Weird Machines

I'm going to admit something to you: I'm not on the cutting edge yet. As much as I would like to write about that Crazy New Thing that happened or was released or created just yesterday, I'm just not in the loop. I'm trying to be, though. With that out of the way, I'd like to talk about Pandora's AIR app, just for a second.

I know Pandora is old hat. It's a solid concept, and a clever one, to boot. Given its age, I'm going to assume that everyone reading this blog knows what it is. If not, you should really check it out! I didn't really use Pandora up until fairly recently, and here's why: I don't like browser based applications that are meant to usurp desktop applications. It's messy, and web browsers were never really intended to do it. They're far too multipurpose to provide the kind of stability that a solid desktop application needs. In Pandora's case, this means being susceptible to browser crashes (often) and whatever bugs may otherwise plague the browser and its plugins (Flash, I'm looking at you). More often than not, I'll come back to my browser after being away for a day, or overnight, and find that Pandora simply stopped working. I didn't really have the patience for it. But hark! Enter our hero, stage left: Adobe's AIR platform.

Because Pandora's music player is a Flash application already, I imagine that the conceptual leap to the AIR platform was much akin to avoiding a puddle in the street. It's definitely made it easier for me to use and appreciate the application. There's a bit of a snag, though; it seems to me that the AIR version of Pandora is simply a web browser embedded into a Flex application. I can't really fault them for this, because it saves them from having to reinvent the wheel, but it leaves me a little disappointed. I was sort of hoping for a purely Flash/Flex application sitting on the AIR platform.

I guess my main point here is that while I'm pleased to see a desktop alternative to the browser-based version of Pandora, I wish they'd gone the extra mile and made it more like a legitmate desktop application and less like a small footprint, single task browser window.

And as a disclaimer, I'm aware that there are open Pandora applications. I've just chosen to discuss Pandora's own application.

Why, it's good old Error #1009!

TypeError: Error #1009: Cannot access a property or method of a null object reference.

at Information/setup()

at Interface/setup()

at Document/::setup()

at Document$iinit()

All it would take to make this okay is the name of the null object. It's obviously been declared, but not instantiated. I can't imagine that Adobe was just too lazy to toss the name in there, since, for the most part, the errors provided are very helpful.

I will admit that I'm a bit of a novice with error handling. Is there a way to make this situation better? Leave a comment.

There's been much hullabaloo over the JesusPhone 2.0 since its announcement. As far as I can see, most people are relatively excited about it. Apple has apparently managed to incorporate 3G and GPS without a significant hit to battery life.

However, there's also been some criticism about the price. At the WWDC keynote at which the iPhone 3G was announced, El Capitan Jobs listed 5 major improvements of the new iPhone: 3G data speeds, Enterprise support, third party applications, availability in more countries, and last but not least, more affordable. Jobs announced that the new iPhone would sell for $199 for the 8GB model and $299 for the 16GB model. The crowd of course goes nuts.

The problem is that it's not more affordable. It's less affordable. AT&T decided that unlimited data for the 3G iPhone was going to cost $30/month, which is $10 more per month than the original plan. Stretch that out over 2 years and you've paid $40 more for your iPhone 3G than the original. The math goes like this:

$20/month (iPhone) * 24 months = $480

$30/month (iPhone 3G) * 24 months = $720

$720 - $480 = $240

Factor in the $200 price drop in the new iPhone and you're still paying $40 more over 2 years for the new iPhone. So completely overlooking the fact that this is supposed to be a major selling point for the new iPhone, you might say, "But Chris, surely GPS, 3G, 3rd party apps, etc. is all worth this $40 premium." To which I might say, "Yes. I suppose I agree." However, there's more. Today, AT&T announced the official pricing and plans for the new iPhone. Take a look here and here. Essentially what it says is that you only get the price announced at WWDC if you are eligible for an upgrade. I talked to an AT&T representative on the phone and was quoted a 20-month time frame from your last upgrade. Have you perhaps casually gotten a new phone because you weren't happy with your last one? No cheap iPhone for you. There are any number of scenarios in which you are suddenly ineligible for this fabulous selling point that Jobs felt the need to announce at WWDC. You'll have to pay the price of the previous iPhone ($399/$499). Did I mention you still have to get a 2-year contract? The only upside I can see is that, according to Engadget's post, previous iPhone owners get the discounted price.

BUT WAIT! There's more! Did you want to buy that iPhone without activating it, as you could with the first iPhone? You get to pay even more than the previous iPhone cost! Yayyyyyy! Get ready to plunk down $599/$699 for the new hotness. Wait, isn't that more than the first iPhone EVER cost EVER?

So way to go, Apple. I don't know what the fuck happened, but next time I suggest you wear a cup so AT&T doesn't have the chance to get the vice grip on your balls that I can only imagine they must have. I don't even know how to put into words how weasely this is. I expect better from Apple.

Let me sum up this monster of a post in this sentence: The iPhone 3G is in no way cheaper than the original iPhone, in spite of what was announced at WWDC, and what is clearly supposed to be a selling point.