In general, the comments section of any article on the Internet is usually worthless and terrible. No amount of useful information an outweigh the feelings of despair and sadness about the future of the human race that come from the rest of the users. Yet no matter how many times you hear someone say "if you don't like them, stop reading", the mere existence of these worthless comments can be enough of a temptation to comb through them. Thankfully, there's an easy fix - plugins like Noscript for Firefox usually prevent most comment threads from displaying, and I find that I usually won't go looking for one if I don't see it.
"Usually" being the keyword. Every so often I decide to live dangerously, and open the comment section of an unfamiliar website. The results are never pretty, but I can't remember the last time I witnessed levels of stupidity on par with what I found on display at mobile phone/Android enthusiast sites. I've been checking them out ever since getting the new phone, in hopes of learning more about the smartphone market and Android in particular. This is something I can do without ever touching a comment thread, but the flaky release schedule of Android v2.1 for the Droid caused me to wander into the belly the of the beast.
As my coworker (and months long Droid owner) explained to me, 2.1 has been promised to release on the phone since sometime in January, and both Verizon and Motorola have not always been crystal clear as to why it was constantly delayed. This, in theory, is where a comment thread should be useful - users can share rumors or information that they have, speculation can run wild without overrunning editorial. Since I missed out on most of the update drama, I figured the comments would be a good place to get up to speed on information that is too old to cover in the news, but important enough for users to care about. Too bad the 'net never works like it does "in theory".
The most recent information about the update has been a statement that "we'll get it out by end of March", and sure enough, the update really did kick off yesterday. By this morning, zip files containing the update were all over the web, useable by anyone who wished to a do a manual installation. On a whole, not only was Motorola's statement (finally) accurate, but all it took was a good night's rest for the update to show up. There shouldn't any reason for drama, right?
Wrong. For one, these phone enthusiasts abused capital letters, exclamation points, and grammatical errors in ways that I thought had gone extinct in back in 1998. People were calling it an April Fool's joke, despite the fact that the news lined up with what we were told and it still March. There were people flipping out at the fact that no one had uploaded an update.zip file before midnight, meaning there were people who were losing precious sleep over this fiasco.
And of course, now that Droid owners all over the 'net have manually updated their phones, Twitter is awash with the sound of "meh", as the same people who frothed at the mouth over 2.1 find that it isn't that big of a fucking deal.
I guess the biggest question of all is this - I've seen things like this happen throughout the years. Why do I still let it surprise me?
In any case, it's a cute little update. The news and weather application is handy and convenient, though I'll probably keep the Weather Channel program as well, since it has a much more detailed forecast for the rest of the week. I like the new photo gallery program, since it kind of works like the one on a Playstation 3. I tried the pinch to zoom on the browser, and it's cute, but I don't know how to use it very well, so it doesn't seem any better than the standard zoom tool. The only other "wow factor" feature are the live wallpapers, which are pretty much like the ones in Windows Vista - you'll show them off to a friend, and then switch to something that takes up less system resources. Actually, I lie - the Polar Clock live 'paper might be permanent for me, since it makes the phone look like something out of Wipeout or Ghost in the Shell.
From what I can tell, this update did not up the number of home screens from 3 to 5, though hell if I would ever need that many. I guess 2.1 does a fine job explaining why people got so worked up, only to immediately burn out. Gadget enthusiasts only care about having something that is new and cutting edge. They like seeing numbers go up. Once they actually have to use their device in a productive way, they realize that they already have everything they need. I guess it's their form of entertainment, though damn if it doesn't clog up fine websites and forums.
PS - I keep hearing from folks that April Fools is starting to become a weeklong barrage of pranks, rather than one day of good fun. Thanks trolls, you ruined something else.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
24 has been Canceled
Yeah, I guess 24 may have been canceled in the middle of it's eighth season. Can't say I'm sad to see it go. While I do get a kick at the fact that it outlasted Heroes (I got so much shit when both shows competed in the same timeslot), 24 should have gone the way of the dodo a few seasons ago.
I was talking to my brother about this a few weeks ago, and interestingly enough, an article from Time Magazine had about the same explanation as I did about where it went wrong. In the start of season 6, Jack kills his friend and comrade Curtis without blinking, all because the writers decided to give him a previously nonexistent vendetta at the last minute. Moments later, a nuclear bomb goes off in Los Angeles. Jack is on the ground, shocked by the combination of both events, vomiting on the grass. I wasn't sure about it then, but the show was over for me at that point. That was when my subconscious realized that the writers had ran out of ideas. 24 was never afraid to kill off anyone and everyone on the cast if it helped advance or improve the plot, but Curtis' death was neither moving or surprising. It just felt unnecessary. More importantly, this was the first time the show had a nuke had gone off without a hitch, yet a few episodes later no one seems to care. I have vague memories of a scene in which a badguy of sorts is arguing with his wife while driving, providing what was supposed to be comedic relief. But I don't imagine anyone driving, or chit chatting on a cell phone, or walking on the sidewalk after a nuke goes off. One of the most powerful plot devices that 24 - or any show for that matter - has ever tried to rely on was turned into an afterthought. How could we have any trust in the writers from that point on?
Sure enough, there wasn't any reason to after that. Jack's family is revealed to have been involved in Secret Villain Plotting, but the conflict is introduced and resolved with such little fanfare or scope. It should have dovetailed wonderfully with the end of Season 5, but it was made into another afterthought. With Season 7 we got a new setting and a largely new cast, and once again characters are knocked off with abandon, and a yet another secret society is introduced. Fast forward to Season 8, which I haven't watched more than an episode of. I asked my family whether those Big Bads from Season 7 were still kicking around, and at the time, they said 'no'. In other words, 24 keeps dabbling with continuity, only to follow up with seemingly standalone seasons. It's sloppy, teasing, and hard to give a damn about.
Let's face it folks - 24 has never been the height of TV entertainment. But it always manage to squeeze out more action scenes than I ever expected to see on Primetime, and the concept was intriguing enough to generate basic suspense. Nowadays, not only is the concept worn out, but there's no point in trying to guess what will happen next, not when the answer is forgotten within the span of two episodes.
Damn shame. Time to find something else to watch weekly.
I was talking to my brother about this a few weeks ago, and interestingly enough, an article from Time Magazine had about the same explanation as I did about where it went wrong. In the start of season 6, Jack kills his friend and comrade Curtis without blinking, all because the writers decided to give him a previously nonexistent vendetta at the last minute. Moments later, a nuclear bomb goes off in Los Angeles. Jack is on the ground, shocked by the combination of both events, vomiting on the grass. I wasn't sure about it then, but the show was over for me at that point. That was when my subconscious realized that the writers had ran out of ideas. 24 was never afraid to kill off anyone and everyone on the cast if it helped advance or improve the plot, but Curtis' death was neither moving or surprising. It just felt unnecessary. More importantly, this was the first time the show had a nuke had gone off without a hitch, yet a few episodes later no one seems to care. I have vague memories of a scene in which a badguy of sorts is arguing with his wife while driving, providing what was supposed to be comedic relief. But I don't imagine anyone driving, or chit chatting on a cell phone, or walking on the sidewalk after a nuke goes off. One of the most powerful plot devices that 24 - or any show for that matter - has ever tried to rely on was turned into an afterthought. How could we have any trust in the writers from that point on?
Sure enough, there wasn't any reason to after that. Jack's family is revealed to have been involved in Secret Villain Plotting, but the conflict is introduced and resolved with such little fanfare or scope. It should have dovetailed wonderfully with the end of Season 5, but it was made into another afterthought. With Season 7 we got a new setting and a largely new cast, and once again characters are knocked off with abandon, and a yet another secret society is introduced. Fast forward to Season 8, which I haven't watched more than an episode of. I asked my family whether those Big Bads from Season 7 were still kicking around, and at the time, they said 'no'. In other words, 24 keeps dabbling with continuity, only to follow up with seemingly standalone seasons. It's sloppy, teasing, and hard to give a damn about.
Let's face it folks - 24 has never been the height of TV entertainment. But it always manage to squeeze out more action scenes than I ever expected to see on Primetime, and the concept was intriguing enough to generate basic suspense. Nowadays, not only is the concept worn out, but there's no point in trying to guess what will happen next, not when the answer is forgotten within the span of two episodes.
Damn shame. Time to find something else to watch weekly.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Blockbuster
My local Blockbuster is closing down. I found out last week when I walked down to rent a game, only to encounter massive closing signs on the windows, and price tags on everything. I picked up a couple cheap games instead (making it almost six months since I've bought a $60 game).
I never used Blockbuster until I lived in Maryland. Where I grew up in Pennsylvania, they simply didn't exist. Meanwhile, once I moved to Baltimore they became my only choice. Yet I never went to them with any great frequency, despite it being a mere ten minute walk to the store. I can think of a couple of reasons why.
Netflix - this is the reason every else gives, though it isn't the same for me. I don't subscribe to Netflix myself, but my roomate does, giving me access to their streaming service on the Xbox 360. The amount of movies they offer to stream is staggering, more than I could hope to get through. With that kind of selection, even a ten minute walk is too much.
The main point about Netflix, I think, isn't so much convenience as it is price. They helped make movies cheaper. A Netflix subscription lets you see quite a few movies by mail, and even more via streaming. There's no reason to even spend four bucks on a rental when double or triple that price can give you more films per month.
Gamefly - Calling Gamefly the "Netflix of games" is a bad analogy, since it's costlier, and the games mail out more slowly. Still, if you use Gamefly as a compliment to your gaming diet, it can change the way you play. You can buy the big, meaty games at full price, and rent out the quick and dirty action games you might otherwise have ignored. This system has allowed me to stay current with the industry in ways that would have been prohibitively expensive otherwise.
Gamefly also beats up Blockbuster on cost. $15 a month for a single game at a time will, at the bare minimum, even out to two games a month if you take your time. At one point this meant that they were not any cheaper than renting two games a month at Blockbuster, but that changed 'Buster raised their rental prices to close to nine bucks. They went from being competitive to a non option. The only alternative was Blockbuster's deal in which you could save by renting two games at once, but that puts a severe time crunch on you that simply isn't necessary.
Flaky policies/pricing - the "no late fees" policy was probably terrible for business, but great for me. It gave me a whole extra week with my games, which was often necessary. But they quietly removed this policy, such that games were back to having a strict 5 day rental period. I suffered some fees by not knowing this, and after that happened I pretty much stopped going to them (even with Gamefly, sometimes I wanted something right away). If it was made a bit clearer to me, I would have accepted it a lot more.
I also discovered that the Blockbuster Rewards program was bullshit. It only really rewarded you if you rented a lot of new, expensive films. If you just got old, cheap rentals, or didn't rent quite enough games in a month, you'd get little in return. If they modified it so that every four or five games netted you a freebie, it would have been much nicer, but instead they reset your count at the start of every month. That just made it less of a reward system and more of a way to sucker you out of money. Which I guess was the point, but the potential was always there for something good.
They Didn't Really Compete - A year after I left Pennsylvania, a Hollywood Video opened up in town. In the one summer I was home from college, I found them invaluable. They always had a good stock, their game rentals were cheaper, and they frequently offered up free rentals on any product if you didn't come in for a few months. That got me back in the store in a hurry. The only phone calls I got from Blockbuster were when items were close to being due. They were far more concerned with you giving back their products than helping customers out. But I guess they can't be blamed for that, as my next point makes clear.
They had Nothing - For a brief period of time, I worked close to another Hollywood Video. The one time I rented from there, I was able to get Bioshock the day it was released. There were at least 4 or 5 other copies sitting there. Many people would say that this kind of fast service is what we should expect and demand, but I'm a patient guy. If you told me that a game would come in within the same work week that it hits shelves, I'd be a happy camper.
Which is why I was so often frustrated with Blockbuster - even a time frame of "within the week" was too quick for them. Sometimes you'd have to wait until the next week, and when you went down to grab the game you had your eye on, it wouldn't be there. They had one, maybe two copies, and both had been scooped up. You would come back a week later, and it was still gone. Two weeks later, and it was still missing. A month later, and you were shit out of luck. It was once explained to me that this was the result of the company's "gamer pass" plan, wherein you paid a Gamefly-esque monthly fee and could keep a game as long as you wanted. But when I tried to sign up for the service, the clerk told me that not only was it discontinued, but had been for quite some time. Yet the games were still being lost in the ether.
Here's my best analysis of what happened - when the Gamer Pass service wasn't keeping the games off the shelf, the No Late Fee Policy was. As I alluded to earlier, this system could be used to your advantage. You got an extra seven days after the due date to hang onto the item, after which they charged you full price and gave you ownership. So long as you returned it before the extra seven days was over, you just extended your rental time considerably.
But while this would keep the games out longer, it would still only be a matter of two weeks, not months. But the other, more devious side of the policy took care of that. No Late Fees was hardly no late fees, but I was amazed at how many times I saw another customer complaining at the fact that they had been charged thirty bucks for a dvd they hung on to. Blockbuster knew that those who didn't read the rules of the policy would just become lazier with returning items, in turn allowing the business to make more money. But this extra-lazy customer also kept the shelves barer for longer.
But the cherry on top was that these issues were only issues at all due to the low stock, at least for games. They will devote an entire wall to a single big film release, but games never got more than two copies. They just didn't give a shit, and it showed.
It didn't have to be this way - I know they haven't (didn't?) fare any better, but at least Hollywood Video used a simple, traditional approach. You rented stuff, and if you didn't return it, they would ream you. As long as enough people were responsible with their returns, a store could rent out an item enough times to recoup the costs. When it came to games, they offset the numerous copies that they would stock by selling them off once the game was no longer hot shit. Customers got cheap buys, and they cleared their shelves. This system wasn't better for business I suppose, but if Netflix wasn't around, it probably would have worked. And hey, at least you knew what you were getting into.
Blockbuster, on the other hand, had to play games. They had to constantly tweak their return policies and pricing, and showed little consistency in their stock. One month, the games were in one area, and another month saw them on the opposite end of the store. The Blu Rays would be in a tiny section, and some time later there are stacks of them in the week-rental area (with no clear indication that yes, these are cheaper than new rentals, but still more expensive than a dvd rental). My local store was emblematic of the company as a whole - always trying to make desperate and extreme adjustments in order to survive, which in the end only served to confuse and annoy us. People on the Internet make it sound like every consumer wants to be pampered, but we're not all that stupid. We know that we'll never get the best deal from everyone we do business with. All we really want is some consistency and a bit of respect. Whenever a company begins to act against it's customers, finding the best ways to screw them over, bad things tend to happen. People notice, and they don't always put up with it. Blockbuster probably can't do anything to stop their inevitable destruction, but they've done a lot to help dig their own grave.
Considering how fond I am of the experience of dropping by the video store every week, I wish I didn't have to say any this. But I'd rather the experience go away entirely than have a twisted version of it.
I never used Blockbuster until I lived in Maryland. Where I grew up in Pennsylvania, they simply didn't exist. Meanwhile, once I moved to Baltimore they became my only choice. Yet I never went to them with any great frequency, despite it being a mere ten minute walk to the store. I can think of a couple of reasons why.
Netflix - this is the reason every else gives, though it isn't the same for me. I don't subscribe to Netflix myself, but my roomate does, giving me access to their streaming service on the Xbox 360. The amount of movies they offer to stream is staggering, more than I could hope to get through. With that kind of selection, even a ten minute walk is too much.
The main point about Netflix, I think, isn't so much convenience as it is price. They helped make movies cheaper. A Netflix subscription lets you see quite a few movies by mail, and even more via streaming. There's no reason to even spend four bucks on a rental when double or triple that price can give you more films per month.
Gamefly - Calling Gamefly the "Netflix of games" is a bad analogy, since it's costlier, and the games mail out more slowly. Still, if you use Gamefly as a compliment to your gaming diet, it can change the way you play. You can buy the big, meaty games at full price, and rent out the quick and dirty action games you might otherwise have ignored. This system has allowed me to stay current with the industry in ways that would have been prohibitively expensive otherwise.
Gamefly also beats up Blockbuster on cost. $15 a month for a single game at a time will, at the bare minimum, even out to two games a month if you take your time. At one point this meant that they were not any cheaper than renting two games a month at Blockbuster, but that changed 'Buster raised their rental prices to close to nine bucks. They went from being competitive to a non option. The only alternative was Blockbuster's deal in which you could save by renting two games at once, but that puts a severe time crunch on you that simply isn't necessary.
Flaky policies/pricing - the "no late fees" policy was probably terrible for business, but great for me. It gave me a whole extra week with my games, which was often necessary. But they quietly removed this policy, such that games were back to having a strict 5 day rental period. I suffered some fees by not knowing this, and after that happened I pretty much stopped going to them (even with Gamefly, sometimes I wanted something right away). If it was made a bit clearer to me, I would have accepted it a lot more.
I also discovered that the Blockbuster Rewards program was bullshit. It only really rewarded you if you rented a lot of new, expensive films. If you just got old, cheap rentals, or didn't rent quite enough games in a month, you'd get little in return. If they modified it so that every four or five games netted you a freebie, it would have been much nicer, but instead they reset your count at the start of every month. That just made it less of a reward system and more of a way to sucker you out of money. Which I guess was the point, but the potential was always there for something good.
They Didn't Really Compete - A year after I left Pennsylvania, a Hollywood Video opened up in town. In the one summer I was home from college, I found them invaluable. They always had a good stock, their game rentals were cheaper, and they frequently offered up free rentals on any product if you didn't come in for a few months. That got me back in the store in a hurry. The only phone calls I got from Blockbuster were when items were close to being due. They were far more concerned with you giving back their products than helping customers out. But I guess they can't be blamed for that, as my next point makes clear.
They had Nothing - For a brief period of time, I worked close to another Hollywood Video. The one time I rented from there, I was able to get Bioshock the day it was released. There were at least 4 or 5 other copies sitting there. Many people would say that this kind of fast service is what we should expect and demand, but I'm a patient guy. If you told me that a game would come in within the same work week that it hits shelves, I'd be a happy camper.
Which is why I was so often frustrated with Blockbuster - even a time frame of "within the week" was too quick for them. Sometimes you'd have to wait until the next week, and when you went down to grab the game you had your eye on, it wouldn't be there. They had one, maybe two copies, and both had been scooped up. You would come back a week later, and it was still gone. Two weeks later, and it was still missing. A month later, and you were shit out of luck. It was once explained to me that this was the result of the company's "gamer pass" plan, wherein you paid a Gamefly-esque monthly fee and could keep a game as long as you wanted. But when I tried to sign up for the service, the clerk told me that not only was it discontinued, but had been for quite some time. Yet the games were still being lost in the ether.
Here's my best analysis of what happened - when the Gamer Pass service wasn't keeping the games off the shelf, the No Late Fee Policy was. As I alluded to earlier, this system could be used to your advantage. You got an extra seven days after the due date to hang onto the item, after which they charged you full price and gave you ownership. So long as you returned it before the extra seven days was over, you just extended your rental time considerably.
But while this would keep the games out longer, it would still only be a matter of two weeks, not months. But the other, more devious side of the policy took care of that. No Late Fees was hardly no late fees, but I was amazed at how many times I saw another customer complaining at the fact that they had been charged thirty bucks for a dvd they hung on to. Blockbuster knew that those who didn't read the rules of the policy would just become lazier with returning items, in turn allowing the business to make more money. But this extra-lazy customer also kept the shelves barer for longer.
But the cherry on top was that these issues were only issues at all due to the low stock, at least for games. They will devote an entire wall to a single big film release, but games never got more than two copies. They just didn't give a shit, and it showed.
It didn't have to be this way - I know they haven't (didn't?) fare any better, but at least Hollywood Video used a simple, traditional approach. You rented stuff, and if you didn't return it, they would ream you. As long as enough people were responsible with their returns, a store could rent out an item enough times to recoup the costs. When it came to games, they offset the numerous copies that they would stock by selling them off once the game was no longer hot shit. Customers got cheap buys, and they cleared their shelves. This system wasn't better for business I suppose, but if Netflix wasn't around, it probably would have worked. And hey, at least you knew what you were getting into.
Blockbuster, on the other hand, had to play games. They had to constantly tweak their return policies and pricing, and showed little consistency in their stock. One month, the games were in one area, and another month saw them on the opposite end of the store. The Blu Rays would be in a tiny section, and some time later there are stacks of them in the week-rental area (with no clear indication that yes, these are cheaper than new rentals, but still more expensive than a dvd rental). My local store was emblematic of the company as a whole - always trying to make desperate and extreme adjustments in order to survive, which in the end only served to confuse and annoy us. People on the Internet make it sound like every consumer wants to be pampered, but we're not all that stupid. We know that we'll never get the best deal from everyone we do business with. All we really want is some consistency and a bit of respect. Whenever a company begins to act against it's customers, finding the best ways to screw them over, bad things tend to happen. People notice, and they don't always put up with it. Blockbuster probably can't do anything to stop their inevitable destruction, but they've done a lot to help dig their own grave.
Considering how fond I am of the experience of dropping by the video store every week, I wish I didn't have to say any this. But I'd rather the experience go away entirely than have a twisted version of it.
Monday, March 22, 2010
The Beatles: Please Please Me
Album: Please Please MeRelease Date: March 22 1963
I often disagree with reviews from Pitchfork Media, but their critiques of the Beatles remasters offer some nice insights, or at the very least a valuable framework for viewing each album.
For Please Please Me, Pitchfork's Tom Ewing describes it as a way to deliver the titular hit single while also teasing the buying public with a large sample of what the band played through in their live shows. Based on what I know of their history, this makes sense. It fits in nicely with the story of how the album was recorded in one long session, using very few takes. Please Please Me was largely a promotional vehicle, a quick and cheap way to get the band out there to see what, if anything, would stick with listeners. It is perhaps only due to the band's talent that such a release is as good as it is.
I agree with Ewing's comment that the entire album can be danced to, which makes perfect sense if the album consists of live show staples. I also agree that the album feels cohesive despite being a mix of originals and covers. There's an overall sound of twangy guitars and sweet, syrupy harmonies which is only occasionally interrupted. But despite these positive qualities, the album doesn't always click with me. There are fourteen songs, which is right in line with the majority of Beatles albums, yet it's the only one where I end up wondering when it will end. I look at the track list, and think to myself, "These are all great songs. Why am I so impatient to get through them?" That's when I have to admit to myself that I don't like "Misery" or "Ask Me Why", or even "Please Please Me" itself nearly as much as I think I do. And the tracks that I don't like are scattered in such a way that they kill any momentum the album manages to work up.
But what's most striking to me about Please Please Me is that no song goes over three minutes in length, yet each feels longer than they actually are. My guess, as a budding writer, is that the dance hall nature of this early material leads to a heavier emphasis on vocal harmony over strong instrumentation. To my ear, all the long phrases and "woohs" and "ahhs" make even the songs with a brisk tempo feel slower than they are. There are no hooks, no wild shifts in tone, because these qualities aren't apt to dance.
Thankfully, when Please Please me does work, it clearly demonstrates that the Beatles were playing with genius. "I Saw her Standing There" may be the greatest first track in the history of rock. The beat is fast, every instrument is clear and perfectly used, and the harmonies are golden. On the other end of the record, their cover of "Twist and Shout" is so raw, at once both surprising yet seemingly appropriate. Even when dealing with covers, the Beatles knew how to combine the intent of the original with their own personal spin, in this case creating a definitive version of the classic tune. The same can be said for their cover of "Boys" by The Shirelles, which somehow comes to life on the Rock Band game tie-in. As for other originals, "Do you Want to Know a Secret?" always wins me with its charm, and I'd easily take "Love Me Do" over "Please Please Me" as the best song to identify the record with.
There's a lot of fun in Please Please Me, but don't be afraid to pick and choose on this one. There are better whole album experiences to be had.
A note on reviews
I figured out why I keep promising, but then failing, to write album reviews. As much as I have learned over the years in regards to popular music, I haven't learned quite enough to be able to express myself properly. I don't know quite enough history, nor can I identify influences or styles with enough precision. I fear that I will write something that sounds definitive but incorrect, excited but unorganized. But if I let that fear take control, I'll never get better. So I decided that if I have to read other reviews to get an idea of what it is I'm feeling but can't express, so be it. I'll still try and agree/disagree when I feel it is needed.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
One Week
One week with the Droid. How has it been faring?
- The learning curve is pretty much gone. I haven't used every little feature (like keyboard shortcuts), but I don't think there are many that I don't at least know about. Having to use the Menu button to access app settings and features isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The most important ones are easy to get to, and a lot of the ones I thought can be mostly ignored once you get things configured the way you want.
- I'm liking the touch keyboard more and more.
- I like the ability to add widgets. It forces me to do things like actually check my calendar in detail.
- The accelerometer is a bit wonky.
- While the built in apps are very well made, for some reason I assumed that Android Marketplace would be filled with all sorts of optional, fun apps from Google themselves. That isn't really the case; they've got some stuff on there, but in far less quantity. Maybe they're too busy updating the OS itself.
- Too many "bastard stepchild" apps. The best ones integrate seamlessly with Android, but others are quick and dirty ports from the iPhone. You can tell which is which based on whether the MEnu button does anything. On the iPhone ports, it won't, and instead all of your options will be on the bottom of the screen. Not the end of the world really, but without proper optimizations for the Droid's screen/touch capability, these apps can be more troublesome to use than they should be.
- Google Listen is a great program, but not a perfect one. You can add podcast subscriptions in Google Reader, and Listen will sync up with them, allowing you to tune in to your favorite podcasts wherever you are. At first I thought this was one of those programs that enables lazy people, and I guess it still is, but it is the kind of convenience I can get behind. Before, I would have to download podcasts to my PC (often rebooting from Ubuntu to Windows solely to do this), load them onto the Zune, and delete them afterwards. I would also have to make sure I had enough space on the player. It wasn't terribly time consuming, but it required a lot of effort and upkeep just to listen to some hour long shows. Google Listen allows me to fire up a show, then ditch it as soon as I'm done. And since it downloads the sound files, I can start a 'cast when I get on the subway, and continue listening when I go underground and lose phone signal.
So what's the problem? While the interface is simple and crisp, the updating mechanism is confusing when set to manual. It never really tells you whether a refresh is successful, so you have go to your show list and see if there are any changes. Furthermore, the playback mechanism is not explained in detail. I guess the best way to describe it is that Listen downloads any show you start to play, but begins playback immediately. So it looks as if it is streaming, but it saves the buffer for later use. This is nice, but I'm not sure if there is a way to force it to just stream or just download. I don't mind having to delete old shows, but I would like to know exactly what is going on (and why).
- The learning curve is pretty much gone. I haven't used every little feature (like keyboard shortcuts), but I don't think there are many that I don't at least know about. Having to use the Menu button to access app settings and features isn't as bad as I thought it would be. The most important ones are easy to get to, and a lot of the ones I thought can be mostly ignored once you get things configured the way you want.
- I'm liking the touch keyboard more and more.
- I like the ability to add widgets. It forces me to do things like actually check my calendar in detail.
- The accelerometer is a bit wonky.
- While the built in apps are very well made, for some reason I assumed that Android Marketplace would be filled with all sorts of optional, fun apps from Google themselves. That isn't really the case; they've got some stuff on there, but in far less quantity. Maybe they're too busy updating the OS itself.
- Too many "bastard stepchild" apps. The best ones integrate seamlessly with Android, but others are quick and dirty ports from the iPhone. You can tell which is which based on whether the MEnu button does anything. On the iPhone ports, it won't, and instead all of your options will be on the bottom of the screen. Not the end of the world really, but without proper optimizations for the Droid's screen/touch capability, these apps can be more troublesome to use than they should be.
- Google Listen is a great program, but not a perfect one. You can add podcast subscriptions in Google Reader, and Listen will sync up with them, allowing you to tune in to your favorite podcasts wherever you are. At first I thought this was one of those programs that enables lazy people, and I guess it still is, but it is the kind of convenience I can get behind. Before, I would have to download podcasts to my PC (often rebooting from Ubuntu to Windows solely to do this), load them onto the Zune, and delete them afterwards. I would also have to make sure I had enough space on the player. It wasn't terribly time consuming, but it required a lot of effort and upkeep just to listen to some hour long shows. Google Listen allows me to fire up a show, then ditch it as soon as I'm done. And since it downloads the sound files, I can start a 'cast when I get on the subway, and continue listening when I go underground and lose phone signal.
So what's the problem? While the interface is simple and crisp, the updating mechanism is confusing when set to manual. It never really tells you whether a refresh is successful, so you have go to your show list and see if there are any changes. Furthermore, the playback mechanism is not explained in detail. I guess the best way to describe it is that Listen downloads any show you start to play, but begins playback immediately. So it looks as if it is streaming, but it saves the buffer for later use. This is nice, but I'm not sure if there is a way to force it to just stream or just download. I don't mind having to delete old shows, but I would like to know exactly what is going on (and why).
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
More thoughts
I made errors in judgment in my last few posts. Next time I'll do better research. In our last episode, I chided LG for making what I thought was a silly iPhone ripoff with the Venus. What I forgot is that it is only one of many phones that they make. I was recently informed of the LG Prada, which launched close the iPhone, has many similar features, and looks rather slick.
So I need to revise my thought about Apple's success. I still believe that they know how to make basic computing concepts simple and user friendly, as well make hardware that looks nice and packs power. But the problem with the competition is not that they can't do the same things. Rather, they get into trouble because Apple puts their balls in a vicegrip. They can make something that's slim, fast and gorgeous, but if it isn't the same as the look and feel of Apple's products, people won't be nearly as excited. They end up being forced to abandon their own concepts and mimmick Apple, because everything else gets crushed.
Of course, doing this makes their products look like second rate knockoffs, so they still wind up losing.
I guess the best approach would be to stake out one's own path, carve out a niche, and try to expand it. Still, this has to be frustrating when you realize that the only reason you have to work that much harder (and longer) is because you can't generate a Reality Distortion Field.
This makes me think some more about Apple's recent lawsuit against HTC for patent violations. As always, these software patents are used irresponsibly, and the nature of the descriptions create enough wiggle room for people to create poor but convincing defenses, either because the text is too vague, or the concept is.
There's a whole lot of bickering going on about this over at slate.com, and the thing that gets me is that Apple apologists mount their defense based on very specific, strict facts. We all love facts, because compared to opinions, they're a hell of a lot better at proving things. But facts work come in different flavors. If you have a scientific fact, there's nothing you can do to rationally wave it away. It isn't going to change, unless you can use more science. But if state the fact that some terrible thing a corporation does is entirely legal, does that end the discussion just as quickly? Yes, it is a fact, but unlike the laws of physics, the laws of government can change. And the fact that something was allowed doesn't make it right. Humans make mistakes, after all. I'm sure someone out there would grill me for this, but in my mind, a person who argues the gravitational constant has no leg to stand on, but the person who is upset that a corporation screwed someone over by using loopholes shouldn't be immediately dismissed.
This is why the pro Apple arguments bug me so much. Yes, patent law as we know it today allows them to file a suit, but that doesn't mean that patent law is working properly. And yes, there are certain aspects of the iPhone that are original in a very specific sense, but that doesn't mean it was fit to patent. The argument that we should "hate the player, not the game" doesn't always work. If we don't hate the players, then the game will never change. You can try, but if we don't see anything wrong with the someone's actions, then there doesn't appear to be any reason to change.
One of the worst arguments I saw on slate boiled down to claiming that Apple is in the right place at the right time. He claimed that their use of a entirely multi touch based device was unheard of before, and is original enough to patent. Everyone else has to build touch features onto pre-existing interfaces, such as a key or mouse based device. (PS - can the iPhone work without ever using it's single button? If not, it ain't a multi touch only device).
But on a gut level, I see no difference between "multi touch based device" and "mouse driven device". The argument can be interpreted as saying that if the mouse or the GUI was invented in the 2000's, then the inventors would be right in patenting them, and forcing other device makers into building it on top of other interfaces. Imagine if we actually had to do that. It sounds absurd, because it is. Keyboards and touch screens have been around for a long time. Using them in different ways is only so original. And in my mind, they are not original enough to patent. There's also the problem that hardware like a keyboard and mouse is such that their functionality is largely determined by the actual configuration of the hardware. Touch screen interfaces are governed far more by their software than a Logitech mouse. Hardware is a lot more concrete than software, which is why software patents are almost universally despised. We can use this example in my previous argument - there were some legal issues surrounding GUI's, which are interfaces based mostly on software, during their creation. These were resolved, and these days no one can really stop you from making a GUI based OS. But imagine if instead we had a legal showdown like this one Apple is brewing up? That would be rather dangerous. Not to mention that the actual issues that came up were resolved by Apple working with Xerox. In this current battle, Apple has put competitors in the situation they were once in, without the chance to wheel and deal. This is a fact too, but it won't be used by apologists to negate the necessity of the lawsuit.
Lastly, there's the really finicky, not-so-fact based dilemma of Apple being in a position of power. One commenter argued that if they didn't file these patents, someone like HTC would. It was a first strike scenario. When the law works as intended, size won't matter, and indeed, we have seen large corporations lose out to smaller patent holders, and vice versa. But if HTC had these patents, and filed suit against Apple, you wouldn't see Mac fans defending the little guy. They'd laugh at the fact that the underdog dared to try and get in the behemoth's way. But in the world of Internet debate, such touchy feely ideas are stomped upon, no matter how accurate they may be.
I should have just made this argument with a bit of common sense. If Apple is going to purposefully ignore features and software that they don't like, then screw them for trying to stop people from building upon their ideas.
So I need to revise my thought about Apple's success. I still believe that they know how to make basic computing concepts simple and user friendly, as well make hardware that looks nice and packs power. But the problem with the competition is not that they can't do the same things. Rather, they get into trouble because Apple puts their balls in a vicegrip. They can make something that's slim, fast and gorgeous, but if it isn't the same as the look and feel of Apple's products, people won't be nearly as excited. They end up being forced to abandon their own concepts and mimmick Apple, because everything else gets crushed.
Of course, doing this makes their products look like second rate knockoffs, so they still wind up losing.
I guess the best approach would be to stake out one's own path, carve out a niche, and try to expand it. Still, this has to be frustrating when you realize that the only reason you have to work that much harder (and longer) is because you can't generate a Reality Distortion Field.
This makes me think some more about Apple's recent lawsuit against HTC for patent violations. As always, these software patents are used irresponsibly, and the nature of the descriptions create enough wiggle room for people to create poor but convincing defenses, either because the text is too vague, or the concept is.
There's a whole lot of bickering going on about this over at slate.com, and the thing that gets me is that Apple apologists mount their defense based on very specific, strict facts. We all love facts, because compared to opinions, they're a hell of a lot better at proving things. But facts work come in different flavors. If you have a scientific fact, there's nothing you can do to rationally wave it away. It isn't going to change, unless you can use more science. But if state the fact that some terrible thing a corporation does is entirely legal, does that end the discussion just as quickly? Yes, it is a fact, but unlike the laws of physics, the laws of government can change. And the fact that something was allowed doesn't make it right. Humans make mistakes, after all. I'm sure someone out there would grill me for this, but in my mind, a person who argues the gravitational constant has no leg to stand on, but the person who is upset that a corporation screwed someone over by using loopholes shouldn't be immediately dismissed.
This is why the pro Apple arguments bug me so much. Yes, patent law as we know it today allows them to file a suit, but that doesn't mean that patent law is working properly. And yes, there are certain aspects of the iPhone that are original in a very specific sense, but that doesn't mean it was fit to patent. The argument that we should "hate the player, not the game" doesn't always work. If we don't hate the players, then the game will never change. You can try, but if we don't see anything wrong with the someone's actions, then there doesn't appear to be any reason to change.
One of the worst arguments I saw on slate boiled down to claiming that Apple is in the right place at the right time. He claimed that their use of a entirely multi touch based device was unheard of before, and is original enough to patent. Everyone else has to build touch features onto pre-existing interfaces, such as a key or mouse based device. (PS - can the iPhone work without ever using it's single button? If not, it ain't a multi touch only device).
But on a gut level, I see no difference between "multi touch based device" and "mouse driven device". The argument can be interpreted as saying that if the mouse or the GUI was invented in the 2000's, then the inventors would be right in patenting them, and forcing other device makers into building it on top of other interfaces. Imagine if we actually had to do that. It sounds absurd, because it is. Keyboards and touch screens have been around for a long time. Using them in different ways is only so original. And in my mind, they are not original enough to patent. There's also the problem that hardware like a keyboard and mouse is such that their functionality is largely determined by the actual configuration of the hardware. Touch screen interfaces are governed far more by their software than a Logitech mouse. Hardware is a lot more concrete than software, which is why software patents are almost universally despised. We can use this example in my previous argument - there were some legal issues surrounding GUI's, which are interfaces based mostly on software, during their creation. These were resolved, and these days no one can really stop you from making a GUI based OS. But imagine if instead we had a legal showdown like this one Apple is brewing up? That would be rather dangerous. Not to mention that the actual issues that came up were resolved by Apple working with Xerox. In this current battle, Apple has put competitors in the situation they were once in, without the chance to wheel and deal. This is a fact too, but it won't be used by apologists to negate the necessity of the lawsuit.
Lastly, there's the really finicky, not-so-fact based dilemma of Apple being in a position of power. One commenter argued that if they didn't file these patents, someone like HTC would. It was a first strike scenario. When the law works as intended, size won't matter, and indeed, we have seen large corporations lose out to smaller patent holders, and vice versa. But if HTC had these patents, and filed suit against Apple, you wouldn't see Mac fans defending the little guy. They'd laugh at the fact that the underdog dared to try and get in the behemoth's way. But in the world of Internet debate, such touchy feely ideas are stomped upon, no matter how accurate they may be.
I should have just made this argument with a bit of common sense. If Apple is going to purposefully ignore features and software that they don't like, then screw them for trying to stop people from building upon their ideas.
Droid
So as I said, I got a Droid. Back in '09, when the teaser ads for the device began to surface, I thought it was a joke. The name implied that it was simply an Android phone for Verizon, but somewhere along the way, I must have read something that I interpreted as stating that it was going to be completely different from Android, and simply used a couple of Google services provided by the company. This made no sense to me; sure, it was logical to whip up some special features on the iPhone, back before Android had launched. But doing so again would have been counterproductive to their new phone OS.
Sure enough, the Droid does have some quirks that keep it from being identical to other Android phones, but said phones often have their own qualities that keep them from meshing with the Droid. For example, there are certain Apps that are not Droid compatible, yet the Nexus One can't play some games due to screen resolution issues. But this isn't a post about Android inconsistencies (maybe I'll do that another day, when I know more about it). For now, let's stick with the phone at hand.
The Droid has gotten mostly favorable (and some raving) reviews, and the key to that is that it does a fine job of aping the iPhone without feeling like a cheap knockoff. As a counter example, consider the LG Venus. Verizon got that sucker out as quickly as they could once the iPhone launched, and dammit if it didn't look silly. The interface was as close as possible to a 1-to-1 copy of the iPhone's, only the icons were not quite as slick, and the App support was a mystery. It tried to ride the wave, but it didn't look much better than a Chinese knockoff. They tried to one up Apple by including a keyboard, but it ultimately made the phone a lot chunkier than it needed to be (or at least it looked chunkier to me). LG ran into the same problems that most companies have when they compete with Apple. They can't make their software quite as simple and elegant, and they can never cram the same hardware into a device with the same small size and simple shape. No one really makes competitors to Apple products, so much as wannabes. I say this as a Linux fan with no Apple products in my life, and who looks for a reason to criticize the company. That doesn't stop me from admitting what they do damn well.
So back to the Droid. From a hardware perspective, Motorola avoided most of the pitfalls that plague the competition. It's a bit thicker than an iPhone, and the screen is a bit bigger, but overall you've got two devices of roughly the same size and shape. That's critical, because the iPhone is common enough that most of us know how it looks and feels. If the Droid was too far off from that baseline, immediately people would be turned off. It sounds silly to be excited that someone managed to get the right form factor, but as I mentioned, it happens so rarely that it feels significant. Better yet is the fact that they managed to do so while still cramming in a keyboard and camera (and if you get the keyboardless Droid Eris, you'll have something even slimmer). This does come with a sacrifice however. Most phone keyboards have big chunky keys that are easy to type on. Motorola avoided this with the Droid, knowing that such a design would make it too big. Instead the keys are very flat, almost flush with the phone. It is much easier to mistype on it than on even the simple texting phone I once had, and while you do get used to it, it still grates me a bit to know that in this case, we still had to sacrifice function to get the form. One the other hand, the keyboard has a d-pad like cursor. I have no idea how many smart phones have something like this, but damn if it isn't nice. It beats having to switch from the keyboard to the main phone pad, as I had to on my old phone in order to edit texts.
I have no idea if the camera is any good, because I've not had much use for camera phones. I hear that it is slow to snap and is a little weak in picture quality, but I get the feeling that these are the opinions of gadget heads who aren't satisfied with a five megapixel camera on their goddamn phone. My standalone digital camera is still five megapixel. I think I'll be happy with whatever the Droid gives me.
The data port looks similar to a standard five pin USB cord, and my research says it is a Micro USB, which isn't quite as general purpose as a five pin, but is apparently common among phones, so there's no proprietary extras that you need. The data cable nicely fits into the A/C adapter, meaning you don't need any extra trinkets in order to connect the Droid to a PC. Also nice is that the headphone jack is standard sized. Again, this is likely common with smart phones, but it is new to me. My old text phone had a smaller headphone jack, and both the data cable and SD storage were sold separately, so I took advantage of none of its special features. This makes me wonder if phone makers have gotten more generous, or if this is simply a luxury that is only afforded to the more expensive phones. All I know for now is that I feel like I'm out of the cellular gulag.
So what else does the Droid hardware do differently than the iPhone? The 16gb of storage comes from a swappable MicroSD chip, so you can add something bigger later on should you want to. This is one of those stupid things that every phone should have, but Apple unsurprisingly refused. I'm curious as to what other devices do in this regard. Additionally, there are four keys on the bottom of the touch screen, in order to assist with actions which aren't mapped to the screen, and which don't mesh well with the fairly standard actions on the keyboard. This is essentially the iPhone's Home button times four, and while that sounds like a stupid gimmick, it works fairly well. Or rather, the iPhone works fairly well with one button, but my brain is wired in such a way that it throws me off. On the Droid, there is a "back" button that is distinct from the "home" button. The other two buttons bring up Google search, and general settings related to whatever program you're running.
It sounds like a matter of spreading functionality out for no reason, but I guess my experiences with game consoles makes it click with me. For example, on the PSP/PS3, you'd use the circle button to back out from a program, but the home button takes you to the main OS at any time. Same deal here. The settings button is also nice, because it lets you easily find out what you can and cannot do at any point in time. The settings button will either be really smart or entirely silly depending on the person. The problem is that it is context sensitive, so the only thing about it that's standard is the look of it. One of the most common complaints that I hear about Graphical User Interfaces is how users do not like when menus change in size or context without any clear explanation as to why. This is exactly what is going on here, so it's no surprise that it has been a bother to many. You have to understand that not only is is context sensitive, but that its purpose is to give you a few basic options no matter where you are in a program, without having to back up to another page or start it up fresh. But this doesn't match up with what we expect. I think a good compromise would be to create a few constant options that allow you to access general phone settings in the like wherever you are. The Droid sort of does this with the home key, but it isn't quite the same.
On that note, the back key is a little screwy. It may back up out of an app, but it may not close it. If you're in the browser, it will act as a browser back button, retreating you to the last page you visited. I think that's the general flaw with the four buttons - only two of them work the same every time. The other two have slight changes in their purpose depending on what your are doing, and while you can adjust to them eventually, it increases the learning curve. Still, I think part of it comes down to how you approach the device. As I've mentioned, the simplicity of the iPhone works for most folks, but I prefer the flexibility of the Droid, even if isn't always clear on how to master it. This doesn't make either approach (or thought process) better, just different.
On one last note, the buttons aren't keys, but touch sensitive regions. There are times when you hit one, and nothing happens, because you didn't hit it in the right spot, or maybe your touch was too quick. The phone does give haptic feedback when you do it right, but it only helps so much when you don't know what it is you are doing wrong.
The rest of the phone's plusses and minuses are based on the Android OS itself. At first glance, all the screenshots I saw of it suggested that it had a very inconsistent interface. In reality I was simply watching different apps in action, which of course will fill the screen with whatever it needs. The OS itself is quite uniform and nice. In it's basic form, it isn't too far from the iPhone's OS. You have a main screen where you can drop shortcuts to apps, and the screens for changing settings and finding music mimmick the list format of the iPhone. What Android does better is in regards to control. There is a small button on the bottom that will expand with a list of all of your applications, meaning you can add as little or as many to the main screen as you want. There's also an upper toolbar which works like the one found in the GNOME desktop environment for Linux. It displays the time, running tasks, and your signal quality, and this too can be expanded to display alerts and messages. You can also change the background image on the phone, though making your own requires cropping the picture to a specific resolution, at least if you want it to be perfect. Overall, Android has the simplicity and aesthetic qualities of the iPhone OS, but still feels more like an actual computer operating system. The main screen isn't so much an app launcher as it is a mini desktop for you to do as you please.
Going back to the settings/music parts of the interface, I like it, but it could use some work. In a way, it is more consistent than the iPhone's (keep in mind that all my comparisons are based on fairly limited time with the iPhone/Pod Touch, so sorry if I get things wrong). There, most of the settings pages are colored in grey, despite the fact that the main screen is in black. On Android, these pages are black, and it technically doesn't clash with the main menu, because that can look however you want it to. So there's an extra layer of mental consistency when it comes to appearance, but the contents are another matter entirely. Some settings are a simple yes/no check box. Others are a small dot that gets colored in when you choose 'yes'. Still others will expand with a list of hidden options. Still more can be clicked on, leading to another page. There can be some confusion as to what you can do with each option in a list, though eventually it makes sense once you realize how they're formatted. From what I can tell, the main settings page and music list are clicked, and any pages below that have dropdowns and toggles. It's easy to figure out, but still not clear initially.
Overall, the speed with which programs run is fine by me, and while the pseudo open source nature of Android makes it's App Store a wild west scenario compared to the iPhone's, most of the ones I've used have integrated nicely with the OS.
Lastly, I wanted to mention the ability to "root" the Droid. I haven't done it, and probably won't, but it is the Droid equivalent of jailbreaking an iPhone, though as is the case with the Droid, it's far more dangerous and powerful. From what I can tell, it simply gives you more control over the phone. You can load newer versions of Android before they pass Verizon's testing, and you can load apps which will overclock the CPU. You're not supposed to do this, and screwing it up will brick the device, but that hasn't stopped people from giving it a shot.
I've heard some people make the statement that the Android OS, and by extension the Droid itself, are different enough that it isn't right to call it a "Linux phone". And I agree - a truly open source, Linux based device would not only let you root it, but would probably encourage such behavior. But what restrictions do exist make sense. Smart phones are becoming more like computers, but unlike computers their main purpose is to make phone calls. Device makers can't allow the actions of users to interfere with these basic features, so certain restrictions must apply. This is why the iPhone is so strict, and we see that most people are just fine with giving up control in favor of usability. It makes a lot of sense no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, while the philosophy of Free Software doesn't prevent one from selling your software, it doesn't rub well with corporate types who are focused on profit. Google likes to have some power, while letting their users be mostly free (or at least feel like they are). For now, I think these compromises are fair, without actually compromising the device. Perhaps I'll think differently in the future.
But with all that being said, I feel that for all intents and purposes, this is a "Linux phone". Like Linux itself, the Droid lets you do things that most phones would never dream of. You can change the storage, the programs, the look and feel. There's even an approved app that lets you tinker with the phone's Linux-esque file structure. Compared to the rest of the market, the Droid and it's siblings aren't the wild west - they're a goddamned state of anarchy.
And just like Linux, Android spends so much time focusing on this freedom that it ends up trading away intuitiveness. You have to figure out how to do everything, because features are designed to address a techie's frame of mind. If you don't have that frame of mind, it won't be easy to sort everything out, and even if you do, you might not agree that it is the best way to go about it.
For geeks like me, this is pure heaven. It is also why, despite so many negatives within this review, I am still in love with the phone. I don't mind getting past a few quirks, especially if I become a better user because of it. I also enjoy rollicking in a bit of compu-anarchy, because I'm not afraid of it.
But if this is supposed to be the iPhone's competition, it needs more mass market friendliness. I'm glad a phone like this exists, but it feels like a niche product being thrown into the big leagues. As long as it sticks around I'll be pleased, but I do wonder if this might sabotage Android's chances. Geeks might not mesh well with general purpose computer users, but both are critical. Android wants to bring them together, and I wish them luck, as I'll be counting on it's success for the next few years. For now, I'm afraid I've been given this wonderful treat that will be taken away in due time.
Sure enough, the Droid does have some quirks that keep it from being identical to other Android phones, but said phones often have their own qualities that keep them from meshing with the Droid. For example, there are certain Apps that are not Droid compatible, yet the Nexus One can't play some games due to screen resolution issues. But this isn't a post about Android inconsistencies (maybe I'll do that another day, when I know more about it). For now, let's stick with the phone at hand.
The Droid has gotten mostly favorable (and some raving) reviews, and the key to that is that it does a fine job of aping the iPhone without feeling like a cheap knockoff. As a counter example, consider the LG Venus. Verizon got that sucker out as quickly as they could once the iPhone launched, and dammit if it didn't look silly. The interface was as close as possible to a 1-to-1 copy of the iPhone's, only the icons were not quite as slick, and the App support was a mystery. It tried to ride the wave, but it didn't look much better than a Chinese knockoff. They tried to one up Apple by including a keyboard, but it ultimately made the phone a lot chunkier than it needed to be (or at least it looked chunkier to me). LG ran into the same problems that most companies have when they compete with Apple. They can't make their software quite as simple and elegant, and they can never cram the same hardware into a device with the same small size and simple shape. No one really makes competitors to Apple products, so much as wannabes. I say this as a Linux fan with no Apple products in my life, and who looks for a reason to criticize the company. That doesn't stop me from admitting what they do damn well.
So back to the Droid. From a hardware perspective, Motorola avoided most of the pitfalls that plague the competition. It's a bit thicker than an iPhone, and the screen is a bit bigger, but overall you've got two devices of roughly the same size and shape. That's critical, because the iPhone is common enough that most of us know how it looks and feels. If the Droid was too far off from that baseline, immediately people would be turned off. It sounds silly to be excited that someone managed to get the right form factor, but as I mentioned, it happens so rarely that it feels significant. Better yet is the fact that they managed to do so while still cramming in a keyboard and camera (and if you get the keyboardless Droid Eris, you'll have something even slimmer). This does come with a sacrifice however. Most phone keyboards have big chunky keys that are easy to type on. Motorola avoided this with the Droid, knowing that such a design would make it too big. Instead the keys are very flat, almost flush with the phone. It is much easier to mistype on it than on even the simple texting phone I once had, and while you do get used to it, it still grates me a bit to know that in this case, we still had to sacrifice function to get the form. One the other hand, the keyboard has a d-pad like cursor. I have no idea how many smart phones have something like this, but damn if it isn't nice. It beats having to switch from the keyboard to the main phone pad, as I had to on my old phone in order to edit texts.
I have no idea if the camera is any good, because I've not had much use for camera phones. I hear that it is slow to snap and is a little weak in picture quality, but I get the feeling that these are the opinions of gadget heads who aren't satisfied with a five megapixel camera on their goddamn phone. My standalone digital camera is still five megapixel. I think I'll be happy with whatever the Droid gives me.
The data port looks similar to a standard five pin USB cord, and my research says it is a Micro USB, which isn't quite as general purpose as a five pin, but is apparently common among phones, so there's no proprietary extras that you need. The data cable nicely fits into the A/C adapter, meaning you don't need any extra trinkets in order to connect the Droid to a PC. Also nice is that the headphone jack is standard sized. Again, this is likely common with smart phones, but it is new to me. My old text phone had a smaller headphone jack, and both the data cable and SD storage were sold separately, so I took advantage of none of its special features. This makes me wonder if phone makers have gotten more generous, or if this is simply a luxury that is only afforded to the more expensive phones. All I know for now is that I feel like I'm out of the cellular gulag.
So what else does the Droid hardware do differently than the iPhone? The 16gb of storage comes from a swappable MicroSD chip, so you can add something bigger later on should you want to. This is one of those stupid things that every phone should have, but Apple unsurprisingly refused. I'm curious as to what other devices do in this regard. Additionally, there are four keys on the bottom of the touch screen, in order to assist with actions which aren't mapped to the screen, and which don't mesh well with the fairly standard actions on the keyboard. This is essentially the iPhone's Home button times four, and while that sounds like a stupid gimmick, it works fairly well. Or rather, the iPhone works fairly well with one button, but my brain is wired in such a way that it throws me off. On the Droid, there is a "back" button that is distinct from the "home" button. The other two buttons bring up Google search, and general settings related to whatever program you're running.
It sounds like a matter of spreading functionality out for no reason, but I guess my experiences with game consoles makes it click with me. For example, on the PSP/PS3, you'd use the circle button to back out from a program, but the home button takes you to the main OS at any time. Same deal here. The settings button is also nice, because it lets you easily find out what you can and cannot do at any point in time. The settings button will either be really smart or entirely silly depending on the person. The problem is that it is context sensitive, so the only thing about it that's standard is the look of it. One of the most common complaints that I hear about Graphical User Interfaces is how users do not like when menus change in size or context without any clear explanation as to why. This is exactly what is going on here, so it's no surprise that it has been a bother to many. You have to understand that not only is is context sensitive, but that its purpose is to give you a few basic options no matter where you are in a program, without having to back up to another page or start it up fresh. But this doesn't match up with what we expect. I think a good compromise would be to create a few constant options that allow you to access general phone settings in the like wherever you are. The Droid sort of does this with the home key, but it isn't quite the same.
On that note, the back key is a little screwy. It may back up out of an app, but it may not close it. If you're in the browser, it will act as a browser back button, retreating you to the last page you visited. I think that's the general flaw with the four buttons - only two of them work the same every time. The other two have slight changes in their purpose depending on what your are doing, and while you can adjust to them eventually, it increases the learning curve. Still, I think part of it comes down to how you approach the device. As I've mentioned, the simplicity of the iPhone works for most folks, but I prefer the flexibility of the Droid, even if isn't always clear on how to master it. This doesn't make either approach (or thought process) better, just different.
On one last note, the buttons aren't keys, but touch sensitive regions. There are times when you hit one, and nothing happens, because you didn't hit it in the right spot, or maybe your touch was too quick. The phone does give haptic feedback when you do it right, but it only helps so much when you don't know what it is you are doing wrong.
The rest of the phone's plusses and minuses are based on the Android OS itself. At first glance, all the screenshots I saw of it suggested that it had a very inconsistent interface. In reality I was simply watching different apps in action, which of course will fill the screen with whatever it needs. The OS itself is quite uniform and nice. In it's basic form, it isn't too far from the iPhone's OS. You have a main screen where you can drop shortcuts to apps, and the screens for changing settings and finding music mimmick the list format of the iPhone. What Android does better is in regards to control. There is a small button on the bottom that will expand with a list of all of your applications, meaning you can add as little or as many to the main screen as you want. There's also an upper toolbar which works like the one found in the GNOME desktop environment for Linux. It displays the time, running tasks, and your signal quality, and this too can be expanded to display alerts and messages. You can also change the background image on the phone, though making your own requires cropping the picture to a specific resolution, at least if you want it to be perfect. Overall, Android has the simplicity and aesthetic qualities of the iPhone OS, but still feels more like an actual computer operating system. The main screen isn't so much an app launcher as it is a mini desktop for you to do as you please.
Going back to the settings/music parts of the interface, I like it, but it could use some work. In a way, it is more consistent than the iPhone's (keep in mind that all my comparisons are based on fairly limited time with the iPhone/Pod Touch, so sorry if I get things wrong). There, most of the settings pages are colored in grey, despite the fact that the main screen is in black. On Android, these pages are black, and it technically doesn't clash with the main menu, because that can look however you want it to. So there's an extra layer of mental consistency when it comes to appearance, but the contents are another matter entirely. Some settings are a simple yes/no check box. Others are a small dot that gets colored in when you choose 'yes'. Still others will expand with a list of hidden options. Still more can be clicked on, leading to another page. There can be some confusion as to what you can do with each option in a list, though eventually it makes sense once you realize how they're formatted. From what I can tell, the main settings page and music list are clicked, and any pages below that have dropdowns and toggles. It's easy to figure out, but still not clear initially.
Overall, the speed with which programs run is fine by me, and while the pseudo open source nature of Android makes it's App Store a wild west scenario compared to the iPhone's, most of the ones I've used have integrated nicely with the OS.
Lastly, I wanted to mention the ability to "root" the Droid. I haven't done it, and probably won't, but it is the Droid equivalent of jailbreaking an iPhone, though as is the case with the Droid, it's far more dangerous and powerful. From what I can tell, it simply gives you more control over the phone. You can load newer versions of Android before they pass Verizon's testing, and you can load apps which will overclock the CPU. You're not supposed to do this, and screwing it up will brick the device, but that hasn't stopped people from giving it a shot.
I've heard some people make the statement that the Android OS, and by extension the Droid itself, are different enough that it isn't right to call it a "Linux phone". And I agree - a truly open source, Linux based device would not only let you root it, but would probably encourage such behavior. But what restrictions do exist make sense. Smart phones are becoming more like computers, but unlike computers their main purpose is to make phone calls. Device makers can't allow the actions of users to interfere with these basic features, so certain restrictions must apply. This is why the iPhone is so strict, and we see that most people are just fine with giving up control in favor of usability. It makes a lot of sense no matter how you slice it. Furthermore, while the philosophy of Free Software doesn't prevent one from selling your software, it doesn't rub well with corporate types who are focused on profit. Google likes to have some power, while letting their users be mostly free (or at least feel like they are). For now, I think these compromises are fair, without actually compromising the device. Perhaps I'll think differently in the future.
But with all that being said, I feel that for all intents and purposes, this is a "Linux phone". Like Linux itself, the Droid lets you do things that most phones would never dream of. You can change the storage, the programs, the look and feel. There's even an approved app that lets you tinker with the phone's Linux-esque file structure. Compared to the rest of the market, the Droid and it's siblings aren't the wild west - they're a goddamned state of anarchy.
And just like Linux, Android spends so much time focusing on this freedom that it ends up trading away intuitiveness. You have to figure out how to do everything, because features are designed to address a techie's frame of mind. If you don't have that frame of mind, it won't be easy to sort everything out, and even if you do, you might not agree that it is the best way to go about it.
For geeks like me, this is pure heaven. It is also why, despite so many negatives within this review, I am still in love with the phone. I don't mind getting past a few quirks, especially if I become a better user because of it. I also enjoy rollicking in a bit of compu-anarchy, because I'm not afraid of it.
But if this is supposed to be the iPhone's competition, it needs more mass market friendliness. I'm glad a phone like this exists, but it feels like a niche product being thrown into the big leagues. As long as it sticks around I'll be pleased, but I do wonder if this might sabotage Android's chances. Geeks might not mesh well with general purpose computer users, but both are critical. Android wants to bring them together, and I wish them luck, as I'll be counting on it's success for the next few years. For now, I'm afraid I've been given this wonderful treat that will be taken away in due time.
smart phones
So I got a Droid. I was going to write about the device, but instead I wrote a whole post on the nature of smart phones. I'll save my intended writeup for next time.
So this is the first smart phone I've ever gotten. I was hesitant about getting one at first, and always have been. Despite the fact that I'm a programmer and a major techie, I've slowly become a grognard when it comes to the latest and greatest. I can work around a computer like no one's business, and figure out new and strange devices within minutes, but I don't actually jump for them myself. Furthermore, I find myself gravitating more towards simplicity. I go for straight white desktops in place of wallpaper, only install the most basic programs I need, and keep the flashy stuff down to a minimum. I had a college professor who had trimmed his PC so much that he had no desktop of any sort. He'd work on the command line, and when he needed a program, X.org would simply draw it up somewhere on the massive black void of his screen. I thought it was silly then, and now I kind of want to do the same. This is pretty much the opposite of what you get with a smart phone.
The other problem I have is that I spend so much time on a computer on any given day, and I was afraid of what the "always on" nature of a smart phone would do to me. Our modern times are fast paced, and we are constantly bombarded with information every day. It is suggested that we try to find ways "disconnect" for a little while, and indeed, I always tend to feel better whenever I am away from the Internet for days or weeks at a time. Again, this is the opposite of what you get with a smart phone.
But now I am starting to think that it may be the cure, rather than a curse. Despite being on a PC at work all day, I often come home and turn on my personal desktop. People will start to chat on IM, or I'd get mesmerized by the random corners of the Internet, and before I know it, the night has gone by and I have to go to bed. I miss out on playing games, watching TV, and spending time with the roomates. I initially tried to fix this with a netbook that I could use while loafing on the couch, but the battery has not proven to have the endurance I expected, and the power cable is constantly tripped over. Not to mention that I usually end up typing away on it like I would on my desktop upstairs. I might have a physical presence in the living room when using the netbook, but mentally I am still off in cyberspace.
This is where I put myself into another person's shoes and realize that I'm nuts. I imagine that most people would wonder why this is even a problem for me. After a long day's work, shouldn't I be too lazy and tired to constantly run up and down the stairs to check my PC? The answer is that yes, I am tired, but apparently not lazy enough. I'll make the trek up and down the staircase multiple times a night. It's like there's a magnetic field between me and the PC that draws me in every time I manage to break away.
This is the problem with trying to "disconnect" - you can't do it if you're addicted. And I'm most certainly addicted to the Internet in some capacity. In those situations when I do break free and do feel better, I am always in some place where there is no ready access to a computer, or where there is a particularly slow one that I don't feel like using. But at home, I have a PC that is fast enough, and working exactly the way I want it to. I can get the information I crave without trouble, and in that case the addiction is strong enough to make me job around the house all night.
So how does having internet at the tip of my fingers make this any better? Simply put, the technology is nice, but it lacks the speed and customization of my PC. If I need a specific bit of information, I can get to it, but random surfing, and even checking up on news sites is too slow and cumbersome to be worth it. I won't want to constantly check my emails or IM's or websites on it, and that's fine, because the phone will let me know when they come in. I'll "connect" my mind to the 'net only as much as I need to, rather than how much I think I need to to stay current on what's going on. And that works, because I don't need to check a lot of stuff. I don't have stocks to look at, or multiple inboxes to track. The important online aspects of my life are slim, and the phone will give them to me, while keeping me away from the junk that I can lose hours to, but which are rarely worth the time. It puts my addiction into a controlled environment, and I hope it will help me curb it.
Additionally, a lot of the little gizmos and features that are common among smart phones may prove quite useful. Shopping lists, to-do lists and the like are all things I need to have, but never bother with. My handwriting is poor, I tend to forget pads and pens, etc. Now I can have these things in a device I won't leave the house without, and they won't take up any extra space. On a related note, I might be more willing to create an online calendar that goes with me, rather than being something that I have to go to a PC to access. Plus, I can add calendar items right when I think about them, rather than having to remember to add them later when I'm home.
And that's the other thing. While a smart phone can easily be used to as a time waster, I'm not worried. My addiction is of the sort that I don't reliably get that weird feeling that comes from being "disconnected". That only happens when I'm on the 'net and see that things are happening. If I check a news site once, I'll keep checking it to see what changes. But if I never start, I'll forget it even exists. And my addiction is triggered by web surfing, not social networking sites. The same power that makes the useful things like to-do lists easier to access also applies to stuff like Facebook and Twitter. But I'm not giong to start tweeting now that it is more convenient, because I still don't have interest in it. I'm a weird sort that thinks it is quite easy to stop checking Facebook statuses, but give me a fanboy debate about videogames, and I'll be captivated all day. Neither situation is better than the other, but mine gels well with the smart phone concept.
So this is the first smart phone I've ever gotten. I was hesitant about getting one at first, and always have been. Despite the fact that I'm a programmer and a major techie, I've slowly become a grognard when it comes to the latest and greatest. I can work around a computer like no one's business, and figure out new and strange devices within minutes, but I don't actually jump for them myself. Furthermore, I find myself gravitating more towards simplicity. I go for straight white desktops in place of wallpaper, only install the most basic programs I need, and keep the flashy stuff down to a minimum. I had a college professor who had trimmed his PC so much that he had no desktop of any sort. He'd work on the command line, and when he needed a program, X.org would simply draw it up somewhere on the massive black void of his screen. I thought it was silly then, and now I kind of want to do the same. This is pretty much the opposite of what you get with a smart phone.
The other problem I have is that I spend so much time on a computer on any given day, and I was afraid of what the "always on" nature of a smart phone would do to me. Our modern times are fast paced, and we are constantly bombarded with information every day. It is suggested that we try to find ways "disconnect" for a little while, and indeed, I always tend to feel better whenever I am away from the Internet for days or weeks at a time. Again, this is the opposite of what you get with a smart phone.
But now I am starting to think that it may be the cure, rather than a curse. Despite being on a PC at work all day, I often come home and turn on my personal desktop. People will start to chat on IM, or I'd get mesmerized by the random corners of the Internet, and before I know it, the night has gone by and I have to go to bed. I miss out on playing games, watching TV, and spending time with the roomates. I initially tried to fix this with a netbook that I could use while loafing on the couch, but the battery has not proven to have the endurance I expected, and the power cable is constantly tripped over. Not to mention that I usually end up typing away on it like I would on my desktop upstairs. I might have a physical presence in the living room when using the netbook, but mentally I am still off in cyberspace.
This is where I put myself into another person's shoes and realize that I'm nuts. I imagine that most people would wonder why this is even a problem for me. After a long day's work, shouldn't I be too lazy and tired to constantly run up and down the stairs to check my PC? The answer is that yes, I am tired, but apparently not lazy enough. I'll make the trek up and down the staircase multiple times a night. It's like there's a magnetic field between me and the PC that draws me in every time I manage to break away.
This is the problem with trying to "disconnect" - you can't do it if you're addicted. And I'm most certainly addicted to the Internet in some capacity. In those situations when I do break free and do feel better, I am always in some place where there is no ready access to a computer, or where there is a particularly slow one that I don't feel like using. But at home, I have a PC that is fast enough, and working exactly the way I want it to. I can get the information I crave without trouble, and in that case the addiction is strong enough to make me job around the house all night.
So how does having internet at the tip of my fingers make this any better? Simply put, the technology is nice, but it lacks the speed and customization of my PC. If I need a specific bit of information, I can get to it, but random surfing, and even checking up on news sites is too slow and cumbersome to be worth it. I won't want to constantly check my emails or IM's or websites on it, and that's fine, because the phone will let me know when they come in. I'll "connect" my mind to the 'net only as much as I need to, rather than how much I think I need to to stay current on what's going on. And that works, because I don't need to check a lot of stuff. I don't have stocks to look at, or multiple inboxes to track. The important online aspects of my life are slim, and the phone will give them to me, while keeping me away from the junk that I can lose hours to, but which are rarely worth the time. It puts my addiction into a controlled environment, and I hope it will help me curb it.
Additionally, a lot of the little gizmos and features that are common among smart phones may prove quite useful. Shopping lists, to-do lists and the like are all things I need to have, but never bother with. My handwriting is poor, I tend to forget pads and pens, etc. Now I can have these things in a device I won't leave the house without, and they won't take up any extra space. On a related note, I might be more willing to create an online calendar that goes with me, rather than being something that I have to go to a PC to access. Plus, I can add calendar items right when I think about them, rather than having to remember to add them later when I'm home.
And that's the other thing. While a smart phone can easily be used to as a time waster, I'm not worried. My addiction is of the sort that I don't reliably get that weird feeling that comes from being "disconnected". That only happens when I'm on the 'net and see that things are happening. If I check a news site once, I'll keep checking it to see what changes. But if I never start, I'll forget it even exists. And my addiction is triggered by web surfing, not social networking sites. The same power that makes the useful things like to-do lists easier to access also applies to stuff like Facebook and Twitter. But I'm not giong to start tweeting now that it is more convenient, because I still don't have interest in it. I'm a weird sort that thinks it is quite easy to stop checking Facebook statuses, but give me a fanboy debate about videogames, and I'll be captivated all day. Neither situation is better than the other, but mine gels well with the smart phone concept.
Phones
After almost eight years of having Sprint as my cell phone provider, I finally canceled service and switched to Verizon. I have nothing serious against Sprint - despite how much they are hated among tech savvy internet types, my switch was not due to spite. Their call quality was simply too poor in my house (as well as my parents' house in the poconos), and I've never had good luck with their low grade phones that they give out for free (or close to free). On the other hand, I've seen how strong Verizon's signal is in those same places, and they've done a ton of work to improve their phone selection. Add in the fact that so many of my friends and family use them (meaning free calls), and the choice made sense.
I know anecdotes are proof of nothing, but I actually felt bad about disconnecting with Sprint. Until the last few years, they have been a solid provider, and I've never had any bad customer service issues. I would add and cancel features easily, and never had my contract renewed behind my back. Hell, when I called them up last night, they didn't even try to stop me from leaving! That is not to say that they haven't been a nightmare to other customers, but it also makes me wonder how much it comes down to one's ability to pay attention to their bill and contract.
On the other hand, I feel like they brought it upon themselves. They don't have any really good exclusive phones, so there's no reason to stick around with them and deal with potential network troubles. On that note, some of these network issues are inexplicable for such a big competitor in the cellular market. I once thought that my call troubles at home were because of the brick walls, but my roomates had a clear signal with Verizon and AT&T, while my signal was flaky with two different handsets. Put these two issues together, and there isn't much reason to stick around, unless one of their plans is particularly good for your needs (and to be fair, they're actually cheaper than I previously thought).
But if that was all there was to it, I could still understand. The tipping point, then, is the fact that they're losing tons of cutsomers and posting massive losses, yet still deem it fit to spend what is likely a ton of cash in advertising. Not only are these ads annoying, but they also don't work very well. If you show me a commercial that boasts of all the cool things you can do on a Sprint phone, you probably shouldn't make two out of the three examples be Blackberries. All that says to me is that Blackberry makes good phones, phones which I can go and get on other networks. It also isn't smart to brag about how they can use apps, because the cultural consciousness knows that the best place for apps is the iPhone. Telling everyone that you have some too isn't enough. Are they better? I wouldn't know. It's a sad day when I would rather see an iPhone ad over one from Sprint.
An a related note, they might save some money by dropping support of the NFL and NASCAR, neither of which can be cheap. Bottom line is that I felt like they were more worried about suckering new customers than taking care of their existing ones.
So now I'm on Verizon. I'm going to be paying more each month, but these days I use my phone constantly, and that's just for making calls and texts. Being able to rely on a better network has already come in handy on the first day. I feel like I can actually use my mobile as a primary phone without making compromises. That's worth a couple more bucks.
Next post, I'd like to talk about my phone of choice.
I know anecdotes are proof of nothing, but I actually felt bad about disconnecting with Sprint. Until the last few years, they have been a solid provider, and I've never had any bad customer service issues. I would add and cancel features easily, and never had my contract renewed behind my back. Hell, when I called them up last night, they didn't even try to stop me from leaving! That is not to say that they haven't been a nightmare to other customers, but it also makes me wonder how much it comes down to one's ability to pay attention to their bill and contract.
On the other hand, I feel like they brought it upon themselves. They don't have any really good exclusive phones, so there's no reason to stick around with them and deal with potential network troubles. On that note, some of these network issues are inexplicable for such a big competitor in the cellular market. I once thought that my call troubles at home were because of the brick walls, but my roomates had a clear signal with Verizon and AT&T, while my signal was flaky with two different handsets. Put these two issues together, and there isn't much reason to stick around, unless one of their plans is particularly good for your needs (and to be fair, they're actually cheaper than I previously thought).
But if that was all there was to it, I could still understand. The tipping point, then, is the fact that they're losing tons of cutsomers and posting massive losses, yet still deem it fit to spend what is likely a ton of cash in advertising. Not only are these ads annoying, but they also don't work very well. If you show me a commercial that boasts of all the cool things you can do on a Sprint phone, you probably shouldn't make two out of the three examples be Blackberries. All that says to me is that Blackberry makes good phones, phones which I can go and get on other networks. It also isn't smart to brag about how they can use apps, because the cultural consciousness knows that the best place for apps is the iPhone. Telling everyone that you have some too isn't enough. Are they better? I wouldn't know. It's a sad day when I would rather see an iPhone ad over one from Sprint.
An a related note, they might save some money by dropping support of the NFL and NASCAR, neither of which can be cheap. Bottom line is that I felt like they were more worried about suckering new customers than taking care of their existing ones.
So now I'm on Verizon. I'm going to be paying more each month, but these days I use my phone constantly, and that's just for making calls and texts. Being able to rely on a better network has already come in handy on the first day. I feel like I can actually use my mobile as a primary phone without making compromises. That's worth a couple more bucks.
Next post, I'd like to talk about my phone of choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)