Jason Calacanis is the guy behind Mahalo, and he seems to take issue with the closed nature of the iPhone. In a recent episode of This Week in Startups, he really tore into Apple for what he sees as an assault on the open nature of technology. Granted, the App Store is Apple's own personal playground, and they can do what they like. But that doesn't mean that you can't disagree with it on philosophical grounds.
Mr. Calacanis makes his point well, and lays blame on those that blindly follow Apple's lead. It's really shocking how many people seem to be willing to follow Apple to the ends of the Earth. It's not just the iPhone. I've seen numerous people on teh intarwebz raving about how cool the matte screen on the 15" MacBook Pro is. It's a matte display. Get over it. Apple giving you a simple choice that you should have had all along is not the second coming. Some people even see this as grounds to replace their current model. Didn't you just buy one? Can't you at least wait until the next version comes out with a 200Mhz CPU bump?
It seems that Apple has gotten used to their users going with the flow. They are so caught up in controlling the iPhone user experience that they're forgetting about their users. To top it off, I think they're also forgetting about innovation. What has the iPhone really brought to the table UI-wise since it's release? If we've learned anything from WinMo and Symbian, it's that you can't stop innovating. I have an iPhone, and I'm getting fed up. I don't want to go with the flow. I think an Android phone is in my future. I'm doing the capitalist thing, and voting with my dollars.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Apple, AT&T, and Google respond to the FCC
The three companies involved the debacle known as, the rejection of Google Voice for iPhone, have sent their statements to the FCC. I read them, and it's kind of a mixed bag... a long mixed bag. It seems that all the good stuff in Google's statement is redacted. This includes the bit about the reasons they were given for the rejection of GV. No one's really sure why yet. We may never know.
AT&T for its part said they didn't do it. Nope, no involvement whatsoever. And just why the hell are you even asking? They just want to sell phones, dammit. The straight talk:
Okay... so maybe they actually didn't do it? Everyone on the internet thought they did. I'll admit they certainly had a better motive than Apple. Being disingenuous to reporters is one thing, but the FCC? Hopefully no one at AT&T is that dumb.
Apple sort of takes responsibility. The juicy part reads:
I still don't understand Apple's objection. It's like Google actually hurt their feelings by suggesting people might want to run the GV app to make calls and such. It's all pretty characteristically Apple. Do not, under any circumstances, fuck with their "revolutionary" interface or else. Apple apologists out there that wanted to absolve them of all wrongdoing in this case, need to step back and take a look around. Apple isn't the same company that asked you to "think different" back in the day.
AT&T for its part said they didn't do it. Nope, no involvement whatsoever. And just why the hell are you even asking? They just want to sell phones, dammit. The straight talk:
"Let me state unequivocally, AT&T had no role in any decision by Apple to not accept the Google Voice application for inclusion in the Apple App Store"
Okay... so maybe they actually didn't do it? Everyone on the internet thought they did. I'll admit they certainly had a better motive than Apple. Being disingenuous to reporters is one thing, but the FCC? Hopefully no one at AT&T is that dumb.
Apple sort of takes responsibility. The juicy part reads:
Of course, they say that it technically hasn't been rejected. So really, if the GV app didn't make calls, send SMS, or store voicemail Apple would be FINE with it. I'm sure Google will get right on that. Apple goes on to bitch about protecting their user experience some more. I have news for you Apple, the user experience has barely evolved in the 2 years the iPhone has existed. It could do with a little less protecting.
"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone's distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone's core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail. Apple spent a lot of time and effort developing this distinct and innovative way to seamlessly deliver core functionality of the iPhone."
I still don't understand Apple's objection. It's like Google actually hurt their feelings by suggesting people might want to run the GV app to make calls and such. It's all pretty characteristically Apple. Do not, under any circumstances, fuck with their "revolutionary" interface or else. Apple apologists out there that wanted to absolve them of all wrongdoing in this case, need to step back and take a look around. Apple isn't the same company that asked you to "think different" back in the day.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Aspartame is not going to kill you.
I cannot stand the Huffington Post. There is not a bigger hive of pseudo-scientific bunk in the mainstream internet. I feel the need to qualify that with "mainstream" because there are some real fringe weirdos out there with tinfoil hats. A Dr. Epstein posted today about how Aspartame is about to be banned... and 'bout time, he says. This is extremely unlikely.
You know Aspartame well, it's also called "Nutrasweet". It's a low calorie sweetener used in all kinds of stuff (including, prominently, soft drinks). What really got me riled up about this, is that the HuffPo article was reposted, and given credence on The Consumerist. I like The Consumerist, but this is unacceptable. They're just parroting the fear-mongering. Why is this just fear-mongering? I'll tell you why...
The good doctor is talking about a study conducted in 2006 by the Italian Ramazzini Foundation that showed that Aspartame caused cancer in lab rats. The results of the study were presented in April of 2007. Why Dr. Epstein feels action on this is imminent now, two years later, is a mystery. If you take him at his word, it does sound damning. But... lets apply some skepticism, just to be sure.
Firstly, despite claiming that the rats were fed Aspartame within the acceptable daily intake (ADI), many of their experimental animals were being fed well over 100 times the ADI. These subjects, in fact, had no reduction in average life span compared to the control group. None! This flies in the face of the authors assertion. (source)
Above: Delicious, safe.
Indeed, even the competency with which the study was conducted is highly questionable according to the European Food Safety Authority. Cancer rates for older rats were compared directly with young rats, leading to skewed results. The feeding methods for the rats was also poorly recorded. It was also indicated that serious over-crowding of the rats likely led to respiratory disease, which is known to cause cancer in rats. Additionally, there was no randomization of the test animals. (source)
And after all these problems, even the histological studies of test animals were poorly done. The U.S. National Toxicology Program found that the researchers had misdiagnosed simple, benign hyperplasia as cancer in multiple cases. (source) In response to this, the US FDA requested that the Italian Ramazzini Foundation provide its raw data and tissue slides. They refused. So, just as the European Food Safety Authority had, the FDA determined that the study was flawed and no changes were needed. (source) If a group of researchers will not share data after publishing, that's a sure sign that there is something fishy going on.
This business with the HuffPo and the original study is another stab into the mainstream by the same activist, anti-science loons we've been hearing from for decades. There's no new evidence. Aspartame has been found to be safe in study after study for over 40 years. Okay... tinfoil hats off now.
You know Aspartame well, it's also called "Nutrasweet". It's a low calorie sweetener used in all kinds of stuff (including, prominently, soft drinks). What really got me riled up about this, is that the HuffPo article was reposted, and given credence on The Consumerist. I like The Consumerist, but this is unacceptable. They're just parroting the fear-mongering. Why is this just fear-mongering? I'll tell you why...
The good doctor is talking about a study conducted in 2006 by the Italian Ramazzini Foundation that showed that Aspartame caused cancer in lab rats. The results of the study were presented in April of 2007. Why Dr. Epstein feels action on this is imminent now, two years later, is a mystery. If you take him at his word, it does sound damning. But... lets apply some skepticism, just to be sure.
Firstly, despite claiming that the rats were fed Aspartame within the acceptable daily intake (ADI), many of their experimental animals were being fed well over 100 times the ADI. These subjects, in fact, had no reduction in average life span compared to the control group. None! This flies in the face of the authors assertion. (source)
Above: Delicious, safe.
Indeed, even the competency with which the study was conducted is highly questionable according to the European Food Safety Authority. Cancer rates for older rats were compared directly with young rats, leading to skewed results. The feeding methods for the rats was also poorly recorded. It was also indicated that serious over-crowding of the rats likely led to respiratory disease, which is known to cause cancer in rats. Additionally, there was no randomization of the test animals. (source)
And after all these problems, even the histological studies of test animals were poorly done. The U.S. National Toxicology Program found that the researchers had misdiagnosed simple, benign hyperplasia as cancer in multiple cases. (source) In response to this, the US FDA requested that the Italian Ramazzini Foundation provide its raw data and tissue slides. They refused. So, just as the European Food Safety Authority had, the FDA determined that the study was flawed and no changes were needed. (source) If a group of researchers will not share data after publishing, that's a sure sign that there is something fishy going on.
This business with the HuffPo and the original study is another stab into the mainstream by the same activist, anti-science loons we've been hearing from for decades. There's no new evidence. Aspartame has been found to be safe in study after study for over 40 years. Okay... tinfoil hats off now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
