Apple Declares War on Free Web Content

It’s hit me what I really can’t stand about the new Apple iPad.  It’s been mentioned by most of the reviews of this new tablet device, but I don’t think people are really getting the scope of what Apple is up to.  The iPad, like the iPhone and iPod Touch before it, does not support Flash.  You know, Flash, perhaps the single greatest technical innovation on the Web since the invention of the Web itself.  Flash is what brought us nearly universal moving images on the Internet. Flash brought us YouTube.  Flash has created almost every single good game you have ever played in your browser.  Flash is responsible for the greatest explosion of animation talent in the history of the art form.  There is not another single piece of browser software that has brought so much to the web browsing experience as the little Flash player that’s installed on nearly every computer on the planet.  Here’s a blog entry by one of the Adobe Photoshop developers that explains why Flash is so great.

But Apple does not allow Flash on its iPad, iPod Touch, or iPhone.  Won’t allow it to run.  That’s why you get a broken plugin icon whenever you encounter a web page with Flash in it.  The company says silly things about Flash being too slow, or Flash hogging CPU cycles.  Complete horse radish.  Apple doesn’t want you to have Flash because Apple wants you to buy apps in its App Store instead.  That’s what this is all about.

So, essentially, Apple is fighting for a closed and walled-up Internet where all your cool moving images and games come straight out of their App Store and nowhere else.  When you behave this way with a small-screened device like an iPhone or iPod Touch it’s one thing.  But when you blow the whole thing up onto a big fat glorious iPad screen it’s another thing entirely.  Now it really shows up as a flagrant attempt to disable every creative piece of Web work that any artist, animator, filmmaker or game designer has ever done and force people to accept your little library of 140,000 little applications, most of which cost good money.

Try visiting this web site on an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch.  See all our games and movies in the drop-down menus?  Not a single one will work.  Not one.  Because of dear old super-genius Steve Jobs.  Mr. Dingbat gets up in front of reporters at the public iPad unveiling and says idiotic things about having ‘the Web in your hands.’  He presents his new iPad device as a Web browser.  It can’t be a Web browser if it disables half the Web.  It simply defies logic.

This is really all anyone should need to know about Apple and its devices.  They are building little cash registers that limit your view of the Web and lead you to one final destination: the App Store.  They are trying to make you pay for the World Wide Web.  Great technology.  Very dark plan.  I’m on Flash’s side.  Go Flash!  Apple, you suck.

I Take it Back: Apple Tablet is Dopey

So after all the hoopla the Apple company has decided that it’s a good idea to sell an iPod Touch that you can’t carry.

The just-announced iPad is big, with a fullscreen display instead of widescreen, has no camera, and cannot multi-task.  So only one application at a time will run.  The fullscreen thing may make sense when you consider that people will need to be typing on a virtual keyboard, but I’m not sure that it will fly.  I see it as going out to buy a fullscreen monitor somehow.

I think I’m finally ready to go get myself a Kindle from Amazon!

I’ve been yawning all morning and I’m still yawning.

Apple About to Announce Extraordinary New Tablet Device

Apple really could be preparing to announce something pretty extraordinary for content publishing, creation and consumption today.  Its widely rumored tablet device will very likely put most other ebook reader devices out of business simply because the Apple product will be a real computer, useful for reading and for creating.  It will most likely build a seamless content-creation universe that ties directly to online sales platforms.  It will be a ‘publishing’ tablet really.  Not just an e-book device.

Wired is covering the Apple press conference event all day with blog entries.

I have not purchased any kind of an e-reader device, in spite of the hysteria surrounding them, specifically because of Apple’s plans.  There is no way under the sun that anyone else is going to compare favorably to what Apple is about to drop on us today.

Polaroid Gets Smart – Brings Back Classic Instant Film Camera

Polaroid has used the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in Las Vegas to announce a new line of classic instant film cameras!  Called the Polaroid PIC-1000, the camera will work with 10-packs of instant film just like the great old Polaroid cameras of the past.  This is a very smart move by a company that looked supremely dumb a few years ago when it canceled the best product it had ever created.  It was almost as dumb as Volkswagen canceling the Bug.

But no worries, we will have our instant pictures back.  Not even digital cameras are instant.  Not really.  You have to plug them into your computer or printer or something and get your files sorted out and then you may need to do a some digital color correction on them.  But with a Polaroid, you point click and enjoy the little whirring sound for a few seconds.  Then you hold your picture and watch it come to life!  There’s absolutely no good reason why digital should not coexist with analog technologies.  The main difference between working with film and working with digital, as I see it, is this –  with digital you know pretty much exactly what you are going to get when you take a picture.  With analog film you never know what you are going to get.  There’s a wonderful fuzzy zone filled with error and chance that Polaroids allow you to enjoy.  Each picture is a little surprise.

Remember the Book?

LeavesOfGrassBookRemember the book?  Of course you do, because you have plenty of them in shelves, half-read, dusty, bent, torn, coffee-stained, wine-colored, smudged, smelly, misprinted, broken and cherished. They catch your glance as you walk from one room to another, reminding you of a year or a moment when you were doing something else but had that book in your bag or backseat and meant to finish it or did in fact, and put it away and moved it several times in a box, cursing its weight and trying not to bend it.  So there it sits now, quite possibly closed until the day you die.  But you know it’s there and it’s a marker in your life.  Remember this thing with books?

And LPs of vinyl?  Mine used to function like books in my shelf.  But I put them into a closet years ago because of CDs.  Now I can’t stand searching a shelf of CDs, so I mainly use MP3 files.  My albums no longer work as markers of life and time.  The same thing is happening to books.  All of mine are still on the shelves.  But the world is changing and books are beginning to look a lot like information that wants to weigh less. It doesn’t matter how one feels about this, whether it makes us sad or not.  It’s a creeping fact.  Our books are turning into wonderful collector’s items. I can tell this is happening partly from all the excitement and business surrounding these e-reader devices.  Books will continue to play an important role in literature but they will gradually be eclipsed by some other technology.  The current e-readers are not necessarily it, but they are the harbingers of things to come.  We are lightening our load because we can’t carry it around forever.  We’ll have to travel light.  Walt Whitman wouldn’t mind though, because he’d want to travel with us.

But this fellow, Raymond Danowski, has amassed the largest collection of 20th Century English poetry books in the world.  He collected over 70,000 books, periodicals, and artifacts.  The collection includes a first edition of Whitman’s Leaves of Grass, printed by the poet himself.  It also has a first edition of T.S. Eliot’s Prufrock and Other Observations.  There are so many books that when he donated the entire collection to Emory University in Atlanta, it took volunteers over a year just to unbox all the volumes.  The university is now the major center for researching 20th Century English poetry books.

I’d like to see that collection.  It must be fascinating.  And anything is worth touching that Walt Whitman touched.  Seeing books is the thing.  They have a presence in a room, lining its walls and giving it enormous depth.  But we are engaged in a process of making our books invisible.  What will we put in their place?  I’m not really too worried about that because when you turn all those words into digital form you present yourself with infinite possibility.  When words float around in the air you are in the realm of magic beyond anything any book could have ever accomplished.  Then again, sometimes just touching a book is enough to send your mind wandering down an unexpected path.  Can touching a virtual keyboard have the same effect?  Does it have to have the same effect?  Maybe not.  I’m sure banging a chisel into a clay tablet did things to a mind that ancient peoples were loath to part with.

Does the emergence of a world without books frighten or worry you?  Do you see something wrong with a world in which literature is simply information that travels wirelessly?  Do you think that ink is inherently superior to bits?

Eventually, we will read War and Peace by passing someone on the street and glancing into their eyes for a brief moment.  That person will give us the book as nothing more than a polite ‘How do you do?’  At that point, we will remember books the way we remember the clay tablet.

Problem With Nook eBook Reader?

nookfrontI’m looking at this new e-reader from Barnes & Noble called the nook and I’m a little worried.  It’s that split screen.  The top is an e-Ink display for reading your books.  But the bottom is a color LCD.  Look at that picture.  I don’t know about most readers, but I certainly don’t want that row of book covers staring me in the face as I read.  Can one totally black that screen out while reading?  What else shows up in there?  Ads?  Does anything move around to distract the reader?

I don’t know about this nook thing.  I’ve got doubts.