I've been using my new iPod Touch to browse the web from anywhere I can get wifi. Its a huge time waster, but one thing that would make it a much better time waster would be the inclusion of the super-cool iPhone version of Google Reader. Going to Google Reader on the iPhone produces a completely different page than on the iPod Touch. It appears that the only difference between the iPhone version of MobileSafari and the iPod Touch version of MobileSafari is the User Agent String.
It must be a pretty simple fix, lots of applications have been updated for iPod Touch support and I haven't noticed any problems. So why is Google dragging its feet on iPod Touch support?
The hopefully simple answer is that Google is a huge corporation and it takes a certain amount of time to roll out a new feature, even if that feature is an extra User Agent String detection.
What I'm more concerned about is the supposed partnership between Google and Apple. Steve Jobs has said that the iPod Touch is training wheels for the iPhone and that he only included MobileSafari to allow the iPod Touch to get wifi access to download from the fancy new iTunes Store. I'm not sure if he really meant that and I hope he didn't, but part of the Google-Apple partnership might include a stipulation to not support the iPod Touch with the iPhone Google apps. Since I seem to need training wheels.
Prove me wrong Google. I want to use your services, but it seems like you and Apple are trying hard to un-make me a customer.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Thursday, October 4, 2007
I know Apple wants to differentiate between the iPhone and the iPod Touch, but they are missing a big barrier for lots of people. I can't and don't want to switch to AT&T. So Apple won't let me unlock the iPhone for use on T-Mobile, but they also don't want me to have access to the iPhone's applications like Google Maps and Mail.app. I'm not sure I understand. Steve Jobs has called the iPod Touch training wheels for the iPhone. I don't need training wheels, Apple -- I need a better choice.
If Apple hadn't sold its soul for some extra kickbacks and visual voicemail, they may have sold more units of a higher priced unlocked iPhone. They wouldn't have needed a precipitous price drop. Then they could have sold a cheaper iPod Touch with no identity crisis. You want the PDA, get the iPhone, you want the full screen videos, get the iPod. Don't worry about which network to put it on, sell it like a smart phone. It's too late go back now, and I'm sure Apple's shareholders are happy with some extra immediate revenues. I'm concerned with the long term future of the platform, Apple has been making some decisions that look terrible and they seem to be related to their mysterious contract with AT&T.
Stop acting like a monopoly Apple, I abandoned Microsoft years ago for similar behavior.
If Apple hadn't sold its soul for some extra kickbacks and visual voicemail, they may have sold more units of a higher priced unlocked iPhone. They wouldn't have needed a precipitous price drop. Then they could have sold a cheaper iPod Touch with no identity crisis. You want the PDA, get the iPhone, you want the full screen videos, get the iPod. Don't worry about which network to put it on, sell it like a smart phone. It's too late go back now, and I'm sure Apple's shareholders are happy with some extra immediate revenues. I'm concerned with the long term future of the platform, Apple has been making some decisions that look terrible and they seem to be related to their mysterious contract with AT&T.
Stop acting like a monopoly Apple, I abandoned Microsoft years ago for similar behavior.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Preorders suck
I pre-ordered an iPod Touch from apple and they said it would be shipped by Sept 28th, the expected release of the new iPod. Unfortunately, they released it in stores the very next week. Well, it's been on sale for a week and a half now and mine still hasn't shipped. I have two problems withs Apple on this one.
First, they were kind enough to send me an email when it was released in stores to let me know I could go out and purchase one. Thanks Apple, I didn't think you played the pre-order game like every other company that has screwed me with "pre-"orders.
Then they had the audacity to change my order status cryptically to "Prepared for Shipment." It's been a couple days now and the iPod still hasn't shipped. As far I can tell the only reason they did this is to keep me from cancelling my online order and going to the nearest Apple Store.
I understand that they'll probably make the "by Sept. 28th" deadline, but that's not the point anymore. They released it in stores, I should have been one of the first to receive it, I shouldn't be seeing other people walking around with the new iPod who stumbled into the Apple and saw the new hottness. I guess I thought Apple wouldn't screw me like every other company I have attempted to pre-order from. Shame on me.
On the upside, at least the iPod won't suffer from the display problems that have plagued the early models. And don't tell me that's a bonus like the ability to add contacts. If you're going to deliver an iPhone interface, don't arbitrarily cripple features - let me do what I want with the device. I'd lay odds that this iPod doesn't ship until a couple days before the 28th.
First, they were kind enough to send me an email when it was released in stores to let me know I could go out and purchase one. Thanks Apple, I didn't think you played the pre-order game like every other company that has screwed me with "pre-"orders.
Then they had the audacity to change my order status cryptically to "Prepared for Shipment." It's been a couple days now and the iPod still hasn't shipped. As far I can tell the only reason they did this is to keep me from cancelling my online order and going to the nearest Apple Store.
I understand that they'll probably make the "by Sept. 28th" deadline, but that's not the point anymore. They released it in stores, I should have been one of the first to receive it, I shouldn't be seeing other people walking around with the new iPod who stumbled into the Apple and saw the new hottness. I guess I thought Apple wouldn't screw me like every other company I have attempted to pre-order from. Shame on me.
On the upside, at least the iPod won't suffer from the display problems that have plagued the early models. And don't tell me that's a bonus like the ability to add contacts. If you're going to deliver an iPhone interface, don't arbitrarily cripple features - let me do what I want with the device. I'd lay odds that this iPod doesn't ship until a couple days before the 28th.
Hiking
I went hiking today. It only convinced me that humans are the dumbeset species on the planet. Maybe I'm missing something, but hiking seems to be a mix of exercise and the desire to see the view from the top of the hill.
My favorite moment came on the way down, a dog was being dragged along on a leash and it finally decided it had enough. The owner was demanding that "Peanut" continue up the hill, but the look in his eye was more of despise toward its crazy master. I always like to think of the world from the perspective of an alien anthropologist watching from a distance. They would surely think a stream of people climbing up and down a hill for no obvious benefit makes no sense at all. We are crazy, crazy animals.
My favorite moment came on the way down, a dog was being dragged along on a leash and it finally decided it had enough. The owner was demanding that "Peanut" continue up the hill, but the look in his eye was more of despise toward its crazy master. I always like to think of the world from the perspective of an alien anthropologist watching from a distance. They would surely think a stream of people climbing up and down a hill for no obvious benefit makes no sense at all. We are crazy, crazy animals.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Why we die
I was reading an interesting article in American Scientist about the statistics of death, courtesy of the Seed Daily Zeitgeist. The author was making sense of the statistics of predicting death rates across age groups and determining the life expectancy of a population. The conclusion of the article attempts to then make sense of why we die. He offers a few explanations: evolution favoring young, virile baby-makers, a catastrophic buildup of mutations resulting in cancers, our own telomere time bomb. But I think he fails to consider one of the most important reasons for death; evolution must clear out previous generations to make room for the new hotness.
Evolution depends on mutation. I like to think about it in the following thought experiment. Say there are two species living in close proximity. One species can live indefinitely, the other species has a limited generation time. The second species has a strong incentive to reproduce and a better potential to generate useful mutations. The first species eternally languishes as the same generation watches their competitors cycle through generations. Eventually a positive mutation will arise in the second species and it will be able to overtake the other, stagnant species.
Evolution requires that generations turn over. The speed we do is probably best described by Stephen Jay Gould in Ontogeny and Phylogeny. He talks about k and R selection, which define two ideal states that a species experiences. In one state, resources are abundant and there is strong pressure to produce many offspring as quickly as possible. These animals reproduce quickly and die just as fast. The other state is of a stable population with limited resources which eventually develops a slow, long generation time to maximize the resources available to the population.
We definitely die because our telomeres shorten, senescing our body cells. We die because mutations build up in our cells and cancerous cells outcompete our own cells, and we die as machines as our vital systems degrade and shut down. These are not independant variables, they are determined by evolution, which once balanced us against a pleistocene backdrop. They are related because they also balance each other. We should stop considering ourselves as victim observers of a harsh world, we are a dynamic part of the history and ecosystem of this planet.
Evolution depends on mutation. I like to think about it in the following thought experiment. Say there are two species living in close proximity. One species can live indefinitely, the other species has a limited generation time. The second species has a strong incentive to reproduce and a better potential to generate useful mutations. The first species eternally languishes as the same generation watches their competitors cycle through generations. Eventually a positive mutation will arise in the second species and it will be able to overtake the other, stagnant species.
Evolution requires that generations turn over. The speed we do is probably best described by Stephen Jay Gould in Ontogeny and Phylogeny. He talks about k and R selection, which define two ideal states that a species experiences. In one state, resources are abundant and there is strong pressure to produce many offspring as quickly as possible. These animals reproduce quickly and die just as fast. The other state is of a stable population with limited resources which eventually develops a slow, long generation time to maximize the resources available to the population.
We definitely die because our telomeres shorten, senescing our body cells. We die because mutations build up in our cells and cancerous cells outcompete our own cells, and we die as machines as our vital systems degrade and shut down. These are not independant variables, they are determined by evolution, which once balanced us against a pleistocene backdrop. They are related because they also balance each other. We should stop considering ourselves as victim observers of a harsh world, we are a dynamic part of the history and ecosystem of this planet.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Pilotless Airplanes
There is a story in the "Ask a Pilot" column on Salon.com about air travel and the reality of pilotless planes. The author, a professed pilot, claims that air travel requires the input of real pilots in the plane at all times. Although I'm not a pilot, I disagree with the author for a few reasons. First it's impossible to make wild predictions about the world 20 years hence. It's also unrealistic to assume that computers aren't up to the task in some way. The whole article seems to be an apologetic justification for the author's own self professed rustiness.
The claim that something isn't possible in 20 years is foolish. The amount of technological progress to be made over two decades is baffling. It's impossible to predict the advances that could be made in that time. Much of the technology already exists. It would have to be strung together effectively and managed by a pretty significant computer brain, but I think it's a real possibility.
Flying aircraft seems to be the perfect job for a computer. Take-off, fly toward a destination, then land. I don't see what makes that job require any more ingenuity than a railroad or an assembly line. All sorts of inputs could be used. GPS for location, any number of systems for runway identification and taxiing, multiple altimeters for various altitude data, and input from traffic controlling computers for routing information. It's not impossible, I think it's the perfect place for a computer.
Pilot error accounts for up to a third of airline crashes, so I would welcome a competent computer. They don't fly the plane drunk, they don't mistake the ground for the sky, and they couldn't be hijacked like a normal pilot. I for one welcome our coming robo-pilot overlords.
The claim that something isn't possible in 20 years is foolish. The amount of technological progress to be made over two decades is baffling. It's impossible to predict the advances that could be made in that time. Much of the technology already exists. It would have to be strung together effectively and managed by a pretty significant computer brain, but I think it's a real possibility.
Flying aircraft seems to be the perfect job for a computer. Take-off, fly toward a destination, then land. I don't see what makes that job require any more ingenuity than a railroad or an assembly line. All sorts of inputs could be used. GPS for location, any number of systems for runway identification and taxiing, multiple altimeters for various altitude data, and input from traffic controlling computers for routing information. It's not impossible, I think it's the perfect place for a computer.
Pilot error accounts for up to a third of airline crashes, so I would welcome a competent computer. They don't fly the plane drunk, they don't mistake the ground for the sky, and they couldn't be hijacked like a normal pilot. I for one welcome our coming robo-pilot overlords.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Punctuation
I seem to have a problem with punctuation... Looking at my previous titles they either include an exclamation point or a question mark. I think I have spent a little too much time reading headlines at Digg. If I'm not careful, I could end up with a puerile top 10 list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
