1. I haven’t posted anything in several weeks
2. I’m about to move everything out of this blog and into something else

I’ve got 2 examples of “something else.” The first one is Tumblr. And the second one is Posterous. Click either one to open them up. Setting aside for a moment the look and feel of each (I can change them up to a point), they both accomplish essentially what I want to accomplish, which is to simply post a few things that strike me as interesting or that I want to pass along to others.

Here’s the thing. I like the blog I have. The URL is mine. I own it. And I get the advantage of managing my own email account. That’s a big plus. But the truth is, as much as I like writing stuff down it all comes to not much of anything. Its good exercise and little else. People who blog for a living (and yes, you can actually do that) have hundreds of thousands of readers and they make money from advertising and actually have an area of expertise that is meaningful to an audience. Which is not to say that I don’t have an area of expertise or that anything I have to say is not meaningful to some sort of audience. But I have no plan to be a professional blogger. I use WordPress on my own server for two very simple reasons: I want to have my own server space that I can ftp to for specific uses like posting portfolio examples and WordPress was the easiest thing to install and the easiest thing to manage if you happen to need a content management platform on your own server. And that’s all blogging software like WordPress is: a content management platform (albeit one with a pretty face).

But I’ve reached a point where it just isn’t that important to me anymore to have this big space. Its like having a huge ballroom and only having a couch and end table to put in it. Its big, echo-y, and empty. Wordpress on my own server is overkill. Today, in the midst of the social media revolution, everyone wants a voice and their own little piece of the web to express themselves. I’m on FaceBook but I couldn’t possibly care less about my “status.” And I’m on Twitter but I’m just one dude with a few hundred followers trying to be heard over the din of several hundred thousand very active users who all talk over each other constantly. And let’s be honest, I’m not as funny, or erudite, or accomplished as most of them. I’m just some guy with a blog.

So over the next couple of weeks, when I can find the time, I’m taking down the blog and moving everything to either Posterous or Tumblr (or another of the micro-blogging platforms as the case may be. New ones crop up all the time).  Starting today, in fact, I’m cross posting this to both of the other ones along with one or two other items. Over the next few days, I’ll probably come to rely on one over the other.

http://checket.com will still be a valid URL. When you come there, my plan is to replace what you see today with a very simple page that let’s you choose one of several options: email me, visit my Tumblr/Posterous blog, visit my portfolio/resume, follow me on Twitter, visit my Facebook profile, etc. Nothing fancy, just a simple page of choices. Maybe later, I’ll redirect the URL to either Tumblr or Posterous but that’ll depend on how motivated I am or how much I really want that to happen.

Powered by Twitter Tools

RT @naldzgraphics: OK Go – This Too Shall Pass {vid} http://bit.ly/clgkrN cool #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Anyway, the point of this little stroll down computer-memory lane is the imminent launch of the iPad. Even if you don’t follow Apple, you’ve no doubt heard about it. And it’s a good bet that you know more about the controversy than the actual product. The essence of the so-called “controversy” is the generally poor reception its getting from people in the tech community who are underwhelmed by most of what the product represents. In order to understand the reaction, you have to first understand a little bit about Apple and the tech community as a whole. This little explanation comes with a bit of a disclaimer: I have and love a MacBook Pro. Its the best computer I’ve ever owned. Most people who own Macs love them. And at the risk of feeding the stereotype at the root of the problem, those who don’t own a Mac fall into 2 camps: people who don’t really have an opinion and people who hate Apple just for being Apple. They think of those of us who love Apple as zombie slaves to Steve Jobs who’d buy a rock with an Apple logo on it if Steve Jobs told us to. I wouldn’t, but that’s beside the point. They also love to point out the higher cost of a Mac in comparison to other computer manufacturers such as Dell or HP or Asus, etc. I don’t want, nor would I consider buying, a “cheap” computer. Here’s a quick comparison of the Mac I have vs. a Windows machine I might consider buying (I picked Sony specifically because they offer a great machine with a form factor that I like alot) -

15-in. MacBook Pro – $2,348.00 (including 3 years Apple Care)
Intel Core 2 duo processor
350 GB hard drive
4GB mem.
SD card slot
NVIDIA GeForce 9400M + 9600M GT with 256MB graphics card
7-hour battery life
includes iLife suite of software

VS.

Sony Vaio F-Series – $2,069.96 (Including a 3-year care program which involves shipping your computer out to someone)
Intel® Core™ i7-820QM processor (1.73GHz) with Turbo Boost up to 3.06GHz
Genuine Windows® 7 Professional 64-bit
320GB Hard Disk Drive (5400rpm)
4GB (2GBx2) DDR3-SDRAM-1333
CD/DVD burner
16.4″ VAIO Premium Display (1920×1080) with NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU (1GB VRAM)

Much closer in price than many people think. I’ll admit that I cheated a little here. I added both Adobe Premier Elements and Adobe Photoshop Elements for video editing and photo editing respectively at an additional cost of approx. $150.00 . Why’d I do that and how is that cheating? Well, Windows 7 doesn’t come with video editing software so one of the places where Apple fans correctly point out a major cost difference is in the lack of user friendly photo and video software. Apple’s iLife suite has both of those things built in and they are both suberb products. Windows doesn’t. Although you can download a free Windows movie editor so you really don’t need Adobe Premier Elements. But…if what you really want is user-friendly, relatively powerful, out-of-the-box functionality, then you ought to get Premiere Elements. So while it may be fudging the numbers a little, it’s justifiable.

I also did not add the cost of anti-virus software which is an absolute MUST with any Windows machine. I’m savvy enough to find and install free AV software on my own but many, many average users don’t know how to do that. So they’ll spend the extra $80+ per year for Norton or McAfee. Smart. More money, but smart nonetheless. Also, the MacBook Pro I have is not the top of the line. A 17-in version with all of the bells and whistle is very expensive (around $2,500.00). But I was more interested in the ~15-in versions. Nevertheless, I admit that the bottom line is a MacBook Pro will usually cost more than most average Windows computers. Plus, the average consumer is nowhere near as concerned about specs as I am. If they see a price of $699.00, they don’t stop to think about whether it includes the software they need out-of-the-box. Nor do they care if the graphics are integrated or not. And the sure as hell don’t fuss over design aesthetics. Windows users are generally less concerned over build and design quality than are Mac users. But I do think its important to try a little harder to make an apples to apples (so to speak) comparison. Will Apple get beaten often on price? Heck, yes. But that doesn’t tell the complete story.

Wait…what does all of this have to do with the damned iPad?!?

I’m getting to that.

First, more background. The past few years have seen a bumper crop of what folks are calling Netbooks. These are the miniature laptops, usually around a 7-in screen size and about the size of a standard hardcover book. To the average consumer, they are everything that a larger laptop is, only shrunk down in size and with a price tag to match. The average price for one of these things is around $399.00 and under. People LOVE them. Never mind that they aren’t even remotely close to a full-featured computer. For the vast majority of consumers (and forgive me for co-opting this phrase) it’s the economy, stupid! Honestly, even I think they’re cute. And for the right type of person, it’s a very servicable choice. And it’s a great 2nd computer for the bedroom or the kitchen or something to put on a coffee table and use when you want to surf or check your email. But for everything they seem to have on the surface, they lack a whole lot more. When one looks closely, one wonders why you can’t just have something small and tablet-like to accomplish the same thing. Even though they run a version of Windows XP or 7 (or Linux) netbooks are severely under-powered, have terrible battery life and most have no CD/DVD drive so you can’t install software. And even if you downloaded software and installed it from online, you really wouldn’t want to. Take my word for it. I’ve played with one of these and tried to run PowerPoint. Let me just say that it was a miserable experience and PowerPoint crashed twice. What happened to what looked like a very positive and refreshing trend starting with the Audrey and other devices like it? Why did we take this step backward toward shruken, under-powered computers instead of building on the success of a re-imagined, re-engineered product that focused on doing a few things really well.

What’s really needed is not just the same old operating system forcing you to perform the same old tasks except on a different sized device. You need a whole new way of thinking about the task of computing. You want something that is fast and reliable, runs for hours without recharging the battery, let’s you surf the web and check email, play a game or two (and I’m not talking about Super Mario Brothers or World of Warcraft. I’m talking about crosswords and Sudoku or the occasional game of Hippo High-Dive which is awesome, btw.) You’ll also want to listen to music or watch a movie or TV show. And you want to do it wirelessly. The Audrey was almost all of that (without the wireless part. But had they stuck around, that would’ve happened eventually).

That’s just the stuff that you know you want to do and may even do already on whatever computer you already have in your house. But here’s some other stuff you may not have thought about. Anyone who’s used a computer is familiar with the tried and true paradigm of the menu bar (that’s the thing at the top of your window with the File, Edit, View…etc. commands). And even some less-than-savvy computer users know about the right-click menu. You also spend alot of time coaxing your mouse toward small buttons and links. These are the things that define the standard user interface today. And it hasn’t changed much in the last 20 years or more. But if you really think about it, the standard UI sucks rotten eggs. It always has. It’s lasted this long because it was the best of all possible worlds for a very long time, even when the occasional alternatives were presented. Completing tasks on a computer is a complicated process that requires an equally complicated interface. Until recently, that is. Apple, to much fanfare and cristicism, launched the paradigm changer (christ, I hate that phrase. It’s so over-used) a couple years ago with the iPhone. No more mouse. No more menus. Everything was touch-based. Launch an app with one touch. Drag your finger to scroll. Pinch with your thumb and forefinger to zoom. It’s brilliantly simple. My 2-year old daughter knows how to do it.

There are some sacrifices with the Apple interpretation of simple usability. For instance, there’s no multi-tasking. You’re only allowed to run one app at a time. When you want to switch to another, the first one closes. I, for one, don’t think of this as a drawback. Maybe its a function of getting older but I am trying hard to reduce the amount of clutter I deal with on a daily basis. It isn’t unusual for me to have 5 or 6 programs running at the same time that I’m browsing anywhere from 5 to 10 seperate websites and listening to NPR streaming in the background. It should come as no surprise when I say that I am not that productive. I’m busy, to be sure. But not productive. That’s my argument against multi-tasking. I am sympathic, however when I hear people say, “But all I want to do is stream Pandora while I’m surfing the web.” That’s a good point. I never said that the lack of multi-tasking was 100% correct. As far as I’m concerned, it’s more like 93% correct. Still a grade of A in my book.

The iPad will be based on the iPhone operating system. All of the apps are accessed by touching their icon. The menus have changed, too. You won’t be touching File or Edit or View menu options. Instead, you’ll be presented with slide out option boxes (I think they call them “drawers” or something) that are sized perfectly for fingers. What Apple has done is completely re-imagined how you interact with a computer. That’s a recipe for polarization. The reaction has been one of “How dare Apple presume to tell me how I should use my computer! How dare they take the control away from me!” I’ve even heard some folks prognosticate that this means the end of young kids learning how to program. “This is so radical,” they say, “it’s jeopardizing the very future of computer programming!” Bollocks, I say.

Admittedly, the iPad is missing some very compelling features. There’s no camera. At least not in version 1. I admit that I’m a little dissapointed by that. It would be nice to maybe use iChat or Skype video conferencing with this little thing. More on that in a sec. Also, there’s no Flash support. I’m not going into that. Its a long story. Suffice to say, not a big deal to me but a very big deal to others.

Now, consider that in addition to all of things I mentioned that you probably already do, you’ll also be able to read books and magagzines designed specifically for this device. Its vastly better than the Kindle experience. Plus, from what I’ve read, the iPad is so fast, that it’s almost as though everything happens in micro-seconds. Nothing on the market comes close to its speed. This is, in my humble opinion, the future of computing. It’s elegant and simple. It’s faster than anything else on the market and can deliver media of any kind without any of the complicated mess of computing as we’ve known it for the last couple of decades. And it will not be for everyone. At least not right away. The world will still need actually computers running Windows for the foreseeable future. That’s the bread and butter of a lot of business (my own included). As much as I’d like to see that change, it probably won’t. Also, not everyone needs something like this. Again, at least not right now. As much of an Apple fan as I am, even I don’t need something like this. I like it, but I don’t need it right now. (also, I’m unemployed and broke.)

About that camera thing I mentioned a second ago. If, by some chance, you haven’t seen the iPad, go to the Apple website and check it out. Try to imagine how you might hold it. Now try to imagine how, if it had a front-facing camera, you’d have to hold it up and in front of you to get a good view of anything except the inside of your nostrils if you were going to use it for a video conference. The viewing angle would be uncomfortable for anything longer than a few minutes. So I’m not all that concerned about the lack of camera for now.

There’s more that I could mention about it. But I think that it’s a very important device and coming out at just the right time. And I think, once again, Apple is setting the standard for what’s going to follow. That’s my two cents, anyway. And nuts to all of the people making fun of the name. That’s just silliness.

Many people will say (and are saying) that they can do all of the things the iPad can do on a netbook. Yes, they can. But I reject the premise of the argument outright. Why must you? That’s what I think is far more relevant. In the short history of the World Wide Web, one thing has been made very clear: the real benefit of the technology is in the quality of content it can deliver to the widest possible audience. True, any device can bring you content. But what we need is a device that can do a better job of bringing higher-quality content to a larger population in a way that doesn’t require a predisposed prejudice or exposure to the so-called traditional computing paradigm.

I’m cutting myself off here before I go on for another several dozen paragraphs about books, periodicals, media, media companies, etc. I’ll save it for my next post.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Powered by Twitter Tools.

As is almost always the case, the reason I’m finally popping over to post another entry is because I’ve been doing some thinking about the current political climate. There are a couple of things that have me concerned. The SCOTUS decision to open the floodgates to corporate spending on political campaigns is frightening in its scope and terrifying in its implications. And I don’t get how a corporate entity can be protected under the free speech clause of the 1st amendment. The campaign part of it is scary enough but let me take just a minute to posit a non-political situation: Say you have two companies producing two competing products, toilet paper for example. And company number 1 is losing the TP sales war big time to company #2. So company #1 decides it’s time to take bold action to get the public to buy more of their product. Toilet paper is made from wood pulp, right? And in order to get the wood pulp, you’ve got to cut down trees. And it goes without saying that if you cut down some trees, you’re impacting bird habitats and there’s a good likelihood that a bird or two is going to die. So they begin running an ad campaign accusing their competitor of killing cute little birds. You can even imagine the commercials with sweet cartoon birds as they drop out of the sky as a result of the horrible bird-killing practices of company #2. And as a conscientious consumer, you just can’t stomach the idea of buying a product from a bird-killer. Now, company #2 probably wouldn’t win a libel suit cause the reality is, birds are going to die in some form or fashion from the clear cutting of forests to make products like toilet paper. So, in effect, while it may be a wild and irresponsible accusation, it carries a nugget of truth. But company #2 could still sue to have their competitor take down the advertising, couldn’t they? Well, thanks to the Supreme Court, company #1 could now claim that they have a 1st amendment right to free speech and that taking down their advertising would violate that right. But, hey…no need to worry because the so-called “Constitutionalists” on the Supreme Court are only upholding what our founding father’s gave us as the unassailable framework for our government. Besides, the free market is self-regulating and if things seem to be getting a little out of control, the consumer will step in and set things right by sending a clear financial message to the company who is obviously in the wrong here. But wait. Who’s in the wrong? Company #2 isn’t really going around murdering birds in cold blood, are they? But company #1 has a right to free speech regardless of the consequences. So maybe you find it a little distasteful but is there really a critical mass of consumers who will think likewise? Even if the prevailing opinion is that the advertising goes a bit far, maybe company #1 can just lower their prices a bit. That will probably mollify the maddening crowd, wouldn’t it? In fact, it probably would. And before I let this drop, let’s not forget that company #2 can do the same thing in retaliation, can’t they. Maybe they launch a campaign of their own saying that company #1 is killing dolphins as a result of the toxic run off from the pulp processing plant thanks to the chlorine bleach used to make that toilet paper a pretty, sanitary, white color. And so on and so forth.

I’m trying to explore just how damaging the recent Supreme Court decision is and I’m trying to do a little armchair analyzing of consumer behavior, at least as it works today. Because I think there are some unintended and unrecognized consequences between the two. Don’t forget, our orgy of consumerism is one of the factors that brought us to the financial collapse we’re struggling to emerge from right now. And while you and I (we can, of course, exclude the many intelligent consumers smart enough to live within their means no matter what the rest of the world was doing around them) have to live with the consequences of over-spending and in some cases desperately seek out new employment while shouldering the burden of soul-crushing debt, the companies that stood above it all, reaping the benefits, got paid to stay afloat. They got paid obscene sums of money, which was then passed on to their senior executives as bonuses, for making the same sorts of bad decisions that many of us lowly consumers are suffering from. And when I say suffering, I don’t mean in a esoteric or metaphorical sense. Real suffering. People are losing their homes, families are being displaced, marriages are ending, lives are ending. And as of this morning, we’re hearing that the kindly senior citizens who used to greet us at Wal-Mart or offer us a sample of lil’smokies cocktail wieners are confused as to why they’re being told not to come in tomorrow. As a society, we understood this fundamental principle: Work hard and you will be rewarded. In fact, it’s part of the fabric of our culture. Of our religion, even. Work hard, do what is right, you will be rewarded.

Back to the Supreme Court. Clearly, I’m more concerned about the effect the ruling has on the perception of “free speech” protection for corporations than I am about the campaign finance issue specifically. One of the reasons why is this thoughtful article by Juan Cole of the Global Americana Institute. He soberly addresses the issue and calmly let’s us know (this is my interpretation only) that it doesn’t really matter cause we’re fucked anyway. OK. I’m overreacting. But he does point out all the areas in which the average American has already long since lost their voice in politics and conversely how some companies are still willing to use their money to serve the common good.

Something I think he misses, however, is the behavior of the consumer…er…voter. Yeah, that’s what I meant, voter. Cause we’re not actually purchasing a President, we’re exercising our right to vote for one based on thoughtful consideration of the issues and not a 3am infomercial. Right? Today, you have to do a little bit of work to dig around and find out which executives of which companies paid top-dollar for a candidate’s campaign. Partly because of contribution limits and the FEC. See, instead of giving $400,000 of their own money directly to a candidate, they have to give it to a PAC which then pools that money with other fat-cat donations and eventually they put out an attack ad or they use it to set-up a robocalling operation. And those PACs have innocuous sounding names like “Doggone Down-home Americans for Freedom!” Who can argue with freedom?!? It must be an awesome group who loves our country cause they’re just down-home kinda folks and heck! So am I! And I love freedom! But maybe it’s a bunch of lobbyists who are planning to gerrymander your district so they can elect someone who’ll acquiesce to the decision to let Halliburton test nuclear weapons in your backyard. Not as pleasant. And here comes the Supreme Court ruling effectively taking the gloves off and letting the companies do whatever they want. And the consumer (whoops…did it again. I mean voter, of course) is the pawn. If you really like AT&T, just to use one example, and you’ll buy their products because you love them so much, what’s to keep them from using that loyalty to convince you that the candidate they support is the one you should vote for? Isn’t that actually a violation of the trust you have in them? And let’s not forget that these companies already spend a fortune analyzing as much marketing data about you as they can so that they even know, down to the neighborhood, who’s most likely to buy certain products, behave in certain ways, and respond positively to certain advertising. If you think the telemarketer problem was bad before, hoo-doggie! You ain’t seen nothing yet. And what’s going to keep companies from using their marketing employees to spend their time and energy researching which of their consumers would vote for candidate 1 over candidate 2? And when your company announces their intention to spend half a million dollars to support a candidate you absolutely disagree with, will you quit your job? Or worse, will you have to demonstrate fealty to a political party to keep your job or hope for a promotion? If you’re a person reading this who doesn’t live in the south, you probably don’t have a real understanding of NASCAR, so let me illuminate you. Down here, we have NASCAR fans who would set fire to their own pickup trucks rather than drink a soda advertised by a driver they hate. And I am not kidding. That’s the kind of loyalty I’m talking about. Do you still think that the “free market” will work this one out? Let’s just slap some corporate logos all over our Presidential candidates and be done with it.

I think the decision stinks. And I don’t think it will “bring greater transparency and honesty” to our political process as is being touted by the right-wing mouthpiece Fox News. See, there’s an example of how scary this is. In the next election, be prepared for an all-republican, all the time, news channel abandoning all pretense and funding an actual political campaign using the incredibly deep pockets of Rupert Murdoch. All this does is legitimize the behavior of people like Murdoch who can now, thanks to their billions, buy the truth. You know who used to do this? The mafia. When Al Capone needed to beat a murder wrap, he just bought the judge.