Coyote Tracks

We have yet more buzzing about Verizon getting the iPhone someday Real Soon Now, which is usually greeted by choruses of disparagement, like this gem from MobileCrunch:

CDMA, the system used by Verizon and Sprint, is about as international as American beer—both are considered weak and both are reviled. Picking AT&T in this case was the only way Apple could reach a mass audience quickly without having two separate phone SKUs on the books—one for us and one for the rest of the world.

The crack about American beer is emblematic of the logic flaw here: it’s a funny, easy shot which relies on a Bizarro-world version of American exceptionalism: only us ugly Americans would use CDMA phones and drink Bud Light Lime. Of course, a lot of American beer is actually pretty good. And more relevant, there are about 500 million CDMA users worldwide, most of whom are not in America. Verizon’s 160 million users or so are nothing to sneeze at. But across the Asia-Pacific region there are 280 million CDMA users. Just like America, China’s biggest telecom company is using CDMA. And they’re growing. Fast.

Now, this isn’t in and of itself a “see, that means it must happen!” case. 500 million users is a lot, but there are over 4 billion GSM devices. If you have to pick one or the other, it’s obvious you pick GSM, and if you can only build one at a time, you pick GSM first. But that doesn’t necessarily mean you want to blow off the rest.

On the flip side, Apple has never been hesitant about blowing off standards when they decide they don’t fit their product vision. (A whole lot of the hatred directed at them is arguably over that specific aspect of the Apple corporate culture.) It’s quite possible that Apple has decided they’ll focus on LTE for long-term future development, as—eventually—that will replace both GSM and CDMA.

So, bottom line: “Verizon iPhone” wouldn’t be the point. The point would be “CDMA iPhone.” The former is a subset, and not even a majority subset, of the latter. Getting it on Verizon would be a goal, but it sure as hell wouldn’t be the only goal.

And for Christ’s sake, stop drinking Bud Light Lime.

I continue to be bemused by the confluence of two memes in tech journalism right now:

1. Everything that Apple does should be viewed with the utmost suspicion.
2. If Google does the exact same things, give them the benefit the doubt.

Our most recent example is the reporting on Apple’s updated location privacy policy. As John Gruber reports, the phrase in the policy is something like:

To provide location-based services on Apple products, Apple and our partners and licensees may collect, use, and share precise location data, including the real-time geographic location of your Apple computer or device. This location data is collected anonymously in a form that does not personally identify you and is used by Apple and our partners and licensees to provide and improve location-based products and services. For example, we may share geographic location with application providers when you opt in to their location services.

The Consumerist, as Gruber writes, describes this as “creepy”; the much creepier DailyTech web site, though, goes much farther, screaming that “Apple bans apps, music for customers who opt out of tracking!” You see, the paragraph I quoted above is in the iTunes Store license agreement, which—like all software license agreements—requires you to click the OK button to continue. If you don’t click the OK button the software doesn’t work.

Now, to be clear, I don’t like that kind of click-or-else license agreement—and after more than a quarter-century of such things being in use it’s still an open question as to whether they even stand up in court—but that’s another whole issue. But reporting this as “punishing users who do not agree” is being inflammatory for the sake of pissing people off.

The really great thing about the DailyTech piece, though, is that they acknowledge that Google collects “some of this information as well,” but says they’re “more clear about exactly when you may be revealing your location.” Google’s policy?

If you use location-enabled products and services, such as Google Maps for mobile, you may be sending us location information. This information may reveal your actual location, such as GPS data, or it may not, such as when you submit a partial address to look at a map of the area.

This is “more clear?” You “may” be sending information that “may or may not” reveal your actual location? Google doesn’t “punish you” for not explicitly agreeing to it, they just do it anyway.

“Customers do have the option to prevent third-party apps from collecting location data,” DailyTroll writes (emphasis theirs), pointing out that the Settings app lets you explicitly turn off usage of location services for any app. Doing something crazy like, I don’t know, actually looking at the settings screen will show that this isn’t just “third-party apps,” since Apple-provided apps also show up there.

So, let me see if I get this right:

• Apple and Google both collect information from users. Apple, however, at least makes you explicitly aware of this by making you click “Okay” to it.
• Apple gives you per-app control over what apps are allowed access to your location data. Those conniving bastards.
• When iOS 4 applications are using location data, you get an explicit indicator in the status bar. Devious.
• On any iOS 4 device, visiting oo.apple.com lets you opt out of Apple’s location-based ad network. Positively satanic.

Let me underline here that I don’t think that there aren’t privacy concerns relating to location monitoring. What I object to is the implication that Apple is doing something uniquely terrible and Orwellian. If you have a device which can report its location back to somebody you have a potential privacy concern. Any cell phone can be tracked to at least the range of one cell tower, and if it’s within range of two or three that can be narrowed down considerably. If the cell phone has GPS, even better. And, oh yes, if you are using a device that’s been assigned an IP address that can be a big clue, particularly if you’re using a residential internet provider.

In fact, it looks to me like Apple is putting in some effort into easing the concerns around location-based services. Would it be better if they didn’t require you to agree to their privacy policy to use their services? Like, you know, all those other companies that, when you uncheck the “I agree to your terms and services”” box, bring up the “No problem, go ahead and use our shit anyway!” dialogue box, right? While we’re at it, each iPad should come with a vuvuzela made from a unicorn horn.

Really, all I’m asking is that we stop pretending Apple is uniquely evil and Google is uniquely good, and particularly that Google stop being cut so much slack. When bloggers rend their shirts over the unrequited evil of iAds, there’s never a peep about AdMob. Google’s “openness” means, in practice, that carriers get to dictate everything from when you get Android software updates to whether you get the Android store on your phone at all, but that goes unremarked on. And when Apple draws attention to how they’re going to use location-based services, it doesn’t matter that Google’s doing essentially the same thing without drawing attention to it.

Oh. And I’m also asking for a unicorn horn vuvuzela, because I figure that’s just about as likely. ∗Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!∗

Spiced rum has a great reputation among college guys and lazy people pouring it in their Coke, but it has a… we’ll say a spotty reputation among rum fans. This is because most spiced rum is, in fact, lousy. It mostly tastes like (artificial) vanilla and maybe something vaguely citrus, in about the same way that Mountain Dew tastes like something vaguely citrus. There are brands that don’t suck—Sailor Jerry is the most widely available good one, and I’ve heard good things about some new ones like Kraken—but this is one of those things you can make at home easy. This is the recipe I used last weekend and it may be the best damn spiced rum I’ve had.

• 1 750ml bottle gold rum
• 1 cinnamon stick
• 1/2 vanilla bean
• 3 cloves
• 1 whole allspice berry
• 3 black peppercorns
• 1 piece fresh orange peel, roughly 1 inch square

I used Appleton Special for the rum—you want something inexpensive but still good, so I’d recommend the Appleton if you can find it, Cruzan if you can’t. (Don’t use Bacardi—their cheap stuff is crap and their expensive stuff is better than you need.) You want to scrape as much of the white pith off the orange peel as you can, and you just need to cut the vanilla bean in half—don’t mess with it otherwise.

Get a Mason jar or a similar container—something big enough to put the rum in—and put the rum in it. Then put everything else in it, seal it up, give it a few gentle shakes, and let it sit on a counter out of the light for 24 hours or so.

“Just 24 hours?” you might ask. Yep. You can go longer if you want, but taste it after a full day and you’ll be surprised how strongly spiced the rum already is. Longer infusions are probably good for vodka, which doesn’t taste much like anything to start with, but you still want to be able to taste the rum here.

And do this just once, and you will never bother with the Captain again. Trust me.

For the record, while it may be good in Coke, it’s incredible in coffee. (For mixing with Coke, you really want to make a Cuba Libre anyway. Different post.)

David Barnard:

When you use Google search and other Google products, they collect a tremendous amount of information and use that information to customize and better serve the ads that are the core of their business. Many users don’t even realize this is happening, others are comfortable with it and have some level of trust for Google’s intent in using that data.

Well, Apple doesn’t trust the benevolence of Google, developers, and other third parties involved in the iOS platform. Apple wants to control the flow of user information. They may use more detail in targeting iAds than they are going to allow others to use for their own ads and other analysis, and that’s a competitive advantage, but it’s a fair competitive advantage for them to maintain on their own platform.

A rebuttal that seems reasonable at first glance is, “Why trust Apple more than Google?” But that’s not the right question. It’s not about trust; it’s about business models. As I observed before, Google wants to make money off of you by collecting information from you and selling it to others. Apple (as well as Microsoft and other more “traditional” hardware and software vendors) want to make money off of you by, well, collecting money from you in return for their products. Users of Apple’s products are Apple’s customers. Users of Google’s products are what Google sells to their customers.

This is a fundamental difference that those championing Android as the open and free alternative to the draconian tyranny of Apple just don’t seem to get, and I’m not sure whether it’s naïveté or willful ignorance. But it’s remarkable how much vitriol I’ve seen over Apple iAd that makes no mention of AdMob at all, or pretends that there’s a profound ethical difference. But they’re both services developers choose to put in their apps, leaving customers only the choice to use the app or not; the difference is only that AdMob is cross-platform. (And owned by a company that’s directly competing in the mobile OS space and thus has an interest in collecting competitive usage information from Apple, Nokia, RIM, et. al. The question isn’t why Apple doesn’t want information collected by AdMob, it’s if/when the other companies are going to decide it’s not in their best interest, either.)