We've had a number of stories recently about juries getting in trouble for using forbidden technology while on the jury -- and some of our most heated discussions have been over whether or not it makes sense to block these tools from jurors. Of course, for now, the tools are very much blocked, but it certainly doesn't seem to stop anyone from using them. The latest such case involves a juror who used his iPhone to access Encarta to look up the definition of the word "prudence," since the ruling in the case was dependent on whether or not the jury felt the accused had acted with "prudence." While the lower court refused to grant a new trial, the appeals court reversed, noting that "using the smartphone in this way was analogous to using a dictionary, and that conduct has generally been prohibited in juror deliberations." Separately, I have to agree with Evan Brown (who wrote the story linked above about this) in pointing out:
Ed. note: If the jury foreperson was savvy enough to use an iPhone, why on earth was he consulting Encarta? Hello, 1995 called -- it wants its web pages back.
Honestly, I think the last (and perhaps only) time I ran across Encarta it was still in the heady CD-ROM days, and my first reaction on reading this story was to wonder how one used an iPhone to access a CD-ROM.
In all of the fuss, hype and obsession over the iPhone/iPad app store, people seem to forget that when the iPhone first launched, it had no app store and no ability for third party developers to create native apps. Instead, Steve Jobs suggested the high quality Safari browser on the iPhone meant the end of native apps, as everything could and should just be done in HTML. And yet, a year later, Steve Jobs totally changed his tune, the iPhone app store was launched, and suddenly this obsession with everything "apps" began. Of course, the media industry fell in love, because they thought that they could regain an element of control, thanks in part to Apple's incredibly arbitrary iron fist over what got into the store.
And yet... in all of that, it seems that many people forgot that original promise of apps all just being created in HTML. Indeed, if you look beneath the surface, you would realize that many iPhone apps really are just made in HTML and then compiled into being native iPhone apps. Using HTML alone, you can access many of the phone's features and certainly create all sorts of apps. But still, there has been general anger over Apple's mercurial gatekeeper activities. Back in January, we noted that Google had remembered the ability to create apps via HTML and had simply routed around the App Store. It made us wonder why others weren't doing it too.
While there have been a few "independent" app stores for the iPhone, they've all required jailbreaking the phone. And while that's now officially legal as per the Library of Congress, it's still not something your everyday iPhone user wants to do. So I've been somewhat fascinated by a new offering that's launching today called OpenAppMkt, which effectively creates a brand new app market for iPhones all via HTML (both the openappmkt app itself, and all the apps in it are HTML based). The experience is very much like the regular app store, with the small exception of having to tap the "add to home" button:
While many of the initial offerings in the OpenAppMkt are free, it does let developers charge for their apps as well. Effectively, this is an entire "app market" for the iPhone that simply routes around Apple as a gatekeeper, and there's really not much that Apple can do to stop it. And, of course, since the apps in the OpenAppMkt are just HTML, it likely won't be difficult for OpenAppMkt to extend this to other platforms as well, such as Android (even though Android's much more open market means that there's less of a reason to developers to use OpenAppMkt for Android).
Overall, this fascinates me for two reasons. First, it's good to get more people realizing that HTML is already pretty damn good at creating app-style experiences, without having to create special compiled code and, second, it's a really clever way to totally route around Apple as a gatekeeper (without requiring a jailbreak), and is a reminder that even on "closed" systems, openness will often find a way.
We haven't really written about the whole Apple iPhone antenna thing because, really, who cares? As the NY Times pointed out, it's just a phone. It's a nice phone, by all accounts, and the antenna problems seem like they could be pretty annoying, but there wasn't much for us to comment on that wasn't already covered by a thousand other blogs. However, you know things have reached silly season when even our Congressional reps are getting involved. Senator Chuck Schumer, who can grandstand with the best of them, has decided that this antenna issue is an issue for Congress to be concerned about, and has penned a letter to Steve Jobs ("Dear Mr. Jobs,") to come forward and explain the issue. Of course, Schumer sent the letter after Apple had already scheduled its press conference for later this morning where it's expected that something (no one's quite sure what) will be resolved about the antenna. But, really, what role does Congress have in this at all? The story is getting plenty of attention from all over the place already. It's not like Congress can help shine a light on it. All this appears to be is Schumer stepping into a headline because it's a hot topic. Sometimes it makes you wonder if Congressional Reps & Senators now have their press people monitoring the Twitter trending topics for issues grandstand-worthy....
Apple, of course, became a household name with its infamous 1984 commercial, about how Apple equipment would make sure that "1984" wasn't like 1984. However, now that it's 2010, apparently it's fine. As you may have heard, Consumer Reports yesterday posted that it could not recommend the iPhone 4 due to the widely discussed antenna problems. Apparently that was double-plus-ungood to the folks at Apple.
Ragaboo alerts us to the news that Apple has deleted a thread discussing this at the Apple support forums. And when they delete it, they mean it. People created a new thread, and it got deleted again. And again. And again and again. At least six such threads have been deleted, according to that TUAW article. Of course, all this is doing is drawing more attention to the issue and the fact that Apple is trying to deny it exists. Oh, and we were always at war with Eurasia.
Update: Apparently some of the threads have now come back... and people are suggesting that it may have been a glitch with Apple's forums, rather than anything malicious... We haven't yet seen a full explanation, but perhaps that's the case.
It looks like a class action lawsuit against Apple and AT&T for the way the two companies have conducted business around the iPhone is going to finally move forward. A judge in California is consolidating a few different such cases, covering two separate issues. The first questions whether or not the lock-in that required iPhone buyers to remain with AT&T for five years is legal, and the second questions the legality of the iPhone's app store, where Apple is the gatekeeper. To be honest, even as the consolidated case moves forward, I can't see either claim getting very far. Both seem to represent reasonable business decisions, and it's difficult to see an argument that Apple should have been forced to act otherwise.
Last week you probably saw the story of how the guy, Brian Maupin, who created this hilarious iPhone vs. HTC Evo video was suspended by Best Buy and told he was going to get fired:
Given the massive backlash against Best Buy for this move, it appears the company is backtracking quickly. Best Buy's CEO did a blog post saying the company had "completed its investigation" and Brian was being offered his job back. The CEO also points out -- as people did in the comments, that some of the original concern wasn't so much about the famed iPhone/Evo video (which doesn't mention Best Buy), but other videos he had done that had mentioned the company (which have since been taken down).
"(The company statement) is a 180 from what they were saying Thursday, but I guess me they either made peace with the videos I left up or decided the others weren't so bad. Here's a statement I'm issuing as well:
"Right now I'm planning on taking a leave of absence so I may survey my current career plans and the future. I'm not sure if it would be comfortable returning to Best Buy considering the circumstances, but I will definitely consider all options."
There's an amusing text-to-speech animated video making the rounds (I've been sent it half a dozen times already) mocking iPhone-obsessed buyers going into stores and not caring that phones like the HTC Evo might have better specs, because they just "want an iPhone." It's amusing (though, probably not safe for work from an audio standpoint -- so wear headphones, or work with cool people):
Well over a million people have seen it. It's definitely gone viral. But that, of course, doesn't make it a story worth mentioning here.
What does is Best Buy's incredible stupidity about the video. Wait, you might ask, what does the video have to do with Best Buy? In the video the store is called "Phone Mart," and there's no mention of Best Buy at all. There's absolutely nothing about the video that would have you thinking about Best Buy. Until now.
Andrew F points us to the news that the creator of the video actually works at Best Buy -- even though pretty much everyone who watched the video had no idea. And now, Best Buy upper management was so afraid that Apple/AT&T might get upset at the idea that Best Buy was mocking the iPhone that it suspended the guy who made it and are in the process of firing him. Yes, despite the fact that no one was associating this video with Best Buy, Best Buy decided to do the one and only thing that would suddenly associate this video with Best Buy in a way that is not, at all, flattering to Best Buy. If it was afraid of how this video would look for Best Buy, it probably should have considered how much worse firing the guy who made it looks.
Eric Goldman points us to a copyright infringement lawsuit filed against Apple, because of a third party application for the iPhone called iBird (the developer of that program has also been sued). Apparently, one guy, Martyn Stewart, has gone around and recorded a bunch of different nature sounds, and the developer of iBird used them in his program. Stewart has an application in to register the copyrights, which seems pretty iffy to me: what "originality" did he actually add to the recording?
The developer of iBird seemingly admits to using Stewart's sounds. If you actually accept the idea of the copyrights on those sounds, then it seems like it should be a lawsuit solely between Stewart and the iBird developer. But including Apple because it offers iBird in the iPhone app store seems pretty ridiculous. On top of that, there's some oddity on the timing as well. Stewart admits that he's been collecting these sounds for 35 years, and that the iBird developer first approached him in 2007. But he only filed an application to copyright the sounds in December of 2009, which may cause some difficulty for him (though, it's not clear when the iBird product was actually released, which could make a difference here).
Either way, I can't see how Apple has any liability here at all, unless Stewart sent a DMCA takedown that was ignored, and there's no indication of that in his lawsuit. This feels like a typical "Steve Dallas lawsuit" in that it lumps in a big company tangentially related to the lawsuit, just because it has lots of money, and the guy suing is hoping against all the odds (and common sense and the law) that it will somehow pay up or be forced to pay up.
There are still some serious questions about the legality of the police's decision to search the home of Gizmodo reporter Jason Chen and to seize his computers as part of their investigation of the iPhone prototype story. However, with the unsealing of the search warrant, some are noticing some oddities. Reader johnjac highlights that the police defense of the need for the search warrant claims that Jason "created copies of the iPhone prototype in the form of digital images and video." While it may just be either a misstatement or an awkward use of the word, it does seem like a strange description of what happened, designed to make the judge think that the "risk" was much greater than it actually was. If there were actual "copies" of the device being made, that might be an issue. But photographing or videotaping a device is hardly making copies. But, of course, in an age where many in the world are trying to falsely equate "copies" with "theft," suddenly the idea that Jason was able to "copy" the iPhone prototype via the magic of a camera makes his actions seem that much more nefarious than they really were.
Back in February, when many in the media were insisting that iPad apps were going to save the media business, we wondered why all the stuff they were talking about sticking in their apps couldn't work on the web as well. It appears that others are noticing that as well. Jason Fry at the Nieman Journalism Lab is noting that publications' own websites may be the biggest competition to their iPad apps -- and he was apparently a big believer in the concept of iPad apps originally. But after using the iPad for a while, he's realizing that the web is pretty good again:
After about a week of using the iPad, I started deleting apps, because the websites themselves were perfectly adequate. This is the reverse experience of the iPhone. On the iPhone, the browser was used only in emergencies, and apps ruled. On the iPad, at least for now, the opposite is true -- the browser is superb, and renders many apps superfluous.
That complicates things for news organizations. Many have already put too much faith in the idea that being able to charge for apps will reinvigorate their financial prospects. Now, they have to confront the reality that their apps may compete with their own websites -- and right now the apps don't win that competition.
Of course, I can see some in the media getting the wrong idea out of this, and using it as an excuse to put "exclusive" content only in the app... but, that will just leave them open to competition from publications who add more value to their website.
