So... I'm bored. I could be doing work right now but it's the Friday before Memorial day weekend and I can't focus. I'm learning about capital gains, dividends, and interest income..namely how it is reported on an income tax return. It's a class I'm taking for work. Apparently, knowledge of income tax law and theory can come in handy when one works on tax-preparing software. Go figure.. Anyway, I'm behind in the class because of a vacation I took and could very easily catch up with the homework BUT.... then I'd be missing out on getting to rant aimlessly on a blog..
Anyway.. I thought I'd maybe ruffle a few feathers and try to "get out" a series of disorganized thoughts I've had for a while about smart phones: namely the "i-phone" vs "android" debate. First of all, as a sort of disclaimer, I whole-heartedly believe that Apple is a phenomenal company: innovative, creative, pioneering, pay intense attention to detail, aesthetics, and user experience. These are all WONDERFUL things. They DO make premium products.
That being said, here's the thing: don't pretend it (the i-phone) is something it's not. It's an app launcher.. That's the extent of the operating system. As far as which phone (android, iPhone) one should buy.. it is COMPLETELY up to user preference. However, I've had several discussions with friends and co-workers where the actual merits of the phones where compared, so as to reach a conclusion over which is superior. The important question is "which criteria are we using?" Which is probably more "usable" to the masses? Probably the iPhone. Which phone would I recommend my girlfriend get? Probably the iPhone.
Do I seem contradictory? (it's a known fact that I own and prefer the Android OS) I don't think so.. I'll go right out and say it. As a product (judged purely pragmatically) the I-phone is probably superior. It appeals to the most variety of people. It would likely outsell any of the higher end Android phones one-on-one if the market were such. That being said. I have also observed, in another market entirely (as you probably have as well) that the television show, "Sex in the City's" ratings have far surpassed other shows which I feel are superior (superior in quality, direction, acting, story, characters, etc..) So, obviously, one phone being a better "product" is not the "end-all-be-all."
I'll tell you why I consider the Android operating system superior. At least, by one important measurement, .. freedom (which implies versatility). Let me paint an analogy for you so that this just MIGHT make sense. Let's say that you own a piece of property ( a house for instance). You have taken the time and, sometimes, simply had the wherewith all to explore every nook and cranny of this house. You KNOW the infrastructure down to the material make-up of every last piece of hardware. Ok, that's settled.. NOW.. imagine that you no longer own the home (sold it, doesn't matter) Let's say that you re-visit the home only to find that it has a new owner. This owner, not being privy to a single ounce of context about your previous ownership and intimate knowledge of the house, proceeds to, in patronizing fashion, show you around the house. He "carefully" constructs a very linear tour of this house so as not to bombard your senses and threaten your capacity to comprehend what you are seeing.
NOW, let's say that you had no way of communicating your dissatisfaction with the "tour-guide"s approach and no way of communicating your previous ownership and consequent "knowledge" of the home. This is simply "the way it is." The experience might be pretty annoying, no?..
My point is: I FEEL this way when using most apple products (especially, in this case, the i-phone) I feel that the intelligence behind the UI (user interface), basically, considers me an idiot. Why else would I need my hand held everywhere I went. Why else would certain "quick-routes" to the things I need be withheld from me? Why would practically every piece of media and every file be stored in proprietary format inside a piece of proprietary software?
Apple does this for very specific reasons. They create a "walled" and "linear" user experience so as to allow fluid and easy use of the phone. They also do it to appeal to the "non-tech-savvy" market. All of this is absolutely fine and makes complete sense. HOWEVER, acknowledgement of this effectively removes the I-phone from the conversation over which phone is technologically superior. Again, I've already conceded the "product" debate. I'm simply talking about which piece of hardware has created an environment in which an appropriately tech-savvy person is likely to accomplish more and with more effieciency.
How can I claim this? The operating system speaks for itself. As I said earlier, the iPhone is, basically, a glorified app launcher. The home screen customization is limited to: "which apps do I want to put where.?" Oh, and you can change your wallpaper..kudos. "Multi-tasking" consists of certain (not all) apps being able to continue running "bare essential" processes that appear to the user as if each app was actually fully functioning while another app was used. For example, I've noticed, on the iPhone, that when entering an address in Maps, and in the middle switching to the browser and back again, the address entry was lost and the only process that was kept running was the core process for Maps. Yay. That's not true multi-tasking.
Back to the iPhone is an "app launcher" point: A friend of mine (with an iPhone) and myself decided to have a little contest over which of our phones could locate a particular GPS address and begin navigation before the other. We had a few minutes to prepare so as to familiarize ourselves with the sequence of buttons required etc.. The outcome? GPS navigation for the address began in about 2.5 seconds with the Android phone (Droid X) compared to about 7 seconds with the iPhone..Why? Because I created a shortcut to that particular address on my homescreen. Meaning: Android is a full, PC-like, operating system. The OS has access to more than just core processes but, instead, can access any sub-process or function inside another at ANY given time. I like to think of the Android OS as a sort of "spider-web" layout compared to the iPhone's "tree" layout. If one climbs the iPhone "tree" per se to the tip of the top branch and wishes to get down, he/she must trace their path down to the trunk. In a spider web OS format, one can simply take a single straight path back to the center/beginning.
Android OS is so versatile I can basically create a "shortcut" of sorts to ANY process, function, program, file I wish from ANYWHERE on the 7 home screens it offers. The OS also allows for third-party apps that can adjust the UI so much that, in my case, my Droid X looks more like an HTC Evo than it does a Droid X! My Droid X came with 5 linear, side-scrolling home screens with no ability to preview them all. I now have 7 previewable and cuztomizeable home screens that behave like the HTC Sense UI. Bottom line, if you don't like it, change it! There are virtually no limits to what you can do with your phone when Apps like ADW and LauncherPro exist.
More to come later... (gotta run)
Friday, May 27, 2011
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
A conversation I had with Rachel
So... I was having a political conversation with my girlfriend Rachel the other day and let's just say Rachel is not necessarily very political. Normally I would find such a conversation hard to have or even slightly annoying (seeing as how the other person has little knowledge to offer to the conversation) but I actually found this conversation very beneficial for me. The reason being is that it was a sort of interacting with a blank slate...so to speak. She had of course heard the typical "political talking points" that are thrown around about the differences between republicans and democrats, liberalism and conservatism, but had only ever scratched the surface of the differing ideologies. This forced me to sincerely and critically evaluate what I believed and why I believed it. Now I had told her that I disliked Obama before, but she had most likely gathered that everyone at one point dislikes the current president, and if I did it was most likely for rather superficial reasons that I'm sure she hears everyday. She was surprised to hear that I (though disagreement is of course allowed) had clear and concise, well thought-out, and methodical reasons for why I disagreed with his outlook and resulting policies for the US. In the process of explaining why I disagreed I also had to offer somewhat elementary definitions of differing political ideologies (ie. socialism, communism, capitalism, etc...) Apparently she had not taken American politics (no offense Rachel!!)
Anyway, I started my explanation with the following points: 1.) Government is an unfortunate necessary evil. 2.) Government exists for the people and by the people. 3.) Government should "GOVERN" and do everything possible to stay out of the lives of it's citizens.
4.) In other words, government should do everything possible to allow the natural laws of nature (economics, society, human nature, etc..) dictate the ebb and flow of our lives, money, liberty, etc... 5.) To even further explain...government only holds three constitutional obligations... the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything outside of these our not aligned with the intent of our founders and are basically unconstitutional.
The reasons I gave Rachel for why I was "conservative" at least in some sense of the word was that I sincerely believe that an environment that prioritizes freedom is the most likely to foster and encourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and many of the most productive attributes of the human spirit. Restricting freedom restricts incentive. Our country operates on a concept where currency (dollars) are exchanged for products and services. If I (average US citizen) decide to make a free-will decision and work (offer service) to an employer (who is comprised of other private citizens) than the currency I receive (dollars) are essentially mine (meaning they rightfully belong to me) I, realizing that I live in the 20th century and am a citizen-by-birth of a country that must provide certain things necessary for civilization (roads, military) do not have a moral problem with contributing a certain amount of my pay to help keep these unfortunately vital things funded. Anything outside of these, I believe it should rightfully be my choice to contribute or not to contribute my own money to.
Given these basic beliefs, I am fundamentally against the mindset of Obama and liberalism in general. The intent of government was never to create social program after program that hoard tax payer dollars for purposes that I never had choice of agreeing to or disagreeing with in the first place. (remember life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness) Not life, liberty, and and tons of programs that attempt to artificially manufacture happiness for all varieties of people ( usually poor) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not life, liberty, and guaranteed health care for all regardless of your ability to pay for it. I also believe America is founded on the belief that human beings are not necessarily owed anything just by their being born( not even health care...god forbid)
I, recognizing that nothing of value comes without a sort of "equal" exchange do not believe that nationalized ("free") health care is a good idea. For example, which would you most likely assume is the better product given a choice...the "free" can opener given out on "terrific tuesdays" at the local walmart (humor me plz :)) or the one for $9.99 at home depot. I am much more inclined to believe the latter, not sure about you. I have grown up with a pretty intuitive concept that an increase in value generally leads to an increase in price and vise versa. (there are of course anecdotal stories you could cite that prove the contrary but you get the point) I also grew up intuitively knowing that no manufactured product on earth is "free." Someone somewhere either spent money or time to make it. We already see this in the "health surcharge" of %6 that will be added to Americans making over $200,000. One man's free hand-out is an other's taken money.
The reason I told Rachel why I was conservative was that I believed America was the last hope in our world for a semi-capitalistic society that rewarded capital ventures (which entail extreme risk). What we are increasingly turning into is a country that sends extremely mixed (if not contradictory) psychological messages to it's citizens. We need people to create jobs (ie. small business owners etc..) yet in return we offer nothing but punishments for doing so. (lifting of FICA ceilings, health surcharge?) How is that encouraging incentive? Why would starting a business (with all the risk and extremely hard work it entails) be worth it when you know your income to tax ratio is going to increase ridiculously disproportionately? At what point are the cons going to overwhelmingly outweigh the pros?
I finished by saying that I was tired of politics and policies always pandering to the lowest common denominator (in a disturbingly communist/socialist fashion) People making money and prospering have to suffer along with the people making little money, why?, because liberals do not fundamentally believe in the concepts of capitalism. They construct a zero-sum game in which one man's fortune is directly related to ( and in fact responsible) for the misfortune of another. From here on out, this fundamentally flawed way of thinking is going to affect Obama's decision making and policies.
Anyway, I started my explanation with the following points: 1.) Government is an unfortunate necessary evil. 2.) Government exists for the people and by the people. 3.) Government should "GOVERN" and do everything possible to stay out of the lives of it's citizens.
4.) In other words, government should do everything possible to allow the natural laws of nature (economics, society, human nature, etc..) dictate the ebb and flow of our lives, money, liberty, etc... 5.) To even further explain...government only holds three constitutional obligations... the guarantee of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Anything outside of these our not aligned with the intent of our founders and are basically unconstitutional.
The reasons I gave Rachel for why I was "conservative" at least in some sense of the word was that I sincerely believe that an environment that prioritizes freedom is the most likely to foster and encourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking and many of the most productive attributes of the human spirit. Restricting freedom restricts incentive. Our country operates on a concept where currency (dollars) are exchanged for products and services. If I (average US citizen) decide to make a free-will decision and work (offer service) to an employer (who is comprised of other private citizens) than the currency I receive (dollars) are essentially mine (meaning they rightfully belong to me) I, realizing that I live in the 20th century and am a citizen-by-birth of a country that must provide certain things necessary for civilization (roads, military) do not have a moral problem with contributing a certain amount of my pay to help keep these unfortunately vital things funded. Anything outside of these, I believe it should rightfully be my choice to contribute or not to contribute my own money to.
Given these basic beliefs, I am fundamentally against the mindset of Obama and liberalism in general. The intent of government was never to create social program after program that hoard tax payer dollars for purposes that I never had choice of agreeing to or disagreeing with in the first place. (remember life, liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness) Not life, liberty, and and tons of programs that attempt to artificially manufacture happiness for all varieties of people ( usually poor) Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not life, liberty, and guaranteed health care for all regardless of your ability to pay for it. I also believe America is founded on the belief that human beings are not necessarily owed anything just by their being born( not even health care...god forbid)
I, recognizing that nothing of value comes without a sort of "equal" exchange do not believe that nationalized ("free") health care is a good idea. For example, which would you most likely assume is the better product given a choice...the "free" can opener given out on "terrific tuesdays" at the local walmart (humor me plz :)) or the one for $9.99 at home depot. I am much more inclined to believe the latter, not sure about you. I have grown up with a pretty intuitive concept that an increase in value generally leads to an increase in price and vise versa. (there are of course anecdotal stories you could cite that prove the contrary but you get the point) I also grew up intuitively knowing that no manufactured product on earth is "free." Someone somewhere either spent money or time to make it. We already see this in the "health surcharge" of %6 that will be added to Americans making over $200,000. One man's free hand-out is an other's taken money.
The reason I told Rachel why I was conservative was that I believed America was the last hope in our world for a semi-capitalistic society that rewarded capital ventures (which entail extreme risk). What we are increasingly turning into is a country that sends extremely mixed (if not contradictory) psychological messages to it's citizens. We need people to create jobs (ie. small business owners etc..) yet in return we offer nothing but punishments for doing so. (lifting of FICA ceilings, health surcharge?) How is that encouraging incentive? Why would starting a business (with all the risk and extremely hard work it entails) be worth it when you know your income to tax ratio is going to increase ridiculously disproportionately? At what point are the cons going to overwhelmingly outweigh the pros?
I finished by saying that I was tired of politics and policies always pandering to the lowest common denominator (in a disturbingly communist/socialist fashion) People making money and prospering have to suffer along with the people making little money, why?, because liberals do not fundamentally believe in the concepts of capitalism. They construct a zero-sum game in which one man's fortune is directly related to ( and in fact responsible) for the misfortune of another. From here on out, this fundamentally flawed way of thinking is going to affect Obama's decision making and policies.
My new blog!
Lol. I totally stole this idea (of blogging) from my friend Eric, but oh well it's not like blogging is not something everyone and their mother does. Basically...I am starting this blog for my own benefit. During the course of a day, zillions of random thoughts bombard by brain from all sides. I used to use Xanga (remember that?!) to get them out, but that is long gone. Everyone's on facebook now and I figured I could just link to this blog on my main wall. Anyway, here are the rules of my blog, so you (random reader) know what to expect:
No topic is off limit
There will rarely be any logical flow from post to post
There will rarely be any sequential order to anything
I write freestyle and give minimal attention to proper puncation, grammar etc...
There we are. Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoy.
P.S. I am very opinionated.
Jon
No topic is off limit
There will rarely be any logical flow from post to post
There will rarely be any sequential order to anything
I write freestyle and give minimal attention to proper puncation, grammar etc...
There we are. Thanks for reading. Hope you enjoy.
P.S. I am very opinionated.
Jon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
