After having owned an iPhone for two weeks exactly, I can say that it’s one very cool device and I’m not the least bit surprised that a recent survey found that 90% of iPhone owners are extremely or very satisfied with their pricey purchase. My dear friend Om, who swore off buying one but then relented, is likewise enamored.
I’ve held off writing about the iPhone because, well, droves of pundits, journalists, bloggers and tech reviewers were already bombarding the Internet with extensive pieces and I certainly didn’t have anything to contribute.
But now that the dust has settled, I’ll share my experience with the iconic device, for what it’s worth.
For me the cool features of the iPhone aren’t necessarily the most headline-grabbing. In no particular order, here’s what I like the most:
1. It’s extraordinarily intuitive: On activation (which went relatively quickly for me because I repeatedly demanded an explanation for the 5-hour delay in getting the device up and going and for some reason that was very intimidating to the Apple/AT&T people), I knew how to operate the device instantly. This is in contrast to the Blackberry, for example. I’m ashamed to admit that it took me two years to realize that the “Go to:” feature on the Blackberry was a web browser.
2. It locks itself when idle: I’m not sure why this appeals to me but it does. It’s kind of comforting to know that no weird things will happen on my phone if I get distracted and leave it lying around or shove it in my purse and forget to lock it.
3. It gives you a run-down of phone activity when you pick it up: This is kind of hard to explain if you don’t have an iPhone. Here’s what happens: If you haven’t checked your phone in a while, a synopsis of missed calls, voice mails and text messages appears when you push on the sole “start” button. After pushing the button, a series of text-based messages (in clean, big font inside of stylish quote boxes) appears on the screen saying “Joe Doe…Missed Call,” “Honey can you pick up dinner….Joe Doe” and on and on. No need, necessarily, to navigate around to find out which calls you’ve missed or what text messages you’ve received. No need, even, to unlock your phone. All your messages are neatly laid out on one screen and can be read at a glance.
4. The iPod is better than an iPod: Not only is the quality of the iPod first-rate, it’s better than a stand-alone iPod. The iPhone has a speaker, which the iPod does not. Plus, flipping through album covers is oddly addictive.
5. The Yahoo! Weather feature is a time-saver: The iPhone comes with a Weather feature powered by Yahoo!. Users can pick the default locale for current and forecast weather reports (the factory default is Cupertino, CA, where it’s always, apparently 73 degrees) and then with a tap on the screen, get an image-driven weather snapshot — how hot is it now, how hot it was this morning, how hot it will be tonight, tomorrow morning, tomorrow night etc. I’ve checked this thing at last 30 times over the past two weeks.
6. Google Maps is a lifesaver and Google Earth’s satellite imaging is a conversation-starter: I’ve navigated a few journeys now using Google Maps, which is remarkably detailed and, like all iPhone pages, allows for zooming in and out via touchscreen. The clarity of Google satellite, even on the iPhone, is ridiculously good — I can see my car in front of my house by zooming in from space. At parties, everybody wants to see their houses on the iPhone using Google satellite.
7. It’s got a smooth, sensual feel: The hardened glass and steel construction of the iPhone is fun to feel in my hand. I like idly running my fingers over the iPhone’s surface (how’s that for an unusual reason to buy an iPhone).
Many of these seem like parlor tricks, I know, but they make the iPhone a pleasure to own and use. Moreover, although the touchscreen can be a hassle sometimes, particularly if I’m in a hurry, it’s not that awkward. And, although AT&T’s Edge network is slow, more often than not Internet surfing and YouTube viewing are satisfactory experiences.
My one legitimate beef: Email on the iPhone is a hassle if you don’t know what you’re doing. I’ve set up my POP email accounts on the iPhone, but given the enormous amount of spam I receive, which isn’t filtered out at the server level, email isn’t practical for me on the iPhone. There’s simply no way to filter out spam (not that I’ve found) with a POP email account unless you do it at the server and I don’t like obliterating spam that way.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 5:05 PM | Print | Comments (0)In the “dangers of drinking with reporters” category, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was hanging out in the hotel bar with members of the media during Herb Allen’s Sun Valley mogul meeting and made some biting remarks about litigation adversary Viacom. (Schmidt was apparently mingling with the press in the wee hours of the morning because Reuters’ Kenneth Li filed his piece early this morning but noted that Schimdt mocked the media conglomerate “Friday,” which is, of course, today.)
In his comments, Schmidt implied that Viacom would rather win through litigation than through shrewd business strategy.
“Viacom is a company built from lawsuits, look at their history,” Schmidt said early Friday.
“Look who they hired as CEO: Philippe Dauman, who was the general counsel for Viacom for 20 years,” he added.
Update: David Carr has a very fun read here about Schmidt’s late-night gab fest with the journos, which touched on not only Viacom but also the role of the Internet in crumbling business models of traditional media companies and whether Yahoo!’s Panama system will rescue the troubled Internet giant.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 12:07 PM | Print | Comments (0)
Kim Hart fronts The Washington Post’s business section today with this article on FCC Chairman Martin’s idea about setting aside some spectrum in the upcoming 700 MHz auction for “open access” broadband wireless services. Ever since Martin dropped this bombshell, confusion has reigned about just what Martin intends to do with this “open access” idea.
Martin sees this set-aside spectrum as being used by the license holders for services that operate on any handset, freeing consumers to switch over to that service providers’ options even with handsets that were originally handcuffed to another providers’ offerings. Consumer groups and tech giants such as Google welcome Martin’s idea but say it doesn’t go far enough — the licensee should be able to resell spectrum to third-party service providers, which is not part of Martin’s plan.
Incumbent providers, such as Verizon Wireless, think Martin’s idea goes too far and call the proposed “open access” rules the “Google Block” rules, arguing that they tilt the auction in favor of specific companies. Moreover, the rules aren’t necessary because license winners are free to operate their spectrum in an open manner if market forces warrant it, they argue.
The really interesting part of this debate, however, is whether “open access” is just another form of “net neutrality,” a policy push that reached its zenith last fall and has since receded into relative political obscurity. As Hart’s article points out, if open access in the 700 MHz auction isn’t exactly the same thing as net neutrality, it’s a kissing cousin.
Analysts say the open network question has revived the debate over network neutrality on the wireless front. Net neutrality, a hot issue on Capitol Hill a year ago, concerns the ability of Internet service providers to give preferential treatment to certain content providers.
However, applying net neutrality to the wireless industry raises new questions, and opinions differ on the meaning of an “open” network.
“Definitions are blurry at best, even in the broadband world,” said Jon M. Peha, associate director of the Center for Wireless and Broadband Networking at Carnegie Mellon University. Strict requirements around an ambiguous concept might “make a number of carriers much less likely to bid,” he said.
In many respects, then, “open access” is “net neutrality” except it applies only in the 700 MHz world. Moreover, traditional incumbents may have a hard time dodging this new concept of net neutrality. During hearings held on Wednesday in the House, lawmakers embraced Martin’s idea and don’t seem loathe to expand the concept to satisfy the concerns of tech and consumer groups. (But, Congressional sentiment isn’t one-sided: a group of 38 lawmakers did send a letter to Martin opposing the idea, suggesting that the open access requirement would “dictate” how carriers should use their spectrum.)
On a related note, Frontline Wireless, which is purportedly shut out of the auctions even though its idea of reserving priority spectrum for public safety purposes has been embraced in the draft auction rules, is trying to save its chances of survival. Frontline has hired former FBI Director Louis Freeh to lobby for its proposal. Frontline also has a “net neutrality” or “open access” idea — spectrum owners would be free to lease out capacity to interested service providers when that spectrum is not needed for public safety reasons.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 11:24 AM | Print | Comments (0)
In a slightly confusing and obviously fluid set of developments, webcasters or net radio stations have dodged a deadly bullet following 11th hour negotiations between record company-backed Sound Exchange and net radio representatives. A deal has been struck not to enforce new royalty rates ordered by the Copyright Royalty Board that would have jacked up beyond sustainability royalties that online radio stations have to pay.
However, reports of the closed-door negotiations that took place on Capitol Hill yesterday say that a deal has been struck that, in lieu of paying new royalty rates that are 300% to 1200% higher than they were before, net radio stations now are apparently capped at $50,000 per station per year in royalties. The current scheme, a stay of which a federal appeals court shot down earlier this week, is slated to go into effect on Sunday, with payments due on Monday.
But the SaveNetRadio coalition is nonetheless keeping the heat on Congress to pass a bill, The Internet Radio Equality Act. The group sent out emails this morning urging listeners to contact their Senators in an apparent effort to move the legislation out of the Judiciary Committee. The bill would nullify the CRB’s original March 2007 decision that resulted in the rate hikes.
Despite the apparent negotiated waiver of payments between Sound Exchange and the net radio industry, the CRB ruling still stands, leaving webcasters in a precarious situation, subject to the whims of Sound Exchange. On the other hand, Sound Exchange, and the recorded music industry more generally, faces a potentially bloody grassroots and Congressional fight if the rates go into effect and they may want to save their political firepower for a more important battle.
Posted by Cynthia Brumfield at 10:47 AM | Print | Comments (0)
Blogs We Read
