Jan 28

The iPad, Snark-Free Edition

Life , , , , , Comments Off

I am not susceptible to Steve Jobs’ Reality Distortion Field.  Apple’s recipe for computing and consumer electronics is to wrap mediocre-to-decent technology in fantastic industrial design, promote its products as a lifestyle choice for the discerning consumer, and then charge said discerning consumers a small fortune for the privilege of owning an Apple product (and being subject to platform lock-in that’s arguably even worse than what one experiences with Microsoft).  So while I own a 3G iPhone I have no illusions about it: sure, it’s one of the better smartphones on the market, but the Droid kicks its ass in a number of significant ways.  Similarly, while I enjoy Justin Long’s work, I’m not likely to be in the market for a Mac anytime soon.

This all said, I’m guardedly interested in the iPad notwithstanding the epic product marketing fail that is the gadget’s name.  Here’s why: in mid-2008 I bought what was then a pretty high-end Dell widescreen gaming laptop because my desktop machine was getting long in the tooth.  Even now, almost two years old, it’s a fairly adequate desktop replacement.  Last year, though, I bought a new desktop and actually tried using the laptop as a portable, first during the California Bar Exam and then bringing it on flights from San Francisco to Boston and back again.  It’s an absolute boat anchor: my shoulders still haven’t recovered, I don’t think.  As a result, over the last few months I’ve been quietly eyeing netbooks, the Kindle, the Nook, and Sony’s eReader to see if any of these platforms offered the combination of portability and function that the laptop just plain lacks.

“What about your iPhone?”  someone inevitably asks at this point.  Well, as I said above, it’s certainly one of the better smartphones on the market.  The problem is that there’s a fair bit of connected functionality that’s compromised by trying to scale it down to a handheld form factor.  Web surfing and eBook-reading are good examples: Safari and the Kindle reader app are fine and all, but anybody who doesn’t get serious eyestrain after about ten minutes of staring at the 3½” screen is a mutant from the planet Zyrgon.  The iPhone, like all smartphones, is a phone, contact manager, and music player first and foremost; extensible, sure, but portable computing solutions of last resort.

I’ve been similarly unenthused about the various e-reader gizmos.  They’re all perfectly nifty, but they’re dedicated devices and that leaves me cold.  Can’t, for example, watch streaming video on or blog from a Kindle.

So that leaves me in Netbookville, for all intents and purposes.  But for whatever reason I just haven’t been able to fall sufficiently in like with a netbook to bring myself to buy one.  They’re so small as to feel like kiddie laptops, and when you’re dealing with a 9″ LCD screen there’s something to be said for tall and narrow (like an e-reader) rather than short and wide (like a laptop).  Tablet PC manufacturers were, I think, onto something, even if the category never quite took off the way they hoped.

Thus, the iPad.  Ignoring the Kool-Aid guzzling clowns who’re claiming this heralds the end of the PC era, it seems to be a pretty good, though not perfect, solution.  It’s small and light.  While manufacturer propaganda about battery life is an open joke in the industry, if the iPad’s good for even half of what Apple claims it’ll be competitive with netbooks and have enough juice for a cross-continental plane flight.  It’ll run everything the iPhone can.  Though I’m skeptical about the iPad’s backlit screen being as easy on the eyes as the e-ink on a Kindle, the iBook store seems like another way for Jobs to part me from my hard-earned quatloos.

The same things that Troy Wolverton mentions are giving me pause, though: the inability of the OS to multitask is barely excusable on the iPhone, and it’s completely inexcusable in something that’s being positioned to compete with netbooks.  Even the crappiest netbook will let me run an email client and a web browser at the same time.  Similarly, the fact that the iPad doesn’t support Flash media is a ball of suck (though I’m pleased to see that unlike the current iPhone OS the iPad will finally — finally! — support .vcf files).  Wolverton’s also cranky about the absence of a front-facing digital camera for videoconferencing applications, but that doesn’t bother me so much; it’s not like I do a lot of videoconferencing.

Here’s what I’d love to have: an iPad app that’s a visual client for Westlaw.  Any takers?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Jul 7

Ideology Shapes Perspective

Policy , Comments Off

For a very long time critics and even neutral observers of Apple have made note of Steve Jobs’ “reality-distortion field”: the regrettable tendency of otherwise-sensible people to take complete leave of their senses when Mr. Jobs opens his mouth and weapons-grade insanity pours forth.  Comments such as these have fallen off in recent years as Apple has found success with its excellent iPhone and iPod platforms, but there nonetheless remains a constituency of Macheads who’ll permit Jobs to convince them of almost anything.

I’m frequently reminded of this in politics, and the warping effect of ideology on perspective.

Consider the debate over socialized healthcare.  Most reputable polling finds this to be a fairly close question with the electorate.  Sizeable majorities are satisfied with their own health insurance, and while people see plenty of room for improvement in the current system, they’re skeptical that involving the government is going to reduce costs while improving service and consumer choice.  Moreover, sizeable majorities reckon that socialized medicine is going to operate at a loss, and will thus require taxpayer subsidies to stay afloat.  In short, people aren’t complete fools.

A couple weeks ago ABC held a healthcare “Town Hall” from the White House, which Right Blogistan derided as a prime time infomercial for President Obama’s healthcare policies.  While it wasn’t quite that bad, it was, by any rational measure, a pulpit for the president rather than a serious attempt to wrestle with the pros and cons of socialized medicine.  Most of the questions were softballs.  The few that weren’t were by no stretch of the imagination hard-hitting.  The president was permitted to caricature the arguments of opponents of his policies without addressing their strongest points.  Little wonder that the special tanked in the ratings.

If you’re a normal person, this situation is utterly unremarkable: a popular but very liberal president is, even with the media carrying water for him, finding it difficult to persuade Americans of the munificence, aptitude, and probity of government with respect to something as important as healthcare.  People aren’t necessarily impressed with what the market has been delivering, but given the incompetence and graft they see in the public sector as a matter of course, they’re skeptical that involving the government is actually going to improve things.

But if you’ve been inculcated in the fierce moral urgency of healthcare reform, to the point of considering it some kind of national disgrace that the United States alone among industrialized nations hasn’t completely socialized the provision of medical services, then you end up imagining that the ABC “Town Hall” was stacked with industry stooges planted to make the president look bad.  It can’t be that the idea sucks and that even a reasonably articulate person like Mr. Obama has trouble polishing a turd; it’s that there’s a Nefarious Conspiracy™, which is thwarting the mountains of public support for a single-payer system that allegedly exists.