AT&Terrible

It was September 11, 2009.

I was newly married and was beginning to learn what it meant to be an adult. But, I was still tied to my parents' cell phone plan. In fact, it had not been too long since my parents had graciously purchased me the first Android phone, the T-Mobile G1. Truthfully, that G1 was the entire reason for this debacle.

I was on my way to the Apple store for an entirely different reason. And, as I drove toward the Brandon Towne Center, my G1 rang. I answered (a rarity for me). And then, I lost the call (also a rarity on T-Mobile). I looked at my phone. It said...and I quote..."Application: Phone has frozen"

My one selectable option: "Force Quit Application: 'Phone'"

I looked at Allison and said, "Baby, I'm gonna walk in there and buy an iPhone and be rid of this headache." Surprisingly, she didn't stop me. All she said was, "If you do, I want one too." I walked out of the Apple store, new toy in hand, convinced that if I "didn't like it" that I would "return it within 30 days no questions asked."

Right...

I never looked back. It took me all of 45 seconds of playing with it that night to know we'd be back to buy another one very soon.

The infamous catch: the iPhone was only offered on AT&Terrible. After hearing horror stories about the company left and right, I remember saying to someone on the phone (after the purchase), "I just signed a contract with the devil."

It is that very contract that brings me here today. That very contract, those infamous two-year agreements, and the enticing 'grandfathering' of certain features has kept me with the company ever since. Since then, the iPhone has released on two other US carriers, Verizon and Sprint, and has sold spectacularly well despite certain hindrances to those carriers' service.

Up until this point, I've been allowed to keep my "Unlimited" data package that I originally signed up for back in 2009. This is not only no longer available on AT&Terrible, Verizon, or T-Mobile (the only main US carrier to feature unlimited data for the iPhone is Sprint and most have said that its speeds are abysmal), but it is coveted by every user who was enticed by AT&Terrible's 'hotspot' feature and immediately lost their unlimited data.

Until recently.

Lately, AT&Terrible has been cracking down on their 'bandwith hogs.' AT&Terrible has been forcing some users to have their data throttled to unusable speeds because they were 'using too much bandwith for their area.' As you can imagine, it lit up a storm. Some guy even sued them (and won) because he says they broke the contract.

So, AT&Terrible (understandably in a problematic place...people want fast data and they want lots of it) has changed their policy.

The New Policy:

• Previously 'granfathered' users won't have their data throttled until they reach 3GB a month.
• This is true for every user nationwide.
• The 'unlimited' plan costs $30 a month, matching the $30 3GB a month plan they currently sell.
• With a limited plan, the user has an option to buy unthrottled data for an extra $10/GB.

It seems fair, doesn't it?

In many ways, I suppose that it does. AT&Terrible needed a way to make this more fair, and they came up with one. Good move, buck-os.

Except for one thing - customer loyalty.

I once told an AT&Terrible manager on the phone that I don't stay with his service for the call quality, reliability, or widespread coverage (ALL THREE OF THESE SUCK COMPARED TO THE OTHER OPTIONS)...I stay because I stupidly signed a contract to be there and they were the only company that carried the iPhone...and because they still offered unlimited data. And, for the most part, I had good experiences with their customer service (I was approved for two iPhone 4s in the store by a manager...who didn't have to do what he did...after having spent 5 hours on the phone with customer service the weekend before. I greatly appreciated his kindness.).

There is now no advantage to having stayed with AT&Terrible. Looking forward, I'm looked at the same as the guy who has been with the company for 20 years, and the woman who signed the contract last week. Me, who stuck with the company when large numbers of customers declared an exodus to go to Verizon last January, is looked at the same. I have no pull, draw, or extra weight given to my account. I am much like the rest of the world.

I know what you're thinking...that's fair.

But fair isn't what creates great customer interactions. Fair isn't what convices the user to stick with a company. Fair is a nice concept, but it ends up not appearing fair to much of the people who thought they were giving you the benefit of the doubt when the world turned on you. Fair isn't a real thing.

When Apple replaces your iPhone for free when they didn't have to, that's not fair. That's Apple being a stand up company. Does it cost Apple more? Sure. Does it make it harder for them? Sure. Why do they do it? Not because it is or isn't fair. They do it because they want to keep you as a customer and they're going to do everything in their power to convince you to fall in love with their product and company. I go to a certain dry cleaners not because they were fair to me, I went because I liked the work and they went out of their way to make it better, not fair, for me.

Fair is stupid. The world isn't, never was, and never will be fair. It sounds good, it really does. And we are invited to truly believe it. But it simply isn't how American society has ever worked.

Better is what companies should go for. Not fair. Fair is what governments should go for, not companies.

Companies should try to win over consumers. The only reason I stick with AT&Terrible now is because they still have the fastest 3G network. You'd better bet that once Verizon's 4G LTE network takes off on a greater scale (like it already is doing) that AT&Terrible will be fighting for my business.

Because at this point, Unlimited data is simply a thing of the past.

-B

My iPad 3 Event Predictions

Last night sucked.

But, the good news is that Wednesday brings a new day and, perhaps more importantly, a new iPad for the whole world to see and bask in the glory of.

It seems a popular pastime to read rumor blogs and sites on days leading up to the big Apple announcements. I do quite a bit, and I suspect that even Joe I-know-nothing Schmo is even remotely aware of some of the features of the new iPad.

My intention is not to guess feature-by-feature, though I will. To me, the new features seem fairly obvious. While Apple has a history and passion for surprising the tech industry with new innovations (who saw the Smart Cover coming?), I suspect that most of what we will see on Wednesday will not be as shocking as other Apple events. I'd like to take some guesses at how the event will roll out. Then, maybe I'll come back here and judge how I did.

1. The stage is sure to be set with a giant Apple logo on the screen, as it always has been. They'll be playing a mix of Adele and perhaps some other new, hipster artist over the PA. The room will be dark and there'll be some chairs, just as Steve sat in for the original iPad introduction. There'll be some iPad 3s (or whatever they're going to call them) on a table near the side of the stage for demo purposes. They'll, of course, be covered in black sheets.
2. The lights will dim and Tim Cook, the new CEO, will come out and greet the crowd. Apple typically begins with news about the company and it has been far enough from their quarterly earnings report that they'll have some updated numbers about the business. Tim will run over how well the iPhone and iPad are doing, emphasizing the recently passed 25 billion app downloads. Apple has sold over 50 million iPads, and I suspect that that'll be a large part of the numbers presentation.
3. Tim will even speak to how well the Apple TV is doing. I should make this clear, I doubt that we will see an actual Apple television set at this keynote. If there is an update to the product line at all, it will likely be an A5 chips that powers it, 1080p output, and perhaps a few more services integrated in. I suspect that they'll announce a new model Apple TV box (one that connects to your TV via HDMI) but it will be a minimal upgrade. This event is about the iPad, not the Apple TV.
4. Tim will introduce Phil Schiller, Senior Vice President of Worldwise Marketing. Tim Cook is a nice guy and definitely a wiz at organizing a company, but Phil is the presenter. Phil is, in my opinion, the only executive that can hold a candle ate Steve's presentation style. Phil will be the one to introduce the new iPad.
5. Phil will talk a bit about the success of the iPad and present some very high sales numbers that perhaps Tim had eluded to earlier. Don't bet against them talking about how the tablet competition can't keep up. He will absolutely also talk about the popularity of the new iPad Textbooks and present some spun numbers that will actually be very low but will seem high. Phil can spin numbers like few others.
6. Then, he will begin to talk about the new iPad. He will talk about how great a product the iPad is and how it is changing the way that people interact with content. He will likely show a video about how the iPad is changing lives. Expect the video to be touching to your senses.
7. "Then, we thought to ourselves, how can we make this magical device even better? We have come up with a ton of new ways, and we will focus on many of them this morning," he might say. What will it be called? My guess is either the iPad 3 or, more likely, the iPad 2S. He will show it and it will look a whole lot like and iPad 2.
8. "The first revolutionary change...our unbelievable Retina Display. The Retina Display on the iPhone 4, 4S, and iPod touch is just gorgeous. It's something you have to see to really believe. It's the only display that truly lets you read from your phone as if you were reading from a printed page. It is phenomenal. Now, we are bringing that display to the iPad. It doubles every pixel to present things you might never have imagined. It make reading on the iPad the most enjoyable reading experience you've ever had." Apple keynotes are known for their superb use of hyperbole.
9. Demo of the Retina display a la the iPhone 4 announcement. Hopefully without the "Turn off your wifi" moment.
10. Next, the dual-core A5X processor. Phil will talk about how fast it is, dual core, with updated graphics. I'd imagine the new graphics will be about 7-9x the graphics performance of the iPad 2. "This thing just screams. And, mixing this with the retina display creates an amazing gaming experience." Also, I expect an update to the iMovie for iPad software.
11. Demo of the A5X processor, done by game makers like the makers of infinity blade or Electonic Arts. If new iMovie software, a demo would go here as well.
12. Next, Cameras. The iPad 2 cameras are horrible for everything but FaceTime, so a camera update is entirely needed. I'd expect a camera upgrade to the level of the iPhone 4, but not the 4S. They'll show some gorgeous pictures of what can be done with the iPad cameras.
13. Along with that, a new app. iPhoto. Scott Forstall will likey come out for this. The photos app for iPad is simply unable to do anything like iPhoto for the Mac can do. Because Apple insists on photos being tied down to apps, the third-party offerings are insufficient. I don't expect this to be a separate purchasable app, this will be an updated version of the 'Photos' app that already resides on your iPad.
14. Next, Siri. Siri, at least for dictation, makes too much sense to leave it out. Scott will either stay out or Phil will welcome him back out to talk about how much better Siri has gotten and how pleased customers are with it. They'll do a thorough demo of Siri and if I were you, I'd expect several new functions for Siri that will ship on the iPad 2S. Perhaps coming later via a software update to iPhone 4Ss. Sorry iPhone 4 users, I doubt Siri is ever coming to your phone. iPads are used differently that iPhones so this will be an interesting place for innovation on Apple's part.
15. Next, LTE. Phil will be back. He will talk about the popularity of the 3G iPads and how quickly companies like Verizon are building out their LTE networks. I suspect that the 3G in these models will be like the iPhone 4S and be compatible with both GSM and CDMA. Not sure what to guess about whether or not you will still have to choose Verizon, AT&T or Sprint, like you do on the phone. No contracts though, that's for sure.
16. Battery life. The iPad 2S will have the same 10 hour battery life. Which, if you think about it, is quite a feat.
17. Then Phil will talk about price. Price is easy. $499 16GB. $599 32GB. $699 64 GB. Add $129 to each to get the Wifi+3G+LTE versions. Same pricing as before. The iPad 2 will continue to remain available for $399 at 16GB only.
18. And that'll be it. There could be some sort of surprise attachment or accessory, but for the most part, the event will be pretty standard. Phil will invite everyone to the hands on demo center and a few lucky journalists will go home with loaner models with which to reveal.
19. Release date? I'm guessing March 16th. If they do a pre-order (unlikely), it will start on the 9th.

I think people are going to feel Steve's absence. The last product announcement was a day before Steve's death and I just suspect that it'll be felt worse here than before.

I think some will come away feeling disappointed with the event, because it won't be as flashy as we expect. The Retina Display is going to be amazing and the device is going to truly scream. The graphics will be astounding and there's surely some exciting new software possibilites coming. All in all though, I wouldn't expect to be blown out of the water.

If all this comes true, would this be a device worth getting? Definitely. Worth updating form our iPad 2? Maybe. One thing is for sure, they're going to sell a lot of them. Millions. And they'll sell them fast.

Would you get one of these iPads?

-B

Why Apple's Supply Chain Problem is Such a Big Deal

If you clicked this link, your thought was likely, "Bryant's a fanboy, let's see what kind of spin he puts on this horrific topic." Or, you might be someone who has tweeted to me, emailed to me, or trolled my Facebook timeline with this NY Times article released the other day.

The gist of the article is this: Apple employs hundred of thousands of poor Chinese workers who spend their entire lives connecting cables inside of iPhones for very little pay. The article goes further than that though, too. The article makes the pronouncement that Apple cares very little about the working conditions of their supply chain and you should feel guilty for owning an iPhone, iPad, or iPod. Here's a taste:

Employees work excessive overtime, in some cases seven days a week, and live in crowded dorms. Some say they stand so long that their legs swell until they can hardly walk. Under-age workers have helped build Apple’s products, and the company’s suppliers have improperly disposed of hazardous waste and falsified records, according to company reports and advocacy groups that, within China, are often considered reliable, independent monitors.

Tim Cook, the newly appointed CEO, made it clear in an email to employees that he was 'outraged' by the accusations that the article made and was deeply offended. It's not hard to see why...The New York Times and Apple have mostly had a very cordial relationship. The NYT's website is included in iOS's default bookmarks and Steve often visited their site first when demoing a new product. The Times was quick to adopt the iPad as a way of releasing their content and the relationship has worked for the betterment of both companies. Everything seemed fine.

Until this.

Even today, the BSR, who is quoted heavily throughout the Times's piece refuted much of its claims. I suspect that we haven't seen anywhere near the end of this.

As a point of reference, here's a short clip of Steve Jobs reacting to the Wall Street Journal's questions regarding the suicides and suicide attempts by Foxconn employees a while back:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gOu50HaEvs&w=640&h=385]

Again, we haven't heard the end of this. As we shouldn't.

The poor workers. They're worked hard, worse than many Americans will ever work, and when Apple wants to lower production costs and raise quality of the products, something's got to give. The media is beginning to claim that the cost of these two desires is human lives and well being. In fact, the NYT titled their piece, "In China, Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad."

It's linkbait, but it starts a good conversation. Why is this so important? Why does Apple take the heat?

Sure, it's because theyre bigger than everyone else. That's what got Nike in so much trouble. Sure, it's because they are a hugely profitable company. They made more in profit than Google brought in total last quarter. Sure, it's because people love their products. But I think this has become a bigger deal for another reason.

I think it's because their products speak a bit of hope.

Andy Crouch referred to this phenomenon when he spoke about the gospel that Steve Jobs preached in a piece immediately following Steve's death. I don't agree with the correlations that Andy drew throughout the entire piece, but his general thesis is good. Steve had a different, often better, way of envisioning how a human interacts with a product. (Andy's piece comes off a bit harsh at times, though I know that Andy is an Apple fan because when I saw him speak live once he referred to his MacBook Pro as the true representation of 'perfection' on earth.)

Apple's mindset has always been about Thinking Differently. Using a computer sucked until 1984 when the Macintosh was introduced. MP3 players sucked until 2001 when the iPod and iTunes made it possible to actually enjoy listening to digital music. Cell phones sucked until 2007 when the iPhone finally made a smart phone easy to use. Tablets sucked until 2010 when the iPad reimagined what a tablet was and how humans interact with it.

Steve's quotes. Apple's marketing campaigns. The products themselves. All of these presented nearly hyperbolic statements about what it was like to use an Apple computer and how much there was to love about them. Sites like "CultofMac.com" and documentaries like "Mac Heads" and terms like "fanboy" are signs of the effectiveness of this message. (I'll admit, I often get accused of buying into the Apple gospel more than the Jesus Gospel. I'd argue that that might be because Apple is better at presenting it than our churches are right now, but that's an argument for another day...)

When you use an iPhone, you fall in love with it. Or, most people do. Apple is no longer an electronic company; they become an ideology, a mindset, and a way of life. Apple has engrained this "Think Different" message into our understandings of who they are as a company. When we love their products, we want to believe that the truly are better than everyone else. In every single aspect.

Yet this Foxconn situation seems to be the same as everyone else. I remember getting in trouble at a young age and my first response was to say that 'everyone else was doing it!' To which my parents were quick to point out, "Perhaps, but you're better than that." These poor (literally) workers in these factories are indicative of what is wrong with the world we're in and we'd like to think that Apple can rise above those problems. For God's sake, they've risen above it with all of their products!

I hope Tim and Steve are (were :-( ) right that they are actively working to take greater measures in treating their workers fairly. They're certainly working to spread a good word about how much better they are than many other suppliers. I hope that what they say is true, is true, and that it will continue to get better quickly.

Apple has nearly $100 Billion in the bank. If there is one company who can actually Think Different when it comes to this type of labor ethics, it's Apple. They have the means.

I'd like to see them turn this around. Not just politically. Not just through marketing. I'd like to see them make gigantic strides and stand up for the right and well being of humans.

Because that's what Apple does. They Think Different.

Please, dear God, don't let that thought leave with Steve.

-B

The Death of the UMC #explo2011

I've had over 63 pages of writing due in the last two weeks.  It's funny that we often describe Divinity School as "Hell on Earth."  Currently, I'm tired of writing my theology paper.  Thus, I am taking a break to do this. I attended Exploration 2011 this weekend in St. Louis.  Exploration is a conference for about 600 young, college-aged, United Methodist adults who are exploring (hence the title) a call into some sort of ministry.  It serves several purposes:

• Encourage young people to explore their calls into ministry,
• Explain the ordination process,
• Educate attendees about different methods and modes of ministry,
• Provide reflection time in small groups to discuss,
• Enable UMC young-adults from around to the world to meet each other, converse, worship, and fellowship.

In addition, all of the United Methodist Seminaries (13 in all) were represented by staff and student alike, providing information, sweet giveaways, and advice to potential seminary students.  I'm already a seminary student, but I was not a rep from Duke.  I was an attendee.  But, you know, I wore Duke stuff everyday.

Friday night's preacher in worship was none other than Adam Hamilton, the pastor of the largest United Methodist church in the world, Church of the Resurrection.  Adam has been promoted through churches like WillowCreek and is easily the best known United Methodist pastor in today's culture.  He spoke well, clearly, and with passion.  He encouraged young people to truly consider ministry for the good of the Church. If a quick search of the Twitter hashtags "explo2011" says anything, his message reverberated with a large percentage of the attendees that night.

One of Adam's main focuses: The United Methodist Church's decline.  It does little good to bore you with insignificant stats that prove this thesis.  Instead, this general point can be made: If the rate of decline in membership in the United Methodist church continues, the UMC will not be in existence in 2050.

Gone. No more.  One of the denominations on which Christian culture was established in the United States will have vanished.

It won't have been the first time a denomination that has been so influential in our history has declined. Or died.

Adam discussed a crucial point, too.  He admitted that our goal ought not to be to save a denomination, or religious group.  He pointed out, more or less, that our goal should be to make disciples. And, as United Methodists, we believe that the Wesleyan way of discipleship is the best, most effective way to do this.  By reaching into our Wesleyan core (which, from my observations, seems to be - at the most - ambiguously articulated in a majority of UM churches across the globe) we may discover new ways of changing the world through disciples of Jesus. I agree, but I do think that and established church has at least the possibility of bringing this on (This is obviously widely disproved throughout the course of history, but a man has to have a little faith, right?)

I'll quote Vance Rains here,

Does anyone here, including myself, really know how to save the United Methodist Church?

All I can do, as a new comer to this movement, is observe. I can tell you what I think the church is doing well.  I can definitely tell you what the church is not doing well.

And for me, it seems to be summed up in this: We aren't skating to where the puck will be.

This phrase is attributed to Wayne Gretsky (though I'm unsure if he actually said it) and was one of the favorites of the late Steve Jobs.  Jobs wanted to move ahead. So, to do that, he moved ahead…taking great ideas from other people and fusing them with his own.  Through this, he innovated and created products people didn't know they wanted. Like Henry Ford, he created phones without keyboards, tablets without styluses, and computers without disc drives. Ford is claimed to have said, "If I'd have asked the customers, they'd have said they wanted a faster horse."

But the UMC doesn't seem to be doing that.  The UMC doesn't seem to be taking old ideas, mixing them with new ones, and coming out with something effective. The UMC doesn't seem to be thinking creatively. The UMC doesn't seem to be not only listening and reading their Wesleyan heritage, but synthesizing it to create something that will serve the needs of the world. No, it doesn't seem to be doing that.

And that's ok.  Research In Motion isn't doing that either. But come five years, they won't be around.

Wesley was an innovator.  Wesley was clear about what he thought.  Wesley knew of effective ways of maintaining accountability in discipleship.  Wesley knew of positive ways to change the world.  Wesley knew that the power behind religious revival was in a movement. And Wesley should get a lot of credit for thinking differently than many, many others in his time.

I think United Methodists recognize this. And I do think, as a General Church, the UMC is trying to be relevant.

It's just that our methodology seems a little screwy.

Our version of "relevancy" seems to be based on what the Reformed or evangelical churches are doing. And we, as we always have been, are behind.  Seriously behind. And sometimes we throw resources into the wrong areas.  We staff the wrong places. We don't always hire the best in the field.

So no wonder our attempts at things are less successful.  We're creating the hi-PHONE instead of the iPhone.  We're trying to play contemporary music, but it's just not…quite…right…yet.

I think it is happening this way: through desperation, we are copying others.  20 years ago, we saw the evangelical denominations growing faster than us. So we decided something had to change.  We waited around for 5 years to make a decision to do so and then we got to work. We started marketing campaigns (I would say, some of the more successful things we've done). We started rethinking who we were. Why? Because we saw others do it.  I ask of you: how different are those rethink church commercials, really, than those billboards from non-denominational groups that advertise a "new way to do church"? They're only different in that they are more socially minded (a good a righteous thing), but our attitude is much the same. "Oh, God, they're undercutting us by stripping down some of the perceived ridiculousness of our liturgy and system," we might as well have said.

The funny part is, the ReThink Church commercials are easily one of the best things the Church has done, in my opinion.  I think we've called on people to question some things that ought to be questioned.  It just appears to have had little follow through.

Which gets me to my point.  We copy others. AND THAT'S FINE.  But, in our copying, we aren't thorough.  We write things like "Open Hearts, Open Doors, Open Minds" when large percentages of our church simply don't believe it. We try to be relevant, but many of our churches are much, much older than other churches.  So, we try to do things in our old buildings that just aren't practically possible.  And the product of our efforts doesn't look "cool" like we think it does.  It looks like a cheap knock off. And people, congregants, don't see authentic worship, they see posers (something our culture is less and less tolerant of everyday).  They see people faking what's popular.  They see BOBS instead of TOMS.  They see Samsung instead of Apple. We're ripping off others, and to make it worse…we're not even doing it well. (At least Samsung stuff still looks good)

Instead, perhaps, maybe we ought to truly rethink church.  Not basing it off of our own social values.  Not basing it off of our own bias.  Not basing it off of our own thoughts.  Not basing it off of our own Scriptural interpretation. Not basing it off of our own political beliefs.  Not basing it off of our own definitions.

Because the Wesley that I read doesn't seem to have been ripping anybody off. Wesley seems to have been starting something new, incorporating the traditional values, thoughts, concepts, and theological insights of the old tradition to bring about a revival that focused on holiness in discipleship. That movement is what helped influence the Christian culture in America.  And his thoughts were so good, I'm convinced there's another opportunity, if only we'd wake up.

Picasso said, "Good artists copy.  Great artists steal."  There's a huge difference between the two, and I'm unconvinced that the UMC understands that.

So please, let's not put up a GPS (or phone…we had disagreements about what it was) around the lyrics being projected on the screen unless we're going to take the time to actually explain it, incorporate it, and usefully employ it. Otherwise, it looks like we saw the evangelical churches using the iPhone theme for their events and thought, "Oh, God, we're behind." Which, I'd imagine, is exactly what happened.

If we're going to do it, we need to do it well.  Otherwise, we're going to die.

Like Vance, I don't know what is going to save the church.  But, I do feel as if I'll know when I see it. And I know this from observation: we can't keep following everyone else.  We have never been like that as a church and this is an awful time to start. We ought to seriously rethink who we are, where we're going, and where we've been. We make corrections, we synthesize, and we move on…making the best, most faithful decisions we can as fast as we can. And we have to do it throughly, with class, artistry, energy, and resources.  Every detail has to be ironed out so that what we say is cohesive and intentional. And we don't need to try to be "cool."  That'll come to us, if we are who we are and the story is as good as we say it is.  And, friends, it is.

Please, it's too good of a story not to tell in new and fresh ways. And besides, Jesus is calling us to tell it.

-B

Are We Better Off With or Without Apple?

Since Steve's passing, the world has honored him at Apple Stores, via social media, via television talk shows, and countless other ways.

The world, even Apple haters, has been kind to honor the work and change he's made.

But, now, it's been a few days. And we've all had a small chance to grieve. And we've all had a small chance to reflect a bit on his direct impact on OUR lives. It is like when Michael died, we all grieved because the world had lost another Mozart; then we began to reflect on what kind of difference was made on our personal lives. For some it was sad to lose Michael, but not for too long. The same has been true of Steve, for some.

He's been compared quite a bit to Thomas Edison, the famed inventor of the light bulb. I was asked this question the other day, "Edison created the light bulb, how does Steve even begin to compare to that?" My honest first reaction was to automatically assume that the asker simply doesn't think about what they do day in and day out.

To me, the impact is simple to see: almost everything that consumers do with computers today has so much to do with Steve's work. He was the driving force behind making the graphical user interface popular (a paradigm we take hugely for granted today...I think my evidence above proves it). He made using computers simple, and I'd argue that that is what brought forth widespread adoption. Because of some of Apple's poor decisions and Microsoft's willingness to copy, it happened indirectly...but it was Steve who did it.

This morning, the point was raised to me,

"i[sic] think he was brilliant for sure but are we better off as a people to have the newest toy but as a whole we are going broke to afford them.[sic] i[sic] think these things have made a much more selfish world that are[sic] self centered and spoiled."

It's a fair point with a certain amount of validity. There are also many claims going on here:

• Steve simply made the newest toys
• We are going broke to afford them
• These things have made a much more selfish world
• This selfish world is self centered and spoiled (apparently because of the devices Steve has created)

Again, it's a fair argument. I know there are families that struggle to feed themselves each night, but give their kids smartphones. I know, and have acknowledged in the past, that texting and driving has become one of the most dangerous parts of our lives.

The main point though, I think, is that Apple's marketing has encouraged people to want the next big thing all the time. Our emotional draw to the company has forced us to wait in long lines, complain excessively, and stop everything we are doing for product announcements. Yes, it's true and each any every one of those statements applies directly to me.

I think it would be fair to account that a large objection to the future and progress of technology can be summed up inside of this argument: these things (and the marketing of them) have made us worse people.

I think I've recognized the bit of truth to this argument. We text instead of call. We avoid face to face confrontation if at all possible. We have gained a new sense of individualism, and less of a sense of community. I might argue that things like Skype and FaceTime have actually counteracted this argument, but I'll leave it be for the time being.

The question for me though is, "Who is to blame?"

The Church has discussed this for ages. The questions has always been, "Are we a part of the culture or are we not?" or "Is progress good or bad?" or "Can we have material things, or should we deny ourselves?" or "How is Scripture interpreted for this purpose?"

Throughout time, religion has made use of new mediums. In example, George Whitefield's popularity in early American Christianity is largely due to the newspaper reports of his preaching. There are tons more examples.

Isn't it a question now in the Church as well? We've got churches who attract more members because of their light shows and moving backgrounds. We've also got churches who speak down on these churches and worship in a very liturgical, high church way. Both have dying churches. Both have growing churches.

This argument currently going on in the Church is not separate from the argument made to me this morning.

However, even more high church churches are beginning to figure out how to relate to people. They sometimes break it down by "worship" vs. "outreach". For example, it's ok to have a website, because people want to know about you...but no computers in a worship service. But...even that's becoming less and less true.

I know where your mind is going..."Who is winning?"

STOP

This isn't about winning. This is about living a Christ-like life. This is about hearing a call from God. This is about Resurrection and Salvation.

I am convinced that these things, these most important things, are still possible with progress.

I actually think that progress helps these things. For instance, because of the advent and popularity of texting, we have been reminded that living, talking, and being in community is important. And now, now that we know this, we are able to use these new fangled inventions and technologies as tools instead of distractions.

Sure, these tools have the ability to distract, and ARE VERY TEMPTING in this sense. But, what if the Church were to look at these tools as better ways to communicate, as better ways to outreach, and as better ways to live as disciples in 2011?

What exactly are we afraid of? That we won't be creative enough to figure it out? That God won't show us the way? We've got to have more faith than that.

What I like so much about Apple's approach to technology is that they don't do things just because others did. They don't make a bigger screen just because others have bigger screens. They don't implement a voice recognition piece of software just because Google did. They don't have an open platform just because other companies did.

No, they approach it from the perspective of use. What good is voice to text software if you still have to hit buttons? What good is a big screen if you have to use two hands to use it and it no longer fits in your pocket? What good is an open platform if its very openness is one if its greatest downfalls as an experience? It's not even really about being ahead of the game...it's about taking a technology, a concept, an idea and applying it in a real world situation for a real purpose in a way that helps people communicate. That's what spurred Steve's innovation. That's what defines who Apple is in today's world.

So has Apple's marketing asked people to become self centered? Their new iPad ads don't seem to support that.

No, it doesn't seem so. No, what has spurred on this idea is our reaction. I can no longer blame the technology companies for my failings as a human. I can no longer blame McDonald's for the hot coffee I spilled on my lap. I can no longer blame the cigarette companies for my lung cancer (post-revelations that that was actually bad for you). I can no longer blame the city for me not paying attention to that huge stop sign. I can no longer blame the fast food companies for my fatness. I can no longer blame the Church for my lack of faith.

No. Because at some point, I must take up my own cross. At some point, I must learn that it's not the new things that bother us...it's the way we use them. It's not the progress that makes us worse people...it's our sinful nature. It's not someone else's fault that I'm not the disciple I could be, it's me.

(It's worth adding that this is mostly true in America, currently. There are places in our world where girls are used in conjunction with the exploitation of men's sexual desires. This is not the girls' fault, this is the both the faults of the brainwashers above them, and the men who readily support these ventures.) I, in these cases, think the Church has to speak up for the girls...speak up for those who can't. It is still worth noting that those reading this in American CAN almost assuredly speak for ourselves.

As soon as the Church realizes that our mission is active and not passive and that we are not controlled by others, but only influenced by the grace of God through Christ, then we will be able to look at our culture with new glasses...in a way that is beneficial to the life of faith and the progress of the Gospel.

We don't do things just because. We don't slobber at the feet of our favorite company just because they brainwash us. No, we appreciate what they do because it makes a difference. It changes what we can do. It changes how we do things. It's up to us to be able to step back and see where we have succeeded and faltered.

Apple made tools. Thankfully, they made good tools.

Let's use them for good. Please.

-B

PS - Lack of recognition of Steve's contributions to society is a great example of just how well he succeeded.

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.

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.

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.

Turn Off Your Wifi

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aFKGFq79Cg&w=640&h=385]

Steve was mad. Oh, memories.

-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

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

How do I get iOS 5?

I should have never opened my mouth. All day today, I've received text after message after email about wanting me to give people iOS 5 for their iPhone or iPad. Technically, I broke the NDA that Apple developers have to agree to in the first place. If you were one of these people, don't be offended, but I can't get it to you.

First, I'm not technically a developer.  I've been using a friend's account.  One that he graciously let me log in to.  But it costs $99 a year to do it and he, not having produced any apps, finally saw that it didn't seem to be worth the money.

I've considered paying the fee to be a developer, but I no longer live in a situation where I can be the only one making financial decisions, and it doesn't make sense for me to pay for the account at this point in my life.

So, I'd like to fill you in on what it takes to get a beta iOS release onto your phone:

• You must be a registered iOS developer. $99 a year.
• You must download the ipsw file from Apple's servers.
• Then, in Xcode, you must update your phone.  This is a clean wipe and you'll want to make sure that you backup all of your contents in iTunes first. You'll be able to re-download apps (and now, music) that you didn't back up and bought from iTunes, but it's safe to back up anyway. You must register with not only the UDID of the device, but also with account's credentials inside of Xcode 4.
• If it works anything like iOS4 did in beta, you'll have to reorganize everything.  Generally, you'll need an updated iTunes (10.5 for this one) for iTunes even to be able to recognize an iOs5 device connected to it.
• Apple generally works off of a two week beta cycle, meaning that in two weeks, you'll have to do this all again.
• It's worth noting that this MIGHT change this year as Apple has switched to Delta (meaning, change) updates that update over the air (much like Android). You might not have to do a clean install on your device for the second beta, but we won't know until the release happens.

Thanks to the generosity of a friend of mine, I tried this last year on my 3GS for iOS 4.  Let me explain my issues last year:

• I had to do a clean wipe every time.  That doesn't sound like a huge deal, but iOS4 introduced folders. iTunes didn't (at the time) recognize folders. So, every clean install also required new folder alignments, etc. That can literally be hours of work for them to be well organized.  Then, in two weeks, the jig is up and you have to do it again.
• Again, this may be cleaner this year,
• Every two weeks, when the new beta is released, the old one is not longer functional. A timer is set and you must renew it before time runs out.  Fun.
• Some apps don't work.  Literally, my TomTom app was useless because iOS4 changed the way that the apps read the iPhone location data.
• PROOF: Marco Arment (creator of tumblr and Instapaper) tweeted this today:
• "Developers: there's a VERY good chance your app needs tweaks to work properly on iOS 5. Not fully backwards compatible. Test like crazy."
• Some general apps didn't work.  We didn't know it at the time, but Apple was definitely testing some features with the camera app.  For the first two betas, the camera didn't work.
• There's way more.

All in all, I learned a few lessons: don't update on a device that is "mission critical." Apple says explicitly in their documentation that this is for testing purposes only, and that it should not be used on a phone that someone relies on to get around with. Hence, I put iOS5 on my 3GS last night and spent the day playing with it.  It's not bad, but it's slow and iTunes doesn't back up to it well enough yet,  iCloud (really, the functioning part of what we'd like to use it with) is not fully up and running yet and so playing with the new features isn't fully ready. If I were you, I would wait.  It'll save you money, and think about how good it will feel when you finally get hold of it!

If, though, you still want it, you have a few options:

• Become a registered developer ($99)
• Buy a name and password from some dude on eBay ($5-$10) and hope he doesn't take your money and run.
• Watch all the videos that go up on YouTube by all the people who break their agreements with Apple.
• Jailbreak your current phone and get some of the features (given, not as well employed) and try them out that way.
• Search for the ipsw file online, download it, try to install it in iTunes (option-click the restore button) and hope for the best.

Sorry I can't be of any more assistance.  I've decided against putting it on my iPhone 4 or iPad (even though I've been very tempted).

-B

iOS 5 and iCloud: It's About Time

If you were under a rock today, you missed a few key stories:

• Anthony Weiner actually did tweet that picture.
• Microsoft added live TV support to the XBox.
• Apple announced a ton of stuff.

Mac OS X Lion has been available in beta for quite some time now. They made all of the features official today.  If you own a Mac (and you should at least be thinking about it), you should check out the details here. The big news: it'll be available ONLY through the Mac App Store for $29 and can be installed on up to 5 machines. The Home Premium 3-pack of Windows 7 for families sell on Amazon for $124.99 (and yes, it took me at least 10 minutes to figure out which "version" of Windows 7 to choose).

Put bluntly, Apple is taking a big step by doing a few things:

• Showing the world that the Mac is a serious competitor to Windows.
• Showing the world that it shouldn't cost much to upgrade to the newest Operating System.
• Showing the world that it should not be difficult or confusing to update.

Apple = Winner, here. Not only is it better software, it's cheaper. (Apple is cheaper? Holy cow, Call Rev. Camping)

iOS5 was the next big update from Apple. It will release in the Fall, most likely right along with the new iPhone.

In the case of iOS5, they're catching up to a lot of features that Android (and yes, even Blackberry) handsets have had for awhile.

Among them:

• Revamped notifications with an easy way to access them anywhere inside of the OS. (Thank the Lord)
• iMessage: a direct iDevice to iDevice messaging system (and competitor to the popular Blackberry Messenger).
• Deep Twitter integration into the OS. (Given, Android doesn't handle the Twitter integration in the same way that the new iOS will, but the effect will be the somewhat the same for the end user)
• A hardware button for triggering the shutter button on the camera app. (I hear there is an inside joke in the Apple world that goes like this: You can tell which apps and processes in the Apple ecosystem that Steve uses and which ones he doesn't. The ones he uses on a daily basis are perfect and complete in every way.  The other ones sometimes seem to be convoluted and...missing something. I think it has been abundantly clear from the beginning of the iPhone days that Steve never took a lot of pictures of himself, or he would have found searching for that little digital camera button to be the worst experience in the world.)
• Photo editing in the camera and photos app (this should have been shipped with the original iPhone).
• And perhaps the biggest one, a true post-PC device. (Android has had the advantage since the T-Mobile G1) Also, see this article to experience what it is like to set up your new phone for the first time (if you've already had an account, etc).

In each and every case, Apple was behind the curve in its software offerings.  Though I haven't used the new iOS (I currently have it installed on my iPhone 3GS but no longer have a normal sized SIM card, thus it can't be activated or used...another change in iOS.  It used to be possible to use old iPhones as iPod touches, without activating them with a SIM card. Doesn't appear possible anymore, whether tethered to iTunes or not.), these updates seem to have been produced and designed well and will be welcome additions to the new OS. I have a feeling too, that there're reasons that Apple had not incorporated these features into the OS thus far. Therefore, I expect that these features will be all around better experiences than on most Android handsets.

Apple = Probable winner, here.

The BIG news: iCloud.

Many expected iCloud to be another music service, much like Amazon and Google have both released recently. If it works well, it's going to be much, much more than that. John Gruber says to think of it as the new iTunes.

It's a better version of iDisk (the current file sharing platform of MobileMe.)  It saves documents without the user even thinking about it. It updates them across devices. It saves contacts, calendars, etc across all devices. It updates them across devices. It saves your music that you've purchased through iTunes. It allows it all to be accessed across all devices. It saves every photo you take or import to every device. It syncs them and makes them available across all devices. If you ripped (or stole, I guess) music and iTunes carries those titles, you can let iTunes match the songs and albums you have.  Thus, they will be available for free download from iTunes on any Apple device. This costs $25 a year and appears to be limitless.  It requires no uploading of your library to a cloud, it requires no data cap, AND it gives you a higher encoded (better quality) version of the song. This, my friends, is the jackpot.

But I've got a few questions still, since it seems a bit strange to me:

• In regards to music, it is essentially doing what it had been doing with Apps for awhile. If you bought a song, you can get it anywhere (even if you delete it) at any time.
• This seems great, but it would be even better if it was integrated into the iPod app. This way, you could stream over the internet without having to download to a local device just to play. Though, I'll take this set up any day over the current situation.
• When you log into an account with a new device, you can set it up with your Apple ID and password and it will download your backup of your device and sync all of your data, apps, contacts, email.  Essentially, you could lose your device, go to the store and buy a new one, log in, and your device would be exactly how you left it the night before when it backed up.
• This is great.  EXCEPT, my wife and I are trying to use the same account. That way, when I buy an app, she can also download it for free (without having to pay for it). So can we both use the same iCloud account? Would that mean that any picture I take show up on her device too? Does that mean any song I buy will show up directly on her device too? Does that mean that any app she downloads show up on my device?  You can turn these features on and off, but I'd like the music I download to go to my iPad.  But I don't necessarily want it to go straight to hers. If we split accounts again (not that big of a deal), can she still log out of hers and log in to mine to get the app I just bought? Does the app then transfer to her iCloud account? It isn't clear, and seems unlikely.  With a $.99 app it doesn't matter, but with a $50 app it would.

This is a new look at the iTunes ecosystem and how we will all interact with it henceforth.  There is surely going to be some confusion, etc. Android had the backing of Google's widely used contacts, calendars and mail, but has not yet been able to fully integrate Google Docs and Picasa in a way as well done as iCloud is about to.

(It is important to realize that Google puts all of their eggs into the cloud idea.  NOTHING is stored locally, except for apps and small pieces of data...that if technically could be stored in the cloud alone, Google would choose to. Google's word processor: Google Docs. Google Docs is nice, but when you compare it to the new ecosystem that Apple's Pages will have with iCloud integration, it doesn't even compare. It will be interesting to see how Apple attempts to conquer Google Docs with multi-person/site file editing, the one thing Google Docs has on apps like Pages and Word.)

Apple = Winner, as long as it works.

We shall surely see.  I for one think it is a welcome upgrade.  None of it is as revolutionary as the iPad, but will make all of us iOS and Mac users much happier in accomplishing day to day tasks.

I can't wait.

-B

I Broke My iPhone

I was clapping at a baseball game.iPhone was in one hand. Wedding ring was in the other. Here are the results: (Lighting in my apartment makes it nearly impossible to fully capture the horror in any sort of focused way)

God forgives mistakes. Apple does too, if you pay them to.

iFixit charges $149.99 for a new front screen replacement and the job is not easy. Ubreakifix charges $139.99 but you have to send in the phone. Apple charges $199.99. Screen still functions, it just looks bad.

I think I'm stuck with the ramifications of my actions. It's a tough life that I lead.

-B

1966 Predicts the iPhone

A video published in 1966 that not only predicts, but demonstrates what the computer world will be like in 1999. They were darn close, they just didn't think big enough. The part they missed: by ten years later(meaning 2009), people would be able to do it on a device that fit in the palm of their hand, and easily in their pocket. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC5sbdvnvQM&]

It occurs to me that they didn't see the "computer" as something that would mold and shape and change, but rather as some sort of static device that did a few key tasks. And, if that statement is true, why would the first thing they picked to demonstrate be home shopping? Interesting choice to say the least. People were doing that on television before they were doing it on a computer.

It must have been hard to conceive of the idea of the open Internet in those days. Sure, networked computers were thought of (how else would this have worked?) but the idea of an open Internet where anyone can set up anything and display it for the world to see must have been hard to conceive of. It wasn't just a few things here and there, it was literally everything...online. The system of the Internet is obviously what made this possible, and has made so many other things possible as well.

The question is, what is the NEXT system? What it is that we can't conceive of now that will completely change how we go about our daily activities and routines? How do companies think outside of the box enough to stay ahead of competition and innovate their way to success?

My guess: artificial intelligence. The race is on.

I'll give the first company to bring it fully to markets everywhere a dollar.

Then I'll run for the hills because...our hubris will be our undoing.

-B

Apple is Evil (or, The New iMac)

It's never a boring day in Cupertino. Last week(ish?) Apple released a new model of their popular (yet waning in popularity) desktop PC, iMac.

If you aren't familiar with iMac, shame on you.  It's an all-in-one desktop PC that currently comes in two sizes: 21.5 inch widescreen or 27 inch widescreen.  You can order them online at apple.com or buy one in store and customize all kinds of things on it (though, I imagine that most people just buy the standard option).

In their latest release (which didn't even make the front page of apple.com--that was reserved for the elusive iPhone 4 in white) they upgraded the speed of the processors, the quality of the "FaceTime" camera, and a few other things here and there.  Like many of their computer products, they didn't overhaul much of it, just a gradual upgrade.  If you are considering an Apple product, the time right around when it gets upgraded is ALWAYS the best time to buy.

However, they evidently altered something else inside this iMac that wasn't advertised. Since the report first came out, the blogosphere has been on high alert.

Turns out, that the startup hard drive inside of the iMac has a bit of proprietary firmware installed on it.  This firmware communicates to the fans about how hot the hard drive is running. So, if one were to replace the startup drive with another drive (not Apple -branded) their iMac, once put back together, the computer will fail the Apple Hardware Test. In short, Apple disables your iMac. You can read a little more about it here, and while this explanation leaves ALOT out, the general effect remains the same.

Evil, right?

Not so fast.

OWC (a company that sells unauthorized replacement parts for Macs) wrote on their blog about the issue and railed against Apple's closed-door policy when it comes to things like this.  Something of less significance  happened with the iPhone 4 screws a ways back and iFixIt (a company much like OWC) filmed a YouTube video against it. You can see MJ from iFixIt's take here. (The video is called "Apple's Diabolical Plan to Screw Your iPhone")

Apple commentators like John Gruber and Marco Arment have commented about this.  Both seem to be on Apple's side.  John says that a user knows that this is an all-in-one device and that the convenience of using and buying a machine like this comes with tradeoffs. Marco basically said the same thing. (I think John read Marco's piece first)

I think the answer lies in support.

If you buy an iMac and take it home, it will work beautifully. But, if something does go wrong (they're not perfect) you can take it back to an Apple Store (or call online) and get it fixed or replaced for free. (When was the last time you got your Windows PC fixed at a Toshiba store?) As long as you've backed up your stuff (if you're not backing up, shame on you), you're good to go.

But, if you decide that you'll install your own hard drive once you get home, it's not an easy task to take apart an iMac.  The process is documented by iFixIt here and it involves removing the glass display with suction cups, unscrewing countless screws, not getting any dust in the machine, not shocking yourself or the computer, and putting it all back together. Now that my warranty has run out, I've taken my MacBook Pro apart twice and I can tell you I don't think I'd ever attempt to take that glass off without breaking it. I'd rather be trained by the people who built it first.

The problem with support is that if you do something wrong, and then try to take it back to Apple, they have to deal with it. Not only will they know that you took it apart, but they can't be sure of what you did to it.

The same thing happened with the batteries in the iPhone and new MacBooks. They built them in because they had some major advantages when it came to battery life and slim design. If they know that you haven't tampered with it, they can fix it much easier.

I think it comes down to this: Apple wants to fix your product.  They want you to be happy. And I would be willing to bet that they are willing to sacrifice the 10% of hackers in order to make a pleasing and seamless experience for the other 90%.

I think Marco and John are right, it's a tradeoff. If you don't want that experience, Apple probably doesn't need your sale.

I don't, in any way, think that makes them evil.

-B

Samsung Really Steals

If you weren't convinced by the earlier photos, you should check out these. And Nilay Patel's article here. First picture, iPhone on right. Second picture, iPhone icons are on left. Most notably, the similarity of the Samsung music player icon to that of iTunes. Come on Samsung, get real. (Samsung logo for music player is in the center at the bottom of the second image)

Really. Still team Apple, but you're not surprised.

-B

Samsung Steals

Apple is suing Samsung. Say they stole form and design for their phones after they saw the iPhone. Apple says,

Rather than innovate and develop its own technology and a unique Samsung style for its smartphone products and computer tablets, Samsung chose to copy Apple's technology, user interface and innovative style in these infringing products,

The base information is a compelling argument for Apple. Samsung says they're going to strike back.

Apple is one of our key buyers of semiconductors and display panels. However, we have no choice but respond strongly this time,

We shall see. Team Apple, but you're not surprised.

-B

Charlie and The Apple Factory

Quality work done by College Humor. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSaqKalBnHE&]

The point, though, makes me think: what is it that defines a product? While the video is meant as humor, and probably nothing else, it strikes me that many in the world think like this.

They write off people like me as "fanboys" and "obsessed" and "brainwashed." I thought the clip with Bill Gates was perhaps the funniest part, but was simply untrue. They don't make the same stuff Apple does. Because if they did, the market would react to their stuff in the way the market is beginning to react to Apple's iOS devices. Microsoft didn't sell Zunes. But it wasn't because the Zunes sucked (alot of people liked the software) but they didn't buy them because the ecosystem of a music store, app store, and iTunes integration simply wasn't there. Zunes have progressed since, but not enough. Microsoft has dropped the product line. The product was more than the...product. Though Apple shows their iPods off more, that doesn't mean they are the same as Microsoft's products.

I suppose that Apple pays attention to showmanship more than other companies do, in fact I submit that THAT is what separates Apple from the rest. I view it as a consistent attempt to create a better product and display it in a way that counts. However, showmanship can be seen right through by the general public if the product itself sucks. In fact, the press would probably laugh at you. This happens to Apple from time to time with products that aren't as well put together as others, but it happens rarely.

On the other hand, many other companies are attempting to improve their showmanship and style in order to compete with a growing Apple market. Their products will have to, at some point, stand for themselves. I think it will only be at that point that it will start to challenge Apple's emotional ties and energy.

As I stood in line for iPad 2, it occurred to me: there is only ONE company in the world that can make that many people wait in lines for that long several times a year...Apple. Try to name another one.

In the end, though Wonka was eccentric and the factory was crazy, they still made the best candy in the world. If they didn't, Charlie wouldn't have wanted any part in it. In order to make it funny and make their "point", College Humor had to focus on the eccentric aspect. If they hadn't, you'd have seen right through it and realized that the metaphor was almost completely parallel. (And that's a good thing)

What showmanship.

-B

UPDATE: Can't watch it? Blame YouTube. And watch it here.