I wasn’t alive for much of the 1980’s but I sure know the history that unfolded in technology during the time- and they say that history repeats itself. Except that this time, Microsoft nor IBM is involved- it’s Google and Apple this go around. And this time the war isn’t centered around the PC, its focus deals with the mobile computing platform. Apple is still building their own hardware bundled with their own software without licensing and their foe is still licensing its software to various hardware manufacturers. The only real difference this time around is that Apple is the favorite, and with Apple’s new market cap, Steve Jobs isn’t going to be fired this time.

I wrote last August (Apple vs Google?) that there was a rift developing between the two titans of tech. That apparent rift has escalated into a full blown war. There are battles being fought between the two on several fronts; OS (Chrome vs OS X), mobile (hardware & software), advertising, TV, and even search.

It’s an intriguing story. Two companies that probably considered Microsoft their chief villain for so long now find themselves in such positions of strength that they have no one else to turn their attention toward except each other. Google’s co-founders have idolized Steve Jobs with open praise, consider him a mentor, and were regular visitors to Jobs’ office in Google’s early days. Sergey Brin was even close enough to take regular walks with Jobs where they discussed the future of technology and potential collaborative projects. When Apple unveiled the iPhone in 2007, Google CEO Eric Schmidt was present on stage saying, “Steve, my congratulations to you, this product is going to be hot.” Of course Google was the default search engine on the device and also provided their Maps technology in a native app. They shared board members, praised each other lavishly, and shared the valley in peace. Relations were so cushy that observers ofen used the term “AppleGoo” to describe the two companies.

Fast forward to the present. Apple has sued HTC (makers of many popular Android based phones), the iPhone now has Bing for their search, Apple is getting serious about mobile advertising (a direct strike to Google’s core competency), Jobs has called Google’s motto of “Don’t Be Evil” “bullshit”, and has also made it clear who’s at fault for the sudden new feud (“We did not enter the search business. They entered the phone business. Make no mistake: they want to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them.”)

This time the battle is for mobile supremacy. That means phones and tablets. The days of the desktop and laptop are coming to an end. Apple knows it, Google knows it, and startups are forming to be at the forefront of the surging mobile platform. Google is vocally serious about the cloud and Apple is at least making moves that hint their strategy also includes the cloud (1 2).

I love both companies and their products. I use GMail, Google is my go-to search engine, I use an iPhone, a MacBook Pro, and even love my girlfriend’s iPad (Despite what I wrote!). Should we be excited about the increased competition that will ultimately raise the bar and benefit consumers? Or should we be worried about two huge platforms that don’t play nice together making syncing and collaborative work carry technical implications? And is Steve Jobs repeating the same mistakes he made in the early-80′s?

Even with the official announcement of the iPhone 4, and my complete satisfaction with it over the past two years, I’d be lying if I told you I wasn’t seriously considering a switch to a Verizon Android-based device when my contract expires in July. Android phones have made some quantum leaps in the past year and there are two big devices that are supposedly about to hit the market for Verizon in the next month or so (Samsung’s Galaxy S and Motorola’s Shadow X). I still haven’t made up my mind, but that fact that I’m pondering a switch is a win for Google.

Ultimately, it comes down to two sensational companies evolving with the natural ebb and flow of market demand and technological innovation. We’re on the cusp of the mobile platform becoming the de facto way in which we access our information. And while the notion that two locked platforms could inhibit cross-use (thus stifling productivity), we should be excited that someone has decided to at least take on the role of challenger to Apple in the battle for mobile market share. I’ll close with a quote that Vic Gundotra (Google VP Engineering) used during  Google’s recent I/O conference, a quote that I believe will be remembered for a long, long time.

If Google didn’t act, we faced a draconian future. A future where one man, one company, one device, one carrier would be our only choice. That’s a future we do not want. If you believe in openness, choice, and innovation, then welcome to Android.

EDIT: The Motorola “Shadow” I referenced is actually called “Droid X”, and Engadget got their hands on it.

“I got the shotgun, you got the briefcase. All in the game right?”

First, I enjoy television. I think it gets a bad rap for the most part. I was raised in a wonderful era of endless cable stations, the height of the sitcom, and programs that had real staying power. The Simpsons undoubtedly offered me some worthwhile life lessons. ABC’s TGIF was a weekly family highlight. Saved by the Bell showed how awkward the teenage years would be, South Park provided hilarious societal satire, and Star Trek: TNG showed an advanced universe where intelligence trumped race and physical differences. Unfortunately, television is definitely in a downward trend. In efforts to save costs, reality shows are spreading and quality programs are dwindling…fast. We live in a world where Arrested Development barely scraped out two seasons while The Hills is thriving.

It’s not all bad. South Park continues to shine brightly into its 14th season. The Sopranos gave us some great years. Seinfeld was the last and greatest show of its genre. The aforementioned Arrested Development was brilliant on top of brilliant. New shows like Breaking Bad and Dexter are sensational to say the least, and lots of 2nd-tier shows are carving out their own niche (Curb, Modern Family, Weeds, Mad Men, and 30 Rock to name a few).

So on the urging of two friends, I decided to finally cave into The Wire. It had been called the “greatest show ever” (1 2 3 4) and President Obama even calls it his “favorite show.” I mistakenly judged it in the past as a simple cop drama that would not hold my interest. Call me an optimist, but most of these shows tend to solve the case in 55 minutes- that’s just not for me. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

As soon as I jumped into season one (of five), it was pretty clear why the show never built a huge following (despite winning multiple awards)- it moves very slow, certainly not the norm in today’s entertainment environment of oft-plot twists and constant cliff hangers. I could probably explain the entire first season in five minutes, and the entire series in half an hour. At first, this served as a deterrent, I doubted I would enjoy the show, let alone finish all five seasons. But slowly, I came to appreciate the complexity of the characters and the greater messages being conveyed.

The Wire is the most realistic television program ever. I don’t know if it’s the best, but there is no doubting the excellence of its sometimes brutally honest nature. It highlights the social stratification our society has rooted itself in and how we have marginalized those in urban areas to an inevitable cycle of perpetual poverty. It shows how a modern city operates behind the tourism brochures and political bullshit. Its content, and its brilliantly written and acted characters, serve as a mechanism to enlighten viewers to a world most of us intentionally shield ourselves from.

Season one introduces much of the show’s core characters while revolving around the illegal drug trade. It’s a fascinating take on the process that doesn’t sugarcoat any realities and also does not dumb-down the lingo, hardships, or externalities. It’s interesting from a logistics standpoint (the drug operation), but more so in the compartmentalization of the people in poor urban communities. No internet, no TV (definitely no cable), near-absolute poverty, and little-to-no direction from any authority figures. It illustrates why so many young (often black) men turn to the criminal subculture; there’s no other option to survive. The characters are dynamic, layered, and sympathetic in their continual string of poor decisions. The plot moves slowly, but it’s methodical and ultimately results in a rewarding narrative. Season one was not the greatness some describe it to be, but it lays the foundation for the show while weaving situations from season one back into the plot as the seasons progress. In this scene, an experienced member of a local trade teaches new members the game of chess by relating it to the drug game.

In season two, the show continues to follow the drug trade and its core characters while also introducing to the city’s fabric the faltering port system and its struggling union of blue collar workers. It’s an appropriate story, middle-class workers are struggling to “keep up” as the income distribution gap in America continues to widen. The port workers in season two are disgruntled, their hours are being cut, young men can’t find an identity in the union or at home, and police pressure and new trade regulation leaves them drinking heavily after work, longing for days past- where things were better for them. Season two is usually referenced as the show’s weakest season, but I found it fascinating. The characters portray realistic economic struggles and the losing battle to achieve or maintain the American dream. It’s a unique dichotomy to season one; the dogmatic struggles of white and black men in Baltimore. Both feel pressure from society to earn individual wealth, both struggle to find legitimate avenues to achieve such, and both turn to deviance in their attempt to reach that financial prestige. It adds a veiled layer of cohesion to the differences of race and social status.

Season three adds a new layer to the city bureaucracy, a legitimate grouping but no less corrupt- that being the city’s government. The intricate nuances of politics are foreign to most people, they don’t see the 24/7 campaign schedules, the dreaded hours upon hours seeking donations, the extensive time away from family, or realize the pressure of the bubble that politicians subject themselves to. Season three offers, IMHO, the most realistic look at politics ever on TV (sorry West Wing). We see the long-term strategies of ambitious politicians aligning themselves for future position coups, the backdoor deals that we don’t like to acknowledge exist, and government’s direct effect on the people of a city. Season three is in many ways my favorite chapter of the Wire saga; there are new conflicts, great new characters, climatic events, a progressive  and controversial strategy to combat the drug trade and its violence, and continued sensational dialogue.

Season four introduces the Baltimore public school system into the metropolitan realm of the show’s reach. It was a superb transition because it also highlights a former police officer character who becomes a teacher, directly linking what he sees in the classroom to his experiences in fighting crime. It also shed realistic light on the urban school system, an organization that most in America feel is broken. Common citizens will blame the mayor, the school board, school administrators, and teachers for abysmal graduation rates, but that’s like blaming a six-month old baby for not being able to walk. The baby, and the urban children, lack the necessary preconditions to succeed in their charged task. A baby doesn’t have the physical strength or coordination to walk and the vast majority of the poor youth lack the direction, discipline, desire, and respect for authority necessary to succeed academically.

The show does a great job of focusing on four particular friends, all students, whose differing family structures, talents, and future lives are directly molded by their respective educational experiences. Season four also follows the political fallout of a post-election atmosphere in disturbingly candid terms. There are also tied-in elements from each of the season’s previous story-lines, a great new drug “boss”, and the subtle tension that everyone’s existence could be radically altered at any given moment. That fragility and woven conflict often make season four a fan favorite.

The fifth and final season introduces the print news media (Baltimore Sun) to the show’s ambitious plot arch. Like many industries, the newspaper business is dying and the Sun is forced to layoff longtime staff as a more educated and white-collar subset of Baltimore’s population joins the struggles of a staggering economy. We follow the police’s never-ending battle to stop violent crime related to drugs, an ambitious young reporter tired of the banal daily news with Pulitzer aspirations, a recovering drug addict, a puzzling serial killer, the paths of the four students introduced in season four, a Mayor who wants to be Governor, and are given clarifying resolutions of all of the show’s characters. You get a sense of what the show achieved in its past seasons and  realize that The Wire provides a welcomed new context that leads one to second-guess their own judgments of society.

The Wire isn’t popcorn fluff. You’re not going to find Michael Bay explosions or Megan Fox. It doesn’t cater to the masses and refuses to compromise its intentions. Yet, I promise you that you’ll find value in its content. While the pace can seem lagged at the onset, there are no shortage of fulfilling epic scenes that define seasons and the series as a whole. If you’re looking for a new show, I urge you to consider it, it might be the most important TV ever made.

You'll never look at Baltimore the same.

“Shit is fucked. You wake up like any other day. You eat, think about bills, dry cleaning and shit. Fucking vacation and your retirement plan. And just like that…(snaps fingers).” – Det. Bunk Moreland, The Wire

In the reality of the 24/7 news cycle, we’re inundated with a constant flow of news and information. Television, radio, billboards, internet, newspapers, books, magazines, and more all compete to bring you your news better. How do we define better news?

Faster news? Dramatic news? Accurate news? Popular news?

Just because newspapers are dead doesn’t mean news is dead, far from it. As technology improves communication channels, we crave more outlets for information. Wikis, blogs, message boards, Twitter- if you really think about it, technology’s primary accomplishment through time has been to connect people to spread information.

Yet as we adjust to the new digital world, there is a grind of mediums distributing the news. There is so much confusion following every revolution and the internet is no different. Activity of news dispersion is everywhere online; Facebook, Twitter, Digg, Tumblr, WordPress, Flickr, YouTube- it’s all information dispersion. And with any abundance, there is bound to be some bad in the offering.

We live in a world where millions of people get their “news” from Glenn Beck. We also have millions who get their “news” from Keith Olbermann. No wonder partisan tension is so severe. There are people who think Stephen Colbert is a staunch conservative. Millions of people read dummy-websites that are built by marketers pushing their product. Medical blogs with little to no fact are everywhere. Websites guarantee you’ll lose 25% of your body weight by ordering a pill from Taiwan. Anyone with access to the internet can spam ideologies or spread false propaganda.

So it’s important to find the appropriate filter for your news consumption.

To our generation, news is like just about everything else in our lives; portable, instant, and easy. FoxNews is the most watched cable news network because their base demographic is older. Older tends to mean more conservative. Older also tends to mean a preference for traditional news outlets. That’s fine, human mortality ensures Murdoch’s cash cow won’t last forever.

So if you’re like me, you get your news online. But, as aforementioned, not everything online is reputable (far from it). So what’s my filter?

If you’re on Twitter, you can follow @BreakingNews. They do a fantastic job of providing instant information to the world’s major news stories without being excessive. If you haven’t been bitten by the Twitter bug, you can simply follow their feed at BreakingNews.com. (Note: It is run by MSNBC)

If you don’t need your news instantly, a great new site I can recommend is Newser. It’s an intuitive interface that gives you the news in a tiled thumbnail format. You can dig deeper by hitting the picture, and then dig even deeper by clicking through to the original source for the whole story.

If you want to know what is currently news on the internet, hit up PopURLS.com. It also serves as a wonderful homepage.

If you like your gossip, there isn’t a better (or increasingly reputable) source than TMZ.com. They have ears and eyes everywhere.

Political news – Politico.com | Technology news- Techmeme.com | Media news – MediaGazer.com

Economics/Finance news- Economist.com | General news- NPR.org | Social Media- Mashable.com

There are obviously more fragmented subsections of these news divisions that cater more to diehard enthusiasts, but these serve as a good base set.

Everyone will find their appropriate combination of information, but it remains important to be aware of where our news is coming from and how we interpret it. I’ll close with two quotes that may strike a chord.

A really great teacher once told me, “Grow aware of your own assumptions.”

Another professor told a class that whenever we hear or read anything, always stop and wonder, “Who is saying it? Why would they be saying it? Might they have some sort of personal agenda? And are they possibly biased?”

If you bring that type of critical thinking into your news filter, it’ll be easier for you to discover the good information and avoid the bullshit.

The iPad (Why not iBook or iTab?), is a 9.7″ touchscreen tablet device that allows users to play music, watch YouTube, browse the internet, read books, manage calendars and contacts, work with word processing, spreadsheet and presentation software, and also is readily available to download and run the +140,000 applications in Apple’s dominant mobile market share App Store.

It is, according to many reports, the final byproduct of over a decade of design, research, prototypes and the tears of Steve Jobs (Not! Steve Job doesn’t cry). And at a shockingly low Apple entry price point of $499, what’s not to love?

Well, lots actually.

• The Actual Physical Design – Essentially it is just an iPhone with enhanced graphics, processing, and touch real estate. Yes, it’s shiny. Yes, it’s lightweight. Yet, where was the innovation? No touch enabled sensors on front or back, a large outer black bezel, and why only the 9.7″ screen when rumors had it larger?
• No Multitasking – It is bad enough that iPhone OS software hasn’t allowed multiple applications to run simultaneously, but on a device that is supposed to destroy netbooks not being able to run AIM and Safari at the same time? That is ludicrous and a single dealbreaker, for me at least, in the purchase decision.
• No Camera – I really have no clue what Apple was thinking here. Even the software on the thing indicates there should be a camera. This is meant to be a casual mobile device for consumers. Casual indicates light browsing and media functionality in my opinion. So much of light browsing on today’s internet is user-generated. Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, DailyBooth, etc. No camera = Lack of content generation. No iChat, no Skype. Apple missed a big opportunity for easy video-conferencing with this new device.
• No Flash – I’m still bothered that I don’t have Flash support on my iPhone, but I can live with it since I know it is only a phone. Not having flash on the iPad, an almost solely dedicated internet device, is outstandingly stupid but typical Apple. There is no secret that Cupertino’s 1 Infinite Loop isn’t fond of flash, but they’re ignoring a popular segment of the interwebs. You want to watch streaming video do ya? Not on the iPad!
• Adapters Suck – I think Apple made a big mistake in limiting the iPad’s native functionality. There is a touchscreen keyboard (I’m pessimistic but will save judgment until I try it), but they go and offer a full keyboard adapter. There is no SD slot for easy image sharing, but there is an adapter. There is no USB, so you need an adapter. These should have all been built-in without question. Adapters are something you’d expect from Sony or Dell, not Apple.
• The iPad Name – It just sucks. Forget the obvious jokes in reference to female hygiene, the iPad name doesn’t do enough to really identify the product. It sounds too much like iPod (Think Boston “iPaawwdd”) and fails to leave a resonating mark in terms of use. Since the inherent iBooks app is so prevalent, why not iBook? Or since the MacBook line was scrapped and made entirely MacBook Pros, why not MacBook? Or even to differentiate the line further, why not iTab?
• Not Widescreen! – It is 2010, I’m confident consumers don’t want to return to a 4:3 aspect ratio from the standard widescreen 16:9. These omissions are almost laughable at this point.
• No HDMI Out – Want to watch the 1080p movie you just downloaded from iTunes on your big screen? Sorry, no HD out component. Unbelievable.
• AT&T. Again. – While WiFi support is built-in, 3G coverage is only available from AT&T again. Apple customers are further locked into a single telecom. Although there should be points for the $30 per month unlimited terms without a contract (You pay month-to-month as you wish). Although the optional $15 plan per month for 256MB is a blatant insult to every consumer.

Don’t get me completely wrong, this idea (just not this device), is groundbreaking. Apple is trying to bridge the gap from notebook computers to mobile phones. It’s revolutionary and has promise. Unfortunately, most people won’t need it right now. If you have a laptop and a smart phone, this device is simply unnecessary.

The only conceivable way I’d buy this, as is anyway, is if I only had a desktop computer and a phone without a data plan. Then this component could find a place in my digital lifestyle.

The original iPhone had flaws as well, and has gone on to become an amazing product and the nation’s most popular data mobile phone. This iPad has severe limitations now, but count on Apple to rectify these initial problems as new versions roll out in their carefully constructed product launches in years to come. We’re increasing mobile and lead increasingly time specific lives. Static computer use is eroding. Apple is aware. In five years, everyone might have an iPad to call their own. Just not this version.

Dear Mr. Cowher,

Hello sir. My name is Dan. You do not know me but your reputation precedes you. I am a Buffalo Bills fan(atic). When we finally let Dick Jauron go this season, my number one choice of potential next coach for my beloved Bills was, you guessed it, yourself. Also on my short list were Jon Gruden, followed by Mike Shanahan. Yet you stood far and away the dream candidate. The perfect pipedream option.

As a Bills fan, I have come to expect questionable-at-best football operations. Take for example drafting Aaron Maybin over Brian Orapko and Brian Cushing, as I screamed obscenities at Mel Kiper’s meticulously groomed hair, but I digress. With the expectation of poor management, I was sure Buffalo would target mid-level coaching prospects. No disrespect to the likes of Jim Haslett, Brian Billick, or Jim Fassel – I was just sure we wouldn’t spend the money to target a professional of your caliber. Especially since we seem to target coaches who are largely irrelevant, since our franchise has been just that, largely irrelevant.

Then came the reports that Buffalo reached out to Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, and yourself. Shanahan was the lone candidate to agree to a meeting (But was simply leveraging himself for an extra 0 or two from Mr. Snyder’s checkbook), Gruden declined the outreach (and re-signed with the worldwide leader), and you simply refused to consider coaching options until the end of the season. I was sure you were blowing us off like everyone else. Hell it is not just me, even the local media practices the continual self-loathing that Bills on-field results have inevitably ingrained in our sports DNA.

Then there were reports of a stealth meeting between the Bills and yourself.  The collective hopes of a franchise in limbo were briefly ignited again. After all, this is a fanbase that only had 1000 tickets available to watch a meaningless game in January – in a brutal blizzard – for a 5-10 team – amidst a decade long playoff drought – with an interim coach – against Curtis Painter – in the league’s 3rd largest capacity stadium. Dedication exemplified.

No better fans in football.

There is no mistaking it, we want you to come to Buffalo. Hell, we have a billboard going up urging our owner to think along our thoughts. At your roots, you can’t be Jerry Jones’ whipping boy. You’re old school. A blue collar guy from near Pittsburgh that earned every success in your life. Your hard work ethic and commitment to loyalty mirrors our values.

I’m sure Leslie Frazier deserves to be a Head Coach in this league. Perry Fewell (Very Cool) will be a Head Coach in the NFL. Brian Billick carries serious merits and will return to coaching sooner or later. Jim Harbaugh won’t be at Stanford long. Ron Rivera has always been highly regarded. There are dozens of legitimate and worthy candidates for this position. But there is only one perfect fit: Bill Cowher.

This franchise is treading in three foot quicksand. Not sunk, just stuck. Our next Head Coach needs immediate credibility. We need someone who can fire up his players, fire up the rabid Ralph fans, and coach the game of football the way it was meant to be played, with toughness.

By all accounts the offer is on the table to make you the highest paid coach/executive in the league. I’m sure it is not about the money, but Mr. Wilson is showing a commitment to enable your visions as he desperately seeks a title at his young-at-heart age of 91.

I understand there are newer and better stadiums to base yourself. I understand New York’s tax structure is brutal. I understand our team’s talent is subpar at nearly every position. I understand the apprehension of returning to a 24/7 stressful job with a family. I understand every conceivable reason for not coming to Buffalo. But one thing I will not understand is the notion that there will be “better” jobs out there eventually.

Mr. Cowher, you’re a football coach to your core. It is your calling. A professional in every sense of the word. There is nowhere else in this league where you will be as supported like Buffalo will support you. You can choose to come to Buffalo and immediately become an iconic figure. This is a real place to cement your legacy as one of the game’s greatest football minds. A place where you can give the fanbase hope and inspiration for a title we so rightfully deserve. You can leverage us against another team, go back to yucking it up with Shannon Sharpe predicting whether or not the Raiders will run more than 22 times, or you can be a Head Coach in the NFL of a proud franchise that is a perfect fit for your coaching and personal style.

This does not have to be a pipedream. We want you Bill. No, we need you Mr. Cowher.

The question is: do you want us?

With hopes,

Dan Driffill

]]> http://dandriffill.com/2010/01/10/an-open-letter-to-bill-cowher/feed/ 0 dannydriffs TheChin BillsFans