Apple is Strange

I remember the first time I walked into an Apple store in my local mall; all the shiny, smooth white products gave me the impression that I was walking into the future.  I bought a Mac Book Pro, and was so impressed by the build quality and the simplicity of the operating system.  I was immediately of total Apple convert.  I owned several iterations of the iPod, and the iPod Touch was favorite gadget.

Over time, I realized that, while Apple products are nice, buying one of them does not equate to entering the future.  They have their uses, like anything else, but they are not necessarily the best choice for everything. Apple has often marched to the beat of their own drum, offering consumers a heavily locked-down platform; so much so that it is not uncommon for an iPhone owner to "jailbreak" it.  I should note that I am not a fan boy of any brand (Apple, Android, Windows Phone); every brand some things really well, and other things that leave me scratching my head.

After the recent WWDC 14, Apple seems to be taking a different approach to development.  Changing to a different programming language, allowing third-party keyboards, and a slew of other things has developers excited.  I applaud Apple for this new direction, but then I read something like this.  Now, this article should be taken with grain of salt, since the information came from a leak, which is not always accurate.  However, if it is true, and Apple is actually planning to make the consumer by special proprietary headphones just to get basic functionality out of an iPod, then I currently have the last iPod I will ever purchase.  I have a few pairs of headphones around the house, and if their devices will not work with said headphones, then I have no need for them.

It just seems like such a bizarre contradiction to the focus Apple seemed to display at the WWDC.  I hope the decision to replace the headphone jack with lightning port is an exaggerated one.

Sprint/T-Mobile: Rumors and Speculation

A few months ago, Mr. Son of SoftBank, owner of Sprint, went before the US government to give his proposal on why he should be allowed to acquire T-Mobile.  He pointed out the fact that Americans pay considerably more for considerably less data than customers in other countries.  He then claimed that he wanted to initiate a price war with AT&T and Verizon, but that he needed a larger infrastructure to do so.  Whether or not he meant what he said, the word hit the news on the Internet that Deutsche Telekom, majority stakeholder of T-Mobile, said that they would agree to the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile.

Normally, I am totally against the idea of major IP's merging when it happens in an industry where there are so few of them, thereby giving us as consumers even fewer choices than we previously had.  However, I feel like I want to see this possible merger in a more positive light.  T-Mobile has been making some impressive growth since ditching their traditional contract plans in favor of a month-to-month setup.  Merging with Sprint could help both companies, and it certainly would not hurt those of us who are customers of MVNO Sprint re-sellers (I am a happy customer of Ting Wireless); having access to an even larger network than before, and only paying a fraction of the cost of the major carriers would be awesome.  On the other hand, it's entirely possible that, if the merger were allowed to happen, that contracts with MVNO's would be redrawn, not to mention the possibility that Mr. Son might not hold up his end of the bargain to start a price war.

I love the idea of competition between large companies, because that is when we, the consumers, win.  Cell phone plans cost entirely too much, and now Verizon and AT&T have initiated new plans that allow people to get a different phone before their contracts are up, but at an even greater cost; designed to take advantage of customers that do not read the fine print before handing over their cash, in my opinion.

So far, there is no official word on whether or not this deal will even happen, just that the T-Mobile majority stakeholders would be okay with it.  I will be waiting to see what happens next.

On the Potential YouTube/Twitch Merger

The news that YouTube is attempting to acquire Twitch surprised me when I heard, and gave me some concern.  Twitch is a site for those who want to watch video game related content only; no other videos are allowed on the site.  People do game play videos with commentary and live streams; there are also gaming tournaments (E-Sports) that can be viewed on Twitch.  These videos often contain 2 parts:  footage of a game being played, from an IP that is not owned by the person making the video, and music, which is usually under copyright protection as well.  Regardless, Twitch has been able to operate unimpeded.  I do not know why, but I am happy about it, and I think the Internet is a better place for it.

YouTube has not been as kind to its content producers.  One can find a video for anything on YouTube, from entertainment to education; this is certainly a strong point.  However, in regards to gaming videos, and those who make a living off of said videos, YouTube still has room to grow.  YouTube utilizes a system called ContentID, and it is their way of washing their hands of any involvement in copyright issues.  The recent attack on many content produces that use game footage and music in their videos showed just how blind the system is, as videos were taken down by parties that did not actually have any right to the material. In some cases, that original copyright holders had already given the content producers permission to use said material.

If YouTube does acquire Twitch, I do not see how Twitch's content producers can continue to enjoy the freedom that they have.  Google has no interest in going to court to defend those that use their service to make content for a living, or just for shear creative expression.  I guess we will just have to see how things play out.

Open the Internets!

The recent new about Tom Wheeler's proposal for new rules regarding net neutrality has been the cause for many a heated discussion on forums, in comments, and on social media sites; and I do not blame them.  The Internet, since it became open to the public, has been a huge sandbox; a place for unlimited potential.  It has closed the gap between the corporate world and the consumer, as people are able to voice their opinions and give feedback to producers of goods in a way that has never been possible before.  The Internet has been a place where creativity can flourish, as creators of music, video, and art no longer require a middle man to get their medium of choice to the masses.  It has also been a place for anyone with the desire to start their own business to realize that dream; the Internet can be used to expand a business's reach to customers they would not have otherwise, or run a small business from one's own home.

Internet access has never been amazing in our country.  If you live in any of the larger metropolitan areas, or the surrounding suburbs, in our nation, you have had the pleasure of broadband connections and wireless access, assuming you can afford it.  However, there are still large swaths of the country that have only dial-up as an option, though there are some satellite services out there; again, if you can afford it.  Those of us with broadband choices are left with few of them, and the fear around this proposal by Mr. Wheeler has people worried that those few companies will control how we access what and from what device.

Wheeler's proposal says that ISP's will be held accountable for ensuring customers are getting the speeds they are paying for, which is great, but it also seems to provide said ISP's with the ability to create "fast lanes" on the Internet by charging content providers more money in order to distribute their content at the speeds that they currently do.  This will, of course, lead to more expensive services from those content providers, and with so few choices, we as consumers still loose.

The FCC has voted on going forward with the proposal as it stands, so far, and is open for comment by one and all.  Just do a Google search for "net neutrality", and you will find a way to let your voice be heard.

Learning to Deal with an Old Problem in a New Way.

As long as there has been an instinctual fear of those deemed weak and kids being raised by abusive parents, there has been a problem with bullying.  Before the rise of the Internet, it was something that only happened in person, and was considerably easier to deal with.  Whether you told someone about it, decided to fight back, or simply went somewhere that the bully could not follow, the end result was the same:  the bullying stopped.

Today, the problem of bullying still exists, but its method of delivery has changed.  Bullying online, or cyber-bullying, can now take place on social network sites, making it much harder to get away from a bully.  The only real way to do so is to go offline, but in a world where almost everyone is connected online, that option does not seem very realistic.

The story of Amanda Todd brought the most attention to the damage cyber-bullying and cyber stalking can do to a person, and it is easy to understand why.  After watching her YouTube video, I felt terrible for her.  I also found myself wondering why her situation had been allowed to happen in the first place, and why nothing was done about it.  It is because of those feelings that I understand why adults react the way they do when they believe they have identified a case of cyber-bullying.  It is a “knee-jerk” reaction, born out of a desire to prevent a repeat of Amanda Todd’s story; but the problem with such reactions is that they are usually fueled by emotion, and without much thought put in to actions being taken in response.

There are two sides to every story, and it is no different with cyber-bullying.  The other side could be that the bully in question comes from a rough home, and they are taking out their anger and frustration on others.  Punishing a kid in this situation only makes the problem worse; a conversation needs to be had, here, not blind retribution; this can be said for all forms of bullying.

Another problem of the quick, emotional reaction without understanding is that it can make problems worse for the one being bullied.  The young person in question is already receiving plenty of unwanted attention; if they fear that telling an adult will result in the problem being made even more public, thereby bringing more attention to the problem, they might not say anything at all.  This does not mean that the problem is all on the one being bullied, and that the bully should go unpunished.  It means that, like most things, some moderation is called for.

We have to open channels of communication and teach young people how to handle online bullies just like we have to teach them to handle bullies in person.  A "zero-tolerance" policy might come from noble aspirations, but it is only a temporary fix.  It does not actually solve the problem, and the person being bullied is not learning any life skills; skills that they will need to survive out in the real world, when they are no longer under the shelter of their parents.

Social Media: Your Audience

Social media always seems to be the point of one controversy or another.  None of these services were around until I was already out of the house and in Power School for the Navy; I remember being introduced to each one as they became available to the public and thinking that they were mildly interesting, at best.  To me, they seemed to be a great way to keep in contact with people that you know that you might not live remotely close to anymore.  I have had a few fellow Nukes contact me over Facebook, asking me if I knew of any available jobs, and I have pitched my first job out of the Navy to them; if they were interested, I have forwarded their resumes on to the appropriate supervisors and managers.

Now, social media is huge.  Kids today are growing up with a smartphone in hand, and some are given a Facebook account as soon as they are born.  Because of the popularity of these services, people of all ages are using them now.  As people continue to get connected, they are, of course, going to draw attention from other sources.  Advertisers are buying ad space on social media sites because there are more and more eyeballs there, and now companies and colleges are looking to said sites to vet potential recruits.

Should this be allowed?  That question is being asked more often, and there are some that believe there should be a statute of limitations on who can see what on a given online profile.  Lori Andrews argues that we need to go as far as having an actual Constitution drawn up.

I can see both sides of this argument.  Companies and private colleges are just that:  private.  No one is entitled to a job or enrollment with either establishment, and they have a right to know who they are actually recruiting.  There is really nothing to stop a person from lying on their resume/application, and companies in particular have both a culture and a public image to maintain.  On the other hand, people make bad decisions all the time; this does not make them bad people.  These decisions can often involve what people decide to share online.  People are “at home” when posting things online, and therefore do not always think about who their potential audience might be.

I feel that the easiest solution is to control one’s own profiles.  Having a profile using a one’s actual name and nothing but accomplishments and family connections on the wall might actually assist in getting hired.  If you just have to have a wall full of pictures of yourself setting a record for the most keg stands performed in one night, consider using a different online handle.

Online Identity and Letting Go

Online identity.  The connotations associated with this idea can range from just a simple online handle that one uses to participate in online forums and social communities while providing themselves a sense of security to people getting so attached to their online avatars that they are emotionally scared when something bad happens to said avatar.

I still remember my first time experiencing something like that.  I had tried playing the massive multi player online role playing game (MMORPG) City of Heroes, because the whole idea intrigued me.  I watched my former bass player running around in the world, and when suddenly most of the characters stopped moving (with word bubbles containing the text "Adult Swim" above their heads), I knew I had to try it.  However, I never really felt any connection to the characters I played; they were just sets of polygons moving through a world of polygons.  Perhaps that's why I stopped playing.

Then I tried World of Warcraft (WoW).  In the beginning, it had the same effect as City of Heroes; I never played for very long, though I came back to the game now and again.  It was not until I met some people on my ship, in my work center, that played the game.  I finally picked a character to commit to, and played through the content to reach max level.  It was at this point, I feel, that I began to feel some kind of kinship with my level 80 Draenei Shaman, Kudri.  There is an achievement system in the game, and one of the tougher ones at the time was "World Explorer".  Since the shaman's abilities during that time involved things like the ability to remove poison, walk on water, and breath under water, it felt like a natural explorer class.  Thus I began the time intensive task of uncovering every corner of every zone in the virtual world of WoW.  Kudri stopped being just a set of polygons and began to feel like he was a piece of me, and the name itself stopped being a random collection of letters out of WoW's name generator; I was Kudri.  Even so, I never felt like I had been wronged if something happened to him.  I was still aware that I was playing a game, and that my character never really died.

That connection, along with the ones I had made with other players, is what kept me subscribing.  Then, one day, I decided to try another MMORPG, because I like seeing new games.  As soon as I named by new character in that game "Kudri", the connection I had with my shaman in WoW broke; and it has been that way ever since.  "Kudri", or "Khudri", has since become a name I use because my online friends recognize it, and I am too lazy to come up with something new.

I have heard about much deeper levels of peoples' connection to their online avatars, and I have seen varying levels of role-play in game.  Seeing that just makes me sad for those people.  I remember reading about Stewart in the article Who Am We? and the depression that eventually settled in once he realized that he would never accomplish what his avatar could.  When I hear stories of people that met online, and that eventually meet in real life to form lasting relationships, I am happy for them, and I think it is great that we live in a time where that is possible.  However, when I read about someone like Stewart, even during the good times, I just feel sorry for him.

Cable-ocolypse: Time-Warner/Comcast Merger

A discussion in class got me thinking once again about Comcast's proposal to acquire Time-Warner for $45 billion.  This proposed deal is a perfect example of a company getting too big, and putting themselves in a position to regulate what services users have access to, as well as how they would have access to said services.

There is plenty of concern on the internet about this deal, as seen by the numerous online petitions encouraging people to come together in order to stop the deal; given the amount of links that can be seen with quick Google search of "comcast sucks", I would have thought the deal would have been shut down already.  It is entirely possible that the government will stop the deal from happening, despite Comcast's confidence that the deal will succeed; the Federal Trade Commission did shut down the proposal by AT&T to acquire T-Mobile in December of 2011.  In doing so, one could argue that the government does recognize the danger to consumers of the potential market dominance Comcast would have if the merger was allowed to succeed; there is already pressure from within the Senate for this deal to be stopped.  Comcast has already caused some outrage online by limiting bandwidth to Netflix for their streaming service, ending in a deal with Netflix paying an undisclosed sum of money in order to connect to Comcast's network.

This got me thinking about consumers' choices, or lack thereof, of broadband internet service providers (ISPs) in the US.  There are the big 3:  Comcast, Time-Warner, and Cox.  Additionally nestled in various parts of the country are smaller ISPs, WOW! being the main one I see advertised in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.  This lack of competition does not give much room for better prices on bandwidth, as compared to other developed countries, how have relatively faster speeds at lower prices.

Right now, consumers in the US enjoy the freedom of the internet without too many stipulations, even though it is more expensive here than elsewhere.  However, if this merger is allowed to happen, I worry about what that could mean for my choices as a consumer.  Maybe there is nothing to worry about; maybe Comcast will be able to provide better service, overall, without raising prices or imposing new pay-walls for services; but I do not see that happening.  They have no reason to operate better at lower prices if there is no pressure from consumers, and no competition.  I am personally looking for other service providers in my area, and I encourage everyone who enjoys being able to access any internet service from any device, without restrictions, to do the same.  Forums are nice, but nothing speaks louder than voting with your dollar.

Google: Only as powerful as users allow it.

Google:  There a lot of talk about how much power they have, whether or not they are being too invasive, and that they are possibly making us dumber.  I personally use Google in many aspects of my daily life:  Gmail, Google Search, the Play Store, Drive, Youtube, and most recently, Blogger.  I use Google's two-step verification, so they have my phone number, and because I use their services regularly on my phone, they have my location as well.  However, Google did not force that information out of me, and they did not "gate" my access to the internet by demanding I use their products.  Our relationship came about because of my choosing.

Google has all the data that they have, as well as their involvement in most people's lives, because users allowed it, and they are not the only ones.  It all comes down to being a smart consumer:  By in to something because you want to, not because everyone else is doing it.  Also, know what you are getting into before you sign up.  If you feel that Google demands too much of your information for use of their services, there are alternatives.

There is also the simple matter of convenience.  We all love the instant connection to information that Google affords us, as well as being able to have access to so many services with just one log in.  That kind of convenience comes at a price, and you as the consumer have to determine if that price is worth paying.  As a consumer, you have other options, and the open source environment of Google affords that as well.

As far as the idea that Google is making people dumber, I would argue the opposite.  You can know almost anything you want with just a few keystrokes, and the will to do some searching.  I would posit that it is the people that do not know how to use Google Search properly that are ill informed.  Again, how the user receives information is in the hands of, you guessed it, the user.

What's App!?

Hi.  I'm Bill Moers, a Computer Science major with a minor in Interactive Media Studies.  While I only use social media sparingly, I pay great attention to the technology around it as I enjoy following all gadget related technology news.  While the news in this post is not on the bleeding edge, I do think it is worth talking about.  That news is:  Facebook's acquisition of the mobile text messaging app, WhatsApp.

I have personally never made use of the app.  I downloaded it to check it out, and I just did not see the point at the time.  With WhatsApp, you can only message people in your contacts list that are also using the app; and since I was the only person I knew who had it installed, I quickly dismissed it.  I have since learned, however, that WhatsApp became a huge success overseas, where text message plans and tracking are still a thing.  Here in the states, the major carriers have done away with piece meal plans, so that now a contract plan includes unlimited minutes (no more nights-and-weekends minutes, rollover minutes, etc.) and unlimited text and video messaging.  The only thing you are limited on, and have the option to change the amount you allotted, is data.

Just like the way iMessage (iOS) allowed people in the US to have unlimited messaging by sending messages over data instead of using up one's allotment of text messages, WhatsApp allows overseas users to save on the text messaging portion of their wireless plans by using data.

Now, Facebook has made the move to purchase WhatsApp, and said move has been approved by the Federal Trade Commission.  I am not entirely surprised by this; as controversial as this purchase has been, I do not feel it holds the same implications that the purchase of T-Mobile by At&t would have had if the FTC had allowed the deal to happen.  Since Facebook appears to be losing the audience that has made it so popular, it makes complete sense that they would acquire services and products that would allow them to change and potentially succeed into the future.

I am more curious about the proposal by Masayoshi Son, owner of Sprint, to be allowed to acquire T-Mobile.  I'll have more to say about that later.

Blog about bloggers blogging

I read the interview with Bruce Schneider.  I did not relate much to him; he does not own a television, and has no desire to learn to use new operating systems, which  found odd for someone with such an interest in technological security.  However, I liked some of the things he had to say about blogging.  The notion of blogging being about quoting and linking makes me feel like I have a better idea of how to blog.  I also found his advice to be helpful:  "Just do it.  Don't worry about being boring.  Don't worry about being interesting.  Just do it."

Reading this interview made me consider maintaining my own blog.  I've written one blog post in my life; it was about my disappointment with a game, and how the female main character was handled.  If you're curious, it can be found here.  Bruce simply blogs about what interests him, and I would like to do the same.  I would love to blog about being a better informed consumer, including some "how-to" articles to help my readers get there.