It’s been eight months since Apple’s acquisition of Lala, and today CNET reported more disappointing news from the monster tech company: its plans for launching any cloud-based music services in the coming months will not only be “modest in scope,” but will lack key functionality the company had promised to music labels in past meetings. I’ll give you one guess as to what that functionality is — well, actually, I’ll just tell you — users will not be able to store their music on Apple servers. So basically, the service won’t be functional at all.
My question for Apple is simple: WHAT IS THE FREAKING HOLD UP? Apple users are patient people to be sure. Patient and masochistic. I admit I tend to gravitate toward using Apple products over its competitors. This is especially true when it comes to laptops. My seemingly retro MacBook (circa 2007) worked flawlessly for three years, but I was in desperate need of a new hard drive. I got that taken care of a few months back and the laptop works like new.
Then came the iPhone. When I switched from a Sprint Instinct to an iPhone I was undeniably blown away by the functionality. But I mean, come on, you gotta admit that was quite the upgrade. Twelve months later and I have grown quite self conscious to be carrying a piece of hardware that’s so unjustifiably proud of its place in the market. In four words: I have Droid envy. My stupid 3G doesn’t have video capabilities and the camera can’t even zoom or flash. My freakin’ Sprint flip phones could do that. Why must Apple keep functionality from its customers?
I believe that Apple has no excuse for keeping cloud-based music services from the public. Not only did they commit a huge burglary of thousands of users’ music libraries by shutting down Lala, but they are preventing the public from technologies that are current, achievable and that should be standard.
Why is there no hope for an Apple music cloud eight months after the Lala acquisition? And why would Apple take away existing growing technology and then stunt its growth? Because Apple’s interest in selling hardware is too high. Why do you think their iPads, iPods and iPhones come in sizes? To get true value out of their products you have to super size your product, because I mean come on, who wants a phone with only 8 gigs of space when you could have 32? And why would Apple take away its own ability to super size its customers?
I think it’s a super-sized travesty. How dare a company call itself innovative and cutting edge when it keeps innovation away from the market just so profits can run higher? Apple’s loyalty is already faltering, and I wouldn’t be surprised if their hold on the phone market is slowly sabotaged by companies who are willing to keep an open perspective and freedom for developers and customers. Oh, and p.s., Google is developing some musical cloud plans of its own. Good for you, Google. May the cloud be with you.
Next time I’m looking to pop an inflated ego I’ll need turn no further than to the New York Times. Or just make sure it’s the end of the month. And yes, I realize that it’s already May but it still feels like April to me, or something. Because then I’ll know it’s time for the monthly shine-light-upon-beautiful-successful-youths piece. Last month it was The Rising Stars of Gossip Blogs. This particular article hit too close to home. I read through the name of contempt, high-and-mighty bloggers posing for their NYT photo shoot, who were probably dying to reveal the shit-eating grins they kept bottled inside in favor of cool indifference. I suddenly froze on one of the names. The spelling, her face, dear god, my ex-boyfriend’s sister was staring straight at me from inside nytimes.com.
The same girl who’d politely asked 18-year-old me to not address her by name in her comments was now featured in the New York Times. And I was some dweeb lame enough to read an article about rising blog stars in the first place. Where did I go wrong? And what had she done that made her go so right? I’ll admit, it’s a fantastic blog my ex’s sister runs, but that’s not THE POINT. The point is, I need to not personally know the current bloggette star clogging up the NYT’s traffic. Mainly because it just freaks me out.
Today the blow came in New York Times Magazine form. A bigger beast in almost every way. The article, titled All the Obama 20-Somethings brought about inspiration more than jealousy. And when I talk about inspiration, I mean by Ashley Parker, the author of the piece. Her style refreshed me and her story-telling was too legit to quit. And sadly, when I tried to Google search for her twitter page, all I found were results for Ashley Parker Angel of O-town fame.
No thanks.
And the stories about the young White House assistants were absolutely endearing. They’re just like us, but all fancy! And they get to look at sacred American treasures and hoop it up with the White House staff (if they’ve got the cajones to play, that is). Parker hints that only men are welcome participants on the b-ball court. Boiz Club.
But still, to be writing about such incredible 20-Something in itself makes a person, in my eyes, an incredible 20-Something. Parker gets to describe Obama in her work. What do you do?
“It was as excited as I’d seen anyone since election night, since inauguration,” Favreau later told me. At one point, he saw Axelrod and Gibbs telling Obama some jokes. “He was laughing so hard,” Favreau said. “I’d never seen the president laugh that hard.” Adam Frankel — the history buff of the speechwriting staff — asked if perhaps he could see the Lincoln Bedroom. “Before I knew it, the president was like, ‘Who’s coming on the Lincoln Bedroom tour?’ ” Favreau recalled. Obama showed off the handwritten Gettysburg Address and said, “I’m just here by myself tonight, so you can come in, check everything out.” (Michelle and their two daughters were in New York for the weekend.)
The night ended at close to 1:30 a.m. “We finally realized we should probably let the president go to bed,” Favreau said. Obama thanked them all again and they trickled from the White House residence and into the cool early morning.
This week I was tipped off to the cutest, most ironic and totally underground Web site I’ve seen in quite some time: hipster puppies. (btw, thanks for the link, @rachelwentcrazy!)
Now I must admit that in general I am much more partial to funny cat pics on the Web, but I’m sorry to inform you that cats just don’t look as funny in hipster clothes as dogs do. However, you be the judge: there’s also hipster kitties for all my fellow cat lovers out there. You’ll find that they just took (internet) famous cats and made them seem like hipsters. But I think those kitties are way too mainstream for the site, IMHO.
Here’s an adorable sampling of the pups.
barney is more concerned with “dynamic range compression” and “the loudness wars” than the fact that he has shitty taste in music
no one is angrier than walter that you can’t buy sparks in san bernardino anymore
for tillie, having a mad men premiere party means dressing up, drinking manhattans and being totally fucking insufferable
trigger says the words “bike culture” out loud at least once a day
butters is going to stand directly in front of you and snap pictures for an hour straight because the perfect shot of dave longstreth isn’t going to take itself
perry could have easily informed the waiter that his order was wrong, but has decided to just write a bad yelp review instead
In case you missed this story like I did, the Internet has in fact been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. According to Mashable.com, “The nomination was made after a petition by the Italian version of Wired Magazine, which cited the Internet’s contributions to “dialogue, debate and consensus through communication.” Signatories include Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi, and organizers say the nomination will make for a legitimate entry.”
Two nights ago I stumbled upon a letter from Riccardo Luna of Wired Italy to Pete Cashmore of Mashable. He brought up some beautiful points about the internet’s new nature with the rise of social media. It’s like a living, breathing creature propelled by each individual user’s thoughts, hopes, comments and, let’s face it, rants. After reading Luna’s letter I started to feel completely differently about the Web. In my mind it has become like an ocean reef — it’s not in fact an inanimate object, or a Web site or an index of facts, it’s a new, super-human entity, created by us, which can immortalize us forever.
And as noted by Luna, Web access can now be considered a universal right. (After all, if Hillary says it, IT’S TRUE.) Our right to express ourselves on the Web makes its nature more human. Says Luna:
[The] Internet is not about computers, but living. It is the greatest social interface humanity has ever had. It is a weapon of mass construction. As we have put out in the official manifesto of the campaign, “digital culture is promoting a new kind of society through communication and education.” And communication and education are the roots of a peaceful world. One may not see it clearly now, but in the long run, new generations growing up in this increasingly digital world will bring ahead values of cooperation, sharing of knowledge, mutual respect.
The Internet has definitely been an equalizer among us, which I believe has brought a high degree of peace on our fair planet. But when considering whether the ‘net can really win this I question all the violent crimes and murders that have come about from creepy old men stalking young pretty girls through the same social interfaces that connect us all as one race. Can an entity really win the award when it also opens up a playground for pedophiles and killers?
I realized something just now. No matter how many Twitters and Facebooks and Buzzes there are out there to help us communicate to everybody with whom we have kept mostly friendly relations, I don’t think the loudspeaker feel of social networking will ever impact the way I communicate with friends online like instant messaging and chatting have. Really! I realized that with Google Buzz now all of a sudden all my friends who I never see on Facebook or Twitter have been shackled and thrown into the a prison cell of social media slavery. A few examples (and for the protection of my friends and this social study, I have cloaked the participants’ names with conspicuous photoshop spraypaint).
Exhibit A:
Yes I realize my friends are especially resistant to the practice of thought broadcasting. But you know what’s fascinating? That girl who was forced into social networking by Google used to stay up late nights chatting with me on AIM. We all stayed up all night talking to each other, entering random chatrooms together and creating our own private chats where we all planned gatherings, admitted deep, dark secrets and gave each other updates on our current crushes, with whom we were most likely also chatting.
In middle school, AIM was pretty much the afternoon hangout. We could pretend we were doing homework on the computer, we could talk to all our friends at once in privacy (this was a time before cell phones — you had to use the home line) and we LOVED it.
So what is it about neo social networking that is so repulsive to those same individuals that loved chatting online? Is it the vast openness of them? The fact that it’s all public?
Plus we know this wasn’t the case for all celebrities. Take Miley Cyrus, for example, the pressure she faced while on Twitter was so intense that not only did she quit the network, she also released this deliciously wrong YouTube video. Please excuse the unfortunate girl who typed the subtitles to the following video. In fact, you can just pre-hate me for this:
I just had to use it because it works so well. And now it’s so clear: my non-networking friends are just being Miley.
I have concluded that I will witness World War III in my lifetime. Before coming upon this realization, I was always scared to witness the third World War. I was certain none of us would get out alive. But now that I’ve realized it will in fact be almost completely virtual and involve a minimal number of nuclear bombs, I’ve decided to sit back and enjoy the show.
In one corner, we have the veteran champion, Google. From its search engine to its e-mail to its incredible mapping system and documentation of our ENTIRE GLOBE, Google has consistently out-performed itself in the past decade.
Not only that, Google never shows its flaws. Google doesn’t pump the internet full of rumors for months, make a big fancy announcement of a product and then wait a few months to release it. (I’m looking at you, ya goofy iPad-releasing Apple execs!) Instead Google makes a small chink in the internet, and slowly trickles the information down just the way it wants the information trickled, from the utmost elite nerds down to the educated tech-savvys down to, oh, let’s say the tech-savvy people’s parents and friends. For the moment Google doesn’t need lowly AOL or Hotmail users. Not a good target market.
Google not only knows how to market, Google knows how to deliver. Apart from Google Wave, I’ve found most Google services to run flawlessly. The tone behind Google’s minimalist style and cutesy comments keep the company always friendly, always helpful, and always striving to provide the best of the best. For example, after Gmail chat is disconnected it returns by triumphantly announcing, “…And we’re back!” These little details win the hearts of users like myself.
In the other corner, there’s Facebook. Once a hero, the company has turned sinister and has unleashed its “Good guy gone bad” scheme into the world with striking terror. Facebook slowly gained a userbase among American college students, soon broadening the base to include high schoolers. I remember the outcry against such a move, and since that change Facebook’s objectives in staking claim in the social media world have morphed into an unidentifiable, power-hungry beast. The small online community (even in a campus of 60,000) created by my Texas network on Facebook really did work charmingly during my beginning years of college. Facebook helped us plan parties, organize photos of our friends, create groups for our dorm floor, create groups to perpetuate inside jokes and most importantly, post drunken wall notes after a night of bonding over jungle juice. Facebook was a community.
Now with more than 400 million users, Facebook is the internet. It’s the most common topic I overhear being discussed in my workplace. But the networking has changed — it’s almost non-existent. Groups are no longer a friendly spot with a few message threads and wall posts, they’re now formatted like a Fan Page that makes announcement after announcement with no real interaction — just announcements, related comments, and a number of thumbs up given to the post.
Facebook has become a one-stop shop for most of its users. It’s the shop around the corner that has everything — addictive games, information about every human being you deem to be an acquaintance, and even updates about products, businesses and public figures you adore. The problem? It’s cluttered with trash and the interface is buggy and, well, if you’re not careful your religious great auntie might see a post you wrote about women’s reproductive rights. I want all Facebook users to get this because I’m only going to type it once: in two years you won’t even want to speak Facebook’s name. It’s the Myspace of tomorrow and that’s final.
It’s only a matter or time before the anti-tweeters come around. They all came around to Facebook. They’ll come around to Twitter. And they will almost certainly find refuge in Google Buzz. I must admit Facebook’s foray into e-mail is a bit worrisome to me, but I don’t believe it will take off. Facebook can’t get chatting right and after the 12th redesign or so I just don’t care to relearn the navigation.
Facebook has turned into a public announcement fest — some say it has turned into Twitter, but I think that’s false. To me, Twitter is truly a conversation, a network with natural niches and webs built in. Facebook’s not cut out to defeat Google and it never will, because it just can’t deliver. So come on, Google Buzz, knock out Facebook so I can just delete that account already and move on with my life of buzzing and tweeting.
Hi all. Being the young 20something that I am in the fresh, beautiful beginnings of my brofessional career, I have done most networking in my life the new-fangled way. If we’re talking networking that doesn’t involve a [computer] screen and text then I’m a little inexperienced. It’s intimidating being a n00b in the big scary world of grown professionals, amiright? Being young in the business world definitely leaves you feeling vulnerable, but there are a few shining qualities we share that we MUST EXPLOIT. And the most important of those is the fact that you have a fresh-thinking, creative mind fathered by the 21st century. We’re gifted, it’s true!
In the dark ages there was nothing for me but horrible networking opportunities in the form of communications career fairs in college. You stand in line in a business suit with a fancy black folder and a stack of resumes and try to think of a way to stand out. These events were especially sad for the journalism majors when we realized that none of the companies represented at the fairs actually wanted to hire us. I remember frolicking up to the Statesman’s booth only to find they were only seeking advertising interns. But I digress.
Since graduation my tactics have changed — I mean since graduation Twitter changed everything — and I really only network with other media professionals via social media. (I guess technically my co-workers are media professionals, too, but that’s not networking — that’s just plain old working.)
This will all change in March. I’m taking a plunge and hopping a plane to SXSW Interactive Fest this year. Long story short, I am going to need all the help I can get with this in-person networking. I want to make a lasting impression. So, I’ve decided to come up with an unforgettable business card. I’ve come up with a few winners, I believe. Let me know which ones you like best.
On that note — I’m also hoping to find a way to tastefully and zingfully insert a last name joke. I mean my last name is Blewitt. There’s gotta be something there.
And without further ado, the selection of biz cards from which I will suck out all my inspiration:
I’m leaning toward a combo special between two, three and four. What do y’all think!?
For the record, I started working on this post BEFORE Lady Gaga posted this on twitter. Now the cat’s really out of the bag, so I’ll just be outright — Lady Gaga has been baked.
Online sources are reporting that on January 27 the New York Times will begin charging its readers for access to online content. This change in accessibility is coming the same day Apple’s much-anticipated tablet (well, it looks like we may be calling it the iSlate) is rumored to launch. New York Magazine reported that NYT Chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. may “strike a content partnership for the new device, which could dovetail with the paid strategy.”
The exact details of how the pay wall system haven’t been announced yet. Times spokesperson Diane McNulty said: “We’ll announce a decision when we believe that we have crafted the best possible business approach. No details till then.”
Journalists crafting a business approach? Aye, this could take quite a while. With 10 days to go until the rumored pay wall is raised high, we won’t have to wait long to see what the final approach will entail. Sulzberger needs to have quite a few conversations with Jobs pronto.
The Telegraph reports, “Mr. Sulzberger is believed to favor a metered use policy similar to The Financial Times, which allows readers to access some articles for free before they are forced to subscribe.”
Personally I’m completely comfortable with supporting the dying art of journalism (it feels a bit like supporting your local community theatre). I’m also happy to pay for quality news and reporting. But I do hope the Times gives some sort of mix’n'match deal. No Dowd for me, please.
Also… DO WANT THE TABLET. Holy jeez it looks amazing.
So it’s recently come to my attention that an old ex-colleague of mine has offended a huge fan-base of this month’s featured blogger on 20something Bloggers, Liz from It’s Unbeweavable!. I guess my pal sort of attacked her (by some bloggers’ perspectives) in an open forum, and suddenly he was running for hills after Liz’s entourage went after him. It was all a very dramatic experience and I’m sorry that one thoughtless thread post could cause a nightmare of day — by the end of it he was no longer a member of 20something Bloggers. In fact, I just checked, and his blog post detailing the event is gone, too, but basically he shot down Liz’s ability because her blog was pink and girly and she wrote about fashion.
But it’s not easy being pink.
Yeah, we’re 20something Bloggers and we’re women now, but we’re still not men, god damn it. And if it’s necessary to write in all black type and keep things conventional and masculine-looking in order to be a worthy blogger with important things to say and content that will keep you coming back, then I guess you can count me out. Pink is not a color to be taken lightly.
Pink says I am a girl. Pink says I enjoy being a girl. Pink says ballerinas are beautiful and I love me some stiletto heels. Pink says I’m not one to mask my passion for lip gloss.
I felt bad that my friend ruined his reputation and chances within the 20something Blogger community. In one regard it is a bit disappointing that the forum can’t be controlled a little bit more, a network like 20SB should try to hold onto its users as much as it can. But it really did get ugly.
Anyway while working on my new site redesign I kept that whole situation and Liz’s deserved respect in mind. I went through dozens of color palettes to find the perfect hue of pink. And I vow to publish things that represent the pink well. And hope all those smelly boys dare try to taunt me from their big boring black blogs.
recent comments