Apple’s losing it, literally

New iPhone

Courtsey of

At first, I couldn’t believe it. An Apple employee mistakenly left his iPhone prototype at the pub. It’s hilarious.

And after a little while of trying to figure out if it was legitimately from Apple and not some imitation, the Web site that has been reporting the entire saga was asked to give back the prototype device in a kindly written letter from a senior vice president at the company.

This all comes just weeks after Apple released the iPad to the general public, and only a few months after it debuted to the media.  In the days leading up to its original debut, media prophets were consulting their crystal balls in hopes that their greatest fantasies would finally come true in this new invention. Unfortunately, many critics were disappointed that the iPad didn’t support Flash technology and that you couldn’t make phone calls or multitask.

I’m just sad that they called it the iPad instead of the iSlate.

Regardless, the release of the iPad said something about Apple’s serious commitment to securing its creative property under lock, key, and electronic password until the exact point in time it should be made public.

This little incident, on the other hand, says something entirely different about media companies and their all-too-serious outlook on the future of technology. I hope that the corporate executives of the large media companies understand this, but the future is going to come – there is nothing you can do to stop it. One day, your product will be released, people will purchase it, and you will release a subsequent product with minor adjustments that even more people will purchase.

This is why the leak of the new iPhone prototype is so comical to me. It’s not that new of a piece of technology. It’s an improvement upon something they’ve already created. If you had given iPhone users the chance to come together and brainstorm what the next generation of iPhone would look like, they probably would have come up with something remarkably similar to what was leaked (according to the social construction of technology theory).

Then again, this could all be an elaborate media stunt created by Apple to distract us from the real future iPhone.

In conclusion, my undergraduate advanced writing class taught me a few things, but one of the important things it taught me was not to take myself (or sports writing) so seriously. Technology is technology is technology. It’s going to come out, and it’s going to be replaced. We live in an extremely disposable world, and we are becoming more disposable by the day. The quicker technology inventors understand this, the more productive I think we’ll be as a society in the future.


More security please


Lately I’ve been wanting to approach news about conflicts between Democrats and Republicans with a more positive, less critical outlook. A recent story from the Associated Press (that I found via National Public Radio) forced me to remain critical of our nation’s polarization. As with any good news story, the first sentence captures it all:

House Democratic leaders on Wednesday said they are concerned about the personal safety of lawmakers because of threats linked to intense opposition to the new health care law.

At first, I wasn’t too surprised that threats and a few hurled bricks were the results of the health care bill’s passage. Not everyone is going to be pleased by the government’s actions, and no government will ever fully represent its people. But, we Americans have a hard time believing this. This is why we elect people who align with what we think we want, even though what we think, what we believe, and what politicians ultimately do almost never match up in the public square.

So, for me to read this article generously was for me to admit the political system is flawed and to admit that the people protesting have legitimate reasons for doing so. That was until I read this,

Hoyer [the House Majority Leader] said Democrats were talking to the Republican leadership and hoped to come up with a united front on the security issue,

followed by this comment from one reader:

Reading these comments only underscores an “advantage” that the conser[v]atives including the tea party, pro-gun, and such have over the liberals: an underlying threat of violence if they don’t get their way.

Conser[v]ative members of Congress may denounce threats of violence but they do so while pooring fuel on the fire.

Whether the protesters are politically motivated is not my call, but some people obviously espouse this fact, regardless of the truth. Therefore, I feel the need to remind the six people accidentally reading this post of something – citizens reacting first from a p0litical position do so without reason or any perception of responsibility for their actions. Sure, the politicians might be able to get away with whatever they want just to secure a few extra votes for the next election (a scary truth), but those of us who pick up the stones will be charged guilty if we throw them.