ARTS & FARCES internet

I’ve broken some kind of barrier. My interest level in early technology adoption has gone from eleven to less than one. The days of acquiring the latest and greatest on the day of release (or close to it) are over for me.

Here’s the question: Is it me or is it technology itself? I suspect the latter.

I passed on the iPhone because it’s a walled garden—you can’t add anything to it that doesn’t pass muster with Apple (unless you jailbreak it)—it runs on AT&T’s craptacular network (yes, yes, the very same AT&T that cooperated in former President Bush II’s warrantless wiretapping program, all indications are that it sucks as a telephone, and its two-year contract costs more than a MacBook Pro. Are you kidding me?

Google’s Nexus One may hold promise, but it’s too soon to tell. Google is learning the hard way that when you actually sell stuff—as opposed to giving away services in order to sell ads around them—you have to provide support. And real support services cost real money. Google releases a mobile operating system that is open source—or at least partly so; the services on which it actually makes money remain proprietary—and then turns around and competes with its partners. Is that a sustainable business model? Really?

My wife and I gave up our mobile phones last October when Qwest, our carrier, got out of the business and became an agent for Verizon. We had grandfathered plans: US$30 per month for 1,300 minutes on each phone plus US$25 for unlimited 3G data on my line. None of the other vendors can come close to that deal. So we passed, and added unlimited voice to our landline. No dropped calls and exceptional call quality; imagine that. My line in the sand for mobile is now US$50 per month per line for unlimited voice and data.

It’s becoming clear that Google believes in openness only when it suits its purposes. For example, Google fiercely lobbies for network neutrality while vociferously opposing openness in regard to its search and advertising products. Why? An open internet makes Google money; open search and advertising would cost Google the farm. Google has every right to keep its products and services proprietary; no one questions that. But it’s hypocritical to call yourself “open” when, in fact, the only time you’re open is when it directly benefits your bottom line.

I bought a MacBook Pro in the middle of last year. Actually, pretty close to the release date of the 15-inch model with the matte screen. That matte screen was the tipping point for me. I got a free iPod Touch in the deal. The iTouch had virtually nothing to do with the purchase decision. And truth be told, I’d be pretty pissed off with myself if I’d actually paid for it. It’s neat but I rarely use it. I keep meaning to do all those neat iPhony things with it—it is after all an iPhone without the phone and camera—but I live on my MacBook Pro. Maybe—just maybe—a part of the reason is because Apple isn’t as heavy-handed in dictating what I can do with it. For that reason I’ll probably pass on the iSlate as well.

I’m not nearly as excited about last year’s MacBook Pro as I was about, say, the Quadra 840av I bought while on a business trip to San Francisco and Fed-Exed home because they were quite rare. And the dealer in Sunnyvale—I can’t remember the name, but at the time it was the legendary Mac vendor in Silicon Valley—had one in stock. Or my first laptop, a PowerBook 180c that took half of it’s battery life to boot. The MacBook Pro is evolutionary, but not revolutionary. Maybe that’s another part of the problem. I mean, come on, three-dimensional television is the Next Big Thing?