DF T-Shirts: On sale now for a limited time
Skype Mobile for Android Now Works Over WiFi, But Still Verizon-Only 

Android is open, but more open on Verizon.

Put Up or Shut Up 

Roger Ebert:

Our political immune system has only one antibody, and that is the truth.

Roku vs. Apple TV 

If you’re mainly interested in Netflix streaming, I can’t see buying one of these over an Apple TV. Am I missing something?

Roku does have other content, like, for example, MLB.tv. And the Apple TV doesn’t have an API for an App Store. But: what if Apple opens up AirPlay to iPhone and iPad apps? Then the iPhone/iPad MLB At Bat app could stream video to the Apple TV.

The Talk Show #6: Today’s Apple Event 

Recorded this afternoon, soon after the end of today’s Apple event, Dan Benjamin and I discuss each of the big announcements. Lots to talk about.

This episode was sponsored by Instapaper. If you’re not using Instapaper, shame on you.

Free Demo Version of Epic Citadel 

This is the game Epic demoed during today’s event. Impressive as hell.

New iPod Touch Tech Specs 

From Apple’s tech specs for the cameras:

Video recording, HD (720p) up to 30 frames per second with audio; still photos (960 × 720) with back camera.

So it’s not the same camera as the iPhone 4. It does do still photos, but they’re under one megapixel in resolution. Not surprising, though — there’s way less room in the thin frame of the Touch.

Claim Chowder: Engadget and iTV 

Josh Topolsky, three weeks ago:

Oh, and there’s one more thing — Apple will be officially changing the name of the device to iTV, abandoning the current moniker in favor of something a little more in line with its current iOfferings.

Not so much.

Furthermore, the device will be getting apps and presumably an App Store entry, though it’s unclear if there will be cross-pollination between iPad and iPhone / iPod touch offerings and new Apple TV applications

Not so much there, either. The device is running iOS, though, trust me. So it’s possible that some sort of SDK is coming in the future. But I’m not going to hold my breath. Judging from the demo today, I think the fact that it’s running iOS under the hood is just an implementation detail.

An iPhone App Developer’s Diary 

Joshua Benton, on developing the Nieman Journalism Lab’s free iPhone app using TapLynx.

Stay 1.0 

Clever $15 utility for Mac OS X from Cordless Dog:

If you’re fastidious about keeping your windows tidy, Stay is for you. Stay ensures that your windows are always where you want them to be, even as you connect and disconnect displays.

Arnold Kim on Workarounds for Watching Apple’s Live Video Stream 

Arnold Kim:

For non-supported readers who are desperate to watch the stream close to live, it seems likely that you will be able to watch it — at least in stops and starts. The HTTP Live Stream protocol is based on very standard technologies. The stream is simply provided in an MPEG2 playlist (m3u file) that is added to as the stream continues. These standard playlists will load in VLC for both Mac and Windows.

‘The Wilderness Downtown’ 

Technically fascinating, emotionally moving interactive “video” by Chris Milk for Arcade Fire’s new single, “We Used to Wait”. All HTML5, not a lick of Flash; try it in Chrome or Safari 5. Nice write-up about it here at the Chome Experiments site.

HTTP Live Streaming Spec at IETF 

There are some raised eyebrows today regarding Apple’s claim that their live streaming for today’s event is “based on open standards”, but only available for Mac OS X 10.6 and iOS users. It’s a damn shame that Windows users can’t watch it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t an open standard. Maybe “proposed open standard” would be more apt, though.

Lots of speculation from readers via email, by the way, that the live streaming of the event is going to be part of the event itself — that Apple is going to announce high-fidelity live video streaming as a major new feature for Apple TV, Macs, and iOS devices.

Update: Email from a self-described “IETF weenie”:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-pantos-http-live-streaming-04 is not a proposed open standard. At the top of the document, it says “Intended status: Informational”. That means that the IETF will have no control over the content; only the authors do. This is actually a pretty important distinction.

Worth Watching Again: Kevin Tofel’s Demo of Flash on a Nexus One 

Same video I linked to from Ian Betteridge yesterday, but, watching it again today, what I notice isn’t just the appalling video frame rate (“seconds per frame, not frames per second”, as Tofel says), but also how drastically Flash content affects scrolling and touch events in the browser itself. Even before any Flash content is loaded, these web pages scroll with jaggy animation, and touch events don’t register immediately. Unresponsive scrolling and taps are unacceptable.

Back When Apple Previously Streamed Video From an Announcement 

July 2002:

Approximately 50,000 people used QuickTime® to watch Apple’s July 17 live webcast of Steve Jobs’ Macworld New York 2002 keynote, which was simulcast in both QuickTime 5 and QuickTime 6.

Going to be a lot more than 50,000 today.

Apple to Provide Live Video Streaming of Tomorrow’s Event 

How many years has it been since Apple has tried this? If it holds up — a big “if”, considering Apple’s previous live-streaming efforts — there goes the live-blogging racket.

Bloomberg: New Apple TV Tomorrow 

Ronald Grover and Peter Burrows, reporting for Bloomberg:

Apple Inc., preparing to announce a new set-top box that delivers TV to consumers, will include movies from Netflix Inc., according to three people with knowledge of the plans.

But is the Netflix integration built into the system, or, is it an app?

Just How Bad Is Flash on Android? 

Ian Betteridge:

What does this demonstrate? Simply that the idea that Apple could simply magically put Flash on the iPad (which runs a processor in the same class as the Nexus One) is fantasy. Ignoring the broader reasons for Apple wanting to keep Flash off its platform, it’s clear that Flash is simply too processor-intensive to work properly on mobile-class processors as currently specified.

Pointing at the TV 

Hans Gerwitz on the tricky user-interaction problems posed by an iOS-based Apple TV.

Put This On, Episode 3: Work 

Best episode yet. More “Nerd Boyfriend” segments, please.

NYT: ‘Army Revises Training to Deal With Unfit Recruits’ 

“Oh that’s right, Private Pyle, don’t make any fucking effort to get to the top of the fucking obstacle. If God would have wanted you up there he would have miracled your ass up there by now, wouldn’t he?”

Martin Scorsese Attends Free iMovie Demonstration at Apple Store 

With most Onion stories, 90 percent of the joke is in the headline. With this one, it’s in the photo.

Palm Previews WebOS 2.0 Details 

Looks like some great improvements. The “Just Type” feature sounds like LaunchBar or Quicksilver.

AutoCAD Returns to the Mac, Along With iOS Viewer Apps 

Everything is coming up Milhouse.


Getting There From Here, Where by ‘There’ I Mean a Web Where Flash Is Not a De Facto Standard Technology

Mike Matas yesterday, on Twitter, responding to my piece on Apple/Adobe and Flash:

I know who IS losing in the battle between Apple and Adobe over Flash. iPad owners.

Dave Winer expresses a similar sentiment here.

But how else could it be? If Apple could just add Flash Player to the iPad, it would either (a) work well, or (b) work poorly. Flash Player for Android seems to work poorly. Flash Player is not available for any other mobile OS. So, I think it’s a poor assumption that Apple could, by sheer will, produce a version of iOS where Flash Player works well on the iPad.

I wrote at length about these issues six months ago — here, here, here — and I don’t want to rehash those points. All those arguments still stand, though. A key point: Apple doesn’t have the source code to Flash. Perhaps Adobe has offered it to Apple; that’s possible, but I think unlikely. But even if they have, why would Apple engineers be able to make it perform better than Adobe engineers have?

But let’s assume possibility (a), that Apple could “just make it work”. But then what? We’re stuck with Flash — a proprietary closed-source platform controlled by a single company — as a de facto web standard forever?

If no one releases a popular web browsing platform that lacks Flash support, then web sites that already publish Flash content are never going to move away from it. I think the web would be a far better place without Flash, or, at least, with Flash relegated to a position like that of Java applets: there if you want it, but not a major foundation.

Flash is never going to decrease in popularity so long as all web browsers support it. Flash might decrease in popularity because of iOS. If you believe that Flash’s current position as a de facto standard technology is harmful to the web, then users — not just iOS users but everyone using the web — would benefit if that happens.1

But that’s a long-term benefit. In the short term, iPad users suffer with empty white squares and missing content. There’s no other way to get there from here, though. I think it’s worthwhile, because I believe the web would be a better place without Flash. 


  1. I’m not arguing that Apple is selflessly acting in the interest of the public. I’m arguing that Apple’s self interest is aligned with the interest of the public with regard to Flash. Apple isn’t promoting its own proprietary alternative to Flash; it’s promoting open HTML5 technologies. 


Intel Buys Infineon’s Wireless Unit 

The future is mobile.

Oxford English Dictionary ‘Will Not Be Printed Again’ 

Alastair Jamieson, reporting for The Telegraph:

Simon Winchester, author of ‘The Meaning of Everything: The Story of the Oxford English Dictionary’, said the switch towards online formats was “prescient”. He said: “Until six months ago I was clinging to the idea that printed books would likely last for ever. Since the arrival of the iPad I am now wholly convinced otherwise.”

The Oatmeal: ‘This Is How I Feel About Buying Apps’ 

A classic.

Last Call on DF T-Shirts 

Tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon, I’m going to pull the plug on this round of new t-shirts. Order now if you want one, because we’re only going to print as many shirts as there are orders. This is your last chance to order a DF t-shirt for at least the next few months.

And where by “we”, I mean my friend Brian Jaramillo, who handles the screen-printing and shipping for all DF shirt orders. (Brian is the guy who prints great shirts like Andy Versus Apple and Exploded iPhone.)

Thom Holwerda on Apple’s Stance on Jailbreaking 

Thom Holwerda:

Apple fought hard to maintain jailbreaking as an illegal activity, and now Gruber is seriously arguing that all this was, well, just a joke? Didn’t happen? A figment of our collective imagination? I guess we’re seeing revisionist history in the making here. Fascinating.

I didn’t say Apple doesn’t have a stance regarding jailbreaking. But judging by their actions to date, they’re treating it as nuisance, not a significant problem. The context for all this, recall, is Colin Gibbs’s argument that Apple is wasting significant effort fighting jailbreaking. They might, someday. That wouldn’t surprise me in the least. But they haven’t to date.

The Talk Show, Episode #5 

This is actually last week’s show, but we didn’t record it until over the weekend and so it didn’t hit the airwaves until today. We’re still set for a show this week, after Wednesday’s Apple event. You should subscribe to the show’s podcast RSS feed, and you’ll stay up to date automatically.

The show is sponsored by Battery Go Plus, a neat little battery management iPhone app from 9magnets.

Bing App for Android 

Andy Chu, from Microsoft’s Bing for Mobile team:

Today we are happy to announce the first official Bing for Mobile Android App available to Verizon customers. You can now download the free Bing App from your Verizon Wireless Android phones’ Marketplace.

Does that mean there’s no Bing app for Android users on AT&T? Or anywhere outside the U.S.?


How to Judge the Battle Between Apple and Adobe Regarding Flash

Dave Winer argues that the absence of Flash on the iPad “isn’t working”:

I see new Flash content several times every day when I catch up on the news with my iPad. This isn’t stuff that’s going away, it’s new stuff that creative people are publishing. New stuff, not legacy stuff.

In other words, they know we can’t see it on the iPad and they went ahead anyway.

He’s right that Apple hasn’t won this battle, but I think he’s wrong that they’re losing. It’s still far too early to tell.

Here’s how I see this battle between Apple and Adobe. For Adobe, losing would be a large-scale abandonment of Flash by web producers — sites that previously used Flash abandoning it, and new sites never using it in the first place. For Apple, losing would be if the absence of Flash on iOS devices led to people choosing competing devices that do support Flash — i.e. if the absence of Flash for iOS hurt sales of iPhones, iPod Touches, and iPads.

I think it’s fair to say that iOS is the leading driver of H.264 HTML5 video on the web. Apple has a web page listing “iPad-ready websites”, and it includes a lot of big-name sites. But — and this is a big but — I don’t think any of these sites has abandoned Flash. They all offer iOS-supported content as an alternative to Flash. That’s not good news for Adobe, since, previously, all of these sites required Flash, but it’s not a disaster, either. From the perspective of desktop (Mac and Windows) computers, I don’t think there’s been much of a decrease in the use of Flash since 2007. From the perspective of iPhone users, though, there’s a lot less “missing content” now than there was in 2007. But, as Winer points out, there’s still a lot of Flash content that has no iOS-compatible alternative.

But is Apple being hurt by this? The only competing devices that support Flash are Android 2.2 phones, which are only just now available to consumers. It’s far too soon to judge whether Flash compatibility leads to would-be iPhone buyers choosing Android phones instead. (It’s also too soon to know just how many Android users will bother to install Flash Player — it’s a Market download, not installed by default, on some Android phones.) Yes, lots of people are buying Android phones — but I don’t think very many are doing so because of Flash. We shall see. And there are still no competing devices for the iPod Touch or iPad that support Flash.1

Before the iPhone, Flash’s advantage was that it was installed on every major web-browsing computer by default. Now, there is a major web browsing OS where Flash is not supported at all. There is no alternative with market share that approaches Flash, though — that’s why we’re seeing HTML5 video as an alternative to, rather than a replacement for, Flash. If Adobe loses this battle, Flash’s decline is going to be long and slow.

Consider: is there more pressure on Apple to add Flash support to iOS, or on websites with Flash-only content to produce iOS-compatible alternatives? Such pressure — both on Apple and website publishers — is best measured not by complaints on the web, but by sales of iPhones, iPods, and iPads. The more they sell, the less likely Apple is to cave on Flash support, and the more likely it is for websites to stop publishing Flash-only content. 


  1. Arguably, “netbooks” running Windows — which are thus Flash-compatible — are iPad competitors, and I suppose there’s some number of people who are buying a netbook instead of an iPad, but would have bought an iPad if the iPad had Flash. But I don’t think that number is very large. And I think most netbook buyers see them as cheap, small, lightweight laptop PCs, not as iPad rivals. 


Nope 

“Chpwn” — a young developer of apps for jailbroken iPhones — says I’m wrong that Apple is not fighting jailbreaking:

If that was actually how Apple felt, they would not block downgrading to 4.0.1. They would continue to sign the SHSH hashes required for a downgrade. Their SHSH system — which prevents any unapproved firmware installation — is direct proof that they are strongly against jailbreaking. There is not other benefit to the server-side firmware signing mechanism they are using except preventing us from freeing our phones. […]

I also want to point out that a jailbroken 4.0.1 with saurik’s PDF fix is no less secure than 4.0.2 from Apple.

It’s not about jailbreaking. It’s about security and support. Once 4.0.2 was released, it became the only supported version of iOS 4. Apple isn’t going to support downgrading to an older version of the OS with known security vulnerabilities. And they’re certainly not going to support or trust a fix for the vulnerability from a jailbreak developer.

Put another way: I know that many App Store developers wish that Apple were “fighting jailbreaking”, because App Store piracy depends upon it.

‘Color, Photos, and One Fuzzy Little Boy in a Field’ 

Merlin Mann, on old color photographs:

When done well, these images help repudiate the implicit modern reading that pre-color photography realistically captured the simple but alien lives of people who were neither as complex, interesting, nor sophisticated as we CMYK people are.

Apple Isn’t ‘Fighting’ Jailbreaking 

Colin Gibbs, in a piece headlined “Why Apple Should End Its Fight Against iPhone Jailbreaking”:

The Register reported last week that Apple is looking to fire back at iPhone jailbreakers with an application to patent a system designed to identify the “hacking, jailbreaking, unlocking or removal of a SIM card” from a phone so the device can be located and its data erased. The company has released a new firmware update for the sole purpose of patching a hole that was being used to jailbreak handsets running iOS 4 as well, according to the group of developers that created the first iPhone 4 jailbreak.

As I write in my weekly column over at GigaOM Pro, it makes no sense for Apple to pour efforts to these kinds of things; allowing jailbreaking — even implicitly — could actually help move iPhones off the shelves.

A few points. First, patent applications aren’t necessarily indicative of actual product plans. Apple files for patents on any idea or design deemed patentable, whether they intend to actually bring it to market or not. Second, the point of such a system as described in the patent depends on your perspective. If you want to jailbreak your iPhone, then yes, such a system would seem like “anti jailbreaking”. But if you don’t want to jailbreak your iPhone, such a system would be a useful security feature — reassurance that your device’s OS has not been tampered with by malware.

Last, Apple isn’t “fighting” jailbreaking. They simply don’t support it. iOS 4.0.2 fixed a serious security vulnerability. By arguing that Apple shouldn’t have bothered doing so, Gibbs is implicitly arguing that Apple shouldn’t fix security vulnerabilities. It’s that simple. A more apt headline for Gibbs’s piece would be “Apple Shouldn’t Fix Security Vulnerabilities in iOS”.

Boston Globe Tailors Print Edition for Three Remaining Subscribers 

News you can use.

More on the TechCrunch/JooJoo Ruling 

Nilay Patel:

The court didn’t buy most of those arguments and dismissed everything but the breach of fiduciary duty claim in this latest ruling, which is both a significant loss and a significant win for TechCrunch: breach of fiduciary duty has always struck us as TechCrunch’s strongest argument, and the court’s now effectively ruled that Fusion Garage and TechCrunch were indeed involved in a joint business venture with legal obligations to protect each others’ interests. That’s not a bad position from which to proceed — although TechCrunch now has to prove that Fusion Garage actually violated its duty by releasing the Joojoo on its own, which is a whole new fight.

Other analysis of the ruling: Hank Williams says I’ve got it all wrong, and there’s a good thread on Hacker News. As Patel points out, though, perhaps the most curious aspect of the suit is that anyone is willing to pay for it — the JooJoo has been a total, utter bust. Surely this suit is costing more to litigate than the JooJoo has generated in revenue (let alone profits, which I’m guessing are non-existent).

Building a Nation of Know-Nothings 

Timothy Egan:

Take a look at Tuesday night’s box score in the baseball game between New York and Toronto. The Yankees won, 11-5. Now look at the weather summary, showing a high of 71 for New York. The score and temperature are not subject to debate.

Yet a president’s birthday or whether he was even in the White House on the day TARP was passed are apparently open questions. A growing segment of the party poised to take control of Congress has bought into denial of the basic truths of Barack Obama’s life. What’s more, this astonishing level of willful ignorance has come about largely by design, and has been aided by a press afraid to call out the primary architects of the lies.

As the saying goes, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts. I’m not so sure, though, that all the conservatives professing to believe that Obama is a Muslim, or wasn’t born a U.S. citizen, or any of these other fabrications, truly believe them. I think they know they’re spreading lies. See, for example, this story of a confrontation in an Oklahoma Starbucks.

CrunchPad Denial of Preliminary Injunction 

Mike Arrington gets smacked around in the first round of his lawsuit over the JooJoo/CrunchPad. In short: TechCrunch didn’t get much in writing regarding their “partnership” with Fusion Garage to develop the product, and, well, they should have. Curiously, I’ve seen no coverage of this decision on TechCrunch.

(Thanks to DF reader James Grimmelmann for posting the document.)

Sentence of the Year? 

DigiTime:

Sources from upstream component makers believe the device is aiming to compete against Apple’s reportedly upcoming 7-inch iPad.

How about competing against the bestselling iPad that, you know, actually exists?

iPads Now Shipping Within 24 Hours 

AppleInsider:

After struggling to meet consumer demand for the iPad since it launched in April, estimated shipping times for new online orders have improved to within 24 hours, suggesting any production problems have been resolved.

This Is Not a Recovery 

Deep pessimism from Paul Krugman.


Creep Executive Officer

In a weekend WSJ interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Schmidt said:

“I actually think most people don’t want Google to answer their questions. They want Google to tell them what they should be doing next. […] The thing that makes newspapers so fundamentally fascinating—that serendipity—can be calculated now. We can actually produce it electronically.”

Nick Carr, quoting the above, quips:

I hope Google will also be able to tell me the best candidate to vote for in elections. I find that such a burden.

But Carr doesn’t even mention the oddest part of the WSJ interview:

[Schmidt] predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends’ social media sites.

I’ve been thinking about this since Saturday. Here’s my theory: the problem with Google is that Eric Schmidt is creepy. I think he’s a really weird dude. Recall, for example, this comment of Schmidt’s from 2009, regarding Google and privacy: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.”

The industry is filled with eccentric CEOs — billionaires who, say, wear a wardrobe that consists of nothing but identical black shirts and Levi’s 501 jeans, or who dress as a samurai warrior, including swords, at their home. But Schmidt doesn’t seem eccentric (or at least not merely so). He seems creepy.

Here’s a report by Jon Fortt for Fortune, regarding a talk Schmidt gave in March in Abu Dhabi:

In one of the sharper exchanges of the afternoon, a questioner challenged Schmidt with the fact that Google is collecting a staggering amount of information about who we are, what we’re thinking, and even where we are. “All this information that you have about us: where does it go? Who has access to that?” (Google servers and Google employees, under careful rules, Schmidt said.) “Does that scare everyone in this room?” The questioner asked, to applause. “Would you prefer someone else?” Schmidt shot back – to laughter and even greater applause. “Is there a government that you would prefer to be in charge of this?”

That’s a glib answer, but at least our government answers to its citizens through elections. Schmidt answers to Google shareholders. And who’s to say the government won’t have access, by way of subpoenas, to the information Google — and any other cloud service providers — store about us? Maybe the question isn’t who should hold this information, but rather should anyone hold this information.

More and more, I get the feeling that if there’s a rift between the old “Don’t be evil” Google and the new “Let’s do whatever we want” Google, that it’s a rift between Schmidt and Larry/Sergey — if not personally, then at least culturally within the company. On the one side, the Larry/Sergey Google that makes amazing cool things — the search engine, Gmail, Android. On the other, the Schmidt Google that, in its efforts to serve ads as efficiently as possible, no longer seems concerned with the traditional Western concept of personal privacy.

A lot of people seem surprised by Google’s alliance with Verizon on mobile network neutrality. That stance doesn’t fit with my view of the Larry/Sergey Google. But it fits my idea of the Schmidt Google like a glove.