Advice

In response to this question posted on 43 Folders, I'd probably suggest finding a different hospital to get sick in. Seriously, this doesn't inspire confidence.

(Or alternatively, look for the little bottles labelled "Valium"...)

About the Radioheads

The ever belligerent Gruber recently took Fortune to task for ranking the way Radiohead marketed In Rainbows as the the 59th Dumbest Moment in Business (this year, I guess). And I completely agree that the $3 million (approx. -- and let's face it, with that kind of money you can afford not to count every penny) is a substantial vindication of the strategy. But I think that it's a very big mistake for pundits to project their big-business-is-screwing-the-artist-so-let's-all-go-indie ideals onto this band, or to mistake their actions for anything other than cynical self-serving greed.

This story (saying that Radiohead flounced* out on EMI when they didn't get the $10 million advance they wanted) appeared in The Times last week. Now, I'll say right now that it's probably mostly a smear piece planted by disgruntled EMI executives, but I'm sure that there's at least a big enough grain of truth somewhere in there to stop it being libellous. Let's compare this to Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails (I've heard of them, but I've never heard any of their music) telling their Australian fans to steal their music because the record companies were ripping them off by setting the price of their CDs unfairly high. Back to Radiohead, who let their fans pay whatever they thought In Rainbows was worth, right? Sure. Unless they were real fans, in which case they wouldn't have settled for less than the super-snazzy boxed set, a snip at only £40...

So I guess the take home point is that, yes, as all right-thinking people have known for a while now, the music industry is really screwed up, with talent largely being ignored and those few "lucky" individuals who make it through getting themselves exploited and ripped-off, but don't go looking to Oxford's finest to sort it out.

[* Go on, sit back, close your eyes and try to imagine Thom Yorke flouncing. If that doesn't make you smile than nothing will.]

iTouch OS 1.1.3

Gear Live, whom I must admit I had never heard of before, have posted a video of the iPhone 1.1.3 firmware (and boy do their servers seem to be playing the price right now). I recently acquired an iPod Touch, so here are a few thoughts on the impending update from the perspective of someone who probably isn't going to get to see most of them. The coolest non-iPhone specific feature looks like the curled-up-page effect, so I hope it's made available to other apps and not just Google Maps.

The ability to add Safari bookmarks to the launch screen should be really useful, but at the same time it makes me a little suspicious: it makes the web apps metaphor make more sense, allowing you to treat on-line applications as equals to those built-in, but with the advent of "proper" (native) apps supposedly only a little over a month away, should this be necessary? And shouldn't this feature have been there six months ago? Maybe it's a convenience thing, allowing you fast access to your favourite site, but in that case why should Safari get the special treatment? How about putting your favourite contacts or top songs on the launch pad, too?

I guess what I'm really stressing over is, are we going to get another fudge so we come out of Macworld with web apps still as the main method for developing for iPhone/iPod touch.

Okay, I can think of three not-so-paranoid reasons for adding the feature. Firstly, because it has been on someone's to-do list since 1.0 and so it was bound to turn up eventually. Secondly, because having got developers to spend the last six months on Mobile Safari optimised web apps and even though you've just moved the goal posts again Apple still want to throw them a bone, no matter how small. And thirdly, because if the hip and groovy kids are to be believed where it's currently at is social networking and that's happening on-line. Facebook as a pre-installed icon on the iPhone some time soon?

Blog Work & Play

I just bought a copy of the excellent Mars Edit, making use of the MacSanta deal on about its last day. I now hereby resolve to get my money's worth from it by blogging far more frequently (it's a new year resolution, don't you know).

Now all I need is a reader or two.

If You Can't Beat Them...

Okay, while I'm in an end-of-year predictive mood, let's talk about the Beatles and on-line music. I'm not actually waiting for them to release their songs on-line, but lots of other people seem to be. The big question seems to be who will they choose to favour with their back-catalogue? Is there an on-line music store big enough for the band which was bigger than God? I'll go out on a limb and guess "no".

I think that when the Beatles make their songs available next year, it will be through their own on-line store. After all, when you're dealing with digital downloads there isn't a physical supply chain to manage, so why give some other company a cut for managing hosting and payment processing. Radiohead -- joke that the In Rainbows "pay-what-you-want" scheme was -- have shown that given enough free publicity it can work. And since it's the frickin' Beatles we're talking about, I can't see a lack of publicity to be a problem. I imagine that it's only Sir Paul's divorce which is currently holding things up, but I'm sure that once he's shot of peg-leg someone need only flip a switch and they're good to go.

So there you are: more stunning predictions to follow.

Monstrous

This great article in Wired led me to this discussion of J.J. Abrams' latest project. I'm a big fan of the idea of ARGs, despite never having taken part in one. Thinking about the movie, I really hope he does come up with something original, because at the moment the discussion suggests John Wydham's The Kraken Wakes.

I shall have to start the "Hands Off Our Science Fiction" movement...