Yesterday, I talked about a member of the Free Software Foundation and his 5 reasons to avoid the iPhone. What struck me was that this guy is willing to sacrifice quality for the freedom from proprietary software and corporate ties. That kind of philosophy is all fine and dandy and I would applaud him for his efforts, but when I saw what he claimed was the alternative I couldn't help but laugh. One look at the phone and interface told me everything I needed to know, that this thing was an absolute piece of shit.

Today, I watched a few videos by Dave Fayram off of the Vimeo site where he reviews and shows a comparison of the OpenMoko powered FreeRunner and the iPhone. It's very clear that this phone has absolutely no comparison to the iPhone:

OpenMoko Train Wreck from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

Wow! The keyboard alone has me wondering what the hell the developers were thinking. And the shitty scrolling? Please. Even if I shared the same philosophy as the FSF, an interface like that would be completely unacceptable to me. I wouldn't use it. Period.

Plus, the thing is practically twice as thick as an iPhone. In fact, I think it's even thicker than the Treo 750 I used to use. The thing resembles a f@#king hockey puck for Pete's sake. Talk about a really shitty form factor!

More OpenMoko Train Wrecking (Now with Qt!) from Dave Fayram on Vimeo.

My god, is that interface slow!

And it doesn't play MP3's? Really? The most popular audio file format and it doesn't play it. But, hey, it plays Ogg Vorbis files! Awesome! Now I can convert all my existing MP3 and ACC encoded files into Ogg files and waste more time just so my music can sound more shitty. Great idea!

And how many times does he have to tap the same button before it does anything? I mean, really, come on! That by far is one of the biggest blunders of interface design I've ever seen! Instant show stopper in my book.

Text entry is God awful. I've used Treo's, played with Blackberry's, and many, many other types of smart phones and I've never seen text entry as bad as this. What a f@$king joke!

I know what the guy from FSF would respond with to my post. He would say that to buy an iPhone or any other phone that requires proprietary software would go against his philosophy. That's fine. If that's what you believe and you don't want to have anything to do with any phone like that then that's your choice. But to make unfounded claims in an attempt to prove your point is a big mistake. Until you've used these phones and really have taken the time to understand what these phones are really all about then how can you have any sort of educated opinion.

The thing I've learned is that even though I support open source software I know that it's unrealistic to think that all software can be open and free. Hell, it's highly unrealistic to think that you can avoid any proprietary corporate ties in this day in age. Just about everything you use and buy is proprietary in some way or has ties to a corporation. People work to make money. Corporations exist to make money. Regardless of whether you're developing open source or proprietary software the whole point in doing it is to make money in some shape, fashion, or form. Open source software survives not because of its openness but because developers have found way to profit off it and have learned that good product design is a must if you are to compete with companies that develop proprietary software.

Again, I bought an iPhone because I wanted the best phone I could buy that would suit my needs and integrate into my lifestyle well. The iPhone is the best phone for me. Now, whether it's the best phone for someone else, well, that's a matter of personal preference and taste. Apple didn't put a spell on me. I didn't buy one just because of all the hoopla surrounding it. No, I bought it because I feel it's the best smart phone out there. If anyone making open source software for smart phones wants to compete they're going to have to really create something extraordinary, something so well designed that your average layman simply has to have it. That's what Apple did with the iPhone. Sure, marketing and advertising helped, but even then the product speaks for itself. Can OpenMako do the same with the FreeRunner?

To say that a FreeRunner is SO much better just because it's open and supports the philosophy of the FSF, that's a delusional statement at best. I just don't get the willingness to sacrifice useability and good design on a somewhat misguided philosophy. The FreeRunner is so poorly designed in both hardware and software I just don't understand how anyone can look at it and say that it's an acceptable product. Claiming it to be good enough is accepting mediocrity based on a misguided belief over the use of open source software, which is something I absolutely refuse to do. Now, if it is perfectly acceptable to you then buy one and use it. If not, you will have no choice but to consider a proprietary phone. As it stands though I will likely never ever use anything that resembles the FreeRunner simply because it is mediocre. It it was something that actually came close to the iPhone I could see it, but otherwise I'll pass.

Keep your piece of shit open phone. I'm perfectly happy with my proprietary phone, thank you very much.

Last week, someone over at the Free Software Foundation posted a blog entry called 5 reasons to avoid iPhone 3G. I'm all for free software and a big proponent of open source software. Hell, I help develop for MODx, which is open source. Although my Mac is my primary desktop, I have an OpenSuSE desktop server running that I use as my development environment. So, yeah, I understand the open source community quite a bit. So when I read this list of reasons to avoid the iPhone I found it laughable at best because the very reasons they claim are reasons to actually get it.

So, here's my comments about what this guy has to say. Let's start with reason #1:

1: iPhone completely blocks free software. Developers must pay a tax to Apple, who becomes the sole authority over what can and can't be on everyone's phones.

Wait a minute...so what about all those free apps on the iTunes App Store? You mean that developers still have to pay Apple to distribute those apps? No sir, they don't! Developers are only taxed on the apps they put price tags on. Even then Apple only gets a 30% cut. Now, you could say that that's a rip off but, let's face it, Apple is in the business of making money. And have you seen the apps on the App Store? Doesn't look like Apple is playing the authority figure you claim it to be. If that was the case then I would estimate that at least two-thirds of the apps on there would have been rejected. As it stands though that is simply not the case. Apple nor anybody else in the iPhone community requires you or any other developer to put a price tag on an iPhone app. If you want to put an iPhone app on the App Store for free you're more than welcome to do so. So your notion that Apple completely blocks free software is bullshit at best.

2: iPhone endorses and supports Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology.

Apple does NOT endorse and support DRM technology. It's a well known fact that Steve Jobs is not all that fond of DRM systems. But, as you say, it's been a year and half since BMI started allowing Apple to sell DRM free music:

With great hesitation, he allowed a handful of files to go DRM-free on iTunes, but kept in place the requirement that they be purchased using the proprietary, DRM-infected iTunes software. Since then, he has done absolutely nothing to act on those words.

It's not Steve Jobs or Apple that's the problem...it's the big music and media houses that are the problem. Apple has no control over the decision to put DRM on the media they sell because they aren't the ones controlling the publishing rights to the music and media. Only the music and media companies have those rights. If Apple could remove all DRM restrictions on the music and media they sell on iTunes tomorrow they would. Wanna know who you need to complain to? Complain to companies like Sony, BMG, Warner, Universal and others who are doing their best to maintain the status quo and keep the traditional business model of selling media by restricting what you can and can't do with the media you buy. Don't bitch at Apple, bitch at them!

The truth is that there are thousands of software, music, and media creators who want to share their work more freely.

Last I checked, there are tons of independent musicians, such as Jonathan Coulton, sharing and selling their work on iTunes. Same applies to media creators. The notion that Apple only cares about the big labels and doesn't allow independent artist to distribute their work easily on iTunes is bullshit.

I get a lot of my music and media in plenty of different ways. iTunes is just one source. I get stuff from Amazon, podcasts, CDBaby, and other sites. Apple doesn't pigeon-hole you. You do have a choice.

Plus, there are tons of developers offering free software to use on the Mac. It seems for every good paid app there's an equally good free app as well. Not all of them are open source but, still, if it's free how can you complain?

3: iPhone exposes your whereabouts and provides ways for others to track you without your knowledge.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit! Have you even used an iPhone? Every app that accesses the GPS API is required to ask you for permission to use your current location. Even then, the coordinates are only used for that given app and aren't transmitted for the world to see. The only way people can see where you are is if you allow for it. Loopt is a good example of this and, even with Loopt, you have to specifically give friends permission to see you before they can do anything. Based on that, if the iPhone is exposing your whereabouts it's because you allowed it to, not because it just does it on its own.

4: iPhone won't play patent- and DRM-free formats like Ogg Vorbis and Theora.

Ok, so you're partially correct...but only partially. Yes, it's true that no iPhone or iPod will play Ogg Vorbis or Theora files natively. And, yes, it's true that both MP3 and AAC are patented technologies. But, unlike MP3, no licenses or payments are required to be able to stream or distribute content in AAC format. However, to create AAC files does require a license since it is a proprietary format. Interestingly though it isn't owned by a single company since it was developed by multiple organizations in an effort to develop a more standardize file format.

Neither MP3 or AAC are DRM formats in and of themselves. DRM can be added on to these formats, sure, but they're not DRM formats natively. Apple and other companies add on DRM to these formats because they are required to do so by the media companies.

Apple and other organizations would likely embrace open formats like Ogg Vorbis if they truly felt that it would be cheaper and more beneficial than what they are predominantly using now. However, as it stands, that's simply not the case. So what you say is only half right.

5: iPhone is not the only option. There are better alternatives on the horizon that respect your freedom, don't spy on you, play free media formats, and let you use free software -- like the FreeRunner.

Yes, the iPhone is not the only option. There are other smart phones out there that have capabilities similar to the iPhone. And, honestly, if there was a phone better than the iPhone I would certainly buy it. Right now though, today, there is no equivalent of the iPhone anywhere.

Fortunately, we will soon be able to have all the convenience of a mobile computer that also makes phone calls without selling our freedom to Apple, Microsoft, BlackBerry, or anyone else. The Neo FreeRunner is a promising free-software phone, being developed in cooperation with the same worldwide community responsible for the GNU/Linux operating system.

Great but, really, is that the best the open source community can do? I'll give them credit for coming up with a completely open solution. However, I'm far from being impressed with the design of the FreeRunner. It's not inspiring and the software looks like shit, but that's just my opinion.

About the only phones that could remotely compete with the iPhone are phones powered by Google Android. However, I hate to break it to you but even Google Android is not as open as people thought. Also, exactly how good Google Android powered phones will be remains to be seen. I wouldn't be counting my chickens just yet.

iPhones can now also only be activated in stores -- despite the fact that in the U.S., the Register of Copyrights ruled that consumers have the right to unlock their phones and switch to a different carrier.

Yes, you're right, consumers have the right to unlock their phones and use them with other carriers and they are more than welcome to do so if they choose...but at a price. Although customers can reserve the right to unlock their phones, carriers can reserve the right to charge a fee to allow you out of your one or two year contract. Plus, most carriers subsidize the price of the phone so in order to get an iPhone (or any other phone for that matter) that is unlockable without a contract, be prepared to pay a lot more for it. This isn't Apple's doing though. This is the cell phone industry. AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, they all do this. If Apple could sell iPhones to every carrier without some bogus stipulations in their contracts they would. That day may come but right now Apple is tied to AT&T for contractual reasons.

I will say this though: If the FreeRunner or a Google Android phone were to beat out the iPhone on design, features, usability, and integration into my lifestyle I will gladly give up my iPhone for any one of these phones. My phone is a part of my everyday life. As an information worker, it's absolutely necessary that I remain in touch with everyone I work with. As such, the iPhone give me that and much more. For any other phone to trump it will be difficult.

Personally, I don't really care if the iPhone is completely open or not. I just care about good, solid product design that integrates into my life well. For now, the iPhone is my smart phone of choice, and not because Apple has tricked me with some David Copperfield illusion either. No sir, it's because Apple created a good product that is well designed. If another phone does it for you then, great, buy it. Otherwise, shut up!

On January 9, 2007, at the Macworld Expo, Steve Jobs unveiled a product that would forever change the landscape for cellphones: the first iPhone. Speculators ran rampant saying that Apple would likely garnish at least a 7% market share by 2016! What's funny is that Jobs said that Apple would be happy with just 1% of the market, a market which at the time was already selling a 100 million phones:

So game consoles. 26 million game consoles were sold in 2006 worldwide, actually a little smaller than you'd think. It's not such a big market. Digital cameras dwarfed it at 94 million. MP3 players 135 million. And PCs, about 209. Mobile phones, just about a billion last year, worldwide. So what does this tell you? What this tells you is, that 1 percent market share equals 10 million units. This is a giant market. One percent market share, you're going to sell 10 million phones. And this is exactly what we're going to try to do in 2008, our first full year in the market, is grab 1 percent market share and go from there. So we're going to enter a very competitive market, lot of players, we think we're going to have the best product in the world, and we're going to go for it and see if we can get 1 percent market share, 10 million units in 2008, and go from there.

What Jobs didn't say was that the market was already dominated by the Blackberry and Windows Mobile devices. Many speculators wondered if the iPhone could even remotely compete since it didn't have any enterprise support nor any Microsoft Exchange support, the two things all businesses require out of the smartphones they buy.

Even Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer couldn't help but laugh at the iPhone:

Baller went on to say in a USAToday interview:

There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance. It's a $500 subsidized item. They may make a lot of money. But if you actually take a look at the 1.3 billion phones that get sold, I'd prefer to have our software in 60% or 70% or 80% of them, than I would to have 2% or 3%, which is what Apple might get.

Ballmer would have to wait and see just how much market share Apple would get with the iPhone.

On June 29th, 2007, the first generation iPhone is released to the public. Right out of the gate, Apple sold an estimated 500,000 iPhones in just the first weekend, with one million iPhones sold by September. By the end of 2007, Apple sold nearly 4 million iPhones. Not only did they meet expectations, they exceeded them by capturing a 26.7% share of the smartphone market by the end of 2007. Keep in mind that they attained these numbers without enterprise support and on just a single carrier. It's an amazing product launch on many levels!

Even then there were many who doubted the future success of the iPhone, still claiming that Apple could not keep up with their success without enterprise support and without the ability to install native applications. Well, their doubts were put to rest when, on March 6, 2008, Steve Jobs and company announced the beta release of the iPhone SDK as well as a first look of the iPhone 2.0 software. And what will the iPhone 2.0 software provide? You got it: native ActiveSync support for Microsoft Exchange!

By May 2008, Apple's iPhone market share slipped a bit and fell to a 19.2% marketshare. My guess is that companies just aren't ready to buy into the iPhone yet till they see the official release of the 2.0 software.

Another gripe about the iPhone was that it didn't have 3G. Well, in true Apple fashion, they announced on January 15, 2008 at the Macworld Expo the release of the next generation iPhone, the iPhone 3G. Granted, the only things they added was support for 3G and built-in GPS, but it still pretty much closes the gap for any complaints that business users have.

So with all the hoopla, what is it about the iPhone? Why is this thing so darn popular? And does it really deserve all the hype and attention it's getting?

As a fellow iPhone owner, I can tell you that it deserves all the hype. I used to administrate a good handful of Treo 700w's and 750's and I've played with quite a few Blackberry's as well. None of them came close to the innovation and slickness of the iPhone. Simply put, Apple did indeed make one hell of a jump ahead of the competition. They created a phone that works unlike any other device of its kind.

Many other manufactures have tried to duplicate the success of the multi-touch interface of the iPhone but have failed. And why would they? Apple has had a history of creating really well designed interfaces for the past five years. Any company that even remotely wants to compete has to step up their game now and come up with something that is just as innovative. Even then, innovation is only a fraction of it. The other part is the fact that the iPhone just plain works.

The only real competition I see for Apple is Google Android, an open-source mobile operating system that some manufactures are already developing for. Android has plenty of potential but it remains to be seen whether it can capture the enterprise market. In many ways, Google Android will be the Linux of the smartphone market. I'm sure there will be developers creating apps that allow for such things as native Microsoft Exchange support.

So where does that leave the rest of the competition? Will Apple dominate the market and leave Windows Mobile and Blackberry in the dust? I don't think so and I honestly don't believe Apple will monopolize on the market either. After all, not everyone will find the iPhone to be the perfect fit for them. Some people will simply prefer a Blackberry, Treo, or some other smartphone over an iPhone.

I personally love the iPhone. And just because I'm an Apple fan doesn't mean that I think the iPhone is the only good smartphone on the market. Again, I think Google Android holds a lot of promise. If someone was to come along with a phone that offers better features, a better interface, and more I might consider it. Apple doesn't rule and know all; they just happen to be the one company who is designing some of the better products right now. Any company can come along and do it better. They just have to design something better.

As to what the future will hold for the iPhone and what the next big thing will be, no one really knows. Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Update [June 24, 2008]:

I share John Guber's sentiments on the expectations of Google Android and how it compares to the iPhone:

My obsession is with wonderful, thoughtful software and gadgetry. I love the iPhone because it's fucking amazing, not because it's from Apple. It'd be fantastic if even one Android-based phone is as good or better than the iPhone.

The openness of Google Android is what makes me think it'll end up being the Linux of the mobile OS market. And John is right, Android does have the potential of being better than the iPhone in many ways. After all, anyone with both Mac and Linux experience can see the potential of both platforms and the strengths of each. I don't see why Android would be any different. But one thing is for sure: unless developers embrace the platform Android won't stand a chance, which we won't see till the first Android phones are released on the market.

As the Presidential election continues, I've been thinking a lot about the two candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. I've thought about the philosophies and points of view that are so different between them. Being that I've been an IT professional for over six years and a web developer for almost as long, it's only fitting that I draw a comparison with the current Presidential election to the two operating systems I've used intimately for the past ten years or so: Apple's Mac OS and Microsoft's Windows.

If you've never used a Mac then you might not have a clue what I'm talking about in this post. And when I say used I mean more than just a few hours. Anyone who has spent more than a month using a Mac will know exactly where I'm coming from and why I draw the kind of comparison I'm talking about to the current Presidential election. Comparing Windows users to Mac users is very much like comparing devoted Republicans to Democrats.

I recently read a three-part series of articles entitled From Win32 to Cocoa: a Windows user's conversion to Mac OS X (part 1, part 2, part 3). This series of articles does a great job of reinforcing my views and illustrates my own experiences that made me switch from Windows to Mac.

I've used Windows since Windows 95 and was a staunch supporter of Microsoft, defending them even when criticism was at an all time high during the late 90's and into the turn of the century. But after spending three years as an IT Supervisor for a small architectural firm, dealing with day to day issues with the administration of Microsoft software, and beta testing Microsoft's latest OS, Windows Vista, my philosophy started to change.

The first change came when I got sick of dealing with Microsoft's .NET platform for doing web development. I felt that there had to be something easier and just as powerful to use. So I ended up switching to the use of Apache web servers, PHP, MySQL, and Linux/Unix-based servers as my platforms of choice for web development.

The final change came when I went out and bought a Mac Mini out of frustration. The tools I was using for web development just weren't working right on my Windows-based PC and I really wanted a change. I was already highly familiar with Linux and Unix-based operating systems so a Mac wasn't that much of a jump for me. Once I got up and running I haven't looked back ever since. I even formatted my old PC and turned it into a Linux server.

So how does this translate to the current election?

When I was beta testing Vista, it became clear to me that Microsoft was giving me more of the same. They were more or less trying to candy coat everything in a slick package and attempting to solve all of the users problems with band-aids. What they ended up with was a bloated mess of an operating system that required twice the horse power that Windows XP required. As such, anyone who wanted to use Windows Vista would have to buy all new hardware....including businesses, who are Microsoft's biggest customers. What's worse is that there are so many similarities to Mac OS X. They practically ripped off ideas from Apple. Yep, there's lots of pork in Vista.

From a developers point of view, writing applications for Windows is a trying experience. I certainly remember my time trying to get a .NET web application working. I felt like I spent more time dicking around with the configuration than I did actually writing code. As Peter Bright points out:

Windows is dying, Windows applications suck, and Microsoft is too blinkered to fix any of it--that's the argument. The truth is that Windows is hampered by 25-year old design decisions. These decisions mean that it's clunky to use and absolutely horrible to write applications for. The applications that people do write are almost universally terrible. They're ugly, they're inconsistent, they're disorganized; there's no finesse, no care lavished on them. Microsoft--surely the company with the greatest interest in making Windows and Windows applications exude quality--is, in fact, one of the worst perpetrators.

Microsoft has always been a company that would have you believe that Windows and other products like Microsoft Office are the only solutions to consider for your business and personal life. They pretty much invented the use of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Anytime a competitor has threatened their core business, they do what they can to either stomp it out or entice their users to keep using Windows with a little FUD ("Are you sure that's wise?").

The thing is that Microsoft doesn't care about the conscientious developer or the home user. They only care about making their primary core customers happy: corporate enterprise customers. As such, Microsoft doesn't really have to re-invent themselves if their corporate customers are happy. Corporate users are happy with "good enough", which is exactly what Microsoft gives them.

Candy coating, band-aids, bloat, pork, inconsistent, disorganized, poorly managed, corporate loving, FUD, disillusioned user base, copycat design, more of the same, good enough. Gee...is this starting to sound like the Republican Presidential campaign?

Apple, on the other hand, is a company that is about forward, outside-of-the-box thinking. Their products speak for themselves. All you have to do is pick up an iPhone and realize just how much time and attention went into it. Apple is a company that attempts to solve problems by creating computers and gadgets that are well designed and highly usable. Much of their success has a lot to do with their leadership:

Apple is Apple. Apple, as a company, prides itself on being a leader, not a follower. As Steve Jobs famously quoted Wayne Gretzky, "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been". So the charismatic (some might say dictatorial) Apple leadership wants the company to be seen as one that looks forward, not backward.

Apple practices good, solid user-centric design in every product they create. I've read many books about application and product design for my web development practices and Apple is always used as an example of good design. Good design is about communication. A well thought-out, well designed product communicates to you by showing you how it will solve your problem. In times like this, the product speaks for itself. What makes Apple's products so good is that they accomplish something that many other companies fail to do: to make a product that is easy and fun to use and addresses the needs of what most people need.

Apple's products are honest and direct. For Apple, less is more. You don't need every bell and whistle. You don't need a bunch of useless features that you'll never use. So they get rid of the fluff and bloat and leave behind only what is necessary to get the job done. What you're left with is a clean, usable product that is a joy to use.

Granted, Apple isn't perfect. They do make mistakes and they are flawed in areas, and Steve Jobs would be the first to admit it. Most users don't really know what they want till they see it so Apple tries to anticipate what users will want to use in the future by asking questions and creating new products based on new ideas and innovation. Many times they succeed, but sometimes they fail. But they learn from their failures and move on. Part of their failures includes listening to their users and asking them why a product wasn't good. That's just good management and good business.

Leadership, forward, outside-of-the-box thinking, communication, well managed, honest, direct, clean, usable, fallible, innovative. I don't expect perfection but I don't want something that's just "good enough". I just want it to work and work well and solve my problems. Apple give me that. I think Barack Obama will give me that as well.

I knew that it would be inevitable...eventually my new Mac would crash. No computer is perfect. Hardware and software problems can and will occur. So why would a Mac be any different?

I bought my Mac Mini about 4-5 months ago. Last November, I upgraded to Mac OS X Leopard the very day it came out. Since that time, I've had a few programs crash and quit here and there. Hasn't happened on a frequent basis. Nothing I would call major by any stretch of the imagination. Programs crash now and then. That's just a fact of life. And when it happens, I can usually just relaunch the program and be on my merry way. I save and I save often when working on important files. So to have a program crash really doesn't hurt my feelings.

So, this morning, I was working on a few things. I had a few programs open: Mail, Safari, GSync, Aptana, Adium, and iTunes. Not much. Then I started to launch Firefox to do a quick webpage test. Bam! The screen when opaque with a small box like the one listed here telling me that I need to restart my computer. So I shutdown and restarted my computer.

Upon logging back in, I was presented with a simple window telling me that my computer had crashed unexpectedly and asked if I'd like to send a log to Apple. Viewing the log gives you a few simple options to view the log information itself, basic system info, and a place to add some comments on what you were doing at the time the crash happened so you can send this information to Apple. This is very similar to what happens on a Windows XP/Vista system when it crashes. Only difference is that a Windows system itself goes directly to a very unfriendly blue screen when it crashes (the dreaded Blue Screen of Death!) and doesn't tell the end user anything useful about what just happened or what to do when it happens. BSOD's are generally confusing to an end user and pretty much freaks out anyone who doesn't know shit about computers. Apple at least gives an indication to the user on what they need to do. The ability to send the logs to the OS maker is pretty much the same between the two OS's, but I do feel that Apple's is more straight-forward and a bit less confusing since it keeps everything in just one windows and a few tabs.

This is the first and only time I've had a kernel panic. The fact that it didn't happen in the 4 months I've been using Leopard is impressive. This is just testament that a Mac does indeed crash a lot less often than a Windows machine. Before I got my Mac, I pretty much used Windows XP exclusively. My experience has been that programs on XP as well as XP itself crash more often than they do on a Mac. Plus, I find I can recover from a crash much more effectively on my Mac.

As weird as this may seem, the experience of having a kernel panic on a Mac was somehow comforting. I didn't get the feeling that the end of the world was happening. Nor did I think something drastically wrong was with my computer to make me think I had to call Apple on it. Now, if this becomes a highly repetitive thing, I can see that. But, for now, I have the comfort knowing that I can go back to doing my thing and not worry about it so much. Somehow I feel this is exactly what goes on in the mind of the average Mac user. And, in my opinion, that's a very good thing. An informed computer user is an educated computer.

Last week at my company's Christmas party, I was having a conversation with a few of my co-workers and their wives. The topic of conversation shifted to the iPod and one of my co-worker's wives brought up a good question: Is there a good alternative to the iPod? My response to her was that the latest generation of the Microsoft Zune has received good reviews. I read a lot of different news feeds and blog posts and the general consensus is that the second generation of Zunes are pretty darn good and actually top the iPod in some ways.

Paul Thorrott has an excellent review of the latest batch of Zunes from Microsoft. His review is very much on the level and he doesn't seem to show any bias in his review. He states right up front that he didn't give the first Zune a good review. Yeah, that first Zune Microsoft put out was indeed an abysmal combination of hardware and software. Not very many people liked it at all. He says that the new Zunes are not without their problems but are far and away a better product than the first Zunes.

"Is this a revolution in the making? Not quite, not yet: Apple will still sell untold iPods this holiday season. But the Zune is no longer a laughing stock and some of the changes Microsoft has made, both in the hardware and in the software, will have Apple racing to catch up. I like what I see here."

There's no doubt in my mind that the Zune deserves a place as the #2 media player on the market but I'm not so sure about it topping the iPod anytime soon. The primary problem with it is this: No Mac compatibility! Now, you could say that this only affects about 5% of Microsoft's potential customer base. Then again that 5% is just as important as the rest. It's the same argument I have with web designers and developers creating sites that only work with Internet Explorer. To dismiss a percentage of your clientèle like this is no different than designing a building that does not accommodate for the blind and/or disabled. Simply put, it's not a good business decision. As such, I still recommend the iPod over the Zune for this very reason.

NBC is continuing its efforts to distance themselves from iTunes even further with its anything-but-Apple strategy. Latest news says that NBC is teaming up with SanDisk. "SanDisk?", you say. Yes, SanDisk!

The stategy is to sell the SanDisk Sansa TakeTV and let customers use the Fanfare video service to download content. In theory, this idea seems really cool since it means watching content on your TV. However, there is some really big downsides to this:

1. The TakeTV is Windows only and there is no indication from SanDisk that it'll ever be Mac compatible.

2. The TakeTV is for video only. No features for listening to just audio, music, podcasts or showing your photos like the Apple TV can.

3. You'll have to shell out another $99 to $150 for yet another device to hook up to your TV.

4. Still doesn't solve the problem of not being able to take your media on the go.

This may be a fine solution for some folks out there...but not when it's the only solution for playing NBC content on your TV. Like others have said, it's basically NBC telling you how they want you to use their content. And, yes, the TakeTV is going to have DRM out the ass cause that's exactly how NBC wants it.

Others have talked about how Apple needs NBC:

“Don’t let the Macgeeks posting angry blogs against NBC fool you...The loser here is Apple, which relies on NBC Universal to deliver 30 percent of video download sales. Any supposed backlash against NBC will not materialize because NBC has made its content available, for free, on NBC.com and six other major portals sites, via NBC Direct download, as well as over cable VOD.�

It may seem like that now, especially when NBC is doing everything they can to make NBC look like the bad guy. However, just because NBC is making its content available for free doesn't mean that it's a good thing. There are a lot of people out there that simply want readily available content that they can use as they please whether it's playing it on an iPod/iPhone, on their computer, TV, or any other way they want. NBC wants everyone to pay a fee for every device they want to play the content on whereas most consumers would rather pay for it once and play it anywhere.

So all the stuff NBC is doing...who is it really good for? Definitely not Apple...but not the consumer either. Although it's easy to say that Apple is the real loser here and that Macgeeks are just blowing hot air, in the end NBC will likely end up being the real loser. It's bad enough that they killed all their content from iTunes...but it's even worse then their so-called solution doesn't even compensate Mac users. Who are they kidding? "Anything but Apple" indeed! Shitheads!

Now, before I begin, I'll just say that I'm not going to knock Tom Krazit on his CNet blog post called Problems with the Mac promised land. He made some very valid and interesting points. However, there are a few areas that I feel might be misconstrued. For instance:

"It's never clear in the early going exactly how many people as a whole run into problems with Macs, since things get quickly blown out of proportion under the intense scrutiny paid to Apple. But the basic complaint seems to be: this ain't what we thought it would be. Buggy upgrades? Security issues? This is why we switched to the Mac in the first place, right?"

Was Leopard really that buggy? Did it really have security issues galore? Sort of but not really. Compared to a Vista upgrade though, Leopard is probably one of the smoothest upgrades I've ever seen. No software product is going to be perfect right out of the starting gate. And, you're right, how quickly a company can react to problems is very important. However, it's human nature for people to blow the whistle much harder when they have problems versus when they don't.

A lot of the issues with Leopard are overblown just as much as Macs are hyped. Many issues were fixed fairly quickly with the first set of patches and fixes. Many others were due to changes Apple made to the security of the OS. For instance, I had a problem sharing a folder out to a Windows machine on my network. The folder simply didn't show up. It wasn't until I disabled the default Guest account and set my account to allow for sharing via SMB till it worked. Shared folders is but one thing Apple changed pretty dramatically and thus the way it works is different. As such many people would consider this a bug. It's not though; it just works a bit different that before.

You're right about the TV commercials. Are people really that naive that they believe everything they see in a commercial? I mean, think about the truck and Hummer commercials. Do people really think they're gonna go off-road and travel over a mountain and a bed of rocks? I mean, really?

It's official! Wanna watch the latest Heroes episode on your Apple TV? How about 30 Rock on your iPod or Zune? "Sorry!", says Mr. Zucker, "No can do! You're SOL for now!" No 30 Rock, Battlestar Galactica, Bionic Woman, Heroes, The Office, Scrubs, or The Tonight Show. And that pretty much sums it up for any content from Bravo, mun2, NBC, NBC News, CNBC, NBC Sports, Sci Fi, Sleuth, Telemundo or USA Network. Wanna watch this stuff at a later time? Better keep those DVR set to record then! Thanks, Mr. Zucker, I appreciate it!

But, on the bright side, you can watch a lot of this content on the network websites! Err...provided you're on Windows! Yep, NBC's new fangled video download service has been getting a lot of flack lately. It requires that you use Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player to view and use the site and the videos are laden with DRM (the files expire 7 days after downloading!). You can't play them on a portable player either...you're forced to play them only on your computer. And if you're on a Mac then you're screwed. But they do say they'll have Mac support in the first part of 2008. Great...so what do we do till then? Oh yeah! That's right! We use Pirate Bay!

NBC also has a private beta of another video serviced called Hulu. A lot of early reviews have already been posted about Hulu (here, here, here, and here). But, just like NBC's own video download site, there are restrictions on what you can and cannot do with the video downloads. It's a streaming only service and thus you can't download the video to your hard drive to watch later. Also, many new TV episodes will expire after 5 weeks so there likely won't be a way to watch any back catalog of episodes online. And, of course, you can't watch any content on a portable media player.

I've already talked about my disdain for CEO Jeff Zucker in a previous post. NBC's new video download service is a travesty! No way am I going to sit there and watch a f#$king episode on their site. It's quirky, the video is too damn small, and it skips. I honestly would prefer just to buy the damn episode for two dollars and watch it on my big screen...but NBC absolutely refuses to allow me to do so. Instead, they come up with some goofy scheme to make wads of cash off of services online like Hulu and their own video download service. Never mind what the customer wants because it's clear that NBC doesn't care. It's about maintaining total control over their content and squeezing every last nickel from the consumer. Corporate bullshit at its finest!

You wanna impress me, Mr. Zucker? Why don't you follow Amazon's suit and offer up a way for me to download your content and burn it to a DVD at a fair and decent price? That, my friend, would impress the shit out of me!

People download from sites like the Pirate Bay simply because they are tired of DRM and their tired of people telling them what they can and cannot do with the content they are trying to legitimately purchase. DRM is a dead end, NBC! Get used to it!

CNet recently posted an article saying that Windows XP outshines Vista in benchmark tests. So much so that in some tests Windows XP with a beta version of Service Pack 3 had twice the performance of Windows Vista on the same hardware. That's staggering and, quite frankly, unacceptable by any measure. As an IT professional, I expect any new OS to have marginal improvements over the prior OS. In the case of Vista, I expected that it might not perform quite as well as XP due to the extra overhead. But a few percentage points is different than a whole bunch of percentage points...especially when it as much as a 50% drop in performance!

Now, with that mind, consider your average customer walking into a Best Buy to buy a cheap desktop or laptop. All they want is something that works and costs less than a $1,000. They don't want your service plan, they don't want any bells and whistles, they basically just want a cheap-ass computer. But is it worth buying a sub-$1,000 computer? What kind of hassles does the unsuspecting buyer have awaiting for them? One word: Vista!

"When you see a cheap laptop, you're seeing one that almost certainly has a gigabyte or less RAM and some kind of embedded graphics chip like an Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950 with 8MB to 64MB dynamically allocated shared graphics memory. Vista really requires 2GB before it becomes usable, and there's no point in even trying to run Vista's Aero interface with that low level of graphical horsepower, or perhaps I should say ponypower." [Cheap Laptops Bad for Vista, Good for Linux]

Yep! It's any wonder why anyone would want to use Vista on a cheap computer. When CNet UK puts Windows Vista on their top ten terrible tech products list you know you've got trouble. And CNet isn't the only one...many other IT professionals have expressed their discontent for Windows Vista and recommend holding off as long as possible before adopting the OS.

So what other options do buyers have? Best advice is that if you must purchase a sub-$1,000 computer, consider installing a flavor of Linux like Ubuntu. Granted, you won't be able to run a lot of the off-the-shelf software but you will get a very solid and capable OS. If you absolutely must have Windows then you're only other option is to purchase a copy of Windows XP, which could likely set you back another $100 or so. Your other option is to spend a little more and get something like an Apple MacBook, which start at about a $1,000 and give you a lot more bang for the buck.

When you're buying a computer, you're not just buying a product...you're buying a solution! Don't settle for just good enough. Take time out to explore all your options. You'll be much happier in the long run! :)