What I Learned at the Apple Store Today

Posted on August 20, 2011 by Ted

I was at the Grand Opening of the new Apple Store on 4th Street in Berkeley today. Hard to believe that, until now, the city of Berkeley (with one of the biggest and most renowned universities in the world) has been without an Apple Store. At last, this oversight has been corrected.

There was an impressively long line outside the Store by its 10:00 AM opening. Several hundred people by my estimate. The line had dissipated by around 11:15, but there were still t-shirts remaining to be given away when I left at 11:30.

I didn’t buy anything. But, while inside the Store, I did learn two intriguing nuggets of information:

Don’t buy Apple’s $69 OS X Lion USB Thumb Drive. The Apple Store webpage for the Lion USB Thumb Drive states: “When you install OS X Lion using the USB thumb drive, you will not be able to reinstall OS X Lion from Lion Recovery. You will need to use the USB thumb drive to reinstall OS X Lion.”

The reason for this limitation is that Recovery HD, before allowing you to reinstall Lion, checks with Apple’s servers to verify your computer’s eligibility. Unless you purchased Lion from the Mac App Store, the verification will fail.

What if you want both an Internet-free Install Lion thumb drive and the ability to use Recovery HD to reinstall Lion? Apple’s “official” solution is to purchase Lion from the Mac App Store ($29) and buy a Lion USB Thumb Drive. This will cost you $69 + $29 = $98.

But there is a far cheaper solution. Buy the Mac App Store version of Lion and make your own 5GB or larger USB Install Lion thumb drive, using a simple procedure detailed on numerous web pages (such as this Macworld article by Dan Frakes). Assuming your thumb drive costs $10, your final cost is $39 — saving you $59 over Apple’s official route.

Are these two approaches really identical? That is, is there anything you get by buying Apple’s Lion USB Thumb Drive that you miss by going the do-it-yourself route? Nope.

I asked an Apple Genius at the 4th Street Store about this specific question. His reply: “That’s an interesting way of looking at it. And you’re right. They are the same.” I had assumed this was the case and others I had asked confirmed my assumption. Now I had an Apple Genius confirming it.

So…if you want a Lion USB thumb drive…make one yourself from the Mac App Store download of Lion. Not only will you save money, you’ll bypass the limitation on using Recovery HD. The Apple Store Genius didn’t exactly make this recommendation. But it’s surely what he implied. [By the way, the Berkeley Store didn’t have any of the drives in stock, even if I had wanted one.]

How to disable the iPad Home button. This was my first time in an Apple Store since Apple began placing iPads next to each Mac (as well as other products) on the Store’s tables. These iPads display the basic specs of each adjacent product. You can tap buttons along the bottom of the screen to get further information about the product or even request a sales associate to come over and assist you. Very slick. It’s obviously a lot more expensive than having a paper spec sheet next to the products (as used to be the case), but heck Apple has the cash to afford this.

Interestingly, what you can’t do is get to the Home screen by pressing the Home button on these iPads. The function has been disabled. This makes sense. Apple wouldn’t want customers to be able to exit the display, so the iPad is placed in a “kiosk mode.” The question is: How did Apple do this?

I asked an Apple employee if I could enable this kiosk mode on my own iPad and, if so, how would I do it? He replied that it was indeed possible but “If I told you how to do it, I would have to kill you.” He was smiling when he said it, but that’s really what he said.

So I didn’t actually learn how to do this trick at the Apple Store. But my visit did start me on the path to learn how. As it turns out, you needn’t put your life in danger to accomplish this goal. However, you will need to jailbreak your iPad — and install IncarcerApp (as covered here). I’ve tried the app and it works exactly as advertised. To activate and deactivate the lock feature, you use the Volume Up/Volume Down buttons.

In the Apple Store, the iPads were encased in plexiglass which (as I recall) prevented access to the Volume buttons. So I imagine the Apple Store iPads work in the same or similar way. Still, I assume Apple has their own (non-jailbreak) way of accomplishing the lock. But (as the Store employee said) they’re not revealing what it is. Too bad. I bet many iPad owners would find a use for this feature if Apple officially offered it.

Posted in Apple Inc, iOS, Mac, Technology | 2 Comments

“Liberal Fantasy” Accusation Misses the Point

Posted on August 15, 2011 by Ted

Fareed Zakaria wants liberals not to be upset with Barack Obama. In his latest column, he accuses those on the left of clinging to “a liberal fantasy that if only the President would give a stirring speech, he would sweep the country along with the sheer power of his poetry.” In this regard, he especially cites Drew Weston, whose article “What Happened to Obama” appeared recently in the New Yor Times. Mr. Weston indeed said: “Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end.” Zakaria makes the straw-man argument that such a speech, even if Obama were to give it, would never have the desired effect.

Story Telling

I agree with Zakaria’s distilled assertion that one speech will not have any magical effect. However, I believe Zakaria is wrong in his assessment of what Weston and liberals in general are saying. If you read Weston’s entire article, you’d see that he was not assigning any magical power to a single speech. Rather, he was asserting the immense power of a well-told and repeated story, a story that helps make the complexity of today’s events understandable and relevant.

By story, I (and Weston) do not mean something made-up, like a fairy tale. Rather, I mean a framework that can be used to hold together a group of often complex facts and help people make sense of them. For example, one basic story, often told by Republicans, is that raising taxes is a bad idea. It hurts the economy by taking away money from consumers and businesses, leaving them less to invest and spend. And it gives it to the government, who will either waste it or use it on things that you oppose, with the net effect of needlessly increasing the national debt. If you can convince someone that this story is true, it will color almost every other political opinion that they hold. It will almost certainly mean that they will oppose President Obama and all of his economic initiatives — or any initiative that involves raising taxes. It will mean they will be against universal health care. And so on.

To convince people to accept this story, Republicans tell it over and over again, in their talking points, in interviews, in articles, on the campaign trail and wherever else they can. As Weston points out, and as has been well documented by numerous others (especially George Lakoff), a resonating story is more powerful than an armful of facts. People start with a belief in a story. If your facts contradict the story they believe, people will reject the facts. Lies that fit within the framework of the story are accepted as true. To get people to break out of this box, you must first convince them to accept a different — or at least a modified — story.

This is what Weston was hoping Obama would do. It is much more than simply giving a stirring speech. Mr. Zakaria may think that this is of little consequence. But he is wrong.

Centrist vs. Extreme Positions

Later in the Time magazine version of his column, Zakaria warns his readers “not to fall prey to ideology from the right or left and to celebrate the democratic process that balances the two extremes.” I believe Mr. Zakaria is wrong here as well.

I agree there is value in being able to assess both sides of an issue, to seeing the grays and not assuming that everything is either black or white. If this means I am a centrist, I am guilty as charged. However, I also believe it is a mistake to assume that extreme positions are always wrong — that a centrist position is the one that, in the end, is the best course to take. In the end, a centrist position may be the only possible course of action. Extreme positions rarely become public policy because they are, by definition, a minority position. You have to accept compromises along the way. But that doesn’t mean you should start by pushing for a centrist position.

In fact, centrist positions are often on the wrong side of history. There was a time when it was a centrist belief that a “woman’s place is in the home.” There was a time when (at least in the South), the center firmly held that blacks belonged in the back of the bus. There was a time when the center held that gays should not be allowed in the military (some may argue that this is still a centrist belief). Heck, there was a time that most of the people living on this planet thought that the earth was flat at that the sun revolved around it.

It takes courage, sometimes risking one’s own life, to stand by and defend the “extreme” beliefs that run counter to centrist positions. In the examples I cited, “extreme” positions were eventually adopted by the mainstream. Indeed, they are today’s centrist maxims. But back when they were considered extreme, I contend that the centrist position would not be the wisest course of action. On that basis, no one would have ever fought for the extreme beliefs — women would still not have the right to vote and blacks would still be sitting at the back of buses.

There are ideas today that are considered extreme. Single payer health care on the left. A balanced budget ammendment on the right. Some of these ideas may be exactly on target. That is, if the country adopted them, the country would be better off, by almost any measure. But we’ll never know if we stick to the idea that only weak compromises that barely move the needle from the center are the ideal we should strive to achieve, As Paul Krugman eloquently stated (in an article appropriately titled The Centrist Cop-Out): “Many pundits view taking a position in the middle of the political spectrum as a virtue in itself. I don’t. Wisdom doesn’t necessarily reside in the middle of the road, and I want leaders who do the right thing, not the centrist thing.”

Pragmatism?

In defending Obama, Zakaria points out the “pragmatism” of many of the president’s positions, noting for example that “he has advocated a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines tax increases with spending cuts.” That is all well and good. But the problem is not in the president’s position, or his accepting some centrist compromise. The problem is that, when the bill was finally passed, there were no tax increases. There were only spending cuts. It looked very little like a compromise and very much like exactly what the Republicans had demanded. From the very beginning, the Republicans had set the terms of the debate (almost taking any revenue increases off the table) and left the Democrats in an all-too-familiar defensive crouch.

The same is true for issues like health care. While the Republicans pound ceaselessly on the importance of repealing “Obamacare” — Democrats (including Obama) too often shy away from even mentioning the topic. Instead of strongly defending the law, and offering a coherent “story” explaining why Americans should support it, the Democrats’ logic appears to be: “Now that the bill has passed, talking about only risks alienating voters and gettting us nothing.” Unfortunately, that leaves Republicans as they only ones with a story to tell. In such an environment, where only one side is on the ofdensive, lies can easily become accepted as fact.

Bottom Line

This returns us to my original point. Zakaria is wrong about his supposed “liberal fantasy.” Telling a story, and convincing voters to believe in it, is critical to political success. Republicans are winning at this game because they are far superior to Democrats in getting their “story” out. The fantasy is believing that this story telling doesn’t matter.

Posted in Media, Politics | Comments Off on “Liberal Fantasy” Accusation Misses the Point

Home Theater Upgrade Ups & Downs

Posted on June 20, 2011 by Ted

When I first began to write this article, it was going to be all about how terrible the manuals and user interfaces are for home theater components, especially receivers. By the time I was done, I wound up taking a broader view. But don’t worry. I’ll get to the manuals mess before the end.

The immediate impetus for this story was my recent purchase of a new AV receiver, my first one in twelve years. I bought a Denon AVR2112CI (which is a slightly upscale version of the more popular AVR1912). Overall, I couldn’t be more pleased. It’s a fabulous receiver.

The upside

Compared to my old Sony STR-DB930 receiver, the sound quality is much improved and the difference is immediately noticeable. Apparently, technology has advanced over the last decade. Who knew? It also helps that the Denon is a more expensive higher quality unit out of the box. [To be clear, I have a separate components setup; this is not one of those “all-in-one” home theater systems.]

However, improved sound quality was actually second on my list of top reasons for getting a new receiver. The number one item had to do with the more mundane topic of connection ports. Over the years, the emphasis of audio-video receivers has steadily tilted more in the direction of video. This is most evident with HDMI ports. My old Sony has zero HDMI ports. My new Denon has seven HDMI inputs (six input and one output).

With the Sony receiver, I was forced to separately connect the audio and video coming from each peripheral (such as my DVD player). The audio went to the receiver (typically via a digital optical or coaxial cable), the video went to the TV via HDMI. This meant that I was not getting any potential benefit of HDMI for audio. More troublesome, my HD-TV has only two HDMI ports. This meant I could not even use HDMI for the video of all my HDMI-capable devices.

With the Denon, all my devices can now connect to the receiver via HDMI. The receiver’s lone HDMI output cable goes to the HD-TV — which carries the signal from all the connected components. In essence, the Denon receiver is now a true audio and video hub! All roads lead to to and from the receiver! This is a major shift from the previous generation of devices.

A related benefit of the new arrangement is that you no longer need to switch TV inputs when switching among different devices. Before, I would have to make sure that both the television and the receiver were “synced” to the same device. For example, if I wanted to switch from my cable box to my DVD player, I would need to switch the input selector to DVD for both the TV and the receiver. Now, all I need to do is select DVD on the receiver’s remote and I’m done. All components feed to the same television input (although some trouble with Comcast developed here, as I’ll get to shortly). Actually, I still prefer my Logitech Harmony Remote for doing this switching, but even here things work a bit more smoothly.

Another bonus with the Denon receiver (having nothing to do with HDMI) is that it supports Apple’s AirPlay (audio only). AirPlay on the Denon works great. With my iPad on my lap, I select my desired music and it plays through the Denon. Just like that. I can even control the Denon’s volume from the iPad. Very slick. You’ll need an Ethernet connection to get the Denon on the network, as it has no Wi-Fi option. In my case, I connected the Denon to an AirPort Express I was already using in the same room. Once on the network, the receiver supports other network options, including Internet radio, Pandora, and even my iTunes Library.

The other receiver I had considered getting instead of the Denon was the Pioneer VSX-1021-K, currently the only other model in this mid-range price category that includes AirPlay. The Panasonic is a fine receiver, with some advantages over the Denon (the Pioneer does have wireless and even Bluetooth options). However, in the end, I preferred the Denon. At the time I bought it, the Denon retailed for $600; Denon appears to have just upped the price to $650, making the 2112 a bit less attractive. In contrast, the Pioneer 1021 and the Denon 1912 are both $550.

The downside

Amidst all this sunshine, there are two small clouds of discontent. These are not issues unique to the Denon and are certainly not deal-breakers. But they are annoying.

• Comcast and receiver conflict. After I connected my new (black) Comcast cable box to the HDMI port on the receiver, the display settings on the cable box kept getting messed up (returning to 4:3 and 480p instead of the required 16:9 and 1080i). This meant I was not seeing HD when watching HD channels.

Fixing these settings required going into a “secret” Comcast screen (you have to press Power and then Menu on the Comcast remote to access it). The fix didn’t help in the end. The settings would screw up again after turning the devices off and back on. The only permanent fix is to connect the cable box’s HDMI port directly to the TV (with an optical cable going to the receiver). This, of course, means reverting back to the type of setup I had with my Sony, partially defeating one of the advantages of the new receiver.

The primary source of this problem is the new Comcast cable box (older models did not show this symptom). It’s not specific to the Denon; I had the same exact Comcast glitch with the Pioneer 1021. Hopefully, Comcast will eventually offer a firmware fix that addresses the matter. I suspect this bug also plagues new-generation cable and satellite boxes from other companies, but I cannot confirm this.

[Update: I have since learned that a primary cause of the problem is HDMI hand-shaking. As part of the DRM-restrictions built into HDMI (under pressure from the film industry as an anti-piracy measure), an HD transmission will not work with displays that are not “HDMI-compatible.” The firmware that checks for this compatibility is often not smart-enough to figure out what is going on when you have a receiver intervening between the cable box and the television. It winds up believing that this is a violation and shuts down the HD transmission. Such is the case with the HDMI checking built into the Comcast cable box. That’s why it works when connecting directly to a TV, but not to a receiver.]

• Manuals from hell. Setting up the Denon receiver was more difficult than I had anticipated. I needed to call tech support twice before I got everything working correctly. By comparison, I have never previously had to call tech support to setup any AV component. [In this case, “tech support” meant calling the people at crutchfield.com, where I purchased the Denon. They could not have been more helpful. I highly recommend them.]

Part of the problem is that these devices are complicated, much more so than years ago. But making matters worse is Denon’s poorly written manual (and its equally confusing on-screen settings menus).

By this, I don’t mean the manual is written in poor English. Although this is a common complaint about AV device manuals, the Denon does a decent job here. Rather, the problem is that the manual assumes the reader understands much more than the typical (or even atypical) reader will actually understand.

Here’s one example. Do you want to set up your speakers via a bi-amp connection? Do you even know what that means? I didn’t at first. Denon’s manual “helpfully” explains:

“You can use the front speakers via the bi-amp connection. A bi-amp connection is to connect separate amplifiers to the tweeter terminals and woofer terminals of speakers compatible with the bi-amp function. This prevents the back electromotive force (returned force without output) of the woofer sent to the tweeter, which affects the sound quality of the tweeter, and you can enjoy playback with higher-quality sound.”

Yes, it’s all so clear now. Not. In too many other cases, the manual tells you how to change the settings for some oddly named feature — but fails to adequately explain what each setting does or why you might need to make a change.

To be fair, other competing models aren’t any better. In fact, setting up a Pioneer 1021 is even more difficult than a Denon (according to reports I’ve read online) and its manual is more obtuse (as I can confirm from my own comparison). The Pioneer remote is also more daunting to master.

Manuals and set-up for other components (such as Blu-ray players) are not nearly as bad in this regard. Receivers are in a category all by themselves.

Fortunately, you typically need to go through the setup only once. And once you’re done, the hard part is over. In my case, after the Denon receiver was finally up and running, it was a pleasure to use. I had at last arrived at the fun part: enjoying superb sound and crystal clear HD video. Break out the popcorn. It’s time to watch a movie. See you later.

[Coming to my setup later this year: A new (3D?) television? Maybe. I’ll let you know.]

Posted in Entertainment, Technology | 1 Comment

The Sad State of the Oscar for Best Song

Posted on June 10, 2011 by Ted

In our house, the Academy Awards are like the Super Bowl. It’s one of the big events of the year. Typically, we have friends over for an “Oscar party.” For months before the actual how, I scour magazines and websites for information about who is likely to be nominated and who is supposed to win. Then I do my own prognosticating. True, the show itself is often a letdown (the same could be said of the Super Bowl). But I return each year and eagerly await the opening of the envelopes.

Beyond the major awards at the end of the show, one of my favorite categories has always been Best Original Song. Not any more. the decline of this category in recent years is a disgrace.

Less than five?

Where to begin? How about with the nominating process? This year there were only four nominated songs. Why is that? Almost every other category has five nominations. The only categories that have less than five are ones where there seems not to be enough qualified movies (such as Best Visual Effects).

This logic cannot apply to Best Original Song. Not this year anyway. How do I know this? Let’s look at this year’s nominees:

Coming Home (from Country Strong)
I See the Light (from Tangled)
If I Rise (from 127 Hours)
We Belong Together (from Toy Story 3)

The award went to frequent nominee Randy Newman for We Belong Together. Admittedly, this was not a spectacular collection of songs. My point, however, is that if these four songs qualified, surely there must be at least one more of this caliber that could have been included. Randy Newman said as much when he accepted his award: “They only nominate four songs? They nominate five for cinematography. They could find a fifth song somewhere.”

Yes. And, in this particular case, they wouldn’t have had to look very hard. Recently, I saw Burlesque. While not a great movie, it did have some very enjoyable music. Of particular note is You Haven’t Seen The Last Of Me, sung by Cher and written by Dianne Warren. It won the Golden Globe for Best Original Song. Surely, it is good enough to have been the fifth nominated song at the Oscars.

Why was this (or any other potential song) not given the fifth spot? I have never seen an official explanation. I haven’t even read any reasonable speculation. It appears to be a mystery. Whatever the reason, it must be a ridiculous one. There is no good reason for it.

[A sidenote: As its name implies, nominees in the Original Song category must be “original” — meaning that the song must have been written expressly for the movie. That’s why, in Burlesque again, Christina Aguilera’s driving performances of Something’s Got a Hold on Me and Tough Lover could not be considered. These are old Etta James’ standards. It’s also why, years before, Whitney Houston’s mega-hit cover of I Will Always Love You (from The Bodyguard) did not qualify.]

Less than good?

On the other hand…I can see one rationale for having less than five nominated songs as a general rule: the overall low quality of the music in recent years. No offense to Randy Newman (whom I greatly admire) but, compared to nominees from decades ago, there have been almost no songs in the past decade that qualify as memorable or future standards.

Need proof of this? As a comparison, check out nominees and winners for Best Original Song from years past.

First off, let’s look at songs from the period prior to 1961:

White Christmas
I’ve Got You Under My Skin
Pennies from Heaven
They Can’t Take That Away From Me
Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah
That Old Black Magic
The Man that Got Away
Three Coins in A Fountain
Love is a Many Splendored Thing
Unchained Melody
Que Sera Sera
All the Way
April Love
Gigi
High Hopes

See any ones you recognize? Of course you do. And the above list is by no means exhaustive.

Next, let’s move to the period from 1961 to 1990. Familiar nominees include:

Moon River
Town Without Pity
Days of Wine and Roses
Call Me Irresponsible
More
My Kind of Town
The Shadow of Your Smile
I Will Wait for You
Born Free
Alfie
Georgy Girl
The Look of Love
Windmills of Your Mind
Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head
Come Saturday Morning
Jean
What are you Doing The Rest of Your Life?
The Way We Were
Nobody Does It Better
Hopelessly Devoted to You
Fame
Up Where We Belong
I Just Called to Say I Love You
The Power of Love
Take My Breath Away
Somewhere Out There
I’ve Had The Time of My Life
Storybook Love

Whew! Impressed yet? I hope so. Yes, there were clunkers among the nominees (I haven’t listed those here). But, in any given year, there were almost always a few good ones. This is no longer the case.

Starting around 1991, things began to decline. Several songs from Disney and Pixar animated films were top-notch (such as You’ve Got a Friend in Me). Occasional other songs stand out, such as Because You Love Me and My Heart Will Go On (both from the 1990’s). After 2000, however, the pickings became really slim (Emimen’s Lose Yourself being one exception).

The year 2008 was a low point. Only three songs were nominated; two of them came from Slumdog Millionaire. In other words, out of the entire crop of films released that year, only two movies contained songs deemed worthy of a Best Song nomination. As with 2010, there were probably other songs that could have (and perhaps should have) been nominated. But my recollection is that this was indeed a bleak year.

What accounts for this decline? I believe there are two factors:

• Rock music. Starting in the 1950’s and 1960’s, popular music underwent a profound change. Popular music had been dominated by composers from Tin Pan Alley and Broadway. The rock and roll revolution changed all of that. From Sun Records to Motown to the Beatles and onward today’s diverse number of rock genres, it’s now a different world. Hollywood was slow to adapt to this. If you look at the above list of songs from 1961 to 1990, only a few (at the tail end of the list) could even remotely be considered rock music. By the 1990’s, movie songs had largely become irrelevant to the rest of popular music. The quality of songs were in decline because most top artists of the time weren’t writing for movies. The Academy made some effort to appear hip (such as when It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp won in 2005). But it was too little, too late.

• Money. There’s another reason top artists weren’t writing for movies: they weren’t asked to do so. Why? Because it had become too expensive. With the rising costs for making a film, and with original music seen as having little to do with a film’s financial success, producers were no longer interested in paying the escalating fees that musicians were demanding. An informative blog posting provides further insight on this point.

Sad. The end result is that what had once been a highlight of the Academy Awards show — great artists performing great music — is now just ho-hum at best, annoying at worst. I keep hoping that next year will be better. But I’m not optimistic.

Posted in Entertainment, Movies | 1 Comment