Take That, Jesus Diaz!

Well, I’ve had my iPhone4 for a couple of days now and I love it! I have two years to sing its praises. There are some, though, who are similarly enthused aginast the iPhone. Some protest because they just bought an EVO 4G. Some don’t like anything Apple does. Then there are some who just seem to miss the point. This essay is in response to a particular member of the latter group.

Gizmodo.com is scarcely a reliable source of information. To the skeptical reader (me), much of what they post feels...let’s say “borrowed” from other sources. They’ve done some sketchy things in the past that’ve earned them a solid spot on the second-and-a-half tier of Internet news.

Most recently, they sort of stole the iPhone4 from an Apple employee. Okay, they only subsidized someone else’s theft of said phone from said employee. After that, they took it apart, posted photos and videos online, and then hid behind journalistic rights when Apple got pissed. Curiously, Giz didn’t get a review unit. It’s okay though, they let the users post their own review in a hive-mind, cluster-fuck style. Lame.

Even more recently--yes, even more recent than “most”--Giz published an article describing the iPhone4’s flaws and design “failures” entitled “Fragile Beauty.”

The real critique begins in the third paragraph, "Your industrial design sucks because, despite your sheer beauty, your blazing speed, and having the best software in any smartphone today, Jon Ive and his team didn’t completely follow their beloved Dieter Rams‘ guidelines for good design." Translation: “Your phone sucks except for all the awesome stuff.” The emphasis on "completely" is theirs. There’s a lot of article left; I’m sure Giz’s justifications will become more clear.

I agree with the next paragraph that good design is defined by durability, both physical and temporal. A well-designed object can’t be easily scratched or otherwise damaged. It should “arrive to the future and feel at home and natural.”

I can think of few other devices that more closely follow these principles than the iPhone. Actually, I can’t think of any devices. Perhaps the greatest evidence is that the one thing that most-consistently foreshadows an Apple product’s entry into obsolescence is the next Apple product.

The iPhone isn’t easily scratched or shattered. It took Giz several purposeful drops to get the shatter they wanted. Others have complained about shattered screens after only dropping them a foot or so. Dropping a car from 12 inches will shake pieces loose, why should a phone, that's designed to live its life in a case or pocket, be more durable?

This teaches me that my tech gurus are idiots. They get a device that fits very comfortably in a pocket with more processing power than desktops from the early 2000s, with a richer software environment than any competitor, and deeper tech support than any other industry, and they complain that it breaks when dropped on pavement.

Well, no shit.

Farther down the article, we learn that the reason we “never” see items made of glass is because it--the glass--can break. Even allowing some leeway for the hyperbole that is “never,” the assertion bothers me. Generally, the harder something is, the more easily it cracks or shatters. On the other hand, making something truly shatter-proof would yield a surface similar to cellophane. Also, it would scratch.

I imagine this is an issue that plagues material engineers all day long. The best we, the user, can hope for is a nice middle-ground. From what I can tell, the iPhone4 has that balance: it won’t scratch or shatter easily, but both can happen.

Giz emphasizes their point with the questionable statement, “The fact is that, at the end of the day, dropping the phone while handling it is something that everyone will suffer sooner or later.” Again with the hyperbole!

Wait! We have an anonymous expert who can fully explain the problem? Maybe this is real journalism, after all.

At least Giz offers some alternative materials to glass. After all, it’s silly to critique without offering a solution. “Steel, aluminum, ceramics, teflon-coated materials, even wood” could be used on the back face. Since Giz’s main problems with the glass thus far have been scratching, cracking, and being slippery, I’m not sure what these materials are supposed to do.

Oh, it’s explained in the next paragraph. These materials all “age more gracefully.” I’m not sure that’s true. Steel and aluminum can scratch and scuff and get ugly, even if the surfaces aren’t polished. Ceramics are famously prone to chipping. “Teflon-coated materials” is uselessly vague, but would probably still scratch. Also, I’ve heard that Teflon is kinda slippery. Wood? Don’t be stupid.

A more legitimate critique is the antenna issue. If the lower-left corner of the phone is covered by a conductive material like, say, a hand, then the cellular signal noticeably degrades. I’ve seen this degradation on my phone.

Fortunately, I’m right-handed.

Apple’s officially offered a solution: hold the phone differently. Okay, Mr. Jobs. Part of the issue, Giz contends, and a seemingly-partial source of ire, is that the people affected by the poor signal are “holding the phone exactly like Apple shows in their ads and webpages.” Exactly? Hyperbole...and nitpicky, I know.

Don’t tell me! Is it possible that some of the promotional images are not raw, candid photographs of users have the time of their lives? Could I be overusing sarcasm? I think so.

The implication that the affected users now favor their left hands because that’s what they saw online is silly. That happens because, for whatever reason, some people use their left hand to make calls.

While Apple’s solution pleases me with its tone, I agree that it doesn’t address the underlying issue. It would be better if the device had been engineered in such a way that this wasn’t a problem at all. Since this is and issue--one of which I’m sure Apple was aware--and they released anyway, I’m gonna guess that the engineering- and design-based solutions are really hard.

Did anyone notice that Apple released a case (of sorts) along with the phone? They’ve never released a case before and this one supposedly fixes the signal issue. Giz doesn’t see this as a real solution because the flaw still exists. Users have three choices: hold it differently, buy a case, or lose signal quality.

While not perfect, these are reasonable options.

“Good design is unobtrusive. It can’t limit the user expression, much less obligate him to act in a certain way.” In principle, I agree, but the design and “obligation” are not obtrusive. Non-ideal, perhaps, but that’s as far as I can go.

In an astonishing abuse of the rhetorical-question-to-prove-a-point structure, they have the following:

"Jon Ive, do you think Dieter Rams would have asked people to place his T 1000 world receiver in a certain place of the house to have clear reception? Do you think he would have asked consumers to hold his Braun T3 pocket radio in a certain way to listen to the Beatles with perfect sound quality?"

Giz asserts that the answer is “no,” but I’m not convinced. Let’s say I really wanted to use both radios in my lead-lined room inside a Faraday cage. Dieter might recommend I rethink that. If there are specific and predictable circumstances under which a device will not operate, it is not inappropriate for a manufacturer to recommend the consumer avoid those circumstances.

For the same reason I don’t bother warming my CDs in a microwave oven or I wait to make toast until before or after my shower, I have no problem simply avoiding the lower-left corner of my phone. Until I get one of those bumpers. Then, that corner is mine.

Perhaps it’s a personal failing that I’m not more up in arms over this. If I drop a call because I’m holding the phone wrongly, then I’ll say “damn,” call back, apologize to the other person, and go from there. If my phone breaks because I dropped it from any height, I’ll scream “MOTHER-FUCKER!” and then bring it to the Apple Store.

It’s foolish for users to expect a hammer-and-nail sort of intuitive functionality, adamantium-grade durability, with an Apple aesthetic. Apple has released a phone that’s more powerful, prettier, and more durable than any of its competitors. It’s not perfect though, so keep it tucked away in a safe place and grasp it carefully.

Don't Confuse Her With the Facts!

There is an eighth definition to “cult” that reads like a non sequitur: “any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific.” I don’t know how much this relates to a cult per se, but it raises another topic that pisses me off.

Jenny McCarthy.

She was in Playboy, has written some books, and was, until recently, hitched to Jim Carrey. She also holds the belief that childhood vaccinations caused her son’s autism. Since then, falling back on her vast knowledge of pharmaceuticals and neurological disorders, she’s led a campaign against vaccinations. That started in 2007.

At first, McCarthy believed her son to be a “crystal child” and she an “indigo mom.” She believed he represented the next step of evolution for humanity and possessed gifts beyond what anyone else could do. I wish I’d made that up. Her son was diagnosed (perhaps misdiagnosed) with autism. It wasn’t long until she’d made the connection between her son’s autism and vaccines. It feels like she may have a disorder as well.

Best I can figure, she asked other parents of autistic children if they’d gotten their kids vaccinated. Certainly, the overwhelming majority had. Obviously, this correlation proves McCarthy’s claim.

Since then, there has been a marked decline in childhood vaccinations and an increasing incidence of preventable diseases—especially measles. One frustrated person created a web site called JennyMcCarthyBodyCount.com which serves almost exactly the information implied by the URL. Since June 2007, and as of this writing, there have been 60,744 cases of preventable illnesses, 515 deaths resulting from preventable illnesses, and exactly 0 autism diagnoses scientifically linked to vaccines.

In Jenny’s words from Time Magazine in April 2009:

I do believe sadly it’s going to take some diseases coming back to realize that we need to change and develop vaccines that are safe. If the vaccine companies are not listening to us, it’s their f___ing fault that the diseases are coming back. They’re making a product that’s s___. If you give us a safe vaccine, we’ll use it. It shouldn’t be polio versus autism.

Think about that for a bit. Running with that eighth definition, perhaps she’s the unofficial leader of the anti-vaccination cult.

Also, I kinda hate Jenny McCarthy.

Cults, Religions, and Connotations

The Washington Post runs an “On Faith” editorial column. The entry for June 3rd is written by Alyce McKenzie titled “One nation Under God and a lot of stress.”

The article is about Ms. McKenzie’s son’s study abroad trip where he marveled at the apparent lack of stress Denmark, in particular, enjoyed. It’s a second-hand retelling of subjective experiences, so there’s the massive grain of salt to consider.

The essay ends with a mother’s prediction that, in short, this was an important experience that will inspire her son to seek a slower life focused more on relationships and rose-smelling than “individual-achievement-at-all-costs.” It’s really a pretty sweet essay from a proud mom.

The interesting part comes in the comments. When I first started writing this, all the comments I saw were empirical and explained several reasons Denmark may be the way it is. Size, homogeneity, and economics are not insignificant factors. After that, the trolls took over.

My favorite comment is posted by “Chandragupta” and follows:

"I am an immigrant to the USA, I believe in God ( but not the God defined by religions including my own, Hinduism)and yet I am quite content and full of hygge. I experimented with atheism and agnosticism. Christianity and Islam never had an appeal, in fact the two cults insult God more than any other cult. The OP writer's son will learn to love the USA if he lives in a foreign country long enough. Is not the grass always greener across the big pond?"

Hygge, by the way, is defined in the essay as “coziness” or “tranquility” and pronounced hoo-guh. The author didn’t provide emphasis.

I was shocked by the anger I felt when Chandragupta dismissed Christianity and Islam not only as cults, but also as the most insulting cults. I feel that’s not fair, but couldn’t say why. The first definition of a cult from Dictionary.com is “a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.” Damn. Maybe he’s right.

The sixth definition is also interesting: “a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.”
The first definition is so inclusive that it’s essentially useless. By that definition, any system of beliefs that has both rites and ceremonies is a cult. Christianity is a cult. Buddhism is a cult. With only a little extrapolation, Supreme Court Justices would be cult leaders! And lawyers their thralls?

The sixth comes closer by hinting at the effects of beliefs and how the believers can be affected. There’s the small problem of who gets to decide legitimacy. I don’t think we can count on the papacy to parse that out.
A cult must be a group with some religious overtones. Usually, there’s a charismatic leader, core beliefs, and rituals. There’s probably other stuff that could be included in the mix, too. The more important part is the nature of those beliefs and how they’re presented.

Let’s imagine a continuum with “Cult” on one end and “Religion” on the other. The main operating variables, as I see them, are the openness of the beliefs, and the primary goal behind those beliefs. Scientology, for example, edges toward the Cult end because their beliefs are closely guarded even from adherents. To learn the really important stuff, a person must remain committed for a certain period of time and pay the church to get the next set of materials. Islamists (Islamistism? The Bad Guys?) are also on that end of the continuum because, while their beliefs are perfectly clear, their goal is to harm others.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism (among many others) are toward the Religion end because the beliefs are clear to all, and the primary goal is to protect the in-group. There is also encouragement to exercise free will and curiosity that is often quashed in more cultish systems.

“Cult” is a potent word that defies clear description. We’ll know it when we see it, right? It’s easy to dismiss a group of people by placing them in a cultish out-group, but that doesn’t necessarily mean their views don’t have merit.

I’d love to know more about what Chandragupta does believe, even though he’s clearly in one of those silly cults.

Can a Fruit Break Glass?

Historically, Apple and Microsoft have not been friends, but Microsoft fancied itself the wiser, older brother. For a long time, Apple produced geekier machines only seen in under-funded primary school computer labs. The first iMac was pretty ridiculous. They used slow, proprietary processors for which few developers really cared to program. The all-in-one design was novel at the time and, with the benefit of hindsight, forward-thinking. And the colors...I shudder at the memory. The next iteration was closer, but still ugly. In the past few years, Apple has switched to a more familiar Intel CPU, which increases compatibility and speed, and they really found a knack for design elegance. Last I heard, Apple has earned somewhere between 10% and 12% market share.

Microsoft has always focused more on the consumer side: “How can we make affordable, easy-to-use computers that everyone wants?” That makes perfect sense and Microsoft commanded the home computer market so completely and for so long that the very term “personal computer” has come to mean “Windows” and “Microsoft”—and a pejorative in a particularly clever ad campaign. The waning era of PC gaming was a driving force behind PCs and gaming technology pushed hardware further and faster than ever before. Easily upgrading or replacing components to keep up was commonplace and was only really feasible on PCs.

Times change and tastes shift. Apple seems to have always been driving toward this point. Perhaps it’s clairvoyance on Steve Jobs’ part or incredible luck that Apple’s vision and reality have intersected. Maybe both? People want single machines to do multiple jobs. It’s no longer acceptable to carry a music player and a book and a calendar and an address book and a cellular phone and a portable gaming platform and a laptop computer. Consumers want lighter bags and thinner pockets by condensing many products into few.

Macs are still something of a niche market, 10% to 12% can be called nothing else, but they’re powerhouses. With PC manufacturers pumping out inconsistent products with misleading specs and often-shoddy engineering, Macs have an increasing appeal. Apple controls everything that goes into their machines. I like to think that Steve Jobs personally engineers each design, but I doubt that’s quite the division of labor.

Apple has the best all-in-one desktop. Apple has some of the most powerful laptops that can still boast impressive battery life. Apple has the smartphone that virtually created the smartphone market and continues to be, in many respects, the standard against which others are compared.

Microsoft has Windows7 and Xbox 360. They make decent business selling mediocre peripherals. Windows7 is, perhaps unfairly, considered as an apology for Vista. And two years too late. The Xbox 360, other than having a silly name, is a good machine and is the current leader in console gaming by almost any metric. The peripherals are meh. They’re moderately-priced and operate as expected. Nothing more and nothing less. Oh, they also have a mobile platform and mp3 player, but they’re often known as “clunky” and “not an iPod” respectively.

All of this is intended to build up to a remarkable bit of news: Apple is worth more than Microsoft. Despite Windows’ undeniable popularity and nigh-ubiquity, Apple has taken its ugly, underperforming computers and transformed them into commercial gems. Microsoft is bleeding customers as frustration mounts from the mobile arena and the poor souls still stuck with Vista (like yours truly). There’s still lots of time for WAGs, but it’s looking like cleaner engineering and a clearer goal is really a good thing.

If I were Microsoft, I’d be pissed and embarrassed that Apple, a company with a mere 10%(ish) of the consumers’ homes, commands greater consumer confidence than my (greater) share. Microsoft has committed itself to a very different business model than Apple and they need to find some way to make it work. Windows is okay. PCs are okay. Xbox is okay. There’s a distinct undertone of “good enough” I feel from Microsoft products while Apple won’t release anything until it’s better than any of its competitors. And even then Apple keeps innovating.

Perhaps the mantra by which Steve Jobs lives is “Leadership is fleeting; continue earning it.” Mr. Ballmer may learn that the hard way.