It could be the overall downward trend in the market.  On the other hand, it could be something like what Sony had to contend with when they first released the PlayStation Portable: awesome technology, beautiful vivid screen.  But, wait a second — what’s wrong with my display?

And in fact, for those not actually owning iPhones, or even keeping up with this kind of stuff, it may surprise to you to know that not only is the iPhone is far from perfect, but there are a small but significant portion of them that are defective.  I’m talking dead pixels, and perhaps more importantly dead zones (i.e. areas that become non-responsive) that have become the stuff of nightmares for the Faithful — and non-Faithful, who merely own shares in Entralled Apple, Inc (yours truly included).

The dead zones and pixels may be the result of Apple purchasing some Finnish technology that may have been defective from the beginning, as an analyst at Nomura International has sussed out.  Basically, its based on some chemical composition that is heat sensitive, and may wear out over time.

Translation?  Apple stock is taking a huge hit — and actually has been doing so since its high on July 28, when Apple announced its earnings for the quarter.  Its down by about $20 since that time, although, perhaps it was temporarily buoyed by the news of the new iMacs.  Unfortunately it looks like brushed aluminum isn’t giving Apple a bullet proof vest when it comes to stock market jitters.

Personally, I think these fears (as with most fears) are a bit unfounded.  After all, with Apple’s history of tech churn, you can bet that if they don’t already have a program in place (albeit an unofficial one) to replace defective iPhones, they will correct it with the next iteration of the iPhone, which I hear is due out in another 10 weeks or so.

(Of course I’m kidding).

I’m not going to jump into the whole Mac vs. PC debate right now because, amongst many other things, its tiresome.  But John C. Dvorak, eternal curmudgeon of almost all things technology has recently declared that “Macs Are All Right” after using them regularly for a few months, and I can’t help but chime in a few thoughts of my own — because, heck, this is my blog.

Mr. Dvorak extolls how the Mac OS is “elegant”, and performs many of the same tasks PC’s do with aplomb (my word, not his), but also describes how he’s been recommending Mac’s to his friends.  He says, in fact

“Should I recommend something that will come back to haunt me, or recommend a Mac with its higher price but lower hassle factor?” The answer is simple. I hate the idea of having to do customer service for people who cannot keep their systems clean, and that’s most people.”

I found myself in a similar position about a year ago when my brother was looking for a new laptop.  I should preface this story with saying that my brother’s a smart kid.  Its not really fair to call him a kid, but when your kid brother is your kid brother, he’s always going to be referred to as “kid” in some fashion or another — even if he’s taller than you now (but I outweigh him!).  Anyway, he’s a smart kid.  After all he’s finishing a residency in a pediatric *neurology* for pete’s sake, and after he’s done he’ll have done so much schooling his own children (who aren’t even born yet) will probably finish grade school before he finishes his post grad training.

But he’s also one of these guys who just doesn’t have any luck with PC’s.  Maybe its the kind of PC’s he bought when he went away to University — the bargain basement kind from local PC stores where they begin and end all their prices with the number 8 (maybe you know what I mean).  But every single PC he’s had — something’s gone wrong.  Inexplicable hardware failures.  Unimaginable operating system disasters.  Software errors that just didn’t make anyway sense — but clearly existed.

The reason why he ran into so many problems might be traced to shoddy parts, but I think (and maybe he’ll admit this as well), that there were certain problems that could be traced back to “operator-dependent” issues.

Anyway, when it came time to look for a new laptop, he asked me for my recommendation for one that “Just worked”.  I suggested he get something from Apple, and he’s never looked back.  He’s using parallels so he’s able to use some PC applications without any difficulty.  But the best part is that he hasn’t suffered any computing related disasters that he did before.

If I was mean, prone to giving cheap shots and the like, I might say something like “his new Macbook prevented him from doing anything stupid to it”.  But I’m not, so I won’t.  :)

Rather, irrespective of what problems he had with his initial set of PC’s, his Macbook hasn’t given him any problems so far — and for that, I’m grateful, both as the family tech support person *and* someone genuinely happy for him. The Dvorak in me would echo similarly cynical sentiments like “its more expensive but it just works and avoids more problems on my behalf”.  The more brother in me is just happy that he’s not wasting his time ranting and railing about how useless his computer is, but rather, spending his more profitably — such as working on his research for children with stroke.  Not, say, reading endless articles about professional wrestling.

Nah, he’d never that. ;)

Let’s put aside for a second that Fake Steve Jobs is neither funny nor witty, and ask ourselves why we should believe the shrill outrage of the author of a blog that is *purported* to be funny and witty.

{I could also ask why the technosphere engaged in such extravagant and indulgent navel gazing as to wonder who exactly FSJ is — but I’ll chalk it up the fact that, heck, its the summer. And we’re all looking for things “fun” things to do I suppose.}

Yes, sir, it seems like CNet is once again dredging up the issue over here, about the efforts of some to unmask FSJ. And if you go to FSJ’s own blog he makes some allusions to the exact issue with some seemingly out of character “back off or I’ll sue you” type of tenor, as those as-yet-unnamed individuals may have crossed a “fake line” in trying to find out the “fake Steve.”

First of all, let’s get some things out of the way.

• Those as-yet-unnamed individuals are the gents at Sitening, a web design and search marketing company in Nashville.
• The exact details are featured on Sitening’s blog, where they executed a pretty slick trick to nail his IP address (involving a unique URL and the knowledge that Steve uses Yahoo mail).
• From that point they were able to pinpoint what part of the world the FSJ was writing from, and lo and behold, its from Boston.
• Who is the leading FSJ candidate from Boston? Andy Ihnatko, whose blog is over here.

See? Its nice when we use details, rather than vagaries and hand-waving.

My biggest beef with the whole thing — you know, besides the fact that FSJ isn’t funny — is the possibility that the ‘outrage’ from FSJ is real.

Hey, I get it. Andy might get in trouble if his bosses found out about his writings. Or maybe Andy might directly. Maybe he has friends who are Mac-heads. Or he does business with mac books. Or something. But for a real example for a blog who was “outed” look at what happened to Dead2.0, when the author was supposedly outed there. Quick exit, stage left [apparently he worked for a VC backed company by day and was satirizing the same industry at night -- or something like that]  VC company that was funding companies in an industry that Dead 2.0 was publicly ridiculing]

But come on.

If the whole dead2.0 thing taught us anything — heck, if BLOGGING teaches you anything — its that the blogosphere has an insatiable appetite for what is perceived at is real. We read blogs and we write blogs because we believe that we are reading some kernel — or writing about — some kernel of truth. Blogs are “different” that way from the mainstream media and, on another note, its exactly why bloggers get so riled up about conflicts of interest.

That desire for wanting things to be “real”, and to be keeping it “real” extends right to the authors. Especially if the content is interesting enough to demand it. People ask me if its important that we know who is writing our favourite blogs. Would it matter if the people *behind* the blogs were fake? Or that it was ghost-written?

Some of have said that the only thing that should matter is the content.

That’s partially true.

On the other hand, I think that part of what makes a blog a blog is your connection with the author of that blog — and that connection ceases to be real if you’d ever found out that their identity turned out to be a lie.

Which is all a round-about way of saying that the identity of who is actually blogging Does Actually Matter to people who read your blog, and if you’re deliberately hiding it, people will want to find out [and in fact, there could be a bunch of reasons for wanting to, and I'm sure that one of them includes "for no other reason than I could"].

Heck, if you want to flog a metaphor, here you go: if you play with Fake, expect to be Found – especially if your blog is as “good” or “funny” as FSJ’s.

And that’s the thing.

I think that Andy should know this. Or whomever is really behind FSJ. And maybe that’s why the outrage is really fake. Or, rather, that I hope it is. Because FSJ should really *not* be surprised that people want to find out his real identity. And if he was *truly* and *genuinely* worried, FSJ should have stopped a long time ago, perhaps when the first rumours about who his / her / its identity really was.

I mean, otherwise, its just sheer idiocy to think that someone, somewhere, isn’t going to try and find out.

And FSJ might not be funny, but surely he’s not an idiot.

… right?

I was able to play with the iPhone yesterday.  For my fellow Canadians, and anyone who hasn’t yet had the pleasure of touching the device, it is almost everything that the hype makes it out to be.

It is thin.

It is fast.

I love how it “knows” when you’re looking at it in “landscape” fashion, and when you’re holding it upright.

But typing with the touch screen isn’t easy, and in fact, was sometimes downright frustrating — even though I have average-sized mitts.  I could tell that over time, however, that its something you could get used to and compensate for.  Having said that, there’s something to be said for actually having buttons, but I realize what it would do to the rest of the phone.

[incidentally, if you'd like a good laugh, my host, Dreamhost sends out a monthly newsletter that was typed out this month using an apple iPhone -- in store.  The text is well intentioned but barely readable.  Those dudes get an A+ for effort!]

The worst thing about the iPhone, by FAR, though, is the EDGE network.  For what the iPhone is *Trying* to do — which is trying to display full webpages, not mobile formatted pages — the EDGE network is an utter abomination.  Truly.  There are no words to compliment a service which hobbles, and at the risk of sounding even more outraged, cripples the phone.

Case in point: I tried to show off the iPhone to my wife, but the phone ended up looking much less cooler after we waited something like 30 seconds for the Apple home page to load.  An agonizing eternity!  Same for the gmail home page.  MSN.com site.  Wow, I could go on.

Luckily, the sheer sexiness of the entire device is more than enough to make up for it.

Well, I guess over 700 000 people think so, anyway.

Or not, perhaps. This morning when stock markets opened, Apple and AT&T stock limped, rather than roared, out of the gate — with Apple prices remaining largely flat.

If you’ve been following the crazed orgamso-frenzy hype around the iPhone, and the Lalapalooza like atmosphere around the Palo Alto Apple store, you might have had a different picture in mind. Heck — I sure did.

But I think that investors (and institutional ones) are looking for harder facts to back up the hype. Namely that Jobs either did too well a job (ha ha, what a lame pun) in stocking his stores with iPhones so that there was no shortage, or that the demand was far lighter than what was actually expected — although I have no feel for how much is “light” in consumer electronics. $170 million worth of merchandise and over 500k units sold seem like a pretty robust to me.

Over the long term I actually do expect this to change for two reasons.

• The iPhone problems will be fixed (one day): Many of the issues around this first generation iPhone will be solved with other iterations of the device, namely problems with ringtones, storage size, porting phone numbers, the overall cost, and other tech issues we haven’t even heard about yet. Apple has a long history of cranking out advanced models at a nauseating clip. First-adopters with respect to the iPod can attest to this.
• Word of Mouth Will Begin To Take Over: Once iPhones are out in circulation, word of mouth will take over from the mainstream media hype. Just like the demand for Wii’s continued well past last Christmas as more and more people saw and touched it, you can bet the same thing will happen with iPhones — in spite of the price.

The interesting thing I found, of course, is the whole disconnect between the tech coverage of the iPhone and the flat stock price. Is it really because techies are first adopters who “get it” in this circumstance? Or is mainstream America wary of the hype? Or, is it really a case of the demand being underestimated? Or, perhaps, is everyone waiting for the price to fall and there to be a change to a faster kind of network?

The iPhone story hasn’t yet been fully told, I think — in fact, now that the release euphoria is over, I suspect its just begun. ;)

[yes, I do own shares of Apple]

So, in contemplating the latest tech issues that are floating around the blogosphere, a thought came to me during my morning constitutional. Disclosure is a Big Thing amongst bloggers, and perhaps even so amongst bloggers with influence. Witness the hubaloo over the weekend where Federated Media’s attempts at “Conversational Marketing” (and rather old attempts at that — Valleywag needs to improve the quality of its bird-dogs, methinks) created a giant stink … and some of that had to do with disclosure.

And I think the issue of bias, truth, and disclosure is going to be one of those perennial topics that bloggers love to get riled over. Probably because there is a perception that blogging is somehow, or ought to be, more truthful, more honest, more sincere, and have more integrity than other publishing mediums. When a blogger says something or does something contrary to that, there’s a conflict in perception, and the bigger / more beloved / more hated the blogger, the bigger reaction.

But how about this angle on things.

I blog about technology, web startups, social media and all manner of things. I’d like to think that my opinion has a certain amount of currency amongst the people who read this site, or who subscribe to my feeds.

But do you ever wonder if I have a vested interest in blogging about what I do blog about? And, no, I’m not talking about advertising, like Federated Media.

Rather, have you ever wondered whether I actually hold a position in any publicly (or even, let’s say, privately owned) companies that I may have blogged about? Do you think that might affect what I write about? What I “cover”? What I don’t? What I write positively about? What I write negatively about?

It should. And, maybe it should get you to start thinking about what your other favourite bloggers own.

For example, would it shock you if I told you that I hold shares in AOL, which owns Netscape, a direct competitor to Digg, of whom I have criticized endlessly?

(I don’t, so don’t worry).

Disclosure on this kind of level, as far as I know, happens when its convenient for bloggers, or when its topical. For example, Mike Arrington has told us on loads of occasions that he is involved with the startup, DayLife. That is a clear potential bias for his coverage, but he tells you right off the bat.How about the ones he doesn’t tell you about? And, not to single out Mike, but what about your other favourite bloggers?

And let’s be really clear and “transparent” about this argument. How about the biggest players in the business who we all love to blog about? Who owns shares in Microsoft? Google? AOL?

How about Apple?

Could anyone who owns shares in Apple — and let’s crank up the hyperbole for a second, and say, “what if your IRA is counting on it?” [or, if you live in Canada, RRSP] — really and truthfully write an honest review about its chances pre and post iPhone? Isn’t it in their best interests … even on a subconscious level — to either not write about it, or generally agree with the reviews at large that its going to be the next biggest thing since Jeebus?

So, here’s where I come in.

“What does Tony own?” … you might ask.

Well, I’ll be completely honest. I *do* own shares of Apple. Not a lot. And I mean, *really* not a lot. But, that’s an investment that I made because I believe in Apple’s long term growth, and more importantly, the svengali powers of Steve Jobs.

My own take on the iPhone is that it doesn’t really matter what it *doesn’t* have. The magic was in the marketing that lead up to this point, and more importantly, everything it *does* have. And from a company point of view? Apple is going to keep up making more and more of these things. And by “Things” yes, I mean newer, better, versions of the iPhone — just like the iPod (and therefore, it really doesn’t matter what it doesn’t have). But also other things that people are going to fall in love with.

Steve Jobs — I swear, you better not have a heart attack any time in the next 10-15 years! ;)

But that’s it.

I don’t own shares in Microsoft, or Google or anything else. Maybe I should.

But in thinking about things, it really got me thinking.

“There is absolutely no way I can write anything honest about the iPhone. I mean *really* honest.” Because I’d love for it to do well. Gangbusters well. So Apple stores can increase their revenue per square foot even MORE (did you know that Apple stores have the highest revenue per square foot in all of retailing?) Part of me wants it to fail, because I love schaedenfreude much as the next man — heck, possibly more. But I can’t revel in it fully — or even be myself — because of what I own.

So there you go. Its out there. I own a few shares of Apple.

But, what do your favourite tech bloggers own? And do you think its going to bias their coverage of tech companies now — and in the future?

Some pretty interesting research today out of Forrester, via News.com.com, that claims that growth in online video sales will begin to stall and then sputter out in the next few years; the success iTunes has had will be but a blip and a footnote in history.

The reason? Media companies are racing to make so much of their content “free” that its conditioning the market to evolve to a point where they just won’t pay for online video content.

My knee jerk reaction (and I have been known to have them) was “that’s garbage!” What about online music sales? After all, with the success of iTunes, they’ve pulled out a steep decline, and people still have a way to get a free copy any time they like.

But you know what?

The business for video is much different than the business of music.

For one, with the exception of things that go to DVD, there has been a long tradition of getting your videos for free as they were supported by ads. This is called television. In fact, up until very recently, when TV shows were starting to be sold *on* DVD, there was simply no way to purchase television shows. The legacy of television is that it, I think, really inculcated us to believe that television is an ad-supported medium. Even for those of us that pay steep cable bills every month.

This isn’t so in music. While its true that music has always been freely available through radio, there has always been the impetus to buy the album to acquire the music. Until Napster, anyway.

Furthermore, another point of difference is that media conglomerates are already racing to the bottom to give their television shows away for free — an are doing so for all kinds of reasons. One of them, I’m sure, is the recognition that their content is getting uploaded and distributed irrespective of how they try and lock it down (if they ever could), coupled with the dominance of Google/YouTube in distributing said content — irrespective of its legal challenges via Viacom and its friends.

The music industry has never done any such thing, and the closest its ever going to get is by slowly evolving into a DRM-free format. But you’d still have to buy the music in the first place (or, someone’s got to).

While I think there will always be a segment that’s willing to pay for online video (perhaps high definition content, rare content, unique content that is streamed live), I think that there is some merit to the idea that the vast majority will not. There’s probably always enough to make a business out of it, and for some, a healthy business, but then again, the assertion is not that the sector will disappear — only that the growth will flatten out.

And I think that’s believable, if for no other reason that companies today are in such a rush to gain a foothold in the hearts and minds of online video users that they’re giving away viewership to those assets.

You might wonder about the porn industry — surely they’re growing and earning billions of dollars per year, and they depend on online memberships, subscriptions and so on (or so I’ve been told). The difference, though, is that no company has otherwise ad-supported and free shows on network television and in *addition* is also giving some of their product away.

Its an interesting future for online video — particularly television. I don’t know if there’s “no future”, but the way that media conglomerates are going at it right now — and I don’t know if there’s a right answer to it — they’re conditioning their customers to *never* pay for online video, torrent hijinks or no.