One of the many reasons I love Twitter

I'd like to explain to you one of the many, many reasons that I absolutely love Twitter and have made it a huge part of my day and life.  I think one of the best examples I can provide is through a long anecdote -- stick with me.

Despite my personally owned vehicles, I have always had an interest in cars and motor sports, ever since I first laid my hands on Gran Turismo for the original PlayStation.  Front wheel drive.  Rear wheel drive.  All wheel drive.  Four wheel drive.  Superchargers.  Turbochargers.  Naturally aspirated.  4 cylinders.  6 cylinders.  8 cylinders.  Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.  Subaru Impreza WRX.

My interest remained mostly confirmed to the virtual world, since I did not have the funds to obtain one of these rides, and none of the televised motor sports really caught my interest.  I just never could wrap my head around NASCAR -- the races seemed unnecessarily long, the sponsors (Winston cigarettes and Busch beer) were unappealing, and the fanbase had that certain redneck appeal to it that I couldn't get past.  NASCAR has come a long way since those days, but the races are still far too long and honestly, just never held my interest that well.

I watched my first complete Indianapolis 500 in 2006, and I was mildly intrigued.  I felt like the Indy 500 was far too great of an all-American past time to be ignored, and I finally needed to sit down and watch one.  I thoroughly enjoyed it.

I returned again to watch the 2007 Indianapolis 500, and this time, I was hooked.  I loved the speed, the danger, the diversity of the drivers (yes, as it turns out, a Y chromosome is not required to drive a race car -- shocking!), and the intensity of it.  "Rubbing is racing" in NASCAR.  In IndyCar, it could be a death wish.

I stayed with the IndyCar Series and watched every race from there on out, loving every second of it.  IndyCar had a new fan.  It didn't hurt that I had ties to the league through Sheena's cousin, who just happened to be a race engineer for Panther Racing at the time.

At one point in time, open wheel racing like CART, Champ Car, and IndyCar was the dominant and most popular form of racing in the United States.  In 1996, there was a very bitter "split" when the upstart IndyCar Series broke off from the dominant CART series and took the Indy 500 with them.  This "split" was NASCAR's opportunity, and they seized it, big time.  NASCAR overtook open-wheel racing as the most popular form of racing in the United States.

As a result, the IZOD IndyCar Series is now usually a footnote on the motor sports page, and outside of the Indy 500 or if Danica does something interesting, the coverage is non-existant.  If NASCAR's fanbase is a "pork rinds and Busch Light" crowd, then IndyCar's fanbase is a "wine and cheese" crowd.  It's been consistently shown that IndyCar fans are better educated and have a higher income than NASCAR fans.  The IZOD IndyCar series picked up on this fact and used it to their advantage by embracing technology, and more importantly, Twitter in a huge way.

It doesn't matter that I can't get much IndyCar news from normal sports sources, because nearly every single driver tweets on a daily basis.  The series administrators tweet.  Bloggers tweet.  Journalists from the Indianapolis Star newspaper tweet.  IndyCar is covered like a blanket by Twitter in every conceivable way.  Drivers comment on their qualifying runs.  The Series tweet qualifying and race results.  Heck, even the individual race teams will tweet on their pit strategies during the race!

Check out this article from USA Today for more details on what exactly I'm talking about:
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/motor/2010-08-04-2055272001_x.htm

Here is a sport without much mainstream media coverage, that has invented their own ecosystem of coverage via Twitter.  It's absolutely fantastic, and brings me closer to the sport, its drivers, its owners, its administrators, and the media members who cover it better than anything else possibly could.

My friend Matthew Ward has often stated about Twitter, "It's all about WHO you follow."  This hits the nail on the head right there.

Twitter is a way to have a real time, custom news feed of the people and things that matter to you most.  I know that every time I log on to Twitter, I get...

• The latest information on Cyclone athletics
• The latest information on Apple Inc.
• The latest information on the IZOD IndyCar Series
• The latest news from the Des Moines and Cedar Rapids areas
• And so on...

It's almost as if it was a customized, real-time news feed that delivers me exactly what I'm interested in at all times.

Anyone who tries to criticize Twitter as something where people post when they take a dump or other such nonsense make themselves sound completely ignorant.  Yes, there are people who tweet like that, and yes, you have the choice whether to follow them or not.

About 99% of my tweets are about Apple Inc. or Iowa State University.  That's what I'm interested in, that's what I write about.  If you don't like it, don't follow me.  I have had people tell me they were unfollowing me, because they weren't interested in my content or my opinions.  That's what the UNFOLLOW button is for.  :)

Heck, you don't even have to tweet on your own.  It is perfectly fine to use Twitter solely as a source for consuming information -- I have several friends I follow whom almost never tweet, but I know they're on Twitter every day.  You can just follow people and read their tweets.  No one says you have to join in.

If you don't like Twitter or aren't interested in it, that's fine.  No one's forcing you to use it.  However, don't belittle those that do find it a very useful tool with hateful and ignorant statements. Give it a shot, you might just like it.

Thoughts on soccer and a few other things...

Yep, I'm one of those guys -- like most Americans, I only watch and care about soccer once every four years.  However, I really do enjoy watching the World Cup.  A major sporting event that garners worldwide attention can't be easily ignored.  Of course, anything that ESPN decides is important is going to get rammed down your throat, so it's best not to resist.

I fully admit that I am totally and completely ignorant of how most of the intricacies of soccer work.  If I get something wrong, I apologize in advance -- I fully admit to knowing very little.

In watching several of these games, it started to dawn on me why soccer struggles to gain attention in the US.  I don't think I'm saying anything that hasn't already been said, but it bugged me enough to the point of writing about it.  I don't have a problem with some of the unique aspects of soccer -- but soccer fans need to be cognizant of the fact that these things will always limit the potential audience.

First off: the outright vagueness and opaqueness of clock management in soccer drives me up a wall.  In two of the most popular American sports: football and basketball, clock management is an integral part of the game.  Accurate clock keeping is reviewable by monitor at any time in basketball, and by challenge in football.  In soccer, the fans are kept in total darkness on how things actually work.  Stoppage time / injury time / extra time / whatever the hell you call it is apparently kept track of by an official shrouded in total mystery.  How much time is added at any given point?  NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.  

In every single American sport, we have interviews with coaches throughout the game, we listen in to huddles, we mic up players, we see halftime speeches.  American sports are going toward more transparency in every aspect of the game.  For soccer to become more popular in the US, we need transparency into how clock decisions are made.  At any point that seconds are added for injury time at the end of the half -- show us a graphic on the screen.  In the information age, we want to know more, not be kept in the dark.  This will likely never change (instead soccer fans will praise this as one of the WONDERFUL absurdities of soccer), but we americans love our clock management in sports.  Hiding it from us does not make us want to watch.

When our officials screw up, they admit it (like Jim Joyce did).  When officials screw up in soccer, they never admit wrongdoing, and heck, never talk at all.  Big Brother FIFA even has the ability to block certain plays from being replayed in stadiums.  Can you even comprehend it if the NFL had a button for Roger Goodell to push to block controversial plays being shown on the jumbotron?  Well, FIFA does this (and has done it) throughout the World Cup.  Unbelievable -- I can't believe this hasn't gotten more play.  The officiating is atrocious, and instead of doing anything about it, they try to sweep it under the rug.  Americans have gotten used to our major sports fully admitting when officials get it wrong and pledge to do more about it.  All four of our major sports use replay in some fashion to get calls right.  Soccer seems even further in the dark ages than does baseball.  That's saying something.

Sportsmanship is another major factor.  I am not saying we're perfect at this, but watching the Algerians act perfectly content to simply block the USA from moving on was nothing short of pathetic.  Algeria had very slim chances to move out of pool play - but one thing was for sure -- they needed to score goals and lots of them.  However, instead of Algeria pushing men up the pitch to try to force the issue, they were more than happy to play keep-away and try to prevent the USA from attacking.  It was nothing short of, "We're not going to make any effort to keep our hopes alive -- we just want to keep you guys from moving on, too."  I realize the rest of the world makes minimal effort to hide their hatred for the USA, but this was absolutely egregious.  This would be like the Orioles and Blue Jays tanking games to Tampa Bay just because they hated the Yankees and Red Sox so much.  

Finally, it should come as no surprise to anyone that the Big 12 stayed in-tact.  Texas wasn't going anywhere -- they already have a sweetheart deal in the Big 12 and now they're even more of the 800 lb. gorilla than they were before.  This conference should be slightly down in football, but holy crap is this an insane men's basketball league.  Basically the two doormats just ran off and everyone us stayed.  It's a murderer's row from a league that was already one of the best.

The media did what they do best -- protect their own interests.  The complete destruction of the college conference landscape was a sexy story full of mystery and intrigue and they milked it for all it was worth -- and blew it our of proportion.  Make no mistake, Texas was seriously considering the Pac-10, but whether that was true flirtation or just to scare the rest of the Big 12 remains to be seen.  Either way, it looks like the seismic shift has stopped (for now) but it will come around again -- just wait.  Iowa State needs to do more to put themselves in better position for the next time realignment swings around -- more on that in another post.  That's enough for today.

Iowa's Regent Universities: when it's NOT a rivalry...

I want to talk to you all about something I feel very passionate about today.  This subject has been growing in intensity and rhetoric over the past weeks and I've been mostly silent on it, but something happened yesterday that bothered me to the point where I now feel compelled to weigh in.  I covered this subject briefly in a Facebook status to someone who had written on my wall, but now I want to go in more detail.

Conference re-alignment is a subject that has been beaten to death -- particularly in this state where we are uniquely affected.  I don't really want to go into ignorant speculation of what will or will not happen, but I do want to address a particular group of people in this state who are somehow rooting for or wishing for Iowa State University to no longer be part of a major collegiate athletics conference.  I think these folks are making a terrible mistake of confusing athletics rivalry with the availability of academic opportunity within this state.

Respectful Rivlary

I love the athletics rivalry in this state -- I think it's a vibrant and fun rivalry that everyone gets involved in and chooses sides on.  Despite protestations to the contrary, it's also a tightly contested rivalry -- over the past ten years, Iowa has won 5 times in football, and Iowa State has won 5 times in football.  In regular season men's basketball, Iowa has 5 times, and Iowa State has won 5 times.  In the Hy-Vee Cy-Hawk Series, the school that hosts the majority of the contests has held serve at home.  I love talking smack with my Hawk friends provided they keep it light, fun, and respectful, and I try to do likewise.  Smack is an integral part of the rivalry -- but I have no place for blatantly disrespectful or hurtful smack.  This is supposed to be fun -- not mean spirited.

I spent many years of my life as a student at Iowa State University and they were the best years of my life.  Iowa State will always be a tremendous part of my life and Ames is a place I called home for most of the 2000s.  When you attack my school or my home in a mean-spirited, hurtful way, I take that as a direct attack on me.  I don't make a point of maintaing friendships with those who degrade or insult things that are important parts of my life.  Some have accused me of being thin skinned about this, but I think it's just a manner of demanding respect for myself and things I hold dear.

Cedar Rapids was my first home, Ames was my second home, and Dubuque is my third home.  However, the state that has always been my home my entire life is the state of Iowa.  One thing we as Iowans have always been particularly proud of is the fact that our educational system is top notch.  Our standardized tests are used across the nation -- with the ITBS and ITED tests used well beyond this state's borders.  One of the most standard college admissions tests -- the ACT exam -- is based in Iowa.

Iowa isn't a big state, nor does it have a huge population.  Yet, we have three world class universities available to those inside this state for a fraction of the cost that private schools and out-of-state schools charge.  This offers a tremendous amount of educational opportunity for Iowans and their families.  Further, the research and educated individuals that these fine institutions produce helps to improve the lives of all Americans, and certainly, all Iowans -- even if you didn't attend the school.  Between the University of Iowa, Iowa State University, and the University of Northern Iowa, nearly any educational discipline that one would want to study is available between this state's borders 

It's even more incredible when you look at other surrounding states.  Look at the state of Missouri -- home to St. Louis and Kansas City -- two large metro areas.  Yet, Missouri only has Mizzou, which is somewhat comparable to the University of Iowa, and Missouri State, which is much closer to UNI than it is ISU.  What about Nebraska?  They have UNL, which is also mostly comparable to Iowa/ISU, and UNO, which doesn't even compare to UNI.  Or look at Minnesota -- again, UM may be comparable to Iowa/ISU, but that's about it.  Minnesota State isn't comparable to UNI either.  The fact is that states with much bigger (or comparable) populations to Iowa still don't have three educational institutions that can measure up to Iowa, Iowa State, and UNI.

Our great regent universities should be a point of pride for all Iowans -- but far too many have an inability to separate athletics rivlary from academic opportunity.

All three institutions have a positive impact on the lives of every Iowan.  When your pet gets sick -- it's probably an Iowa State University-educated veterinary that can make Fido or Fluffy feel better.  When you are facing a frivolous lawsuit -- it may be a University of Iowa-educated lawyer who protects you.  When you need to get your taxes done, a University of Northern Iowa alum may be your accountant.  When you go to the grocery store, an ISU alumni may have ensured the food you are buying is nutritious  and healthy -- and another ISU alum may have grown it!  If your cholesterol is too high, your Iowa-educated doctor may prescribe Lipitor, which was developed by an ISU alum!  When you were in elementary school, you were probably educated by many UNI alums.  An Iowa alum probably makes sure your teeth are healthy.  So on and so on and so on.  Do you see how alums from every regent school in Iowa work to make your life better?

Or, if you have children in this state and want them to have educational opportunities for higher education, we've got the basis covered.  Let's say you're a Hawk fan, but you have a child who wants to be a Materials Engineer, or study Graphic Design, or Landscape Architecture -- it's a great thing that there's a world class university within this state's borders that your child could attend to study these programs under some of the best in these fields anywhere.

Despite all the advantages, opportunities, and pride that our wonderful regent universities offer this state, some Hawkeye fans are frothing at the mouth to take Iowa State University down a peg and see ISU's relevance in the national stage of collegiate athletics diminished.  I've seen normally rational Hawkeye fans -- Hawk fans with children -- excited about their belief that ISU could drop to a lesser conference.

(Let me be clear -- I believe Iowa State University will come out of this conference shake up just fine -- and likely maintain their BCS affiliation to boot.)

However, if ISU does fall out of a major conference and is relegated to the "have-nots" of college athletics, this will have a negative effect not only on the future of Iowa State's athletics, but their academics as well.  If you don't believe that athletics has an effect on the rest of the university's programs like academics, the ability to attract and retain top professors, and the ability to attract students and enrollment -- then why else do you think college athletics exist?  If college athletics can have a positive effect on the university, then it most certainly can have negative benefits too.

ISU's enrollment would certainly take a hit if they were no longer in a BCS conference.  The ability to attract out of state students and professors would be very difficult if they had no longer seen or heard of ISU on TV or as part of a major conference.  The reduced funding coming in may result in more athletics programs being cut -- and thus fewer academic opportunities for those who receive scholarships in those sports that are cut.

Let's go back to the Hawk fan I mentioned -- with a young child -- who was frothing at the idea of Iowa State University being relegated to a minor conference.  What if his child grows up and wants to be a Landscape Architect, a Veterinarian, an Engineer?  What if ISU is forced to cut these programs due to declining enrollment and now she would have to go out of state to study this program?  Hawk fan's inability to separate athletics rivalry from academic opportunity will now cost him easily three times as much in tuition to send his daughter out of state, and who's to say that out of state school will offer programs as highly ranked as Iowa State's are now?

Like I said at the outset -- I am all for talking smack, athletics rivalry and having fun with it.  However, the possibility of Iowa State University being relegated to a minor conference is something that will have far reaching implications for ALL Iowans -- fewer educational opportunities available for those growing up in the state, less research being done, and diminished services being offered by the Iowa State University Extention, too.

Believe me, as an Iowa State superfan, I want to see Iowa and UNI lose every single game they play.  However, I absolutely never, ever, ever would want ANYTHING to happen that would result in Iowa or UNI's academic programs or opportunities being diminished.  I am proud as an Iowan of our educational system, and if I have children in this state in the future, I certainly would not cheer for anything that would limit their future opportunities.  If my child grew up and wanted to be a writer, I would not hesitate to send them to the University of Iowa.  If my child grew up and wanted to be an accountant, I would not hesitate to send them to the University of Northern Iowa.  If anything had the potential to derail those academic programs, I would be heavily against whatever the threat was to those schools.

Iowa and UNI fans: go ahead and cheer against Iowa State every game.  Make fun of Ames, make fun of our limited success in football all you want.  However, it is in our best interest as Iowans to have three powerful, successful, and strong institutions of higher learning.  Separate the athletics rivalry from academic opportunities and let's all hope that ISU comes out strong on the other side.  It's in EVERY IOWAN's best interest.

Predictions score card!

We're now basking in the afterglow of WWDC 2010, and what a doozy!  Let's break down how my predictions came out:

Nailed it:

• I said iPhone OS 4.0 Golden Master would be released to developers tomorrow.  I was right on the money here.  Of course, I also said Scott Forstall would announce it, but it did happen.
• I predicted they'd have two or three developers take the stage and give demos.
• Steve did make wise-crack references to the stolen iPhone 4 prototype.
• I nailed most of the features of iPhone 4 correctly -- and the one that didn't pan out -- touch sensitive rear casing, I mentioned I was skeptical on it.
• I didn't think we'd hear anything about a CDMA iPhone tomorrow.

Kinda got it right:

• Safari 5 and Xcode 4 were both released yesterday, they just weren't talked about at the keynote.  I don't consider this a complete miss since they still happened, but it's a miss in that they 

A swing and a miss:

• Magic trackpad?  I should've realized how dead simple this would be to Photoshop and been more skeptical.  However, in recent announcements, leak that come the day of the announcement have traditionally been legit.  Regardless, I jumped on the bangwagon full force on this one and was DEAD wrong.
• MobileMe tiering?  I didn't talk about this like a lead pipe lock, but I did go to the trouble of describing Phil Schiller taking the stage to talk about it, and it didn't remotely happen.

I have to admit I was honestly surprised at how long they talked about the new iPhone 4.  I think it's clear that this is the biggest quantum leap forward since the original iPhone and it is a MAJOR update, so it's obvious now (in hindsight) why they wanted to spend so much time talking about it.

WWDC 2010 predictions

Following technology is a passion of mine, and in particular, following Apple Inc.  I think I have developed a pretty good understanding of things Apple will do versus things Apple won't do.  It is amazing how difficult some people make that task out to be -- but then again, maybe they don't follow Apple near-obsessively like I do.  Anyways, I like to test my predictions versus what will actually happen, to see how well I have my fingers on the pulse.  With all that said, let's get to the meat of it!

The keynote presentation begins at 12:00 PM central time tomorrow, Monday, June 7th.

Steve Jobs will take the stage to thunderous applause right on time, like he always does wearing a black mock turtleneck, Levi's jeans, and tennis shoes.  He'll start his presentation by discussing numbers -- the latest sales numbers and marketshare for Mac OS, iPhone OS, new Apple Retail store openings, and any other interesting numbers.

After the initial numbers are out there (I'm guessing about 2.3-2.5 million iPads sold, by the way), Steve will move quickly to new hardware.  I can see Steve Jobs announcing an updated MacBook Air and Mac Pros here before he hands it off to Scott Forstall.  However, I'm not 100% convinced this is in the cards.  He may just move straight to Forstall and there won't be any new Mac hardware announced.  I tend to think we won't see new hardware, just because I think there's enough other stuff to fill the keynote.  

Scott will take the stage and quickly recap the new features of iPhone OS 4.0.  He'll invite 2-3 developers up on stage to demonstrate their latest apps that take advantage of iPhone OS 4.0 technologies.  This will drag on far too long, of course.  After the presentations, he'll announce that the Golden Master (final code) of iPhone OS 4.0 is available TODAY on the developer's website.  I imagine Jobs will also have Forstall talk about the new release of Xcode 4.0 for a bit before Scott hands things back to Jobs.  I do think we'll see Xcode 4.0 tomorrow -- and seeing how this is a DEVELOPER'S conference, this would be the perfect place to unveil it.

Steve will re-take the stage, and he'll introduce Safari 5.  Safari Reader, better performance, Bing integration, a few other new features.  Jobs then hands the microphone off to Phil Schiller, Senior Vice President of Marketing.

Phil Schiller takes the microphone and introduces a few new updates to MobileMe.  I think we may see some sort of tiered service with some free options, a cheaper option, and a premium option that all current subscribers will be moved to.  I have no idea how the new service will be partitioned, but if I had to guess -- basic syncing will be offered for free, and email / storage / web-hosting will be saved for the paid services.

After Phil, Steve will came back onstage make a wise-crack or two about the iPhone prototype being stolen / lost.  After that, it's the big reveal and iPhone HD (I don't think this will be the final name, but I will refer to it as that from here on out for clarity's sake) will be officially unveiled.

We know most of the details about the hardware already, but what we know nothing about is the software.  I think this is where Apple may have a trick or two up their collective sleeves'.  However, first, you've got to talk about the hardware.  Here's what we'll see (for those of you unfamiliar with the leaked info):

* Double resolution screen (960x640)

* Bigger battery / SIGNIFICANTLY better battery life

* 5 megapixel rear camera with LED flash, and ability to record 720p High-Def video

* Front-facing camera for some sort of video chat

* Touch sensitive rear casing (I'm not 100% convinced about this, but this may be why the back is flat again)

* Apple developed CPU (A4?  A5?)

Now, what will we see in the software beyond what has already been announced for iPhone OS 4?

* Video chat / iChat -- this one is a no-brainer.  We've seen a TON of evidence to its inclusion already, and the hardware indicates it as well.  I wonder if this iChat app will also include textual IM functionality as well, or if Apple will leave that to the established developers.  It'll be interesting.

* Wi-Fi "hotspot" tethering -- we've seen this on a few other phones, and I am convinced we'll see this on the new iPhone as well.  You'll be able to share your Internet connection from your phone with a few other Wi-Fi devices nearby.  In the past, tethering was only supported via Bluetooth or USB cable.  

* Some sort of "big deal" feature -- I really don't know what else we'll see, but I have a suspicion that Jobs & Co. have something big planned to take some of the air out of Google's latest announcements.  Remember, when the 3GS was announced, there were a few new features that weren't included in the OS 3.0 announcement a few months prior.  Maybe something clever utilizing the touch sensitive casing on the back.

* CDMA iPhone?  Everyone wants to know about the Verizon iPhone.  I have a suspicion that the Apple / AT&T relationship has just recently soured.  It seems awfully peculiar for AT&T to back out on their promise of unlimited data for the iPad just mere months after it was originally announced.  I think the deal went something like this: AT&T told Apple they would only continue offering unlimited data if Apple continued their exclusive deal with AT&T or re-signed it.  When Apple refused, AT&T changed their plan offerings instead. 

Could we see a CDMA iPhone announced?  (CDMA is the technology that Sprint and Verizon both use)  It's certainly possible, but I still think the chances of it happening tomorrow are 25% at best.  Perhaps those chances will increase as we approached Apple's usual September iPod announcement.

However, let me say this -- if Apple were to announce a CDMA iPhone, I have a suspicion that Verizon won't be the only beneficiary.  Let me explain -- the GSM iPhone is certainly not going anywhere.  That's the iPhone that Apple sells to the rest of the world.  As long as Apple makes one, they may as well sell one here under AT&T.  So, a CDMA iPhone would indicate the end of AT&T's exclusive deal in the United States.  If the exclusive is no longer in effect, Apple can be on as many providers as they want.  Verizon is the obvious name in all of this, but the fact of the matter that Apple can easily sell the EXACT SAME PHONE to Sprint as well.  If they can sell the same phone to two providers, and they aren't under any exclusive, I can think of absolutely zero reason why they wouldn't.  Therefore, I think whenever a CDMA iPhone does show up, we'll see it on Verizon *AND* Sprint.

EDIT: I am updating my predictions using the intelligence from the leaked photos of the Magic Trackpad from Engadget.  The rest of the text remains unaltered.

After that, we'll have "one more thing".  Steve will then introduce the Magic Trackpad, a Bluetooth device that connects to your Mac and lets you control the User Interface via a glass, multi-touch trackpad like you would on your laptop.

Let's recap:

Things we WILL see:

* New iPhone

* iPhone OS 4.0 goes final

* Safari 5

* Xcode 4
* Magic Trackpad

Things we LIKELY COULD see:

* New MobileMe tiered service / options

* New Mac hardware like MacBook Air updates or Mac Pro updates

Things that are possible, but I still think are unlikely:

* CDMA iPhone hardware

* iPhone OS 4.0 for iPad preview

Things we WON'T see:

* Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" -- I think we'll see a lot of emphasis on this at WWDC 2011.  Not this year.  This is the year of iPhone OS.

* Apple TV updates

* iTunes updates (like cloud-based iTunes)

* iPod updates (these are always in September)

Last thoughts on college basketball

Welcome to Iowa City, Coach Fran.  Seriously, it really is a hoops town!

I've heard a lot about how Coach Fran plays an "up-tempo style" and how that's going to really help fill seats in Carver-Hawkeye Arena.  Really?  Seriously?  Look, we hear this phrase every time a new coach is trotted out somewhere, as a reason why things will be better and fans should / will come out this time.

Let's say a theoretical Hawk fan and his wife are sitting in their residence one night debating about whether or not to go to tonight's basketball game.  They can't really decide whether or not they want to go, and finally hubby says, "But Coach Fran plays a really up-tempo style!  It'll be FUN!"  Is that going to magically sell Wifey on going to the game?  Would those words every really come out of hubby's mouth?  Of course not.  This is ridiculous.

Tim Floyd coaches the most boring brand of basketball in the country.  Disciplined.  Suffocating defense.  Smart shot selection.  People came out to see him anyway -- and you know why?  The dude won basketball games and a lot of them.  Outside of a few diehard basketball fanatics, people don't care about the STYLE, they care about one thing -- wins.

Heck, look at Iowa's very own football team.  Iowa football isn't about flashiness, or style-over-substance, it's about a bunch of blue collar guys who work hard in the weight room and want it more than the guy on the other side.  They play tenacious defense, they value the football, and they play slow, methodical offense.  They play BORING Big Ten football.  Guess what?  They also win a heck of a lot of games, and 70,000 show up every week.

So enough about Coach Fran's style, or "up-tempo" or whatever.  That is a bullshit argument.  There's only one style or tempo that average fans care about -- and that's the Win/Loss column.  I said in my last post that I think Coach Fran is a good hire and I will be watching the situation in Iowa City from afar with some interest -- particular on Margie McCaffery -- they're either going to love her in Iowa City or hate her.  Or maybe, if it's like the last regime, they'll say, "Who?"

College Basketball in the state of Iowa

A public regent university in the state of Iowa hired a new basketball coach a few years ago.  He had experienced tremendous success at every coaching stop along the way -- including leading his mid-major program to the NCAA Tournament.  He was considered a genuine, good guy, with good values that fit in with the people of Iowa.  When he arrived at the university in a major BCS conference, he did not experience major success right away.  In fact, he had some on-the-job training to do in order to learn the kind of players he would need to recruit to be successful at the highest levels of college basketball.  He also had major problems with attrition in the off-season -- it seemed like every year, players were jumping ship to go elsewhere.

Who am I describing?  Trick question.  I intentionally wrote that last paragraph to describe two people with a lot of similarities: Todd Lickliter, and Greg McDermott.  There's one major difference: Greg McDermott still has his job, and Lickliter does not.

When Todd Lickliter was first announced as the head coach at the University of Iowa -- I'll admit -- I was scared.  Steve Alford was the best thing to ever happen to Iowa State fans everywhere -- he had an abrasive personality that turned Iowa fans off of basketball, and his only strong suit seemed to be an ability to upset the Big Ten tournament as a numerically higher seed.  (As an aside, that's always such a clunky thing to write when describing seeding -- yes, the number of the seed is higher, but the prestige is lower.  I initially wanted to write a lower seed, but that's technically wrong.)

Back to Lickliter -- I was actually quite scared of the hire.  Here comes a proven winner who had experienced success on every level with a quiet, respectful, and likable personality.  Iowa fans hated Alford with a passion -- and this new guy is the polar opposite of Alford -- he's a hard guy not to like!  Sure, Lickliter is dull as dishwater, but so is Saint Kirk Ferentz, and Hawk fans love him.

Alford had dug a bigger hole than anyone had thought.  Despite having a likable guy roaming the sidelines at Carver-Hawkeye Arena, Hawks fans stayed away in record numbers.  I didn't get it then and I don't get it now.  It seemed like Lickliter never got a fighting chance at Iowa.  Hawks fans hated Alford -- okay, so we'll bring in a different personality -- but the fans still didn't come.

Look, I get it -- it's hard to get fired up about a poor athletic product, but sometimes you need to show support for your coach, your school, and student-athletes who BUST THEIR ASS EVERY DAY regardless of wins or losses (Iowa State fans have been doing this for years!)  But, let's realize one simple point -- these aren't professionals getting paid millions of dollars -- these are KIDS.  Kids who have to fly back from an ass-whupping in East Lansing, Michigan on Wednesday night, then wake up the next day to take an exam.  The fact that 70,000 people will pack the stands at Kinnick Stadium every weekend, but not even 1-in-14 will attend a game at Carver-Hawkeye Arena is truly sad.  Isn't that INSANE?  If you lined up 14 Hawk fans at a football game, only ONE of them would attend an average Men's Basketball game (I realize the average attendance is higher than 5,000 -- but let's be honest -- there was not a single game with 5k all year).

Was Lickliter going to get it done at Iowa?  I am not sure whether he would have or not, but I can say this for sure from an outsider's perspective -- he deserved more time and more support than he got.  A lot more support and at least one more year.

Let's go back to my original point I made -- where I described Greg McDermott and Todd Lickliter in the opening paragraph.  I pointed out that McDermott still had a job and Lickliter does not.  Even more interesting is this -- Iowa State's season could be considered a tremendous disappointment based on the expectations for the season, whereas Iowa's season was almost exactly what was expected.  Yet, the guy who did not meet expectations still has a job, and the guy who delivered what was expected does not.

At the end of the day, the difference comes down to fan support.  Iowa State fans still showed up.  Iowa fans didn't.  I think Gary Barta was put into a corner where he had no choice -- there was no fan support left, and no reason to think that things were going to improve next year.  It was an absolute embarrassment to Iowa how empty the stands were at Carver-Hawkeye Arena, both from the TV perspective as well as a financial perspective.  A change had to be made.

After a few public and rumored rejections, Gary Barta got his man.  I think Fran McCaffery is a hell of a coach, too.  However, it sure sounds like a lot more of the same that Iowa had with Lickliter.  Great guy, mid-major coach, NCAA tournaments, blah blah blah.  I think McCaffery can be successful, but let's be honest -- I don't think he was in Gary Barta's top five.  Barta's not stupid -- he knew darn well that the ideal move would be to throw a pile of cash at a proven BCS coach with a big name.  That didn't happen.  Had that happened, it would've brought the fence-sitter fans back to Carver, which is exactly what they needed.  Unfortunately, Iowa fans have demonstrated a "win first and THEN we'll come" attitude, which doesn't bode well for McCaffery.  As a fan of college basketball, it pains me to see Iowa struggling so bad.  Obviously, I'd prefer Iowa State to be the dominant team in the state, but having good teams around the state is better for everyone.  

Let me be clear -- I am not blaming the failure of Todd Lickliter to win games as being solely on the fans.  Better fan support certainly did not lead Greg McDermott win any more conference games than Lickliter.    At the end of the day, the coach is responsible for identifying, recruiting, and retaining talent, and Lickliter struggled to do that.

However, fan support DOES matter.  It matters to recruits and it can certainly give you a home court advantage.  If the fans don't show up, it makes it that much harder for Coach McCaffery to sell recruits on playing for Iowa -- who wants to play in front of a 25% full arena?  If the fans don't care, why should the recruits?

Not only does it affect recruiting, but it also affects home court advantage.  Getting a few key upsets early in the McCaffery era would certainly help get folks excited about Iowa basketball again.  A packed Carver-Hawkeye Arena makes those upsets go.

Again, it's on the coach to recruit players that can win and to put an exciting product on the floor.  I think McCaffery is capable of doing that -- but only with some fan support at the same time.  If Hawks fans continue to demand W's before they'll get behind their team, they may just find themselves in the same position three years from now.  A little faith now could pay some huge dividends later.

Will the Hawk fans support Coach McCaffery sight unseen?  That's the million dollar question.

As for Iowa State basketball...

First, hats off to the Iowa State women's basketball team for reaching their second consecutive Sweet Sixteen.  Bill Fennelly has built a consistent winner in Ames, and certainly does not receive enough credit for it.  Did you know that Iowa State ranks THIRD in the nation in average home attendance?  The only two schools who have better attendance?  UConn and Tennessee.  Folks in Ames love their basketball -- whether it's the ladies or the men.

Iowa State ran into one of the best teams in the history of any sport in this year's UConn team.  Seriously.  It's absolutely ridiculous how good UConn is.  Yes, the ISU women got beat soundly today, but they should be proud of their accomplishments -- this team was not expected to go much beyond the NCAA First or Second round and instead they reached the Sweet Sixteen and finished 2nd in the best women's basketball conference in the country.  The future for the Twister Sisters is bright, indeed.

There's something about McDermott...

While Iowa was firing Lickliter after his 3rd season, ISU AD Jamie Pollard chose to retain Greg McDermott after his 4th season in Ames.  ISU's season was certainly a disappointing one, but the fan support remained strong throughout -- and that was the major difference between the positions that Pollard and Barta found themselves in.

Barta had to make a move with the tepid support Lickliter received.  Pollard at least has the opportunity to "circle the wagons" so to speak with McDermott.  Right now there's certainly a portion of the ISU fanbase that has seen enough of the McDermott era, and there's another portion who thinks he deserves at least one more year.

I think Pollard's decision is a wise one -- if McDermott's club stinks again next year and players jump ship left and right, the fanbase will reach a natural consensus and the choice will be made clear.  Right now, any decision (whether to keep Greg or send him packing) would piss off about half the fanbase.  Next year, the answer should be made clearer.

The problem with a decision on McDermott is that he's the kind of guy everyone is rooting for.  He's a native Iowan, a great father, a great teacher, and he is doing things "the right way".  There's not a person out there who doesn't want McDermott to be successful at Iowa State.  We'll all pulling for him so hard to do what he's done at every stop along the way.  Let's face it -- this guy has won at every level he's been at, save for his current stop.  He didn't suddenly forget how to coach or how to teach.  He's been dealt more his share of bad fortune, and he's had his share of recruiting misses too.

I want nothing more than for McDermott to finally turn the corner next year and to start making at least some noise in the Big 12.  Every major losing streak came to an end with that win in Manhattan, Kansas at the end of the Big 12 regular season.  ISU can start next season without any major negative streaks hanging over their heads and can just focus on winning ball games.

One way or the other, I look for the McDermott situation to become crystal clear come March 2011.  His fate will be clearly sealed by the time the horn sounds on ISU's last game.  If he's staying, hopefully that horn sounds at the end of a deep NIT run or an NCAA Tournament game.  If he's gone, it'll be another first round exit in the Big 12 Tournament.  Either way, I think the fanbase will mostly feel the same way on what will happen.

Either way, the one thing I am most proud of as a Cyclone fan is that win or lose, Hilton Coliseum will be packed with some of the loudest, noisiest, and most passionate basketball fans in the country.  If McDermott fails, it won't be from lack of support.

Looking back on Da Coww Farm... one decade later

Today, as we approach the 10th anniversary of Da Coww Farm's demise in late Spring 2000, I think it's important that we look back and reflect.  Those of you that remember DCF will enjoy the look back down memory lane, and those of you that had never heard of DCF may find what's ahead interesting (or more likely... not at all).  DCF was shot down in a blaze of glory during its prime, leaving nothing but apologies where a vibrant and innovative site had once stood.

While some mistakes were made and poor choices made, the fact remains that DCF was truly, in every sense of the tired phrase, ahead of its time.  Today, let's reflect on the legacy that Da Coww Farm left behind in both positive and negative fashion.

Before we can truly remember DCF, I think it's important to set the scene.  Let's hop in the DeLorean kids, and travel back to 1999.  

In the summer of 1999... Star Wars: Episode I was tearing up the box office, the Sega Dreamcast hadn't yet arrived stateside (the PS2 hadn't even been announced yet!), Bill Clinton was still the president, I was entering my sophomore year at Washington High School, and my brother and his friends were entering 8th grade at Franklin Middle School.  TCI was in the process of rolling out the @Home cable modem service across Cedar Rapids, DVD had yet to really gain mainstream acceptance (VHS was still popular!), and the Carmike Wynnsong 12 was the newest theater in town.

Are you feeling like you're back in 1999 yet?  Windows XP had yet to be introduced, Mac OS X had yet to be introduced, and the iPod was over two years away from being announced.  Cell phones wouldn't even have COLOR SCREENS for another 3 years.  The RoughRiders had yet to play their first game in Cedar Rapids.  New Veterans Memorial Stadium in CR was three years away from opening.  You get the idea.

So now that we're officially in the 1999 frame of mind, let me answer the question that some of you may be wondering: what the heck is (or was) Da Coww Farm?  The answer to that is simply put in today's lingo -- Da Coww Farm was a blog.  Maybe one of the first blogs run by anyone in the city of Cedar Rapids.  I even referenced this in the tagline for this very blog -- "back before anyone knew what a blog was, I was writing one."  (My contribution to DCF was mostly as an advisory role, but I did contribute posts occasionally under a few aliases)

In those days, blogs were called E/N pages, which stood for "Everything/Nothing".  These pages were about everything, and they were about nothing.  While today blogs often focus on certain topics or themes, the first blogs were about almost anything the author(s) found interesting or worthy of sharing with their readership.  Some blogs are still like this today (like this one!)

So how was DCF truly born?  Zach and his friends were always talented writers who loved technology and humor and loved playing to an audience.  I don't remember the exact order of events that led to DCF being created, but I do remember a few key components of its creation.

First off, the inspiration for starting an E/N page was derived almost exclusively from a web developer at Blizzard Entertainment named Geoff Frazier.  Mr. Frazier had run his own E/N page for several months prior to DCF being started.  He'd rant, give opinions, review movies, and post interesting links.  In fact, a lot of the fonts and colors at DCF were quite similar to the format that he had been using.  We found it clean and very readable, so we didn't want to mess with a good thing.

The name of the page came from my brother's screen name at the time -- CowwTipper.  The feeling was that a lot of folks from outside this state viewed Iowans as those who tipped over cows to have a good time.  The screen name CowTipper was taken, so the extra 'W' was added, which of course was carried over to the website's name.

Zach and his closest friend, Nick, were the two original writers on Da Coww Farm.  They wrote reviews of recent movies they'd seen, ragged on pointless ESPN shows like HorseWorld -- a show dedicated to (what else?) horse racing, and shared favorite links.  The page was updated multiple times daily, and grew to have a very dedicated readership.

Later, Nick and Zach would bring in their friends Carl and Chad to contribute to the page as well.  Carl brought a different viewpoint to the table, while Chad brought comedy.  They also brought in a friend named Whitney to write a gossip page.  At the page's peak, there were more unique visitors daily than the entire 8th grade at their school.  The page's appeal had grown well beyond just their peer group in a quick fashion.

While sometimes the page would take a tone toward subjects that perhaps 8th graders shouldn't be publicly broadcasting or using curse words more often than necessary... overall it was refreshing to see young kids valuing written content and producing their own.  Particularly given the atmosphere at the time toward distrust and skepticism on the Internet by adults.  Most adults still didn't "understand this Internet thing" and felt like if you posted your name on the Internet that evil Praetorian hackers were going to steal your identity like Sandra Bullock in The Net.

Heck, the concept and acceptance of a blog even among Internet types was non-existant.  Despite a complete lack of understanding and support, these four guys built a page with compelling content that attracted a wide range of readers.

Their downfall came when they started to abuse their newfound media outlet for teasing others.  As mentioned earlier, they had brought in Whitney to write a gossip column on occasion.  When those gossip updates slowed, they looked to other ways to keep the gossip coming.  We developed a form for people to submit gossip anonymously.  The anonymous gossip would be posted with sarcastic responses from the contributors, often times mean or hurtful things.

These guys had acted beyond their years and ahead of the times in so many ways with this page, but in the end, they showed their actual age.  Bashing other kids on the Internet was a pretty low move, and they paid the price.

The school got involved, and all of the boys were called to the principal's office one fateful day in the Spring of 2000.  Parents were called, apologies were demanded and written.  Here's how Da Coww Farm looked after the apologies were posted:

DCF Apologizes

I also think it's bullshit (cursing absolutely necessary) that the school got involved in this.  None of these guys had ANYTHING to do with the site during the school day.  They did not view the site, update the site, or touch the site from school.  They didn't talk about school, threaten the school, or otherwise bring it up in any way, shape, or form.  So where the school got off talking to parents about something their kids were doing FROM HOME that didn't involve the school was beyond me.

I'm not saying what they were doing was right (making fun of other kids), but if a parent was concerned, they should've called my parents and dealt with it outside of school.  If two kids got together at a non-school sponsored event and one kid teased another, would the parents still call up the school?  I'd hope not, but I guess I can't say for sure.

While it's true that posting insults about others was not their finest hour, I feel like it's important that we recognize and honor the authors of DCF for blazing the path for others to follow.  Social media is a hot buzzword today, and Zach, Carl, Nick, and Chad *WERE* social media for their peer group a decade ago.

It's a shame that the Internet Archive was unable to save a copy of DCF during its heyday.  We don't have any of the original posts that graced DCF, but we do have the memories.

About a year after the shut down of DCF, we attempted to re-launch DCF.  The re-launch never really took off, but you can view those posts here:  DCF in mid-2001

DCF also spawned several spin-off blogs, the most successful of which was Big Boy Productions, a blog that boasted contributors spanning 3 different grade levels at our high school.  Big Boy Productions would've never come into existence if it weren't for DCF.

Finally, the last blog to follow up Big Boy Productions was The Job Squad, a short-lived blog.

DCF left a long legacy after its untimely demise.  However, today, I come not to denigrate DCF for its demise, but to praise DCF for its innovation, forward-thinking, and for standing out.

Thanks to Zach, Nick, Carl, and Chad for having the guts to put their thoughts, feelings, and ideas on the Internet long before it became the thing to do.  You guys were truly pioneers and it was an absolute pleasure to be part of the DCF team.

Newsflash: the iPhone won't be the best-selling smartphone

My cousin just linked this article on Facebook, and I read it and felt it deserved a response:
Android Or iPhone? Wrong Question

The gist of the article is that Google's Android strategy is obviously the best and they're going to dominate the Smartphone market and make Microsoft-y pools of money that Sergei Brin, Larry Page, and Eric Schmidt can all dive into Scrooge McDuck style.

It's a good article, but I think it makes a mostly obvious point. I don't know if I've ever heard it argued (intelligently) that Apple is trying to sell the most phones -- or even that they will -- they're just trying to sell the best (in their opinion) phones. To trot out a very tired car analogy (but still a good one), BMW or Mercedes-Benz aren't trying to sell the most cars -- they leave that to Toyota or GM. They're trying to sell the best cars in the portion of the market in which they compete. No one is going to write an article declaring that -- gasp -- BMW doesn't have a strategy to sell the most sedans and play it off like it's news or surprising. Yet, here we are, with an article declaring it as surprising that Apple's strategy isn't going to sell the most smartphones.

For some reason, people can wrap their heads around this strategy in nearly every product category, but can't when it comes to Apple. To understand how ludicrous it can be, let's stay with the car analogy for a second. Let's say a financial analyst who follows the auto industry declares that, "Mercedes-Benz needs to release an under $10,000 sub-compact car or else they're going to get killed by Kia and Chevy -- who both make sub-compact cars for under $10,000."

Can you even comprehend the concept of a 98 horsepower Mercedes-Benz sub-compact car to compete with the Chevy Aveo? Of course not! It's insane to even consider. It would destroy the value of the Mercedes-Benz brand. Let's be honest here -- some folks buy a Benz for the sole purpose of being able to say that they drive one -- for the prestige. How likely do you think they will be to buy another Benz in the future if someone can get one for less than $10k? Not very. BMW and Lexus would be ecstatic if that were to ever happen.

Yet, analysts were coming out of the wazoo saying that Apple needed to release a netbook. A piece of plastic-y shit with a cramped keyboard, junk screen, and slow processor is going to convince people that Apple is the way to go? Uh, no. Apple refused to release a netbook, and analysts declared that they were going to get killed in the market by netbooks.

Instead, Apple has had their BEST-EVER financials in EVERY quarter since then, steadily increasing their market share. Those analysts sure had it right!

Yet, here are we again with someone declaring that Apple's not going to dominate the smartphone market, as though it's news. Well, color me surprised, because I never thought -- nor hoped -- that Apple would be the number one smartphone maker.


The only product category I can think of where Apple is the clear-cut market leader is the MP3 player market. That's less a function of Apple running a different strategy to become the market leader, and more because the competition was so absolutely inept when it came to making an easy-to-use, attractive, and functional product that Apple was ceded that market almost by default. Apple didn't do anything different with the iPod versus any other market they competed in, the market just reacted differently. The iPod has never been the cheapest, but the experience was far superior. When the market was in a growth state, the iPod / iTunes / iTunes Store ecosystem was light years beyond anything else available. Competition has caught up now, but it's too late -- the iPod and iTunes are well-known brands, everyone knows how to use iTunes, plus many folks have bought songs from the iTunes Store and are locked in.


The competition is MUCH stronger in the smartphone market, with two strong competitors in Google and Palm -- with Palm taking an Apple-like approach (integration), and Google taking a Microsoft-like approach (leave the hardware to others). Apple will never dominate the smartphone market like they do the MP3 player market, and I think they're very aware of that fact. The competition is too strong, and they have a limited addressable audience with the AT&T exclusive deal (which I expect will stay in place well into the future). Whether or not Apple sells the most smartphones seems to be somewhat irrelevant -- it's not their strategy to begin with. Their financials sure seem to be doing okay in spite of this fact.

Why the obsession with best-selling, anyway?

If best-selling was equivalent to best...

... Microsoft Windows is the best OS

... the Toyota Camry is the best car

... Wal-Mart is the best place to shop

... Avatar is the best movie ever made (and Titanic is the second best)

... Cable TV is better than Satellite TV

... the Ford F-150 has been the best truck every year for the past 30+ years

... Applebee's is the best restaurant ever

... McDonald's hamburgers are the best hamburgers ever

and so on and so on.

Look, if Android wants to be the best-selling smartphone platform, go right ahead.

I'll keep using my iPhone, even if it's not the best-selling and most popular.

I'll keep using my Mac, even if it's not the best-selling and most popular.

I'll keep watching my DirecTV, even if more people have Mediacom cable around here.

I'll keep watching IndyCar racing, even if more people watch NASCAR.

I'll keep going to local restuarants, even if Applebee's has a full parking lot every night.

I'll keep cheering for the Cyclones, even if more people in this state cheer for the Hawkeyes.

Growing up, The Bruce said something to me that has stuck with me:

"What's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular."

Ain't that the truth.

Who dat?

Just had to say it:  Go Colts.  :)

Thoughts on the iPad

Ever since the iPad was introduced on Wednesday, I've been chewing on it.  I've digested all the media I could find on the topic: I watched the keynote presentation, read the blogs, and checked out Apple's site.  I'm usually able to quickly make a decision on Apple products' prospects, but with the iPad, I'm still not sure.

While everyone remembers the blockbuster introduction of the iPhone, it's amazing how quickly we forget about Apple products that were universally panned by geniuses on the Internet, only to go on to become absolute sensations.

• The original iMac was largely criticized because it did not have a floppy drive, and dropped legacy ports like ADB (Apple Desktop Bus).  However, people wanted a simple, all-in-one computer that was attractive and easy to set up.  The iMac was an overnight success and saved Apple from bankruptcy.
• The original iPod was criticized because it was Mac only and cost more money for less storage than other MP3 players.  They sold like crazy and changed the entire music industry forever.  People were willing to trade storage capacity for an attractive, sleek product that was easy to use.  The other devices were nowhere near as easy to sync or use as the iPod.
• The iPod nano was introduced during the height of the success of the iPod mini.  Again, the smartypants on the Internet declared that people wouldn't pay the same amount of money for less storage.  The iPod nano quickly made people forget all about the iPod mini and became the best selling iPod of all time.  Sex sells and the sleek nano was much more attractive than the chubby mini -- and the flash storage as opposed to a mechanical hard drive was a great sell for runners and athletes.
• Heck, even the iPhone was panned for being too expensive, for lacking features like cut and paste, corporate email, and 3rd party applications.  The list of people predicting the iPhone would bomb is a mile and a half long. Today, Apple sells more mobile devices than any other company on the planet.  The iPhone is being used or piloted in 70 of the Fortune 100 largest corporations.  The iPhone App Store now boasts over 140,000 apps and over 3 billion downloads.  Somehow, all the Internet wiseguys had it wrong yet again.

Apple's track record, even since Steve Jobs' return is not perfect.  There have been some products that simply weren't successful like the iPod hi-fi or the PowerMac G4 Cube.  The problem with these products were either that they didn't improve on existing products (iPod hi-fi) or they didn't provide value for their cost (PowerMac G4 Cube).  The Cube was one of the most beautiful computers ever designed, but it just didn't provide enough power to justify the cost.  To this day, the Cube is proudly on display at the Smithsonian for being such a great design.  That doesn't change the fact that it didn't sell.

Looking at the track record in the past, it sure looks like Internet know-it-alls are rarely an accurate indicator of a new Apple product's success.  Will the iPad succeed in spite of the pundits or will they be right?  I can't predict the future, but I sure as heck wouldn't bet against Apple -- and I sure as heck wouldn't listen to what all the self-proclaimed Internet gurus or media pundits have to say either.  Those same pundits were saying Apple would price the device at $999, or that an IPS screen wouldn't last longer than 3 hours on a full charge (you can watch VIDEO for up to 10 hours straight on this thing).

Why do people pan, complain, and grouse about products that have consistently ended up being successful anyway?  I have a few theories.

For those who watch Apple's stock (AAPL) on a regular basis, there's an old mantra that says, "Buy on the rumor.  Sell before the announcement."  Swing on over to your favorite financial site if you don't believe me -- sure enough, Apple's stock peaked the day before the announcement and subsequently lost quite a bit of value after Wednesday.

The simple fact of that matter is that no product can ever live up to all the rumors and speculation that the Internet pumps out when it comes to Apple.  Before Apple announced the iPad, how much had they said about the product?  Zero.  Nothing.  Nada.  Not one word was ever released from Apple regarding the iPad until the day they announced it.

When people find out that the iPad is "missing" feature x, they incorrect assume that Apple "removed" it or "left it out".  Given that we have no ability to learn about the development process or the prototypes Apple creates, we don't know if that feature was ever planned for the product or not.  This doesn't stop folks from feeling a tremendous amount of disappointment that the iPad doesn't really contain a rumored feature.  Then they label the announcement a "disappointment", and Wall Street seems to react similarly. It's actually kind of ridiculous if you realize that America's financial system has an ebb and flow based on what is reported on MacRumors.com, but it does.

The rumors may not live up to expectations, but that's only a small part of the issue.  I think another part of the problem is that people can't see the future staring them in the face.  They can't get it.  They can't grasp it.  Just like people screaming bloody murder over a floppy drive!  In 2010, it seems absolutely absurd.  We really got that worked up over floppy drives?  Really?  Yes, people declared the iMac would fail because it didn't have a floppy drive.  That seems humorous today.

There's a third issue in play here too -- enthusiasts in almost any market have a hard time relating to and understanding people who aren't similarly enthusiastic about something.  This is true of almost anything -- home theater, automobiles, computers, even food.

• Food snobs can't understand why some people want meat and potatoes for every meal.
• Automobile snobs can't understand why anyone would want to drive an automatic transmission.
• Home Theater snobs can't understand why people think DVD looks "good enough" or worse, people who buy "full screen" DVDs.
• Mac snobs can't understand why people still buy PCs.
• People who build their own computers can't believe someone would buy a computer from ANY manufacturer.
• And so on...

Computer enthusiasts are declaring the iPad a dud because it doesn't meet their desires for complexity and customization.  The problem is that customization in some cases leads to complexity.

For example, when my mom used to have a Windows PC, she managed her photos through the file system by hand.  She created folders for different events, and dragged and dropped the photos into the appropriate place.  When she wanted to find a particular photo, she had to go through the PC's filesystem to locate the photo she wanted.  She could only search by the event title she had given or the filename of the image.  That's it -- and that's assuming there wasn't a single photo that wasn't categorized incorrectly.

She switched a Mac over a year ago now and uses iPhoto.  If I asked her where her photos live today on her Mac, she'd say, "They're in iPhoto."  She doesn't need to worry about where in a directory structure her photos are physically located on the Mac.  If she did care to find out, she'd find the iPhoto Library package is located in her photos directory.  The iPhoto Library package appears to the casual user as a single file, and that's all they need to care about.  Where are the photos?  They're in your iPhoto Library.

Now of course, it is possible to open up the iPhoto Library and find the individual JPEG files inside of it, but there's no point to doing this.  You see, with iPhoto, an entire layer of abstraction is removed from the user.  Instead, if you want to find photos on iPhoto, you look at them in much more natural ways:

• Who's in the photo?  (Faces)
• Where was the photo taken?  (Places)
• When was the photo taken?  (Events)

Some people have a hard time with this because they say, "Well, what if I need to find the individual JPEG file because I need to do something with it?"  Like what?

• Use it in iDVD, iMovie, or iWeb -- these programs support the iLife media chooser and you can just select the photo from the way your photos are arranged in iPhoto.  Again, the file system is abstracted away from the user.
• Upload it to Flickr/Facebook/MobileMe -- this functionality is built in to iPhoto, so you still don't need to see the original files to upload them to most popular photo sharing websites

If you really want to export the files, you still can and deal with them that way.  However, as much as possible, Apple has attempted to strip away levels of complexity from photo management on your Mac.  By doing this, it has because an entirely more natural way of thinking about and working with your photos -- by looking for them by Who/Where/When instead of "Florida Vacation 034.jpg".

iPhoto is certainly not perfect for all circumstances -- it's buggy, it's slow, and there are some situations in which you just need to export the files to JPEG to work with them.  However, I think the majority of the time, the tradeoff of complexity for ease-of-use is worthwhile.

What does all this have to do with the iPad?

The iPad represents a paradigm shift in computer design where more and more of the arcane intricacies of using a computer are being abstracted away.  This makes things simpler, but with a loss of customization.  John Gruber of DaringFireball.net used an excellent analogy where he compared it to a manual and automatic transmission.

For automobile enthusiasts who still want to have complete and direct control of the vehicle, including gear selection, the manual transmission is great.

For most people that just want to drive the car, and are willing to make some trade-offs like slightly decreased fuel economy, and less control over gear selection -- an automatic transmission abstracts away a level of complexity and makes the car more accessible and easier to use.

I think that's a great analogy with one exception -- the automatic transmission is more mechanically complicated and more difficult to repair and fix than a manual transmission.  Compared to a device like an iPhone or iPad that removes levels of complexity like a file system -- it actually makes the system more reliable, easier to maintain, and easier to fix.

I can think of several people who own iPhones who can barely use a computer, but are absolutely great with the iPhone -- downloading apps, sending pictures, emails, texting, and much more without ANY issues.  I am usually the go-to tech guy to ask questions about things, but I can honestly say I've never gotten a question about the iPhone, even by the most technologically challenged people -- with the exception being, "What are some good apps?"

That's what is going to be so great about the iPad -- where are your iWork documents?  They're in Pages.  They're in Keynote.  They're in Numbers.  You don't have to worry about where in the iPad's filesystem the documents are -- they're just there.

This isn't a perfect situation for everyone -- some people just want to be able to deal with things like this on an intricate level.  They want to see the filesystem.  They want to know what processes are running.  They want to be able to multitask (and I still suspect that's coming).

These are the same people who want to know what kind of hardware is in their computer because they selected every piece by hand.  Or the same people who want to drive a manual transmission because they like to control the car.  That's fine -- it's not like these options are going away.  There will always be an enthusiast market for things.  There will always be manual transmission cars.  There will always be self-built PCs.

The manual transmission was once the dominant kind of car, and now it's a small minority.  So too will this come to pass with computers.  The ability to deal with intricate stuff is going to go away, and systems like the iPad and the iPhone are the future.  Even the Mac as we know it today does not represent the future of computing.

Wow, that was a lot of ideology wasn't it?

In the end, the folks who will be buying this product will buy it if they like the functionality and the feel of the device, and those who feel it's too limited, won't.  I suspect that much like the iPod, and the iMac, the noisy minority who won't buy the product will be over-shadowed by the silent majority who will snap these things up.

I'm going to reserve judgment on the iPad until I have one in my hands.  I am able to separate rumor from reality, I'm able to see the future of computing, and I'm able to realize that enthusiasts in any market are a noisy minority.  I think the product can be a success now and into the future.

Make no mistake, it's not like this is the one and only iPad that Apple will ever release.  Apple has shown a propensity for slow but sure evolution of their products over time.  The iPhone OS and the iPhone hardware have received incremental updates every year in June / July and have eliminated most of the major nitpicks leveled against the iPhone when it was first introduced.  A device that was wholly inappropriate for corporate email upon first release is now being used in over 70% of the top 100 largest companies.

It will be this way with the iPad in the future.  Both the hardware itself, as well as the iPhone OS software will continue to be updated and grown over time.  Even if the device isn't exactly how Apple wants it today, it will be improved over time.  This isn't a product that Apple is releasing on a whim or just to dip a toe in the water -- this is the product that Apple thinks represents the future.

New features and functionality will come when they're ready, and not a second before.  Apple held off on releasing Cut & Paste for the iPhone OS until they had it JUST right, and now they have arguably the best implementation on any smartphone.  

I think Apple really needs to rename the iPhone OS to iPad OS.  It helps fuel the perception that the iPad is just an large iPhone / iPod touch given that it's running iPhone OS.  I think when you really sit down and think about it -- the iPad is the device Apple has been building toward all along.  Think about it!

Do you really think Apple spent all that time developing what is arguably the most sophisticated, advanced, stable, and secure mobile Operating System on the planet to just put it in a phone and an iPod?  Or that they developed one of the most easy-to-use and fully-featured Software Development Kits  around just for a phone?

A great example is the Twitter client called Tweetie.  Tweetie is without question, hands-down, the best Twitter application on the iPhone.  Tweetie has a great interface, great features, and is just a pleasure to use.

Tweetie is also available for the Mac OS, where it's also an excellent app.  However, Tweetie for the Mac is nowhere near as feature-filled or polished, or even as up-to-date as the iPhone app.  The iPhone app for Tweetie is light years beyond the Mac application.

That's just one example -- I could think of several other applications where the same is true in a heartbeat.  Many iPhone applications are better than their Mac equivalents!  That right there is why I'm so excited for the iPad.  I can't even comprehend how amazing a Tweetie app for iPad will be.  Developers are already making great apps for the iPhone, and I can't even imagine what great things they'll be able to do with a much faster CPU and bigger screen.

Sometimes when I'm sitting on the couch at night watching TV, I'll pull out my iPhone, check a few tweets, and read a few webpages.  I don't pull out my MacBook Pro because it's just more convenient to check a few quick things on the iPhone.  It's more intimate and quick.  That's a scenario where I can easily envision myself grabbing the iPad, reading a few tweets and browsing a few webpages -- very similar to what I do on my iPhone now, but with an even more enjoyable experience.

I love Safari on my iPhone, and if Safari on the iPad lives up to what I think it could be -- that right there will be a killer app.  It's just a very intimate and enjoyable experience using MobileSafari on the iPhone.  With more screen real estate and a faster CPU... it should be amazing.

I think Apple gets it -- they have to provide an experience that is better than what you can get on the smartphone or on the laptop.  If they deliver on that promise, I have no doubt the iPad will become a success.

Keep in mind that the original iPhone was not the one that became a sensation -- it was the iPhone 3G that made it huge.  The original iPod wasn't the huge hit either.  It wasn't until the 3rd and 4th generation iPods that things really started rolling.

Apple knows how to build a foundation for a product and build on it.  The iPhone and iPod are absolute juggernauts now, but you would never have known it for the original products in either product line.  It took until the 2nd or 3rd iterations until those products made it huge.  The same may or may not be true with the iPad, but it's something to keep in mind.

The iPad train is coming, and it will change the way we see computers, long-term.  I'd bet on it.

Not all gamblers are degenerates

A couple of folks have either tweeted at me or commented on my Pro Bowl posting saying that gambling isn't a bad thing and I give it a bad name.  I never meant to give gambling a bad name or suggest that I think it's this horribly evil thing.  Betting and gambling are fun, and I see absolutely no problem with it.

When I was talking about degenerate gamblers, I'm specifically talking about those who take it too far.  Not all gamblers are degenerates, in fact, most do it just fine and in moderation.

It would be horribly hypocritical of me to criticize gamblers when I won the Iowa State round of the College Poker Championship a few years ago or turned $20 into over $1000 playing Hold 'Em on the Internet, also many years ago.

When I say a degenerate gambler, I mean the guy who bets on the coin toss at the Super Bowl.  That's the guy who also is putting down $100 on the AFC winning tomorrow.  That's a degenerate.

The NFL Pro Bowl

I was listening to ESPN Radio on my way to work after lunch this afternoon, and Erik Kuselias was filling in on The Herd.  I rarely find myself agreeing with Mr. Kuselias and today was no exception.  I feel like he tries even harder than Colin Cowherd to say outrageous things in order to get people to call in, email, text, whatever.


What he said today seemed pretty normal, but came off as absolutely outrageous to me.  You want to know what he said?  Are you ready for this?  Really?


Mr. Kuselias said, and I quote, "I enjoy the Pro Bowl."  Not even joking.


I have never, ever, ever, in my entire lifetime met a normal person with could say with a straight face that they like the Pro Bowl.


There are only two people who like the Pro Bowl:

1. Degenerate Gamblers
2. Degenerate Football Addicts

I'm not saying someone who likes football and watches it quite a bit.  I'm talking about degenerates with five wall-mounted LCDs for the sole purpose of watching multiple games at once on DirecTV's Sunday Ticket.  I'm talking about the guy who sits at Buffalo Wild Wings from the start of the pre-game show until Sunday Night Football is over.  The guy who actually laughs along with the hearty fake laughter on FOX's NFL Sunday.  That guy likes the Pro Bowl (and he probably bets on it too).

There is only one good all-star game in all of professional sports, and that's the mid-summer classic, the Major League Baseball All-Star Game.

Why is baseball's game the best?

Players play hard on both sides of the ball.  I watched Pedro Martinez throw arguably the best innings of his entire career in the 1999 game.  He was throwing against the best hitters in the entire game, and he made them look downright silly.  Pedro was throwing his best stuff.  He wasn't holding anything back.  Diving catches?  Leaping grabs to save home runs?  Killer defense?  Every year in the all-star game.

Of course, hitters are trying to win the game too.  They're bunting, they're swinging for the fences, they're hitting sacrifice flies, they're taking pitches.  It all comes down to effort, and I can't think of many examples where I'd question someone's effort or motivation in an all-star game.

There's pride for your league.  Baseball has the unique advantage in that players still want to win for their league.  Both leagues want to prove they play the best brand of baseball.  Interleague play has done nothing to diminish league pride -- if anything, it's increased it!

Something's on the line.  The game was great before home-field advantage in the World Series got put on the line, and now it's even better.  The American League has won EVERY year since this rule was put into effect, and yet, the game is still dramatic, heart-stopping, and enjoyable.  The outcome has been in doubt until the bitter end almost every time, but do you think anyone has failed to watch because "the AL is gonna dominate"?  Not so much.

What about the NHL All-Star Game?

If you include this season, and go back to the 5 prior seasons... the NHL All-Star Game has been held 3 out of 6 years.  Any game that is so easily pushed aside is a joke.  Can you believe that?  Because of the lockout, and the subsequent Olympic year (and this year being an Olympic year too), there hasn't been an All-Star Game HALF the time in the last six seasons.

There's no defense, no checking, and no fights.  They've tried many different formats over the years, but have returned to the East versus West format.  Doesn't that instill a huge burst of pride to play for a geography?  Not so much. 

Get this: in the 1992 NHL All-Star Game, there was not a SINGLE penalty called.  I can't even make this stuff up!  

Clearly, the NHL All-Star Game is a joke.  A huge joke.

The NBA All-Star Game isn't so bad, right?

There's one big problem with the NBA's All-Star Game.  The problem?  All-Star Saturday Night is better than the game itself.

What would you rather watch?  The Slam Dunk Contest and the Three Point Shootout?  Or a 150-130 game matching the East versus the West in a race to chuck up uncontested shots and run up and down the court?

I never miss an NBA All-Star Saturday... it's hugely entertaining.  I love the entire event.  I pass on the game itself.  Basketball needs physical defense and contested shots.  It needs fouls, emotion, and tension.  The All-Star game has none of that.

What are the issues with the Pro Bowl?

The Pro Bowl has a lot of the same issues that plague the NHL and NBA all-star games.  There are two issues that no matter what ideas the NFL comes up with will never change:

• There is no pride in playing for the AFC versus the NFC
• No one tackles hard, no one plays defense hard, and the rules force you to play base defense only (no blitzing)

There are some issues that could be changed:

• The game is meaningless
• Several of the elite players in the NFL will not participate and they aren't injured

First off, I think the move away from Hawai'i was a good move.  The Pro Bowl had a wonderful tradition in Hawai'i, but that wonderful tradition was of people not caring about it.     Whether you like the change in time and in venue or not, it has accomplished one thing: people are actually talking about the Pro Bowl.  That's a dramatic change from when most folks thought it was a professional grade toilet cleaner.

The change of venue is good because it makes the game more accessible, and the game will likely be played in front of bigger crowds than at Aloha Stadium.  A bigger crowd helps make events seem more exciting, even if it's a bunch of guys trying to make 60 minutes go by as fast as possible and to avoid hitting each other as much as possible.

The change of time is a really good idea, too.  Football season is something that progressively builds in excitement.  You start with some foreplay (NFL Preseason), then college football starts, with the NFL a week later.  You go through the regular season, and then it's college bowl season.  No sooner does the college bowl season finish then the NFL Playoffs start.  The action builds throughout the playoffs until you reach the climax of the Super Bowl.  And after you've climaxed, there's a refractory period until you're interested in more football again.  Having the Pro Bowl right after the Super Bowl without a refractory period is like... you get the idea.

Putting the Pro Bowl before the Super Bowl is great.  It makes the Pro Bowl part of the build-up to the Super Bowl and makes the Super Bowl the rightful end of all things football.  That's the way things ought to be.

So the timing is better, but it still stinks.  A Pro Bowl without Peyton Manning or Drew Brees?  You mean to tell me that two of the best quarterbacks in the NFL this year won't play a snap in the Pro Bowl and they AREN'T hurt?  That's ridiculous.

The Pro Bowl needs to be moved to shortly after the halfway point of the regular season.  I can even tell you the perfect day to play it.  The Pro Bowl should be played on Thanksgiving Thursday.  I don't see how you can get more perfect than that.  Lose one week of the preseason, move the start of the season back to Labor Day weekend, and take a week off for the Pro Bowl.

For anyone worried about playing a meaningless game on Thanksgiving, the NFL already does this every year on Thanksgiving when the Detroit Lions play.

I even know a way to make the game somewhat meaningful.  The conference that wins the Pro Bowl automatically wins the Super Bowl coin flip to start the game.  This isn't a huge deal by any means, but it's something.

When you're looking at a situation like the Pro Bowl, you have to ignore the things you can't change and work on the things you can change.

Players will never tackle hard.  Defense will never be tenacious.  Offensive sets and plays will be simplistic.  No one wants to get hurt or hurt someone.  No one has time to learn a whole new playbook.

There isn't a lot of conference pride in the NFL, but putting something as simple as the Super Bowl coinflip on the line would be something -- anything -- to play for.  Unless the AFC and NFC start playing intra-conference games a lot less often, and play by different rules, there just isn't going to be that much to differentiate the two.

I think the change of venue and the change of time were a positive step in the right direction for the Pro Bowl.  Move the game to the middle of the season, let all the best players play, put something on the line, and put it in front of a captive audience, and you'd have a product that could be so much more than it is today.

As it is, I certainly won't be watching the Pro Bowl.  This isn't a rare problem, because I won't watch the NBA or NHL All-Star Games either.  I commend Commissioner Goodell to be willing to change the status quo, but there's quite a ways to go.