Tag Archive for 'apple'

Getting Things Done with Taskpaper

Published
by
John T Davis
on March 20, 2008
in computers, mac, software and the merch
. 0 Comments

I’m a pretty organized person. I use iCal and its rather aggressive reminder system to keep track of appointments, assignments, and other items with deadlines. I’ve used it this way for several years, and it’s worked great.

This approach is not good for a couple specific use cases. iCal organizes events and todos by calendars (e.g.: work, school, sports events, etc.) that don’t necessarily interact well together. (For example, there’s no way to create a project that cross-references events and todos in multiple calendars.)

iCal fails more substantially is in making the creation of simple, cross-refenced todo lists simple, easy and fast. Creating a todo in iCal is a multistep process involving several clicks and decisions that, when you just want to put a list together, be it of groceries to buy, or small but important tasks, or whatever, is slow and overbearing and kind of like shooting at a fly with a howitzer: you can do it, but there’s got to be an easier, faster way, and precision might be difficult.

Luckily, there is. The Getting Things Done time management system was created with action management and large projects in mind, and provides the appropriate tools. For most people though, the full system is overkill. One should not need project management software just to manage a task list.

Hog Bay Software’s Taskpaper is designed to make the creation of task lists organized by project and descriptive tags on list entries as simple and painless as writing a text file. From the software’s website:

For Mac users who want a simpler way to stay organized and get things done. TaskPaper is a simple to-do list that’s surprisingly adept. Unlike the competition, TaskPaper’s text based interface is focused on paper-like simplicity. 

I’ve fallen in love with this software, but I’ve been sitting here for the last fifteen minutes staring at my cursor trying to figure out a concise way to explain exactly what it does and how it works that also conveys how cool it is. Saying “it creates cross-referenced todo lists” is technically true, but it doesn’t really convey why you’d want that. Indeed, this was the explanation someone gave me, and that was my exact reaction until I saw it in action. So, with no further blabber from me, I present this demo. I tried to embed it into this post, but the embed code they use is painfully bad, and appears broken, at least on Safari.

Watching that should tell you everything you could possibly want to know about the software. If it’s something you might find useful, give it a whirl. The developer is very open and communicates with his users frequently, and recently posted about the upcoming 2.0 release (a free upgrade) here, in the Task Paper forum.

I urge everyone to check this out. I can’t say for certain that it’s made me more productive (though I’m pretty sure it has), but I’ve certainly got a better idea at a glance of what I need to get done (and have actually gotten done) than I did before.

[tags]apple, mac, macintosh, ical, getting things done, gtd, hog bay software, taskpaper, applescript, organization, action management, time management[/tags]

Share This

die einzwängenden Finger!

Published
by
John T Davis
on November 26, 2007
in computers, mac and rant
. 0 Comments

Title is the output of feeding Apple’s Translation Widget “The Cramping Fingers.” When translating the phrase back to English with the same widget, I get “the in-squeezing fingers.” Things like this keep me from worrying that machines will rise up to kill us in the near future.

I spend a disproportionate amount of my day in front of a computer, so I’m a bit of a keyboard geek. If I’ve got to use something for hours at a time, I want it to be top quality. For me and many others, the epitome of keyboards were the IBM Model M and Apple Extended Keyboard/Apple Extended Keyboard II, the latter of which was the keyboard I had on my first computer.

Quoting Steve from the Apple Extended Keyboard II page linked above, these keyboards are relics from a time

when building a keyboard actually meant building something that you could, in an emergency, reliably use as a blunt weapon.

Most modern keyboards would shatter if you attempted to use them to defend your person, and that’s just not acceptable. But I would wager that for most, it is not these relics’ value as melee weapons that makes them desirable. Rather, it is the mechanical, spring-based key-switches. These, as their name implies, spring back up immediately after they are pressed, which gives a much more solid feel–the user knows when a key has been hit, because it’s already trying to come back up.

Theoretically, and anecdotally in my usage, this results in a more pleasant typing experience, as the user expends much less energy pressing the keys, resulting in less hand strain and perhaps faster typing. By contrast, most modern keyboards use very cheap rubber/silicone membrane switches that are, for lack of a better word, mushy. There’s no real response in many of these cheap boards when you hit the keys, making it difficult to train your muscles when to know to stop, which means much wasted, superfluous effort and mashing.

There are a number of options for getting high quality mechanical keyboards today. I prefer the Das Keyboard. face-profile.jpg Out of all the boards I’ve seen currently in production with mechanical switches, it’s one of, if not the, sturdiest, and as such serves very well the keyboard-as-blunt-instrument-of-destruction ideal. It’s built with high quality mechanical switches, and doesn’t try to hide the fact that these switches are loud. When I really get going, it sounds like a tiny airplane is taking off, which I like to imagine impresses onlookers and passerby. Plus, there isn’t a single keycap anywhere on the entire keyboard. I’m enough of a nerd that I count that as a feature. And here’s a neat thing that those classic keyboards didn’t have: the keys are weighted. It takes less pressure to hit the keys meant for your pinky than for your pointer finger, etc. There’s even a nice chart on the we site illustrating the pressure zones. Cool! (Bonus: Casual usage of your computer by those just passing through is discouraged, as newcomers are thoroughly intimidated, even if they already know how to touch type. It’s kind of funny to watch.)

The keyboard does have two caveats potential buyers should be aware of. First, it’s rather expensive: 69-80 dollars retail, depending on where you shop. I don’t consider this a negative, per se: it’s a high quality piece of equipment and should last for years. You get what you pay for.

Caveat deux is a genuine negative, one I hadn’t discovered until tonight. The Das Keyboard is designed for Windows devices but since it’s just a USB keyboard there’s nothing to stop you from using it with a Mac. However, two of the key mappings are hardwired to be in the wrong place for a Mac user. Specifically, the Option (Alt) and Command (Windows)* keys are swapped. Since the latter is the key** to 95 percent of all keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, this is a bit of a problem, though it’s certainly not insurmountable. Quite the contrary, the solution is simple: using the Control Panel, it is very easy to tell the system to read a Command signal as Option, and vice versa. I did this several months ago when I got the keyboard and never thought about it again.

But as I mentioned in my last post, we’re moving, I’m writing this from a hotel room, and my svelte Das Keyboard is in the back of a Jeep Rubicon somewhere, which means I’m using my laptop’s built in keyboard again. I didn’t think much of this until I tried to Select All and instead pasted a symbol. Switching the key signals produced the proper behavior on the Das Keyboard, but left the internal keyboard with the key signals incorrectly swapped. Annoying. It took me ten minutes to realize the keyboard circuits hadn’t literally been crossed, and another ten to find the setting to switch the keys back, and thanks to my muscle memory and the odd contortions necessary to do keyboard shortcuts when the Command key is in the wrong place, I was left with a not insignificant bit of finger cramping. Double plus ungood.

This was easy enough to fix, but as far as I can tell, I have to go in and reset it manually every time I need to plug in/unplug my external keyboard. This is, obviously, somewhat lame, and could be fixed with a very simple keyboard driver from the makers of Das Keyboard, but they, like many other hardware vendors, do not believe full Mac support is worth their time, so I find myself faced with an experience that is overly clunky. Perhaps I can learn enough AppleScript to automate the setting changes? I shall have to ruminate on this. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Peace out.

*Yes, I know Command and the Windows key are not direct analogues, but for the sake of this discussion, they’re close enough.
**Pun!

[tags]keyboard, keyboards, apple, apple extended keyboard, apple extended keyboard 2, apple extended keyboard II, ibm, ibm model m, model m, das keyboard, mac, macintosh, macs, macintoshes, os x, mac os x[/tags]

Share This

Mac Attack…

Published
by
John T Davis
on October 24, 2007
in computers and mac
. 0 Comments

I really should just give up on this whole post-once-a-week commitment. It’s quite obvious I’m no good at it.

At any rate, some neat things from around the Mac web that have caught my eye over the last few days.

The Look

In honor of Halloween, here’s a guide (with prices) to dressing like Justin Long, the guy that plays the Mac in the “I’m a Mac” commercials. Almost decided to do this for Halloween, but I a) have no where to be that anyone will see me b) will not be getting any trick or treaters, and c) in the absence of (a) and (b) am not willing to spend $157.97 for the ensemble. Looking that casual should in no universe ever cost that much money.

Thought: Apple should sell the Justin Long clothing set at Apple Stores. Booku* bucks from fanboys with more disposable income than me (which is quite a lot of people, I think).

*Is this a word?

Mind Over Matter (and Reality)

Also of note is an eloquent fellow named Chris, who somehow managed to get the graphpaper.com domain and keep it (surely in defiance of the processed paper mega concerns and their armies of lawyer ninja), who frames the issue of switching from Windows to Mac in terms of a 19th century sensory experiment. Thanks to John Gruber over at Daring Fireball for the reference. Quoting:

In 1896, a scientist named George M. Stratton, showing an ingenuity that must have seemed like madness at the time, conducted a fascinating experiment in visual perception with himself as the subject. He constructed a pair of goggles with special lenses that inverted his view of the world by 180 degrees, causing him to see everything upside down, as if he were standing on his head, continuously. He wore the goggles for many days, never once opening his eyes without wearing them (he would shower with his eyes closed, for example). 

The article uses this experiment as a metaphor for the adaptability of computer users to new interface paradigms, and quite handily illustrates how easily and quickly the mind can reprogram itself as needed. I’ve thought for a long while that moving from one computing platform is as easy as sitting down and using your new device, but the fact remains that there are a large number of users out there who won’t consider moving from one operating system (or web browswer, or email client, etc.) to another, regardless of possible benefits, because of some sort of fear that their computer will become unusable for them and they won’t be able to get any work done and in the worst case something might actually explode. Articles like this emphasize the fact that while, yes, there is an adjustment period in any change, it is surprisingly short and painless.

And, so far as the Mac vs Windows debate goes, newer Macs all are able to run Windows out of the box, so retreating to something familiar is possible. Most often, though, one hears of Mac converts buying a new machine with the idea in their head that they’ll dual-boot or virtualize Windows in the begining so they don’t have to completely leave behind what they had before, and then finding themselves so enamoured with the Mac OS that they never enter Windows again, and go on to lead happier, more productive lives, with more disco parties.

Okay, so maybe part of that sentence might be made up. But in all seriousness, switching operating systems isn’t the Herculean task many make it out to be, similar in proportion to attempting to learn a new language by parachuting into a foreign country with no translation tools at all on your person and hoping for the best. It’s much closer to switching from a manual car from 1950 to a modern automatic. The car’s function remains basically the same, but there are a few minor details you’ll have to master to get the most out of it. And to continue to this obviously pro-Mac metaphor to its logical conclusion, once you do master those details, you’ll be much happier. Which brings me to my next item of interest…

Mac OS X 10.5 in (Roughly) 48 Hours

The next major version of Mac OS X, codenamed Leopard, will hit the globe at large on Friday. This is exciting news. Other, better sites have been putting a lot of effort into covering just why this new OS promises to be more awesome than Betty Boop with an uzi and a wakizashi fighting undead zombie hordes (okay, so that might just be my version of awesome, but bear with me here), and I’m not going to try to duplicate that effort here. Rather, allow me to refer you to the guided tour on this page.

That’s all for now. Later days.

[tags]mac, macintosh, macs, macintoshes, apple, justin long, halloween, switcher, switching, mac os x, os x, mac os x 10.5, os x 10.5, leopard[/tags]

Share This

Netcasting and Online Activism: Don’t Lose Sight of the Message Because the Messenger is New and Different

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 29, 2007
in computers, internet and politics
. 0 Comments

Podcast (quoting liberally from the linked article):

[A] digital media file, or a series of such files, that is distributed over the Internet using syndication feeds for playback on portable media players and personal computers. The term, like “radio”, [sic] can refer either to the content itself or to the method by which it is syndicated; the latter is also termed podcasting. The host or author of a podcast is often called a podcaster.

Many shows, both audio and video, are distributed in this manner. TWiT.tv puts out a number of shows on a variety of tech topics, with new episodes delivered weekly. Major networks like MSNBC also syndicate this way. The great majority of this content is completely free. Because the iPod and iTunes were the first hardware/software combo that facilitated this sort of content distribution, the word podcast popped up to illustrate the idea that one could easily subscribe to downloadable content that would be automatically and regularly culled from the Internet and synced to one’s iPod for listening/viewing. Even as the ability to subscribe and sync to this content became more ubiquitous and cross platform, no longer requiring the use of Apple products, the term stuck.

Leo Laporte, head of TWiT.tv, which boasts 280,000 subscribers, recently put up a very interesting post on why the term podcast is not only inaccurate, but downright restrictive and damaging to the entire syndication-based content delivery ecosystem. Definitely worth a read. Consider this excerpt:

I create shows that are distributed on the Internet via download, Flash, and, oh yeah, RSS, but it’s the show that’s the thing. By focusing on the RSS we’ve confused people and limited our audience. Even the word I suggested last year, “netcast,” doesn’t serve. It’s a show, period. It doesn’t matter how it’s distributed. It’s all just content. Tying the content to its method of distribution is confusing our audience and holding us back.

I really agree with what he’s saying, and I’m glad someone so articulate took the time to set it out: it’s all about the content. Reading it made me think of another related point.

Content is not intrinsically more or less interesting or important because of the technology used to deliver it, even though different technologies make different options available.

Imagine, for a moment, that it’s 1943. Citizens of the United States get most of their news and entertainment from the radio, as television has not penetrated the market yet, though some people do own sets. President Roosevelt intends to make a speech on an important issue, knowing it will be distributed live over the radio (and perhaps TV) and then spread across the world in written form by wire services. These three formats each have distinct and unique advantages and disadvantages in terms of accessibility (radios and televisions are accessible to the illiterate/blind while written text is not), penetration (how many people have radios vs those who can buy a newspaper vs those who have a television), storability, and other factors. Intangible characteristics are likewise considerable. Someone reading a copy of the speech wouldn’t be able to hear the inflections in FDRs voice that a radio listener would, and that radio listener would likewise miss clues in the president’s body language. There’s also the economic factor: radio and television are free after initial equipment purchase, or totally free if someone shares their set. Newspapers must be paid for, which causes a problem for the very poor. Radio is also, in this context, the only live option.

While all three mediums excel at presenting information in a specific way, the ideas presented do not change or become more or less valuable based on the method used to share them.

I think it’s particularly important to harp on this in light of the recent attention paid by traditional news sources (large media outlets, including their online arms) to grassroots political organizing and information sharing activity on the Internet. They’ve gone so far as to embrace the term netroots to describe, and I quote:

political activism organized through blogs and other online media, including wikis and social network services. The word is a portmanteau of Internet and grassroots, reflecting the technological innovations that set netroots techniques apart from other forms of political participation. In the United States, the term is used mainly in left-leaning circles.

For two reasons, this term really grates on me, to the point that I actually grit my teeth a bit when I realized I’d have to use it here. First, and definitely less importantly, I’m a computer science major and a technology geek. I absolutely can’t stand it when the mainstream media makes up a new cutesy word to describe a technological concept that doesn’t do anything to help people understand it, and may actually cause problems. In this respect, I cringe whenever I hear anyone blithely start talking about the “netroots” because it’s very close to a term that already has a technical meaning. The Internet root name servers, the thirteen redundant servers that are responsible for making sure domain names (e.g.: www.domain.com) work worldwide. There are thousands (millions?) of other DNS servers in use all around the world, but they depend on the thirteen root nameservers to make sure their information is correct and up to date. Referring to political activists online as “netroots” needlessly muddles the waters and makes explaining the role of the root name servers that much more difficult. (It might not seem like much more difficulty, but host name resolution is already a geeky enough topic that most non-techies don’t even want to think about it to begin with.)

But as annoying as that is, it’s really just a matter of diction. What’s more important in the netroots appellation is the false implication that Internet based activists are somehow significantly different in ideology or aims from those who stick to more traditional methods (the historic grassroots folks). This isn’t the case at all. Yes, using the internet to spread news and information and coordinate low-level campaign volunteers increases one’s reach and the opportunity for personal involvement: citizen-driven political activism limited to local and regional scopes can reach into any home with internet access. Ease of participation (and the fact that one doesn’t have to leave their home if they don’t want to) means Internet-based grassroots activities are far more widespread and visible on a national scale. Still, the content and ideas–the issues that motivate activists, analyses and speeches, etc.–do not change in any significant way just because the internet is being used for communication instead of, say, paper newsletters. Undeniably, more content will be published, and faster, than would have been otherwise, as all that’s needed to put something up on the internet is a free blogging system and time (compare this with the difficulty of creating, mass producing, and distributing a newsletter or pamphlet), but again, ease of publication does not in any substantive way effect the nature of the content (except, perhaps, for the potential lack of copy editing).

Much is also made of the fact that it is the anti-war wing of the Democratic Party that constitutes most bottom-up activity. This is not as newsworthy as the mainstream media would have you believe. Historically, grassroots activists have always been more extreme to a degree than the mainline party machinery, which is constrained by a philosophy of not veering too far from the safe, appeal-to-as-many-people-as-possible path (contrast the grassroots element of the Democratic Party’s enthusiasm for getting out of Iraq as soon as possible with the Democratic Presidential Candidates inability or unwillingness to swear to have the US out of the country by 2013). Activists need not be constrained by the requirements of political gamesmanship, and have no reason to fear expressing more radical (compared to the official party line) opinions. Internet activism has not made people more extreme in their views; it has simply made those whose views are not the mainstream, sanitized-for-TV variety more visible.

The Internet is just a medium, like television or printed news or radio. It does have some very compelling advantages in terms of ease of access and ease of publishing. When people speak of the ‘net as a democratizing force, this is what they’re talking about: never before has it been so easy for the average citizen to be informed and contribute meaningfully to both local and national public debate. The traditional news media are right to emphasis this aspect.

Where they go wrong is by implying, either subtly or overtly, that opinions expressed via online grassroots activities are somehow less valid or more fringe because of source. The source is the electorate, the citizens who voted to put our current officials in office. During the Vietnam War, anti-war activists who campaigned door to door for McCarthy weren’t considered to have fringe ideas–the public widely reviled the war during that period. Their campaign approach sidestepped traditional political machinery, which earned them some ire in certain circles. The establishment did not like McCarthy, to say the least. Modern day political parties likewise try to portray online activists as fringe elements because they are unfiltered and raw and conflict with high-power political maneuvering in Washington. Example: the Democratic Party for a variety of political reasons won’t take a firm stance on ending the war in a given period of time, so they really would rather downplay the idea that online activists represent the desires of the mainstream (as shown by polls) because then they are revealed as not doing at all what they were elected to do in the first place: get us out of Iraq now.

If you want to debate for or against the content and ideas propagated by online activists, do it on the merits of what is or isn’t being said. Don’t try to reject or ridicule something because the medium is new and you don’t understand the mechanics behind it (or can’t gain control of the medium, which seems to be the objection raised by some corners of the mainstream media). That makes just about as much sense as saying a book isn’t as valuable or worthy of consideration because it was made using a printing press and not by hand.

And finally, those trying to rile everyone up by asking the question of whether blogs will replace traditional media are creating a false dichotomy. As I showed with the WWII President Roosevelt hypothetical above, there is no reason multiple mediums cannot and should not coexist. A publisher succeeds or fails on the basis of whether or not their content is worthwhile and accessable. Those who are afraid of blogging are admitting to a tacit fear that their own content is not up to par when competition is available, and that’s another problem (and post) entirely.

[tags]podcast, netcast, rss, ipod, itunes, apple, twit, leo laporte, internet, content, politics, political activism, information, information sharing, netroots, dns, root nameserver, root name server, dns root nameserver, dns root name server, grassroots, grassroots activists, mainstream media, blog, blogs, blogosphere, twit, this week in tech, msnbc[/tags]

Share This

iPhone Unlocking, Post Software Update 1.1.1

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 28, 2007
in iPhone
. 0 Comments

What, you didn’t think I could go a whole two weeks without mentioning the iPhone again, did you?

Apple made clear that the newest update to the iPhone system software would more than likely not only break SIM unlocking, but render the entire phone “bricked.” That is, the phone would no longer work. Quoting directly from the linked article:

“This has nothing to do with proactively disabling a phone that is unlocked or hacked,” Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, told the Associated Press in an interview. “It’s unfortunate that some of these programs have caused damage to the iPhone software, but Apple cannot be responsible for … those consequences.”

At the same time, the iPhone Dev Team, the group largely responsible for SIM-unlocking the iPhone, acknowledged this and warned users not to apply the software update to a SIM unlocked phone until they had a chance to figure out how to work around it, because they had no reason to believe Apple was lying.

Now, iPhone Firmware 1.1.1 hit the web, adding support for the iTunes Music Store as found on the iPod touch and a number of other neat features. But, just as Apple and the Dev Team had warned, attempting to apply the firmware update to a SIM-unlocked iPhone results in catastrophic, in some cases unrecoverable, failure. The author of the linked article notes that in his case not even getting a brand new SIM card from AT&T got things working again. In other words, the hardware is reduced to a very nice looking paperweight.

A few important points rise from this.

  • I think iPhone SIM unlocking is a great thing, for all the reasons I listed in my last post on this matter. Moreover, it is legal in the United States, and even though Apple can and has voided the warranties of modified handsets in accordance with US warranty law, they have a legal obligation not to purposefully prevent the unlocking of the phone. They do not seem to be doing that at this time, and unless evidence can be found to the contrary, threatening to sue Apple over breaking the SIM unlock is misguided at best.
  • Whether or not the iPhone should be unlocked should simply not be part of rational discussion at this point. It can be unlocked, there is demand for unlocked phones, and it is not illegal. From what I’ve seen, arguments to the contrary either demonstrate a lack of understanding of the legal issues, or a conscious desire to troll and stir up trouble.
  • Both Apple and the iPhone Dev Team warned people not to apply this update. Doing so and expecting the phone to still function, as if both parties were lying, was foolish and impatient in the extreme. Anyone who has bricked their phone has no one to blame but themselves. I realize that’s harsh, but even those of us that support third party efforts need to admit that SIM unlocking your phone means you’re on your own. I really hope the iPhone Dev Team or someone out there can figure out how to reverse the damage, but Apple is technically correct that they have no obligation to do so or replace phones for free.
  • As a computer scientist and general techie, I do find dubious the whole idea that software as an entity can somehow be “permanently damaged,” which is what Apple says is happening here. Software is just data on a storage device. Unless it’s on a ROM chip, nothing about it is in any way permanent. It should always be possible to reset everything or reflash the firmware to its factory state, no matter how screwed up the software on board is. Otherwise there would be no way to fix the phone in the event of catastrophic random data corruption (which can theoretically happen on any device, whether it’s been hacked on or not). I can think of a few reasons why the software might actually become unrecoverably corrupted, but none of them really make any sense from a technical or design perspective.
    1. The SIM unlock changes the baseboard (the modem) on the phone substantially, so one could make the argument that the new firmware isn’t overwriting the baseboard file(s), and only overwrites the files it expects to have to change. But given the size of the version 1.1.1 firmware (154 MB) and the fact that a full restore (which should replace everything, every time) doesn’t bring the phone back to a functioning state, this is unlikely.
    2. Then again, some people running firmware 1.0.x have reported being able to run full restores on iPhones that have been SIM unlocked without having to unlock them again, so maybe iTunes doesn’t replace everything. If this is the case, though, calling the reset option in iTunes a restore is disingenuous, as it obviously doesn’t restore everything to factory condition. Likewise, saying the phone is irreparable in this scenario is also a lie, as all that is needed is to release an update to iTunes that actually does a full and complete restore. Apple may be doing a piecemeal restore that doesn’t modify files that are expected not to ever be changed by the user (like the baseboard) because it’s a faster technique in terms of execution time, but the fact remains that catastrophic data corruption could theoretically trash everything, and a full and complete restore option needs to be available.
    3. Having said that, a device’s hardware could become irreversibly misconfigured if a setting is changed that both (a) causes erroneous behavior and (b) locks out future changes. This is the computer equivalent of locking one’s keys in one’s car. In this scenario, Apple is the only locksmith in town, and they’ve already said they’re not going to help you. But the question remains, if the SIM unlock just modifies the software modem, how can that possibly make a full restore impossible? My best guess is that prior to the restore, the firmware installer is looking at the iPhone and trying to verify, somehow, that it is a supported device. The baseboard has been modified, so it fails verification, and iTunes refuses to do a restore because the baseboard modem is “damaged” in comparison to what it is expecting to find. But again, this makes zero sense, because a damaged baseboard (again, via some sort of data corruption) would be the perfect reason to attempt a full restore.

Given all that, assuming again that apple is making no deliberate attempt to sabotage unlocked phones (because this would be illegal), I can only conclude that Apple’s iPhone team was incredibly overconfident about the degree to which an iPhone’s software cannot be corrupted, and instead of choosing to implement a full and complete restore , implemented a restore procedure that replaced only those files the engineers thought users might somehow damage, and left alone core components (like the baseboard software modem) under the assumption they were somehow untouchable. A very bad design decision in general, if true. This is totally a guess, but it’s where my logic takes me given the evidence I’ve been presented. To my knowledge, the 1.1.1 firmware has not yet been decrypted by the iPhone Dev Team so that its individual files can be examined (by default firmware is encrypted so that its innards are hidden away; a magical black box that makes the handset work somehow). Once it has been decrypted, I would be very interested to see if the baseboard has been modified from version 1.0.2 of the firmware. If it has not, that would actually be a bit of evidence for my hypothesis, as the 1.1.1 firmware installer would have no reason to replace a file it believes not to have been changed. SIM unlock software must be modified for each version of the firmware that changes the software modem, so it makes since that 1.1.1 firmware attempting to operate with a modified version of the 1.0.2 firmware would choke and die. And if the restore fails to replace the baseboard, there’s no fixing it, at least until the iPhone Dev Team figures out how to get back into the iPhone file system (something the current firmware locks them out of doing, but that they could do before) and replace the damaged files.

Again, the above paragraph is completely hypothetical, but I feel pretty confident about it given the information available. If I’m completely wrong, though, I won’t be surprised. The iPhone is a complex system, and I’m operating off limited information, logic, and instinct.

I had planned to talk about the state of 3rd party applications on the iPhone, but this post is long enough. Until next time.

[tags]apple, iphone, apple iphone, unlocking, cell phone unlocking, unlock, cell phone unlock, sim, sim unlock, sim unlocking, warranties, warranty, iphone dev team, iphone dev[/tags]

Share This

More Apple Ramblings

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 17, 2007
in computers, mac and sports
. 0 Comments

I found a couple other things on the Mac continent of the blogosphere today, and I wanted to share them. Jason Fry over at The Wall Street Journal recently posted this article about the upswing in Mac adoption he’s witnessed, and even though it’s anecdotal evidence, I still find it interesting. There are of course the few emails included from those staying with Windows, but that’s to be expected.

Living in Dallas, I’m of course a huge fan of the Mavericks basketball team, especially given that they no longer blow since being purchased by Mark Cuban, who is an interesting personality, to say the least. So i was especially amused to see that Mr Cuban recently switched to the Mac.

Interesting. I wonder how much mileage I would get trying to get people to switch if I told them it was “good enough for Mark Cuban?” Probably depends on the setting.

[tags]mark cuban, apple, mac, macintosh, macs, mavericks, dallas mavericks[/tags]

Share This

More iPhone News

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 17, 2007
in computers, electronics and iPhone
. 0 Comments

Unlocking, Part Deux

I suppose I must admit that I’m rambling about the iPhone more and more lately because since the price dropped, it’s become a device I could see myself owning one day, as opposed to an “oh, wow, that’s really nifty but I can’t even come close to justifying the cost” gadget. (And by the time I’m actually ready to buy a new cell phone in 2009, it’ll no doubt be even cheaper.)

In my previous post on the subject, I noted that the method covered by Macworld, involving lots of command line manipulations, was by no means an easy process. That’s changed now, as the iPhone Dev Team has announced a version of their software with a graphical user interface. Just put the application on your iPhone, press the unlock button, and in 3-5 minutes you should have a working, totally unlocked device. Nifty. The Geek Factor for doing the unlock is probably, in my estimation, now a 2/10. Before I would’ve said it was an 8/10, for sure. Too much command line kung fu that could easily go wrong.

A Touch of Music

The recently announced (but not yet shipping) iPod touch (no, that’s not a capitalization error) is being marketted as an iPhone without the phone. It’s still got Wifi, so you can use it to surf the web wherever wireless internet is available. Starbucks, for example. Apple and Starbucks would both really like it if you took your iPod touch there. Frequently.

That being said, there are some important differences between the iPhone and the iPod touch that prospective buyers of either device should be aware of. They are summed up quite nicely at iProng. As a sidenote–and this is purely my own speculation, backed up by nothing more than my own musings as I stared entranced into the swirling spices of my Thai Red Curry with Beef on Friday–note that the iPod touch comes in two capacities, 8 and 16 GB, whereas the iPhone only comes in 8 GB. I strongly suspect the iPhone price drop was in preparation for the launch of a 16 GB model for perhaps $100-$150 dollars more. I’m guessing the only reason we haven’t yet seen such a device is because of a shortage of available 16 GB NAND flash, the storage medium inside these devices. Apple wouldn’t roll out a product just to have to deal with constant supply problems.

The Rebate

Much has been made of the entire price-drop-rebate fiasco regarding the iPhone. Too much, in all likelihood. Most sane people wouldn’t get terribly upset that technology gets faster and cheaper. Rather than griping about it en masse, those who purchased it and felt they had been wronged should have persued their options. It’s standard Apple policy to refund the difference of a price drop within fourteen days of purchase, and most major credit cards offer some form of price protection. If neither price protection nor the Apple 14 day guarantee were available, well, that is certainly unfortunate, but it’s the nature of technology. When I bought my current laptop, a model with the same form factor, a faster processor, more memory, and faster USB connectors was announced within a month–for the same amount of money. That kinda thing–more features for the same amount of money–is arguably more galling than a price drop on existing tech. I was bummed, sure, but these things happen in the technology industry. It’s inevitable.

My bottom line, I guess: be comfortable with your tech purchases. A newer, faster, better, cheaper product will come out, whether it’s computers or MP3 players or toaster ovens. But when you go to buy something, you should be pleased with what you’re getting, happy enough with what you’re getting, that you won’t care. The device you’ve just bought will be enough for your needs (or possibly more than enough), so it’s okay that something new arrived. If you think something costs too much money, or you’re afraid something brand new is about to come out immediately, hold off. My strategy for this, as an Apple user, is simple. If something new is supposedly coming in a set amount of time that will replace the thing you want to buy, wait and see if it actually materializes. Never buy right before Apple special events, be they scheduled annually or announced specifically. If a new piece of software from Apple is coming in a short amount of time (like Leapord, due the end of October) hold off on your hardware purchase until after it’s out, so the software will be bundled with your new hardware. These principles apply equally well to other tech areas, though I’ll admit I only actively use a calendar to plan purchases when it comes to Apple products.

Having said all that, two caveats. First, if you really need something now, get it now. Your new laptop that does everything you need and more will not stop being awesome because something new came out. Sure, the new thing may be more awesome, but odds are you’ve already got more awesome than you will really need for a long time to come. Second, you’ll be a happier consumer if you put a little planning into your purchases and less likely to get sideswiped with new products a month or two after you buy something, but occasionally, despite your best efforts, you will get bitten by something like this iPhone price drop. When it happens, pursue whatever fiscal compensation you can through price matching, but remember that companies that sell things do so to make money. They are, in general, not out to screw you, but they certainly won’t hesitate to charge the highest price they can for as long as they can. As a consumer, you implicitly agree to the supply/demand arrangement through your purchase, and early adopters always pay more for less.

Apple’s in store rebate was less a concession they had done anything wrong and more a way to get an overly loud minority of fanboys with entitlement complexes and a lack of understanding of basic economics to shut up. In reality, Apple only spends about fifty dollars on an in store rebate for 100 dollars because of wholesale prices, etc., and likely ends up making even more money because having that rebate in your hands makes you a lot more likely to want to buy something that costs over 100 dollars, like a new iPod touch. To reiterate, Apple loses nothing, comes away with good PR for responding so swiftly and decisively to perceived customer outrage, and sucks even more of your money into its coffers.

The paranoid part of me wonders if they planned this the whole time.

[tags]iphone, apple, apple iphone, unlock, iphone unlock, ipod touch, starbucks, rebate, iphone rebate[/tags]

Share This

On iPhone Unlocking…

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 14, 2007
in iPhone
. 2 Comments

The Skeleton Key

With the recent 200 dollar iPhone price drop, the device is now costs $399 (before tax/shipping fees). This is a much sweeter price point, in the sense that the phone is now much, much more appealing to the general public. The early adopters and Apple fanatics that would have bought it at $499/$599 pretty much all have–to the tune of 1 million units. (At the current price I’d actually consider buying one, but I’m still holding off because I’m in a Sprint contract till 2009 and I always prefer to hold off until the second generation of any Apple product. It’s nice to have a couple solid concerns reinforcing my willpower.)

But the really interesting thing to me is, in a happy coincidence, the iPhone hacking community has come up with an absolutely free software-based SIM card unlock method less than 90 days after the the product’s release. Unlocking a phone allows it to run on any compatible network in the world, as opposed to the US AT&T network. This is great for a few reasons. People with AT&T who are going overseas can buy a pay-as-you-go SIM card to avoid exorbitant roaming fees. Domestically, it is now possible to use an iPhone in all the places where AT&T does not offer any service at all. Like the entire state of Vermont. T-Mobile users can now purchase an iPhone and use their T-Mobile SIM card if they so desire.

Where things get really interesting is outside the United States. GSM cell phone networks like the iPhone uses are very common in the rest of the world, so it is now possible for those living in other countries to get an iPhone ahead of the Europe/Asia/Canada/South America launch dates (which are, as of this writing, still unannounced). So the bleeding edge early adopters in those countries will now be able to get working iPhones, if they so desire. Everything else aside, a lot of the barriers on iPhone adoption worldwide just fell away.

Note that iPhone’s Visual Voicemail, the random access, email-like voicemail system, will not function on networks not set up for it. That is, any network that does not have a contractural agreement with Apple to be an offical iPhone reseller and service provider. Right now, AT&T is the only such network, but that could change as early as next week, when Apple is expected to announce the iPhone partner in the United Kingdom, if not all of Europe. Regular voice mail will work on any network, though, just like it does on every other cell phone.

If you’re interested in learning how to unlock your iPhone (it is by no means a trivial process), check out this guide from Macworld.

A Note on Cell Phone Networks

The iPhone, as stated, supports the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) standard. Quoting from the article (which is a very interesting read if you’re so inclined):

[GSM is] the most popular standard for mobile phones in the world. Its promoter, the GSM Association, estimates that the GSM service is used by over 2 billion people across more than 212 countries and territories. Its ubiquity makes international roaming very common between mobile phone operators, enabling subscribers to use their phones in many parts of the world.

The iPhone, it should be noted, is a quad-band GSM device, meaning it supports the following bands/regions.

  • 850 MHz (U.S.)
  • 900 MHz (Europe/Asia (excluding Japan and South Korea)
  • 1800 MHz (Europe)
  • 1900 MHz (U.S.)

Keywords from the above definition: “in the world.” Within the US, which is somewhat insular when it comes to cellular technology. Sprint relies on PCS, whereas Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) is used by a variety of carriers within the US. GSM just isn’t that common. That doesn’t mean T-Mobile and AT&T are the only options. They’re just the biggest companies, with the largest coverage areas. GSM World provides a list of GSM-compatable carriers in the US. It’s a surprisingly long list, isn’t it? Lots more than the two providers the mass media would have you believe are the only options. Can’t say how many of those offer EDGE data plans with reasonable prices.

[tags]iphone, apple, apple iphone, hardware, hack, hacking, gsm, global system for mobile telecommunications, personal communications service, pcs, code division multiple access, cdma[/tags]

Share This

Leaving Microsoft Word

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 4, 2007
in computers and mac
. 0 Comments

For years now I’ve wanted to leave Microsoft Word–it’s the kludgiest app on my Mac that I use regularly, and it always feels like I’m using a badly callibrated bazooka to

shoot at flies. I’m really interested in Pages 2 for regular writing and Scrivener for prose.

So it was with particular interest that I read Steven Poole’s very well written farewell to Word. Nicely written piece that I agree with 110 percent. I remember Word 5.1a on my old Macintosh Centris 610. It really was a great word processor to use because it stayed out of the way. Word 6 was, by contrast, a terrible disaster that no-one at Microsoft apparently actually used, and it only got worse from there.

[tags]mac, macintosh, macs, macintoshes, software, word, microsoft word, microsoft, apple, apple pages, scrivener, writing[/tags]

Share This

Mac Noir.

Published
by
John T Davis
on September 3, 2007
in computers, mac and photos
. 0 Comments

My family is, by and large, into antiques. One of my aunts actually works at an antique store (furniture, dolls, knick-knacks, a gorgeous blue-green 1950s bicycle hanging from the ceiling by chains that no-one’s bought in at least 12 years, etc.). I’ve never really been into this kind of antique quite as much, probably in part because I moved to Dallas (and away from the antique store) when I was seven. The fact that I’m a bit clumsy and tend to break fragile things if I’m not very careful also makes me less likely to want to be surrounded on all sides by expensive fragile things.

That said, as I’ve gotten older I’ve grown more of an appreciation for this kind of stuff, and my antique bug has always manifested itself in the form of a love of computer antiques (which I count as anything before Windows and the Mac became mainstream), which I love. Before the Windows/Mac hegemony, computing was really a lot more like the Wild West in terms of innovation and discovery of new technology than it is today, and part of me wishes I could’ve been around for that. It was surely an exciting time. I don’t get too nostalgic because I love my 21st century computer technology, but I quite regularly get jealous of those people who create their own personal antique machine museums. I’d have probably picked up an antique machine before, but I really have neither the money nor the space for such a hobby. I do have a How Computers Work book from the early 1980s aimed at parents wanting to buy their children computers, picked up from the antique store where my aunt works. It contains information on “microcomputers” that contain exciting new technology like “hard drives.” There’s even a bunch of BASIC listings, because that was the time when you pretty much had to learn to program to get the most out of your machine.

Too bad it’s not still that way. A lot of people would have a much better understanding of technology.

Anyhow, the reason I bring all this up is because John Gruber over at Daring Fireball* linked to a very well done set of scans of the original Macintosh User Manual. Take a look at that: it was the instruction manual sent with every single one of the original Macintosh 128k computers in 1984. You hear about how much more effort was put into things and how much nicer they were back in the day, but this is still kind of hard to believe. I mean, look at that. I’ve seen magazines that don’t look that nice. And now when you buy a Windows PC you’re lucky to even get a full restore disk included in the box**. Forget printed manuals. One of the downsides of transitioning from a hobbyist pursuit to a commodity, I fear.

So, anyone else have some good computer nostalgia stories/thoughts?

*This is, oddly, not the strangest name for a Mac related website. See Drunken Batman.
**You can make your own restore disks, but that’s hardly the point. I just dropped a several hundred (thousand?) on a new system, and I’m still expected to make recovery disks. (As a sidenote, Macs don’t include recovery disks. They include full system installation DVDs with recovery capabilities, which is even better. When was the last time you bought a computer that came with a full (not upgrade or restore) copy of Windows? Does anyone even sell computers that come with said full copies?)

[tags]mac, macs, macintosh, macintoshes, apple history, apple, marketing, book, manual, instruction manual, nostalgia, old tech, old technology[/tags]

Share This

Sign of the Day

Published
by
John T Davis
on August 28, 2007
in computers, humor, mac and photos
. 0 Comments

Logos are important. A drab company or product name (e.g.: Apple Computer) can be made infinitely more iconic and memorable with the proper visual aid. Thus art and design are critical elements of brand image and advertising. Choosing colors, shapes, sizes–incredible amounts of time can go into choosing the most minute of details just to get the right effect.

But sometimes, the stars and planets align just right to produce a result no one expected and no one noticed until it was too late. And even more rarely these unintended results can be far more noticeable and iconic than the intended design.

Such is the case with this Mac dealer. Thanks to Fake Steve for drawing my attention to this.

(If you’re confused at what it’s supposed to say, tilt your head to the left.)

[tags]apple, mac, neon, sign, neon sign[/tags]

Share This