LIVEdigitally

Author Archives: Jeremy Toeman

New California Headset Requirements Law is Political Baby-Kissing at its Finest

Posted on by

Disclaimer: If you think I’m advocating bad driving or increased accidents, then please finish reading the entire post before making your judgment call.

Starting July 1st, all Californian drivers who want to use a mobile phone for talking will be required to use a headset (or here, if you prefer being called dude). This is presumably for our safety, and if there was an impact on our safety, I’d be endorsing it all the way to the DMV. But it seems like this is really just politicians putting laws in place to placate constituents, rather than focus on issues which do impact public safety. This law is just plain off the mark, and here are some reasons why (along with facts from the government to really spice it up):

Issue #1: Calling requires headsets, but texting, email, and other keyboard use is still acceptable. Numerous studies have shown the distraction factor is about the content of the call, not the fact that someone is holding a phone (in fact, NHTSA studies have shown that a CD player causes more distraction than using a cell phone, and we’ve had CD players in cars for many many years – no new laws there for some reason). So just remember, if you get pulled over, insist you were texting or maybe listening to a podcast on your phone, as neither are fineable offenses.

Issue #2: No supporting statistics from existing “trials”. A headset-only law went into effect in NYC back in 2001, giving the state 7 years’ worth of data. Checking through their news and stats pages, the NY State DMV has not issued a single report showing a decrease in accidents or fatalities. I’ll talk more about lacking statistics in just a moment, but considering how quickly NY dropped stats while discussing drowsy drivers (100,000+ crashes a year), one would think there’s something they could share on the “success” of the cell phone law.

Issue #3: A $20 fine?!?! Really? Are they being serious here? The entire purpose of our criminal justice system is to create disincentives to committing a crime. For example, I would rather not be in prison, hence the lack of grand larceny I’m involved in. Pretty logical stuff. The fine for not using a headset is $20. It’s almost like they are saying “yeah, we know this is a silly law, so our method of abdicating ourselves is keeping the fine ridiculously low.” Want to make this one effective? Make it $200 per offense, and start giving out points after the first offense.

Issue #4: No other relevant statistics of any kind. I went scouring the NHTSA web site for some statistics on cell phone usage, driving, and accidents. I found lots of stats on cell phone usage while driving (PDF). I found lots of stats on accidents (PDF). I found NO stats that link the two together. Not one single piece of data which said anything like “with the ever-increasing number of cell phones being used while driving, here is the resulting increase in accidents”. In fact, I couldn’t even find a casual implication where anyone from NHTSA actually stated it just maybe might kinda sorta possibly cause accidents. Amazingly, if I found anything, its that both accident rates and injury/fatality rates are on the decline, year after year.
NHTSA injury stats

Here is the only “data point” I could find across the entire Web (aka “what I found by looking through a few pages of Google search results”), from the Public Policy Institute of California:

The findings indicate that mobile phone ownership is associated with higher traffic fatality rates in bad weather, on wet roads, and in rush-hour traffic. California’s new law should lead to some 300 fewer traffic fatalities a year.

I think that is awesome. Except, again, there’s no data to back it up, so it sounds more like “good spin” than anything else. But I could be wrong, and if on July 1, 2009, the state can in any way prove that they saved us lives, I’ll eat my (virtual) words. Of course, since accidents and fatalities are on the decline anyway, I am not exactly sure how they’ll do so, but I promise to keep an open mind.

Now for some hyperbole. It surely seems like every time I almost get sideswiped, or someone rolls through a stop sign while I’m pushing the stroller, the driver has a phone at his/her head. From all appearances, its definitely those idiots on their phones that are causing all the problems. And I, like everyone else, want fewer accidents and safer roads for all. But maybe it’s just the impression of idiocy? On the freeway yesterday I almost merged with a Ford Pickup that was in my blindspot, but I wasn’t on the phone at the time.

The bottom line, in my eyes, is bad drivers are bad drivers, and give a bad driver a distraction, and he/she will find a way to become a worse driver with the distraction. I hate the catch-all blame of technology for society’s woes. We should be requiring car manufacturers to enable voice-controlled stereos, temperature controls, and GPS systems, as all have been causally linked to accidents. The real question here is why isn’t the State (or Country) protecting its citizens by putting the power in the manufacturers’ hands? Hint: the answer is, similar to the copyright laws, its easier to push individual citizens around than it is to get big companies with big lobbyists to make change.

The NHTSA states “the task of driving requires full attention and focus. Cell phone use can distract drivers from this task, risking harm to themselves and others. Therefore, the safest course of action is to refrain from using a cell phone while driving.” This seems to apply to many products beyond a cell phone, but have been in cars for much longer. It’s a shame that this law takes effect tomorrow, as it will, in my best guess, cause more work for police, not help the growing nationwide traffic problems, and fundamentally not save us from the bad drivers who just don’t pay attention regardless of the phone, donut, coffee, Blackberry, iPod, rattle, stapler, or other attention-getter they are holding in their hands. The State of New York (remember, the ones with LOTS of data) has advice, which is labeled with “use common sense“. Shouldn’t that apply to the lawmakers as well?

Computing and the Innovator's Dilemma

Posted on by

If you haven’t yet read the Innovator’s Dilemma, and you are involved in startups or high tech in general, I urge you to find a copy and get familiar with the concepts (here’s a summary at Wikipedia).  In a nutshell, the theory states that there are moments in business when following all the “correct” or apparent data will lead a healthy company or industry down the wrong path (check the above link for some good examples).  I believe the disruptive moment has come for personal computing.

The era began in the 80s, sparked with the combination of hobbyist (TI/94, Apple ][, etc) and work PCs (IBM, Compaq, etc).  Throughout the 80s using computers was really an adventure, as there was limited software, clunky hardware, practically no connectivity (thats right, not even Twitter!), and lots and lots of proprietary technology.  Apple’s Macintosh was marketed as the anti-Big Brother IBM PCs, despite the fact that Mac’s were closed systems and it was DOS that enabled openness, customization and flexibility.  At the time, the Mac seemed poised to grab a big chunk of the personal computing market share while PCs seemed destined for the office.  Consumers didn’t want the hassles of configuring home PCs, especially since the majority of the time they were just playing Oregon Trail and Carmen Sandiego anyway.

That is until Windows 3.1, then 95 showed up, both radically transforming the usability of PCs, while at the same time Apple “lost its way” with a series of ill-timed flubbed products.  PC manufacturers standardized around Windows, and consumers had a fairly reliable and easy-to-use computer in the PC, with the ability to pick and choose the hardware configurations they wanted.  The 90s also birthed the laptop, and as they reached mass consumption they too had massive flexibility, with some models offering literally tens of thousands of combinations.  Computers were fun, productive, (mostly) reliable, and enabled access to dialup, then high-speed, Internet services.

Fast forward to 2006.  PC makers began prepping their Vista launches, and marketed new models as Vista-ready.  The Microsoft marketing machine was at the early stage of a rumored Billion dollar push.  Consumers, for the most part, did not really know or care much about Vista, as XP (with Service Pack 2) was quite reliable and, most importantly, provided good Internet access. Vista launched, and Microsoft made a critical error by not mandating higher quality standards within the Vista-Capable program.  Basically, a massive launch of new PCs with terrible flaws hit the market, and this was noticed both by personal and professional computer users.  Virtually overnight the ability to easily purchase a reliable computer disappeared.

Meanwhile in Cupertino, Steve Jobs moved the Mac to the Intel chipset, and shipped OS X 10.4 (“Tiger”), but more importantly ushered in Boot Camp and third-party Parallels Windows virtualization technologies.  In a fairly rapid manner, not only did the Mac become the most reliable computer around, it also ran Windows (and ran it quite well). This opened up the ability for even the most Anti-Mac people (such as myself) to gain the confidence that a MacBook was no longer a risky, fringe purchase, but had all the old software PC people were used to using, just in case.

To add a third twist, ASUS introduced the eeePC last year, a “mini-notebook” that has now spawned a fairly large group of competitors.  I question the real size of this market, but it’s a key factor in our discussion of the disruption curve.  These computers run a variety of operating systems, and have virtually no customizable components.  Whether I’m right or not about the true market opportunity, PC manufacturers are jumping on the bandwagon of ultra-small and/or non-configurable computers.

Now onto the disruption curve: I believe the era of customizing computers has reached an end.  I posted a few weeks back on why I think the MacBook will take on a huge market share, and I believe it’s not really because of Apple doing anything so “special” per se. I surmize that a transformative shift has already occurred, and whether by luck or by skill, they are poised properly for the next era of computer buying.

Consumers are speaking with their checkbooks.  They are buying computers that are (1) easy to use, (2) reliable, (3) recommended by friends, (4) let them do the one thing they really want to do the most often: get online.  The near-irony of the shift we are experiencing is we are closer than ever to the computing era of the 1970s, with terminal-server interaction as key.  It’s no longer about massive differentials in software availability, since the browser is the most important desktop application we use today.

I believe the PC manufacturers have ample opportunity to take advantage of this shift as well, but I also believe that most will not do so until it is far too late.  As with any moment of disruption, it must be incredibly hard for a PC OEM to stop making laptop ordering systems with 4 pages of configurable options and reduce it to a few controllable selections.  The current system works, even if growth has evaporated, and there is not a groundswell of consumers or focus groups pointing the way to introducing less choice (one of the biggest problems of focus grouping anything, btw – less is never more).

It’ll be interesting to watch how PC manufacturers react to their changing world.  I’ve been quite bullish on the Mac platform recently, but I don’t think it’s a done deal by a long shot.  I truly don’t think it has anything to do with Vista or OS X specifically, and has everything to do with understanding customers’ needs.  The irony here in my eyes is the fact that the “speeds and feeds” of PCs are more hidden than ever (as I learned from Ed Bott), as they’ve tried to downplay things like gigahertz and CPU caching.  In other words, they’re already marketing their wares based on the new reality, they just aren’t shipping the right wares.

Netflix Chose… Poorly. UPDATED: not anymore!

Posted on by

From the Netflix blog: “we’ve decided to terminate the profiles feature on September 1.”

The stated rationale: “the motivation is solely driven by keeping our service as simple and as easy to use as possible” and “Too many members found the feature difficult to understand and cumbersome.”

As per a smart colleague of mine, I try not to second-guess motives when I blog (anymore). It’s not really fair to the “target” as it doesn’t really invite a discussion, it just puts someone/a company on the defense. So if I were to question this issue, I might wonder if they have an ulterior motive, some nefarious business reason to terminate the feature (as others have speculated), but realistically I doubt it. If the feature is costing them money, they could simply charge for it, rather than yank it away (apparently permanently). So I trust that they truly believe this is the right decision for their users.

Which really is weird. You see, to make a decision like this implies several things, which I will address specifically:

  1. A large number of users were complaining about the problem.
    I spent the past little while searching Google, their community, their support site, and GetSatisfaction, all looking for documentation regarding multiple account profiles. I found no articles. Not one.
  2. This problem is such a user interface challenge that fixing it wasn’t an option.
    Again, per the Netflix blog, the complaint is “members found the feature difficult to understand and cumbersome, having to consistently log in and out of the website.” If this is truly a daunting task to overcome, how about enlisting some external user interface experts to help out? I for one would volunteer my services free of charge for the hour-or-two it might actually take to create a “multiple profile login system”, a problem even Microsoft has done a good job with.
  3. A series of intentional decisions were made to get to this moment.
    Product managers and engineers chose not to fix it, but to eliminate it. This was presented to marketing and business decision makers who supported this decision. This was then signed off by someone at a senior enough level who also felt it was the right decision. The marketing and customer service departments were involved in the messaging plan to communicate the issue to the outside world. And it ended up on the company blog today, with an online assertion that this decision is permanent.

Wow, that’s a lot of time and energy spent on a decision which, to the outside world, appears quite a bad one. It’s been mere hours and we have (at the time of writing):

I feel bad for the product manager who had to write that blog post on Netflix’ behalf. It’s never a pleasant position to be the bearer of such incomprehensibly dumb bad spin news. I, as many I’ve linked to above, can’t help but question this move at many levels. It doesn’t sound right and it doesn’t feel right. I have historically liked the company (despite the fact they still use pop-under advertising. what is this, 1998?), but can’t help but feel cheated. I urge team Netflix to really read the feedback your customers are giving you, and reconsider this move. I have a hunch it’ll be a lot more “cumbersome” to lose customers than it will to reinstate the feature.

UPDATED: this decision was overturned by team Netflix. Huzzah.

Used CDs: Another Loophole in the Hypocrisy of Music Piracy

Posted on by

There are so many reasons the battles over copyright law are flawed, most of which, in my opinion, center around the fact that copyright holders spend millions of dollars lobbying and supporting political campaigns (now about to hit Canada too). The “voice of the people” is barely represented, so much so that the few who have tried, such as Lawrence Lessig, have found little success in their efforts. I’m personally not much of a “downloader” and over the past 12 months have found my position on the topic swing from “it’s stealing” to “I have no problem with it.” Also, to be sure I am clear on this point: I do unequivocally believe content producers and owners have the right to profit for their work.

A big problem we have right now is the use of the word “stealing” to describe “downloading pirated content”, as the two are very different actions. When I steal, I take something from someone in such a way that they are deprived from having it themselves. When I download, I am avoiding paying a royalty fee to a rights holder. Both are problems, but they are different problems. That’s an important distinction, and one which should be examined a bit closer.

The laws (such as the terrible PRO/IP act) are designed today to protect rights holders from having their content distributed without a royalty. Sounds fair, right? Here’s the problem: the acts of buying and selling used CDs are legal (as is buying/selling promo CDs, according to a recent ruling). So if I buy a used CD (which is what I personally exclusively do – haven’t bought a new CD in years), I am transferring no royalties back to the rights holder. Let me make that point absurdly clear: if I buy a used Madonna CD, neither Madonna nor her label make any money off that transaction, and… (wait for it…) it’s perfectly legal.

Theft, stealing, piracy, and other illegal acts are all bad for individuals and society at large. But worse than the individual acts themselves is our system. It is based on a cascading series of antiquated laws combined with the self-propagation of “big money” controlling the key decision-makers. I am not trying to sanction or condone the concept of depriving individuals from profiting, but I can no longer tolerate our hypocritical policies which call 61% of teenagers criminals. Nancy? Still listening?

Update: highly recommend reading Don Reisinger’s piece on CNET on a related issue

Okay, it's lifecasting that's silly, not Twitter

Posted on by

As many people know, I was a rampant “twitter is stupid” person for well over a year.  In my eyes it just seemed like a silly waste of time for the few lucky people with enough time on their hands to use it frequently, something for an extreme minority.  Then I noticed many of my friends and colleagues were getting into it, people who I didn’t associate with the lifecasting crowd, nor people with absurd amounts of free time.  So finally, I succumbed, created a profile, and started following a bunch of people I knew (as in people I really knew, not just heard about from someone else).

Within days I had written numerous “tweets” and my list of followers and followees both grew to include the unknown.  I read, joined, and started conversations (asynchronous and short-form, but conversations nonetheless).  Since that time, I’ve apparently twittered almost 300 times, though I’ve attempted to avoid (as much as possible) the inevitable “I’m doing something kinda mundane, but felt the need to share“.  They happen, but I try to keep the tweets to the conversation, be it about marketing, gadgets, technology, or other topics which are close to home (yup, that includes some hockey).

As I scan tweets and follow conversations on FriendFeed, it’s become quite clear to me that these formats are quite viable for many uses.  Good way to get opinions on a topic, great way to get quick advice or problem-solving.  Interesting way to engage with press and bloggers.  Decent way to interact with people I don’t know well on topics we have in common.  But every time I read about someone getting a coffee, catching a bus, waiting in a line, or getting an oh-so-annoying “I’m at 1st & Main” update, I get the same reaction as when offers for Viagra, University Diplomas, Mortgage Rates, or Nigerian Uncles’ Fortunes hit my inbox.

I believe the main reason for Twitter’s growth over the past 12-18 months is specifically due to the lack of lifecasting.  I was pleasantly surprised to see “the conversations” happening, and the relatively low quantity of “debating between ham&cheese or grilled veggies on rye.”  We are seeing an interesting phenomena right now surrounding social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, with people sharing what I would label “over the top” personal details.  Personally I believe this is directly tied to a lack of understanding of consequences.  We have yet to see the “Digital Natives” get burned by their actions.

Regardless of your feelings on GW Bush as president, the rumors are pretty rampant that he was a big partier back in college.  I could be wrong, but I have a hunch that if he’d had a permanent digital record of all his youthful exuberances, the election process might’ve been a bit trickier.  I’ve blogged about what I called “crime 2.0” in the past (which even elicited some fairly snarky comments), and I maintain the position of: mark my words, there will be bad times ahead.  And frankly, that’ll end up being a good thing for our civilization’s digital future.

Garmin wants $70 for a… map!?

Posted on by

Let me open by saying I think my Nuvi 350 is one of my favorite devices.  While there are a few improvements I could point out, for the most part it works very intuitively and reliably.  With the exception of the one time I was trying to find a Dairy Queen (Blizzard? hells yes.) and I ended up outside of someone’s house while hearing “you have arrived.”  And the guy didn’t even have ice cream.  Fail.

Today I received the following email from Garmin:

Garmin is pleased to announce the new Map Update 2009 for North America. For the most up-to-date maps and navigation on your portable Garmin GPS unit, this is the software you want. This $69.99 update offers full coverage for the U.S, Canada and Puerto Rico – making it easy and convenient to update the detailed maps and latest points of interest into your compatible Garmin unit.

The update includes:

  • Over 8 million miles of road coverage
  • Updated, fully routable, detailed maps for the U.S., Canada and Puerto Rico
  • Nearly 6 million points of interest
  • Postal code support for Canada

Purchase the Map Update 2009 today!

Now I’m sure Garmin is paying someone (Navteq?) for their maps & data, and have costs to recoup.  I have no problem with paying for an update, if the price is right.  And maybe back 10 years ago $70 was a fair price, but today it isn’t.  The Internet has effectively trashed the value of data to consumers, and price points need to reflect that changed mentality.

As I write this, the Nuvi 350 is $203 on Amazon, meaning new updates are over 1/3 the price of the hardware.  Whereas going to Google Maps is free, always.  Granted, my Nuvi is more convenient than printing maps, and I am willing to pay something.  How about $9.99?  Or maybe $19.99?  Those seem like a “fair” price to pay for a map update.

There’s simply no way in the current market to accept $69.99 as a fair market value for a map update. Especially in context of a certain new phone that’s going to cause even more issues for a slowly failing GPS market.

So what's a G1 iPhone worth now?

Posted on by

As all humans across the planet are now aware, there’s a $199 3G iPhone (with GPS) available come June 11th.  John Biggs observes, that’s with a 2-year contract, but I don’t really feel that makes a difference since most typical consumers are re-upping contracts as they buy phones anyway.  $199 is an amazing price point, one sure to help get Apple to hit their previously-hard-to-reach volume numbers.  Let’s look at what you get for $199 now:

  • Arguably the best phone on the market, at a very competitive price to all “trendy” phones, making it affordable to non-professionals alike.
  • A GPS device.
  • A 3G mobile Internet + email device.
  • An 8GB MP3 and video player.
  • Access to a fairly big supply music, movies/TV shows, and now games and other applications.

All in all, not too shabby.  I’m still not running out to buy one (no Verizon, still want a keyboard, etc.), but I’m more tempted than ever.  It’s exactly the right price point to move large volumes of phones (here you can compare it to other top-priced AT&T phones.  Yes, that IS a RAZR in the mix, wow!).  It’s the same price as a Treo (shudder).  Incidentally, looking back a year I was about half-right on my G1 and G2 phone predictions.  Oh well, live and learn.

After some random, informal, and ridiculously unscientific polling, my hunch is a lot of first-generation iPhone users are going to wait until about 12:03am on the 11th to buy the 3G iPhone.  But what are they gonna do with the old ones?

Can’t really resell em (unless they’re unlocked) for any real value.  Again, I don’t view the 2-year contract as any kind of deterrent, and therefore it won’t help spur sales at near price points ($179, $149, even $99).  They’re still listed above $300 on eBay, but that will definitely change in the near future.  My hunch is the price settles in somewhere right around $80.  This makes an all-in early adopter program run a grand total of $718 ($599 + $199 – $80), not to mention the $100 iStore coupon.

One Gadget to Rule Them All?

Posted on by

Am I the only one who’s found the entire industry surrounding gadgetry and computers has a certain amount of ennui around it? I blame (and not in a bad way, so read this through to the end people) Apple. Seems like ever since Jobs first unveiled the iPhone back in January 2007 that nothing’s even come close to being, well, interesting. I don’t even have an iPhone (and until they ship one on Verizon or until AT&T offers a US+Canada plan, I won’t have one), but I find it one of the most interesting and compelling products on the market.

I wonder how long it’s really going to take other manufacturing companies to start playing the game the same way as Apple does. Granted, not everyone can sport a black mock-T the same way, but they can certainly (1) hire great product designers, (2) have a great vision, (3) execute on that vision, and (4) build the same buzz. But nobody is doing it. Nobody. It’s as if the entire consumer electronics and PC industry look at Apple and just shrug their shoulders. This is, in a word, sad.

When Gretzky played hockey he was arguably the best player to ever lace up his skates. When he played, his teammates played better and the competition tried harder. Our industry seems to have the opposite reaction. “Competing” products come nowhere close, and for no good reason. This is the part that stymies me the most – it’s not exactly like Apple is perfect or anywhere close. While I’ve personally given up on Windows, I can create a huge list of complaints I have about OS X. The original iPhone has terrible problems dealing with corporate email (not to mention the accidental generation of multi-thousand-dollar bills from time to time). These flaws are opportunities for competitors.

Due to my attending CES year after year, my email address has saturated to the entirety of the consumer electronics PR lists. I get virtually all press releases, sneak previews, glimpses, and other news from major CE and PC manufacturers (other than Apple, interestingly). Is it surprising to any of my readers if I “unveil” that practically none of these companies even attempt buzz or drama? There’s no excitement, there’s just press releases and media events. Now I do happen to believe you can’t build too much interest around mediocre products, so this issue goes hand-in-hand with the “where are the great products” topic.

We’re a few hours away from Steve Jobs’ keynote at this year’s WWDC event. I’ll be watching live-ish from Engadget (not Twitter, which is neither reliable nor efficient for this type of information), using TechCrunch as my backup site should Engadget go down (or someone in my office hollers out something that they read on TC before Eng got it!). I’m sure I’ll be somewhat wowed, and somewhat not, because not everything will be exciting ZOMG news. But who cares? It’s Apple up at bat, and they are pointing to the bleachers while the other guys are still practicing their bunts.

ps – congrats to Sling Media for getting the iPhone version of the SlingPlayer ready!

pps – I own some AAPL stock, but I also own some Sony and other CE/PC companies as well.

Routers Need an Emergency Mode

Posted on by

Where it used to be hard to find a WiFi network, these days it’s hard to find only one.  If you live in an apartment building, you may spot dozens of networks.  And thanks to malicious jerks around the world, most of them are closed, locked down, unavailable.  This is pretty strongly advisable, yet slightly disappointing from a community angle, and often-times very frustrating from a “gotta get online to send this email” perspective.

My first piece of wishful thinking is having router manufacturers enable an “emergency mode” triggered by natural disasters or other major emergencies.  I’ll say up front I have no idea who is responsible for triggering this switch, but let’s assume local governments could determine such a method (just don’t have it over to FEMA, they apparently rarely know when or where emergencies occur).  When routers receive the “emergency signal” they provide open access to the Internet.

While I may be oversimplifying the technology impact and there’d obviously be some security implications, the purpose here is to give people an easy way to share and receive vital information.  The phone lines and cell signals may be overwhelmed with traffic, but assuming either phone or cable services are available, people with Internet-enabled mobile devices and laptops would all be able to rapidly reach out.  We could share updates, find safe havens, etc, all with simple Internet connectivity.

I don’t exactly know what it would take to make this happen.  My hunch is it simply won’t.  But when I see 23 hotspots in my surrounding region and know full well that a stranger couldn’t use a single one of them in time of need, it makes me ponder how we can better use technology to improve our community.

Avi Greengart reviews 5 iPhone cases

Posted on by

I get a lot of accessories and other doodads that don’t merit formal reports at Current Analysis, but are interesting nonetheless. Here’s a quick rundown of five iPhone cases:

DLO HipCase ($34.99) – this was one of the first iPhone cases on the market, and easily one of the most attractive – provided you don’t mind the wide “eyeglass case” style. The leather case protects the phone reasonably well, though the corners are left exposed. I managed to dent – but not break – my first iPhone sample when it dropped to the floor in this case and hit precisely at the corner near the headphone jack. The big downside to this case is that the belt clip is permanently attached, so it is awkward to slip into a pocket instead of perching it on your hip.

DLO Jam Jacket ($24.99) – this one looks like a simple silicone overlay, and it is, though there’s a twist around back. Instead of a belt clip, there’s a hard silicone protrusion which is used to wrap your headphone cord around, and even indentations for inserting Apple’s stock earbuds. There are a bunch of problems with this case: it doesn’t protect the screen in any way. It doesn’t have a belt clip, so if you want to use it that way, you can’t. Worse, if you want to stick the iPhone in your pocket, that’s difficult, too, because the cord winding thing sticks out. Finally, if you don’t use Apple’s stock ear buds – I don’t – then they won’t fit in the spots cut out for them on the rear protrusion, either. If it fits your needs perfectly, great. But I can’t generally recommend this one.

Griffin Elan Holster ($29.99) – Griffin has a bunch of different cases for the iPhone, and this one is one of the simplest. It is a leather sleeve open on one of the short ends and exposed along the sides for access to the volume buttons and ringtone on/off switch. Fit is pretty snug, which is a good thing if you want to take advantage of the case’s flexibility: it can be used with a removable belt clip in either vertical or horizontal orientation (if it wasn’t a snug fit, the iPhone would fall out when you have it in horizontal mode). So, vertical belt case? Check. Horizontal belt case? Check. Pocket case without a clip? Check. Screen protection? Check. It is attractive, but not as attractive as the DLO HipCase, so if flexibility matters more to you than fashion, Griffin’s Elan Holster is an easy recommendation.

OtterBox iPhone Defender ($49.99) – the Defender series of cases from OtterBox are semi-rugged, designed to survive jostling and moisture, but not sledgehammers and swimming pools. The case is built in layers: first, there’s a hard plastic shell (which splits in half to insert/retrieve the iPhone itself) which has a “patented thin membrane” that covers the iPhone’s screen. Surprisingly, I found that the membrane does not interfere with usage of the phone at all. On top of the hard plastic shell, you then put on a silicone jacket, which includes plugs for all the ports so that moisture can’t enter them when they are closed, but headphone jacks and USB cords can be used when they are open. Then, the whole contraption fits into a belt clip made of even thicker hard plastic with a rotating hinge so that the clip can be worn vertically or horizontally. I did not deliberately drop test the iPhone in the OtterBox case because I’m fairly certain Apple wants at least one of its loaners returned from me unharmed, but I used this case for months and came away extremely impressed with its well thought out design.

There are a few drawbacks, however. First, the case does add some bulk to the iPhone, particularly when the belt clip is used; that is to be expected. All the iPhone’s controls are accessible, save one: the ringer on/off switch cannot be used when the iPhone is in the case; this is a minor, but significant loss. The biggest problem is that getting the iPhone in and out of the case is a nightmare, and when in the case, the iPhone doesn’t fit in its white stand or in any of three or four iPod speaker docks I tried. It can be synced using the USB cable itself without the stand, so if you don’t ever dock your iPhone even that won’t be an issue.

H2O audio iFR Sport Combo ($29.99) – H2O Audio is known for cases and headphones that are fully waterproof, but the iFR case/armband combination is merely water resistant, much like the OtterBox case. Unfortunately, it is not nearly as well designed as the competition. It is far bigger and bulkier, and looks more like the fully ruggedized waterproof cases H2O Audio sells for the iPod (those cases are advertised as being designed for taking an iPod surfing which justifies their size). On the iFR, there is a clear hard plastic front piece that protects the screen which must be flipped out of the way to gain access to the iPhone’s controls underneath, which then completely exposes the iPhone to your fingers and to moisture. In practice, the flip-away cover makes it very difficult to answer the phone quickly, and you cannot surf the Internet outside during a light drizzle, never mind go into real surf. The armband is almost comically large. On the other hand, inserting and extracting the iPhone is a relatively simple and quick affair compared to the OtterBox. I have been quite impressed with some of H2O Audio’s ingenious waterproof cases, but I cannot recommend this one.

About Avi: At Current Analysis I focus on testing mobile devices and advising clients how competitive they are in the market. None of the products I’m recommending here come from clients, and I do not own stock in any of the companies. I do not pay for review units, and while most devices I test get sent back (whether the companies want them back or not – I need to get them out of my house), I have kept some of the items listed below for… lets call it a long term loan.

Fair Deal: UMG Profiteering off my YouTube Video

Posted on by

I received the following email from YouTube earlier today:

Dear YouTube Member:

UMG has claimed some or all audio content in your video Pussycat Dolls @ Microsoft CES Party – basic Muvee w/U2. This claim was made as part of the YouTube Content Identification program.

Your video is still live because UMG has authorized the use of this content on YouTube. As long as UMG has a claim on your video, they will receive public statistics about your video, such as number of views. Viewers may also see advertising on your video’s page.

Claim Details:

Copyright owner: UMG
Content claimed: Some or all of the audio content
Policy: Allow this content to remain on YouTube.

  • Place advertisements on this video’s watch page.

Applies to these locations:
Everywhere

UMG claimed this content as a part of the YouTube Content Identification program. YouTube allows partners to review YouTube videos for content to which they own the rights. Partners may use our automated video / audio matching system to identify their content, or they may manually review videos.

If you believe that this claim was made in error, or that you are otherwise authorized to use the content at issue, you can dispute this claim with UMG and view other options in the Video ID Matches section of your YouTube account. Please note that YouTube does not mediate copyright disputes between YouTube owners. Learn more about video identification disputes.

Sincerely,
The YouTube Content Identification Team

At first, I was outraged. But at second, I really wasn’t. Why? Well, I *did* choose to use U2’s Beautiful Day for the background music, and I certainly didn’t ask for permission to do so. It would be their right to ask me to stop playing the video with that music in it. Instead, they’re taking ad revenue rights. Considering I wasn’t putting the video up for profit, I really don’t care, and if this allows me to continue using their music in such a way, I call it fair.

I believe this is the right kind of example content companies should set. Suing end-users is just a lose-lose proposition. Becoming ridiculously tightfisted about content use is also a dead-end. But here I’m basically being encouraged by a copyright owner to use their content for my purposes (fun) and yet meet their basic business needs as well (profit).

Here’s the video in question: