One of the biggest gripes current and would-be iPhone owners have is the quality of AT&T’s network. I think that many of these complaints are overhyped. None of the (many) iPhones owners I know have any complaints with AT&T’s cell reception. Also, the assumption that Verizon’s network will provide for a “better” iPhone experience because of their network is a big question mark that remains to be proven.

This bit on TechCrunch sums up my feelings about the iPhone on Verizon’s network:

According to AppleInsider, Verizon sold an estimated 4.4 million Droids. Verizon has 92 million subscribers while AT&T has 90 million. So 11 million AT&T subscribers are slamming the network while 4 million Droid-ites are tapping Verizon’s network gently. So what happens, then, when the iPhone effect hits Verizon, especially on Verizon’s older, slower CDMA network? Verizon will experience the exact issue that has been plaguing AT&T: the curse of success.

A second carrier is great for Apple but a lot still remains to be seen. Anybody ready to jump the AT&T ship for a Verizon iPhone?

Microsoft—in a nutshell—is a company that had one successful product that we are all beholden to—that then used that capital to buy other people’s products and ruin them. They are not bad people, but they do stab their friends in the back. Also, they are a bunch of nerds, which is probably why they have never managed to produce a decent interface.

Google—in a nutshell—is a company that had one successful product that we are all beholden to—that then used that capital to buy other people’s products and ruin them. They are not bad people, but they do stab their friends in the back. Also, they are a bunch of nerds, which is probably why they have never managed to produce a decent interface.

Apple is a company that produces amazing, human-usable products. I love them for the same reason I love any such company, and I forgive them their eccentricities because their products are so amazing. They make decisions that I’m told are bad for me, yet I don’t see that reflected in their products as I use them.

-via motherfucker

Email and instant messaging were invented over 30 years ago when computers and networking technology were in their infancy. Email and IM both mirrored traditional communication channels: snail mail and face-to-face conversations. In many circumstances, this paradigm breaks down. Google Wave assumes today’s technologies (Wikis, cloud data, stronger search algorithms etc.) as the basis for a communication platform.

It is important to note that Google Wave is not designed to be just another Google product but rather it is an entirely new protocol. Anyone could setup their own wave server if they choose to. On that note, it is also important to note that the wave protocol is still under development and is a long way from becoming an email replacement (if it ever does).

The main screen

After signing into Google Wave, you are greeted by three-column interface similar to Microsoft Outlook 2003/2007. Anyone who’s used an email client shouldn’t have too much difficultly figuring this out. I’d say the UI is a bit more intuitive than Gmail’s. The real conceptual difference people need to get used to is the idea that conversations are hosted in one location. Gone are the days of sending emails out to multiple people which usually ends up in a mess of reply chains. Once a wave is started, people can be added as participants who can make changes to any part of the ongoing discussion. In a way, this style of communicating is reminiscent of a discussion forum, however it is much richer thanks to “gadgets.” Gadgets are mini-applications for polls or maps you can put right in the conversation. Ultimately, wave works much better than email for groups of people. The fewer participants a wave has however, the less obvious wave’s benefits are. Also, the built-in chat function behaves in the same way a full wave does. It’s not enough like chat nor is it differentiated enough from a regular wave to really make much sense.

At this point, wave is really just a toy. Many of the features (such as contact management) are still very basic. Also, if wave wants to stand any chance of being adopted, it needs to have some backward compatibility with email.

Aditional Reading:
Google Wave and the Dawn of Passive Aggressive Communication
WSJ: The end of the Email Era

Stalker screenshot

MacBook Pro (Mid 2008):

• 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor/2GB DDR2 RAM at 667 MHz
• 160 GB hard drive @ 7200 rpm
• 256 MB nVidia GeForce 8600M GT
• 15.4″ matte LED-lit display
• Illuminated Keyboard
• 2 USB/1 Firewire 400/1 Firewire 800

Unibody MacBook:

• 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo Processor/2 GB DDR3 RAM @ 1066 MHz
• 160GB hard drive @ 5400 rpm
• nVidia GeForce 9400M chipset
• 13.3 LED-lit glossy display
• Glass multi-touch trackpad
• 2 USB ports

Ultimately, the performance is nearly identical. In real-world usage, the MacBook boots faster than the MacBook Pro, but I attribute this to the fact that there is significantly less occupying its hard drive. It’s hard to give up the MBP. While the unibody construction is sleek and very durable, the sentiental connection I have with my MBP is hard to get over.

The old MBP does have a few extra perks as well such as an ExpressCard slot. For most average users, this is hardly a point of significance. I can’t remember the last time I used any card-slot peripherals.

For those of you with older MBP’s considering a new laptop, I generally agree with what’s been said at Wired, and here. The conclusion seems to be that if you actually use more advanced features (card slot, firewire, do heavy film editing), stick with the pro. Otherwise, the new Unibody MacBook has closed the gap between pro and consumer models in a good way; save yourself some dough and go for the regular MacBook.

I didn’t want to get the same exact case for the MacBook however. As nice as the Incase sleeves are, they’re pretty pricey at $35. I looked around the web and came across Booq Bags. Booq manufactures a number of different bags, and sleeves for laptops and other devices. I quickly found the Taipan Skin for the MacBook. It certainly looked stylish enough for my Mac (always an important consideration). Also, looking at the dimensions, it fit the unibody MacBook exactly. This was the key factor in my purchasing decision as I have read elsewhere that the Incase sleeves are too large unibody MacBooks. This was also the case for my MacBook Pro; there is about an 1.5 inches of extra space at the top of the sleeve when the MBP is inserted into the sleeve.Taipan Skin. Satisfied with what I saw, I purchased a Taipan sleeve for my own. After a long journey from California, the Taipan arrived at my apartment. The exterior feels exactly the same as the Incase sleeves, however it is not as thick. The construction is solid, with the zipper going around two sides of the case (instead of just one for the Incase sleeve) providing a large point of entry/exit for the computer. While the actual case is thinner, It still provides adequate padding from the other books and objects in my backpack. In fact, the thinness actually means less space is wasted in my backpack. Ultimately, the Taipan offers a edgier, unique style over the ubiquitous Incase sleeve while offering the same amount of protection for a lower price. If you’re looking to protect your MacBook and hate the hard shell cases as much as I do, give the Booq sleeves a look.

The Taipan is also available at one of my favorite online shops, Koyono.

All in all, the construction of the new MacBook makes it seem much sturdier and lighter (although the weight difference is negligible in once it is placed in my backpack). The smaller footprint has led me to use the MacBook as my primary mobile computer, while my Pro sits at home.

For most users, the new MacBook is a significant upgrade over the previous models. While the old model is still available with specs that nearly match the unibody models (the difference being in the bus and RAM speed) at a price break, the unibody is still the way to go. Unless you’re on a really really tight budget, the durability, improved battery life, LED screen and option for an illuminated keyboard are all features that make the unibody models look, feel and perform like the MacBook Pro.

A few things I had to get used to were the glossy screen and the button-less track pad. My MacBook pro has a matte screen, and like many users, I worried about glare. In my usage, I have yet to find a situation where the glare made my hindered my experience. The LED screen is bright enough to minimize most effects of the gloss. The trackpad lacks a button and as a result, I initially found myself doing all sorts of weird things when I tried to click with a second finger placed where I’m used to having a button. This behavior changed quickly and I soon found myself trying to click the trackpad on other machines. Multi-touch is definitely nice and improves upon an already stellar user experience in Mac OS.

All-in-all, the unibody MacBooks are excellent machines and put my old MacBook Pro to shame; a feat only Apple could pull off.