Review: iPhone 4S

Posted on by
1


This should be a no-brainer. The iPhone 4S rocks, and I don’t care what all of the diehard Apple fans that wanted an iPhone 5 say. Now, I must confess that this is the first Apple product I’ve ever bought. I’ve been a holdout simply because of price, necessity and the fact that I refuse to give in to hype and buy into Apple’s brand identity as the only reason to buy its products.

I’ve been locked into a blood oath with Sprint for as long as I can remember, so until they carried the iPhone I just figured I’d never get one. I’ve had a Samsung Intercept for about 8 months, the second Android phone I owned. Both of those phones gave me nothing but trouble. Granted, they were the John Huntsman of Android phones, but I still expected them to work OK as smart phones. And while we’re all spoiled by the amazing things are phones can do and probably expect too much from them, I was disappointed in both of them.

So, when Apple announced at the iPhone 4S event that Sprint was going to have them — I ordered one on the first available day.

Everything was a breeze right out of the box. Now, this is nothing new to current iPhone 4 owners but I was blown away. Photos, apps, navigation, the really impressive camera; everything just works. Even on Sprint’s 3G network it is super fast, a testament to the internal architecture of Apple’s product. I now realize that the slowness of my Android unit was more the phone model and not Sprint.

So, needless to say I’m now an iPhone convert and will most likely never go back. I’m sure there will be HTC and Samsung devices that will be technically better for a time, but the iPhone seems to make the most sense to me at this point.

I see an iPad in my future.

NOTE: The photo of my iPhone box was the last act of my Samsung Intercept. So long old friend.

The Home Formerly Known As Clifton Terrace

Posted on by
Reply

At a recent mixer of people in our building, Corrie and I learned about the rather storied history of the place we moved into and the two adjacent buildings. Clifton Terrace (now known as Wardman Court) was a drug and crime infested wasteland in area even taxis were afraid to take passengers.

Searching some databases I found some old articles detailing shootings, fires and the several attempts by community groups and eventually the federal government to redeem the place. It eventually worked, obviously, as we live there and the place and surrounding neighborhood now seem pretty safe. But the history fascinating and I’d like to try and find out more about the place, especially photos.

The most notorious gang of the area, the Clifton Terrace University, still exists today. It’s strange to see people walk their dogs in the nice lawn that once was a den of so much violence and crime.

I’ll let this 1987 Washington Post article below sum it up:

Continue reading →

Deus Ex: Human Evolution (Quick) Review

Posted on by
Reply

While I know much of the gaming community is all atwitter about Deus Ex: Human Evolution, I just couldn’t get into it. I’ve never played any of the previous games in the series, so I can’t attest to how well it compares or what have you. BUt for me, this game just didn’t hook me in like it appears to have hooked others.

Basically, I like the idea of the game. The story and characters are rich (if a bit stiff at times) and the multitude of missions and things to do is a welcome relief in an age of linear games with short play times (looking in your direction Force Unleashed II). What I can’t get behind is the playstyle and the execution overall.

I’ve never been a fan of FPS games; they just don’t appeal to me. But it seems this game was forced into that format based on the previous games and the fact that FPS games appear to be the most popular. However, with the heavy emphasis on storyline, the cool augmentations of your character and the multiple styles of play to solve each mission (brute force, hacking or stealth) it seems like this game would be better served in a Metal Gear Solid-style behind-the-character format. While it does switch to that view for taking cover and sneaking behind boxes, the sudden jolts to first-person view are jarring and caused me to die several times on each mission.

I simply don’t get why a game where a major driving plot point is discrimination against those that have been augmented and on the look of body modifications — and whose NPCs constantly react to your characters look — keeps its main character hidden from the player’s view for 80 percent of the game. When the game would suddenly switch to a cut scene it would take me a second to re-acclimate myself to my character and realize I’m not looking at him instead of through him.

For me, it just doesn’t work.

OVERALL: I like the the premise of Deus Ex: Human Revolution but the execution and FPS style turned me off from continuing.

On The Netflix/Qwikster Thing …

Posted on by
Reply

As most of the Internet has heard by now, Netflix is changing its model again, splitting their services into two different entities. Netflix will continue as the streaming service and the DVD rental service (with video games added) will be turned into another site called Qwikster.

*pause for laughter*

Now most everyone has already reacted and voiced opinions of opposition and sentiments of “what the frak is Netflix thinking!?” The Netflix stock is reacting as expected, fluctuating so far but ultimately down.

What I’ve seen from most reaction is people incensed that Netflix isn’t thinking about them, the individual U.S. customer that liked having both options of DVD rental and streaming from one site. And, they’re right. What they fail to understand is that Netflix is not the same company it used to be, and that since the beginning of this debacle that started with the price hike, has not pretended to care (even the email from CEO Reed Hastings seems more like a scolding than an apology) about what U.S. customers want. I emphasize U.S. because I believe that their endgame is making the streaming revenue from outside the U.S. their primary income stream.

Now mind you this assessment and opinion comes from no expertise in business, just a single person’s opinion based on the evidence present.

Netflix recently announced streaming expansion into 43 countries, many of which probably have no competition in this market. The overhead costs for the DVD rental portion of Netflix outweighs the potential benefits. What I think is that they believe offering streaming in so many countries that have limited or zero competition that it will offset the immediate and continued loss of U.S. customers. What’s considered a “limited streaming library” in the U.S. is probably more than what people in Latin America and many other countries being considered currently have any access to. While I’m sure they can broker more deals for more content over the next few years, Netflix could make gobs of money simply offering its current library worldwide.

What I think people need to realize is that Netflix is not the company it once was. It is not the company that revolutionized movie watching at home. It is not a company that is interested in leading a paradigm shift against the movie industry to change the way the studio system works. It is not a company that is interested in the needs and wants of the customer (they canceled a contest to make improvements to their recommendation engine under the auspices of “privacy concerns”).

They are now an Internet content provider distributor interested in making as much money as possible. And yes, all companies are in the business of making money, but I think Netflix has fundamentally changed from its original mission statement to what it is today — a company that wants to make its investors a lot of cash and then get out.

I think their plan is two-fold:

1) Shuttle off their DVD rental program, an ultimately money losing endeavor at this point, to a forgettable company name that is probably bound to fail. They want this. They want the DVD rental part of their business to fade away until they no longer need to spend money on it and can justify ending it. They will cite “market forces” and then continue to focus squarely on expanding their worldwide streaming offering. Less overhead = more money.

2) Focus on streaming to as many countries as possible for as long as possible while limiting expansion of the library. They will milk that huge profit margin for as long as possible until they want to sell the company and make it a problem someone else needs to solve. Spending less on distribution licenses while making money off old content worldwide = more money.

Again, this is just my opinion and I have no more information than anyone else reading the news.

The point is, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings created something that was a game changer at the time and it made him and the current Netflix board of investors a lot of money. It also created an instantly recognizable brand that many millions have become loyal to. The man is not an idiot, he is simply changing the game again — one where he and his investors are the winners and the customers, the Netflix name and its brand equity are the losers.