My Review of MOG

MOG started out as a music blogging site, but it recently reinvented itself as a subscription-based music service. For $5 a month, you can stream full-length tracks (like imeem) and play internet radio (like Pandora). If you don't subscribe, you get 30-second previews. I relied on imeem (before it went MySpaced) for trying out albums before I bought them, and I've been a very heavy user of Pandora for internet radio ($36 a year). After several weeks on MOG, here's my review.

Pros:
- The radio function is solid. It has the variety slider like Slacker, allowing you to listen to a station of only one artist, or slide a bar and hear artists gradually more different. Because full-track streaming is an option, you can play an entire album or select a single song, on-demand, unlike Pandora.

- The catalog is pretty good. When I searched for electronica DJ Kaskade, MOG pulled up hard-to-find albums such as the San Francisco Sessions (at the time of this post, not available on iTunes or Amazon).

- You can save any track to a playlist or to your "library" (stored on MOG) for later access.

Cons:
- You can't save a "station" or add an artist to a station. For example, I have a station on Pandora that I started with Stan Getz and added other jazz artists too, like Miles Davis and Billy Holiday. When I want to hear Stan Getz with a little variety on MOG, I have to manually type in Stan Getz and slide the bar every time, and I can't add in Billie. Sometimes I just want to hit "play" and hear some jazz. Not an option.

- Sadly, like every internet radio station I've listened to, if you "thumbs up" a track on MOG, expect to hear it twice an hour. Be very cautious about thumbing songs.

- The interface is ugly and annoying. Your MOG player is a separate window (a skinny window). If it jams up and you refresh that window, you lose your artist and variety selection. If also pops open new windows and tabs all over the place, such as when you click on an artist name for more information.

- It logs out across computers. When I have MOG open on my home computer, and then I go to work and open it on my laptop, I have sign in at work, then come home and sign in at home. I leave Pandora open all over the place and just hit "play" when I arrive. If I do that on MOG, it will play the 30 second samples because I'm logged out. We should be able to authorize 3 or 5 computers.

To sum up: I'm definitely keeping my MOG subscription. I love sampling full-length songs and albums, and the radio is solid. But I'm keeping my Pandora subscription too. I have Pandora One waiting for me at home and on my phone, and I listen to MOG at work. MOG's still fresh and has some kinks to work out (and add a downloadable player and a mobile app), but it has the potential to replace my Pandora subscription.

What's a Modern Girl to Do?

There's a certain cache behind having your full name as your Gmail address (firstnamelastname@gmail.com). It's evidence that you were an early adopter, and it's just eminently practical when you want to give someone your address. It also has a professional veneer.

Now I'm facing a modern-day conundrum: I'm getting married soon, and I'll have a new name - one that's already taken on Gmail. (I checked all the variations.) I've had my current Gmail address for years, and have signed up for many, many services and subscriptions with this email. Even if my new name was available, would it be worth the hassle to make the switch? Fortunately you can forward mail from one Gmail address to another (Settings > Forwarding and POP/IMAP).

The other option is to retain my current email address and change the name that appears when I send. But this will still be awkward when I provide my email to someone who meets me when I have my new name.

For other reasons - feminist, administrative ease - I've considered not changing my name at all. But the reality is I'm pretty excited about the Google anonymity of my new, very common name. And besides, I like the new name better!

Changing Habits: Kindle

I've been a Kindle owner for about a year and a half (I'm on the Kindle 2 now). A few observations about how my reading habits have changed:

* I read more. A lot more. I have 70 titles, which averages out to about 3.5 books a month. There's no lag time waiting to get the next book from the library or bookstore. As soon as I finish one book, I start the next within 24 hours.

* I've become a series snob. What I mean is that I prefer books that are part of a series, at least three but the more the better. The boundaries between one book and the next are almost non-existent. I barely notice the titles of books in a series, and after I read one I'll often buy the rest of the series all at once. Thereafter, I go from one to the next like they're all one book.

* I have little conception for how many pages a book has. Occasionally I'll notice the page count when I'm buying a book, but after that I might only notice that my percentage of completion is going quickly or slowly.

I'm happy with the device, but I do find myself wondering why I'm buying all these books (if I am indeed buying them). I'd rather pay Amazon a monthly fee, or pay much less to just rent a book, like a library. It's a big enough issue that if Amazon doesn't change it's tune, I could see myself moving to a device that does.

Home in the Clouds

There hasn't been much talk about it, but my favorite feature in the new iTunes is Home Sharing. Home Sharing lets you authorize up to 5 computers so they are connected in iTunes, letting you transfer songs between one computer and another. That's right - it lets you drag-and-drop songs between computers! A year ago, that would sound crazy. But the reality is, it's the same as authorizing one iPod for several systems, except now the street goes both ways. It's the same as Apple letting you burn up to 5 CDs of iTunes music (I use DRM-free Amazon MP3s myself).

This is a big deal for me because we have a Mac at home and I use a PC. Because my iPod is formatted to the PC, I often delay song downloads until I'm on my PC, so I can transfer them to my iPod. The Mac has very little music on it (Pandora instead), because I knew that if I wanted to transfer any music, I'd have to burn a CD, rip the CD onto my PC, then transfer those songs to my iPod. In one stroke, Apple has effectively put my music on a mini-cloud, my home cloud.

Now, if only my iPod would sync automatically, from my car, without having to be plugged in. If only all my music were on a cloud, that I never had to download...

- Sansserif

Live Blogging Bandwidth 2009

Indeed, I say, Old Sport. This is a most dignified music conference, albeit lightly attended, but with the most respectable company in attendance at the University Club. After a brief meet-and-greet in the Library where we went round the room to discuss our most memorable experiences with an "album" (wikipedia), the conference is off to a smashing start. I decided not to mention my experience last year of receiving a leaked copy of the Black Keys' Attack and Release from a friend, but...alas, I digress.

So pour yourself a cognac and pull up a chair next to the fire. Bandwidth 2009 is about to begin.

Thursday

2pm - Balls of Steel

Unsurprisingly, women were noticeably absent from this panel. Larry Marcus, a VC with Walden Venture Capital, suggested that a better name would be "balls of glass" given the investment climate.

David Hymen, founder and CEO of MOG, just announced a $5 million round of funding for his company. Though he admitted to some trepidation when learning this week that iLike had been bought for $20 million by MySpace. "It was depressing to see that valuation for a company that had so much momentum," he said. "Exits have been tough," agrees Marcus. "At the end of the day, it's a question of love me or leave me. Either customers will pay for your service or they won't."

Mark Shedletsky, founder and CEO of BlueHaze, had this advice: "Avoid signing any contracts with a label." The consensus of the panel (much to the chagrin of one audience member) is that entrepreneurial start-ups can't afford to work with the Big Four because cost prohibitive licensing fees, seven-figure up front payouts, and annual minimums require too much start-up capital just to get off the ground.

3pm - By the Numbers

Corey Denis, VP of Marketing at reapandsow, jumped in with some hard data. The moral of the story is...marketing musicians is about telling a story.

What we have: listening habit data, traffic data, twitter data, facebook data, bit.ly data, blogger data, youtube data, data data data.

What we don't have: streaming music media data, all things MySpace, internet radio data.

"The point is," says Davis, "that with all this data, artist by artist, you can tell a different story." And she has some (anonymous) success stories to support her data.

So, let me tell my story: I'm in a band. We're really good. We aren't represented by an agent or a label, and we can't afford a publicist. Every week, iLike, ReverbNation, TuneCore and other analytics aggregators send me an email that says, basically, nobody is listening to your songs, nobody is buying your songs, and you don't have any concerts posted. Is that really the kind of useful data that's going to make the D.I.Y. promise of a "musicians middle class" a reality?

One telling bit of data was conspicuously absent from the discussion: sales.

4pm - Convo. with Bob Mould

Didn't make it. I chose instead to have a lager with the chaps in the pool room. Can you blame me? More enlightening conversation tomorrow...



Friday

The coffee's strong. The weather's warm. Totally wired, logged in, and ready for Bandwidth Day 2.



10am - Hindsight is 20/20

Ted Cohen of TAG Strategic set the tone right away: "How many of you have been to a panel I've moderated?" he asked. A smattering of hands. "And you came back?" he jibed.

First qusetion: "Compare and contrast a label licensing deal with a colonoscopy."

Tracing the modern music deal back to the early days of Shawn Fanning's Napster, the message of this panel is a simple one: the labels missed their last best chance to participate in the digital revolution a decade ago. Gerry Kearby of Neurotone remembered his days in the music industry this way: doing deals with the majors "was like talking with buggy whip manufacturers who were sure the automobile was not coming."

11am - Live Music 2.0



"Is live music replacing recorded music as the dominant platform?" asks Dave Rosenheim of JamBase. "The numbers support it."

In 2008, the live music business accounted for $7.2 billion in revenue. $1 billion came in the form of in venue sponsorship, and $500k in merch. Live music also appears to be recession resilient, and the industry is up a total of 140% since 2000.

By contrast, recorded music business is falling to $8 billion, down 40% from 2000. But is live music scalable? Ah, there's the rub.

1pm - Putting Artists Together With Fans

Back in the library for a discussion led by Gracenote VP of Product and Content Management, Stephen White...



(Apologies to jeddeth...I'm not in the main hall. But check out Digital Music News tomorrow, and you'll probably hear all.)

To what extent is the the job of the artist to personally reach out through social media, and to what extent does it rely upon user generated content? If reaching out to fans is the artist's exclusive responsibility, when is there time for creativity, and how to keep up with the myriad competing technologies out there? And if you leave it up to the fans, how do you control the quality of the content and monetize the pipeline?

The key may be in tracking and selling metadata that flows out of content consumption. "There's no limit to the amount of information that can be delivered in content metadata," says White. "Anything can be delivered, but there are standardized containers."

2pm - Business Pricing Models

Steve Grady, co-founder, president and COO for RoyaltyShare brings some depressing statistic statistics to bear on pricing models for music as a product. Currently, the $8 billion industry is crashing to zero.

**Speaking of crashing...due to an unfortunate and rather unexpected computer crash, the last two sessions went unblogged. In an imperfect technological world, sometimes you do just have to be there. Indeed, I say!!**

Peeling Back the Layers

Augmented reality is here, and it doesn't even involve embedded microchips and VR goggles...yet.

MusicTech, The Third (sort of)

It's time for part 3 of the MusicTech trilogy, and it promises to be an exciting one. It's actually the fourth conference, but I must have missed one somewhere along the way. For those in the know, Part 1 and Part 2 were highly regarded by this blog for providing a refreshing dose of realism to discussions of the digital music landscape--the perfect remedy to last year's NARM conference in SF, which turned out to be more of a therapy session for CD enthusiasts.

First impressions: more panels, more sponsors, more schmoozability, and the impressive new addition of an elevator pitch event. The coffee is strong, and the day looks promising. More to come...

9:20am - Music in Audio Video Works

Regardless of your business model, everyone agrees that it takes a long time for artists to get paid online. Zahavah Levine, Chief Counsel for YouTube, still introduces herself as she did last year: she spends most of her time untangling the mess of licensing, rights management and DMCA compliance issues that are a result of YouTube's widespread popularity. Because the interests of various rights holders are so fragmented, and users are able to upload copyrighted material so easily, Levine's job keeps her very busy. And that is unlikely to change anytime soon.

"We have all these digital tools," says Josh Wattles of deviantART, who equates the computer to "the Swiss Army knife of copyright infringement." Even the most unsuspecting of online messages is subject to a number of complicated copyright logistics. With the newfound popularity of Twitter, for instance, Wattles explained that "Aston Kutcher owns all of his twits." I think he meant "tweets," but we got the message.

The lawsuit filed by EFF on behalf of a Pennsylvania mother who was sued by Universal Music Group is just one example of the pitfalls of a digital rights paradigm in which "fair use" is too narrowly defined. I mean, what kind of world do we live in if you can't upload silly baby videos on YouTube because the Super Bowl's on in the background? Isn't that why YouTube was created in the first place?

The problem is that with audio video recordings, there is a synchronization right, but no compulsory mechanical license. "If we want to license the millions of copyright owners on YouTube," says Levine, "we have to contact millions of publishers, and we don't know who they are." She suggests that a blanket license covering all of these copyright considerations would solve the problem, a perspective echoed by a number of panelists.

"Content is fragmented all over the place," says Iain Scholnick of ImageSpan. The company attempts to find a solution to this by automating the process of digital licensing. "Most content companies come into a kind of negative calculus, they hit a wall. The monetization doesn't add up."

"I wish there was a fix to this in sight," adds Levine. "But I think we're going to have to stick with this for the foreseeable future. Pots of money are being left on the table, because this is so complicated people can't pay out."

10:30am - Doing Deals

Cecily Mak of RealNetworks introduced the panel, who then introduced the single resounding theme of the session: Doing deals with the majors is difficult. Very, very difficult.

"There's progress in the types of deals that labels are willing to do," says Larry Kenswil of Loeb & Loeb. "But it's still major tooth surgery getting them to do it."

Leron Rodgers of Hewitt & Rogers believes that a surcharge for internet access to online music content will create a viable revenue stream for the majors that would counteract the effects of piracy. But will users pay $5 per month to ASCAP for free access to online libraries, just to avoid the unlikely event of a RIAA lawsuit? Rodgers claims that the financials do add up, and his Atlanta-based firm plans to release the numbers in an upcoming study.

In theory, I imagine such a plan would work. However, since if it were opt-in, what incentive is there to pay, as opposed to continuing P2P downloads for free? The threat of lawsuit would have to increase for the plan to have any teeth. And what if your favorite band (like the Beatles) refuses to provide any kind of blanket license? How many publishers have to be on board before the idea becomes viable?

Could the answer then be a compulsary payment for internet access? That might anger consumers who have no affinity for downloading free music. But tracking levels of music consumption per user would raise privacy issues. In any case, it's a thorny issue.

It would be great to see a plan that is widely accepted by consumers, coupled with a willingness of rights holders to accept a flat-fee license for all forms of music consumption. Is it likely? We'll have to tune into MusicTech '10 to see if the idea gets traction.

1pm - New Technologies Demonstrations

Shortly after the morning's welcoming remarks by MusicTech Executive Producer, Brian Zisk, we were given a demo of the web portal Zannel, which provides customized aggregation and syndication services. I tried it out (you can log in through Twitter) and found a user friendly platform for multimedia tweets integrated into a customized iPhone app. But it occurred to me that, perhaps, my band isn't quite interesting enough to have our own app. For the unknown artist, it seems rather presumptuous to be hyper-posting to fans (a.k.a. friends and family) with the expectation that someone is actually watching. Still, I like the aggregation of media that Zannel provides--and I'm a sucker for a cool app.

Welcoming us to the 1pm tech demo was moderator Meliza Solan, who introduced herself and launched suddenly into an unaccompanied rendition of the National Anthem. Not knowing exactly what to do, we stood and watched awkwardly while she sang. "Hoooome of the brave" still hung in the air when she downshifted into a breathless description of her Twitter app. Admittedly, I was too dazed to take notes on her pitch. But here's a summary of everything that followed:

LittleShoot - File sharing integrated in your web browser. Adam Fisk gives us a demo, using a generic search term and scrolling through the results. "Let's go for 'Walking in the Sun.'" says Fisk. "No, that's an M4a. It's probably copyrighted." The crowd laughs. He continues to scroll. "Let's see. Hmm. No, that's copyrighted too."

SoundCloud - Collaboration tool and distribution channel for digital music. The widget based distribution and sharing functions are targeted to artists, labels and distributors as a direct-to-fans integrated marketing solution.

drop.io - A tool for privately sharing files and collaborating in real time. Sound familiar? Content aggregators of one kind or another are emerging everywhere, and as an independent musician the prospect of sending all content through one portal sounds enticing. But how are these ideas going to overcome the licensing pitfalls without widespread adoption and monetization by the major labels?

An audience member finally asks: "Do you get a lot of uploaded content that is copyrighted?" It's the question we've all been wondering. "The answer--um, well, there are two answers--" says drop.io's Sam Lessin. "The first answer is, 'we don't know.'" Everyone chuckled knowingly as he went on to explain the arms length policy of his company, while at the same time expecting users to report P2P copyright infringements on their own. It remains to be seen if the RIAA will set their sights on these content aggregators, which seem to be newer and cooler versions of the Pirate Bay. I hope these business models can be legitimized. But it's still going to depend on licensing. Needless to say, there is a radically different tone between the attorneys downstairs and the idea people upstairs.

Band Metrics - Data analysis and aggrigation of massive amounts of data about bands. This back office application provides analytics through a dashboard interface. The demo went through the band metrics for Dave Matthews Band. I have to say, it's great that DMB can check their stats, but most unknown musicians don't want to be reminded in a hundred different ways that nobody's visited their myspace page for two weeks. If that weren't enough, each band's page gives them a "band strength" score that looks like a low credit rating, along with a thermostat reading of your "hotness." It looks like a useful tool if you're making it, but could be bad for self-esteem if not.

The Echo Nest - A music intelligence platform for user-generated reviews. This music discovery tool works interactively with other web platforms such as Spotify to find music recommendations. It looks a lot like Pandora, without the website. Hopefully, it will arrive onshore in the near future, but the outlook is spotty.

2pm - Recording Studio of the Future

Digital or analog? Fader switch or mouse and keyboard? The panel is split on whether artists can be as creative inside of a computer screen as they are with an acoustic guitar. My belief, echoed by Justin Frankel of Cockos, is that computers are just another tool for creativity. But right now, the tactile purists dominate the conversation. I've always regarded a mouse pointer to be a perfectly adequate paintbrush, but I suspect that the tactile purists are also partial to the high margin hardware interfaces they're selling.

The question that's not being asked is how can the average musician afford any of this gear? I sat on my hands, not wanting to ask the question during the panel. But I'll ask it here: how about an open source model? It seems to be the third rail of the software industry. My thought is that a free, open source licensing relationship could have a profit sharing provision included so that if the musician wins, the software provider wins, too, with a percentage of revenues.

3:30pm - The Future of Music

...in 60 minutes or less.

"Context is king," says Terry McBride of Nettwerk Music Group, playing off the old Sumner Redstone quote. "What's going to happen in the next 18 months is going to change how music is consumed entirely. Cloud based servers will pull content down to your mobile device. That is your future. You can debate everything else you want to. It's moot. The kids are already going there. The music industry gets one more chance to get it right."

But how do artists get paid? Music licensing will have to change, for one thing, but will customers pay? And will the majors play ball?

Moderator Heather Rafter of RafterMarsh USA evoked a provocative quote from Davide Bowie's recent interview with the Times:

"Music itself is going to become like running water or electricity [...] So it's like, just take advantage of these last few years because none of this is ever going to happen again. You'd better be prepared for doing a lot of touring because that's really the only unique situation that's going to be left. It's terribly exciting. But on the other hand it doesn't matter if you think it's exciting or not; it's what's going to happen.''

4:45pm - Monetization: Idealism in Practice

Fred Von Lohmann of EFF supports blanket licensing as a path toward monetization, and the idea is finally gaining some traction with the mainstays of the industry. "At least the labels aren't calling us communists any more," Von Lohmann jokes. But the point is salient. Choruss, which recently received backing (in theory) by three major record labels, promises one such pathway to monetization.

As the day has progressed, more and more panelists have been mentioning that nebulous "musician's middle class," but discussion has been light on how the unknown artist actually arrives at such a utopian scenario as quitting the day job. Is there a viable DIY model for writing, rehearsing, recording, promoting and distributing music that truly levels the playing field for grassroots musicians? Clearly not.

For the unknown artist, the only monetization that matters is in winning the attention economy. The economics of finance and accounting will always favor the majors due to economies of scale. But attention is fractured, and those DIY artists who manage to pull the pieces together will be rewarded with wider and wider audiences. Attention alone is not going to pay the bills, but it seems to be the one and only ticket for the DIY artist to become a self-made entrepreneur.

Once the blanket licensing agreements happen sometime in the future, the starving artists who managed to scrape together 50,000 fans will find instant monetization of their attention economy credits. Is it enough to put the kids through college? Probably not. But we're all riding on the hope that we'll we be able to spend more time on music and less time tweeting.

Productive Procrastination

A recent study suggests that college-aged Facebook users get lower grades than everyone else. Conducted by researchers at Ohio State University, the study found that "Facebook user GPAs were in the 3.0 to 3.5 range on average, compared to 3.5 to 4.0 for non-users." Of course, this could simply mean that extreme narcissists feel they have better things to do than keep up with homework. Or perhaps all the other students are just outsourcing their homework to overseas professionals.

Thank goodness I've graduated already, so that Facebook and Twitter can satisfy my self-infatuation and improve my productivity on the job. According to the University of Melbourne, taking "short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet" gives the brain a chance to rest and leads to "a higher total net concentration for a days' work."

Could it possibly be that researchers are so interested in studying Facebook because it gives them a legitimate reason to check their friends' status updates?

Alert!

In addition to having admittedly brilliant products, part of what's led to Google's ubiquitousness is it's openness. What I mean by that is it's willingness to interface with other products in the same field.

For example, Google Calendar acts as the intermediary between all my other calendars, allowing all of them to peacefully coexist. At work we use Thunderbird as our email and calendar client (with the Lightning add-on). I feed my Google Calendar into the Thunderbird on my work computer and also onto my laptop Thunderbird, so I can have my calendar when I'm not at work. I have Google Sync on my phone, so my Google Calendar is on my device calender. When I'm on the go, I can add to or look at my work schedule.

This redundancy does have drawbacks, however. When I'm at work I use my laptop and my desktop and my phone. When a calendar alarm goes off, this is where I get notifications: 1) my phone, 2) my desktop Thunderbird, 3) my laptop Thunderbird, 4) my Google Calendar on my laptop, and last but not least, 5) I get a pop-up notification on Gmail if it's open. That's right - I get five cascading notifications of an event. (My phone is the first.)

It's a wonder I can get anything done on time!

Live Blogging Industry Noise - Noise Pop '09

After a less than impressive morning session with Keynote Speaker Fat Mike (NOFX, Me First and the Gimme Gimmes), the conference has been more noise than industry.



10am - Keynote Conversation with Fat Mike

Maybe I'm just not punk rock enough to get it, but if you say f*ck money, f*ck the internet, and f*ck your fans, why not go one step further and say f*ck it to labels, too? Fat Mike would like you to believe that his label, Fat Wreck Chords, serves as a filter for quality and provides a value add that unsigned bands crave and major labels can't replicate. However, from the perspective of an unknown musician, it's not clear to me why any label (major or indie) adds anything of value that can't be replicated by giving music away for free online. After all, what's the point in making $10 on little round plastic disks if the label is just going to take $9.99 anyway?

11am - The Next Big Thing

The panel asks why, if major labels are such dinosaurs, do they still seem so essential in breaking an artist?

According to Aaron Axelsen (Music Director, Live 105) encouraging listeners to discover new music is like getting a four year old to eat broccoli. "It's good for you," he says, "but you need to sandwich it between two pieces of cheddar cheese." While this perspective serves as an apt justification for his job description, it fails to acknowledge the consumption patterns of most online listening. CD sales are faltering precisely because music discovery is alive and well (and free) in the online sphere.

For now, it is advantageous to most music merchants to maintain the status quo. But what happens when the RIAA starts charging a performance license fee for terestrial radio plays? Perhaps then Live 105 will become the advocate for unknowns. The next big thing for the majors may turn out to be Chapter 11.



1pm - Industry Noise: Hot Topics in the Music Industry

Cory Brown of Absolutely Kosher Records says, "If nobody's paying for anything, it doesn't matter how many people are listening to your music." It should not be surprising that his business model relies upon the sales of those pesky round plastic disks. It's amazing how people talk about music as though it has always been a tangible product, until along came that evil internet that threatened everything. I'd like to remind them that throughout the entire course of human history up to the invention of the phonograph, all music was live music. It was only in the twentieth century that music became a product. We should not lament, therefore, that it has now become a commodity.

The price structure of old media is often defended on the grounds that the artist must get paid. This sounds nice, but when has the artist ever gotten paid? Short of going multi-platinum, it is the labels that have reaped most of the benefits of traditional music sales. Perhaps, it's not an either/or decision. Nancy Miller (Music Editor, Wired) proposes the idea of a "musical middle class," suggesting that internet distribution may lead to a path toward profitability for a number of musicians. If there is a path, it's thorny and largely uncharted. But I applaud the realism.

2pm - If Techies Ruled the World / If Artists Ruled the World

The subject of this panel was a hypothetical exercise exploring what would happen if reasonable people controlled the pipeline for the music industry. The answer? Musicians still wouldn't make much money, but it would be a lot more straightforward, and there would be a lot fewer middle men.

Doctor's Visit

When a technophile takes his computer to the hospital:

 

Confessions of a Phone Hater, Part II

YouAreYou was long enamored of his iPhone, and now that he's come clean I have no choice but to fess up: I hate my BlackBerry Storm.

Here's why:
1. The Accelerometer . When I want the screen to flip, it doesn't flip. I flip it horizontal, I flip it back to vertical, finally I shake it. I hold it vertical. It doesn't flip. Also, when I don't want the screen to flip, it flips. This happens frequently when I'm holding it vertically and I rest it on a table. Then, it flips. Even when it does flip on command, it lags before it flips.

2. The lock button. I'm talking about the one on the top of the device, which isn't actually a button - it's a location that you press. Because there's a delay before the phone locks (and no accompanying noise or button-click), you're never sure whether it's locked or unlocked. Nothing happens, so you hit the lock location again - then it slyly unlocks and re-locks in succession.

3. GPS. If you use Google Maps on your Storm, you've seen this one before: "Your location within 1100 feet. GPS temporarily unavailable." I estimate that the GPS has worked 10% of my attempts to locate myself.

4. The camera. Almost unusable. The lag between the time you press the button and the time the camera takes a photograph - I counted three Mississippis. That is an embarrassing amount of time. Not to mention the color quality of the photo might as well be grayscale.

I've had several updates, and these problems still exist. I gave it a shot, and I'm not a happy or satisfied customer. But the reality is, at this point I couldn't stand a phone without a touchscreen. Using a little ball to navigate a screen? Intolerable.

When they unlock the iPhone, count me in; maybe YouAreYou will get the Storm.

iGroan: The Definition of Modern Annoyance

def:
1 : to utter a deep moan indicitave of pain, grief, or annoyance in relation to an iPhone
2 : to make a harsh sound while waiting (in vain) for the 3G network to register

--

I thought I had dodged the bullet on many of the 3G connectivity issues that have plagued the release of the second generation iPhone. But then I went to Tahoe a couple weeks ago, and my signal dropped out completely. Given the terrain and my exceedingly low expectations of AT&T's service, I wasn't particularly surprised to be without mobile service for the weekend. But I did expect it to come back eventually.

I like to think that my 3G signal is still roaming the valley somewhere around Highway 50 East, trying to find it's way back to me. But recently, I've been forced to admit the truth:

The iPhone is a big, fat piece of crap.

There, I said it. Yes, I used to defend the technology from skeptical friends and snarky colleagues when they reported on one article or another listing all the flaws. No more. Sure, I used to sell the sex appeal of a hot techno-gadget to prospective buyers who were justifiably concerned about entering a two year contract with AT&T. But that was back when the phone actually worked. And apparently, I'm not the only one who has recently reached a boiling point. A new wave of lawsuits has emerged within the last two weeks accusing the company of false advertising and misleading claims about the phone's ability to, say, make phone calls.

It's easy to be mad at AT&T because, frankly, the company has been a PR disaster for the last twenty years. But it's hard to feel anything but betrayed by Apple's nonchalance about its defective hardware, not to mention somewhat wounded by its legal defense that no reasonable person would believe its iPhone 3G ads.

So I'm left with no choice. After making numerous calls (on a land line) to AT&T tech support, manually rebooting all network settings, and replacing the SIM card, I have no alternative but to march down to the Apple store, walk right up to that so-called "Genius Bar," and demand that they give me the shiny, new replacement phone they've promised me so that I can be blissfully ignorant all over again.

And when I have that gorgeous new phone in my hands, there's only one question about what to do with the old one.

It's a Status Thing

The notion of privacy almost seems quaint in the hyper-connected world of social networks, and maintaining the right balance of exposure and anonymity is a tricky combination of art and science. A prudent Facebooker, for instance, will typically want to customize his or her privacy settings for news feeds in order to control what types of stories get published, particularly those relating to changes in relationship status.

Sansserif and I have blogged extensively on this in the past, discussing the varying degrees of seriousness of a particular relationship status, the pitfalls of publicly changing said status, and the sudden ripples that can occur from abrupt transitions between, say, "single" and "married." Indeed, cautionary tales abound on why taking the time to tweak a privacy setting or two is probably a good idea.

Such controls are good for everyday life, but what happens when you want to spread the word far and wide? Well...

...Sansserif and I recently announced our engagement. After telling our families and a handful of close friends, we decided we were ready to go Facebook Official about our big change in status. In our excitement, however, we neglected to make sure our privacy protections were turned off so that word would quickly travel to news feeds far and wide. It took a day of puzzling silence on the airwaves for us to realize our error, whereupon we changed status back to "in a relationship," turned the news feed announcements back on, and got Facebook Official all over again.

Curiously, all of the comments that flooded in after our second announcement appear only on my wall, which strikes me as somewhat old fashioned for a progressive social network like Facebook. I mean, just because we're getting married, does that really mean we have to forfeit our individual comment threads? It seems to be an obvious breach of Netiquette.

Despite the pitfalls of controlling the flow information in your news feed, maintaining an active stance on privacy is still a good idea, especially when the relationship waters run the other way. Consider, for instance, Prince Harry's breakup with longtime girlfriend Chelsy Davy, which only became official when the media discovered her change of Facebook status. Then there was the recent case of Burger King's "Whopper Sacrifice" campaign in which Facebook users were offered a free hamburger for publicly dumping ten of their friends (the program was axed after ending a mere 234,000 friendships).

All I know is that once Sansserif and I set an official wedding date, I'm going to make a pop-up reminder in our shared Google Calendar to change our privacy settings well in advance. After all, when it comes to announcing the big "M" on Facebook, you only get one chance to do it right!

Under the Hood

I've been using Google's browser Chrome for about two months now. I've been a religious Firefox user for several years, and at first I thought, "Firefox has everything I need, what can Chrome offer?" But curiosity got the better of me, and sure enough, about one month ago Chrome became my default laptop browser.

Here's what I like:
1. One box for searching and for entering URLs. (There are privacy implications of this, but I'll put those aside.)

2. It's streamlined. No menu screens as we know them, just tabs at the top of your screen.

3. And my number one favorite thing about it: it's fast. When I click the icon on my task bar, it loads almost instantly.

That final point was what pushed me over the edge with Firefox. Once I tasted Chrome's speed, I couldn't stand waiting several seconds for Firefox to boot up.

Here's what I don't like about Chrome:
1. I like to tweak my settings a lot, and Chrome just doesn't offer that many preferences.

2. No add-ons. Yes, Chrome does have an add-on store, but it's a mess. The organization is terrible and it's brimming with spam. I really, really miss my Firefox themes, Add-Block Plus, and IE Tab.

3. Compatibility. Needs work. For example, I was filling out a survey online and the formatting was a complete mess. Not so on Firefox. Another example: for whatever reason, I couldn't upload a photo for an eBay sale on Chrome, but it worked immediately with Firefox.

Conclusion: If you have simple browser needs, Chrome is the way to go. If you like playing around and can stand to wait, you gotta go Firefox.

At least until Chrome plays catch-up...