Jesus Diaz writes a rant over at Gizmodo re: iPhone 3G owners (currently in contract) who are pissed about not being able to get the new iPhone 3GS at the fully subsidized price. To summarize, he's calling us whiners and that we should suck it up. Here's why he's wrong.
 
To his point - Yes, we are in a contract we freely agreed to. Yes, the cost of the iPhone 3G was subsidized by AT&T so that we could get it at the lower price. Yes, businesses like AT&T need to make money, too. But "whining" is the market's way of telling companies like AT&T and Apple that we demand better. It's how innovation is born and how we are able to enjoy things like iPhones. AT&T should listen to its highly profitable and highly engaged customers who stick with its service despite it being subpar. Apple should listen to its loyal customers who line up to buy its products by putting pressure on AT&T or better yet, by NOT renewing its contract with AT&T and allowing all major GSM based service providers (T-Mobile and Verizon) to have access to the iPhone and thus force competition on price and service quality. Don't hate on the whiners because without us, you'd probably have to pay full price for the iPhone 3GS AND have a 2 year contract like when the original iPhone came out. Or worse still, we'd probably all be using Windows Mobile phones because no one "whined" enough and demanded a better solution.

And yet more Apple news...
 
At today's WWDC, Apple announced upgrades to the MacBook line. The Aluminum 13" MacBook will be now considered a MacBook Pro (the white plastic MacBook is the only version in the MacBook line, now) and will have a bump in processor power, hard drive space, and a slightly better screen resolution. Other goodies include SD card slot and FireWire 800 port. There were also upgrades to the 15" and 17" MacBook Pros and also the MacBook Air (won't list them here but you can check them out on the Apple website).
 
The bigger news is that prices were reduced anywhere from $100 to $700 across the line. Still doesn't make them on par with Windows based laptops but at least they're making an effort to be more affordable. I'll probably pick up a new 13" MacBook Pro in a few months and pass my current MacBook on to the wife. By then, there should be enough froth in the secondary market to snag one at slightly below retail and with no sales tax.

It's a big Apple news day...

Having been a Windows user for the majority of my computing life, I've been trained to expect every subsequent new version of Windows to be larger than the version it succeeds. I made the switch to Mac a little over a year ago and kinda had the same expectation of the new OS 10.6 release. Stronger, faster, but maybe a little more bloated which I don't have an issue with given that hard drive prices continually get pushed down. However, I come to find that when upgrading to the new Mac OS build, you actually free up 6GB of space. That's definitely a refreshing revelation.
 
It made me think of a tech documentary (one of the best, in my opinion) called Triumph of the Nerds on PBS. One particular line was from Steve Ballmer who was describing how in the early days of Microsoft, they were bucking the trend of building big bloated software. Here's the quote:

"In IBM there's a religion in software that says you have to count K-LOCs, and a K-LOC is a thousand line of code. How big a project is it? Oh, it's sort of a 10K-LOC project. This is a 20K-LOCer. And this is 50K-LOCs. And IBM wanted to sort of make it the religion about how we got paid. How much money we made off OS 2, how much they did. How many K-LOCs did you do? And we kept trying to convince them - hey, if we have - a developer's got a good idea and he can get something done in 4K-LOCs instead of 20K-LOCs, should we make less money? Because he's made something smaller and faster, less KLOC. K-LOCs, K-LOCs, that's the methodology. Ugh anyway, that always makes my back just crinkle up at the thought of the whole thing."

The really ironic part is that Microsoft doesn't seem to invest money in actually making its OS more streamlined. Windows just seems to get bigger and bigger. Given all the advances in coding and technology, why can't someone make an OS more powerful yet slimmer? The short answer is that they never had to. CPUs got more powerful and memory (hard drives, RAM) got bigger/cheaper. Still, it's nice to see that someone actually decided to take a step back and say, "Hey, I can make this software perform better AND reduce its overall size."

 
A nice follow-up to my Microsoft Bing.com post earlier. Slowly and surely, Google Maps has become the best online map service to date. When they first started out, they were no better than MapQuest, Yahoo Maps, or even Microsoft's MapPoint. But just like the turtle, they've made slow and steady progress. Their latest addition is the "pancake" feature of the Street View tool which makes navigating through Street View so much easier.
 
I don't "root" for Google. I have no vested interest in whether they do well or not. In fact, I've argued that the overall web ecosystem would benefit from them losing a little search market share and Yahoo/Microsoft gaining a little more. However, it's tough to argue when one company is churning out great products while the other two flounder or put out irrelevant commercials.

 
What do Excite, Lycos, and Ask Jeeves have in common with the new Bing.com search engine? They all had flashy brand building commercials that tried to paint their search engines as more than just technology. They were supposed to be emotional, etherial, existential, plus any other "e" word you can think of. Remember Excite's "Have You Been Experienced" ads featuring Jimi Hendrix's song? Now what do Excite, Lyocs, and Ask Jeeves also have in common? As search engines, they're all garbage and except for Ask Jeeves, largely out of the search business (Ask Jeeves to follow shortly). How many television ads have you seen for Google? Maybe there's something to be said about concentrating your resources on building the best technology instead of hiring the best ad agency.
 
For those who don't know, Bing.com is Microsoft's newly launched search engine. I've tried it and it's not bad. It's not great, but it's far from the crappy search results that Live.com spit out. Plus they have some interesting features like the image search and video search. But Microsoft as of late seems to be all about the glitz and marketing as opposed to the real technology. With all the money at their disposal why not hire the best and the brightest engineers and have them build the best search engine possible? It makes me wonder whether all the money has made them complacent. It's always easier to throw money at an ad agency then to actually sit down and do the work.