Apple is still Terrifying!

Not that I need to apologize, but it does feel weird knowing that most of what I've written here is about Apple. I guess that's what is really terrifying me these days.

Again, in two parts:

First, the race for cloud technology music:

Step 1: Chrome OS is announced where everything will be based in cloud techonology, presenting several issues, including: how do people get music (other than pandora and other websites where you can't play the exact song you want to play).

Step 2: Google tries to buy Lala.com to try to help with the music part of Chrome OS.

Step 3: Apple jumps in and buys Lala.com out from under them.

Step 4: Apple shuts down Lala.com

Step 5 (public response): "Wow! does this mean iTunes will now have some sort of cloud technology." (not the point, people)

Step 6: Apple leaks information that they are set to release cloud service for music prior to Chrome OS release (probably with lala's technology and in order to dampen the impact of Chrome OS on the market)

Second, deleting the bad press:

It would be a much bigger issue if Apple were reaching out to delete bad press outside of their own website, but for some users apple.com might start to feel like it's own nation with a totalitarian government when they find that the moderators have deleted their posts. When consumer reports couldn't recommend the iPhone 4 because of the antenna issues, posts that included that report were deleted from the Apple forums.

Well done, guys.

For someone else's opinion on why apple is terrifying (sort of), check out http://www.pcworld.com/article/130994/10_things_we_hate_about_apple.html

Also, since that link was insanely out of date, if you haven't read fakesteve.net you should start with http://www.fakesteve.net/2010/07/i-am-so-glad-weve-fixed-this-reception-non-issue.html

Nuclear Energy

Whether you're worried about the next Chernobyl or the industrialized future portrayed in movies like Bladerunner, the energy crisis is full of terror and nuclear power is sitting right on the edge. The fate of nuclear energy is balancing between possible extremes.
The world relies too heavily on coal and oil for energy. This has been expertly pointed out a handful of times in recent years. The remaining problem is always a question of what to rely on as the oil crisis becomes, increasingly, the energy crisis.
One hypothetical answer has come from the Cold War, as if to say: "We worked so hard on these smaller reactors for submarines, why not make them even smaller and then just put one in every home?" Well, the figures are a little more realistic than that, stating that one mini-reactor could power 300,000 homes.
Ok, so, how "mini"?
Perhaps these little reactors that power three hundred thousand homes aren't so bad. About the size of a bus? No problem.

It will certainly take a burden off the workers in the country side who are erecting these eyesoress:

If you're not worried about the visual, you can't be blamed. It is stunning.

But the last word is in the direction beauty or even feasibility, as it seems likely that tiny reactors are a real possibility. The tonnage of spent fuel rods that are produced by becoming nuclear energy dependent would increase into proportions that our descendants will lament until they figure out how to turn radioactive waste into furniture.

For a more intelligent discussion of this topic, visit:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/business/energy-environment/19minireactor.html?ref=science

Apple is Terrifying!

Or: Steve Jobs is Terrifying!

There are two scary things that have come up recently related to Apple: patent law disputes and reactions to the iPad.

First: iPad Reactions

Let's be clear. The iPad is not frightening. The public reaction to its announcement is, however, terrifying. Excluding the judgmental comments, the consensus seems to be that the iPad is somewhere in between an iPhone and a tablet PC. Different friends have commented that is overpriced, that it is disappointing in its lack of features, and that it might be worth it on the second model, but that they don't feel confident about the first. Fine.

Unexpectedly, the iPad pushed itself into the Kindle/Sony Reader/Nook market of e-readers. It has many things that e-readers don't: full-color screen, better internet functions, a hundred thousand applications, but it is not an upgrade of the same product. If you've never looked at a Kindle or one of its brethren (I'm partial to the Nook myself, but don't own one so my opinion is of limited value), try one out. It really does simulate reading off of a page, gentle on the eyes. The reaction to the iPad is evidence that Apple has pulled off another marketing magic trick. The illusion is that the iPad is an new and innovative product, when every advantage it presents is full of drawbacks. When the HP Slate first was announced, critics criticized: "Pssh, big deal. It's a tablet that runs Windows 7. Disappointment." When the iPad was announced, the same critics joyfully exclaimed, "It's a tablet that runs iPhone OS! Great!" After all of this you get to learn that I have an iPhone, but that means I feel qualified to tell you that the iPhone OS is terrible. It doesn't run more than one application at a time and when the processor has difficulty with your important task, the application is shut down and whatever you were working on is gone, just gone.

So, in case you haven't figured out why this is terrifying:

People trust Apple!

And in case you think Apple deserves your trust, keep reading while we talk about patents.

Part Two: Cellular Disputes

Apple has sued HTC for "Irreparable Injury" caused by the infringement of 20 patents. Steve Jobs spoke on the topic: "We can sit by and watch competitors steal our patented inventions, or we can do something about it. We've decided to do something about it...We think competition is healthy, but competitors should create their own technology, not steal ours." Before I jumped to any conclusions, I decide to figure out what sort of patents were being disputed. The patent descriptions were less revealing than user comments on technology websites that have published articles on the dispute. Reacting to the patent concerning the iPhone's easy scrolling feature, one user said, "'Use finger to move item on screen' is not intellectual property," explaining that all touchscreen devices are bound to have similar concepts behind their navigation techniques.

A number of analogous inventions/discoveries were referenced, stating that "we are lucky Xerox didn't care to be the only company with a graphical user interface on a computer." Hopefully, someone will be able to prove that these methods have been available for public use before Apple's patents, nullifying the validity of Apple's claim for immeasurable financial damages.

Personally, I'm glad Isaac Newton didn't patent his Laws. As often happens when I read about terrifying things, I smell a dystopian novel: "yes, you used $67.38 worth of gravity yesterday and you have a $10 bonus charge for last week's rainbow." The parallel is ridiculous, I'll admit, but do you remember when Apple ripped off the "I-Phone" registered trademark owned by by the people at Cisco (formerly Linksys, I believe). They had no regard for intellectual property and trademarks and referred to Cisco's complaint as "silly." Again, the issue is trust. Feeling betrayed is irrelevant as I'm torn between the idea of swearing off Apple products and the realization that taking my mere hundreds of dollars elsewhere will make absolutely no difference.

Run!

Hold on, wait a second.

Everything is terrifying. To top it off, the column inches that are dedicated to helping us understand our peril are generally ignored.

From toxic pond scum to antitrust lawsuits, our world is full of horrific educational entertainment.

Let's talk about a few highlights.