TechCrunch posts details of fired intern's mistake, and that's a mistake.

An intern at TechCrunch was fired for accepting a Macbook Air as compensation in exchange for a blog post. Michael Arrington, who runs the leading tech blog, made the decision to publicly post about this matter, in detail, "protecting" the name of the person in question, who might I add is underage. He deleted all of this person's posts on the site as well. You can read the article in question here.

This was a ridiculous thing to do on Arrington's part. Not only did this make it fairly easy based on comparing cached versions of the site to find out who it is, Arrington later decided to reveal the intern's identity once he came forward - after the damning article was posted.

I don't think this post should have ever been written. At private companies when someone loses their job, a general email is usually circulated stating the person is no longer with the company. In almost all cases the reason is not revealed, nor are the facts of whether the individual left of their own accord or were fired.

This posting does just the opposite, revealing everything that lead up to the individual's dismissal, while not implicitly exposing who it is. Now that he's been revealed, one has to wonder if the intern would have ever spoken about this publicly had it not been for the fact that:

a) Readers would not have to dig very deep to figure out whose posts are no longer there, combined with

b) Why exactly he was terminated has been made public

With both pieces of information tied to each other in a public forum, I have a feeling this intern (whose name I choose not to further promote here) only chose to come forward due to the inevitability of readers finding out not only that it was he who was let go, but also what he did.

In my opinion the right course of action would have been to bid him adieu internally, delete his posts and simply move on. Some people might have questioned why all his articles were now missing , but in that situation I believe it's the responsibility of Arrington to not only protect someone who did something wrong, but to protect the image of someone who is underage.

While the situation is serious from an internal standpoint, and while the intern made a mistake that cost him his job, the biggest mistake here comes on the part of Arrington: on one hand you have him chastising the poor judgement made by one of his interns, but then acquiescing to that intern's judgement call to reveal his identity.

If it was a poor judgement call for Daniel to take the Macbook to begin with, why would you encourage the decision he made to come forward? Then again, as stated earlier, the posting of this article to begin with made it pretty difficult for him not to defend himself.

This intern now has to go out into the world with a very public black mark on his record, due to the negative public perception he's been handed, and he's not even 18 yet. Good luck, kid.

How Apple Blew the Announcement of the iPad

Unless you've been living under a rock, and let's face it, there's likely internet access and 3G coverage underneath rocks these days, you know Steve Jobs marched up in front of a salivating crowd in dramatic fashion - as we've come to expect from the fearless leader of the Apple cult.. er, company - and unveiled the iPad, the long awaited, and even longer rumoured tablet computer.

It was touted to be a replacement for netbook computers... It's not. That's not the problem, though.

What may surprise you is that the problem is also not the lack of a camera, expandable memory, USB slots, SD card slot, Flash support in Safari, multitasking, HDMI out, AVI support for movies, or a stylus.

No, those things are only a byproduct of the real problem. The real problem is outlined in the photo below:

It's the hype.

It's also massive secrecy prior to the unveiling. It's allowing us geeks to let our imaginations run wild because Apple wants the iPad to be all things to all people.

Apple's marketing team are made up of geniuses. The huge stage, the clear outlining of features, the emphasis on simplicity - it's what's sold people on the iPhone, even though you couldn't copy and paste text. That small drawback was forgivable, because the iPhone has so much going for it, and is useful to such a large segment of the population. In short, the iPhone broke new ground and set the bar for what smartphones could achieve.

The iPad? Not so much. Without retaining any humility in who Apple thinks could really benefit from the iPad, the people who got the most excited over this were us technophiles. We wanted the features we were seeing on netbooks, and pushed for the juggernaut that is Jobs and company to deliver. What Apple _should_ have said right from the get-go was that they had a new device for soccer moms.

The iPad is more or less a simple browsing device that can play some videos, let you do a bit of emailing, read a book, and if you dare, make a call.

That's about it. It's for your aunt who is tired of her Windows PC popping up spyware ads for spiky dildos when she's just trying to get her mail and read up on the news.

It's for the businessman who needs to show a slide presentation, open a few websites on the go and read over today's meeting notes.

In other words, the iPad is for the casual user, and for these purposes it works damn well. The problem is Apple couldn't come right out and admit that, and now look a tad foolish for raising such a big stink about this thing.

With expectations at such a fever pitch, and with Steve Jobs standing in front of a screen twelve times the size of God to unveil the next great innovation, you'd better bring all the goods or you're getting panned.

It didn't have to be that way. If we knew who this device was for before it was released, it'd have gotten a pass. Instead, we've got the very customer base who could use this device for some convenient, time saving applications, getting trickled down jokes from us geeks comparing it to a tampon.

So, little favour Steve: it's time to stop acting like you need every person on the planet to buy every product you put out - you're worth $50 billion now, it’s okay to dial down the hype a notch when you put out a niche product. Relax... and give us geeks the goods in iPad Gen2, and maybe we’ll spread the good word again.

so I fix computers...

Part of what I do with my many years worth of geek know-how is fix computers. I can build them, take them apart, and pretty much troubleshoot whatever's wrong with them along all segments of the OSI Model. So I may as well make a few extra bucks at it, right?

Large troubleshooting companies such as Geek Squad annoy me because they employ people who truly have no clue what they're doing - they simply run a program called MRI that performs a memory and virus scan. Big deal.

Anyway, here's the print ad I conjured up. The image of the frustrated old man comes from a book of royalty-free images I found laying at the curb of someone's house in Chintatown. One man's trash...

Apple vs. Psystar - No Winners, Just Losers.

At one point in time Steve Jobs endorsed the use of Mac Clones. This was back in 1993, long before Apple's sales skyrocketed alongside public interest in the company. Now, a tiny Florida outfit known as Psystar, a manufacturer of Mac Clones (or Hackintoshes) has been completely shut down after a successful lawsuit by Jobs and friends. They also want every computer Psystar ever sold recalled.

Among copyright infringement, Apple charged that their EULA was violated by having modified versions of OSX installed on Psystar's computers. Using an End User License Agreement as a defense in court is only acceptable in some parts of the US, and unfortunately for Psystar, in their neck of the woods as well.

Psystar's biggest mistake was modifying OSX internally to better gel with their boot loader, RebelEFI. This was stupid, since of course if you hack apart someone's product and resell it, you should be held accountable. Putting this aside, here's some of what Apple also alleged in court:

- Breach of contract for violating their EULA - There's a reason you can't use the EULA as a defense in court in many US states, and that's because a company can pretty much put anything it wants and sue people for not following it.

- Trademark infringement, for Psystar simply saying their computers could run Mac OSX Leopard

- Contributory and induced copyright infringement - This one's a no-brainer and probably what put the case over the top for Apple, in that Psystar was selling a modified version of OSX to run on its computers.

Here's where it got petty:

Trade dress infringement - Apple claimed people are used to Apple hardware and software coupled together, so it created a trade dress - or brand identity - that people were familiar with, and Psystar attempting to sell OSX on computers other than Apple's violated this.

Apple also tacked on a Trademark Dilution charge, saying Psystar's sales 'damaged' its brand. Chances are you haven't heard of Psystar until this post and probably weren't aware there was so much 'damage' being done.

These last two charges were unnecessary, as it would have easily been enough for Apple to win a court decision over there mere fact that OSX was being sold in a modified form. It's clear by claiming damage to the brand however, that Apple wanted to stamp Psystar off the map completely. This comes off like a major bullying tactic, and in my opinion just makes Apple look bad.

Devout Mac users will tell you that what makes Apple products so great is the symbiotic relationship between the hardware and software, and that's fine. But isn't it about time Apple embraced the fact that plenty of folks don't want to pay another $1000 bucks or so just to be able to enjoy using Mac's operating system? You can go into an Apple store and buy OSX Leopard(or Snow Leopard) on its own and what you do with it beyond that is your business, at least according to the first-sale doctrine. You'd be violating their EULA by installing it on your netbook, but in my eyes that's tantamount to no more than voiding the warranty on your toaster by unscrewing the bottom, not something you should be hauled into court over. It's YOUR product that you bought and paid for. For those who defend Apple by merely stating a violation of the EULA is wrong is more or less like saying you agree with everything Apple does, and it's a cop-out.

The reason I have a problem with Apple going after Psystar isn't because they sold a hacked version of OSX(a moot point since Psystar can't even SUGGEST people install OSX on their computers or show them how anymore), it's because I'm a strong proponent for Open Computing. Google embraces it, and even Microsoft to an extent - just look how many brands of computer you've seen Windows installed on with their approval. Open Computing is a way to get everyone in the technology community involved with improving products and catering to popular demand. If this community didn't exist, you would still be unable to use Copy and Paste on your iPhone, something I found absurd from the outset.

Apple comes off as looking scared of how OSX would run on different platforms, hence wanting to snuff out anyone else from doing it. Maybe that's an indicator of a lack of confidence in its stability, but it's been proven time again that Leopard has thrived on various netbooks, and on custom-built desktops.

Perhaps Apple's worried people won't want to pay a premium for sleek form factor if they can simply head to their local computer store and build a machine that runs Snow Leopard without issue for a fraction of the price. But is that something worth suing over?

Whatever the reasoning, Apple looks like a bully hiding in a castle shouting orders to destroy anyone who uses their products in any way other than how they tell them. Contrarily Apple doesn't seem to have a problem allowing third parties to make software that lets you install Windows on Apple products, nor does Microsoft, because to MS that's just another sale. Apple's groundbreaking 1984 commercial made them look like the little guy attacking Big Brother, but sadly it appears the roles are now reversed. Shame on you, Steve - I want the old Apple back.

The Google Phone: Death of Android? Hell No!

A few fuzzy shots of the Google Phone aka the Nexus One have popped up around the 'net as of late. Finally there are a couple of clearer shots available:

A few thoughts... I love the concept of a Google Phone. Some folks have suggested that by releasing Android on its own hardware that it will kill Android as a platform - that by having a fully custom, to-spec device that was made for all of Android's strengths, that people will be turned off to third-party devices making use of the open-source operating system(Eclair, or version 2.0 was released as an SDK in October for just such a purpose). I couldn't disagree more.

The strongest argument for the death of Android as a platform would have to be the existence of the iPhone. For example, if you took the iPhone OS and attempted to port it to another device, it would most definitely be a different experience. Applications made for a certain screen size would look different, touchscreens with capacitive touch surfaces(as opposed to Apple's resistive iPhone screen) would likely run into problems with scrolling, etc. In short, the useability issues would water down the iPhone experience on other devices and effectively kill it, while demonstrating the harmony created by Apple's walled garden philosophy over their devices.

As for using this as an argument toward the failure of Android as a platform by Google releasing their own phone/Android coupling, I couldn't disagree more. In my view, Android has been a fairly big success on the open market, with the G1 breaking ground in third-party usage of the OS. Android Market(Google's app store) is experiencing growing pains with just over 16,000 applications available, and while this is small compared to Apple's 100k+ currently available, it shows a definite interest for making applications and games that work across a multitude of devices and screen resolutions.

So will the Nexus One put a damper on this momentum? No way. Given that the Nexus is made by HTC - makers of the G1 - a third-party flavour is already being brought to Google's in-house hardware effort. If anything the Google Phone works to create a 'template' of what kind of specs third-party manufacturers would hope to strive for in providing the best possible Android experience - it will compliment other devices, not drag them down. Geeks will flock to the Nexus and use it as their main testing ground for creating the most stable user experience possible. This may be directly incongruent to Apple's wildly successful execution of their hardware-specific OS and app development, but having an open, Java SDK for people to create with alongside a phone to call their own will continue to show Google can gain a strong foothold to hang with the big boys in the cellular market.

Meanwhile my hope is that Google/HTC will revise that camera lens bubble so it doesn't get scratched to pieces. Seriously, what's up with that?

WIND Mobile Joins the Party... Now What?

The launch of Globalive’s WIND Mobile in Toronto last week had people cheering en masse that a fresh competitor was on the scene to blow away the competition. No contracts and a great deal on data access is enough to get anyone talking… er, texting, surfing, etc. As much as I want to jump on the bandwagon, a few things stuck out like a bevy of sore thumbs that have me taking a ‘wait and see’ attitude at best. So let’s take a look under the hood of this new player in the market and why I’m not sold… yet.

- No contracts. At all.

WIND touts the now age-old selling point of no contracts. Normally this means a company is pushing pay-as-you-go as their main hook while still offering long term plans, but WIND means it. They don’t offer contracts of any kind. As much as I want to see WIND thrive in a market currently dominated by The Big Three, offering no contracts whatsoever tells me someone wearing a suit isn’t exactly confident WIND will be around long enough to honour multi-year deals.

- You MUST buy your phone.

The main idea behind offering long term contracts is so you don’t have to pay full price for your phone. Aside from my geek friends who buy theirs from the manufacturer directly, most people prefer to pay a highly subsidized rate for their device on a contract, often getting their phone for $0. While the Blackberry Bold 9700 from WIND costs $450 compared to the $600 no-plan version from Rogers, this becomes a moot point when, generally, people don’t want to buy their phone anyway.

- The network

In order to break into the market, WIND leased lines on the AWS network, a frequency that only one other provider in North America uses – T-Mobile. It’s cheaper than attempting to get chunks of the GSM spectrum currently controlled by Rogers et al, but it means if you travel outside your ‘Home’ network, you’ll be signing on to Rogers’ GSM and paying some pretty hefty roaming charges to the tune of 25 cents per minute - for anyone who travels outside the GTA this is a huge turnoff. A slew of devices aren’t setup for AWS, which is a major reason WIND currently offers only 4 phones to choose from. According to WIND’s FAQ, SIM cards are on the way so you’ll be able to bring over your existing handset and avoid buying a brand new one, but it needs to ‘qualify’ first – i.e. it must support AWS - so you can forget about popping it into your iPhone.

So What’s Good?

With so few hardware options on the table and no ability to subsidize your phone purchase, WINDs chances of thriving in an already saturated market will be a tough sell. Despite my cynical perspective there is a bright spot to all this: Data access. 55 bucks gets you unlimited internet access without the possibility of being charged extra – so long as you stay inside the Home network, of course. Rogers/Fido, Telus, and Bell could take a lesson here as they all tack on per-Megabyte, metered charges to their already limited data plans, squeezing every last penny out of your mobile surfing experience. The downside is a gigantic 10 cents per 25 kilobyte charge for leaving WIND’s limited coverage area.

Passing WIND?

With marketing geared toward providing great customer support(much like T-Mobile down South), WIND wants to bring sweeping changes to how you’re being treated as a customer. I’m all for it, but first they desperately need to widen their coverage areas and expand their inventory into at least the double digits. In something of a catch-22 this is all dependent on how well they’re accepted in their current form. In 2010 Apple plans on releasing an AWS-compatible iPhone for T-Mobile users. Hopefully by that time WIND hasn’t been swept away by big-money competition.