i wonder if press about iphone update problems is making general users not update

i have not uploaded any developer iphone apps, probably like most iphone users. i was certainly tempted to do so, but on the one side i just didn’t have the time yet to do so and on the other side i wanted to wait a little bit to see how those non supported apps were doing with future updates. 
from all i can tell this new update is not that amazing. it addresses very few issues i have with the iphone, but it add the itunes store a potential booster for apple’s itunes store. so apple has some incentive to have users update to 1.1.1

but  apple has done itself quite some dis-service by generating a lot of press about how the update will not support any non-supported applications or unlocked phones. those users that have done/used either will certainly know what apple is talking about (although it seems from some reports that some users did those things without being completely aware of what they were doing), but the majority of users will likely not have done either of the two and just see all the stories (even on the new york times) that show how iphones become un-usable after the 1.1.1 update.

i don’t have any numbers but it wouldn’t surprise me to see many iphones users being hesitant to update because of all of this press. and ultimately it is only apple who is hurting from people not updating.

the touchscreen creates an intimate relationship with the iphone

apple is famous for creating products that users attach to. unlike dell’s dull PCs with their cryptic names, apple sells colorful macs, computers that have a name (the imac, the mac mini, the powerbook, the macbook). on top of this apple users are known for even further personalizing their computers and in some cases giving them actual names. then there is a smily face apple logo, all there to create a relationship between user and device.
when apple introduced the ipod one of the things that stood out was the navigation — the scroll wheel, which reacted to a users speed and force of touch. you moved your fingers through the menus rather than clicking yourself through the menu. now with the iphone apple has upped this direct navigation even more. there are no more buttons or click wheels, the user touches the navigation, there is no stylus or other device between the user and the device. it is the most intimate interaction with a device. you touch the inner workings of the device. there are bright colored icons that you touch to communicate with the iphone.
early user  feedback shows that iphone owners are extremely happy with the device. i think that the touchscreen of the iphone — which is not only used to tap on menu icons but to more or less do any kind of input from simple tap, to increasing the size of a picture, or typing text — is a key reason for the users’ happiness with the device. by removing the keys and buttons, apple has broken down one last barrier between the user and the device, making users feel the glass and move it along, rather than just tapping a single button. 

another list of “most important mac apps”

ok, i admit that this is not very original, pretty much any blog is doing this now. but because there are a couple of apps that i use that don’t make it on any of those other lists, i thought i would add my own (if only to send a link to friends that have a new mac and need this advice). so here it is, ordered in a maybe slightly different way:login applications i can’t live without

• little snitch: working partly in IT security this application provides a little peace of mind 
• launchbar: another opdev app. this one i just can’t live without. it is in constant use. i have used it for more than 5 years now and it is still my favorite apps launcher. i have tried quicksilver a bunch of time but have always come back to launchbar
• shadow clipboard: this is one of those applications that you start using and then pretty soon just becomes an applications you use all the time and wonder how you ever used a computer without it. this little place that stores you copy and past history

applications i use for workwell, i have to use word, excel, powerpoint, and entourage for work since i work in an MS environment, but here are the apps that i would use if i could make the choice and also the ones i am using despite the MS dominance in the office

•  iWork: i got the new version, and i am using it more and more. numbers is great
• devonthink pro: spotlight is good, but devonthink is where all my web sites and notes end up. the application is one of the first i open when i start my computer
• scrivener: my absolutely favorite writing application. the cork board is great to structure your thoughts and store background info and the full screen mode helps to focus on the writing
• omni web: my web browser of choice. again one of those applications i just keep getting back to. tried safari, firefox … but in the end i am always coming home to omni web. just the best and most beautiful web browser

other applications here are a couple of apps i use at home

•  lightroom: iphoto is great, especially the new one, but only some pictures make it into iphoto, lightroom is where all my photos go to be stores and archived. 
• itunes: i don’t think i need to say anything about this app

ok, so these are my top 9 apps, the apps i use every day and that i couldn’t work with. 

apple, itunes, ipods, and how to make music buying fun

one could say that the apple event yesterday was a big slap in the face not only of microsoft and its lackluster zune, but more importantly the music and entertainment industry. steve jobs certainly showed who owns the online music business  with the introduction of the new ipods (which will very likely be quite successful this christmas season) and the new partnership with starbucks. let’s take a look at the starbucks partnership. there are two interesting components in this deal:

1.  apple is seeking smaller music producers and labels to become more independent from the large labels. certainly the large labels have big catalogues and some of the biggest acts. but smaller labels and starbucks are attracting newer bands with their more innovative business models and with bands being less reliant on radio air-play large labels are loosing some of their advantage of the smaller ones. on the other hand smaller labels have an easier time to find these new bands. while starbucks is becoming its own music player, the partnership also makes the itunes store more attractive to smaller labels, expanding itunes reach.
2. and this increased reach is something that other online stores will have a hard time replicating. not only are there hundreds of millions itunes versions out on end user computers feeding millions of ipods, but now the buying experience is no longer limited to the home or office. itunes unlike any other online music and digital entertainment store can now create impulse buys “in the wild”. this is something the music industry has not yet seen, in a way it is the dream that european carriers have dreamt about ever since they have to pay those huge bills for their 3G licenses — to offer music over the air, just when users hear it and at the very moment were they are willing to pay a buck — but unlike the phone companies apple gets it right. the song is in full sound quality and will become part of the overall music collection of a user. 

now about the ipods there is something interesting, too. 

1. there is a clear move to video. all ipods with a screen have video now (nbc, did you read that?). and unlike two years ago or so, even this little screen is now ok to watch movies on for steve. 
2. games are now part of the ipods. apple has realized that the ipod is a great gaming platform. the iphone and the ipod touch will soon follow, but there will be much more games coming, opening up a new revenue stream for apple and making apple less reliant on music and video (ok now this is not happening soon, but over the long run it will become a stead revenue stream)
3. radio is officially dead. ok i guess this is nothing new. but even in this most current update, apple didn’t include radio. apple listened and there is just not enough demand. why? npr, bbc, … they all have podcasts, so why listen to live radio where you never know what is on. 

now just a little note on the success of apple and why rubin, the labels and studios and the others won’t win in the online downloading market.

1. labels like sony  will never succeed in running their own download stores, they will always be niche. and no matter what sony and the others do (Does Sony Finally have an iTunes Answer?) people will buy music from artists not labels. i don’t buy a song or album because sony did it, and i do not care which label is owning bruce springsteen when i buy his new album (actually knowing that universal owns an artists is more of an disincentive for me to buy the album). i usually like to compare this to the movie studios that thought that could open theaters in the 80s and only show movies from their own studio. this clearly failed because people watch movies that they like and are interested in and they couldn’t care less which studio did it.
2. other platforms will have to wait a long time and have a lot of financial stamina to compete because the ipod is just too powerful. and unfortunately the longer it will take the competition the less likely it will be they will win over customers because every minute that goes by, itunes users will expand their itunes library with apple acc files. 
3. apple just cares about music. this might sounds stupid, but i honestly believe that steve and his other apple people really like music and use that as the starting point when creating a new ipod or updating itunes. music and entertainment is certainly a business for apple (and a large one in that), but unlike the music labels and other tech firms they don’t make it look like it.
4. and lastly i have to steal kt tunstall’s quote from her performance at the apple event: “It’s fantastic that Steve Jobs is making it more fun to pay for music than steal it!” this is probably the most important analysis of apple’s impact on the online music and entertainment industry. and i would even expand it and say that apple has made music and movies and tv fun again. thanks to ipods people have a renewed relationship with their music again. something that i think people lost with the introduction with the sterile cd (unlike the gritty tapes and the large vinyl records with their big print covers). 

as much as rick rubin sees himself being the savior of music, he is not

the story on rick rubin in this sunday’s new york time’s magazine the music man has gotten quite a bit of airtime in the blogsphere, but there were a couple of points that i haven’t seen so far. let me start with my general view of rubin, then provide a couple of sentences on areas that have already been covered across the web and then finish on why i think that rubin’s vision actually destroys music as we know it.  i have no doubt that rubin is a gifted music producer and trend spotter. judging by his past he has certainly showed that he can pick a diamond in the rough or in a way even better make one. and those that he picked are not any one hit wonders that play boring manufactured pop songs, but bands that have long lasting substance. obviously we don’t know how many bad picks he had for each beastie boys or ll cool j. i also have to say that him trying to make columbia records sign bands that make great music is going to be the way to get people interested in music again. after all people are still flocking to local clubs to hear music, so the interest is not dead, it is just that the music provided especially by the large record labels felt dead.  the story has an interesting quote by one of columbia’s executives which i find shows their disconnect with their customers:

 The focus groups may have been the real point of Big Red — Barnett and the New York executives, especially those who had been at Sony for years, wanted to try to take the pulse of the elusive music audience. “The Big Red focus groups were both depressing and informative, and they confirmed what I — and Rick — already knew,” DiDia told me afterward. “The kids all said that a) no one listens to the radio anymore, b) they mostly steal music, but they don’t consider it stealing, and c) they get most of their music from iTunes on their iPod. They told us that MySpace is over, it’s just not cool anymore; Facebook is still cool, but that might not last much longer; and the biggest thing in their life is word of mouth. That’s how they hear about music, bands, everything.”  

 ok, so no one listens to radio anymore, no big deal (but they do listen to pod-casts a very similar medium, which provides similar ways to spread a message). maybe these users do not think they are stealing because first of all the music does not feel valuable enough because it is too bad, or because they have payed for the music a couple of times already and because of this rightfully don’t think of it as stealing. third, i don’t know if this is a typo, but itunes is not on the ipod, but if these people get their music from itunes, then this also includes the itunes store which is legal, and these executives miss the importance of single song or album download. in addition there is another paragraph , one that got a lot of air across other blogs, which made me realize that rubin is not the right person to help the music industry, since he doesn’t understand the business side of it: 

 Rubin has a bigger idea. To combat the devastating impact of file sharing, he, like others in the music business (Doug Morris and Jimmy Iovine at Universal, for instance), says that the future of the industry is a subscription model, much like paid cable on a television set. “You would subscribe to music,” Rubin explained, as he settled on the velvet couch in his library. “You’d pay, say, $19.95 a month, and the music will come anywhere you’d like. In this new world, there will be a virtual library that will be accessible from your car, from your cellphone, from your computer, from your television. Anywhere. The iPod will be obsolete, but there would be a Walkman-like device you could plug into speakers at home. You’ll say, ‘Today I want to listen to … Simon and Garfunkel,’ and there they are. The service can have demos, bootlegs, concerts, whatever context the artist wants to put out. And once that model is put into place, the industry will grow 10 times the size it is now.”  

 just as ipods are not the problem of the music industry, so the subscription model is not the solution. first of all, i agree with most of the other blogs that any kind of subscription model certainly does not mean the death sentence of the ipod. the ipod will just become one of those walkman-like devices rubing points out. but what i find much more disturbing is that rubin who has been in the music industry for so long really thinks that a subscription model will save the industry. one key element of the music industry are fans. people who love bands that make music. a subscription model will kill the connection between music consumers and music makers. i will get a download of music i like onto my device in the morning and then have a shitload of stuff on it and unless i actually check what is playing i am just listening. i have no reason to get into any of this because as i drive the next song is probably from another band, probably quite similar to the last one, and then i will probably have forgotten all about the one song i liked. i will not own music anymore, i will just own the right to listen to stuff, but there is no connection between me and the music anymore. to think subscription models will save the music industry is foolish. a model like this will create an initial stream of new revenue, but it will kill off the creation of new fans, the life blood of the industry, and the musicians. there are two key decisions that the music industry will have to make in order to stay relevant:

1.  drm free music 
2. good music 

in addition they will have to become a service agency to musicians, in a way they will no longer be the ones picking musicians, but musicians will pick the label that suits them best and offers them the service they like best. 

guardian unlimited sets new online newspaper standard

i checked out the site of the british newspaper the guardian and while i am never surprised about the standard of their writing, this time i was surprised about their new site design. the paper has always pushed the web and through this effort gotten a loyal following in the US, but with their recent site-re-design they have also pushed site design for news sites. 
  
what i really like about the site is how clean it is and how clear the text is, making it much more readable than the text on the new cnn site for example.  also unlike cnn, the site does not rely on ad-on headers like “breaking” to stress the importance of a story, but places stories according to importance. overall i have to say that this is a really beautifully design news site, which provides a lot of information and avoids falling into the “screaming of news” trap that too many sites have fallen into. instead it is clear, readable text, and an easily navigatable structure. now, i just wish that the same design would be applied across the whole site, and not just to the home page.  

the absurdity of single mobile carrier subway contracts

mobile phone coverage in the washington dc metro system is limited to verizon. everybody who lives the nation’s capital and is not a customer of verizon will be aware of this. but this practice (for which we probably have to thank metro) does not make any sense. and there are three main reasons for this: 

1.  economics: while a single carrier might agree to foot the bill to build the network infrastructure required for an underground transportation system and also agree to pay a lump sum to be the sole network rights holder in the transportation network, the metro system could have such as easily allowed each network operator to install network equipment for a fee and then in addition have to pay an annual fixed or flexible rent (maybe based on network traffic). even smarter would have been for metro to install network equipment and then rent it out to all operators that request to use the infrastructure. getting payed by all operators will very likely lead to the same if not more income for the metro system. 
2. social responsibility: the metro is performing a public service, and receives to a part public money. while this shouldn’t bar the metro organization to look for outside funding, it should not look for exclusive deals. just as it shouldn’t get into an exclusive ATM contract with one bank, it shouldn’t do so with a mobile carrier, because its main aim is to serve the public and to offer a environmentally friendly form of transportation. 
3. public safety: it is september and so all over the country people will be reminded of 9/11. one thing i remember of that day is that people used their mobile phones to contact not only loved ones, but also security services (in particular 911). in case of an emergency in the metro system (this can be any kind of event), people that do not have a verizon phone will not be able to use their mobile phone to reach emergency services and communicate with the outside world, instead they will have to rely on installed (line-based) phones which might work or not and which people probably do not know the location of. to ensure that emergency services are contacted as fast as possible and have access to information provided by people inside the system it is critical that metro (or any kind of subway system, as well as car tunnel) provides network access to all existing network technologies and providers.