Singing the Apple

The iPad and CloudOn: a great combination

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Wed, 02 May 2012 02:58:00 +0000

About a month ago, I finally relented and bought an iPad. I’d been holding off for a couple of years, mostly because I couldn’t justify the expense. I couldn’t really use the device for work, since it doesn't run Word, and since I don’t travel much anyway, or even work outside of the house much, I don’t have need for a small form factor device other than my laptop.

But the sharper screen and rumours of an impending release of Office for iPad were too tempting, and I finally bit the bullet. And despite the fact that the Office rumours seem to have been unfounded, I'm loving it. It’s a great little computer for reading news and email over breakfast, and it’s cooler and lighter for surfing in the evenings. The interface is as snappy as promised, and the battery life also lives up to expectations. The camera is quite good, and taking pictures with it is, surprisingly, not as awkward as I thought it would be. Writing a lot of text on the on-screen keyboard would get old very quickly, but with a bluetooth keyboard and my recently purchased Origami Workstation, the typing experience is excellent, and the voice recognition is also very good.

But what has got me really excited about my new toy is not the device itself but an app. CloudOn allows you to access a virtual copy of MS Office on your iPad. This means that I can do real work on my iPad and, hence, I can use it as my “travel” computer, rather than my laptop.

By “real work,” I mean receive documents by email, save them to my usual file system, open them in Word, translate them, and send them back to my client. Basically the same process I use on my “real” computers.

Here’s how it works: When you download CloudOn from the iOS app store, it asks you to create a free account and then link the app to either a Box.com account or a Dropbox account. I use Dropbox to sync my work files across my two computers, and it was a snap to enter my credentials and access all my work files.

From the CloudOn workspace, you can cut, copy, rename, delete, or email any file. (Incidentally, in the iPad Mail app, you can tap and hold an attachment and choose “Open in Dropbox…” to save it directly to your Dropbox account.) My only complaint is that the copy function isn’t very flexible. On a “real” computer, you can easily duplicate a file and save it to the same folder; the file system will automatically append “copy” or “1” to the file. But this doesn’t work in CloudOn. In fact, the rename function doesn’t allow you to append anything to the file name; you have to create a whole new name for the file that doesn’t exceed the number of characters in the original. One way around this limitation is to copy the file and then create a new subfolder and paste the copy there. That way, you’re free to do your work on a copy of the original, as any good translator should do. It’s a bit of a kludge, but it does the job. I’m not really complaining too hard; it is a free app, after all. But I do hope the CloudOn developers will address this in a future update.

Once you’ve made your copy, you can open it in Word (or Excel or PowerPoint, as the case may be) and work on it. The interface isn’t as snappy as a desktop, but it’s definitely good enough. Most of the standard keyboard shortcuts don’t work, so you have to use the touchscreen interface and the Word ribbon for functions like undo, bold, italic, change language, etc. Not ideal, but for short periods, it's acceptable. Files save automatically, just as they normally do with Dropbox, and it’s a snap to attach a completed file to an email message and return it to your client.

Multitasking on the iPad has a long way to go, but Apple has implemented some new multitouch gestures with iOS 5, and it's easy to swipe between apps. This means you can have Safari open with tabs for Termium, WordReference, and Thesaurus.com open and simply swipe back and forth between Safari and CloudOn. A little clunky, but again, acceptable for short periods.

Clearly, I’m not about to switch to the iPad as my main computer, but I’m very excited about the prospect of leaving my laptop behind the few times a year I go on the road and for those times when I just need to get out of the house and work for a few hours at the local coffee shop. Until Microsoft comes out with an official iPad version of Office (and I would pay a significant amount for a native iPad version), CloudOn is a highly acceptable solution, and its integration with Dropbox has made it a very valuable app in my arsenal of tools.

Finally, I have to admit that I’m old enough to find that toting around a device as light, small and elegant as the iPad, combined with a small bluetooth keyboard, feels very much like science fiction to me. Laptops have been around long enough that they’ve lost their “wow” factor. But the iPad is still new enough that it feels a little like it comes from the future. In that sense, the iPad really is, as Steve Jobs was fond of saying, a magical device.

Double Standard

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 01:36:00 +0000

I’ll admit it, I’m an Apple fan; but I’m no fanboy. Apple has and does disappoint me in many ways, and I’m not afraid to admit it. But often I feel that at least some of my disappointment stems from the fact that my expectations are just so darn high. When Apple does things well, it’s spectacular, so when one of their products is merely good or, rarely, mediocre, it’s normal—though perhaps not entirely fair—to feel betrayed.

However Apple’s critics are another matter indeed. Something about Apple attracts the sort of hostility—stoked to a white-hot hatred by the company’s skyrocketing success of late—that no other company I can think of must endure. Maybe it’s a necessary balance to the absolute devotion of a certain type of Apple lover.

But what I find frustrating about the coverage of Apple by tech journalists is the double standard that is so often applied. Take for instance the “controversy” over the recently announced Gatekeeper function of Apple’s forthcoming OS X update, Mountain Lion. Gatekeeper offers users three security settings for downloading software. The most secure setting limits you to applications from Apple’s App Store. A middle ground lets you download apps outside the App Store as long as they are from “identified developers” (with developer certification being free of charge). And a third option allows you to download apps from anywhere, with no restrictions.

I think it’s quite an elegant solution that provides an extra layer of security for those who want it but still gives those who wish to download “unapproved” apps the freedom to do so. So I was dismayed to hear certain prominent tech journalists (Tom Merritt, for instance, in the TNT podcast), rather than praising Apple for working to make its OS more secure, instead musing that they hoped this wasn’t the start a slippery slope toward Apple locking down the Mac OS completely in the future. Seriously?

A few years ago, tech journalists were all over Apple because of Safari's default setting to automatically open “safe” files, such as pictures and movies, after downloading (I'm not sure if this is still the case). They were right to do so; this was a highly insecure default setting. If Apple is deserving of criticism, I’ll gladly lead the charge, and in matters of security, the criticism has often been deserved. Which is why it’s so maddening when Apple gets bad press for doing something right in security!

I’ll give Merritt the benefit of the doubt, since he often plays devil’s advocate. But really, why does the role of devil’s advocate even need to be played in this case? Because of something Apple might do? In the unlikely event that Apple were to lock down OS X to limit where users can download apps from, it would surely bring the mother of all firestorms of criticism down on its head, and rightly so. But until that happens, why not offer praise where praise is due?

The obvious answer is that tech journalists are under so much pressure to not look like fanboys that they bend over backwards to be objective, even when that “objectivity” creates a double standard.

With all of Apple’s recent success, I suppose its a problem a lot of other companies would love to have.

From The Doghouse Diaries

CBC Music

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 03:14:00 +0000

When the CBC “revamped” its daytime programming in 2008, the move was almost universally panned among musicians and music lovers. The organization’s once proud and robust tradition of excellent classical and jazz programming was decimated, and excellent, dynamic radio hosts found themselves replaced by glorified DJs spinning an insipid lineup. No longer able to stomach this new programming, I found myself increasingly listening to my own classical iTunes library on shuffle or to online classical streaming radio stations.

Although the CBC did have a few online streaming stations, they were quite limited and very broad. So I was pleased and surprised to see the CBC finally launch a digital music service on Monday, along with an iOS app: CBC Music.

The new website and app have 40 different streaming channels, including 10 classical channels alone, and five jazz channels. For the last three afternoons, I’ve had the Baroque channel playing over my home stereo via the AirTunes link built into the iOS app (even after over a year of this feature’s release, I still find it somewhat magical to stream music from my iPod right to my stereo). It’s a testament to the quality of the music on the channel that I’ve only wanted to skip a couple of tracks so far. For the most part, the ensembles are all excellent, and there’s a decent variety. My only real complaint here is that it’s very heavily weighted toward instrumental music (in three days of listening, I have only heard one vocal track). In fact, I had assumed that it was instrumental only until I finally heard Karina Gauvin and Nicole Lemieux singing a Handel duet. I’m not sure why this should be, since there’s such a vast choice of vocal Baroque repertoire to choose from. Maybe it’s a licensing issue, but I hope they can change this. To be fair, the site seems to be in beta, which would indicate that they are still ironing out the bugs

I haven’t tried any of the other channels, but I’m very pleased with the Baroque channel. Every half an hour or so, there’s a promotional tag for the service, and this makes it less suitable for things like dinner parties, where it’s nice to have some music playing in the background. I have a few iTunes playlists I use for this, but I’d be happy to use CBC Music, especially since it means I get to listen to new music too, not just my guests. That said, I’ll admit that it’s a minor quibble for a free service.

The website itself works reasonably well, though I didn’t find it particularly intuitive to set up an account. Some of the social networking features either don’t work with Safari or Chrome (the two browsers I use), or they require you to enable popups. The CBC goes so far as to plead that these are problems with other sites such as Facebook, but frankly I find this a lame excuse. Even when I switched to FireFox to test it, I couldn’t for the life of me figure out how to enable the “Add to favourites” and “Share this track” buttons. And the “Add to playlist” button doesn’t seem to work, even though it isn’t greyed out. Kind of frustrating. Granted, it’s a new service, but I hope they squash these bugs soon. One nice thing is that you don’t have to create an account to use the service, though I believe you do have be have a Canadian IP address.

The iOS app does what it says on the box. It’s a very simple interface for surfing the various channels, and that’s about it. You can’t login to your CBC Music account, and you can’t use any of the social networking features (not that I seem to be able to use them on the website anyway). Which is all fine; I like simple. I imagine that a future update will add social networking features, and hopefully better implemented than on the website.

I do have a few items on my wish list for both the site and the app. First, a “skip” button. There seems to be one on the site, but it’s greyed out. Not sure what that’s all about. But the only control on the iOS app is a volume slider. As I said, the music selection is really quite good, so a skip button isn’t essential, but it would be nice.

Another feature that’s lacking is a link to iTunes so that I can buy a track if I like it. I’m pretty sure this would be easy enough to implement, so I’m not sure what’s holding the CBC back. Even something as simple as “search for this song on the iTunes store” would be fine.

I also wish there was some sort of notification system for the app, so that when my iPod screen locks, I could have a notification appear showing the track information, rather than having to unlock the screen every time I hear a track for which I want to know the title or artist.

But these quibbles aside, I like the service and the app. I think I’ll use the app more often just because it’s easier to stream it to my home stereo, but either way, for the first time since “the change,” classical music lovers can go to the CBC and find great music whenever they like. CBC radio is still a disaster, but radio is a dying medium anyway.

I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 04:10:00 +0000

Photo Credit: Kate Hartman (http://www.flickr.com/photos/katehartman)

This morning, I was perusing my Twitter feed and saw that Stephen Fry had tweeted a link to a Yahoo News story about a new phenomenon called the Phone Stack Game. The premise is that when you go out to dinner with friends, everyone puts their phone in the middle of the table (in a stack, one presumes) and the first one who gives in to the temptation of checking email or text messages or perhaps even taking a phone call (do people still actually call each other?) picks up the tab for dinner. This apparently makes the dinner more “civilized.”

While this is fine as trends go—and I’m all for people turning off their phones at dinner and other social gatherings, such as symphony concerts—I can’t help but feel that there is still a significant portion of the population who have it in for the poor old mobile phone.

Not that I am such a huge fan of the things (heck, I’m still using an ancient Sony-Ericsson slider phone), but let’s face it, they’re here to stay, and I think eventually our social norms will evolve so that they will be more accepted. This is already old news among young people. They don’t seem to have any qualms about checking their phones and socializing at the same time. Indeed, for teens, the two appear to be one and the same thing. So I think anyone younger than 20 would probably view the Phone Stack Game as rather quaint.

To me the bigger problem is the “loud talking” phenomenon. I’m sure you know what I’m talking about. Whether in restaurants, on airplanes, or in quiet places like museums—in fact, just about anywhere—loud talkers are incredibly annoying. They cheerfully blather away at 110 decibels, oblivious to the rattling window panes and bloodied eardrums they leave in their wakes. In fact, the only thing worse than a loud talker is a loud talker on the phone, and this is where I think the mobile phone gets a much worse rap than it deserves.

I’m not sure why this is, but it seems to be a universal human phenomenon that when we are speaking to someone who is not in the room with us, whether it’s on the phone or on Skype, we tend to speak louder. Perhaps because the other person is not right next to us, we feel on some subconscious level that it’s as though they were in the next room, and hence we need to raise our voice to be heard.

So forget the Phone Stack Game, here’s one bit of cell-phone etiquette that I wish were more common: When you’re on the phone, just speak normally! There’s no need to shout; the other party will hear you just fine, and you’ll avoid so many dirty looks. In exchange, I’d let you use your phone at the dinner table and not make you pick up the tab.

The mythical Apple Television -- doomed to failure? Of course it is.

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Tue, 10 Jan 2012 03:20:00 +0000

Even though Apple hasn’t attended the Consumer Electronics Show for years, it always seems to capture a lot of the show’s buzz, either by holding an event of its own around the same time, as it often did when it was involved with the Macworld exhibition, or, more recently, courtesy of the ever-churning Apple rumour mill.

This year is no different. With Steve Jobs’ revelation in Walter Isaacson’s biography that he had “cracked it,” in reference to making an easy-to-use TV, CES is (or apparently will be) abuzz over when Apple will release its long-rumoured television.

Count me among those who think Apple will eventually release a television, but I don't think it will be this year; my gut tells me we’ll have to wait until 2013. I think it will simply take that long for Apple to work the (sometimes serious) kinks out of iCloud and Siri.

That said, I have a bone to pick with the many pundits I hear, especially on the various tech podcasts I listen to, saying that an Apple-branded television is a ridiculous idea. Their arguments go along the lines that since Apple is a high-margin company, their TVs will be over-priced and doomed to fail because people traditionally don’t buy new TVs at the same rate they buy new computers or phones. Who would spend thousands and thousands of dollars on a new TV, knowing that it will be obsolete in a few years? The answer to this rhetorical question is, of course, no one. Hence the “doomed to failure” part. Every time I hear this, it sets my teeth on edge.

Apple has never entered a market only to compete on the existing playing field. With the iMac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad, it either totally disrupted the market or, in the case of the iPad, conjured it out of thin air. With so many precedents in its history, why do all these pundits think Apple would just make an over-priced TV to compete with Samsung, Toshiba and Sony.

I haven’t the foggiest idea what the Apple TV will be like, but if Steve Jobs and Apple "cracked it," I’d be willing to bet that a) it’s drop-dead gorgeous, b) it won’t be as expensive as everyone is expecting (remember the gasps of surprise when Steve introduced the iPad starting at $499), and c) it will be a game changer.

Somehow, I doubt many of the “pundits” will be willing to take my bet.

iPod nano 6th Gen

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 02:19:00 +0000

Wow. Has it really been over two years since I posted here? I suppose it’s time for an update. In fact it’s quite likely that updates will be forthcoming somewhat more regularly, since I plan to blog more frequently this year as part of my “Resolution 2012” project. So watch this space (if you dare).

Back in the early days of this blog, I talked about my purchase of a red iPod nano 2nd Gen. At the time, I thought it was one of the most lickable pieces of technology I’d ever owned. Apple is so good at making the old hardware look dated, but looking back objectively, the 1st Gen nano, especially the black model, was even more beautiful—classic in its beauty. I bought one for my wife back in the day, and while it was soon relegated to a drawer, I’ve always admired its sheer elegance. Five years ago, iPods were still somewhat of a luxury item, and that 1st Gen nano had luxury written all over it.

So I was a little sad when Apple recalled those 1st Gen nanos because of a battery issue. But I dutifully sent it back, hoping that Apple would fix it and send back the same model, but not really thinking they would. As expected, when the package came in the mail a few weeks ago, my wife’s beautiful 1st Gen nano was nowhere to be found. In its place was a new 6th Gen iPod—beautiful in its way, but not at all the same thing.

But hey, it’s smaller than the old iPod, and it has four times the capacity and a nifty touch screen. Cool as that is, though, I wasn’t sure what to do with it. Both my wife and I have iPod touches now, mine a 64 GB model, so space was not an issue. I certainly didn’t want to relegate a brand new iPod to the junk drawer, so I decided on a whim to try it out as my workout iPod.

I’ve recently taken to listening to podcasts again while running or walking, so I just synced it to my podcast folder in iTunes and off I went. Almost immediately I noticed some advantages of the nano over the iTouch. First, you can set the sleep/wake button to act as a play/pause button when you double-click it (the double-click can also be set to skip to the next track if you so prefer). Just that one thing—a hardware play/pause button—makes it a better workout device than the Touch. Also, because it’s wearable, I’ve taken to using it around the house (that hardware play/pause button still comes in handy), where I was previously using bluetooth headphones with my Touch. The hardware volume buttons on the nano are also nicer, it seems to me, than the ones on the Touch. The nano’s weight is also an advantage. While the Touch isn’t exactly heavy, if you happen to drop it while wearing wired earbuds, you’ll experience—as I have done on several occasions—the nasty sensation of having them ripped out of your ears as the whole unit falls to the floor. With the nano, if for any reason it slips out of your hands, it’s light enough that it simply dangles there from your ears. No harm done.

So I must say that though I’m a little sad that my wife’s old nano is gone, I’m quite pleased that we have been upgraded after four years. This new nano has actually become my iPod of choice for around the house. The only drawback is that it doesn’t have bluetooth, but I’d be willing to make a small wager that that feature will be part of the 7th Gen nano.

Good on you Apple. Even though the nano is probably not a huge money earner for the company compared with the iPhone or even the iPod Touch, it’s still a great little device. If you’re looking for a workout iPod, I highly recommend it.

An iTunes 9 annoyance

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:54:00 +0000

With the latest version of Apple's erstwhile music playing app--now the 800 MB do-it-all gorilla known as iTunes 9--came a total revamp of the iTunes store. And while there's no denying it's prettier, it has also introduced an annoyance that I can no longer overlook.

Take a look at this screenshot (click to enlarge):

Notice anything odd? Yep. All the album names are truncated. I know that there's an album with some Rachmaninoff and that it's probably related to the piano rather than the greek letter pi, but I have no other immediate visual information about the album. Hovering my mouse over the album does nothing. Clicking the "i" information button brings up a pop-up that tells me this album is entitled "Rachmaninoff plays Ra..."

Excuse me, but WTF? I had no idea that the Egyptian sun god wrote piano music. OK, my incredulity is forced. You get my point. But at least the track names are all there, you say. And yes, it's true. In this preview window, the track names are all present and accounted for in full. So why then, if I click the "Album Page" link to see the recording's dedicated page, am I presented with this:

While I finally get to see what the full album title is, now all the track titles are truncated. I have to hover the pointer over the track name to see it in full. It's as if iTunes is some sort of control freak who doesn't want you to know too much lest it feel it's loosing control of the situation.

The worst thing is, there's no way to expand the track name (or any other) field, so in this case, I can't find out the full artist name (Zenph Studios and Serg...) unless I preview the track and look in the iTunes display window (Zenph Studios and Sergei Rachmaninoff). Sure seems like a lot of work to find information that's on the cover of any CD. (Incidentally, don't you think it's noble of Sergei to let the studio take first billing; I guess it's easy to be magnanimous when you're dead.)

So yeah, the new iTunes store is pretty, but at least the old one had some substance. I logged a feedback note with Apple about this issue, but I must say crappy UI design is pretty rare in an Apple product. All the more reason why when something like this does get into a release, its so startling.

Two weeks with Google Quick Search Box

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:19:00 +0000

Quicksilver, I'm sorry, but barring a miracle, you're dead to me. After installing Snow Leopard a few weeks back, I upgraded to QS B56a7. The good news: it works; the bad news: it hogs 100 percent of my MacBook Pro's CPU. So, er, no.

Hence, it's back to Google Quick Search Box. And to be honest, I'm pretty happy with it. It works well, and after setting it up to use the same launch key combo that I used for QS, I hardly notice the difference. It lets me mount and eject disk images with a few keystrokes, just like QS. I've even managed to assign the same Command-esc shortcut to send a file (not a folder though) to QSB. Unfortunately, once there, QSB can't do anything useful with it yet. QS would let you email it or move it or make an alias of it somewhere. These are functions I would really like to see in QSB soon.

In the meantime, I'm trying to figure out how to use Automator and Snow Leopard's revamped Services menu to bridge the functionality gap between the two apps. But I'm an Automator novice and it's slow going. One thing is sure: QSB is winning over my heart.

Is this the end for Quicksilver?

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 04:08:00 +0000

I've been a Quicksilver user for many years. In many ways, it is integral to my experience as a Mac user. It's the kind of program that becomes part of how you use your machine, so much so that when I come to another computer that is not equipped with QS, I often find myself at a loss, grumbling about how inefficient it is to use a mouse for everything.

Quicksilver worked really well through OS X.4 (Tiger), so when reports of bugs in the program began to appear after Apple released Leopard, I was very, very worried. But my fears were mostly unfounded. Though it was definitely buggier, Quicksilver still worked reasonably well on Leopard. It's a true testament to Quicksilver that so many users were willing to put up with more than a few bugs. That's how amazing Quicksilver was.

But the other day, after installing the most recent QS build--even before upgrading to Snow Leopard--the app went from finicky to downright ornery (to paraphrase a tweet by Merlin Mann). I could no longer use the "Create alias in..." command with the "Current selection" proxy action. And something about the new build would periodically prevent me from moving folders in the Finder until I had logged out and back in again. Not to mention even more crashes than usual and an apparent desire to use the computer's fans to get airborne on occasion. I have since downgraded to the previous version, but that old fear of what will happen after I upgrade to Snow Leopard is back.

So I've been giving Google's Quick Search Box a try. And though I sorely miss a few hot-key triggers, QSB does almost everything I want it to, works similarly enough to QS that the transition is fairly painless, and has the advantage of being actively developed by the same dude who developed QS. No one who has used any of Quicksilver's advanced features would call QSB anything but a pale imitation at this point, but it definitely has potential.

As much as it pains me to say it, I think it may soon be time to put poor old Quicksilver out to pasture. Don't worry, I'll come and visit as often as I can, my pockets filled with apples and sugar lumps. You've been a faithful steed, but this cowboy needs to move on.

More on .Mac price discrepancies

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:55:00 +0000

In the last day or so, I've been doing some more thinking about this issue (rather than getting some real work done). In fact, I went so far as to make a spreadsheet (using the 30-day trial version of Numbers, thanks very much) of the various prices Apple charges for .Mac around the world. I listed the actual price in the local currency, then the equivalent of 99.95 USD in the local currency, and then the difference between those two prices, converted to USD.

As you can hopefully see from the chart above (click on it to view a larger size), .Mac subscribers in almost every country pay more than people in the the US do--sometimes significantly more. The only exception is the Japanese, who get a break to the tune of over US$18. The rest pay a premium ranging from less than $1 for those living in Hong Kong to over $40 for you poor suckers in Great Britain. The rest of us fall somewhere in between, with the average discrepancy sitting at just under $18.

What this means is that for every .Mac subscriber Apple has outside the US, the company is taking in about $18 more than it does for its US customers.

So I guess this isn't just about the exchange rates between two countries. This appears to be systematic for the .Mac service. Perhaps it's even Apple policy; maybe they don't want to "confuse" consumers by adjusting the price of .Mac. But it seems to me that by not periodcially adjusting their prices, Apple is hindering the adoption of what is at last shaping up to be a pretty nice service.

As a footnote to this post, just for fun I checked out the prices for the new low-end iMacs at a couple of the international Apple stores. I must say that we Canadians have it pretty good by comparison. For example, the Australians pay the equivalent of US$265 more for their machine than those in the US. The Brits have it even worse: the price of 799GBP works out to be amost US$430 more than the US price--That's almost 40 percent more. Ouch!

When will the Canadian price for dotMac reflect the exchange rate?

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 13:44:00 +0000

Among all the announcements Steve Jobs made on August 7, the improvements to dotMac were, to my mind, perhaps the most exciting and most overdue. The new web gallery feature and 10GB of on-line storage are significant improvements to the service that make its price tag a little easier to swallow.

However, for Canadian dotMac subscribers, one thing that has rankled for the last few years--and continues to rankle--has been dotMac's price. At $139, it is significantly more expensive than the $99 US subscribers pay. Now it was one thing to have a higher price when the Canadian dollar was valued at 65 or 70 cents US, but it is quite another thing to retain that price when the Canadian dollar has risen significantly in value against the US dollar over the last year or two. And this, for a service that is widely hailed even in the US as being highly over-priced.

As the US dollar has fallen over the last little while, many other currencies have gained value against it, and many goods imported from the US have fallen in price (though many consumers groups say this isn't happening fast enough). To whit, many of Apple Canada's products have come significantly down in price over the last 18 months, to the point where some are now being sold at par with US prices. This is true of the new iWork 08 and iLife 08 suites, along with the new keyboards and the Mighty Mouse.

I don't expect Apple to change its prices every two weeks to reflect the exchange rates, and I fully accept that a certain amount of rounding will occur. Indeed, I think for the most part, Apple has done a pretty excellent job of reflecting the currency exchange rate between Canada and the US in its prices. Which is why I just don't understand why Canadians still have to pay 40-percent premium on dotMac. As it stands, I refuse to pay $139; I have always managed to get it on sale, either at the Apple.com one-day sale in November or from a brick-and-mortar retailer such as Future Shop. But I'd be happy to pay the full price if that price reflected the exchange rate a little more closely. Say $109.

So I'm challenging the Canadian dotMac-using blogosphere. Write a post about this issue, get people talking about it. Let Apple know you're upset about it. Maybe, just maybe, if we make enough noise about it, we can convince Apple to reconsider it's policy.

OK, so I'm living in a fantasy world, but at the very least, it's good to vent.

MacBook Pro one week in

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:22:00 +0000

I've had my MacBook Pro for about a week now, so I figure it's time to take stock of my impressions. First, two complaints, then a boatload of complements.

I find the wireless networking to be fairly buggy (lots of reports in the Apple support forums on this... hopefully a software update will fix it). The Airport range is pretty poor. I'm sitting maybe 40 feet away from my router and not getting full bars. I know the PB/MBP line doesn't get as good reception as the iBook/MB line, but 40 feet is well within the range where I should be getting full bars. I've tried sitting only a few feet away and I still don't always get full bars. I also find the connection somewhat flakey, often dropping out for a few seconds then resuming. So far no kernel panics or anything like that, so I guess I should count my blessings, but I'm gathering evidence for a call to Apple Care about this.

The only other issue is that I was experiencing a slight delay in the trackpad sensitivity. Sometimes I would have to move my thumb around on it for a second or two before the cursor would move. Other times, it was instantaneous. This also seems to be a known issue, one that is apparently resolved by unchecking the the "Ignore accidental trackpad input" box under the Trackpad preferencess. So far it seems to have fixed the problem, though I haven't decided which is worse, the delay or the "accidental trackpad input."

Other than these two bugs, I really love the machine. There are so many little things I appreciate about it. For instance, I never thought the MagSafe connector was such a big deal, but after experiencing it first hand, I'm blown away. My brother-in-law, a longtime PC user, was also really impressed by it. This is the sort of thing that makes Macs stand out--the kind of design detail that Apple is known for.

Battery life is about what I expected, maybe a little better: about 4.5 hours on a full charge if the screen is turned way down and with Bluetooth turned off, and not doing anything that requires the GPU to work hard. I figure I could maybe get 5 hours if I turned off the AirPort too. But if you start watching video or video conferencing, the battery run time drops like a rock.

I'm pleasantly surprised by the machine's quietness (virtually silent most of the time). Laptops are of course much quieter than desktop machines by nature, but the MBP is even quieter than my old iBook. I can't hear the hard drive spin or click at all, and unless the fans are working hard (as in watching video), I can't hear them either.

I also love the screen; it's so bright that I rarely have it turned up all the way. And the backlit keyboard is another feature I was blah about before experiencing it firsthand.

The keyboard itself is wonderful. I like laptop keyboards in general, but this one feels better than most. Just the right stiffness under the keys, and a very satisfying click. I feel like I'm typing much faster than I could on my old iBook. And two fingered scrolling on the trackpad... what a revalation!

That's my roundup of pros and cons so far. No real regrets to this point, though I have yet to take it on the road, where the poor wireless reception may be a real hindrance. I just hope Apple fixes the wireless bugs soon.

Finally moving to Intel

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 00:51:00 +0000

I thought I'd be able to hold out a little longer, but after a crazy week of rehearsals where it seemed everyone was toting a new MacBook, and after waiting for what seemed like hours (minutes in reality) to open a fairly large Excel file, my patience finally ran out.

A few hours ago, I clicked "Make purchase" on a low-end MacBook Pro. I've been drooling over the updated MBPs ever since they were recently updated. With 2 GB of RAM and an LED backlit screen, it's a pretty sweet machine as is. I considered the mid-range MacBook, but once the RAM is bumped up to 2 GB, the difference in price to move up to a pro machine didn't seem like such a leap.

My only real qualms are a) that I like the smaller form factor of the MacBook, and b) it is my understanding that, like the old iBooks, they get better wifi reception than the MacBook Pros. However, the MPBs are also apparently better than the old PowerBooks in that regard, so we will see. I almost went back and changed my order, but I think the pro machine will serve me better in the long run.

Now I have to wait till it gets here.

Nike+iPod + podcast hack

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Wed, 16 May 2007 15:42:00 +0000

For my birthday a few months back, my wife kindly bought me a Nike+iPod unit to go along with my new red iPod nano. I must say, I'm seriously impressed with it. It worked flawlessly out of the box, and even before I calibrated the sensor, it was calculating my distance to within 10 percent. Now that it's calibrated, its accuracy is within 2 percent.

Previously, I was never one to listen to music while working out; I preferred the zen state your mind enters during a good run. But there are advantages to running to music, not the least of which is trying to keep up with a song whose tempo is just slightly faster than your normal pace--a great way to improve your speed.

But as any serious runner will tell you, it's also important to work on endurance by slowing down going for distance rather than speed. These are the times when running to music can push you faster than you want to go. In such cases, you could simply unplug your headphones and run without the music (the unit still works sans headphones), but to my mind, a good hour-long podcast (say, MacBreak Weekly... oh wait, that usually runs way overtime...) is the perfect accompaniment to a long, slow run.

Problem is, podcasts are for some reason not available in the Nike+iPod menu (I guess Apple never figured anyone would be crazy enough to listen to a podcast while running). This is where iTunes' smart playlist feature comes in handy once again (see my previous entry about rolling your own autofill feature for iPod nanos using smart playlists).

There are two solutions available, depending on how choosy you are about what you want to listen to. The first is to simply create a smart playlist that has all your most recent podcasts in it. This way, when you select the playlist from the Nike+ menu, you'll get the first podcast in the list.

In iTunes, select "New Smart Playlist..." from the File menu. Then choose Genre from the lefthand dropdown menu, "is" from the next one over and then type "Podcast" in the field at the right. Then click the "+" button to get another rule and select Date Added from the lefthand menu, "is in the last" from the middle menu and "1 weeks" in the righthand field (see screenshot).

If you want to exclude any podcasts from this list, simply add another rule that states "Name... is not... [name of excluded podcast]".

A second option is to create separate smart playlists for every podcast you'll want to run to. It's a little more time consuming, but it gives you more flexibility. In this case, select a new smart playlist, create a rule that states "Name... contains... [podcast name]", then add a rule to exclude all but the most recent episode: "Date Added... is in the last... 1 weeks".

Repeat for all your favourite podcasts. Then connect your nano and under the "Music" tab of your iPod (not Podcasts), make sure to check the new smart playlists you have just created and click "Apply" at the bottom right of the iTunes window.

Assuming you already have these podcasts on your iPod, the new playlists won't even take up any more precious space on your iPod since they are just a different way of addressing the audio file, one that the Nike+ menu can see.

Now, get out there and go on a nice long, relaxing jog!

Jaiku

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 03 May 2007 00:29:00 +0000

So, the latest Web 2.0 craze seems to be Twitter (how they avoided losing the "e" I'll never understand), and I signed up a few weeks back, but it was soooo slooow the day I signed up that I lost interest.

Now I'm trying Jaiku, which has its own growing pains but, in my opinion has several advantages over Twitter. Chief among these the plusses is the fact that Jaiku tracks not just the mini-posts you plug into the service, it also tracks things like blog posts and Flickr updates.

The other cool thing about Jaiku is that, just like a blog, you can comment on other people's posts. Which adds another layer of interactivity over Twitter. A case in point: one of my first posts in Jaiku was "I wish Jaiku had a desktop client." I made the comment because I couldn't find anything of the sort on the Jaiku site. In less than an hour, another Jaiku user (thanks Petteri) had directed me to a nice little app called Juhu. It's perfect. Lightweight, easy-to-use, and (so far) bug free.

I'm liking Jaiku so far, even if I have no friends....

New Apple-EMI deal boon for jazz and classical lovers

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:38:00 +0000

Unless you've been hiding under a rock the last few hours, you have heard about EMI's plan to offer DRM-free music on Apple's iTunes Store starting sometime in May. Essentially, EMI tracks on iTunes will be offered in two formats: the old DRMed version at 128 kbps for 99 cents and the new un-DRMed version at 256 kbps for $1.29. So iTunes Store patrons will have the choice of paying a premium for better quality audio and interoperability. From what I have read, the general opinion has been mixed.

One little detail that is not mentioned often is that the price for an album will remain the same, whether it is DRMed or not. Now if you're primarily a consumer of pop music, this will likely not change your buying habits. However, for classical and jazz lovers--who usually buy whole albums (actually, I am just assuming this; I have no empirical knowledge)--this is a wonderful development. Essentially, you can buy the same jazz and classical albums you would have purchased anyway, but now you get better quality (apparently, virtually indistinguishable from CD quality), no DRM--and the price is absolutely the same. Any hesitations I have previously had about buying classical and jazz CDs from the iTS have pretty much disappeared.

Assuming the artist is on EMI, that is.

At the very least, however, this should give an even further boost to on-line classical record sales, which saw a significant increase in 2006. Let's hope the other labels jump on the bandwagon soon.

Novell I'm a Mac Spoof

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 22 Mar 2007 21:12:00 +0000

So the big news today seems to be that Novell Linux has posted a couple of spoofs of the now infamous "I'm a Mac" ads. I think they're pretty funny actually, but so far, I haven't seen anyone pick up on the fact that the girl playing "Linux" bears a striking resemblance to Ellen Feiss, whom you will probably remember as the 14-year-old "stoner girl" in that old switcher ad. Heck, "PC" even says "Boy, you sure grew up fast." at the end.

Or is it just me?

Roll-your-own autofill feature for iPod Nano

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:37:00 +0000

When Apple released the iPod Shuffle back in 2005, one of the most lauded features was "Autofill," which automatically fills your Shuffle with a random (or not-so-random, depending on how you set it up) selection of music from your library or from the playlist of your choice. When the Nano was released that fall, however, many people lamented its lack of the Autofill feature. I'm not sure what Apple's rationale is for leaving this feature off the Nano, especially given the fact that at one point they sold a 1 GB Nano--the same capacity as their biggest Shuffle at the time--but when I recently received my own Nano, I too felt that this would be a pretty nice feature to have.

But there is a way you can set up your own Autofill feature. Here's how (in the interests of citing sources, I will admit that a part of this idea came from reading a post by David Charlap on the Macintouch site. That said, it isn't rocket science, and I'm sure many people have figured this trick out on their own):

First, in iTunes, select "New Smart Playlist" from the File menu. Now, say you want to autofill from your jazz collection. Select "Genre" from the left-hand dropdown menu, choose "is" from the next parameter, and type in "Jazz" in the field at the right (see screenshot).

Next, click the "+" button to add a parameter, select "Last Played" in the left-hand dropdown list, "is not in the last" from the next parameter, and choose a timeframe (in this example, I have chosen the last two weeks, but you can set any timeframe you like). Then check the "Limit to" checkbox and decide on how much size you want to dedicate to this Autofill playlist. This will depend on your iPod's capacity. The nice thing about such a playlist, however, is that you can have several. So, for instance, on my own 4 GB Nano, I have a 1 GB Autofill classical playlist and a 2 GB jazz playlist.

You can have iTunes fill the playlist randomly, by rating, or by several other criteria. Make sure you also check "Live updating". Click "OK" and name the playlist in iTunes. Finally, attach your iPod, and under the Music tab, click "Sync music" and "Selected playlists:" and check only the smart playlist you just created. Then click Apply.

One drawback to this method is that iTunes only updates the playlist after you connect your iPod, so you'll have to resync, but to my mind, that's a minor irritation.

As people's digital music libraries continue to grow, I imagine Apple will eventually get around to implementing Autofill for the Nanos and perhaps even the larger capacity iPods, but until that day comes, this little hack does the job pretty well.

Red iPod Nano unboxing pr0n

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 20:28:00 +0000

My red Nano came in the mail today. I've always thought the Nanos were slick players, both the original 1G edition, which my wife owns, and the new version. There's something deeply appealing about the red colour of this particular model, however; I would really love to know how Apple decides on the exact hue of their coloured iPods. Even the plainest seems to scream "Buy me!" and this red one takes it to new heights. I'd also be curious to know how many they've sold, but I guess I'll have to wait until they issue a statement about how much Apple has donated to the (Product) Red project. You know that's going to happen sooner or later.

Normally, I would never post unboxing pictures, especially for a product that has been out for so long (though I must admit enjoying the whole unboxing pr0n phenomenon). But since I recently got a camera-phone, it seemed appropriate to combine my two new toys while both are relatively new acquisitions.

Even the FedEx package is well-designed. No excess here, but the plastic iPod box is completely protected.

No cellophane wrapper around the box...

...merely an easy-to-pull-off plastic tab on one end.

Out of the box.

The plastic piece that holds the iPod itself is also brillant. No twist ties holding the iPod down. And you just bend the plastic back to release the iPod.

Laid out in all its glory.

Free at last!

Joe, I think I love you

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 11:23:00 +0000

Yesterday, I finally entered the 21st century and bought myself a mobile phone. I had been hold off joining in on the cell fun, mostly to do with avoiding needless expenses, but also, of late, to do with stubbornness and a certain misplaced sense of Luddite-like pride. Anyway, the deed is done. I have the phone and a pay-as-you-go plan. I hope use it very little, but you know what they say about the best-laid plans...

I chose Rogers because of the supposedly better coverage and the fact that with the right phone, you can use it worldwide. (What's the point of having a mobile phone, I ask, if you can't use it everywhere?) And I chose the Sony Ericsson W300i for much the same reason: it's a quad-band phone. The W300 is relatively inexpensive and it packs quite a number of features, including still and video camera (albeit of execrable quality), mp3 player (that I doubt I'll ever use), bluetooth, etc. One drawback is that iSync does not support the W300 (why, I have no idea, but there you go). But before buying the phone, I had done my homework and found that iSync 2.3 plugins are available.

So, this morning, thinking I'd have to lay down a few dollars for a plugin, I searched Google and came upon Joe's blog. Joe was kind enough to build a plugin for the W300, based on info he got from a site called iSync Hilife, and hosted it for free on his blog. The plugin works perfectly and I now have all of my Address Book contacts and iCal events on my phone.

I thanked Joe in the comments on his blogpost, but I also want to thank him here. I don't think it's hyperbole to say that Joe's making the world a better place.

Mighty Mouse, it's over

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 01:14:00 +0000

That's it. I've had it. I'm retiring my Mighty Mouse for good, and this time I mean it. One again, the Mighty Mouse has it's tail wrapped around it, but this time, it's not waiting to go to the shop for repair/replacement under warranty, it's been relegated to a box of computer junk.

This evening, I worked that scroll wheel for a good half hour, and while it showed signs of returning to functionality, it never did regain its out-of-the-box glory. Let it be known, I liked the scroll wheel a lot, and it was the main reason I went back to the Mighty Mouse after vowing to go back to the old Microsoft mouse when MM bailed on me the first time.

But Mighty Mouse, you have tested even my stubborn love past the breaking point. I'm sorry, this fighting just can't go on; it's cutting into my sanity and my productivity. The worst thing is I'm probably partly to blame. My jam-covered fingers in the morning and my lunches eaten in your presence were admittedly provocative, but for crying out loud, you're a mouse, you should be used to taking a beating. I'm going back to my old IntelliMouse (though I can hardly believe myself I'm saying this). No, MM, It's doesn't have your sex appeal, but sometimes, a good relationship is more about stability and reliability than flash and good looks.

Sigh.

Damn you, Mighty Mouse, damn you to hell!

Review: Kensington Digital FM transmitter

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Thu, 09 Nov 2006 20:48:00 +0000

My wife recently changed jobs, and though she will no longer have to do a bumper-to-bumper commute, when she does drive, it will be for longer distances and times. After a week she basically ordered me to get her an FM transmitter for her iPod because she was sick of stupid radio hosts.

We already own one FM transmitter, an AirPlay from XtremeMac. It's a decent unit but not spectacular. Its pros are that it's small, tunes to any station, and doesn't need batteries. However sound quality is mediocre and it doesn't work with post-4G iPods. Since my wife's iPod is a 1G nano, we needed to find her another solution.

So I did some research, primarily over at iLounge and quickly found that very few FM transmitters get good grades from their review section. One of the few exceptions was the Kensington Digital FM transmitter, which iLounge gave a grade of A-.

And I'm here to say that though it's expensive, this little unit is simply awesome. Audio quality is just as good as if not better than the radio, it charges your iPod, and it works with all iPods with a dock connector (which basically means anything after the very first generation iPod, with the exception of the iPod Shuffle). Since Apple is not likely to abandon its proprietary dock system anytime soon, it means that I won't have to buy another FM transmitter when I buy another iPod. It plugs into your car's 12-volt accessory outlet, tunes to any station and has three pre-sets.

Yes, it's expensive (US$80), but in this case, you definitely get what you pay for. Highly recommended.

Oh iPod, how you've changed my life.

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Sat, 21 Oct 2006 00:39:00 +0000

I've been musing on an iPod piece for a while but never got around to it before. But with the iPod turning 5 on Monday, it seems like the appropriate time for it. I hesitated to write this piece. So much has been written about the iPod; what could I possible add? But any way I look at it, my iPod has had such an important effect on my life that I feel compelled to write about it. If you think such an article will bore you, stop reading now. But if you're an iPod lover, or if you need some encouragement to take the plunge, read on.

When I bought my iPod--a 4th generation monochrome 40 GB model--about 18 months ago, it was mostly an indulgence, a toy to ease me over the 40th birthday blues (40 years, 40 GB, get it?). Oh, I was able to justify it in part by using it as a backup drive, but to say that it was a completely utilitarian purchase would be disingenuous. Even so, I had little inkling of just how thoroughly this diminutive piece of consumer electronics would rock my world, both literally and figuratively.

At first, merely the idea that I could carry my entire not-inconsiderable CD collection around in my pocket was amazing to me. Somehow, this simple fact makes me feel both powerful and free. In any given situation, I can set the soundtrack of my life to whatever music I fancy. And then there is the whole idea of shuffle. When you set your entire music collection--in my case almost 3800 songs from just about every genre you can think of--on shuffle, that "soundtrack" becomes an incredibly varied and unpredictable string of music. Just imagine walking down the street on a crisp October evening, while your iPod jumps from Gesualdo to the Allan Parson's Project to Alessandro Scarlatti to the Yellowjackets to David Bowie to Mahler to Bach to Franz Ferdinand... and on it goes. At first it's somewhat disconcerting, but once in a while, iPod and shuffle create a serendipitous union of moment and music that could never have happened any other way. Plus, shuffle means random (or so they say; I sometimes wonder), so it burrows into your music collection with ruthless objectivity, helping you to discover albums and artists that you had almost forgotten you had.

Another beautiful thing about having your entire music collection in your pocket is that it's always there. I know that sounds obvious, but if your soundtrack is crying out for a certain piece of music, genre or artist, and you know it's just a few clicks of the scroll wheel away, it's an incredibly liberating feeling. If you're on a train in Norway, as I recently was, and you want to listen to what Grieg had to say about the fjords, you can do that, and it's only a matter of time before it brings tears to your eyes.

Of course, the other great thing about the modern digital media player and the new Internet is podcasting. Podcasts have changed the way I listen to radio. To be more accurate, I don't listen to radio anymore. It's all podcasts now. An FM transmitter for my iPod means I'm not a slave to the radio DJ even in the car. Even before I got the iPod, I listened mostly to talk radio anyway, but with the iPod, talk radio has become a much more diverse ecosystem. I'm a huge fan of public radio, and most public radio networks around the world are making at least some of their programming available as podcasts now. Which means I have access to great programming from the BBC, Australia's ABC, U.S. NPR, and of course Canada's own CBC. And then there are the thousands of private podcasters springing up. Sure, there is a lot of chaff, but there are also some really fantastic programs out there that would never have made it onto the traditional airwaves.

Having all my music and talk radio with me in my pocket also makes doing chores and yard work much less tedious. Heck, I even look forward to mowing the lawn now. Walking to the bus or subway station used to be a boring prospect; now I just have to make sure my iPod is updated with my latest podcasts and I'm all set. There's never any reason to be bored with my iPod in my pocket.

And believe me, my iPod is ALWAYS in my pocket. And not just for all the aforementioned reasons. My iPod also serves as my computer backup. Yes, even with my entire music collection and a serious line up of podcasts, along with my calendars and contacts, there is still enough room to do a substantial backup. I generally keep all my work-critical files, along with any personal documents I wouldn't want to lose, and my Mail.app archive. I also keep a backup of my pictures, and of course, my music is backed up just by being on my iPod. So I can leave home knowing that even if my computers are stolen or, god forbid, the house burns down, my most precious data is safely tucked away in my pocket.

So happy birthday iPod. I'm so glad we met. I can't imagine life without you now.

Technorati Tags: Apple, iPod, Podcasting, Public Broadcasting

Thoughts on Apple's movie strategy

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Sun, 24 Sep 2006 04:51:00 +0000

Yesterday's story in the New York Post that Wal-Mart was threatening some movie studios with retaliation if they sold movies on the iTunes Store, and Wal-Mart's subsequent dispute of the allegations, got me to thinking again about Apple's move into the movie distribution business.

Some people were predicting Apple would start a movie download service, along with some sort of streaming device, as early as 18 months ago. And let's face it, it's probably going to be another six months before Apple starts selling its "iTV" device, by which time, the company will probably have a few more studios lined up to sell their wares through the newly named iTunes Store.

So, come next March or April, we Mac users will likely have a new operating system in the name of Leopard, a fairly good range of movies in the iTunes Store from which to choose and a way to get those newly purchased flicks onto our HDTVs (we'll overlook for the moment that these movies won't be in HD).

Now I admit I'm not the typical consumer of movies. I rarely go to the movie theatre and rent maybe two or three DVDs a year, mostly because the offerings are decidedly mediocre, and it's a PITA to drive down to Blockbuster (or wherever) to rent a DVD. That said, if I could watch a movie on Saturday night with a click of a mouse, I'd probably be much more inclined to partake of Hollywood's fine products. But a few things will have to change before I jump on this bandwagon (and assuming of course that movies will be available in the Canadian iTS before the turn of the next century).

First and foremost is that I'm not interested in buying movies. I have no desire to own a collection of movies like I own a music collection, and I suspect I'm not the only one. There are those who go out and buy movies at Wal-Mart, but most people rent movies; after all who wants to watch a so-so movie more than once, especially when Hollywood pumps out a seemly endless flow of them? So the lack thus far of a way to rent downloaded movies is a huge drawback for me. I just want to pay a few dollars to watch a movie once, and I might even pay a little extra to NOT have to drive down to Blockbuster to get it. Four or five bucks a pop would be about my threshold. More than that and I'm just not going to bother.

Which brings me to my other main hesitation: price. Even if I were interested in buying a movie, why would I pay $15 for an "almost DVD quality" movie when I can get the real thing at Wal-Mart for the same price and get more features to boot, AND, have the physical DVD (which I cannot have with movies from iTunes)? Ten bucks seems about right to me, so Apple's not that far off the mark, and there are some titles available for that price. I suspect that Steve Jobs agrees with me on this one but had to concede the argument to Disney or risk not launching before Christmas.

I also find the iTV unit a little pricey, but I can see it coming down in price at some point. The fact remains, however, that there are still a number of obstacles to this service becoming really ubiquitous, and I suspect that in my case it will be at least another two years before I'll be downloading any movies from the iTS. But then again, I bought my first iPod 18 months ago, so I'm hardly an early adopter. In 18 months, everyone will be clamouring for an iTV and downloading movies like crazy, and Apple and the movie studios will be making money hand-over-fist, so we'll all be happy as clams. Just you wait, Mr. Cringely. As usual, you're way ahead of yourself.

Technorati Tags: Apple, iTunes Music Store, iTunes Store, iTV, Movie downloads, Robert Cringely

New podcast reveiw is up at the Podcritical Review

noreply@blogger.com (petergarner) — Fri, 22 Sep 2006 01:38:00 +0000

Over at the Podcritical Review, I take a look at a nifty new tech podcast from down under: Bran. Check it out.

Technorati Tags: Podcast Review