iLounge

Apple + AT&T’s iPhone Antitrust Class Action Smackdown

By Jeremy Horwitz | 10.03.08 | 3 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

If I wasn’t busy working on other things at the moment, I would write more about this:

Apple + AT&T Lose Early Attempt to Fight Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit.

I’ve read through it. Apple and AT&T haven’t lost the case yet, but the language of the court’s decision is pretty brutal. A few of the findings:

(1) AT&T can’t force plaintiffs to submit to arbitration rather than a full trial, because the AT&T service contract requiring arbitration was unconscionable under California, New York, and Washington State law.

(2) Plaintiffs can proceed against Apple under antitrust law regarding voice and data services for restricting users’ ability to use their iPhones on competing networks.

(3) Plaintiffs can proceed against Apple under antitrust law regarding iPhone applications, for restricting users’ ability to use unapproved third-party iPhone applications.

(4) Plaintiffs can proceed against Apple under the common law, as well as the Computer Fraud Abuse Act and the California Penal Code, for damaging unlocked iPhones with version 1.1.1 software.

Say what you want to say about lawyers, but the way this case is settled has the potential to radically change the entire mobile phone industry in the United States—as well as Apple’s business practices regarding current and future iPhones. I say “settled” because this ruling radically increases the chances that Apple and AT&T will feel compelled to resolve things without letting the case go further through the trial process, and one can only hope that the plaintiffs’ attorneys don’t get so excited by the prospect of settlement dollars that they pass on achieving the larger (precedent) goals of the suit. Millions of iPhone customers have a stake in seeing Apple and AT&T act reasonably regarding contract terms, unlocking, and applications, and as this court has explained, there’s evidence that they previously haven’t.

Apple’s Gold, Yellow, and Orange iPods Compared

By Jeremy Horwitz | 10.03.08 | 0 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Though we’ve put together a fairly exhaustive collection of iPod nano color comparison photos, one shot that we didn’t include was a comparison with the gold first-generation iPod mini—apparently Apple’s least popular color, and therefore discontinued when the second-generation mini was released.

Here’s the comparison. As expected, gold’s not exactly an inspiring color—a far cry from the saturated, intense ones that the new yellow and orange 4G nanos possess. But color tastes vary by season, country, and obviously individual preference, so it’ll be interesting to see if this, or any of last year’s similarly muted tones, ever returns to the iPod (or iPhone) family.

Notes and Pictures: The 4GB Fourth-Generation iPod nano

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.26.08 | 5 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

It’s here! Okay, it’s not really exciting by comparison with the 8GB and 16GB versions of the fourth-generation iPod nano, but it’s great to finally have our hands on the considerably rarer 4GB model. (Thanks, Alicia Bankhofer, for making this happen!)

As you may or may not have heard, something weird was going on with the capacities of the fourth-generation iPod nano. On September 9, Apple announced that the device would come in 8GB and 16GB capacities, with the 8GB ones available almost immediately and the 16GB ones to follow soon thereafter. Then, some 4GB units started showing up in a handful of European cities. An Apple representative conceded that a small number of 4GB nanos were being sold in select countries, but oddly declined to say where, or why. They also showed up in Canada, where our editor Jesse Hollington says that they’re being sold on a “one-per-household limit” through third-party retailers such as Best Buy, and according to a report, U.S.-based Apple Stores received them, too, before being instructed to quietly return them. They were made in every color of the new nano’s rainbow.

Our previously mentioned best guess was that Apple was taken off-guard by Microsoft’s decision to sell $199 16GB flash-based Zunes and moved—a little late in production—to counter these with same-priced iPod nanos. Stuck with already-made 4GB units, Apple needed to decide whether to try and quietly sell them, bury them, or hold onto them for some later date. A semi-plausible alternative explanation was that Apple was so desperate to win over some countries’ budget-conscious customers that it made versions just for them, an explanation that seems unlikely if the U.S. Apple Stores in fact received and returned these units. It’s also possible that Apple was preparing to sell $129 4GB nanos and $149 8GB nanos—the sort of product transition-related price drop that it seemed to be hinting at in an earlier conference call—but changed its mind at the last minute. Notably, the purple 4GB model number MB657 is numerically much closer to the purple 8GB model MB739 than the higher 16GB model MB918. The second-generation 32GB iPod touch has an earlier model number of MB533, and the 120GB classic a model number of MB562. This seems to suggest that Apple internally prepped the new touch, then the classic, then the nanos, with the 16GB model coming much later than the others, but there may be another explanation.

What’s noteworthy about the 4GB unit we received is that the packaging is a little different from the 8GB and 16GB U.S. models. Instead of an Apple logo on the back of the box, there are content descriptions and system requirements in three languages, none English. The instructions inside are similarly in foreign languages, just as one would expect from a nano sold outside the U.S.; it’s possible that Apple saw the withdrawal of these foreign-packaged nanos as more difficult than the purely English ones destined for U.S. consumers.

In any case, the 4GB nano seems like it’s going to be something of a collector’s item—at least, as much as anything made in a quantity of a million or so units could be—so it’s nice to have one around. It’ll be interesting to see whether Apple releases the English-boxed ones more widely.

Wipeout HD, or, What a Sony $20 Digital Download Buys in 2008

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.26.08 | 10 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

There’s a list of reasons that the very idea of paying more than $10 for an iPhone OS game strikes me as… well, not unfathomable, but just a real big stretch. Number one on that list? Sony’s $20 game Wipeout HD for the PlayStation 3.

You might recall that I wound up with a PlayStation 3 as a holiday gift a couple of years ago, and said quite explicitly that I wouldn’t have purchased the console for myself because of its way-too-expensive price. And yes, Virtua Fighter 5 was very impressive—for the brief time it was a PS3 exclusive—but it wasn’t a “go out and get a console” sort of game for me. The thing that would have forced me to buy a PlayStation 3 is this title. Developed by Sony Liverpool and released yesterday, Wipeout HD is a futuristic racing game that continues a series originally responsible for helping to popularize the PlayStation platform in Europe. Unlike its predecessors, which have been sold on PlayStation discs and PlayStation Portable UMDs for $30-$50, Wipeout HD is digitally distributed as a $20, 1GB download through Sony’s PlayStation Network. And it is just awesome.

I love futuristic racing games, and consider 1996’s Wipeout XL—a collaboration between Sony’s Psygnosis studio and The Designers Republic—to be pretty much the pinnacle of that genre, with the possible exception of Nintendo and Sega’s jointly-developed F-Zero GX/AX. Wipeout HD is the first title since those two to really nail everything from the gameplay to the looks and sounds of speeding through far-future metropolitan race tracks. And it runs at 60fps in 1080p resolution, making the most stunning use I’ve yet seen of high-definition displays. Click through for more pictures and a few more details; this isn’t a full review, so I’m just offering a sampling of what’s here to be enjoyed.

view photos »

On iPod Generations: 2008’s iPod shuffle and iPod classic

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.18.08 | 6 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

As Apple has refreshed the second-generation iPod shuffle for the fourth time in two years, it’s worth mentioning that we’ve once again updated our November, 2006 second-generation shuffle review, with a couple of new photos and new details, all mentioned below. And it’s also worth discussing a topic that’s been of some confusion to iPod owners and vendors over the past couple of years, as the iPod shuffle and iPod classic have seen new models introduced without explanation as to what “generation” they belong to.

Every new iPod release inspires a new round of “which generation?” talk, and in the absence of any explicit cues from Apple, people have been left to draw their own assumptions about whether or not a given iPod release constitutes a new generation. Several years ago, a debate within iLounge led us to contact Apple and ask Steve Jobs whether the company’s renaming of the iPod photo to “iPod” was enough to make that device the “fifth-generation iPod.” His response was to stick with the “fourth-generation” moniker, and subsequently, the official “fifth-generation iPod” wound up being the “iPod (with video).” Jobs referred to this generational confusion in 2007 when introducing the iPod classic, which otherwise would have been called the “sixth-generation iPod.”

Over time, it’s become apparent that Apple only considers a device a generational sequel when it makes a big change in body shape—not when it swaps internal components. Thus, even though the fourth-generation iPod came in black-and-white- or color-screened variations, each with different features, the different models looked pretty much the same, and thus were called the same generation. The thinner, bigger-screened, video-capable iPod that followed was a separate product. And the iPod nano? Even though the first- and second-generation versions shared a virtually identical interface, their bodies changed, which made them different generations. Make sense?

That brings us to the iPod shuffle. We noticed some months ago that a few vendors, mostly in Asia, were referring to the then-current model as the “third-generation shuffle,” because it represented a color change over the “second-generation shuffle” introduced in late 2006. However, using color as a touchstone didn’t make sense, as Apple had actually rolled out new colors twice at that point for the new model, starting in early 2007, with a refresh in late 2007. Following color-shifting logic, this would have made the late 2007 model the “fourth-generation shuffle,” and the late 2008 model the “fifth-generation shuffle,” based on new colors alone; never mind the release of a 2GB model. But, other than earbud and color changes, today’s 1GB shuffle is the same as the one introduced two years ago. Because of improvements to other iPod models, the shuffle now has the highest static noise level of any iPod, the weakest battery life, and the slowest iTunes synchronization speeds by a fairly substantial margin. Yes, it’s still the second-generation iPod shuffle.

What about the iPod classic? The just-introduced model is not the “second-generation iPod classic,” despite several legitimate changes that were made to the hardware this time out, and detailed in our comprehensive review. Jobs blew through the product’s introduction in less than a minute on stage in San Francisco, mentioning only one change to the prior device—capacity—before moving on to other models. As it turns out, of course, battery, headphone port, and Genius features were added as well. But Apple is referring to the new model solely as the iPod classic 120GB to distinguish it from prior models, unlike the “iPod touch 2nd generation” and “iPod nano 4th generation (video)” names it has given the other new models. In other words, it’s the equivalent of the “enhanced fifth-generation iPod” that came in 30GB and 80GB capacities before the iPod classic was introduced, or a half-generation up the evolutionary scale—the “sixth-and-a-half-generation iPod,” perhaps.

Sure, it would be a lot easier if Apple just named its iPods “iPod nano 1,” “iPod nano 2,” and so on, but instead, the big print on the boxes always just says “iPod nano,” so most people have come to use various distinctions ("the fat one” or “the first red one” or “last year’s one") to differentiate them. If you care about accessory compatibility or just want to be correct in citing iPod family history, the actual naming conventions do matter, so hopefully the information above will help you to avoid making mistakes in the future.

iPod nano 4G and 120GB iPod classic Diagnostic Modes

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.17.08 | 0 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

From past experience, most readers don’t seem to care much about the iPods’ hidden diagnostic modes, but since we’ve been playing around with them, we figured that a few pictures and details might be of interest to some of you.

Apple has been tossing diagnostic modes into iPods for years; the only model that doesn’t let you access diagnostics is the iPod touch, which like the iPhone has an icon-based hardware diagnostic screen, but completely hides it away. On Click Wheel iPods, including the fourth-generation iPod nano and 120GB iPod classic, you access this mode by holding down the center and Menu buttons at the same time until the iPod resets to an Apple logo screen, then immediately holding the center and reverse track buttons until the iPod boots into the Diagnostic screen shown below.

The iPod nano’s version of this screen has 10 menu options, while the classic’s starts with 2, expanding to 7 when you select “manual” test mode. Click on the title of this article for a list of what’s vaguely interesting inside.

read more »

The Why Behind the 4GB Fourth-Gen iPod nano

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.17.08 | 8 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Apple is, at least most of the time, a global company. With the exception of the original iPhone, the products it produces are intended for sale across as many territories as possible, rather than just one or two countries. So when we heard yesterday from iFun.de that Amazon.com’s German division was unexpectedly listing a 4GB fourth-generation iPod nano, we knew that there were only two possible scenarios.

(a) Amazon was mistaken, or

(b) Apple had produced a bunch of 4GB fourth-generation iPod nanos before realizing that it needed to boost storage capacities, and decided to try and quietly sell off the units outside of the United States.

Why would Apple ever do that? As we’ve said before, the company likes to portray itself as unconcerned about Microsoft’s Zunes or other competing products, but in reality, the iPod family can’t fall considerably behind its competitors without risking loss of market share. So when Microsoft preps a 16GB, $200 flash-based Zune, Apple has two choices: let it happen, or get a 16GB, $200 flash-based iPod nano out there, too. And when Microsoft upgrades its $250, 80GB hard disk player to a $250, 120GB model, lo and behold the iPod classic goes in the same direction. If you’re wondering why there was a lag in stores between the 8GB nanos and 16GB nanos becoming available, here’s the probable answer: the 16GB ones started production later. Much later.

The existence of the 4GB fourth-generation iPod nano strongly suggests that Microsoft’s new 16GB Zune—the announcement of which was scheduled to overlap Apple’s event in San Francisco—truly caught Apple by surprise. Clearly, there were enough 4GB nanos manufactured that Apple couldn’t just give them away to employees, or alternately scrap them, recycling the cases and circuit boards. Yet there’s no mention on Apple’s web site—even in Europe—that this model exists, and they’re only available from third-party retailers overseas. The asking price of 129 Euros is, not coincidentally, as modest a step down as Microsoft has taken with its 4GB Zune from its $150 8GB model.

So, Zune haters, you might want to say a quiet thanks to Microsoft this holiday season. If it wasn’t for the competition, you might not have gotten that $199 16GB iPod nano until next year…

Full 2008 iPod + iPhone Battery Life Chart (Preliminary)

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.13.08 | 5 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Just wanted to give loyal Backstage readers a preview of the preliminary comparative results of our battery tests on the 2008 iPods and iPhone 3G, as well as comparisons with the 2007 models. We’re re-running one test for confirmation, but think the numbers are pretty solid.

Notable: Any claim that the iPod classic 120GB hasn’t changed from last year’s 80GB predecessor is clearly wrong. Apple’s own web site shows a 6 hour boost in audio and a 1 hour boost in video playback time. Actual results show those gains, but over the 80GB model’s real performance, not what was stated. In other words, the classic remains the iPod family’s longest-running audio and video player, with comfortable leads over the new iPod touch.

Also: We had heard that Apple was reworking the iPod shuffle, but between battery and audio test results, it seems that whatever the company’s planning has not materialized in the model shipping in late 2008. The 11-minute difference in run times is non-material.

The full results of our tests can be seen in the iPod nano review, iPod touch review, iPhone 3G review, and soon-to-be-released iPod classic review.

A Brief Note on the 4G iPod nano’s Purple Color

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.12.08 | 2 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Over the past few days, we’ve received a bunch of inquiries on just how purple the new purple iPod nano really is. Rather than creating a section of our comprehensive iPod nano review to discuss the issue in detail, this Backstage entry shows off a photo that might be of interest to some readers.

The simple answer is: the new iPod nano is definitely purple, but it leans more towards an indigo blue than reddish purple. To try and illustrate the difference a little, I pulled a couple of aluminum SIGG bottles, one blue, the other purple, and placed the blue and purple nanos next to them. You’ll note that the purple bottle has more of a red tone.

In any case, this particular nano color is probably my personal favorite right now. There are a lot of great options in the new rainbow, but this one’s as close as we’ll likely get to the royal blue that I’ve been waiting to buy for years. 

Squeezebox Boom: A Sleek, Strong-Sounding Internet Radio, with Several Speedbumps

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.05.08 | 2 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Last week, we unexpectedly received one of Logitech’s new $300 Squeezebox Boom units—initially depicted and described in this article. After playing around with the unit, we have some additional thoughts to share.

Without going into great depth on the manner in which Logitech has achieved everything in this product, it suffices to say that Squeezebox Boom is a “standalone Internet Radio for the rest of us,” a slick black box that combines a $200-quality speaker and amplifier system with $100 worth of Wi-Fi and simplified computer parts. There’s nothing revolutionary about the system’s approach, which is similar to what’s offered by companies such as Grace Digital in the less expensive Wireless Internet Radio, but Logitech’s approach is more holistic.

Grace Digital’s approach is to offer a single 3” speaker, a massive list of tunable stations, and a very mainstream price. Logitech’s price is $100 higher, and you get four total speakers—twin 0.75” tweeters and twin 3” speakers—plus a remote control, and an interface that virtually anyone can use. You turn a large dial to page through options, which are presented in large letters on a blue on black screen, enter your wireless network’s password, and then select audio streams from cleanly organized lists of options. Logitech provides links to MP3tunes and Rhapsody stored libraries for specific song selections, RadioIO, RadioTime, Live365, SHOUTcast, and Sirius Internet Radio for streaming radio, and Pandora, Rhapsody, Slacker, MP3Tunes, Live Music Archive, and Last.fm for custom-made music channels.

Though you can pick tons of stations directly from Boom’s menus, Logitech offers two other ways to program the device from afar—a computer-based application called SqueezeCenter or a website called SqueezeNetwork. You can import MP3 content from your iTunes library into SqueezeCenter, letting you listen to tracks wherever Boom is installed, or just select favorite stations to help make tuning the device a lot easier. Preset buttons on Boom’s face let you call up channels of your choice without needing to sift through menus. We generally found using the unit to be very easy, starting with the straightforward setup and continuing through channel or custom music service selection; the SqueezeNetwork site linked all of our earlier Internet Radio accounts into Squeezebox Boom without any sort of hassle.

A few other major positives in the Boom design are its sound, which is a step or two under Logitech’s great Pure-Fi Elite iPod audio system in power, but really very good by the standards of devices like this; you get bass and treble controls, a stereo field expander that can be turned off or through three levels of expansion, and controls over line-out (headphone/subwoofer) and line-in levels. The twin tweeter and woofer approach is a proven hit for making great-sounding audio, and Logitech knows how to pick and tune its parts for near optimal performance, so although we stick to the earlier “$200 speaker” comment, the sound here is better than what you’d get from some other companies’ devices at higher prices.

We were also impressed by the presence of user-programmable alarms, automatic local radio station finders, and a bunch of display options, which let you change font sizes, grab RSS feeds to display while you’re listening, and more. In addition to the radio options, there are some other interesting features, such as podcast aggregator searches, and an ambient sound database with natural (fire, water, animals), musical, and other sound effects that loop as alternatives to radio stations. This box does way more than you might initially expect.

There are a few speedbumps in Squeezebox Boom’s approach. Though Logitech has done a good job of streamlining its menus, the choice to make the dial pressable, yet not always a selection option, sometimes makes station tuning confusing. For instance, if you find a station you like, then press this button, you’ll be given technical information like the URL and bitrate—details few people will care about, but could have been shifted off to an “info” menu. If you want to hear the station, you need to press a separate play button. This is the sort of thing that Apple would never do in an interface design, and though Logitech has managed to find ways to let you navigate the varied options of different types of music services—some offer track skipping and pausing controls, others do not—it’s easy to imagine even simpler options.

Another speedbump is the way that the screen is being used. For some reason, the display is cluttered at times with a useless side visualizer that does nothing but cut down the already limited number of characters on the screen, and menus are always shown with only one option on screen at a time. While you can adjust font sizes, all of them consume a huge amount of screen real estate rather than providing multiple options at the same time. A device with this many menu choices and this much power should have a more usable display than a bottom-of-the-line Sony pocket flash player, though the brightness and readability of the screen are similarly not issues.

Finally, there’s the question of price. You’ll need to decide whether you’re willing to plunk down $300 on an Internet radio when there are other, less expensive options out there. We loaned our Boom to an experienced Internet Radio user who told us that the choice between Boom and a competitor like Grace’s device was tough, since Logitech clearly offered better sound and more features, yet the Grace box did a very good job and sufficed for its purposes at a lower total cost. A major issue he raised, however, tilted the equation in Logitech’s favor from our standpoint: Grace currently depends on a single, small Internet Radio aggregation service called Reciva, which might well go away, while Logitech’s multi-aggregator SqueezeNetwork site and SqueezeCenter app provide a measure of future-proofing that will keep the box well-stocked with content no matter what.

Our view is that Squeezebox Boom offers a lot of value for the dollar, in a very nice package that will look and sound good in any room of a home or office. While we can easily imagine a single application for the iPhone OS that would basically moot the need for the specialized tuning and Wi-Fi hardware inside of this device, the fact of the matter is that there isn’t such a thing yet available, and to get similar results you’d need to cobble together many different programs and a good pair of speakers. Even if it’s not perfect in navigation or display functionality, Logitech’s package does this all right now, and well, right out of the box. If you’re an Internet Radio fan, it’s worth checking out.

Informed Guesses on New iPod Family Pricing

By Jeremy Horwitz | 09.04.08 | 16 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

The discussion around iLounge this morning: iPod family pricing. There’s been buzz for months that Apple “needs” to reduce the prices of the iPod touch lineup—and possibly all iPods—in order to offset the $199*** 8GB iPhone 3G.

(*** = Not really.)

If we’ve learned anything over the past seven years of iPod releases, it’s that Apple doesn’t drop iPod prices just for the hell of it. It also has a tendency to quietly take things away, like pack-ins, when it does drop a product’s price… except, of course, that there isn’t much left to take away from current iPods, which now ship only with USB cables, headphones, and Dock Adapters. But after a year that saw iPod sales slow down at one point for the first time in years, jumping after an aggressive “buy Mac, get iPod free” deal, price drops seem like they’re in the cards. So what’s going to happen next week?

We’re guessing that we will see legitimate price drops on certain iPod models. It is quite possible that the new lineup will look like this:

iPod shuffle: $49 (2GB)
iPod nano: $99 (4GB), $149 (8GB).
iPod touch: $199 (8GB or 16GB*), $299 (16GB or 32GB*), $399 (32GB or 64GB*).
iPod classic: $199-249 (80GB or 120GB), $249-$299 (120GB or 160GB).

Apple’s numerous hints at a major product transition with a profitability impact suggests that this pricing scenario—at least the iPod nano and touch part—is fairly likely. There are other nano possibilities, such as similar prices to today’s plus higher capacities, but they seem unlikely at this point. And dropping the shuffle altogether is another option, but every time people think that model is dead, Apple keeps it going.

iPod touch 2G: Preserving the iPhone 3G Gap. The real questions relate to the second-generation iPod touch and iPod classic, and then mostly on the capacity to pricing model. Conventional wisdom would suggest that Apple will keep touch capacities the same (8GB to 32GB) and simply drop the prices. This would narrow the nano-to-touch price gap from $100 to $50, giving users the choice of a better screen and the iPhone OS as a small “step up.” It would also disappoint everyone who wants to see 64GB and 128GB touches right now, but this wouldn’t be a huge surprise, and there wouldn’t be a huge capacity gap between the most expensive iPhone 3G ($299***/16GB) and the most expensive iPod touch ($399/32GB).

* = But Apple could introduce a $399*** 32GB iPhone 3G, which would make the 16/32/64GB iPod touch scenario more likely. Your choices would then be:

$199: 8GB iPhone 3G***, 16GB iPod touch
$299: 16GB iPhone 3G***, 32GB iPod touch
$399: 32GB iPhone 3G***, 64GB iPod touch

A tougher call, right? A lot of people would actually go with the iPod touch then over the iPhone 3G. Apple probably doesn’t want that to happen, so our guess is that modestly repackaged, cheaper 8GB, 16GB, and 32GB touches are this year’s pitch.

iPod classic: The Wildcard. What about the iPod classic? Toshiba, Apple’s iPod hard disk provider of choice, now seems to wait for Apple before announcing its latest and greatest 1.8-inch hard disks. Last year, it upped the ante with a 160GB drive, and it might have a surprise this year, too. As leading competitor Samsung hasn’t yet announced a 1.8-inch drive with more than 160GB capacity, our guess is that Toshiba’s in the same boat, and capacity will stay the same while price will go down. One of iLounge’s editors thinks that Apple might drop the 160GB model’s price to $249; this would be a very aggressive move.

Our belief is that the single biggest factor influencing the iPod classic’s price is the presence of Microsoft’s Zune in the marketplace—no matter how much Apple tries to blow the Zune off, it’s concerned that Microsoft could steal sales from the iPod with a hard disk model that offers better pricing or capacity. A 120GB Zune is definitely coming, and apparently for $249. The only question is whether Apple will try to undermine Microsoft with a $199 80GB model and $299 160GB model, go for parity with a $249 120GB classic and $299 160GB model, or unleash some hell with a $199 120GB model and either a $249 160GB model or a surprise $299 version with more capacity. Our money would be split on the first or second options.

We’ll know for sure next week… but what do you think is likely? We look forward to seeing your thoughts in the Comments section below.

Internet Radio via Logitech’s Squeezebox Boom

By Jeremy Horwitz | 08.29.08 | 0 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

One of the product categories that we’ve been following with some interest—perhaps tepidly—is the dedicated Internet Radio and speaker system, essentially a standalone device capable of tuning and playing back audio broadcasts from around the world. We use the word “tepidly” because these devices aren’t strictly necessary if you already have a computer with speakers, and frankly suffer from tuning limitations that make the thousands of available Internet Radio stations a bunch of a challenge to navigate. However, if you want to hear Internet Radio in a room that’s not near a computer, you’ll probably want a standalone speaker system, and quite possibly a dedicated tuner.

Logitech has just released Squeezebox Boom, a $300 all-in-one device that wirelessly tunes in Internet Radio stations from a wide variety of sources, then plays them back through four speakers—twin 0.75” tweeters and twin 3” full-range drivers. It’s packed with a remote control and an audio cable for auxiliary input, plus a required power supply to keep the unit operating for audio and as a simple digital clock. While we’re still in the process of gathering up our opinions on the unit, we definitely like its simple, clean black styling, push-button central dial and nicely labeled front controls, and the way that stations have sounded as we’ve been testing them. We also sort of like how Logitech has tried to work around the single biggest issue we’ve seen with Internet Radios in the past—station tuning—by using settings saved on a separate server in the Internet’s “cloud” to help you cut through the chaff using your computer’s screen rather than Squeezebox Boom’s.

There are more pictures after the break. We’ll have opinions and additional thoughts to share soon, as well.

read more »

MobileMe Chat Support is Useless

By Jeremy Horwitz | 08.07.08 | 7 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

After four attempts this morning to contact Apple’s standard customer service regarding MobileMe outage credit—the first three ended in failed attempts by representatives to transfer me to a billing department—this is the message that popped up on Apple’s MobileMe online chat page, the only way people are currently being told they can get customer support.

Right. Because after the first three people couldn’t help, customers should really have to wait 82 minutes for the next screwed-up response—it’s as if Apple is working from the Dell playbook here. Best of luck, Eddy Cue. Seriously.

iPod nano 4G: a Zune-alike?

By Jeremy Horwitz | 07.29.08 | 52 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

It may be hard to believe, but from what we’ve now heard from multiple sources, it’s true: the fourth-generation iPod nano will look like… a Microsoft Zune. Well, sort of.

Contradicting speculation that Apple was planning to transform the new nano into a miniature iPod touch, complete with a smaller touchscreen, we’ve been told that this year’s nano upgrade will go in a different direction. Described by one source as looking like “a Zune Flash… or whatever it’s called,” the new nano has a vertically (tall) oriented display with a Click Wheel underneath, preserving the button-based control scheme that users have found easiest to use without looking down at the screen. The new nano’s screen will gain the same 1.5:1 widescreen aspect ratio as the iPhone and iPod touch, versus the 1.33:1 ratio of the prior iPod nano and iPod classic, and you’ll rotate the device to watch videos on it.

To fit the screen and Click Wheel neatly together, the new nano will adopt a form factor that shifts away from the almost square dimensions of the 2007 third-generation nano back towards the general shape of the first- and second-generation models. As one of our sources noted, it’s a surprise that the new nano will be bigger than the prior model, but the goal appears to be preservation of all of the prior model’s usability while adding a bigger screen, and there aren’t many other ways to accomplish that goal.

Our sources also indicated that rumors that the device will have a multi-colored body are most likely inaccurate. A single-colored anodized aluminum frame akin to prior iPod nanos will apparently be used, with each nano offered in one color. Obviously, we’ll see what the real story is when Apple introduces the new nano later this year, but our sources are extremely confident in the accuracy of these details.

The iPhone Baby Arrives: Introducing Madeline Mirai Horwitz

By Jeremy Horwitz | 07.08.08 | 9 comments |  tell-a-friend |  digg this story

Yesterday, at 3:23PM ET, we welcomed Madeline Mirai Horwitz into the world. Weighing 7 pounds, 3 ounces, and measuring 20 3/4” long, Madeline is the little girl whose pre-natal days were chronicled in The iPhone Baby. The feature article is especially fun to look back on at this point; yes, we did use the iPhone as a stopwatch, and sent her first pictures via the hospital’s Wi-Fi and its camera.

Special thanks to our readers and those in the industry who have asked about the baby; Madeline and mom are both doing great. No gifts, please, as we cannot accept them—she’s apparently not old enough yet to sign up for an AT&T contract—but the thought is appreciated.