and its partners.”

– Jong-Seok Park, Ph.D President & CEO, LG Electronics Mobile Communications Company

 

This isn't all of them (you can read the others here), but you get the idea.

A few things strike my mind:

  • These comments all seem remarkably similar (and the speakers of them have been remarkably silent today)
  • Google posted these almost immediately (I would think for fear of the press thinking this was a poor idea)
And why? Because it is a poor idea.
You can't blame Google for wanting to buy up patents. After all, that's what they were upset at AppleSoft about.
But Google is now going to be running Motorola. They've announced that it'll be a separate function and business, but it will still be a Google business. The CEO will have to take care with it.  It will affect their bottom line.  It will become, in just a matter of time, a conflict of interest for Google when it comes to working with other manufacturers.
This is different than just buying up patents.  This is buying a company...a company that directly competes with other companies that use your product. The other companies will have to compete to survive against you. Then your company will have to compete to survive against them. And you own the OS.  You'll start thinking about who should get new updates first.  You'll start thinking that you can use this to get a competitive advantage.
Andy Rubin (head of Android at Google) has said many times that Google's Nexus phones and tablets are examples of what can be accomplished when the hardware and software manufacturers work together perfectly. This has been Apple's approach since the beginning. This will surely be one of Google's approaches moving forward.
But make no bones about it, this is Google making itself available to have more control over the end product. Hopefully, this will create better products. But along with that, leaves the idea of "open".
Apple has said it from the beginning: Control is good. Control creates better products. Does it eliminate a little user-friendly choice? Sure. But I don't remember people asking for choice recently.  I remember people asking for a good phone, one that works.
This is a good move for Google, I think. But they may truly tarnish their name before it is all over. HTC, LG, etc are going to be eating their words soon.
Goodbye "open". Welcome, "quality".
-B

 

 

 

 

Microsoft's Home of the Future

Interactive, projection displays everywhere. Cool ideas, though I wish the video had been a little more thorough. Seem like I might get a headache with that many screens moving around me all of the time...but I'd sure give it a shot.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo-fRuuwoPI]

Microsoft is a great company and I look forward to their future endeavors as they continue on the legacy they've built thus far. My hear cries for them to get back into the game.

-B

Google: The Whining Bully

I don't remember the days before Google. Actually, I do. I remember Ask Jeeves (marketing used to the max), Dogpile, Yahoo (do people still use Yahoo?), AOL keywords, and so many other search engines and tools to navigate through the seemingly endless supply of websites online.

My children, though, will never know the days without Google.

We can argue left or right all day long about whether or not Google's impact on society has been positive or negative, but we will all agree that Google is present, in a big way, in all of our lives. We might even say that without Google in our lives, our existences would become a little more inconvenient. Things that we take for granted now would be gone.

We all know this. Perhaps more importantly, Google knows this. And for the better half of the last ten years, Google has been used to getting their way. They've made it their goal to document all of the ongoings of every part of the world, and have been (since day one) relatively unapologetic about their approaches.

Perhaps the best part of Google's plan? Everything is free. Everything Google offers (or seemingly everything) is free of charge to the end user. So with an almost endless supply of funding, a seemingly completely free product(s), and some of the smartest brains in the world on staff, Google has risen to the commercial power that they are today. Because Google sells ads on everything they produce, they make more and more money. Because they offer it for free, they gain more and more users. The only thing it costs the user: their information and privacy. Great deal, huh?

Whatever you think, their business model is very different than the ones of other companies.

A few months after the original iPhone released, Google made some of the work they had been doing on mobile devices known to the public. They had purchased a company writing mobile operating system software (Android Inc.) and decided (with a small alliance) to begin a movement toward popularizing open source software on mobile phones. Mobile phones had been plagued for years by the software that sat on them because the carriers locked down features, removed featured and mostly, crippled the phones. When Apple approached the first iPhone, they swore to take the control of the software themselves. When Android was announced, the pitch made was that NO ONE would have control over the device. It wouldn't cost to develop for it, it wouldn't cost to sell your app, it wouldn't cost to put the operating system on a device, and ANYONE could change whatever they wanted. Google wasn't releasing a phone, they were releasing an open source operating system.

Because for it to make any sense in Google's portfolio, it had to be completely free.

I'll, at this time, forego the argument that by giving up control over the operating system, Google gave control back to the cash-hungry-rotten-steal-all-your-money carriers.

Besides a few hurt feelings and harsh words between the two upcoming industry leaders, life went on as normal. The market, because it was free to put on any device, was flooded with Android handsets and devices and as time went on and the operating system became a little more refined, Google's Android became the number one used mobile operating system on a smart phone.

And sales at Apple remained positive. And companies like HTC and Samsung were able to make a significant mark in sales, when their numbers had previously paled in comparison to RIM's BlackBerry sales. And while it remained competitive, things were going along fine. More people were buying smart phones. A previously untapped market was beginning to be tapped.

Then crap went down.

A series of patents came up for sale from tech giant Nortel. Among the bidders for these patents: Apple, RIM, Google, and Microsoft. Google reportedly bid 3.14159 billion US dollars for these series of patents, while Microsoft and Apple (and others) bid together 4.5 billion US dollars for these patents. The highest bidder wins. And they did.

And that's all great. But Google wasn't happy.

Mostly because if these patents belong to Android's competitors, it will cost royalty money to put Android on a device. Google says somewhere in the range of $15 per unit.

The bottom line: putting Android on a device will no longer be free.

David Drummond (SVP and CLO for Google) posted a blog post called "When Patents Attack" claiming that these companies were ganging up against Google in an effort to stop Android and oppress them. Some highlights:

Microsoft and Apple have always been at each other’s throats, so when they get into bed together you have to start wondering what's going on.

But Android’s success has yielded something else: a hostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft, Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through bogus patents.

A smartphone might involve as many as 250,000 (largely questionable) patent claims, and our competitors want to impose a “tax” for these dubious patents that makes Android devices more expensive for consumers. They want to make it harder for manufacturers to sell Android devices. Instead of competing by building new features or devices, they are fighting through litigation.

Patents were meant to encourage innovation, but lately they are being used as a weapon to stop it.

I might actually argue that patents were not intended to encourage innovation, as much as to protect innovation. Sure, knowing your innovations are protected is encouragement, but that was not the point of them.

Google is claiming that this group of companies is fighting against them through litigation. But Google forgets to mention that they ran into the other people's business with a free product, determined to overrun the market. Microsoft has to charge for their software...its their business, it is how they make money. To truly compete (with open source software), companies like Microsoft would have to have that revenue from somewhere else. They'd have to develop the ad revenue that Google has. And, at this point, it's impossible. Google is such a large corporation that almost no one can compete with their power. How can Microsoft win hardware manufacturers' hearts because Google has such a large ad revenue that they can afford to make it free?

They can't.

It's as if the I-make-the-rules-because-I-own-the-guns gang leader gets upset because the rival gang leader goes out and buys his own gun. Oh no, who makes the rules now? Who enforces what rule now?

In the business world, you have to play by the rules of the game...whatever that game is, at whatever time it happens to be. If you want a piece of mobile advertising, you partner with a computer giant for their release and then go behind their backs and release a similar mobile operating system for free so that the cost to manufacturers is much lower. If you feel as if you're losing ground to an operating system that is being given out for free and you know that that operating system violates several patents that a now defunct tech company owns, you buy them up to even the playing field.

It's the way that business works. It's the way the world works.

So, play by the rules. Throw the cheap shots. Invade others' turf. Undercut their margins and prices. Talk yourself up and convince people to become addicted to your products.

Do all these things, because it's business, innovation, and the American Dream.

But for God's sake, don't complain about it.

You were the one who spurred it on to begin with.

-B

For the record, I really enjoy both Google and Apple's business models. I think Google's is a bit scarier but I have faith that our government will help keep us protected in a situation where Google would become Big Brother. I'm just, as in the case of Casey Anthony, tired of people (especially company leaders) publicly complaining about how the rules were followed.

Play the game, because the game is all you have.

Apple TV, iCloud, and The Future

When Steve Jobs introduced iCloud at WWDC, he announced a new thing called iTunes in the Cloud.  In essence, iTunes now makes all of the music that you purchased from iTunes in the past available to download onto any iOS device or Mac you own. One problem though: how much music have you bought from iTunes? In recent years, probably a decent amount.  But in the past, perhaps not as much. Problem solved: he then announced iTunes Match, a $25 a year service that takes your iTunes library and matches the music you own (legally acquired or not) and matches it with the high quality iTunes files.

This makes one thing possible: if your hard drive goes down, your iTunes will be backed up in their cloud services. Thanks Apple, nice touch.

Today, quietly, Apple updated the software in the second generation Apple TVs and allowed for any iTunes TV Shows purchases you ever made to be streamed to the Apple TV over the internet.  Kind of like Netflix, but with content you've already purchased.

Presumably, after more deals are made, iTunes Movies will be next.

Before we press on, allow me to explain to you what I do on a regular basis now. Throughout my life, before things like Netflix and Hulu, I purchased a lot of content on optical discs (DVDs). I got a little addicted to the 4-for-$20 deals at Blockbuster. We bought (or usually, received as gifts) TV seasons of shows that we enjoy.  And pretty soon, we had a nice little library of DVDs that had to find a place to sit in our tiny apartment.

One thing has struck me as strange throughout the past couple of years though: why do we do this? You know where my collection of CDs is? I have no idea. I really don't know.  Every piece of audio I own has been ripped into my iTunes library. Prior to Amazon Cloud Player, Google Music, and iTunes in the Cloud if my hard drive crashed, I'd consider my library of music gone. Not because I don't have the physical CDs (for a lot of them, I do), but because the amount of effort to find and rip would be too much to go through.  From the time when I first learned of digital music players (and particularly, the one that could hold ALL of my library in my pocket...iPod), I knew that optical media was going away. And it was going away quickly.

So, recently, I've been doing the same to my video collection. Slowly, but surely, I ripped all 9 seasons of the King of Queens onto my computer. It took time, yes, but it was well worth it. Because here is the process I used to have to go through to watch an episode:

  1. Decide I want to watch a random episode of the King of Queens.
  2. Go get a season from the bookshelf.
  3. Open the box.
  4. Find a disc (usually three or four per box)
  5. Put it in the DVD player.
  6. Wait for the opening menus (that don't allow you to fast forward) to end.
  7. Pick an episode.
  8. Press play.
But here's how I usually watched an episode: TiVo. If there wasn't a recent episode to watch on TiVo, I just didn't bother.
Last year, Apple introduced iTunes Home Sharing, allowing the new Apple TVs (and an iOS device on the same Wireless network) to access your iTunes library. Thanks to my handy ripping, here is my new process:
  1. Decide I want to watch a random episode of the King of Queens.
  2. Change the input of the TV to Apple TV.
  3. Choose an episode.
  4. Press Play
Because of this, I literally haven't used TiVo in months.


When it comes to personal digital content, I am convinced that this is the only way going forward.


And as always, there's a catch: Apple TV must connect to an iTunes library. Which means that your computer must be on, awake, and iTunes open in order for Apple TV to see it.


So this update today: big news or small news? BIG news. Why? Because now, you can watch anything you purchased through iTunes anywhere.  At the airport and forgot to sync that TV show you've been meaning to watch? No problem, download it from iTunes.  You bought it, right? You have the right to watch it. FINALLY.


But there's a catch: how many TV Shows have you purchased from iTunes?  Not many, I'd bet. Why? Lots of reasons: too expensive, crazy copy protection, only digital forms (can't lend them to people, etc), and more. Instead, you'd do what I did.  Buy it at Target on sale, rip it all and THEN access it. Or if you didn't know how to do that, you'd still be using those silly old things called DVD players.


Which leads me to my proposal: iTunes Match for TV and Movies. PLEASE, Apple.


Here's how iTunes Match works (from what we know).  Apple went to the Music companies and asked for it.  They most likely said no. Then Apple said, "We'll pay you large sums of money.  You're not getting a dime from people stealing music now, how about we do this and give you large sums of money?" To which the music companies thought, "Good point." This is the same reason Netflix has a bunch of content you may never watch.  Netflix approached the studios and said, "Listen, you've got content collecting dust on shelves not making ANY money.  How about we write you a check and you let us stream it?" To which the studios thought, "Good point."


This needs to happen with iTunes TV Shows and Movies. I own a bunch of video content in optical form. And I definitely don't want to have to buy it again. BUT, if I could pay a yearly fee (probably more that $25) and could give it the bar codes to everything I own and then have that content on any iOS device I want, whenever I want, however I want, it'd be worth every dime.


The studios would get more money than I've already paid them, and for those who stole episodes of this and that...the studios would be getting something from someone they weren't getting anything from. Everyone wins.

Every time you go to Target, more and more optical content is priced cheaper and cheaper. Why? Because Netflix and Hulu are popular. And because it makes less and less sense as time goes on.  Netflix doesn't have the King of Queens or the Big Bang Theory. And if I stop paying my subscription, Netflix goes away. I need a way to access my content that I own, in as convenient a way as I have through Netflix and Hulu.


Please, Apple, hear my cry.


-B

Scrolling in Mac OS Lion

Apple released the newest version of what they call "the most advanced operating system on the planet" on Wednesday, as expected, at 8:30 in the morning. It is the first operating system (by Apple) to be distributed solely by online digital means at launch and is highly encouraged to be installed without any use of optical discs, USB drives, etc. Supposedly, Apple will sell copies of OS X Lion in the coming months in their retail stores for $69 on a USB stick.

While $69 is still cheaper than your typical install of Windows, it is basically what you pay $29 on the Mac App Store on a USB drive. The USB drive would only need to be about 4GB in size (and you can buy these as low as $8 on Amazon) so a $30ish markup sends the customer one clear message from Apple: download this, don't buy a physical copy. When they released the Mac App Store not long ago they dropped the price of their photo editing software, Aperture, from $200 to $80. The price didn't drop on the copy with physical discs. If you went into an Apple store and bought Aperture you would pay $199. If you wised up, went home, and downloaded it online through the Mac App Store, you could install it on any machine you own as many times as you'd like for no more than $79. Apple is getting rid of optical media(DVDs) in a large way and is more or less pushing their customers into the future...like it or not.

This is all well and good, but if the download and install for Lion went horribly wrong (think MobileMe), Apple would have to answer for this seemingly hasty decision.

But it didn't.

It installed perfectly, without a single hitch, on both of our machines and seems to be running well. The rest of Apple customers seem to be saying the same thing. More than a million people downloaded Lion on day one and everything everyone has said has been more than positive about the download and install process.

I have had limited experience with it thus far as we have been traveling, but I really do like it. And to be able to install it on as many machines as you own for $29 is more than a good deal, it is a steal. To not upgrade to Lion seems absurd, unless $30 is really a huge strain on your wallet. If you through down the >$1000 on the computer to begin with, chances are that you can afford the $30 upgrade. If you're even considering it, and don't have a legitimate reason not to (some of the old PowerPC apps will not run anymore in Lion), it seems very dumb not to do it. You don't have to got to the store to buy a disc, you don't have to have it shipped. You simply pay $30 through your iTunes account and download. Within an hour and a half, you've got the brand new operating system.

Many, many things have changed in Lion. Almost 100% of these changes are easily seen as good, from the user's perspective, right from the start.

One, though, has been getting some backlash.

For years, you've been able to scroll on the Mac using either a scroll wheel on a non-Apple branded mouse, the Apple Magic Mouse, the Apple Magic Trackpad, or the trackpad on your laptop.

I assume that scrolling really evolved from the directional arrows that have sat on the side of our browsers and windows since the beginning. If more content went past what was currently visible on the screen, you clicked on the down arrow to move the page downward. You could also click on the scroll bar and move it toward the bottom.

Scrolling, without having to interact with the side scroll bar, developed from this idea. The most common way on a Mac has been with two-finger swipes on the trackpad. If you want to go down on the page, you swipe with two fingers downward. It makes sense, right? Not anymore.

One of the things Apple is starting to do with Mac OS X Lion is to bring some of the quality designs and decisions they made with iOS back to the Mac. One of the most immediately evident is...scrolling.

On an iPad, iPhone, or iPod touch, when a user wants to scroll through a web page (and much of what users do on these devices is completely through the browser), they take their finger (on an iOS device it is just one finger) and "push" the content on the screen around. This process is actually exactly opposite of the Mac's directions, but gives the user the sensation that they are physically manipulating the content on the page with their hands. Apple really debuted this concept with the outset of the iPhone with "pinch to zoom" multitouch but didn't speak at all about how scrolling worked on the iPhone. It just made sense.

The decision seems easy. The layer of abstraction is gone when a mouse and keyboard are gone, so why create another layer? The user knows there is more content they wish to view. So, like in the real world, they physically move the content in front of them, out of the way. You never have to explain to the four year old manipulating your iPad how to scroll a page, they just do it. Because it feels natural.

So on Mac OS Lion, Apple decided to reverse the scrolling. They decided to call this new scrolling "natural" because it feels more "natural". You can tell there was some internal conflict at Apple about this because the VERY first thing you see when you start up Lion is a welcome box that explains how scrolling works in Lion. They are very conscious that this is going to be very different and very frustrating at first to seasoned users. And, if you're reading this and thinking that this isn't good at all and is the sole reason not to update, have no fear, this can easily be changed by unchecking one box in System Preferences (another example of why, perhaps, everyone at Apple was not in total agreement).

The idea is simple. If we are going to interact with the content on our computer in the same way we interact with the information in physical form in our lives, the way we interact with it needs to feel more natural.

Which brings me to my plea: don't uncheck that box. Give yourself some time. Allow your brain to relearn how to interact with everything. Because, in general, this too is a good change. We want to feel as if we are directly manipulating content on a screen. And, in order to do that, we need to get rid of the layers of abstraction that have existed because we couldn't think of a better way when we all began.

Here's where I think Apple went wrong though: Why even refer to it as scrolling? When Phil Schiller introduced it, he described it as "pushing the content" but he stilled called it "scrolling". They shouldn't have stuck with that name. "Pushing" is much, much better. Instead of a welcome screen titled "Scrolling in Lion" it should have read "Pushing in Lion". Because really, we aren't scrolling anymore. We are manipulating. And when we need to move from top to bottom, scrolling seems silly, we are pushing. In that sense, it wouldn't appear as if Apple simply reversed the way it used to work, they just came up with a new plan, a new concept, a new paradigm of thinking. Imagine Apple saying, "scrolling is out. We don't need it anymore. Now, we just push. So from now on, we call it 'Pushing'. Welcome to the new "Pushing" in Lion, it is more natural, revolutionary, and...magical." It would have brought the house down.

Give it a shot. Don't uncheck that box. It took me only a couple of hours to get used to it. It was very, very strange at first, but as we move more into the world of touch screens and manipulated content, "pushing" is the future, not scrolling.

Apple has always been a company to make big sweeping decisions and force customers into the future. They put the computer in one box and gave it a mouse and new user interface (but what about our command lines?). They took the floppy out of the iMac (how absurd!). They took the CD out of music (it's a shame that didn't work out). They took the keyboard off a smart phone (that's been totally unpopular and never was copied). They took the keyboard off of the tablet(gosh, if only 28.6 million of those hadn't been sold). They ended scrolling on a screen (if only they had marketed it that way). In every instance, it has been met with much positive approval and has led to a complete paradigm shift of thinking in the computer industry.

Stick with it. It'll get better.

-B

Samsung Steals. Again and Again and Again.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried. I mean, down to the colors!

Found via John Gruber here.

It really is too bad that they couldn't do any better though.

-B

Alas, I couldn't find it on their site. I hope this is real.

UPDATE: This was built by Anymode, Inc. Some knock off Korean company. Samsung did, though, certify it. Awesome.

Schmoyoho

They're at it again. The newest creation: [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP4NMoJcFd4&]

and, the infamous (and incredibly annoying) original

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTTwcCVajAc&]

Yes, I downloaded their app. I'll let you know how it is.

-B

Selling Your Information, or, Google+

So the newest Google product made its way unceremoniously to the public's eye yesterday. We all had a feeling that it was coming.

This is the way Google does things isn't it? If they have something they are fairly confident in (Google Music, Android, etc) they talk about it at their developers conferences, much like Apple does. However, Google also does a lot of experimenting with products. These they often release under the radar, hoping that the blogosphere will take care of it.

And, they do.

But it also always seems to be these products that seem the creepiest.

I must be clear before pressing on though: I do an awful lot of bad-mouthing of Google and their products. But GMail, without a doubt, is still the best email system in the world...Google is easily the best search engine in the world...Google Docs is still the best way to collaborate on documents in the world (but, really, that isn't saying much)...and the Google contacts, calendar, and ecosystem is currently the best free way to keep your life in sync. Google puts out a ton of great products. I don't happen to like Android as much as iOS, but Android is a REALLY strong mobile operating system and each time I pick up one of my parents' phones, I am pleasantly surprised. So, I hate on Google a bit too much, but there is no denying that most of what they do is quality work; it just doesn't have the style, elegance, or seamless user experience that Apple has come to be known for...yet.

And Google's newest product is...Google+.

Google+ is, very simply put, an attempt at creating a better version of Facebook and Twitter. It takes ideas and concepts from both and uses them in nice, new ways.

Given Google's previous work in the web app space, they have a fair chance. Given Google's previous work in the social media space, they have no chance at all.

But all that aside, I can't review Google+ yet. I CAN say that it looks very promising. But, it is missing many more things (and I mean this almost literally: in the thousands) to be able to compete with the monstrosity that is Facebook. But, for what it is and where it is, it is very, very good.

Here's my fear: how does Google make its money?

Google's revenue is based almost completely in advertising (something like 96% of its revenue). This is no secret to the world. This is why when your mom emails you about buying your dad a tie, you see ads about ties in the bottom of your gmail. Google is using what should be private, sensitive information to advertise to you within not just search results, but your email client and many other things.

Facebook has received a lot of criticism in the past about how much information they have of yours and how they use it to make money. And don't try to sugar-coat it: Facebook is doing the exact same thing that Google is doing. But Facebook has much more than sensitive information within in an email: they have your name, address, phone, email, likes/dislikes, political status, pictures, friend lists, location, etc.

But, up until this point, Facebook hasn't had my email (though they are actively trying to change that), calendar, contacts, etc. They have had sensitive information, but they haven't had all of it.

And Google saw that omission.

And they wanted in.

So they designed a sleek new social network, so they could get that information, easily. What's the easiest way to get someone's information? Don't steal it, you can go to jail for that. No, ask them for it. Don't worry, if you give them a cool video chat feature, they'll want it so badly that they'll give it to you.

Call me a fanboy or just old-fashioned, but I'd rather the company I rely on not get their revenue from advertising (with influence from my information). I'd rather they get their revenue from me buying their shiny gadgets. Because in that way, they don't have an interest in finding out more about me, they only have an interest in making better, more attractive products. It still works like...the free-market capitalistic society was designed to work.

It is true that Google isn't "selling your information." No, not in the way that we have always thought about it. They're not selling our phone numbers to telemarketers. And that information isn't really being "shared" with others other than Google. But really, it's not too different. That information may truly be "private" by the world's previous standards, but I have a feeling that our definition of privacy is being redefined on a daily basis. And I also have a hunch that we haven't even seen the beginning of the problems our addiction to social media networks will cause.

Eric Schmidt was asked recently, "Should we be scared that Google knows too much about us?" To which he responded, "Would you rather us know about you or the government know about you?"

Neither, Eric. But if I had to choose, I'd choose the one who wasn't making billions of dollars from that knowledge.

Oh, the world we live in.

And yes, I'm still going to give Google+ a try. I'm addicted, just like the rest of us.

-B

Final Cut Pro X = iOS

Apple released the new version of their professional video editing software Final Cut Pro. The older version is Final Cut Pro 7, the new version is a huge step forward...X. Within hours of the release, the critics came out in droves. They have been not only negative, but they've also used this to pass judgment on Apple as a company and the decisions they've chosen to make.

I need to make a few things clear before I move on:

  • I do not own Final Cut Pro X (I don't have the extra income to make a $300 purchase, especially for software I don't use on a regular basis)
  • I have read extensively on the new product (when Apple releases a "dud," it is always intriguing) and have considerable experience with Final Cut Pro 7 (though I am in now way, form, or fashion, a "professional" at Final Cut Pro).
  • Apple is a 90-90 company. Apple makes decisions based off of what 90% of the people want/need to do 90% of the time (I didn't come up with this myself, I stole it from Alex Lindsay, founder of the Pixel Corp).
Because of these things above, I've come to one basic conclusion: most who are criticizing the product (no matter their prestige in the video editing world) do not understand Apple as a company.  After all, Apple makes some seemingly-crazy decisions on a regular basis. They seem, under Steve's leadership, to be doing ok.
It is my goal here to draw comparisons between Final Cut Pro X and iOS, as Apple has made strategic decisions with both of the products.  I do, in fact, think that iOS is indicative of the direction and market Apple is pursuing. I think these decisions parallel, in many ways, the decision that Apple has made with Final Cut Pro.  It's not a clean analogy by any stretch of the imagination, but I think it has some ring of truth to it.
It's hard to remember the first iPhone now. But, not too hard.  There were no direct competitors.  Today is the four year anniversary of the launch of the original iPhone. Let's compare some features that we take for granted now, shall we?
The original iPhone had:
  • no multitasking (this is true of the original iPad as well, when it first released)
  • no third-party applications
  • no home screen backgrounds
  • no Microsoft Exchange support
  • no front-facing camera (the original iPad didn't have any cameras)
  • no 3G support or coverage
  • an audio jack that required an adapter for a regular headphone set
  • no intelligent way to deal with notifications
  • no push notifications
  • no user-replaceable battery (still true today)
Slowly, thanks to adequate competition from Android, Apple has added a majority of these over the past four years. Slowly, but surely, Apple has redesigned some of the most basic features in Mac OS X to work in ways that are best suited for the mobile environment.  Many argue whether these are the best strategies or not, but no one argues whether or not they are working...they are.
Because here is what happened with iOS: Apple wanted to make a mobile phone (Steve has discussed on stage that this actually started with the pursuit of a tablet device). It was important that this device be radically different than anything within the market.  Because the original idea came from a tablet form factor, a big candy-bar shaped piece of glass seemed like the best idea. If they could implement a worthwhile digital keyboard (and they did), then the full glass front would prove to be a great solution.  Apple had a leg up on the competition for two reasons:
  • they saw a new phone not as a mobile phone, but rather as a mobile computer.
  • they already had a phenomenal proprietary operating system.
The enabled them to start the iPhone OS with a strong foundation: Mac OS X.  This was, in fact, one of the points in Steve's original keynote when he introduced the iPhone. Here was the problem though: no one was going to use a mouse to navigate the iPhone's screen. Because Apple makes decisions often based on minimalism or simplicity, they also threw out the idea of using a stylus. Steve has said it before: When you throw out the stylus, you have to use your finger. Mac OS X was built so that someone could have the precision of the tip of a cursor.  Without a stylus, you don't have that precision. You have a finger tip, which is much, much cruder.
Apple, taking the foundational elements of Mac OS X, designed a completely new interface to the iPhone's operating system. It is important to understand this distinction. When Windows 7 went "touch-enabled" Microsoft did little more than make it a bit easier for a hardware manufacturer to add a touch screen. A touch experience on Windows 7 today is more than painful (try it and you'll see). Apple took a different approach. The rewrote EVERYTHING so that it would work with the point of a finger. iOS (originally called, iPhone OS) required Apple to, more or less, start over.
And start over they did.  If you look at the history of iOS, it becomes obvious that people at Apple sat down in a room and said, "If we were going to reinvent computing, what would we do different?"  You can imagine that they thought of things like malware, spam, viruses, ease of writing, finding, and downloading apps, battery life, the file system, price, etc. Little by little, with their own unique approach, Apple has fought each of these things. If there are features that people want/desire on an iPad or iPhone that their computer has, Apple slowly implements those features in a way that suits the device that they're running on.  It hasn't been perfect, but it is hard to argue that it hasn't worked.
So, how does this relate to Final Cut Pro?
Final Cut Pro 7 (the older version, just replaced with FCPX) was a 32-bit application. Apple has migrated most of their apps to 64-bit over time. Final Cut Pro was one of the last. And Final Cut Pro was on old product. Somewhere along the line, I imagine that it was decided that to take FCP to 64-bit, a significant amount of re-coding was going to need to have been done. Here is a big change, and it needs to be re-written to work well (sound familiar?).
One must imagine that at some point someone working on this re-coding said, "If we're going to re-write this anyway, why don't we just start over?" as if to say, "If we were going to reinvent movie editing, what would we do differently?"
And so they did. They did this a while back with iMovie. Now it was time for Final Cut Pro. So, they re-wrote it, from the ground up.
We can make a strong argument that Apple is willing to enrage 5,000 high-end professional users in order to satisfy 2 million new users.  That argument would be valid.  We can argue that they lowered the price to entice new users to come.  That argument would be valid.  We can argue that most of Hollywood is already using AVID and is unlikely to switch (editors get very quick and comfortable with editing environments that they know and love).  That argument would be valid.
But my argument is that they're starting over.
There are a lot of things that they've done well this time:
  • Distribution and licensing is much easier as it is handled through the App Store.
  • Stepping up from iMovie is much, much easier with the new FCPX.
  • Many of the extra features that used to exist in stand-alone applications are now well-integrated into the Final Cut Pro experience.
  • Magnetic timelines have made it so that non-educated or non-experienced users can easily perform tasks that used to be a burden.
  • The user interface resembles iMovie so that all of their products have a seamless workflow to them.
  • Rendering is done in the background so that the editor doesn't have to worry with telling the computer to re-render every video edit.
  • Final Cut Pro works works much better with Motion (so much so that using Motion to create FCP Title templates is much, much easier) than it ever did.
  • Everything is 64-bit.
  • Final Cut Pro renders footage more useful now that it has facial recognition built into its logging of clips.
  • Many, many more new features.
The two biggest complaints from the high-end professional world have been:
  • The interface is too foreign (unchangeable and too much like iMovie Pro)
  • It doesn't import old timelines and projects.
Apple has said that the second one is simply impossible. Many might ask, why would Apple go forward with a project that wasn't compatible with the old one? The answer is easy: when there is something better in the future (and for Apple, this is much better) a few sacrifices sometimes need to be made. Remember when the iMac released without a floppy disk drive? Yeah, that didn't work for them at all...
iOS was a complete re-write, leaving out key features until they could add them in a way that made sense.  Final Cut Pro X is a complete re-write, until they can add the features users want in a way that makes sense.  It's a compromise that Apple made to please tons and tons of amateur video editors at a low cost, knowing good and well that the high-high end market may react because it is...different.
It's almost like asking a computer programmer to write an app on the original iPhone.  They'd probably laugh.  When you asked why they were laughing, they'd say, "It doesn't have the right tools."  To which you would reply, "yet."
Does this hurt their growth in the high-end professional market? Probably.
Does it help their growth in the low-end amateur market?  Without a doubt.
The high-end market is tiny.  The low-end market is huge.
Can you really blame a company for making any different of a decision?
People really seem to like their iPhones and iPads.
-B

Conan on Final Cut Pro X

Apple released their new professional grade Final Cut Pro X. Problem is, it isn't professional grade. They've received some...negative press from the professional editing world about it. Conan, though, had the best take on it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxKYuF9pENQ&]

In reality, the fact that they could make this video actually speaks highly of the product. It's nice work.

Apple doesn't have many business disasters. This might be their first in a while. Here's to hoping that they can figure out some way to please those with the loudest voices.

-B

Everything is a Remix: Progress and Innovation

This is the third installment in the "Everything is a Remix" series by a guy named Kirby. These are VERY well done and if innovation, progress, and the future of creation are of any interest to you, you ought to sit back and watch this for 11 minutes.  Make sure you stay until the end, after the credits. [vodpod id=Video.11432879&w=425&h=350&fv=]

It is, without a doubt, an interesting take on the world and the progress within it. It is true that Apple did not outright invent Graphical User Interfaces (most people ought to be aware that it was a visit to the Xerox campus that changed Steve Jobs.  He has been quoted as saying, "They showed us three things that day but I didn't see the other two.  I was so caught up with the first thing that I missed the rest of the presentation.") Apple did, however, innovate in many ways.  As the video points out, they made things easier, they made things make more sense.  Those are innovations. They innovated in price, too, which made it more acceptable to the commercial market.

I don't think anyone doubts that one company or person has created things that were simply unheard of before. Some do, however, have better methods of creation and presentation that truly allows something to become...new. Apple has done this in computers since the late 70's.  Disney has done this in animation and theme parks since well before that.

This quote from Henry Ford can be found at the end of the video:

I invented nothing new.

I simply assembled the discoveries of other men behind whom were centuries of work. Had I worked fifty or ten or even five years before, I would have failed.

So it is with every new thing.  Progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready, and then it is inevitable.

To teach that a comparatively few men are responsible for the greatest forward steps of mankind is the worst sort of nonsense.

-Henry Ford

-B

John Gruber says Kirby "nailed it."  I think I agree.