One Per Customer, Ma'am

This video is old (2007), but I still find it highly amusing.  There are some things money can't buy.  A little sense appears to be one of them. 

Sphere: Related Content

Now That's More Like It

You know how the new iPhone 4S has that "cool" Siri feature that lets you talk to it and it will talk back to you with an appropriate response? You can ask Siri questions about the weather or directions. You can also ask Siri to send lovely text messages to other people for you and have Siri read you their responses. Yeah, that all sounds fine and good. But what I'd really like is for the commercials to be a little more realistic. And I guess that the fine folks over there at College Humor must have felt the same way because they have put together a lovely little parody of those Siri commercials that is just what I was looking for. Enjoy.

See all the CollegeHumor Original Videos here.

Sphere: Related Content

Bye, Steve

Steve Jobs died yesterday. I didn't know it was possible to be this profoundly sad about the death of someone that I've never met. However, it apparently is. I'm really sad. Sad that he wasn't around longer, but grateful that he was around at all. Thanks for everything, Steve.

Sphere: Related Content

Who's A Jew?

According to the fine folks over there at the Wall Street Journal, Apple has withdrawn an app from its French online store. Now, Apple withdraws and rejects apps all of the time. But I think this might be the first case of Apple withdrawing an app that I really can't imagine that anyone would have wanted in the first place.

See, the app is called "Jew or Not Jew" and it "...allows users to identify whether a politician or celebrity is Jewish." Really? First of all, the name leaves a bit to be desired. I think they should have gone with something a little snappier like "Are Jew A Jew?" or "Jew Who?" Even "Jew Or No Jew" (you know, like Deal or No Deal) would have been better as far as a snappy moniker goes. But I digress.

According to the guy who made the app, a one Johann Lévy, he wanted "...a "recreational" tool for users curious about the religious background of famous people." Specifically, whether or not someone was Jewish. While I don't give a fat rat's ass what religion someone is, Mr. Levy seems to have given it a lot of thought, as he explained, "I often ask myself whether this or that celebrity is Jewish or not...I believe that it's a question that many Jews ask themselves too." Really? Jews are really that concerned about whether or not a politician is Jewish or not? I mean, so concerned that they'd go to the trouble of either writing an app or seeking out and buying an app in order to tell them about the Jew-ness of a politician? Huh. That's really important to you folks, eh? I had no idea.

And I guess that in France, you're not allowed to disclose people's religion. (See? Folks and bitch and complain all they want about the United States, but when you compare our freedom of speech to other countries NOT freedom of speech, it really puts things in perspective. Well, it should.) Yep, they have rules "...that ban disclosing people's religion without their consent as well as compiling data about people's religions." Some groups complained and cited that law and Apple decided to take down an app that I don't think that anyone was clamoring for in the first place.

I find this whole thing a little weird. Why is whether or not someone is Jewish a big deal? What does that do for people who find it important? Do they like non-Jews less? I don't get it. And why would anyone even care about the app? Are they afraid it's going to spur another Hitler? Oh, God. I just used Hitler as a hypothetical argument. Please forgive me.

Sphere: Related Content

He Changed My Life

(Warning: Depressing post.) Last night, Steve Jobs announced that he was stepping down as CEO of Apple. All I kept reading was how this would effect Apple. Let me tell you something. I am not worried even in the slightest about Apple. I am, however, extremely worried about Steve Jobs.

I don't know the man. I've never met him. (I did see him a couple of times walking to his car at what my uncle calls "The World Wide Headquarters of Apple in Cupertino". My uncle lives less than half a mile from that building and I don't think that he's ever seen him, so I consider myself lucky. It's like I saw Bigfoot or a really lost Yeti or something.) But I hold him responsible for my love of all that is the computer. And I love computers so much.



My dad brought home an Apple II when I was in 7th grade. He bought it used after seeing an ad in the newspaper classifieds. (For my younger readers, a newspaper used to be delivered daily to one's home and it contained pages and pages of summations of current events.) It came with a ton of games and programs on 5-1/4" floppies (and TWO 5-1/4" external floppy drives so that you could back-up all of your bad ass software). I explored every single one of those disks. I never looked back.



And I'm not an Apple fan girl. I've been using PCs for at least 20 years. But, the first three or four computers that I ever had were Apple. And the first computer I ever bought with my own money was an Apple. (An Apple IIGS to be specific. The GS stood for "graphics and sound". It was beautiful.) The point here is that this isn't about Apple computers and now Apple products for me. It's about a guy who not only changed the entire world, but who also changed my world. And changed it for the absolute better.

When I realized what an iPod could do, I knew that my life was going to be better. And as a complete nerd, I will disclaim that I have but one song on my 32gb iPod Touch. (It's Eric Johnson's Cliffs of Dover if you must know.) The rest? Podcasts and apps. And I never go anywhere without it. It makes me happy. SO freaking happy. I could probably go on and on, but I think that you get the point.


When Steve Jobs took his leave of absence back in January, he wrote in his announcement "I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can." He's not coming back. And when someone has had pancreatic cancer and a liver transplant, that doesn't sound like a good thing. So while I know that Apple will be OK, I don't know that Steve Jobs will. And it makes me sad. I even cried a little when I heard that he was stepping down. He's only 56. The world should have many more years with Steve Jobs in it, but I don't think that's going to be the case. I could be wrong and I hope I am, but I just don't think that this is shaping up to be all that rosy.



I wish the man all the best. I think that he changed the world for the better. I know that he changed my life for the better. I feel very lucky to have been able to watch him develop and grow throughout his entire career. And even if he has to leave us now, his influence on computing and accessories and business will live on forever. Good luck, sir. And thank you for everything.

Sphere: Related Content

Steve Jobs Briefly Speaks Out

Oh, Steve Jobs. I never know whether I should love you or loathe you. It's usually a little bit of both. And it doesn't really sway much in one direction or the other. There are equal amounts in each part of both love and hate that I feel for you. The email exchange that you had with a senior at Long Island University exemplifies these feelings, though I think I end up a little more on the love side this time.

According to the gawking folks over there at Gawker, a Long Island University senior, a one 22-year old Chelsea Kate Isaacs, had been given an assignment by her journalism professor to cover the university's plan to give all incoming students an iPad. She "...wanted to get a quote from Apple about the use of iPads in academic settings". That seems fairly reasonable. So she called Apple's PR department six times and left six messages and got zero responses. For some reason, that seems to have surprised her.

I don't know what Apple's reason for not returning her calls was, but I'm guessing it has something to do with them being fairly busy. Aside from that, I'm sure that she could scour the Innerwebs and find a quote from Apple about how wonderful they think their iPads are and how they will be immensely valuable in a scholastic setting. In fact, I'm positive she could find their take on it somewhere out there. If there's one thing that Apple can do well, it's speak highly of themselves.

Ms. Isaacs then decided that she would just email the man himself, so she sent an email off to Steve Jobs. Part of the email that she sent included the following sentence: "Mr. Jobs, I humbly ask why Apple is so wonderfully attentive to the needs of students, whether it be with the latest, greatest invention or the company's helpful customer service line, and yet, ironically, the Media Relations Department fails to answer any of my questions which are, as I have repeatedly told them, essential to my academic performance." Good God. And I thought that I was wordy.

That was one sentence. And really? She repeatedly told them that answering her question was "essential" to her academic performance? Not good. She's going to need to learn a little bit about how to phrase things when she's annoyed. What do they care if she gets a good grade or not? Does she have an iPod? That's good enough for them.

And it turns out, Steve Jobs didn't give a fat rat's ass about her grade. And he let her know it. In his reply, which was about one-tenth the length of the sentence above, he wrote, "Our goals do not include helping you get a good grade. Sorry". Guess what? She didn't like that very much. I, on the other hand, liked it very much.

So, having not learned anything about brevity, she responded to Steve Jobs with: "I never said that your goal should be to "help me get a good grade." Rather, I politely asked why your media relations team does not respond to emails, which consequently, decreases my chances of getting a good grade. But, forget about my individual situation; what about common courtesy, in general —- if you get a message from a client or customer, as an employee, isn't it your job to return the call? That's what I always thought. But I guess that's not one of your goals." Wow. She's a talker, that one. Gotta mouth like a motorboat. But which one is it, cupcake? Emails or phone calls? Clearly, your emails are being responded to, by Steve Jobs no less!

And he continued to respond by explaining the realistic nature of the situation over there at Apple when he told her, "Nope. We have over 300 million users and we can't respond to their requests unless they involve a problem of some kind. Sorry." It's just not possible. The mathematics are not such that they can tend to every individual who wants a quote that they can find on the Internet. But do you think that was good enough for her? Hardly. So what do you think that she did? She wrote him another lengthy response, that is correct. She told him, "You're absolutely right, and I do meet your criteria for being a customer who deserves a response: 1. I AM one of your 300 million users. 2. I DO have a problem; I need answers that only Apple Media Relations can answer. Now, can they kindly respond to my request (my polite and friendly voice can be heard in the first 5 or 10 messages in their inbox). Please, I am on deadline." For cryin' out loud.

Perhaps he should have told this simpleton that when he says "a problem of some kind", he means a problem with a freaking Apple product. Not a problem in general. It's not a suicide hotline or anything like that. But she might want to find one after his final response to her. It was short. It was direct. It was kind of all sorts of awesome. It read: "Please leave us alone."

I don't think that this has anything to do with him being Steve Jobs and thinking that he's better than everyone else (regardless as to whether or not he really does think that, which I'm guessing that he does on occasion). I think it has to do with her not understanding how the real world works and how it's not something that a company with 300 million users can be bothered with. I can only imagine how self-important her voicemail messages that she left were. No wonder he asked her to leave them alone. Besides, what's she going to do? Buy a Zune?

If you'd like to read the initial email that Ms. Isaacs sent to Mr. Jobs, you can do so at the link that I provided to Gawker above. It's lengthy. It's self-important. It makes it clear that she has a deadline. And from how it reads, it seems to indicate she might want to spend just a little more time in those journalism classes. She gets a little muddled toward the end. Hey, I'm just saying! Look, I'm far from a professional journalist, but at least I don't expect the world to bow down to me because I possess fairly adept typing skills and an Internet connection.

I'd also like to mention how incredibly happy it made me to be able to write a post where I could use several "vintage" pictures of Mr. Jobs and of Apple products. It's awesome. It's really hard to squeeze things like that into posts about moronic politicians and stories about things going awry when they involve a penis.

Sphere: Related Content

Then Don't Do That

One of my favorite jokes has always been the one where the guy goes to the doctor and tells him that it hurts when he does this. Naturally, the doctor tells him, "Then don't do that." It's a classic. A timeless classic. Granted, it's hard to say why it's funny, but it just is. And whatever the reason, it doesn't seem to have stopped Apple from using a variation of that theme as a remedy for poor iPhone 4 reception.

Here's the deal: The new iPhone 4 came out the other day. And by all reports, the thing is pretty darned cool. But of course, there are always going to be some glitches or some things that don't work just quite the way that you'd expect them (or like them) to work. And according to the astonishingly still in business CNN, one of those things is "...that holding the phone by its metal edge causes mobile reception to suffer." See, because Apple gets all wacky cool with their technology, they've wrapped the antenna on the iPhone 4 all the way around the edge of the phone. Thus, if you hold the phone the way a normal person holds a phone, you're going to see your reception go all to hell because the antenna is being blocked by your big ol' mitt there.

One guy decided to ask Apple's Grand Poobah about this problem. A chap named Amar wrote the following email to Steve Jobs: "Hi, Mr. Jobs. I love my new iPhone4 (nice work) but when I put my hand on the steel bands I lose all reception. It appears to be a common issue. Any plans to fix this? Thanks, Aram." Nice inquiry. Short. To the point. Complimentary. All of the things that you're going to want to have in an email in order to better your chances of a response. What's that? His response? "Just avoid holding it in that way." Wait. That's it? What now?

That's the response. The modern adaptation of "then don't do that". What exactly does he mean by that? The metal bands go all the way around the phone. How are you supposed to avoid touching them? I'm unclear as to how you're supposed to hold the thing if you're not touching the sides. How would you hold any phone without touching the sides? I'm not so sure that a great piece of technology is something that is only great when it's being held in a certain manner. Steve Jobs tends to pride himself on making the perfect piece of technology, so what is the deal with this?

Did the Apple folks really think that people wouldn't notice or complain? It's a worthy complaint. It's a less than worthy answer of "then don't do that". That's pretty weak. When you have a phone like the iPhone 4, you're going to be concerned with your data speeds and your reception ability. To have to hold your phone a certain way seems vaguely reminiscent of putting tin foil on an aerial TV antenna and then having to hold it with one hand as you stand on one foot. Don't get me wrong. I realize that there wasn't enough room in that teeny-tiny little phone to shove in an antenna as well and so they had to wrap it around the edges so that it would fit in there. I get that. But when it's a matter of getting reception or not getting reception, what say you sacrifice a millimeter of thickness and cram that thing in there, OK? I'm not real thrilled about paying a couple of hundred dollars for something that I have to hold a certain way in order for it to work at an optimal level of performance.

Sphere: Related Content

Apple So Holier Than Thou

You know who should go into the cryptic code business? Apple. Trying to figure out what is OK to have in their App Store and what is not OK to have in their App Store is confusingly ambiguous at best. Sure, I can completely understand why some apps have not been allowed in the App Store., but other apps I'm just no so sure about.

The Baby Shaker app is one that I can understand where the rejection comes from. I have no problem with Apple rejecting a game where the object is to vigorously shake your phone until the baby on the screen stops crying and red Xs appear over its eyes. (But as I think about it, I'm not sure why I have a problem with it. Is it because of the implication of killing the baby a la Shaken Baby Syndrome? Perhaps. But if I was going to get all philosophical about it, I'd have to figure out why that is any worse than the Halo series where there is killing all over the place with no implication whatsoever...it's just killing! Is it the baby that makes it wrong? I'm not sure. But I think that it falls under the explanation that Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart gave in 1964 for the definition of what is pornography when he said, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . .but I know it when I see it." I think it might be that. I can't explain what would be placed in the category of "wrong" or "unacceptable", but I'll know it when I see it. And Shaken Baby Game goes in the 'Wrong' pile and 'Halo3' does not.)

So while it's understandable to me why the Baby Shaker was not allowed, it's not so understandable to me why some other apps were not allowed. Apps like the updated Tweetie 1.3, which Apple turned away because of the "offensive language" that appears when you search the Twitter Trends. So it's not even the app itself that Apple didn't like, it was the "offensive language" on another site that wasn't OK with Apple, an explanation that I find incredibly odd. Does Apple have search engine apps that search the Internet? I can imagine that there are sites that the search engine apps could find that are riddled with obscenities. fword.com, for example. (I just made that up. Don't type it in your browser bar. I said DON'T TYPE! STOP TYPING! ::: sigh ::: All right. Fine. Just come back and finish reading when you're done. Please?) But you see my point, right?

So I'm a little confused by the latest odd rejection (I'm sure that there are more than I am blissfully unaware of), that of the "Me So Holy" app developed by a one Benjamin Kahle. The premise is simple. Upload a photo of your face or anyone else's face, choose from a small variety of religious themed individuals sans face (ie, Jesus (the child of God, not the gardener), a nun), give your face to the religiously themed individual and voila! You're Jesus! Behold!

No! No! NO!! Not that Jesus! Son of God! SON OF GOD!! Let's try it again. You're Jesus! Behold!

That's better. Where was I? Oh, yeah, so this was rejected. Before I tell you why it was rejected, let me just tell you that this app is very similar to another app, The Animalizer from the same developer. With The Animalizer, you upload a picture of your face, choose a non-religious themed animal from a virtual barnyard of 25, put your picture where the face of the animal is missing and voila! You're an animal! Behold!

Oh, for cryin' out loud! You know what I meant! Behold!
When did things get taken so literally around here? What if I said I wanted a hot chick?

All right. Annnnnny-wayyyyyy, where was I? Oh, right. So it's OK to put your face on an animal, but it's not OK to put your face on Jesus. Yes, that sounds funny, but that's the way it is. And while one could assume that Apple, which seems to think that it is God a lot of the time, it's basing it's rejection on what it bases all of the rejections on, that being Section 3.3.12 in the iPhone agreement. (I knew that was it!) This section, also known as the 'we're going to use this section to justify doing whatever we want due to the ambiguous language we used to craft this document', reads:

"Applications must not contain any obscene, pornographic, offensive or defamatory content or materials of any kind (text, graphics, images, photographs, etc.), or other content or materials that in Apple's reasonable judgment may be found objectionable by iPhone or iPod touch users."


I believe the key word there is 'reasonable'. Actually, upon further review and nit picking, I believe the key words there are "may be found". There are a lot of things that 'may be found' to be anything. I "may be found" to be a complete nutjob. I also "may be found" to be a super genius. Monkeys "may be found" to fly out of my arse. Then again, I "may be found" to have made up all of that stuff about the monkeys and my arse. The point is that a lot of things can happen. As long as something isn't forbidden by the laws of nature or physics/science, it can happen. Fortunately, there's a little thing called 'probability' that tends to regulate whether or not we should be prepared for a multitude of things that 'can' happen. Turns out that a lot of things that 'can' happen, don't.

If Apple interpreted the word 'reasonable' to actually mean 'reasonable', then they would understand that the Me So Holy app is not sacrilegious in any way, shape or form and it does not carry the intent of offending anyone on any level of any sort of religious grounds. And I'm talking real offended. Not fake offended (or "fakefended", a term that can often be used in a story which contains fake controversy, or "fakeroversy"). What's so offensive about making your face into a nun? I'll bet that nuns wouldn't be offended. Heck, there'd be more nuns! They'd love that!

But really, if you're going by their rationale, the app itself doesn't contain the content that I'm guessing could be found offensive. That is, someone else trying to portray that they're Jesus (or Jesus-like)

You know what this app is? It's nothing more than Photoshop. In fact, it's considerably less than Photoshop. Are there Photoshop-ish apps for the iPhone? I'll bet there are. How The Animalizer can be OK, but Me So Holy isn't OK is beyond me. Is it because the animals can't speak up for themselves to say that they're offended? If that's the case, then you have to remember that the animals, while voiceless themselves, do have PETA and those PETA folks are crazed. I'd rather take my chances with upsetting religious folks than I would with upsetting a bunch of PETAphiles.

The title 'Me So Holy' reminds me of the 2 Live Crew song 'Me So Horny'. Perhaps that is why Apple is all in a wad about this one. I don't really know, but let's just remember that one of the best selling apps of all time at the App Store is the iFart app. Synthesized flatulence is good, making yourself appear to be Jesus or a nun is bad. Go figure. Perhaps they were just peeved that including Steve Jobs as one of the religious icons was missing from the app and they couldn't add on their tag line "There's an app for that." Get over yourselves, Apple.

Sphere: Related Content

Shaken By Rejection

Over there in the parallel universe that is everything Apple, there is the App Store where one can download a variety of apps ranging from the incredibly mundane all the way to the completely useless. Oh, and with a useful one thrown in now and again. The majority of these apps are created by a third party not otherwise affiliated with Apple. They write their apps and submit them to Apple for approval for sale in the App store. For the most part, Apple approves the vast majority of submitted apps. No one knows what their criteria is because Apple operates under a veil of secrecy similar to that of the CIA only without all of the leaked memos. Occasionally, however, an app will get by and make it into the store only to evoke horror and outrage amongst those sitting around scanning the App Store for horror and outrage.

The latest app to catch the eyes of the outraged horror scanners was something called Baby Shaker. According to ABC News, the description reads: "See how long you can endure his or her adorable cries before you just have to find a way to quiet the baby down!" Um, wut? Yep, that's the GAME. See, then what happens is that the "users shake the iPhone to stop the crying until Xs appear on the eyes of the baby." All of that so-not-tasteless fun for the low, low price of just 99 cents! Well, until Apple pulled the app from the store and apologized to anyone who was or who might have been offended.

OK, at first I kind of thought that there might have been a bit of overreaction to this. After all, it's a game, yes? Well, yes, but not a good one! I guess I thought it would have been some sort of cartoon rendition of the baby. Not so much. No, it looked more like the little adorable Gerber baby that I've NEVER wanted to shake. Behold!

Yeah, see, that's just creepy. And odd that someone would come up with such a thing. I mean, congratulations to the person for having a marketable skill, but my God, man, can't you use it for something else?

Then I was reminded of other apps that made it into the App Store (and a few that did not) that were rejected by Apple after the expression of horror and outrage by the folks of the same name. One of those was the "I Am Rich" app. All this piece of crap consisted of was a picture of a glowing red ruby in the middle of the screen. The description read: "The red icon on your iPhone or iPod Touch always reminds you (and others when you show it to them) that you were able to afford this. ... It's a work of art with no hidden function at all." All of that pretentiousness for the low, low price of only $999.99! For reals. And if you're shocked by that, you're going to pass out when I tell you that eight morons actually paid for and downloaded it. (There's a name for people like that. It's a name probably not appropriate for this venue, but let's just say that it would be the same name as a fairly popular nickname for folks named Richards.)

Of course, since that went over so well and received a bunch of publicity (because isn't that what the news outlets are supposed to report on?) someone else had to make an "I Am Poor" app. All that one did was show a picture of some Top Ramen, macaroni and cheese and tuna fish. No word on how much it cost, but it was rejected by Apple before making it into the App Store. (And really, how much sense does that make anyway? You're going to have an app that says "I Am Poor" on your six hundred dollar phone? Spare me.)

There was the inexplicable rejection of the "Obama Trampoline" game, where you choose your politicians from either Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, or a pants-less Bill Clinton and then have them jump on a trampoline in the Oval Office. Apple claimed it was rejected because "...it ridiculed public officials." Well, YES! Of course it does! Public ridicule is part of being a politician! It's nothing new! (It's also the rationale behind why you can't have the Shoe Throwing app or the Freedom Time app, which counts down the time until the Bush administration was officially over.) However, I deem this rejection inexplicable because there IS an app called "Pocket Arnold" featuring various sound bites and clips of words and phrases said by the Governator of California himself. It's sort of like a make your own crank call factory. No word on whether or not the Governator is wearing pants and Apple did not explain itself. Because it's the king of everything.

And I cannot for the life of me imagine why in the world Apple would reject an iBoobs app! It's just like what it sounds like it is. A pair of very full breasts, clad in a bikini top, appear on your iPhone screen and when you shake the screen you shake them as well! It's pure genius, I tell you! But Apple didn't call it pure genius. They called it an app with "inappropriate sexual content", not to mention "obscene, pornographic, offensive, or defamatory content." Huh. And all of that even knowing that the breasts were not even real, rather they were computer generated. (I've gotta get me some computer generated breasts. You know, in case I need a spare or something.) And if you must see for this civilization ruiner, there's a video over yonder on YouTube that you can check out by clicking the handy link there.

There's also Slasher, an app which featured a picture of a bloody knife on your iPhone screen and when you moved your arm in a way as to simulate a stabbing motion, the app would play the "horror sound". I can only imagine that the "horror sound" is similar to that which I have dubbed the "pay attention music". It's those ominous two notes every five to ten seconds or so. Dun-dunn. Dun-dunn. But for all I know, it could just be someone screaming (probably one of those horror and outrage folks). The reasoning given for not having this gem in the App Store was the same reason for not having iBoobs in the App Store. That reason being, of course, that Apple is a bit holier than thou on occasion, apparently.

So if all of those apps are inappropriate for the Apple App Store, you have to be wondering what IS appropriate? I'll tell you what's appropriate. Farting apps. That's correct. Apps that simulate human flatulence are HUGE at the App Store. There are no less than FIFTY such apps (and yet only ONE way to actually BE flatulent. Go figure.) iFart Mobile (I swear!) has been downloaded over 13,000 times by December 23, 2008 at the tune (no pun intended, I swear) of $0.99 each. With Apple taking a 30% cut, the creators of iFart Mobile netted around $9,198 according to Venture Beat Digital Media. But wait! There's more! On Christmas Day, 2008, there were almost 40,000 downloads of the Fart Machine, netting those folks close to $30 grand! For an app that makes your phone sound like it's farting! U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

Well, OK then. Good to know we live in a world where baby shaking simulators are not OK. Not sure about the world we live in where we flock to download flatulence replications by the tens of thousands. Definitely sure that I need to get myself an iPhone or an iPod Touch relatively soon, however, as I hear that there are a myriad of apps which simulate cow bells, fake lighters (for fake concerts, I'm assuming), dice rollers, coin flippers and a virtual level (so you'll never be anywhere and not know if a surface is perfectly flat). As I'm sure you know, one can never have too many cowbells. Flatulence simulators, yes. Clanging bovine neck devices? Never.

Sphere: Related Content