NickBalaz.com

I'm mad. Really mad.

For those of you who are out of the loop, I'll fill you in. Several days ago, an anonymous source sent images to Engadget, featuring what was alleged to be the upcoming fourth generation iPhone.

Monday morning, Gizmodo took the story a lot further. They revealed to the world that they were in possession of the same unit from Engadget's pictures. They wrote a thousand-plus word article covering every aspect of this alleged iPhone.

I'm still shocked at their gall.

When you take the story at face value, it all seems pretty easy to explain away. After all, Gizmodo is a news site competing in a market where whoever has the story first makes the most money. And I hope, for their sake, that they're making a bundle off of this story…because all of the money has the potential to disappear very easily.

In the article they released this morning, there was no direct mention of what they company went through to obtain the unit. Andy Ihnatko seems to have the best summary of what has thus far been revealed.

Step One: This phone was lost in a Redwood City bar;

Step Two: (nervous cough);

Step Three: They got it last week.

Despite the lack of transparency surrounding this particular interaction, Nick Denton confirmed to the New York Times that Gawker Media paid five thousand dollars for the unit.

According to all tellings of the story, the device was originally lost in a bar in Redwood City, California. Here's an interesting fact: under California law, the finder of a lost item must alert the police and return the items to the rightful owner. Do you see what I'm getting at? Both Gizmodo and the anonymous finder say that the device was indeed found, not stolen.

However, it doesn't make a difference in California. If the device was indeed found in a bar in Redwood City, then the finder had the obligation to turn it over to the authorities. When he didn't the "iPhone" effectively became stolen property, which Gizmodo then bought. If this alleged iPhone is indeed the property of Apple then there could be some serious legal consequences for Gawker Media.

Legal issues aside, what the folks at Gizmodo did was simply unnecessary. This wasn't a Woodward and Bernstein scenario. There was no real need for the information about this alleged iPhone to be exposed. There wasn't any noble intent behind this story. All of Gizmodo's actions were motivated by greed. When Gizmodo purchased the (potentially illegally obtained) unit, they weren't thinking of the lives that would be enriched by their story. They were thinking of the money that they could make off of a scoop like this.

But the story doesn't end there. Only hours after the Gizmodo released the initial story, they published a second article. Rather than talking about the unit itself, or even discussing how the phone ended up in their hands, they chose the specifically target the Apple employee who left the phone in the bar.

Of course, there are scenarios in which this type of article would be appropriate. If this had been a story about a Visa employee who got drunk and leaked thousands of credit card numbers, perhaps this type of personal attack would be merited.

Unfortunately for Gizmodo, this is not the case. No one outside of Apple was hurt by this employee's actions. There was no need for this second article to be published. The man is likely at one of the darkest points in his life. He makes one stupid mistake, maybe loses his job, and then has his misery exploited so that a company can make a profit.

There is no excuse for this type of behaviour. They buy stolen property; they publish an unnecessary article, likely caused a man his job and proceeded to publicly humiliate him.

But hey, at least they want to give the phone back. So I guess that makes everything better.

Update:

Apple SVP and General Counsel Bruce Sewell sent a letter to Gizmodo requesting the return of the unit. Brian Lam (an editor at Gizmodo) responded with a message that included this quote:

“Happy to have you pick this thing up. Was burning a hole in our pockets. Just so you know, we didn’t know this was stolen when we bought it.”

Stolen. Not lost. Stolen. Interesting.

You should follow @nickbalaz on Twitter here, and then say hi: hi@nickbalaz.com

The Hummer is dead.

Yes, you did read that correctly, GM will no longer be manufacturing the big yellow Testosterone-mobile. And, for the most part, the world should be thankful.

Thus far in history, the Hummer has done little good for the world. Since the vehicle became available for civilian purchase in 1992, it has served primarily as an inefficient transport for idiots who feel more than a little inadequate or wish they were still in the army. For those who are concerned for the environment, or just don't like roadjerks, this is a good day.

But there is one thing that worries me about the demise of the Hummer...

What will we drive when the zombies rise?

I know what you're thinking. "Nick!" you shout, "What the hell? Everybody else had their iPad articles published over a week ago! What took you so long?"

What took me so long is that I wanted to wait. I wanted to sit back and take it all in, let the Reality Distortion Field wear off before I put fingers to keys. But it has been a week, thus I present the following.

Name

Let it be stated on the record that I stand in firm opposition of calling it the "iPad". While the name itself makes sense, considering that the device is essentially a gigantic iPod touch, but I can't shake the feeling that there is something weird about it. And I can't help but recall that one MadTV skit whenever I hear the name.

To be honest, I didn't expect Apple to continue the 'i' moniker with this product. Similar to Gruber, I expected the device to be called the "Apple Tablet", or, based on the event invitation, the "Apple Canvas". I even felt that "iSlate" or "iTablet" were more likely than iPad. Steve is clearly not a frequent viewer of suggestive sketch comedy.

Hardware

Design

The Wifi version of iPad is hands-down one of the most gorgeous devices to come out of Cupertino. The front of the device is dominated by a single sheet of glass, interrupted only by the home button. Like the iPhone, iPad seems to feature the bare minimum amount of buttons, focusing solely on interaction through the screen. The iPad is a Jonathan Ive product in every way.

Form Factor

I'm concerned.

Look at the trends with display technology. Over the past decade, every display that we interact with has slowly turned towards the 16:9 form factor. The iPad does not follow this trend. It is possibly the only major consumer electronics device of the past year that does not employ a widescreen display. This is especially worrying if, like myself, you have ever had the experience of watching 16:9 video on a 4:3 screen. Let me tell you my friends, it is not pleasant. The display ratio also affects the way that applications written for the iPhone will run on the iPad. Applications that are built with the iPhone SDK are built to run on a 16:10 display. Even with the application expansion that the iPad promises, there will be an awful lot of wasted space on the edges of the screen.

What I am not, however, concerned about is how one would hold the iPad. Looking at the demonstrations done during Wednesday's keynote, the iPad seem entirely intuitive to hold. It seems, and I hate to use that analogy, but it seems almost as natural as holding a book. Being that the device features only four buttons, you could, in theory, operate the device properly at any orientation.

Software

I'm a little disappointed in the software side of the iPad, specifically in regards to the operating system. I expected Apple to provide us with something a little better than what amounts to a giant iPhone. I was hoping for a platform that more resembled Mac OS X that the iPhone OS.

That said, they seem to be presenting a decent software offering, even if it is hindered by its mobile roots. The new built-in applications are, gorgeous; really showcasing what can be done with this larger screen. The new implementations of the Mail, Contacts and Calendar applications are three of the most beautiful pieces of software I have ever seen.

iBooks

This is both the most interesting and most concerning feature that the iPad has shown off. To illustrate this, please consider the following scenario:

It is the Twenty-eighth of January, 2010. J.D. Salinger has just died. As a fan of literature, you are saddened by this event. You suddenly feel the urge to re-read The Catcher in the Rye. Then you remember that your copy of the novel was destroyed not three months ago by your neighbour's dog.

Do not fret, however, because there is a solution. You turn to your trusty iPad (which you obtained through a rare flaw in the Space/Time Continuum), hop onto the iBookStore and download yourself a copy. Problem solved.

The iBookstore is intended to allow anyone access to any book at any time. But there is a problem with that plan. It was unofficially revealed yesterday that the iBookStore function will not be available outside of the US at the iPad's launch. This saddens me. Sure, Apple will sell you the iPad, but they're going to cripple its functionality because they couldn't get their act together in time to make international publishing deals. They've gone and limited one of the key functions to only work in 0.005% of countries. Which, you know, kind of sucks.

"Downfalls"

This section right here is the exact reason that I've so long to publish this article. Over the past week, the giant squids of anger have, as they do with every new Apple product, done nothing but complain. From the moment Steve stepped off the stage on Wednesday, nearly every piece of the iPad has been ripped apart by these chronic pessimists. From all that I've seen out there in the ether, there are three common grievances that these haters sight when making their damning predictions.

No Multitasking

Near every non-nerd that I know is freaking out over this. The complaint about lack of multitasking is second only the complaint that "it's just a big iPhone". For some strange reason, people assume that the iPad will be completely useless if you can't run more than one application at a time.

I'm not entirely sure where this fear stems from. We've had the iPhone around for almost four years now, and ninety-nine percent of us have gotten along just fine without multitasking. But people seemed really rattled that the iPad will, as far as we know, ship without multitasking functionality. Perhaps it's their [NAAD][].

As you may have guessed, I stand contrary to this view. I'm a firm believer in the sentiment that the iPad does all the multitasking it need to. Beyond the use of the music player, I have never found the need for background processes on my current OS X iPhone device.

Then, of course, there will be those that argue "the iPad is a netbook-type device! It needs multitasking". But, in reality, it isn't. Steve was very clear that the iPad is a new category of device. If a comparison has to be made, then the iPad is closer to a Kindle than a netbook. And let's be honest. How many times have you heard people complain that their Kindle doesn't support multitasking?

No Camera

To the angry internet people yelling about the iPad's lack of a camera, I have two words: Prove It. As of writing, Apple has neither confirmed nor denied that the iPad feature a camera. Recent rumours have claimed that there is an unannounced camera lurking behind the bezel of the iPad.

But I would like to present you with a different rumour. Just about a year ago, a bunch of reports appeared regarding a new Apple patent. Essentially, Apple wants to put a webcam behind your screen. The patent is strictly in regards to laptops, but who's to say that the same system couldn't be implemented within the iPad.

Even more pressing, who's to say that the systems has not already been implemented, but hidden from the public eye?

No Flash

I'm not seeing the problem here. Perhaps it's because I'm a person who supports web standards, but I really can't find a problem with Apple not supporting Flash. In all my experience with browser crashes, Flash is the culprit close to ninety-five percent of the time. Flash is an old piece of technology. It is a bloated, legacy product that is fraught with security exploits and used in unnecessary ways.

Even the dominance of Flash in web video is slowly dying. Both Youtube and Vimeo are slowly introducing video players based off of the HTML5 video spec. Every modern browser, with the exception of Internet Explorer 8, supports HTML5. This includes the browser shipping with the iPad.

There is almost no reason for the iPad to support Flash. This is not a disadvantage. It is an improvement.

En Finale

The iPad seems like a contender in the growing ultra-portable category. Despite all of its apparent advantages and downfalls, it is most likely that people will have to get their hands on both the hardware and software before they can make proper judgments.

You should follow @nickbalaz on Twitter here, and then say hi: hi@nickbalaz.com

For the past several weeks, my friend Joshua and I have been hard at work designing something. Since just before the beginning of January, we were charged with re-designing a website vaguely reminiscent of the 1990s. This is the result.

Though there are still a few bugs to eliminate, a few pages to implement and some aesthetics to be modified, we are both very proud of what has been done.

But we don't want to become to full of ourselves. Which is why we are asking for your feedback. We would like to know what you think about the new design. We're looking for constructive criticism here, folks. I you have to be harsh, please try to remain fair.

So, go ahead. You can provide use with feedback either by commenting on this post, or by shooting us an e-mail at bchrobotics[at]gmail[dot]com.

• An over-sized ground sloth.
• A Jewish grandmother.
• A man with his McDonald's in one hand and his balls in the other.

You should follow @nickbalaz on Twitter here, and then say hi: hi@nickbalaz.com