Global Nerdy

I don't mind that Vista's probably more aware of the machine on which it runs than any of the previous versions of Windows. My complaint is that the UI team decided that it must notify me of every last thing going on, no matter how insignificant. For instance, a little notification that says “Information: A jack has been plugged in” appears when I plug my headphones into the headphone jack:

I knew that, buddy. After all, I plugged it in.

To be consistent, the UI team made sure that there was a message appears when you decide to unplug your headphones: the “Information: A jack has been unplougged” notice…

I've only done some cursory Googling, but I can't seem to find any written design rationale behind such a notification. I thought that someone decided that since plugging devices into the FireWire or USB ports usually causes a notification to appear, they should be consistent and have a message appear for devices plugged. However, plugging and unplugging USB devices for which drivers are already installed doesn't cause a little notification window to appear; Vista simply plays a single pizzicato string note when you plug them in and two pizzicato string notes when you unplug them.

It may be some kind of security measure. Maybe it's meant to warn you in cases where the machine is out of line-of-sight of the keyboard, mouse and display (wireless keyboard and mouse, really long VGA cable?). In such a setup, you'd probably want to know if someone's jacked into your machine, trying to listen to or record whatever sounds or tunes are playing. It could be the basis for an RIAA-scripted horror movie: “Get out quickly! The pirate's in your house!”

Whatever the reason for this feature's inclusion, it makes it seems as if Vista's trying too hard to impress you.

I've been tied up with all sorts of work and personal stuff, so I haven't had enough time to take the Ferrari laptop for a proper spin until the past couple of days. So at long last, I can start reporting on my experiences with it.

The Acer Ferrari is one nicely tricked-out machine. It comes with all sorts of accessories, from little protective sleeves and pouches for the laptop and all its peripherals to a built-in camera at the top of the screen to a couple of nice Bluetooth goodies: a Bluetooth phone mini-handset and a Bluetooth mouse. I've been meaning to get around to trying some VOIP telephony, but that's not an immediate need. However, as someone who prefers using a mouse to a trackpad, I figured I'd start with it.

The mouse is a little bit smaller than I like — it doesn't fit as nicely in my hand as the Logitech MX's — but it's covered with something like black neoprene which makes it easy to grip. The mouse wheel, whose wide design suggests a radial tire, has a satisfying feel. Matte black with red trim, it's a good-looking mouse. I think it might look better without the garish Ferrari logo.

I fired up the Bluetooth Wizard in Vista, pressed the activation button at the bottom of the mouse and saw it light up, clicked the button on the Wizard to detect the mouse and got this dialog box seconds later:

Clicking the “Search Again” button — once, twice, three times — did no good. The mouse was a total stranger to the computer it had been bundled with.

On a lark, I decided to try it on the PowerBook. I fired up the Bluetooth Setup Assistant and got this immediately:

That's right: Acer Bluetooth Wireless Mouse. Not only did the Mac recognize that there was a Bluetooth mouse in range, but it ID'd its make and model.

Don't forget: Vista is a next-gen OS, while Mac OS 10.4 “Tiger” is almost two years old. And I'd bet good money that its predecessor, “Panther” would've picked up the mouse too.

In the meantime, Vista's still unaware that there's a mouse in the room. This is like one of Apple's “I'm a Mac / I'm a PC” ads, de-anthropomorphized.

Netflix, a company whose fortunes reside entirely in the living rooms of America, decided to get in on this online movie thing. Their entry to the market is an on-demand streaming feature that will be rolled out to Netflix subscribers over the next six months. Users will have to work within a total viewing time-limit based on their subscription plan, so a subscriber paying $5.99 a month will get six hours of on-demand video, while the people on the $17.99/mo plan will enjoy 18 hours of online movie time.

The time-capped viewing approach, the fact that this is streaming-only (no time-shifting), and PC-only leaves me thinking that this announcement is no big deal. Netflix has some time yet, but it's actually quite hard to see how they, or any other independent digital video store, hitch a ride on the online digital video train. The device manufacturers and network companies (telcos and cable companies) are in much better positions to control this market.

Devices

People invest a decent amount of money on in-home entertainment stuff: TVs, home theater audio systems, DVD players, and the services required to make use of it all. The TV, for better or worse, is the focus of home entertainment. Netflix probably knows this better than anyone. Unfortunately, their service doesn't get them into the living room; a huge problem for them. To get from the net-connected PC to the TV, you need hardware (and home networking). Obviously the first company that springs to mind is Apple with their Apple TV product, but, with the Xbox 360, Windows Home Server, the largest-selling OS in the world, and other assets, I'd say Microsoft has a pretty fair shot here, too.

What's more, Apple and Microsoft can offer more than just movies and TV shows from the net with their digital home solutions. They can put your ever-growing library of personal media at your disposal throughout the house: your pictures and home movies. And, of course, there's the music thing. As compelling as devices from Sling Media are, they lack the tight integration with the big OS/OS+box vendors' personal media suites.

I know, that barely sounded like English.

Telcos and cable companies

I bring up these guys because neither Apple nor Microsoft have real answers to the question of integrating TV over cable into their media hubs. If there's one hard lesson that TiVo has taught us, it's that the cable company (and, more often now, the phone company) doesn't like giving ground to others in the living room; not when it comes to watching TV, anyway. TiVo does the most creditable job, but, generally, third parties have a hard time going toe-to-toe with the cable companies when it comes to set-top devices. Obviously, the cable companies have little incentive to play nice and open their systems to all comers, since their bundling of services and set-top hardware allows them to charge a premium price. As a consequence, solutions to allow third-parties to tap cable networks, like CableCard, are pretty unsatisfying in practice. If the cable company has that direct line to your living room TV, they're going to fight the idea sharing it.

On the other hand, they cable and phone companies don't have control over the desktops and laptops in people's homes. Since many of us ar building extensive personal libraries of files, photos, music, and movies, bridging that gap is important. Personal computers also happen to be the hub of choice for connecting or synching your digital information with other devices, like iPods and smartphones. So, while there's no question the cable and telephone companies occupy some strategic ground in the digital home, they're far from delivering us a true solution all by themselves.

Whither Netflix?

A lot of companies have some real upside in the emergence of the digital living room. Netflix, unfortunately, isn't one of them. Their current business exploits weaknesses in the old Blockbuster et al business model, and lives in an ever shrinking gap between the bandwidth of DVD+the USPS and broadband ISPs. It's further sustained by the genuine fear among movie and TV studios of an all-digital world but, as services like the iTunes Store and Xbox Live Marketplace expand their video catalog, that's slowly being eroded as well.

The conditions that allow Netflix's core business exist are slowly disappearing. It makes sense for them to move into the gaps early themselves, but their lack of any real strategic stronghold (either of their own making, or through partnerships) in the digital living room leaves them extremely vulnerable. On the one hand, this looks like a feeble response from Netflix, on the other hand, I'm not sure what else they could do.

Link

 

We're still six months away from being able to see the iPhone up-close-and-personal, but the shockwaves continue to ripple outwards from the Stevenote in San Francisco.

Apple's drive into the huge global mobile phone market could make the Cupertino icon into a much more important company than it is today. When you think about it, Apple's current status rests on being a minor player in the global personal computer business, and the largest competitor in what's really a minor consumer electronics segment (digital audio players). But should Apple enjoy anything like the success its had with the iPod with mobile, connected devices, that would catapult Apple into a position of incredible power and influence.

Surely it's with this potential increase in Apple's power that people are taking a critical look at Apple's strategy as expressed in their iPhone. Randall Stross' op-ed in the New York Times is probably the most popular of the bunch, but the thoughts therein have been posted elsewhere.

Stross' complaint boils down to this: I can't do whatever I please with things I buy from Apple. Specifically:

• I can't play the music I buy wherever I want

These are the “iHandcuffs” the Times' headline writing imps are referring to.

Others, like my friend Cory Doctorow, have taken up the lock-in banner and expanded the bill of charges to include:

• I can't use this phone with whichever carrier I want
• I can't install whatever applications I want on this thing

Serious complaints, all, but is Apple really being as sinister as Stross and Doctorow make it seem, or is this nothing more than garden-variety corporate maneuvering, the likes of which we have always had to contend with as customers? I say it's the latter, and I say we just deal with it.

Music, movies, and TV

It's easy to see how Apple's digital rights/restrictions management (DRM) technology, FairPlay, works to Apple's advantage by raising a barrier against customers switching to rival devices. All of the music, movies, and TV shows you buy from the iTunes Store are restricted through FairPlay (you can only play your stuff on a certain number of registered computers, for example). FairPlay only works, however, if computers and digital audio players have FairPlay software installed on them. Since Apple doesn't let other companies license FairPlay, the list of computer and device manufacturers that support the technology is pretty short: Apple.

As long as you buy tracks, movies, and shows from the iTunes Store, you're pretty much restricted to playing it on Apple's hardware or software (you can, of course, play anything you buy from the Store in iTunes running on Windows). That's lock-in designed to make you think twice about buying your next digital audio player from Microsoft or SanDisk. On the other hand, if your media library is FairPlay-free, this isn't a problem.

As Stross points out, you can buy your music online as an unprotected MP3 from eMusic. Since the major labels don't offer may downloads in unrestricted formats yet, you (or someone employed by UPS, FedEx, DHL, or the USPS) will have to continue lugging your content home on aluminum discs, but that's the price you currently have to pay for purer-than-Caesar's-wife legal digital music from the likes of EMI, Universal, Sony BMG, or Warners. Of course, there are ways of obtaining restriction-free major label content that you might not want to mention the next time you have drinks with Doug Morris.

As for movies and TV shows, there aren't any officially-sanctioned sources for major studio or network downloads in unrestricted formats. On the one hand, you can say that Apple's locking you in when you buy a season's-worth of “Weeds” from the iTunes Store. If you want to switch from the iPod to something else, you'll have to leave Mary-Louise Parker (and your $20) behind. On the other hand, what's the alternative? Unlike the digital music business, there isn't an abundance of popular yet independent video content on the 'net yet, but no doubt the supply will emerge.

Some argue that no company should be able to place mutable restrictions on the content or software you buy, and that you should enjoy the same rights of fair use and first sale that one does with analog content. I mostly agree. Where I get off the bus is when the argument becomes that openness (freedom from DRM) should be mandated. If you buy the argument that DRM is a risk borne by the customer, then don't buy DRMed content.

Most non-DRMed stuff you can download or convert yourself plays on your Mac via iTunes, and plays on your iPod. MP3, unprotected AAC, or MPEG-4 video is an investment in your rights, and guarantees portability. The alternatives are plain, and the choice is yours—buy from Apple's iTunes Store and risk potential lock-in, or find your music, movies, and TV shows elsewhere. iTunes, which is the local hub for synchronizing content to your iPod (and let's assume that include the iPod that's tucked into your nifty new iPhone) supports non-DRM content in many formats already. All Apple's doing with the iTunes Store is making it very, very convenient to load up on FairPlay-restricted media, but they're certainly not making it mandatory. There's nothing about the iPhone that demands you invest in DRM-restricted content.

The handcuffs are strictly optional.

Chained to the Death Star

Many have objected to Apple's exclusive deal with Cingular, soon to be rebranded someting incredibly awkward like “Wireless Services from AT&T.”

PR-wise, linking Apple to Ma Bell Death Star kind of sticks in my craw, but when I reflect on it for a moment, it's not like I get a gooey feeling inside when I think about any other wireless provider. Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint hardly conjure images of fuzzy bear cubs frolicking with kittens riding unicorns. All carriers lock the phones they sell to their networks (at least here in the US). Let's assume, though, that Apple thought about the prospect of an unlocked phone; my guess is that meant the prospect of an unsubsidized phone as well. As pricey as the iPhone sounds today, I'd hate to see how much it might cost without Cingular/AT&T's support.

I suppose the reasons for carrier lock-in are obvious but unimportant for a customer who wants their phone unlocked for a trip abroad, for example (international roaming charges are a killer—far better to get a prepaid account and a local number) but, unless I'm mistaken, won't third parties rush into the gap to service that market? After all, it doesn't appear to be illegal to unlock a phone, and the DMCA specifically permits reverse engineering carrier locks when the objective is to allow the user to legitimately connect to a telecommunications network.

I suppose you could fairly accuse the iPhone of lock-in here, since Motorola and Palm (to name just two mobile device manufacturers) both sell unlocked GSM phones direct to the customer. Even so, it's interesting to note that neither of them sell their complete product line unlocked. The iPhone product line only has one model (with two storage capacity options, 8GB and 4GB). I'm interested to see what happens with a broader product lineup, or when Apple (or third parties) starts selling refurbished iPhones, but I'm slightly more persuaded on the lock-in front than I am by the DRM arguments.

No software

If the pernicious effects of DRM are well-known, and carrier lock-in is a long-standing frustration, then the new new (bad) thing about the iPhone is that, despite the fact that there's a real computer in that little sucker, you can't control what software gets installed on it. In other words, it's a pretty closed platform, more restricted than Mac OS X for Macintosh computers.

Jobs has been pilloried for claiming that this lock-down is really in the interest of the owner, since

You need it to work when you need it to work. Cingular doesn’t want to see their West Coast network go down because some application messed up.

The sound that followed was every Treo-using Cingular subscriber on the West Coast going “Wa-huh?”

Fine. Whatever. Like I said, Apple's under no obligation to do things like open up the iPod or the iPhone as platforms just because a bunch of us think it would be nifty. Leaving aside for a second the argument that open platforms beat closed platforms (a position I would argue hasn't proved true in the mobile device business, but, there you go, I'm leaving that aside now), when I look at the iPhone I really have to ask myself “What software would I want to install on this thing?”

The answer? None.

The iPhone isn't a general computing device: it's a mobile internet client. What do you really need on a mobile internet client, except mail, chat, and browsing capabilities? You can check all those off, since they come installed on the iPhone by default. Otherwise, most of the really cool applications I find myself using today don't require a open platform API, they require modern, standards-based HTML and JavaScript rendering. Maybe Flash for good measure.

The bad news here is that none of the things on my wishlist (real JavaScript support, Flash, etc) is, apparently, a done deal.

Mr Jobs, if you can hear the sound of my typing, please don't make me look like a idiot on this: make sure this puppy plays nice with web 2.0.

Are we dealing with it yet?

So, is the situation as dire as Stross, Doctorow, Winer, and others say? It doesn't seem so to me. Perhaps my real fight is with the pithmasters at the Times; that title really irked me. The iPhone doesn't seem like a particularly restrictive device to me. At least not yet. June is still a long way off.

Is it a wide-open bastion of freedom? No. But, you know what? Troll Alibaba for a Chinese contract handset manufacturer, and run off a few thousand generic GSM handsets. Pick an embeddable Linux and run with it. Hell, you'll be able to squeeze Java in there too, and nobody will be able to tell you what to do.

Go ahead. Nobody's forcing you to wait for the iPhone.

From a Hooters news release:

(Atlanta, GA) While they surely don't need the help, the world's two richest men can now eat for free at Hooters restaurants. On Friday October 20, 2006 Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were presented with Hooters VIP Cards at a Hooters Restaurant in Kansas City, Kansas. The Cards entitle the gentlemen, who currently rank numbers 1 and 2 on the list of worlds richest, to free food at any of the chains 435 locations in 46 states and 20 countries exclusive of tip and alcohol.

The pair made a stop at the Hooters Restaurant along with members of the Board of Directors for Berkshire Hathaway. The visit came at the request of Buffet so the group could pose for a Christmas Card photo with the chain's beautiful Hooters girls. “It was an honor to have these powerful individuals dine in my store” said Jason Fetters General manager of the Hooters located at 1712 Village West Parkway, Kansas City, Kansas. “Clearly these guys can go anywhere they want to. The fact that they picked Hooters hopefully says something about the strength of our brand.”

I guess we can assume that from now on, all of Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's reviews of Hooters on their blogs will have the taint (hah!) of bias.

(Yes, I did note that the Hooters site runs on old-school ASP…)

Today's PvP comic made me laugh:

Link

The iPhone (I didn't think they were going to call it that—my money was on iPod phone), by my estimation, lived up to the pre-show hype. Using an old salesman's tactic, Steve saved the price for the end: $500 for the 4GB iPhone, and $600 for the 8GB model. At the low end, Apple's giving their smartphone competitors a $100 advantage. Will customers go the extra c-note for Apple?

It helps to dig into the way Apple's positioning the iPhone. I rather like the way Jobs described it as really three devices in one: an iPod, a phone, and an internet client.

As an iPod, the iPhone:

• has as much storage as an iPod nano
• plays video like a 5G iPod
• has a high-resolution 3.5 inch widescreen display
• syncs through iTunes

As a phone:

• is a quad-band GSM world phone with EDGE for data
• incorporates a 2 megapixel camera
• uh…makes calls, manages voicemail, and supports SMS
• synchronizes contacts from your desktop computer

And, as an internet device:

• it runs a real operating system, Mac OS X
• sports a real browser (Safari)
• has an HTML-rendering email client that supports most POP and IMAP mail services
• has custom-built support for Google Search and Maps
• can run Dashboard widgets
• can connect over Wi-Fi and Bluetooth

So what we're really looking at is a single device that, taken as any one of it's three stand-alone components, does something new (it's the first widescreen iPod, it's a significant new mobile network computing device), or does something particularly well (thanks to the Mac OS X underpinnings and the touchscreen interface, it's a very, very slick phone). And the way the iPhone works is where Apple starts to really pull away from the competition.

Doubtless we'll hear Palm and Microsoft, for example, counter Apple's hype by pointing out their devices can claim similar, if not even more impressive feature lists. Take the Treo 750, which runs Windows Mobile, but already retails through Cingular for $100 less than the lower-end iPhone will. You'd have to call Windows Mobile a real OS, Microsoft has Windows Mobile Office viewer applications already developed, and the 750 already supports 3G, which gives it a significant speed edge (where you can find coverage, that is). Again, though, even if Apple and Microsoft are close on the "what," Apple blows them away on the "how." Apple's iPhone is to Windows Mobile as Mac OS X is to Windows XP; Microsoft needs the equivalent of Windows Mobile Vista to even catch up to the iPhone's (clearly obvious) ease of use.

And let's not even get started on pitting Apple's industrial design against Palm's.

The question, again, is whether buyers will see the extra $100 they have to pay (while not getting 3G in the deal, and other little quibbles) as a bargain, given not just what the iPhone does, but how it goes about doing it. Personally, T-Mobile can expect this subscriber to be cancelling his contract in the second half of this year. Judging by the reaction in the markets, investors are betting that I won't be the only one, either.

Tags: Apple, iPhone, MacWorld Expo, iPod, Treo, Palm, Microsoft, Windows Mobile, GSM, G3, EDGE, Mac OS X