So I’ve had my new phone for a few months now (okay, so that might declassify it at “new), and I’m quite happy with it. It’s a Samsung Blackjack. Unfortunately, everyone who sees or borrows it to make a call seems feel it necessary to fawn over it and freak out.

“Oh my god, is that an iPhone?!?!”

Now let’s take a look here:

They look nothing alike. Upon my explanation that it’s not an iPhone, they ask if it’s a Blackberry. Now, that’s a bit more reasonable - they’ve both got QWERTY keyboards. But then I have to explain that it’s a Blackjack, and all hell breaks loose. Leave it to Samsung to name their product something that not only should probably be considered trademark infringement, but is bound to confuse the crap out of anyone that doesn’t also have a Blackjack.

Ah well.

I’ve never really gotten into the whole, movie-watching-on-a-PC idea (mostly because the selection on iTunes - not to mention the price - is useless). With the exception of a few high-budget blockbusters (which, coincidentally, also means prices 40-50% higher), it’s mostly gaudy science fiction, or the equivalent quality of most Lifetime movies.

Yet were I not college-bound in a few-months time, I might actually consider investing in the Roku player from Netflix. It’s relatively cheap at $100 (compared to $200+ for the AppleTV), and requires nothing but an internet connection and a subscription to a Netflix plan. You can’t browse the selection from the device, however - you instead have to create a new “internet queue” from your computer, where you select which titles are available to the device.

I have to say though, they skimped on the style factor here. Plus, I absolutely hate tiny remotes. I lose them…

What do you guys think? Worth it to shell out the $100 bucks if you’ve already got a Netflix account? What about you AppleTV users out there - did you make the right decision in buying it?

via WashingtonPost

Here’s one way to get on the naughty list: suing a nonprofit. A Nigerian company is suing the One Laptop Per Child Association for apparently using a keyboard similar in design to one they hold under copyright (the use of 4 shift keys to increase ease of use in multiple languages). So while other companies are donating like crazy to OLPC, some jerks are deciding to make a buck off of it. Now, I understand the need for intellectual property rights and all, but in the long run, won’t bringing technology to third-world countries ultimately help technology manufacturers in the long run, much more than some licensing rights to the use of 4 shift keys?

I’m no expert in international copyright matters, but can anyone tell me how much a suit filed in Nigeria is going to even matter?

I’ve spent the past few weeks listening to dozens of people complain about the decline in privacy online. From Facebook and MySpace letting the government snoop on people’s profiles, to the idea of a National ID Card, people stir up a storm every time they discover some minute way the government can peek at their private lives. Facebook groups pop up, calling for petitions (haha, online petitions…) to stop the snooping. Most recently, this issue has come up in the media with MoveOn.org criticizing Facebook for targeting ads based on information in individual users profiles.

My question: why are we making such a big deal over this?

The same questions were raised when Gmail targeted their AdSense ads from keywords in a users’ inbox. Oh no. The same thing happens when a company targets certain magazines, and thus certain audiences, to advertise in. The real issue lies in people putting the supposidely super-private information (like what bands they like…) on the internet in the first place. Giving advertisors [in effect, anonymous] information on Facebook users isn’t making anyone’s life any less secure than it already was.

I’ve written about this before - how new forms of sponsorship and advertising are at the backbone of the current technology revolution. Without targeted advertising and exclusive sponsorships, ad revenue would plummet and organizations like Facebook would be unable to provide their services free of charge. If we don’t want the internet to come to a standstill, we have to be open to new forms of advertising. Sure, no one may particularly enjoy the main character of a television show pointing the logo side of a product towards the camera, but we got used to it. We’ll get used to this, too.

I written about the iPhone before - speculated about its success, even defended its $600 price tage. But, amazingly enough, in a move I doubt many expected, Apple has decreased the price of the 8GB iPhone by $200, brining it down to just $399 (they’ve stopped selling the 4GB version).

People, you can’t complain about the price any more. I still reserve the right to lament about how 8GB really isn’t enough for a video player (4-5 movies?), and how the keypad can’t be as easy to use as [actually, only Apple] says it is. But the price is right. If I weren’t still paying off my video camera, I’d have no excuse not to get one. Well, other than the fact that is still wouldn’t fit in my pocket.

You’ve gotta feel sorry for all those poor souls that just bought an iPhone, though… True, Apple will refund $100 to previous iPhone owners in store credit, but still. I just wish people would learn to stop buying Apple products in the week leading up to their press conferences.