This is a new idea of mine, and I call it "DropBox". DropBox is a website that basically acts as an online database, private or not private, where anybody can sign up for free. Basically, when you sign up, you get your very own 'box' where you can drop anything you want into there. Have a Microsoft Word document you need for work? Put it in DropBox. Have a picture you want to put on a different computer? Put it in DropBox. Have a folder full of information, pictures, spreadsheets, movies, etc that you need for a different computer? Put it all on DropBox. So the idea is you put whatever you want into your very own box, and when you go to any other computer in the world that's connected to the internet, you can go to your DropBox and pick that file up. You no longer need a flash drive for school or work because you can just pick whatever you need up from DropBox.
So imagine this: imagine you have only a desktop at home and no laptop, and you have to get a folder full of spreadsheets for your company on your desktop. Just upload it to DropBox and it will be stored on there. Go to work, go to your computer at work, go to www.dropbox.com or whatever the URL should be, download it to your computer (downloading time will vary depending on file size), and there you go. You have whatever you need everywhere you go. Maybe you could also have a QuickLook-esque feature on DropBox where you can preview your files in an instant, in case you're not sure which file is which. Your DropBox will have to be extremely secure so that all of your precious files are protected from hackers, etc.
Just a handy little tool I thought up. It would absolutely solve my problems with school and trying to remember where my flash drive is. In fact, I don't have one right now since it's lost. If DropBox could be accepted in all schools and businesses, it could possibly become a great tool.
-Derek
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Coffee Table Touch Screen Computer Thingy
Sorry I keep commenting on really old news, but a while ago, Microsoft made a coffee table that has a computer built in with a touch-screen interface. Dad was really bragging about this one, like 'Oh, Microsoft is really ingenious for coming up with this one.'
I think the concept is a little dumb. Who wants a computer on a coffee table? Who would pay for that? What's next? Should Apple make a new kind of toaster that also runs OS X? Should Google make a microwave that also includes Google search? Probably not.
And where do you think they got that idea for multi-touch? Um, maybe iPhone. Ever since iPhone came out, touch-interfaces have exploded. There are so many phones trying to copy off the iPhone and get some of the money from the sub-industry it's created. Sure, there were tablets before, but those have risen sharply in sales since the iPhone's release. Gee, I wonder why! Look at what they're doing with the pictures, maps, etc. They're pinching in, pinching out, flicking back and forth to scroll, all these things that iPhone patented. I think Apple's afraid to protect their patented multi-touch technology from Microsoft because that would make them look bad from the public's point of view. Microsoft has them stuck.
But I'm not too worried. I don't think this coffee table that's also a computer is going to sell crazy. But anyway, kudos to Microsoft. You made this cool-looking gadget that isn't as useful as it is expensive. Nice job at least trying something new (kind of), but it doesn't change the fact that your company is handled really poorly, and it doesn't change the fact that Vista still sucks really bad.
I think the concept is a little dumb. Who wants a computer on a coffee table? Who would pay for that? What's next? Should Apple make a new kind of toaster that also runs OS X? Should Google make a microwave that also includes Google search? Probably not.
And where do you think they got that idea for multi-touch? Um, maybe iPhone. Ever since iPhone came out, touch-interfaces have exploded. There are so many phones trying to copy off the iPhone and get some of the money from the sub-industry it's created. Sure, there were tablets before, but those have risen sharply in sales since the iPhone's release. Gee, I wonder why! Look at what they're doing with the pictures, maps, etc. They're pinching in, pinching out, flicking back and forth to scroll, all these things that iPhone patented. I think Apple's afraid to protect their patented multi-touch technology from Microsoft because that would make them look bad from the public's point of view. Microsoft has them stuck.
But I'm not too worried. I don't think this coffee table that's also a computer is going to sell crazy. But anyway, kudos to Microsoft. You made this cool-looking gadget that isn't as useful as it is expensive. Nice job at least trying something new (kind of), but it doesn't change the fact that your company is handled really poorly, and it doesn't change the fact that Vista still sucks really bad.
Steve Jobs Movie Idea
I'm really a nerd for thinking this up. I was thinking about Ed Wood, a movie I reviewed on this blog a while ago, and I realized that you could do something similar for Steve Jobs. Think about it; he's a famous personality and leader when it comes to technology, and there are tons of people who think he's awesome. The movie could be called "Steve Jobs", or "Jobs", or maybe "iJobs". I like "iJobs" the best. It sounds kind of like iPod, so people would kind of get an idea of who he is right off the bat. It would be a partly fictional biography/comedy/drama.
The movie could start with him being born, being given to his step parents, becoming a teenager, meeting Woz (who was in college at the time), becoming spiritually involved, going to India, etc. Then he would see a computer Woz made and have a spark of realization that he wanted to make technology. So he convinces Woz to manufacture it as the Apple I, then they make the successful Apple II, and then it fast forwards to the day Steve Jobs announces the upcoming Macintosh. Around this point, it would really show that Jobs has an emotional hatred of IBM. Then it would show the 1984 ad being played at the Super Bowl, followed by the Macintosh demo. This is really the part where it became an insane cult phenomena, as shown by the crowd.
Then it could show Steve and Sculley arguing a lot about where the company should go, Steve gets fired, he's in a terrible depression, but then gets a spark of creativity, creates Pixar, creates NeXT, and is taken back to Apple. He creates the iPod, etc. Then he has trouble with the whole options scandal. But it ends on a triumphant note with the introduction to the iPhone in January 2007. Or maybe it would go further to his death. But one thing is, he needs to be dead before this is made, so this can be a tribute to the great man he was (is) and the great legacy he will have left behind.
-Derek
The movie could start with him being born, being given to his step parents, becoming a teenager, meeting Woz (who was in college at the time), becoming spiritually involved, going to India, etc. Then he would see a computer Woz made and have a spark of realization that he wanted to make technology. So he convinces Woz to manufacture it as the Apple I, then they make the successful Apple II, and then it fast forwards to the day Steve Jobs announces the upcoming Macintosh. Around this point, it would really show that Jobs has an emotional hatred of IBM. Then it would show the 1984 ad being played at the Super Bowl, followed by the Macintosh demo. This is really the part where it became an insane cult phenomena, as shown by the crowd.
Then it could show Steve and Sculley arguing a lot about where the company should go, Steve gets fired, he's in a terrible depression, but then gets a spark of creativity, creates Pixar, creates NeXT, and is taken back to Apple. He creates the iPod, etc. Then he has trouble with the whole options scandal. But it ends on a triumphant note with the introduction to the iPhone in January 2007. Or maybe it would go further to his death. But one thing is, he needs to be dead before this is made, so this can be a tribute to the great man he was (is) and the great legacy he will have left behind.
-Derek
Friday, November 28, 2008
Another debate
I got into another iPod / Zune debate with my dad. To be fair, he started it. He was telling my sister, obviously directing it towards me while I was right next to him, that the Zune is a much better music player and her Zune (Dad got it for free and gave it to her. Microsoft's giving out Zunes because nobody's buying them) looks better than any iPod. As if.
I won the debate. I won it because I said, "What makes a Zune better? Tell me right now." and dad said, "Well what makes an iPod better?" Big mistake. First of all, redirecting it towards me is a lame attempt to hide the fact that he doesn't actually know what's better about the Zune, he's just siding with Microsoft because he hates Apple for whatever reason. He's exposed his ignorance about iPods and Zunes. Second, he asked the wrong person the wrong question. "Well for starters, they can play feature-length films and TV shows, which Zune doesn't support and Microsoft doesn't sell. It doesn't have any gimmicks, like the Zune's stupid 'sharing' feature (you can trade songs from Zune to Zune, but good luck finding another Zune to share it with since nobody uses it!). They look much more beautiful, and they keep looking more beautiful every time they come out with a new one. They have new features all the time, like accelerometers, games, better and better screens, being thinner and thinner, etc. They start at a great price for music players, $69 (to which he said, 'Are you saying iPods are the cheapest music players? Because they're not', and I said, 'No, I'm saying that they're the cheapest music players that are in any way good.'). They are an original idea and have been from the start. They aren't some stupid marketing attempt to grab some cash from an already successful product that somebody else made." I also mentioned that iPods were an original idea at the time. There were other music players, yes. But there were virtually none like the iPod.
Also, a while ago I told him, "The real question is, can the Zune play movies?" "No, because it's not a movie playing product." BS! That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard of for a product. So are you really telling me that you'd rather buy a 80 GB product that can't play movies and TV shows than buy a 120 GB product that does play those, and for the same price? In what insane asylum would the answer be yes? He is OBVIOUSLY in denial, just trying to make a point against Apple. The problem is, there is no point you can make against the iPod. Except a few. But I mean, it's better than the Zune. And any other MP3 player. So there.
-Derek
I won the debate. I won it because I said, "What makes a Zune better? Tell me right now." and dad said, "Well what makes an iPod better?" Big mistake. First of all, redirecting it towards me is a lame attempt to hide the fact that he doesn't actually know what's better about the Zune, he's just siding with Microsoft because he hates Apple for whatever reason. He's exposed his ignorance about iPods and Zunes. Second, he asked the wrong person the wrong question. "Well for starters, they can play feature-length films and TV shows, which Zune doesn't support and Microsoft doesn't sell. It doesn't have any gimmicks, like the Zune's stupid 'sharing' feature (you can trade songs from Zune to Zune, but good luck finding another Zune to share it with since nobody uses it!). They look much more beautiful, and they keep looking more beautiful every time they come out with a new one. They have new features all the time, like accelerometers, games, better and better screens, being thinner and thinner, etc. They start at a great price for music players, $69 (to which he said, 'Are you saying iPods are the cheapest music players? Because they're not', and I said, 'No, I'm saying that they're the cheapest music players that are in any way good.'). They are an original idea and have been from the start. They aren't some stupid marketing attempt to grab some cash from an already successful product that somebody else made." I also mentioned that iPods were an original idea at the time. There were other music players, yes. But there were virtually none like the iPod.
Also, a while ago I told him, "The real question is, can the Zune play movies?" "No, because it's not a movie playing product." BS! That's the lamest excuse I've ever heard of for a product. So are you really telling me that you'd rather buy a 80 GB product that can't play movies and TV shows than buy a 120 GB product that does play those, and for the same price? In what insane asylum would the answer be yes? He is OBVIOUSLY in denial, just trying to make a point against Apple. The problem is, there is no point you can make against the iPod. Except a few. But I mean, it's better than the Zune. And any other MP3 player. So there.
-Derek
Apple Making Fun of Microsoft
Apple fans are usually labeled as arrogant, elitist a******s, and I think at least a quarter of them are. But what I say to that is, I'm sorry, but I just like better computers! I like making fun of Vista. Vista is a really hilariously bad OS, so it's fun for me to steal people away from PC and show them Macs. Steve Ballmer is such a hilariously stupid guy. Just watch any YouTube video of him. He's an obnoxious guy, more obnoxious than any Apple fan I've ever seen. He acts like a monkey when he gets excited. It's so easy to make fun of him.
Right now the cool thing to do is ridicule Apple and its fans for only being a 'cool trend'. But that's not the case any more. The new 'cool trend' is to ridicule Apple. These people have become the very thing they're accusing Apple of doing. So people, if you're an Apple fan, please make fun of Microsoft. It feels good. People hate it when I do, but the thing is, I like better computers, better phones, and better music players, and for that I make no apology.
Even Steve Jobs himself loves making fun of Microsoft and Vista, even since the days it was codenamed 'Longhorn'. Here are some "All About Steve" videos which are a nice compilation of his extreme, but correct opinions.
My favorite line from these videos was when he said that somebody using iTunes on a PC is like "giving a glass of ice water to someone in Hell".
-Derek
Right now the cool thing to do is ridicule Apple and its fans for only being a 'cool trend'. But that's not the case any more. The new 'cool trend' is to ridicule Apple. These people have become the very thing they're accusing Apple of doing. So people, if you're an Apple fan, please make fun of Microsoft. It feels good. People hate it when I do, but the thing is, I like better computers, better phones, and better music players, and for that I make no apology.
Even Steve Jobs himself loves making fun of Microsoft and Vista, even since the days it was codenamed 'Longhorn'. Here are some "All About Steve" videos which are a nice compilation of his extreme, but correct opinions.
My favorite line from these videos was when he said that somebody using iTunes on a PC is like "giving a glass of ice water to someone in Hell".
-Derek
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Google Picasa
I'm trying out Picasa 3 for the PC, which is made by Google. There are a couple new interface ideas unlike anything I've seen before in this photo-viewing and editing application. For instance, there's a scroll bar on the right... or so you think. Turns out it's actually a control that lets you scroll. It stays in the middle, and when you pull it up, everything scrolls up. If you scroll it down, everything scrolls down. Pull it further up or down to make it scroll faster. Let go, and it'll go back to the center. You can see a kind of 'shadow' on the same bar that tells you where you are on the page.
Now I like interface changes like these. They show lots of creativity in Google. But if you're going to have a way to make an interface, how about you keep it the same in all of your applications? Google Chrome (Google's web browser), for example, doesn't use this scrolling technique; it uses a regular old scroll bar. It also has many unique interface changes that it has and Picasa doesn't, such as lack of the "File Edit View" bar on top. In my opinion, this is a bad thing to do with your applications. If Google ever makes an OS, it may be confusing to use all the different applications Google makes since they all have different ways of using them. Compare this to Apple; they have a universal interface for finding files that started in iTunes, spread to iPhoto, to Finder, and is now a base for navigating OS X. See, keeping it simple is the best way to do it.
I like this a lot though. It displays all the pictures really well. It even has some unexpected features, such as showing only the pictures with face(s) in them. It doesn't work that well, as it showed a MacBook prototype leak as a face. But it does work okay. Overall, I like this much better than "Windows Photo Gallery" (what a stupid name) and is far more original. I say if you have a PC, check it out. I also hear there will be a Mac version soon.
-Derek
Now I like interface changes like these. They show lots of creativity in Google. But if you're going to have a way to make an interface, how about you keep it the same in all of your applications? Google Chrome (Google's web browser), for example, doesn't use this scrolling technique; it uses a regular old scroll bar. It also has many unique interface changes that it has and Picasa doesn't, such as lack of the "File Edit View" bar on top. In my opinion, this is a bad thing to do with your applications. If Google ever makes an OS, it may be confusing to use all the different applications Google makes since they all have different ways of using them. Compare this to Apple; they have a universal interface for finding files that started in iTunes, spread to iPhoto, to Finder, and is now a base for navigating OS X. See, keeping it simple is the best way to do it.
I like this a lot though. It displays all the pictures really well. It even has some unexpected features, such as showing only the pictures with face(s) in them. It doesn't work that well, as it showed a MacBook prototype leak as a face. But it does work okay. Overall, I like this much better than "Windows Photo Gallery" (what a stupid name) and is far more original. I say if you have a PC, check it out. I also hear there will be a Mac version soon.
-Derek
Quit whining about nothing
Okay, I've been surfing the web all over the place, like YouTube, Digg, etc... and everybody is whining about the same thing. It's the same thing I was talking about in the other post where I showed the comparison video of the ad's 3G network and the real life 3G network. Everybody's still whining about this ad:
They're all whining, "Look how fast the iPhone is loading the page and finding the location and downloading the attachment! It's not that fast! Apple must be lying to us! Apple sucks! Kill Apple!"
This isn't a new thing. Even with Apple, people love to get out their pitchforks and torches and hate companies like this. One thing I have to say is that if people are so desperate to complain about Apple that they have to complain not about their computers, iPods, or iPhone, but about their ADVERTISEMENTS, then that means Apple must be in a really good place right now.
Here's what I think: When you go to McDonalds, you know how good and perfect and juicy and symmetrical those burgers look on the menu and on TV and stuff? Does your burger ever end up looking anything like that? No. I think McDonald's is more guilty of false advertising right now than Apple ever was.
You have to realize, how else could Apple make a 30-second commercial than make the time it takes to load shorter? They made no false claims. They did in fact say that it's "twice as fast", which is proven to be true. And there's a disclaimer in the commercial which basically says that the 3G network may vary by location.
Also, let's be honest. Who really believed that that speed in the ad was its actual speed? Who even really paid attention? I know I didn't. I use my dad's iPhone 3G (I'm stuck with the original) all the time, and I can definitely tell you, it doesn't load instantaneously. But Apple's not saying that it will, okay? Anybody who says Apple is "flat-out lying" is simply wrong. They're not lying. There wasn't a single lie in the commercial.
Why do we always have to look at the few little negatives there are in companies like Apple when there are so many great things about them? Too many people do that today. Today, everybody is saying, "Everybody thinks it's 'hip' to like Apple". Uh, no, not anymore. Maybe it was about six months ago, but now everybody thinks it's 'hip' to hate Apple. And that's just wrong. There's hardly anything to hate them about.
-Derek
They're all whining, "Look how fast the iPhone is loading the page and finding the location and downloading the attachment! It's not that fast! Apple must be lying to us! Apple sucks! Kill Apple!"
This isn't a new thing. Even with Apple, people love to get out their pitchforks and torches and hate companies like this. One thing I have to say is that if people are so desperate to complain about Apple that they have to complain not about their computers, iPods, or iPhone, but about their ADVERTISEMENTS, then that means Apple must be in a really good place right now.
Here's what I think: When you go to McDonalds, you know how good and perfect and juicy and symmetrical those burgers look on the menu and on TV and stuff? Does your burger ever end up looking anything like that? No. I think McDonald's is more guilty of false advertising right now than Apple ever was.
You have to realize, how else could Apple make a 30-second commercial than make the time it takes to load shorter? They made no false claims. They did in fact say that it's "twice as fast", which is proven to be true. And there's a disclaimer in the commercial which basically says that the 3G network may vary by location.
Also, let's be honest. Who really believed that that speed in the ad was its actual speed? Who even really paid attention? I know I didn't. I use my dad's iPhone 3G (I'm stuck with the original) all the time, and I can definitely tell you, it doesn't load instantaneously. But Apple's not saying that it will, okay? Anybody who says Apple is "flat-out lying" is simply wrong. They're not lying. There wasn't a single lie in the commercial.
Why do we always have to look at the few little negatives there are in companies like Apple when there are so many great things about them? Too many people do that today. Today, everybody is saying, "Everybody thinks it's 'hip' to like Apple". Uh, no, not anymore. Maybe it was about six months ago, but now everybody thinks it's 'hip' to hate Apple. And that's just wrong. There's hardly anything to hate them about.
-Derek
T. Boone Pickens is awesome
T. Boone Pickens, author of "The First Billion Is The Hardest", is the chairman of BP Capital Management, the company that thrives on oil's success. He is awesome because he doesn't just stay seated in his luxurious throne of wealth; he is now making sure that America starts using natural gas instead of the oil we get from the Middle East and other countries. He says it would be cheaper, cleaner, easier to obtain (because it's not foreign, it's from America), and it would be fantastic for the environment.
Now specifically, he wants trucks to primarily use natural gas. He says that people plan to make electric cars later on, but points out that trucks won't be able to run on electricity. Trucks, therefore, can run on natural gas, and our regular cars can run on a mix of electricity and natural gas.
I am absolutely thrilled with what Pickens is trying to do. He obviously isn't the rich snob you'd expect an oil company to be lead by. He feels he has a responsibility to make a better future for America. He truly believes that America needs to "break [its] addiction to foreign oil". If I could help him, I absolutely would. On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a great show that I very much enjoy), Stewart basically said that he loved Pickens' ideas.
http://www.pickensplan.com/act/
Now specifically, he wants trucks to primarily use natural gas. He says that people plan to make electric cars later on, but points out that trucks won't be able to run on electricity. Trucks, therefore, can run on natural gas, and our regular cars can run on a mix of electricity and natural gas.
I am absolutely thrilled with what Pickens is trying to do. He obviously isn't the rich snob you'd expect an oil company to be lead by. He feels he has a responsibility to make a better future for America. He truly believes that America needs to "break [its] addiction to foreign oil". If I could help him, I absolutely would. On the Daily Show with Jon Stewart (a great show that I very much enjoy), Stewart basically said that he loved Pickens' ideas.
http://www.pickensplan.com/act/
Yet another Storm rave
I was going to stop commenting on BlackBerry Storm, but I can't, this is just too much fun. David Pogue of the New York Times gave a review of it where he absolutely despised the phone. I don't feel like quoting anything, but it's fun to read, so read it here.
My dad loves making fun of the iPhone and supporting companies like RIM who copy Apple's ideas and try to make a quick buck off of them. I hope I never have to deal with a BlackBerry Storm. It's really bad... And every technology expert who's tried it knows it. I don't even know what else to say. Other than don't get it.
-Derek
My dad loves making fun of the iPhone and supporting companies like RIM who copy Apple's ideas and try to make a quick buck off of them. I hope I never have to deal with a BlackBerry Storm. It's really bad... And every technology expert who's tried it knows it. I don't even know what else to say. Other than don't get it.
-Derek
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Raves are pouring in for BlackBerry Storm
"Novelty screen feels cheap", "steer clear of this storm" -TIME
"Can't compete with Apple's iPhone" -Chicago Tribune
"Heavy, laggy, sluggish, unstable, clunky, and tiring" -Gizmodo
"Frustrating, inelegant, uncomfortable" "A disappointment" -Engadget
"Awkward, disappointing", "A failed experiment" -PC World
"Unresponsive or inaccurate touch screen" -Wall Street Journal
"If you're locked into a Verizon Wireless contract and you're willing to put up with an OS with the speed of a tranquilized yak, then you may like the BlackBerry Storm" -Wired.com
...I don't even know what to say. So I'm not going to say anything. There's nothing else to add. Just look at the words. They just sum it all up. And the iPhone is getting all kinds of raves, plus it's now the #1 best-selling handset in the world.
Blackberry Storm starts selling tomorrow. RIM's future looks great.
"Can't compete with Apple's iPhone" -Chicago Tribune
"Heavy, laggy, sluggish, unstable, clunky, and tiring" -Gizmodo
"Frustrating, inelegant, uncomfortable" "A disappointment" -Engadget
"Awkward, disappointing", "A failed experiment" -PC World
"Unresponsive or inaccurate touch screen" -Wall Street Journal
"If you're locked into a Verizon Wireless contract and you're willing to put up with an OS with the speed of a tranquilized yak, then you may like the BlackBerry Storm" -Wired.com
...I don't even know what to say. So I'm not going to say anything. There's nothing else to add. Just look at the words. They just sum it all up. And the iPhone is getting all kinds of raves, plus it's now the #1 best-selling handset in the world.
Blackberry Storm starts selling tomorrow. RIM's future looks great.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
My Twitter feed is up
I try to use Twitter more than daily. Now you can see the updates on the blog.
-Derek
-Derek
Friday, November 14, 2008
Why Blackberry Storm Won't Beat iPhone
This is a good article from one of my favorite Mac blogs, MacDailyNews. It describes why the upcoming iPhone rip off-- ahem, sorry-- touchscreen phone with integrated App Store knock off and other features, known as the BlackBerry Storm, will be inferior to the iPhone.
Let's not start off on the wrong foot. When it comes to the passe kind of phones that use plastic keyboards, BlackBerry must be my favorite. I like how well it does email, I like its simplicity, all that stuff. However, there are serious flaws with this new BlackBerry that can't be overlooked. No Wi-Fi? Are you kidding me? That's one of the bare necessities you have to have on any smartphone. Also, it's lacking many things the iPhone can tease it with. No multi-touch? No accelerometer? No iPod? No ecosystem of product cases, docks, headphones, headsets, etc for it? It has a few things like the said App Store knock off, but really, who wants to develop for the BlackBerry? The iPhone is the #1 phone on the market, and Apple has a cult following unlike any other technology company.
Bottom line: BlackBerry Storm isn't the iPhone-killer. Apple's products are often-imitated but never-duplicated, as seen with the Mac (Windows), iPod (Zune), and iPhone (phones such as the Voyager, Storm, etc). If the iPhone will indeed be destroyed, you anti-Apple nerds are going to have to wait a little longer.
Let's not start off on the wrong foot. When it comes to the passe kind of phones that use plastic keyboards, BlackBerry must be my favorite. I like how well it does email, I like its simplicity, all that stuff. However, there are serious flaws with this new BlackBerry that can't be overlooked. No Wi-Fi? Are you kidding me? That's one of the bare necessities you have to have on any smartphone. Also, it's lacking many things the iPhone can tease it with. No multi-touch? No accelerometer? No iPod? No ecosystem of product cases, docks, headphones, headsets, etc for it? It has a few things like the said App Store knock off, but really, who wants to develop for the BlackBerry? The iPhone is the #1 phone on the market, and Apple has a cult following unlike any other technology company.
Bottom line: BlackBerry Storm isn't the iPhone-killer. Apple's products are often-imitated but never-duplicated, as seen with the Mac (Windows), iPod (Zune), and iPhone (phones such as the Voyager, Storm, etc). If the iPhone will indeed be destroyed, you anti-Apple nerds are going to have to wait a little longer.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
More on the iPhone win
iPhone just took Motorola Razr's spot as the top handset bought by adults. According to the NPD, it's because of "watershed shift in handset design from fashion to fashionable functionality". It just so happens that the iPhone is the most fashionable and most functional handset in the market.
What's pretty funny is this: I remember in 2007 when the iPhone was announced, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer literally laughed at the phone's concept and ridiculed the idea that the phone would ever touch the all-mighty Windows Mobile's precious sales. That's the same thing he did when the Wii was introduced-- before it beat Microsoft's Xbox 360 by far and kept it that way to this day. Next time he predicts that something's going to lose to his products, please ignore him. He's not a professional analyst; he's just some guy who's trying to promote his own company and try to put fear into other people's products at the same time-- and failing at both.
What's pretty funny is this: I remember in 2007 when the iPhone was announced, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer literally laughed at the phone's concept and ridiculed the idea that the phone would ever touch the all-mighty Windows Mobile's precious sales. That's the same thing he did when the Wii was introduced-- before it beat Microsoft's Xbox 360 by far and kept it that way to this day. Next time he predicts that something's going to lose to his products, please ignore him. He's not a professional analyst; he's just some guy who's trying to promote his own company and try to put fear into other people's products at the same time-- and failing at both.
Why Apple is Better
I just had another Mac and PC argument, and I really want to get this out of my system. I believe that Mac is a better computer AND better operating system than PC. I also believe that iPhone is a far better phone than any other phone on the market. I also love iPods, and think they're better than any other music player on the market. Yes, that includes Zune. Basically, I love Apple as a company, and I think it's far better than Microsoft. Microsoft in its current state is the laughingstock of the computer industry.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not just jumping on the Mac bandwagon and hating Microsoft like all the others. Let's just look at this issue logically. Apple's products are more advanced. Mac OS X is the most advanced operating system on the market. iPhone is smarter and easier to use than anything else you can find that makes phone calls. iPods are very easy to use. Apple's product line-up is great, but look at Microsoft's mess. They have XP, an okay operating system that doesn't eclipse OS X; and then they have the awful Vista that just about every tech-savvy consumer knows is garbage.
About Vista: I originally had XP on my PC, and I got a Vista installation disk for free from a Microsoft conference. I knew everybody hated Vista, but I decided to go against the crowd and try Vista out. Huge mistake. When I first installed it, the sound wasn't working whatsoever. I don't remember how I managed to fix it, but I think it had something to do with changing some options on the Control Panel or something. They made it much more complicated than it had to be. That's a good word to describe Windows in general: complicated. Microsoft thinks that if they make a computer that's big and complicated and you don't know where half of your programs are and it's hard to get things done, that makes it a more advanced computer. It's also very unreliable, because it freezes up all the time, and sometimes it just shuts off spontaneously with absolutely no warning. I wouldn't be surprised if the PC just burst into flames out of nowhere. That's how boneheaded I think Microsoft's tactics are with making systems. Their trademark applications like Internet Explorer are a complete joke, and I have to get Safari for PC just to get away from it. They also apparently stole some ideas from Apple's operating system, like the Widgets in Dashboard (they're now called 'gadgets'), having Calendar and Mail applications separate from Outlook, and having a search bar that finds anything in the computer. The fact that Microsoft is looking up to Apple for their inspiration for features is an indication that Apple are the ones leading the industry.
People like to point fingers at Apple and complain about their problems. Now here's the thing: Apple does have problems. You don't think I acknowledge that? They do have many problems. Let's look at one example: Mobile Me. When it came out, everybody complained because it was really glitchy and didn't work half the time. It was a failure for the time. It reminds me of Microsoft's behavior. But what separates this from Microsoft, and what I love about Apple, is this: Steve Jobs actually acknowledged that Mobile Me was bad. He said that it wasn't up to Apple's standards, and they were well on their way to fixing its problems. They even offered a month of free Mobile Me service to customers because of their mistakes. Now let me ask you this: would Microsoft ever do this? Let me answer my own question: no. They wouldn't, and they haven't. If you watch Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in interviews, he gets up on his high horse and acts all high and mighty, and says that Vista is a better operating system than Mac because more people use it. He doesn't even listen to his customers, since Vista is well-known as a very bad operating system and a huge mistake from Microsoft. He just pretends the problem doesn't exist and instead invests his money on a $300 million ad campaign to fool even more people into buying Vista. Steve Jobs, however, bites the bullet, listens to his customers and fixes Mobile Me's problems. That's what I love about Apple. I don't love them because they are completely without problems, I love them because they listen to their customers and fixes their problems. Microsoft pretends the problems don't exist and just try to make more money. I was watching MTV the other night (actually my sister was; I never watch that crap), and I swear, PC commercials must've come on twice every commercial break. My dad (who is pro-PC and anti-Mac) always blames Apple for just being an advertising company, but he obviously doesn't watch too much TV anymore.
That's pretty much all you have to do to have a very successful and loved company: listen to your customers, fix your problems. Microsoft does none of those; Apple does all of those.
-Derek
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not just jumping on the Mac bandwagon and hating Microsoft like all the others. Let's just look at this issue logically. Apple's products are more advanced. Mac OS X is the most advanced operating system on the market. iPhone is smarter and easier to use than anything else you can find that makes phone calls. iPods are very easy to use. Apple's product line-up is great, but look at Microsoft's mess. They have XP, an okay operating system that doesn't eclipse OS X; and then they have the awful Vista that just about every tech-savvy consumer knows is garbage.
About Vista: I originally had XP on my PC, and I got a Vista installation disk for free from a Microsoft conference. I knew everybody hated Vista, but I decided to go against the crowd and try Vista out. Huge mistake. When I first installed it, the sound wasn't working whatsoever. I don't remember how I managed to fix it, but I think it had something to do with changing some options on the Control Panel or something. They made it much more complicated than it had to be. That's a good word to describe Windows in general: complicated. Microsoft thinks that if they make a computer that's big and complicated and you don't know where half of your programs are and it's hard to get things done, that makes it a more advanced computer. It's also very unreliable, because it freezes up all the time, and sometimes it just shuts off spontaneously with absolutely no warning. I wouldn't be surprised if the PC just burst into flames out of nowhere. That's how boneheaded I think Microsoft's tactics are with making systems. Their trademark applications like Internet Explorer are a complete joke, and I have to get Safari for PC just to get away from it. They also apparently stole some ideas from Apple's operating system, like the Widgets in Dashboard (they're now called 'gadgets'), having Calendar and Mail applications separate from Outlook, and having a search bar that finds anything in the computer. The fact that Microsoft is looking up to Apple for their inspiration for features is an indication that Apple are the ones leading the industry.
People like to point fingers at Apple and complain about their problems. Now here's the thing: Apple does have problems. You don't think I acknowledge that? They do have many problems. Let's look at one example: Mobile Me. When it came out, everybody complained because it was really glitchy and didn't work half the time. It was a failure for the time. It reminds me of Microsoft's behavior. But what separates this from Microsoft, and what I love about Apple, is this: Steve Jobs actually acknowledged that Mobile Me was bad. He said that it wasn't up to Apple's standards, and they were well on their way to fixing its problems. They even offered a month of free Mobile Me service to customers because of their mistakes. Now let me ask you this: would Microsoft ever do this? Let me answer my own question: no. They wouldn't, and they haven't. If you watch Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in interviews, he gets up on his high horse and acts all high and mighty, and says that Vista is a better operating system than Mac because more people use it. He doesn't even listen to his customers, since Vista is well-known as a very bad operating system and a huge mistake from Microsoft. He just pretends the problem doesn't exist and instead invests his money on a $300 million ad campaign to fool even more people into buying Vista. Steve Jobs, however, bites the bullet, listens to his customers and fixes Mobile Me's problems. That's what I love about Apple. I don't love them because they are completely without problems, I love them because they listen to their customers and fixes their problems. Microsoft pretends the problems don't exist and just try to make more money. I was watching MTV the other night (actually my sister was; I never watch that crap), and I swear, PC commercials must've come on twice every commercial break. My dad (who is pro-PC and anti-Mac) always blames Apple for just being an advertising company, but he obviously doesn't watch too much TV anymore.
That's pretty much all you have to do to have a very successful and loved company: listen to your customers, fix your problems. Microsoft does none of those; Apple does all of those.
-Derek
Celebration Time!
It's a good time to be a fan of the iPhone: the iPhone 3G is now the best-selling phone on the market. It has surpassed the RAZR. What's funny is the RAZR was my first phone. I wanted it because I viewed it as 'cool'. Now I know that it's really not that cool. It's like any other phone, but it's thin. I got an iPhone because I thought it was cool, and the difference is, I still think it's cool. It's cooler than any other phone on the market. It's also more innovative than any other phone, and it's far, FAR more advanced than any other phone.
In honor of the iPhone's beating all the other phones, let's watch the introduction of the original iPhone. Just listen to their reaction to when Steve says "a mobile phone"! Also, it's not in these videos, but at the beginning of the keynote, he said, "Let's make some history together, shall we?"
A very historic keynote. Possibly the second most important, second to the Macintosh introduction.
In honor of the iPhone's beating all the other phones, let's watch the introduction of the original iPhone. Just listen to their reaction to when Steve says "a mobile phone"! Also, it's not in these videos, but at the beginning of the keynote, he said, "Let's make some history together, shall we?"
A very historic keynote. Possibly the second most important, second to the Macintosh introduction.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
IE, you crack me up!
I tried to compare the latest version of IE to Safari (the fastest and best browser in the world), and to my surprise, IE froze up and crashed before I could even enter a web address. I was expecting Microsoft to actually improve their sucky-$@% web browser, but they obviously haven't made the slightest effort. People complain about Apple's mistakes all the time, but at least Apple fixes their errors. That is something to be proud of.
So I had to close it (do the 'not responding' thing) and re-open it. I compared their speeds by giving IE a head start of about two seconds. Safari still beat it. I bet I could tell a random Apple fan "Internet Explorer" and they'd start cracking up.
-Derek
So I had to close it (do the 'not responding' thing) and re-open it. I compared their speeds by giving IE a head start of about two seconds. Safari still beat it. I bet I could tell a random Apple fan "Internet Explorer" and they'd start cracking up.
-Derek
Google Chrome
Google Chrome is a brand new internet browser available only for PC. That "only PC" part immediately doesn't sound good to me, since Macs are better, but let's take a look anyway.
It installs after a while (it advertises that it installs in 'seconds'), and then I open it. Immediately it looks different from any web browser you're used to. You know the 'File Edit View History...' thing at the top of your window? That's not there at all. There's also no top part that says what web page you're at. It gets rid of a lot and relies on simplicity of use. I have to say, it looks pretty cool. If Google made an OS, I think it would look cool too.
When you open it, it has one tab. Even when there's only one tab open, you can see the thing on top that shows the different tabs. It's hard to explain, but it appears that tabs are the main idea of the web browser.
You have all the standard buttons: Back, Forward, Refresh, and some preferences and 'control the current page'. There's the address bar, which by itself doubles as a search bar. And that's it. It reminds me of what Safari set out to do: get rid of all that useless crap on the top of the window and as Steve put it, "let the actual web pages speak for themselves". After all, isn't that what web browsers are for? Viewing the web pages?
But now it's time to put it to the challenge, test it at what to me is most important for a browser: speed. I'm going to open another tab on the Safari (the fastest web browser I've used) window I'm using to make this blog post. That should give Chrome a head start.
Apple.com: Uh oh. It's not the speed I'm uh oh-ing about. It seems Chrome is lacking something very important: a loading progress bar. In Safari, the progress bar is right on the address bar, but for chrome, it doesn't look like it's anywhere. It's going to be hard to see if it actually loaded the whole page, but I'll just go by instinct. Let's try again... It's a tie. One point of interest, though: Chrome doesn't load every item on the page until it is finished. It loads the entire page at once. It's an interesting technique for revealing the web pages.
Let's try a page with lots of stuff on it...
NYTimes.com (New York Times): Safari is slightly faster. But it's so small that it hardly even matters. You can really see that Chrome loads the entire page instead of the different items here. It starts as a white screen for a second, then it reveals the entire page.
Derek's Tablet: Safari wins again. But it's not a bad lose for Chrome; it is a difference you don't notice when you actually use it.
Basically, Safari wins with speed, but by a little. As for interface... I don't know if Chrome's is better yet. I have to try to adjust to it. I'm not sure if I'll even try to do that at all. Overall, kudos to Google for trying something new, not just copying other browsers and slapping the Google brand on it. Nice job. I'm probably going to keep using Safari though. Sorry. It's nothing personal. It's just that I love Safari, and I don't think I want to change to something slightly more unfamiliar. Seriously, don't feel bad. I like your Blogger service. I like your search bar. But I just don't feel like using your browser. Okay? Are we cool? Awesome. See you later.
-Derek
It installs after a while (it advertises that it installs in 'seconds'), and then I open it. Immediately it looks different from any web browser you're used to. You know the 'File Edit View History...' thing at the top of your window? That's not there at all. There's also no top part that says what web page you're at. It gets rid of a lot and relies on simplicity of use. I have to say, it looks pretty cool. If Google made an OS, I think it would look cool too.
When you open it, it has one tab. Even when there's only one tab open, you can see the thing on top that shows the different tabs. It's hard to explain, but it appears that tabs are the main idea of the web browser.
You have all the standard buttons: Back, Forward, Refresh, and some preferences and 'control the current page'. There's the address bar, which by itself doubles as a search bar. And that's it. It reminds me of what Safari set out to do: get rid of all that useless crap on the top of the window and as Steve put it, "let the actual web pages speak for themselves". After all, isn't that what web browsers are for? Viewing the web pages?
But now it's time to put it to the challenge, test it at what to me is most important for a browser: speed. I'm going to open another tab on the Safari (the fastest web browser I've used) window I'm using to make this blog post. That should give Chrome a head start.
Apple.com: Uh oh. It's not the speed I'm uh oh-ing about. It seems Chrome is lacking something very important: a loading progress bar. In Safari, the progress bar is right on the address bar, but for chrome, it doesn't look like it's anywhere. It's going to be hard to see if it actually loaded the whole page, but I'll just go by instinct. Let's try again... It's a tie. One point of interest, though: Chrome doesn't load every item on the page until it is finished. It loads the entire page at once. It's an interesting technique for revealing the web pages.
Let's try a page with lots of stuff on it...
NYTimes.com (New York Times): Safari is slightly faster. But it's so small that it hardly even matters. You can really see that Chrome loads the entire page instead of the different items here. It starts as a white screen for a second, then it reveals the entire page.
Derek's Tablet: Safari wins again. But it's not a bad lose for Chrome; it is a difference you don't notice when you actually use it.
Basically, Safari wins with speed, but by a little. As for interface... I don't know if Chrome's is better yet. I have to try to adjust to it. I'm not sure if I'll even try to do that at all. Overall, kudos to Google for trying something new, not just copying other browsers and slapping the Google brand on it. Nice job. I'm probably going to keep using Safari though. Sorry. It's nothing personal. It's just that I love Safari, and I don't think I want to change to something slightly more unfamiliar. Seriously, don't feel bad. I like your Blogger service. I like your search bar. But I just don't feel like using your browser. Okay? Are we cool? Awesome. See you later.
-Derek
iPhone 3G criticisms...
I can't help but make this post. People absolutely love to complain about Apple products, possibly because Apple put themselves in that hole: they made commercials insulting other companies, so naturally people are going to look for things wrong with Apple. The iPhone 3G is a big topic of criticism. I really hate the criticism because it's really a great device, probably the best device in the world. So here, I'll discuss some of the biggest arguments against the current iPhone.
It's too expensive: Obviously, when you look at the iPhone 3G, you are excited because it only costs half the price. However, pessimists are quick to point out that it adds an extra $10 or so to the monthly bill. If you add the extra $10 with the actual iPhone's price, you get about $440; more than the predecessor's price.
Now let's think about why this is. iPhone 3G obviously uses the 3G network- hence its name- and it costs more for AT&T to provide us that. That means they would lose money unless they charge us more of our money for the 3G service. Think of it as an HD TV service. Obviously the TV is going to cost money, and obviously the HD machine we buy, such as DirecTV, is also going to cost money. However, they also have to charge us for the HD service, right? It's no different. I would actually EXPECT that AT&T would raise the price for a premium service that we should be thanking them for giving us. In fact, I'm going to go a few steps ahead and say that Apple is NOBLE for doing this. They are NOBLE for foreseeing the huge price the new iPhone would've had (try $640 for an 8 gig hard drive) and lowering the entry price just for us. They could've kept it at $400 and raked in the cash, but instead, they decided that they were going to take in less money in order to accommodate consumers' needs.
And by the way, why are these people even adding the monthly $10 extra to the entry price? That makes no sense. It clearly doesn't count as part of the entry price, and yet these people are looking for something in the iPhone 3G to complain about, so they search until they get this accusation they can make. That's like if I bought a car costing $17,000, but I also added the amount of gas the car was going to ultimately cost me within the next two years, making it a bigger price. It's an unfair accusation to make. Bottom line: Apple is not guilty on this one.
Bad 3G service: I'm not going to explain the peoples' case as much as show you this video that sums it up:
I understand this person's frustration, but I think this video is exactly what it's trying to combat: deceptive advertising. Instead of showing a fair comparison, they exaggerate their point to make it misleading people into thinking many things. They mislead people into thinking that this video shows how the iPhone acts everywhere. They also try to say that Apple made a fake video of the 'twice as fast' thing, as if the iPhone can't possibly use internet twice as fast. They say things like "We tried this 1/2 a dozen times" to make people think of the number 12 instead of the number 6. "You'll be waiting and waiting and waiting"? That's ridiculous. I have the first-gen iPhone, and I don't remember waiting that much for it let alone the new one. Overall, they just exaggerate their point, which is what they're accusing Apple of doing.
The truth is, the iPhone 3G CAN use Internet twice as fast. It doesn't necessarily, depending on where you live, how many bars you have, how the 3G network is in the area, and so on. But it can. Apple showed this when they introduced the device by showing a recording of the iPhone's speeds. No, they weren't lying. No, they weren't making it up. It really happened. Just because it doesn't go exactly twice as fast for you doesn't mean you have to complain about it. And by the way, how many phones can you find that go as fast as the iPhone? I want you to find me three phones that have a faster network. Until then, I rest my case. It's not deceptive advertising. It's showing what the machine can do.
No plastic keyboard: I can't believe people still think this is a problem. There is an auto-correction software built in to the iPhone that definitely makes up for this. And pretty soon, you'll be able to turn it off! I have no problem typing on it. Plus, lack of plastic keyboard is better. It gives you more display, it's only there when you need it, and it can be changed for different languages.
-Derek
It's too expensive: Obviously, when you look at the iPhone 3G, you are excited because it only costs half the price. However, pessimists are quick to point out that it adds an extra $10 or so to the monthly bill. If you add the extra $10 with the actual iPhone's price, you get about $440; more than the predecessor's price.
Now let's think about why this is. iPhone 3G obviously uses the 3G network- hence its name- and it costs more for AT&T to provide us that. That means they would lose money unless they charge us more of our money for the 3G service. Think of it as an HD TV service. Obviously the TV is going to cost money, and obviously the HD machine we buy, such as DirecTV, is also going to cost money. However, they also have to charge us for the HD service, right? It's no different. I would actually EXPECT that AT&T would raise the price for a premium service that we should be thanking them for giving us. In fact, I'm going to go a few steps ahead and say that Apple is NOBLE for doing this. They are NOBLE for foreseeing the huge price the new iPhone would've had (try $640 for an 8 gig hard drive) and lowering the entry price just for us. They could've kept it at $400 and raked in the cash, but instead, they decided that they were going to take in less money in order to accommodate consumers' needs.
And by the way, why are these people even adding the monthly $10 extra to the entry price? That makes no sense. It clearly doesn't count as part of the entry price, and yet these people are looking for something in the iPhone 3G to complain about, so they search until they get this accusation they can make. That's like if I bought a car costing $17,000, but I also added the amount of gas the car was going to ultimately cost me within the next two years, making it a bigger price. It's an unfair accusation to make. Bottom line: Apple is not guilty on this one.
Bad 3G service: I'm not going to explain the peoples' case as much as show you this video that sums it up:
I understand this person's frustration, but I think this video is exactly what it's trying to combat: deceptive advertising. Instead of showing a fair comparison, they exaggerate their point to make it misleading people into thinking many things. They mislead people into thinking that this video shows how the iPhone acts everywhere. They also try to say that Apple made a fake video of the 'twice as fast' thing, as if the iPhone can't possibly use internet twice as fast. They say things like "We tried this 1/2 a dozen times" to make people think of the number 12 instead of the number 6. "You'll be waiting and waiting and waiting"? That's ridiculous. I have the first-gen iPhone, and I don't remember waiting that much for it let alone the new one. Overall, they just exaggerate their point, which is what they're accusing Apple of doing.
The truth is, the iPhone 3G CAN use Internet twice as fast. It doesn't necessarily, depending on where you live, how many bars you have, how the 3G network is in the area, and so on. But it can. Apple showed this when they introduced the device by showing a recording of the iPhone's speeds. No, they weren't lying. No, they weren't making it up. It really happened. Just because it doesn't go exactly twice as fast for you doesn't mean you have to complain about it. And by the way, how many phones can you find that go as fast as the iPhone? I want you to find me three phones that have a faster network. Until then, I rest my case. It's not deceptive advertising. It's showing what the machine can do.
No plastic keyboard: I can't believe people still think this is a problem. There is an auto-correction software built in to the iPhone that definitely makes up for this. And pretty soon, you'll be able to turn it off! I have no problem typing on it. Plus, lack of plastic keyboard is better. It gives you more display, it's only there when you need it, and it can be changed for different languages.
-Derek
Friday, November 7, 2008
Listening to: Kid A
by Radiohead. I get most of my super-cool music from one of my teachers. I just borrow the CDs from him and put them on my iTunes, then return them to his collection. When I asked him if Kid A was any good, he just said, in a very quiet, disturbing voice, "Oh, no. You're not ready for that yet. That one's going to drive you insane. It's going to make you kill yourself or something. Please, just put it back... put it back..."
So naturally, I put it back and then took it when he wasn't looking a few minutes later. So now I'm listening to it on my ultra-high-quality iPhone through brand new Apple-made headphones, and my verdict is: it's a powerful album. It is very powerful. I can see what my teacher was thinking when he warned me about it.
My favorite song is absolutely "National Anthem", followed in order by "Kid A" and "How to Disappear Completely".
"National Anthem" is a seriously depressing song. It starts with some cool bass, cool drums, crazy-sounding horns, etc, and then out of nowhere, the lead singer begins to sing, "Everyone/ Everyone around here/ Everyone is so near/ So alone/ So alone". Now the thing is, just typing those words here does the actual experience of hearing it absolutely no justice. His voice is very echoey (in music-speak, it's called reverb), and it's quiet, almost as if he's suffering, etc. And the lyrics themselves? I don't know why, but I fell in love with them as soon as I heard them. For some reason I feel as if I can relate to them. I can see why it's called the National Anthem. It's almost like he's saying, "We don't need that BS national anthem most countries have where they're saying everybody loves to get along with each other. We need a national anthem that speaks the real truth, comes out and says, 'You know what? Society isn't like that. We may be standing right next to each other, but we're so far apart that it tears us up into little pieces.'"
Then there's "Kid A", the second track on the album ("National Anthem" is the third). It features a robotic voice, presumably the lead singers' put through a talk box of some kind. This voice sounds really sad. For me, it kind of conjures up images of a person trapped inside a metal robot body, desperate to get out. I can't hear what the robot is saying yet, but I'll find out soon.
"How to Disappear Completely" features very few loud instruments, the core opposite of "National Anthem". The main lines include "I'm not here, this isn't happening". Almost disturbing when you think about it. It might not just be denial, but schizophrenia. With how messed-up the lead singer of Radiohead seems to be in the brain, I wouldn't doubt it.
Overall, it's a thought-provoking, brilliant piece of art. But don't listen to it if you are battling depression.
So naturally, I put it back and then took it when he wasn't looking a few minutes later. So now I'm listening to it on my ultra-high-quality iPhone through brand new Apple-made headphones, and my verdict is: it's a powerful album. It is very powerful. I can see what my teacher was thinking when he warned me about it.
My favorite song is absolutely "National Anthem", followed in order by "Kid A" and "How to Disappear Completely".
"National Anthem" is a seriously depressing song. It starts with some cool bass, cool drums, crazy-sounding horns, etc, and then out of nowhere, the lead singer begins to sing, "Everyone/ Everyone around here/ Everyone is so near/ So alone/ So alone". Now the thing is, just typing those words here does the actual experience of hearing it absolutely no justice. His voice is very echoey (in music-speak, it's called reverb), and it's quiet, almost as if he's suffering, etc. And the lyrics themselves? I don't know why, but I fell in love with them as soon as I heard them. For some reason I feel as if I can relate to them. I can see why it's called the National Anthem. It's almost like he's saying, "We don't need that BS national anthem most countries have where they're saying everybody loves to get along with each other. We need a national anthem that speaks the real truth, comes out and says, 'You know what? Society isn't like that. We may be standing right next to each other, but we're so far apart that it tears us up into little pieces.'"
Then there's "Kid A", the second track on the album ("National Anthem" is the third). It features a robotic voice, presumably the lead singers' put through a talk box of some kind. This voice sounds really sad. For me, it kind of conjures up images of a person trapped inside a metal robot body, desperate to get out. I can't hear what the robot is saying yet, but I'll find out soon.
"How to Disappear Completely" features very few loud instruments, the core opposite of "National Anthem". The main lines include "I'm not here, this isn't happening". Almost disturbing when you think about it. It might not just be denial, but schizophrenia. With how messed-up the lead singer of Radiohead seems to be in the brain, I wouldn't doubt it.
Overall, it's a thought-provoking, brilliant piece of art. But don't listen to it if you are battling depression.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Today is a great day for America
History was made last night. President Bush is no longer president of the USA; now that title goes to Barack Obama, the first black president to ever run in office. People have been hungry for a democrat president rather than a republican president, and now that wish has been fulfilled. I hope Obama leads us out of this economically depressing time and back to greatness.
In other news, Proposition 8 has won. Which makes me sick. Well, in the words of Jack Dorsey, "Proposition 8 may have won the day, but in the end it will lose." Something along those lines.
-Derek
In other news, Proposition 8 has won. Which makes me sick. Well, in the words of Jack Dorsey, "Proposition 8 may have won the day, but in the end it will lose." Something along those lines.
-Derek
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
No new iMacs, Mac Minis, Mac Pros, etc
"Our holiday lineup is set," says VP of marketing at Apple. Oh well. There's always next year.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Review: "Viva La Vida" by Coldplay
"Viva La Vida" is a big album right now, and Coldplay is pulling out all the stops to get it seen. So I bought it on iTunes, and how is it? It's fantastic. This album is absolute gold, and it will certainly go down in history as one of the great albums of the early 2000's. Let's look at its songs.
I think it's core makeup is the songs "Lost!" and "Lost?". They are essentially the same song, but the first one appears as the third song of the album, and the second appears as the album's finale. "Lost!" is a hard-rocking song, but "Lost?" is a quiet piano song with the same basic musical skeleton as the first. The songs open with the inspirational lyric "Just because I'm losing / doesn't mean I'm lost". Now listen to how this is said in the song. The words themselves are ingenious, but listen to how the haunting melody absolutely interlocks with the mood of the words. As a fellow musician, I can tell you that being able to do that takes pure skill. The way the songs are placed in the album sets the theme for the album, and it reminds me of "In The Flesh?" and "In The Flesh" by Pink Floyd in their rock opera epic, "The Wall".
"42" is a great song, the title probably reflecting Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
But the shiniest gem of the record is the title track, full of soaring vocals, poetic lyrics, and brilliant dynamics. The song is complete with a beautiful orchestra and chorus that makes the music sound extremely colorful and almost seems to make it sparkle. If you have a brand new iPod with brand new headphones, this is a spectacle to listen to on it.
Overall, it's a five-star album. It's been a pleasure to listen to, and I highly recommend it. This is a must-have for your iPod, and an iPod is a must-have because of this.
-Derek
I think it's core makeup is the songs "Lost!" and "Lost?". They are essentially the same song, but the first one appears as the third song of the album, and the second appears as the album's finale. "Lost!" is a hard-rocking song, but "Lost?" is a quiet piano song with the same basic musical skeleton as the first. The songs open with the inspirational lyric "Just because I'm losing / doesn't mean I'm lost". Now listen to how this is said in the song. The words themselves are ingenious, but listen to how the haunting melody absolutely interlocks with the mood of the words. As a fellow musician, I can tell you that being able to do that takes pure skill. The way the songs are placed in the album sets the theme for the album, and it reminds me of "In The Flesh?" and "In The Flesh" by Pink Floyd in their rock opera epic, "The Wall".
"42" is a great song, the title probably reflecting Douglas Adams' "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
But the shiniest gem of the record is the title track, full of soaring vocals, poetic lyrics, and brilliant dynamics. The song is complete with a beautiful orchestra and chorus that makes the music sound extremely colorful and almost seems to make it sparkle. If you have a brand new iPod with brand new headphones, this is a spectacle to listen to on it.
Overall, it's a five-star album. It's been a pleasure to listen to, and I highly recommend it. This is a must-have for your iPod, and an iPod is a must-have because of this.
-Derek
"Opera Mini"
So in case you haven't heard, a big story in the Mac news lately has been that the Opera company made a version of Opera called "Opera Mini" for the iPhone, but it was rejected by Apple because it was one of the apps that mirrors an Apple-made feature (in this case, Safari) too closely. This really got me mad for a couple reasons. One, if you are allowed to have Opera on a Mac, why can't you have it on your phone? The iPhone, I like to think, is basically just a version of the Mac that you keep in your pocket. How is it any different from an actual Mac which has apps of its own? The other reason this annoyed me is that I've seen a lot of apps that mirror Apple's own apps too closely that actually made it to the App Store. Case in point: "Tea Timer". It's useless. It's terrible. It's just a timer that's exactly like the one you get FOR FREE in the "Clock" app that the iPhone already comes with. And worst of all, you have to PAY FOR IT. Yeah, I know. It's a rip off. So my point is, if an application as useless as that can make it to the App Store, why can't something much better that will put it's own spin on its theme make it to the App Store? It makes no sense.
However, this just in, it seems that none of that was true. The Opera Mini version for the iPhone was not rejected, because in fact, it was never sent to Apple for approval in the first place. It seems that whoever got that impression needed to check his facts. The Opera employees will not reveal their identities since their employers do not approve of them sharing this information. Thanks to Mac Rumors for the very useful heads-up. (original story)
However, this just in, it seems that none of that was true. The Opera Mini version for the iPhone was not rejected, because in fact, it was never sent to Apple for approval in the first place. It seems that whoever got that impression needed to check his facts. The Opera employees will not reveal their identities since their employers do not approve of them sharing this information. Thanks to Mac Rumors for the very useful heads-up. (original story)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)