Recent Articles

John Gruber:
>Screen resolution-wise, it’s exactly what I expected for a 163 PPI display in 2012: noticeably nicer than the 133 PPI iPad 1/2, noticeably worse than the 266 PPI iPad 3/4. The iPad Mini display seems brighter and to have better contrast than the iPhone 3GS display, but unsurprisingly, rendered text looks exactly like it does on the 3GS.

Yuck. No really, I am so tainted by having my three primary computing devices using retina quality displays that I really don’t think I would be OK with such a screen. So, though it is against every inkling in my bones, I think I am going to pass on the iPad mini this time around. Instead I will probably upgrade my iPad, or wait to see the iPad mini in the store.

I didn’t expect the retina display in the iPad mini, but I also expected the screen to look a touch better than the 3GS. I use a 3GS everyday for my daughter’s noise machine at night and I can’t imagine buying a new device with such a fuzzy looking screen. I’m not trying to be down on Apple or the iPad mini — I want one — but I am the guy that got rid of his mint 24″ LED Cinema display because it looked too fuzzy compared to my retina displays.

Interesting lawsuit filed against Apple by two iPhone users that claim Apple is in violation of anti-trust laws by locking iPhones to AT&T. I don’t care about the legality of the matter, but think about the implications. Should Apple lose, what happens? iPhones sold by Apple will be carrier unlocked and Apple will have to supply unlock codes to current iPhone users.

What about that would Apple be against?

Remember, Apple doesn’t care what carrier you use, they only care what device you use. Essentially what I am saying is that this is a lawsuit Apple might not mind losing. A loss would allow Apple to look at AT&T, shrug their shoulders, say “we tried”, and unlock millions of iPhones much to the delight of iPhone users. Win-win for Apple as far as I see it.

I think this is the first lawsuit against Apple we should all be hoping Apple loses.

Edward Wyatt and Nick Wingfield reporting on changes to the Microsoft privacy policy:

> Almost no one noticed, however, even though Microsoft’s policy changes are much the same as those that Google made to its privacy rules this year.

Man, poor Google, they always get the short end of the stick.

> The difference in the two events illustrates the confusion surrounding Internet consumer privacy.

I mean I just wish consumers would be consistent over what they got pissed about, right? Poor Google.

> Microsoft has promised, however, that it will not use the personal information and content it collects to sell targeted advertising. It will not, for example, scan a consumer’s e-mails to generate ads that might interest the user. Google does that, and expanding its ability to draw on that content was part of the reason Google changed its privacy policy this year.

Oh, so there is a difference, and a legitimate reason why consumers are pissed about one change but not the other? So really, what we have illustrated here is not confusion by the public over consumer privacy, but confusion by the writers?

Because either the writers were confused, or they just needed to put some words on a page so they tried to make a poor Google controversy.

> But it is easy to see how Microsoft customers might be confused, because the different divisions of Microsoft that draft and oversee its user agreements and privacy policies did not anticipate that the changes in the services agreement would raise privacy questions.

Ugh, still? Even though you just laid it out pretty clearly for people with this officially statement:

> “However,” he added, “one thing we don’t do is use the content of our customers’ private communications and documents to create targeted advertising. If that ever changes, we’ll be the first to let our customers know.”

That’s a pretty clear and unwavering statement from Microsoft.

In the end though, poor Google and thank goodness the gray-haired-needs-to-retire-lady reported in this.

Kontra on advertising models:

>Why? Because shouting creates page views and clicks, and…well, there’s nothing more to say: shouting sells.

And:

>Nobody *likes* advertising, and yet we seem to be stuck with its corrupting effects on public discourse online.

Lastly:

>Advertising online has been corruptive of user privacy and editorial integrity.

As I have mentioned before, I hate advertise — so too have I mentioned that I subscribe to over 500 RSS feeds. That’s a lot of feeds, a lot of shouting, and a lot of advertising. These past two weeks I have been very busy and I have grown incredibly annoyed with all of the noise on the web — all of which is simply shouting for the sake of getting attention, page views, and ultimately money. It’s actually pretty sad if you think about it.

If I look at the hot view in Fever° for the past week, the hottest story was a bunch of bullshit speculation about a 13″ retina MacBook Pro. Yay. I didn’t read a single one.

Here’s the thing though, it’s not just advertising that causes the problem, it’s also lack of advertising. That is if people run a blog with no advertising, they shout loudly to get heard, to get page views, and eventually to get advertising. They aren’t alone, I am just as guilty from time to time.

The benefit that I have are that the people paying for this site give me some leeway when I pen something stupid, tell me about it, and I can change. When I was on the advertising model and I penned something stupid they just went elsewhere. I’m not sure which *is* better, but I know what *I* like better.