Has it occurred to anyone that the iPhone provides no tactile feedback?

I reccomend the Zune, the Archos line of products for portable media and the Sony ultra thin line of notebooks as an alternative.

In short the Apple products are lacking in features and very expensive in comparison.

I learned this after one of the Apple fanboys at work mentioned they did a product comparison and ended up getting a Zune instead of an their 3rd iPod.

I found the Archos 3 years ago thanks to tech genius Kevin Kelly (kk.org) and today instead of a 32GB iTouch ($499) you can get a 160GB Archos ($379) that has more functionality and even doubles as a DVR, can stream media to and from other devices (WiFi), and supports media formats that are universally compatible. The only thing the Archos doesn't do is connect to a cell phone network.

Keep feeding the hype, hits is how you pay your bills. It would be nice if you only reported real updates. Maybe you just need to create product profile pages you can update instead of trying to produce a story every time someone uses the word iPhone.

"Who controls your media, controls your mind." -- Marshall MacLuhan

"The computer's a tool, not a toy." - me
"It's a toy, you're the tool." - my sister

So does that mean Pimp My Movie Theater is off the table?

I gotta ask, with all the comments I've seen on ultra portable machines, why hasn't anyome made us one we really want? I mean the OQO2 looks the part, but why hasn't someone created us a super PDA with a touchscreen, stylus, fold out microkeyboard and pointer? The pocketpc phones are closest I've seen next to the Sony UX, but both require those walled garden networks and data plans unless you want to pay twice the cost for one that doesn't come with a service provider and contract. Why can't I just get a wireless device I can use on any wifi service to make voip calls anywhere without paying for three different phone or internet access services? I want to buy hardware liek I buya computer, I don't want a bundled pack with all kinds of hang ups and requirements that only add to my bills and don't save me money, especially when everyone knows there's no reason we can't have free wifi everywhere and a single phone service account. Really feeling exploited by these cel phone, cable, phone, and computer corporations.

It's a simple issue for me - music propogated through viral marketing. It's social content. When it became clear in the 90s that the publishers of content were interested in the money and not the social impact or quality of their content, I stopped giving them my money and never will again. I don't care how cheap it gets. While the industries act as a vehicle for distilling quality that level of quality has dropped dramatically chasing dollars with sensationalism. Creativity is subjective and thanks to the Internet there is plenty of content to sort through that I don't have to pay for, that I don't have to line the pockets of an amoral narcissist looking to exploit consumers any way they can.

What should the labels do? Isn't it obvious? Their value is in distilling quality - specifically working with untrained artists to help them polish their skills. Labels should be seen as clearing houses for quality. How can they make money off that? The masses. The masses will contniue to use services like iTunes and will look to labels as channels for for style or quality. Publishers are branded channels, loyalty to them will come in the form that fans have towards producers and content creators such as Robert Rodriguez and Tarantino. That's user generated content coming from users that succeeded comercially. George Lucas is another example, but he's exploitive even of his employees. Robert Rodriguez is the new Lucas.

It's about the content, not the market, as soon as Publishers realize the market is just a wave they are riding and can't control in age of free media they can be more adept at seeing where it's taking them, not where they think they can take it. They need to follow the consumers, not corral them like cattle and feed them garbage because it's cheaper and makes them more money.

What the labels need to understand is how to profit from maintaining a dialog with the consumers rather than a monolgue. The fact that Amercian Idol sells any music is a testament to that - and it's all garbage. My best idea follow suit with the buy once idea being played with. The idea is if I pay for a movie I get the DVD too. Why not extend that to music. Pay for a film, get the DVD/download and the soundtrack too. That would sure encourage me to spend money I'm not spending now. Musicians would make money as a form of film marketing and licensing, which is all their music does for a film anyway. Soundtracks and collections are also a great way to distill quality. Otherwise I can't think of a music artist or label whose pockets I would want to line - they do not have my interests in mind, all I want is their content, not to sustain their culture exploiting existence so some marketing exec who created Brittany Spears can live in a 20 Million dollar house in Bel Air while I struggle just so I can listen to a track that I have heard so many times I have to own it because I can't get it out of my head.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/02/23/the-modern-media-diet-avoids-advertising/

Not sure if this is where you heard the analogy but I like the idea that advertising is the fat in your media consumption diet. So does this mean messages are good and bad cholesterol? Takes gluttony and dieting to a whole new level.

Don't forget that's before adding the required data plan probably.

DRM is virtual packaging. Get rid of it and the packaging becomes channels, just like the cable networks whose business model then applies. AppleTV is setting itself up (alongside Amazon/TiVo, Xbox360, and PS3) to be an internet-based cable network. iTunes is the strength of Apple, and they target a small niche market to keep themselves happy. No DRM enables stuff to be bought anywhere to be played anywhere, and that ebenfits us all when we don't want to be restriicted by hardware. MS may not like it, but they are playing the same game that cable companies did and will suffer just the same or settle for a small niche market.

I'm calling shenanigans. It siounds to me like teh best any of these camera companies can do is make a disposable CCD camera since there isn't a single one that doesn't have this dreaded "CCD solder degradation". Sound like shenanigans to me - their products at best last if you store them ina cool place or don't leave them on long enough to warm up the solder. Yet we are expected to have to suffer for what amounts to products unfit to sell. Can anyone say, use better solder? I bought a $400 digital camera in 2001 that was a brick 3 years later because of a CCD solder failure. Cannon tells me it'll cost me $149 to them repair it. I have a Pentax SLR that I bought in 1982 and it still works perfectly. Shenanigans!