Category Archives: Technology

Steve Jobs: in memoriam obsequium.

by

 

STEVEN PAUL JOBS

February 24, 1955-October 5, 2011

“Steve was among the greatest of American innovators – brave enough to think differently, bold enough to believe he could change the world, and talented enough to do it.” 

– President Barack Obama, October 5, 2011.

You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards. So you have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future. You have to trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.

[T]he only way to be truly satisfied is to do great work.  And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking. Don’t settle. As with all matters of the heart, you’ll know when you find it. And, like any great relationship, it just gets better and better as the years roll on. So keep looking until you find it. Don’t settle.”

Death is very likely the single best invention of Life.  It is Life’s change agent.

[Stanford Commencement Address, 2005]

"My model for business is The Beatles.There were four guys who kept each others, kind of, negative tendencies in check. They balanced each other, and the total was greater than the sum of the parts. And that’s how I see In this Jan. 15, 2008, file photo, Apple CEO Steve Jobs holds up the new MacBook Air after giving the keynote address at the Apple MacWorld Conference in San Francisco. business. You know, great things in business are never done by one person. They’re done by a team of people.

["60 Minutes" interview, 2003]

“That’s been one of my mantras — focus and simplicity. Simple can be harder than complex: You have to work hard to get your thinking clean to make it simple. But it’s worth it in the end because once you get there, you can move mountains.”

[BusinessWeek, May 25, 1998]

In my mind, Steve jobs was one of the most original thinkers of our time.  When I teach copyright law at Belmont University in Nashville, one of the first lectures I deliver to my students regards the origins of an idea, that sliver of creativity that some lucky few of the human race get to reach up and grab, an original idea.  Some philosophers and thinkers would have us believe that there is no such thing as an original idea, that everything had a predecessor.  Even Solomon is quoted as saying that “there is nothing new under the sun.”  Any truth in that philosophy is obliterated by the life of a man like Steve Jobs.  -Barry Neil Shrum, Esquire

Siri-ously Apple? Sad News for Applebots Everywhere.

by

Let me preface this post by stating unequivocally that I own both the original iPhone 4 and the iPad2, and I recently purchased both a Macbook Pro and Air for my son and wife respectively, so I am not by all counts an anti-Appleit, although I still use an Intel-based desktop machine at work, where I do most of my serious work. 

But seriously, Apple, do you really think this new product release was a good idea?  How long have rabid Apple fans been waiting for yesterday’s announcement from the marketing saavy technology gurus that you have taught us you are?  Millions of faithful minions waited in anticipation, with bated breath, scouring the blogs for any leaked news of the brand spanking new “iPhone 5”: rumors of sleek new teardrop designs and a larger edge to edge screen with higher resolution circulated around the blogosphere for months.  There we photos of cases from manufacturers showing a larger body design.  There we photographs of mockups of the new “iPhone 5.”  There were SKU’s from Best Buy and Amazon showing the new pricing structures.  None of these stories or photographs were leaked accidentally on purpose, I’m sure.

So what was the reward for the patience of the inquisitive Apple fans?:  an incremental hardware update that merely catches up to the technology Android phones have had for many months now, together with an AI-based voice-recognition software technology purchased from the third party upstart Siri!   Not even enough to really get the full treatment of Tim Cook – responsibility for discussing the new phone fell to a SVP!

You would think that this seemingly obvious faux pas would put some serious doubt in minds of the Apple zealots who have sworn their blind allegiance to the house that Jobs built (Applebots,as I like to call them)?  But even as Apple’s stock declines in response to the announcement – Wall Street was not fooled – I’m sure millions of these Applebots will march happily into the squeaky-clean Apple Stores to purchase this pitiful excuse for an actual upgrade. 

So what exactly are the specifications of this new iPhone?  It is the iPhone 4 with an upgraded duo-core processor and an 8 megapixel camera (with “improved optics”).  That’s it.  Nothing earth shattering right?  Nothing, as I said, that Android phones haven’t had for many months now.  There were at least four Android phones in the U.S. marketplace that had these specifications six month ago.  Oh yes – lest I forget – the new iPhone 4s boasts an “improved” operating system – iOS 5 – that “introduces” Siri – an artificial intelligence-based software it purchased just a few months after the upstart company of the same name released the iPhone version of the application!  

I don’t know about you, but I tried Siri on an iPhone 3s many moons ago and quickly deleted it from my apps for lack of interests.  Still, it’s different Apple says, because we’ve integrated into the OS.  Many pundits – not paid I’m sure – are calling Siri a revolutionary product:  a “most exciting” artificially intelligent personal assistant app built into the operating system.  One blogger even dared to credit Apple with a “mind blowing” prophecy of the advent of this kind of interactive voice/touch technology back in the 80’s with the release of a video called “Knowledge Navigator” (see this Techcrunch post by Rip Empson).  Another blogger describes the software release as a “world-changing event.”  Is it now?  Let’s explore that assumption:

Siri started operations over four years ago, in December 2007.  It didn’t receive serious VC capitalization until late 2008 – though that’s not bad for an upstart.  The application was released without much fanfare and, as I said, had less than stellar performance as an app.  Nonetheless, Apple acquired the company in late 2010, in the midst of the growing rumor grist about the iPhone 5’s impending release in June 2011 (Apple’s old release schedule). 

So, my question to the bloggers who acclaim the amazing merits of Siri is this:  If Apple had the vision of this kind of application when it built the prototypical “Knowledge Navigator” in the late 80’s, why wasn’t it incorporated into their early devices (read, failures?) such as the Apple Newton?  Better yet, why wasn’t something similar incorporated into earlier versions of the iPhone?   Ah, you might argue, the technology hadn’t been invented yet.  This is new stuff from the minds of Apple.  They ad the prophetic foresight to recognize the merits of Siri and purchase the product.

Not so fast.  If we are going to bestow the moniker of to prophet on anyone with regard to the oracle of artificial intelligence, let’s start with Gene Roddenberry, whose tremendously successful Star Trek series foreshadowed humans talking to reasonably intelligent on-board computers that could understand, analyze, evaluate and respond to instructions better than any iPhone app – and long before the late 80s!  “Computer, what is the weather going to be like on Alpha Centauri?”   A sweet voice replies:  “Captain Kirk, the temperature on Alpha Centuari is approximately 5790 Kelvin.”  Or how about George Lucas, who in terms of a “Knowledge Navigator” conceived of C-3P0 years prior to Apple in the movie Star Wars.  C-3P0 was the lovable “protocol droid” who was fluent in over six million forms of communication, and interacted with humans to assist them in understanding etiquette, customs and translations as they gallivanted around the galaxy.

But, in terms of real world application and, dare I say true prophetic vision, let’s get really serious and discuss the work of John McCarthy and his team at Dartmouth College beginning in the mid 50s!  That’s when artificial intelligence was more than just prophesized, it was actually conceived, designed and implemented.  Indeed, some would maintain that the field of Artificial Intelligence was actually born there in Hanover, New Hampshire.  McCarthy and his team designed systems that would ultimately speak English better than most Americans and deftly work out complex mathematical problems and verbally solve intensely sophisticated logical theorems.  By comparison, Apple’s latest iteration of Siri is no more than the most recent iPhone version of that “Hello Teddy” bear that was so popular in the 80’s!  “Let’s play a game.”

One last gripe of mine that is slightly off topic:  why on earth, Apple, would you release a new iPhone model that IS NOT 4G COMPATIBLE?  Where is your sense of being a leader in cutting edge technology?  I understand, you don’t have to be.  You’ve sold your product to your minions of Applebots and you will continue to do so:  but don’t you have any pride?

Now, if I take a moment to step down from my soapbox, l can say that I see the tremendous value of Siri, and have as one of the early downloaders from its humble beginnings as an app.  But where I have to part ways with the Applebots is when they start describing the application as “earth shattering” and “mind blowing.”  What McCarthy and his team was mind blowing.  That research was years ahead of its time when computer technology was still in its nascent phase. 

In fact, I question whether Siri even has enough pizazz to sway those patient early adopters who have been waiting for months to purchase the “new” iPhone.  This is why I ask “Siri-ously Apple?”   Now, those poor misled people are left with only two options when it comes to the purchase of a new phone:  (1) buy the incremental upgrade to the iPhone 4 or (2) wait 8-12 months for the real iPhone 5 to be released.  The problem is, if they do wait, these people will still have no certainty of what features the next release will have or whether it will be yet another incremental upgrade (perhaps with 4g capabilities, hmmmm?).

And that brings me to crux of my point at last:  there is a third real and very viable option:  they can choose to buy an Android!  Why wait for the new technology that might be on the iPhone 5 in 6-8 months when the technology is here right now.  No longer are Android phones second fiddle in terms of design.  They have really nice, 4+ inch screens with super amoled screens and dual core processors boasting performance beyond that of the iPhone. They have – Apple forbid – external storage.  The can run flash programming, which is still a prominent feature of the web, despite Apple’s stubborn refusal to incorporate it into their phones (ask yourself, why can an Apple desktop run flash programming, and yet an iPhone or iPad cannot?).  Many model are, in fact, vastly superior to anything Apple has on the market.  In fact, as of August 2010, Android sets overtook iPhone sales by a margin of 27% of all U.S. phone sales as compared to 23% for Apple (Source: Nielson Company).   Judging from initial reports about the disappointment over Apple’s latest offering, this trend is likely to explode in the next few months as Android manufacturers begin to release their latest offerings for the holiday season.

But, a true Applebot may say, what about the millions of apps that are available for the iPhone?  Recently reports indicate that there are approximately 400,000 apps available for the iPhone as compared to just over half of that for Android as of this month.  If you remove all the really useless apps from Apple – tilting beer mugs, fart machines, etc. etc. – then the numbers are even much closer than that.  There are very few productivity applications that are available on the iPhone which are not available for the Android.  The Android even has a slew of artificial intelligence based applications that can perform many of the same functions as Siri, although not as integrated into the system.  Finally, if we count in terms of downloads, Android is actually the winner:  it overtook iPhone last month with just over 8 million applications downloaded.  So, this is not such an issue anymore.

Bottom line:  Apple is losing its spark.  It is losing its sex appeal.  For the first time in a long time, it is losing its market saavy, which will soon show up in market share.  Alas, it is losing touch with the consumer.  Most in the majority are NOT Applebots.  They don’t blindly purchase anything Apple throws out for consumption the way teenagers blindly purchases Dr. Dre headphones that are vastly inferior to almost any other headphone on the market sold at a third of the price.  We evaluate.  We compare.  When he or she can buy, just as an example, a Samsung Galaxy IIs with superior specifications as compared to the latest, newest iPhone at the same or lower prices, the typical consumer begins to see the flaws in the fairy tale that was Apple.  And perhaps those millions that waited patiently for the iPhone 5 will look elsewhere, beyond the incremental, “catch-up” upgrade.  A recent article in the New York Times points out this strong trend in consumer behavior that is likely to be fueled by Apple’s incremental reasoning.  With it’s lackluster announcement, even Apple’s new deal with Sprint may not be able to save them from the consumers’ inevitable recognition of this new design for what it is:  a mere incremental upgrade.  It’s sad to see the iPhone fall into that same loop of incremental upgrades that both the MacBook and the Air have been stuck in for years.  Nothing exciting, just speed boosts and software tweaks.  Yes, it’s faster.  Yes, Lion is pretty.  Yes, like the app screen – but it’s nothing astonishing.  It’s sad that Apple is becoming nothing more than one of many.  They used to have an edge.  And perhaps that is the most sad fact of all:  Apple has shown us nothing in this upgrade that is earth-shattering or mind blowing.  And, after all, that’s what we have come to expect from Apple isn’t it?   Siri-ously!

Origins of an Idea–Nothing New Under the Sun?

by

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. – Thomas Jefferson

It was allegedly King Solomon who declared “there is nothing new under the sun!”  Now a recent strain of thought seeks to recast King Solomon’s casual observation in order to challenge the basis of U.S. copyright laws, i.e., original ideas.  This line of reasoning is perhaps best exemplified in the popular cult film by Brett Gaylor entitled RIP, A Remix Manfesto, inspired by his need to defend the work of his favorite mash up artist, Girltalk.  Gaylor makes no bones about his attack on ideas, explaining to his audience near the beginning of the film that this  is “a film about the war of ideas, where the Internet is the battleground.”  So be it.  Let’s debate the film’s primary cornerstone, the first and foundational clause of the Remix Manifesto, which is that “Culture always borrows from the past.”  Is that true?

To be fair to Gaylor, let me initially point out that the entire ReMix Manifesto, and certainly the ideology that undergirds it, is actually borrowed from Dr. Lawrence Lessig, who is a professor at Stanford Law School.  Lessig develops the thesis in his book, Remix:  Making Art & Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. Lessig is prominently featured in the film and Gaylor does not shy away from his support of Lessig’s thesis.

Now back to the premise that “culture always borrows from the past.”  Without getting too far down the path towards the logical fallacy of drawing a universal conclusion from purely inductive reasoning (as Gaylor does in the film), such a conclusion is, at best, probable, and not definitive.  Further, it is only probable if one can assume the truth of the premises used to support the conclusion, for the instant a person can find but one example of an contradicting premise – i.e., in this case an example of something that does not borrow from the past – then the conclusion must be flawed.

Can we find such an example, or are King Solomon and Dr. Lessig correct?  Is there no original thought?  I personally have a hard time accepting this premise.  Spawning original ideas or creating an original thought is, in my humble opinion, what separates us and truly defines us as a species.  Sure, the human species uses words, notes, colors, shapes, etc. as the building blocks of its ideas.  In that sense, yes, we are using “the past” to create, at least in some fundamental sense.  But if you think about it, you’ve heard the old postulation that if you put 50 monkeys in a room filled with typewriters they are statistically incapable of creating a work of Shakespeare simply by striking out random characters on the page and even, perhaps, hitting upon a string of a few words every so often!  This illustrates the proposition that the mere existence of the building blocks does not negate original nor creative thought.

King_SolomonEvery now and again, albeit perhaps rare, a human being has a spark of an idea:  something is invented or created – something original and unique – that changes, even if only in a small senses, the very nature of life for all humans that follow.  It is these original thoughts that propel us forward toward the destiny that is mankind’s, affected forever by the new idea.  What it must have been like to be around in the days when the first human species began to formulate language.  Creating symbols, be it words or drawings, that communicated their thoughts to another human being.  To have been present when the first rudimentary tools were developed to perform the tasks necessary to sustain one’s life in a hostile environment.  In the film, Gaylor makes the point that Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press occurred during a time when the “public domain” flourished.  His use of this example is, in this case, ironic, since the printing press can truly be defined as one of those creative bursts of unique ideas that only come along one is a few millennia.  Since that invention, perhaps only the creation of the Internet has affected the world as much as Gutenberg’s original thought.

So, with these examples, I ask what part of the past did they build on?  One might argue that language “borrowed” from the idea of communicating through gestures.  Another will say that Gutenberg incorporated language and writing and therefore borrowed from the past.  But only in the most general of senses can one seriously maintain that these remarkably useful and unique ideas sustain the principle that “culture always borrows from the past.”  I maintain that these are examples of those brilliant moments in human history when someone has that flash of an original idea – whether inspired by God, by his or her muse, by hallucinogenic means, or by heartburn – and creates something that is uniquely and totally new, something that does not, in any substantive sense, borrow from the past.  In that moment, we witness the origins of an idea.  Perhaps more importantly, when that original idea is expressed in a tangible format, we see the origins of a copyright in the U.S., a copyright that is protectable as a limited monopoly for the life of the author plus seventy years.

In that last conclusion lies the crux of the problem.  Lessig and Gaylor make their proposition in the context of trying to solve a perceived problem with current copyright laws:  because the length of protection has been extended, there are fewer works going into to public domain and therefore fewer ideas from which to borrow.  As a result, “artists” like Girltalk who use pre-existing copyright sound recordings to “mash” together and “create” new songs have fewer popular songs to work with.

In Remix, Lessig says that this results in the criminalization of copying ideas and that, therefore, we should deregulate amateur creativity and decriminalize file sharing.  In his words, “chill the ‘control freaks.’”  This is where Lessig jumps in to save the day with his “creative commons” license, which uses existing copyright concepts to allow an author to “issue” a license allowing anyone to freely use his or her work, with the only requirement being that of attribution.  Ironically enough, Lessig has copyrighted his own books and has, to date at least, not issued a creative commons license for Remix! Now who’s the control freak?

In regard to this issue of works no longer falling into the public domain, while it may be true that extending the period of protection has the effect of slowing down the process, the fact is that our forefathers, primarily Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Charles Pinckney, clearly anticipated and struggled with the concept that “ideas should spread freely” – as Jefferson says in the quote above – but nonetheless built appropriate safeguards into the copyright provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), providing that Congress may protect the works of “authors and inventors” for “a limited time.”  While one can argue, perhaps, that the period of a “limited time” has been grossly exaggerated, one cannot argue that the public domain concept has been abolished.

Frankly, as I see it, giving up on the concept of original thought is not the foundation upon which we as a society should build a debate against the current construct.  We should cling to that concept, for it is in that moment – that origin of an original idea – that persons can distinguish themselves from the past, not borrow from it.  It is at that moment that our culture is propelled into the future.  It is at that moment, I believe, that we are truly alive.

This article was inspired by the following introductory lecture given to my Copyright Law class at Belmont University’s Mike Curb School of Music Business:

 

 

 

Continue reading →

The Proposed “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act”– yet another feeble attempt?

by

By Barry Neil Shrum & Nathan Drake

Since before the day that Napster was a twinkle in Sean Parker’s eye – well over a decade ago now – the legal and music industries have each struggled with ways to cope with and transform their dusty old business models from the physical status quo to the digital revolution. After the industry watchdog, the RIAA, initially targeted the Diamond Multimedia’s Rio MP3 player and then Parker, and then finally individuals were illegally downloading, the major record labels began to realize something: that perhaps the fact that consumers were downloading music illegally was merely a symptom of the problem rather than the source of the problem. So, the RIAA also began suing P2P file-sharing websites that sprang up instantly in the place of Napster, websites like Kazaa and LimeWire. While this method proved to be a bit more effective, the process still accomplished little in preventing future P2P file sharing services from materializing, each taking the place of its predecessor and each growing as rapidly as the one before. In yet another continuing effort to solve the music industry’s nightmare, new legislation has been introduced to Senate which is entitled “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act.” (S. 3804)

The purpose of the “Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act” (COICA) is to provide owners of intellectual property additional weapons in the battle against illegal downloading. As indicated, the inherent difficulty of deterring and prosecuting these myriad individuals who aimagere profiting off copyrighted materials is that they easily hide behind the anonymous wall of the Internet. Many of the sites providing access to this illegal property are situated well off the shores of the United States, overseas and beyond the long reach of the court’s jurisdiction.

Another problem is the sheer mass of the problem. One study indicates that as much as 1 in 4 Internet users download illegal music – an astonishing statistic! Let me state that another way: 25% of the traffic on the Internet is to sites that allow illegal downloading of copyrighted material, be it digital books, movies or music.

As Senator Leahy, one of the sponsors of COICA says, it is essential that the government enforce a

“means for preventing the importation of infringing goods by rogue websites, particularly for sites that are registered overseas.”

Through focusing on the domain names, COICA gives the Department of Justice the authority to pursue and prosecute offending website, both domestically and abroad. Incentivizing and rewarding creative endeavors remains the core ideology of American copyright protection, and instilling this value in our society is crucial if our society will continue to create. According to the Chamber of Commerce, “…American intellectual property accounts for more than $5 trillion and IP-intensive industries employ more than 18 million workers.” Therefore, protecting this integral aspect of American ingenuity and economy should be a priority.

Additionally, COICA provides universal jurisdiction to the Department of Justice in pursuing and prosecuting domain names that solicit American intellectual property in the United States. If the law succeeds, individuals committing copyright infringement will no longer be able to hide behind the protection of their native country, without fearing that their action can and will be pursued by the United States.

In addition, COICA allows third party participants to be prosecuted for “enabling” the website to sustain itself and lend legitimacy to the practices and products of the website. As Senator Leahy states, “These [third] parties monetize the Internet site by enabling U.S. consumers to access the infringing website, to purchase content and products off the website, and to view advertisements on the website. Without partnering with these entities, the financial incentive to run an infringing Internet site is greatly diminished.” Those directly and indirectly supporting copyright infringement will be prosecuted.

For the purposes of COICA, the government defines a website as, “dedicated to infringing activities.” Due to the outstanding number of infringing websites, the government intends to pursue only the most “egregious rogue websites that are trafficking in infringing goods.” To be considered an infringing website, one of two criteria must be identified. First, the website exhibits the “existing threshold for forfeiture” under U.S.C. 2323, or the website reveals no commercial value and intends to only sell copyrightable items protected under Title 17 of the United States Code.

One of the primary opponents to the passage of COICA is the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). Although CEA supports and agrees with the general direction of COICA, they feel its vague and wide reaching language could potentially harm legitimate businesses that are not committing copyright infringement. CEA says, “Our primary concern is that the scope of S. 3804 was significantly broader than its intended purpose of shutting down ‘rogue’ or foreign websites solely engaging in the exchange of pirated content or goods.” The ambiguous language of COICA could potentially diminish previous milestone cases according to CEA, including the “Betamax Case” determined by the Supreme Court in 1984.

While the technological environment is constantly changing and creating new hurdles for the consumer and business, the importance of copyright protection still remains. A constantly transforming environment requires innovative and relevant legislation to meet the creative needs of our culture. In an attempt to counter this decade long battle, legislation like COICA would allow the government to target the source of global piracy, and enforce the relevance and weight of American copyright protection. But our legislators must be certain to craft language that does not impede the rights of its citizens. Balance is need lest we resort to the overreaching, irrational, and over reactive activity the RIAA engaged itself in over the past decade.

RESOURCES & FURTHER READING

http://supreme.justia.com/us/464/417/

http://openjurist.org/title-18/us-code/section-2323/forfeiture-destruction-and-restitution

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_reports&docid=f:sr373.111.pdf


Get 50% off your first 3 months at audible.com!

Four – initial thoughts on the new iPhone 4.

by

My belated Father’s Day gift this year was a brand, spanking new iPhone 4 32mb!  So, now that I’ve been using it for about two weeks, I decided to share my thoughts and insights, particularly since I’ve previously blogged about my love/hate relationship with Apple and the predecessor phones.  I am a staunch Windows 7 user, and have my doubts about the seriousness of anyone who uses the Apple operating system!  Just kidding really.

Without a doubt, the first thing you notice about the new iPhone is the superior clarity of tiphone4mainbigfront he 960×640 screen. It’s brighter, fonts are clearer, pictures more vibrant and, overall, it’s simply much more impressive.  Don’t’ take my word for it, hold one up next to your old iPhone and you’ll see the difference instantly.  The 480×320 screen on the older phones appear almost muddy by comparison.  Apple doubled the pixels per inch, and it shows.  They also increased the contract ratio to 800:1.  In the end, the resolution upgrade alone is worth the price of admission!

The next design element I noticed was the shape.  The new iPhone 4 is very distinct from its predecessors in its very UN-zen-like feel, stepping toward a more “slate” type approach.  That can be either a good or bad choice, depending upon your perspective, and how much you liked the original Zen-like design.  I personally really liked the “Zen Stone” feel of the original, with it’s rounded back and corners.  My previous model was the white 3g (oh, sorry Apple, I probably shouldn’t mention the “white” right now huh?).  That said, the new shape and feel have grown on me and I actually like the new aesthetics, although it did take some adjustments in my holding style.  The new model is much starker, with metal edges, creating an almost industrial feel (the very same edges that give the iPhone 4 it’s trademark reception problems).  The phone is more slender than its predecessors as well, which gives the misleading appearance of a smaller screen.  It’s not – actually they are identical in size at 89 mm.  The edges also give the appearance that the 4 is thicker than its ancestory.  Again, it’s not.  It’s actually shaved thinner – 2 mm to be precise!

Putting aside the incredible screen, the next real beauty of this new model is the software revisions.  Many of my faithful readers will recall my constant berating of Apple about the lack of multi-tasking, something the very first Palm Pilots could pull off with ease.  So, how many years and version upgrades have we been through?  Having poked at the giant enough, I will state unequivocally that Apple’s implementation of this mission critical component is very well done.  Two clicks on the home button and up pops a menu at the bottom showing all running applications and allowing you to move between them.  One can, for example, read a book and take notes, or time a runner and jot down the time.  I know, these seem like simple, ordinary tasks, but try that on an older iPhone!  One feature of multitasking that would be an improvement in future version, however, is the ability to shutdown all applications without having to individually close them.  After several hours of use, the multiple applications begin to pile up and exhaust valuable resources.  But, that caveat expressed, I am SO happy to have multi-tasking on my iPhone.  I was beginning to miss those days with my Palm.

Another one of my expressly desired features that did NOT appear on this new model is the week view in the calendar.  It might sound like a petty request, but in the business world, many people rely on the week view for advance planning and scheduling.  And please, don’t tell me about the “List” view – a more useless apparatus I have never witnessed – it is simply not a replacement for the week view!  Ironically, Apple HAS implemented the weekview feature on its enigmatic iPad.  I was so put out when I found this.  “So, why can’t I have it too?” I asked The “Genius” at the store.  She tells me it is planned for a future version, but I don’t know if I trust The Genius.  Apple’s sin is further amplified by the fact that because of its proprietary philosophy it will not allow third party software designers to access the code to their precious default programs, so no one can even design a work around!  Pocket Informant has a beautiful weekview in its application, but you are relegated to using Google Calendar, not the Apple default.  So, this complicates issues with Exchange servers and is not a good work around.  Ok, so enough of my bitching, let’s get back to the many things I LIKE about the 4!

Let’s talk folders!  Another sadly missing item was rectified by the new operating system by the addition of the foldering system.  Now, instead of 10 or so unorganized pages containing a hodge podge of programs, I have one main screen with my most utilized programs, and a page and one half of folders!  An organizational system in a Personal Information Manager, imagine that!  It’s truly great.

There are, of course, many other wonder additions on the iPhone 4 – the 5 mp camera and front facing camera, video conferencing, gyroscope, etc. –  but these are my initial thoughts.

Over the next few months, I will be sharing some of my favorite applications on the iPhone with you, but suffice it to say that the new iPhone is working out quite nicely.  I highly recommend an upgrade if you’re considering it and/or are waivering.  There is a a good comparison at Wikipedia.