Kevin J Edwards

According to AppleInsider, “Restrictions drove U2 to switch sides from Apple to RIM“, Apple lost the sponsorship opportunity for U2 to RIM due to Apple not being willing to appease U2. I’m not that big of a fan of U2 (and forget the “but U2 sucks” comments), the fact is, U2 is HUGE. While artistically I think they ran out of substance a long time ago and are running high on gimmicks, they do get millions of people engaged in what they’re doing around the world.

From U2’s perspective, they want to be treated like the artistic Gods they think they are. They want *something*, anything that their status gives them exclusive access to, so they can seem cutting edge.

Apple, isn’t so accustomed to placating in this regard, and probably has the perspective that they’ve got all kinds of high priority partners to provide direct support and access to, such as Microsoft (Office for the iPhone), or Adobe (Flash).

Given the clash of corporate and brand protecting egotistical giants, I could see how there would be a conflict between U2 and Apple.

But this ultimately ends up hurting Apple.

U2 goes on and does something with RIM for the Blackberry, which will probably be something with less whiz-bang bells and whistles. However, Apple loses the promotional opportunity completely. Furthermore, Apple loses some of its edge as the media smartphone as opposed to just the smartphone. In other words, some people may see the Blackberry as just as hip, cool, and media savvy, but better for business use than the iPhone. The opposite of this of course would be Microsoft offering Office for the iPhone as an exclusive.

Of course all of this assumes that the article at AppleInsider is correct, and Apple lost U2 for reasons other than RIM simply just deciding this opportunity was worth pouring a boatload of cash into and simply outbidding Apple.

The bottom line though is that this is yet another example of how Apple needs to open up and play nicer with partners. Somehow though I can’t imagine Steve Jobs is spending his time off right now ripping up iU2 photos.

Related blogs:
Techmeme
Bono and Steve Jobs No Longer BFFs
Why is U2 endorsing the BlackBerry?

Places I went in 2008 aboard the Sea Slut.

Connected Social Media just launched another new client, XO Communications.

Here’s their first podcast:

Paula Bradman is on of my favorite regular Jazz performers in San Francisco. It’s always a wonderful delight to find that she’s playing at a restaurant where you can make an evening of good food, drink and entertainment.

Paula Bradman plays at Servino’s Ristorante in Tiburon this Saturday, April 4 – 7:30pm to 10:30pm.

Full review of Paula Bradman’s Jazz CD is at TiburonPhotos.com

ThePhoneLounge has an article iPhone 3.0 isn’t all good… which focuses on in-app sales, which is a new feature in iPhone OS 3.0, expected to be released early this summer.

This is more than just allowing purchases to be made through a back-end system such as Amazon for example, this allows developers to provide upgrade functionality in their apps. This could be all kinds of things from upgrading from a lite version to a full version, buying additional maps for GPS apps for the iPhone, buying avatars or next levels for games, or subscription based services.

The fear here is that developers will nickel-and-dime users in an effort to constantly extract as much cash as possible instead of providing an upfront known price associated with the app.

And this is what I think:

1) Most developers have been really good about providing value for their apps. There are a lot of $1 apps. Even more so, there are apps which are very useful that are free because there’s a business model that doesn’t involve charging for the app. There have been many exceptions where people overcharge, but people usually price compare and competition is pretty high.

2) The ratings and rankings system will filter out abuse. People charging too much for their apps are given really bad reviews in the iTunes App Store. People can be brutal with their iTunes reviews. It’s almost as bad as Yelp.

In the end, most developers will be conscientious enough to be responsible to begin with, or will learn quickly that they must be reasonable with the in-app sales.

I guess we’ll find out soon.

I would want an Apple TV if it had:
1) DVD/Blu-ray
2) DVR functionality
3) Codec plugins
4) iPod dock

Price isn’t a factor in “wanting” one right now.

There’s a ton of broadcast content that’s not available on iTunes. I’d love to be able to DVR it, and then watch it on TV or dock my iPhone and transfer it directly. Even the stuff that is available on iTunes, I’d hate to have to buy it when I already get it for free via cable, but the Apple TV can’t DVR it…and my TiVo is a hassle to transfer to my iPhone. I’m sure the Apple interface would be better than the TiVo interface, and it would enable me to get rid of a box in my cabinet.

Blu-ray would be a welcome addition too. The Nintendo Wii analogy doesn’t fit. First, I know a ton of people bought Playstations in part because of the ability to play DVD/Blu-ray. It helped in the decision. Secondly, the Wii *is* for playing games as stated in the article, but the Apple TV *is* for play audio/video content. It will appeal to everyone who will know that this device can play anything on your TV whether it’s from cable, DVD, Blu-ray, or downloaded from iTunes.

The open codec architecture of course enables it to play pirated content, but also enables it to play any other format…like from various video recorders and things that are legally downloaded from other sources. More importantly, opening the platform up for development would go a really long way.

The way I see this is that Apple could continue to sell a low-end Apple TV which is the Apple TV 3.0 mentioned in this article, but then also sell a higher end Apple TV that was really a Mac mini with additional features.

They could strike a deal with Comcast that was similar to the deal with AT&T, and the device becomes *very* appealing at multiple price points and feature sets.

It’s also a great time to evangelize developers for the platform.

As it stands now, Apple is competing against DVD, Blu-ray, Cable, TiVo, Netflix, Amazon, piracy, and all of the set top boxes.

Imagine how the iPod would’ve done if Apple declared the CD was dead and only enabled the iPod to play DRM tracks downloaded from iTunes.

Obama wants to shoot for the moon, and I don’t care.

There is no second space race to the moon. We won. It’s over. We’ve been there and back. Guess what? There’s nothing there.

This is so hard to come to grips with as someone who was born in the mid-60s and one of my first memories is watching the first man land on the moon. I had NASA-everything a child could have from pajamas, toys and an Apollo tent that I slept in.

Sure, back then there were calls for fixing problems at home instead of going to the moon…listen to Whitey On The Moon for a good laugh sometime, but there were a lot of really great things that came out of it in terms of everyday technology.

However, a return to the moon today wouldn’t bring about the same technological advances. We’re not going to advance in computers, engineering, etc… because we already have computers in our cell phones that are orders of magnitude more powerful than the computers used for the moon landings. Going to the moon would be a huge drain of resources and all we could hope for in return is better quality video this time.

There will come a time when we have the resources to go deeper and more substantially into space. But we’re far behind in developing those resources.

We’d be far better off taking the benefits from the space program and applying them not so much on “exploring Earth” which was the catch phrase of the 80s, but rather improving Earth.

The goals we should be reaching for are:
Fuel, Food, Medicine, Human Rights, Peace, etc…

These goals aren’t all mutually exclusive, and certainly not all mutually exclusive to space exploration. However, when it comes to fuel technologies, there would be a drain of resources in some areas, and thus, I’d much rather see us focus and prioritize on what would make things better for all of us.