Held hostage by Apple

My five-year-old Apple PowerBook G4 has been an absolutely wonderful computer throughout my college career (I got it the second week of my freshman year!), but the poor thing is running out of hard drive space, in desperate need of a memory upgrade, and has a shot battery. It's certainly time for an upgrade, but I'm aggravated by Apple's intentional omittance of several features that I would want in my next computer.

'High-Definition' is the biggest buzz word in technology as of late. Blu-Ray players which cost $999 last year are now selling for $200 at Best Buy and Wal-Mart, and it's quite impossible to buy anything but a new HDTV. To complement the high-def home entertainment experience, computer manufacturers are including Blu-Ray drives and HDMI-out ports (HD audio and video in one simple cable) into their desktops and notebooks. This is absolutely awesome! It eliminates the need for an expensive home theater system; all you have to do is connect your notebook to your flat-screen TV with HDMI, and you're set!

But Apple, usually at the forefront of creative innovation, has incorporated neither Blu-Ray nor HDMI into any of its computers. Their excuse is that 'the licensing cost for Blu-Ray is too high,' even though Sony, Dell, HP and others have had the technology for over a year now. What Apple won't say is that the exclusion is really meant to hold the consumer hostage.

Instead of using Blu-Ray, Apple wants you to rent movies in High Definition over its own iTunes online store and connect it to an Apple monitor (which uses its own type of connection), or buy a separate AppleTV for $299 (which would then connect to your TV with HDMI). Both of these options are inferior to me, as iTunes movie selection is limited and you can't [currently] buy HD movies (you can only rent them). Apple also thinks that optical media such as CDs, DVDs and Blu-Ray discs are passé, and downloads are the way of the future. While I agree to an extent (I can't remember the last time I bought an actual CD), they're not giving the consumer any choice. And as far as movies go, there's currently much more selection out there beyond iTunes (hello, Netflix?!).

I love Mac software (Keynote, Pages, iMovie, Garageband, etc.) too much to abandon Apple and am willing to pay more for their products because of higher build quality. But, it's frustrating to feel like I'm held hostage to everything being Apple-branded.

A melancholy end to a great time

Today I had my last class of graduate school, said goodbye to my roommate who moved out, and realized that I will soon move out of a place where I've essentially spent a quarter of my life (this is my 6th year in Bloomington). I cannot believe how quickly these semesters in Arts Administration have flown by, but feel so fortunate to have been surrounded by such supportive, smart and talented friends...it feels like we've all known each other forever. We've shared so much together while discovering and developing our individual goals, and although it's sad to depart, its wonderful to see the exciting places we're ending up (Sundance, Houston Grand Opera, Kennedy Center, and the Indianapolis Museum of Art, to name just a few).

Thanks, Arts Administration, for making the past year-and-a-half the most memorable time of my life...I'll miss you dearly.

Live Image Magnification...seriously?

Do projection screens with close-up shots of the orchestra really enhance the live concert experience?

Last night I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra perform a great concert that included the beautiful Prelude and "Liebestod" from Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, as well as Schoenberg's lush orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet No. 1 (GORGEOUS!!!). It was a wonderful evening of music, but the concert was supplemented with something I've never experienced in a live indoor classical event - two large screens that flanked the stage with magnified footage of the performance (I took the above picture during intermission, and you can see one of the screens over the stage).

Dubbed 'Live Image Magnification,' the projections provide the audience with the same video footage that would be shown in a live PBS airing, with close-ups on soloists and different sections of the orchestra in appropriate times of the performance. While I thought it was cool at first, the novelty soon wore off. I couldn't help but think, isn't the whole point of seeing a live performance to experience something more than what you would see on television? I found the screens to be more of a distraction than an enhancement, and I didn't observed only a handful of people in the audience watching them at any given time.

In my Public Policy class, we've discussed the economics concept of 'option value' in terms of the arts. For example, many individuals are in favor of supporting the arts because they know they have the option to partake in them at some point and time, even if they are not currently participating. Does option value similarly play into Philly's 'Live Image Magnification?' Would patrons prefer to purchase tickets to such concerts because they can choose to look up at the screens if they like? How does this experience compare to a 'traditional' concert setting for them? Are there differences in perceptions between experienced and casual concertgoers?

I hope these are questions the Orchestra's marketing department considers regarding the impact of 'Live Image Magnification' concerts, rather than just trying to do something new and 'cool' without rationale, justification and feedback from patrons. The Orchestra could be investing in a project where expenses far exceed perceived benefits of the audience as a whole.

P.S. Why not use the screens to project advertisements before the performance and during intermission, boosting ancillary income? Nonprofits need income from as many reliable sources as possible, especially in our current economic climate. Lexus is a huge corporate sponsor of the Philadelphia Orchestra, and I'm sure they'd love to present a few minutes of nice LS460 footage...especially to that clientele.

Blackberry Storm mini review

Today I was curious to check out the new Blackberry Storm at the Verizon store, and I must say I was quite fond of it. My initial impressions match most opinions in the reviews I've read. The screen is bright and beautiful, and the innovative clicking touchscreen mechanism they've put in place feels really solid. Web browsing seemed super fast on Verizon's network. I was surprised that typing was much easier in the vertical position than in landscape, full QWERTY mode (the letters are just too narrow). Ironically, I find this to be the opposite on the iPhone.

In my opinion, the Storm's biggest drawback is that its operating system is not quite as smooth as the iPhone's. For example, scrolling doesn't quite have the finesse that Apple is able to achieve so well. But it's only a minor detail, and the slight sluggishness could easily be fixed in a future software update.

All in all, I think the Storm is a nifty little device. Launching at just $199, it's priced very competitively to give the iPhone a run for its money.

P.S. I love the song in this Storm commercial: "I Believe" by Simian Mobile Disco.

Flip Mino

Last semester, Meg Liffick of the Indianapolis Museum of Art (and now, the Guggenheim!) spoke to our Audience Development class about how to implement new media technologies into nonprofit arts organizations. One of her 'favorite things' (Oprah reference, anybody?) was the Flip Video camera, a mobile phone-sized device that recorded web-quality video that easily uploads to YouTube with a USB connection. But ease-of-use, portability and convenience all came at the expense of video quality. In fact, most digital point-and-shoot cameras have better results in their video modes.

However, Flip Video recently the Flip 'Mino,' the world's smallest and most affordable HIGH DEFINITION camcorder. My favorite technology columnist, David Pogue of the New York Times, gives it a very favorable review. He praises its video quality, color replication, and low-light capturing abilities. What a neat little device! I'm definitely going to purchase one to use at Aspen next year!

www.theflip.com

Art in the eye of a needle

Micro-sculptor Willard Wigan makes artwork the size of a pinhead!

My take on the automotive bailout

Last night on CNN.com I watched some of the "big three" auto execs make their cases for support with Congress. I was not impressed. These domestic industry leaders have been so out of touch with their market for years, and they were visibly struggling to come up a compelling argument for a $25 billion bailout. Yes, the economy is suffering (they constantly use that as the driving--excuse the pun--cause), but their problems started way before our current recession.

American auto manufacturers been making terrible decisions for decades, cutting costs everywhere possible instead of investing in quality production methods. It's sad, because there's been recent improvement on some new American cars (Chevy Malibu, Cadillac CTS, Buick Enclave, Ford Flex to name a few) to actually make them actually competitive with imports. But is it too little too late?

GM Vice-Chairman Bob Lutz recently was on TV talking about the innovative new Chevy Volt, which promises to be America's first plug-in hybrid vehicle. But, he described the car as something that would appeal to "hippie, unattractive women." I'm sorry, but how can a person this out-of-touch with his products, market, and modern-day society run an organization as large as General Motors? Is THIS someone you would want to lead one of the country's largest corporations out of a huge financial crisis? Is THIS where people want to direct their tax dollars?

I vote no on the bailout unless there is major change in the leadership of these organizations. Plus, I recommend appointment of someone like Carlos Ghosn (he completely turned Nissan around in the late 90s) in the government to direct supervision.