> The ability to perform multitouch gestures on my desktop Mac is welcome. The less precise nature of using a trackpad instead of a mouse is not so fun sometimes—it’s tolerable, but annoying. Apple’s design is, of course, sleek and well-done, so at least the device is large enough to be useable without being *too* large. At least half of my childhood complaints about a trackpad on a desktop were addressed with the Magic Trackpad, though the addition of multitouch gestures do push it over into favorable territory for me. > > The only other issue is price: for $70, is it worth replacing your mouse over? For many users, the answer is no, and it’s hard to argue. After all, you probably already have an input device that you like, and it’s likely more precise than the Magic Trackpad. Nobody *needs* to spend $70 on this, and to be totally honest, if I was buying it for myself, I probably wouldn’t either. I like it, but I like having $70 more. (I would happily accept one as a gift, though.) > > If you have $70 burning a hole in your pocket, you love Apple’s aesthetic designs, and you can’t live without multitouch gestures on your Mac desktop, however, it could be a nice thing to have—kind of like the treadmill in your living room that is destined for a life as a clothes hanger, or the ivory dog in your foyer. Wow. So the reviewer starts the review by clearly stating that she doesn’t like trackpads, but then makes no attempt to compensate for that bias in her review. Do you think it would have been better for Ars to find someone who DOESN’T hate all trackpads to review a new trackpad?

The question this review needs to answer is not “does this particular person find a trackpad to be a better pointing device than a mouse?” That’s a personal decision, and an opinion about which I don’t particularly care. The question should be “Does this new Magic Trackpad work as well or better than other trackpads, and is it a good purchase for people who like trackpads?” Ms. Cheng sort of alludes to that in her conclusion, but I’m left with little or no definitive answer to that question.

It is possible for someone who doesn’t like a particular kind of device to review a device in that category objectively. That doesn’t seem to have happened here, though.

Imagine a movie reviewer starting out a review of a horror film by saying “I really don’t like Horror movies.” And then going on and on for several paragraphs about how Westerns and Dramas are so much better. “And yeah, I guess if you like horror movies, this one is fine, but I don’t like that kind of thing.” Would you consider that a valuable review? Would you walk away with any sense of whether or not YOU, a fan of horror films, were likely to enjoy this one?

> Once thought to be [unhackable](http://www.productiveorganizer.com/android-productivity/android-phones-with-encrypted-bootloaderunhackable/), the [Android](http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2010/072610-gearhead.html) phone is anything but, according to researchers presenting at Black Hat 2010. > > Not only has malicious software cloaked in a [wallpaper application]() stolen personal information from [infected phones](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/070610-smartphone-essentials.html?fsrc=netflash-rss) and sent it to a Website in China, but researchers from Lookout Mobile Security have found a way to take the phones over completely—including top-of-the-line models hawked by major wireless carriers. > > In one presentation, Lookout’s CEO John Herring said the [Jackeey Wallpaper app](http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/072210-55-of-google-android-smartphones.html?source=NWWNLE_nlt_google_2010-07-28), which has been downloaded millions of times, can gather passwords, browser history, the subscriber ID and SIM card numbers and text messages. Who ever said Android was “unhackable?” It’s always been pretty common knowledge that Android has basically no real security. It’s “open”, after all. Which means anyone can install anything they want. Responsibility for keeping data secure is set squarely on the shoulders of the user, just as it was with Microsoft software 20 years ago.

I’ve always felt that lack of a truly signed security system was a poor decision on Google’s part. But it shouldn’t be surprising that people are hacking into Android phones via apps. As Android gets more and more popular, it won’t be long before spam bots, viruses, and more trojan horses start popping up all over the place. And Google will have little or no way to stop it.

People keep making the analogy between current day Google and the Microsoft of old, saying that history will repeat itself, with Apple losing market share to Google in droves over the next few years. I’ve always felt that was unlikely. Because it assumes that Apple hasn’t learned anything from history, which is ridiculous. And it assumes that conditions are similar between PC adoption during that era and modern cell phone adoption, which they are not.

But Google is following Microsoft’s business model, right down to its lax stance on security issues. And that’s going to hurt Google in the end.

> While this implementation is extremely cool and well thought out, if you’re getting to the point where you need your browser tabs to be searchable and broken out into groups, you probably need to rethink your workflow. Seriously, I’m a computer nut; I easily spend 15 hours a day in front of a screen. But I never have 30 tabs open in a browser at a time. That’s extremely inefficient, even if you have some cool tool to organize it all for you.

There’s something to be said for just concentrating on a few things at a time, people. The whole multitasking thing is so 2009.

If you’re suffering from serious browser tab overload, I’d suggest a tool like Instapaper. Mark pages to read later, so you don’t end up with a million tabs open at once. Plus, the unread pages that you’ve saved for later will be synced across all your devices—your phone, your iPad, all your desktops. No more coming home from work and wishing you had those 25 tabs on your work computer open.

There are obviously some times where having multiple tabs is the best way to approach a task. But those use cases where you’d need dozens of pages at once are few and far between.

Get out of the browser and start using smaller, more efficient, more targeted dedicated apps. Especially on your mobile devices.

Cool info graphic. The key stat here for me is this one: “In 2009 alone, Apple accounted for 3.5 billion app downloads—bringing in 99.4% of app revenue, $2.4 billion dollars. As a comparison, Android Marketplace brings in about $60 million a year.”

$60 million, versus $2.4 billion. And people wonder why all the top developers are still with Apple, despite Apple’s so-called “walled garden” approach?

I’ve been reading recently that Google doesn’t really care much about App development for Android, because it sees apps as merely a stopgap measure until HTML 5 can replace the need for apps completely. Well, that would explain why there’s so little effort on Google’s part to make the platform more attractive and lucrative for app developers. But if developers can’t make any money in app sales now, how are they going to make any money with HTML 5 apps that everyone will expect to be free?

I don’t think Google cares. They are still playing that same broken record. Browser, browser, browser. Because that’s the only place Google has ever known how to make money. In the browser. With ads.

> It’s awesome that Apple is granting full refunds, but you might > not get a bumper in time to determine if it’s an effective solution > or not before the 30 day deadline expires. And, by the way, just > because Apple is willing to give you a full refund doesn’t mean > that AT&T is willing to surrender your contractual > obligation. Tony, can you please make it more obvious that you hate Apple and are willing to defy logic and bend the truth just to make Apple out to be a villain, no matter what the cost to your reputation?

Where to begin?

For starters, the quote above. All cell phone carriers give you a 30-day window to get out of any new contract. They are obligated to do that by law. Any tech journalist knows that, so Tony is obviously hoping his readers are too stupid to know this.

Second, this insistence on hyperbole and colorful adjectives. “Stubborn denial that a problem exists at all.” “All smart phones has the same issues and there isn’t anything wrong with the iPhone 4.”

Actually, Jobs started the press conference with a simple statement: “We’re not perfect.” That doesn’t sound like a stubborn denial of anything. He did compare the antenna issues to other phones, offering video proof that all phones have “similar” issues. But that’s a far cry from claiming that Apple tried to suggest that iPhone 4 is no different at all from any other phone.

Next, the timing “conspiracy.” Apple won’t ship you a free case in time for you to figure out if it will solve the problem to your satisfaction before your 30 days are up. WTF? Maybe you didn’t read the numbers clearly, Tony. Apple has sold over 2 million phones so far. The cases were in limited stock at launch, and Apple can’t make them fast enough to sell them to the small percentage of users who want to BUY them. What makes Tony think that Apple COULD overnight cases to all 2 million people in the next week or so? There are some simple laws of physics involved in manufacturing and shipping that much product, you know?

Besides, the case has been proven to solve the issue. There’s no figuring out if the case fixes the problem or not; we know for a fact from several sources that for the few people who have this issue, a case completely fixes it. The only reason to return the phone would be if you simply don’t like to put your phone in a case; if that applies to you, you can return it right now without waiting for Apple to ship you a free case first.

Man, I knew the haters would somehow find fault with Apple after it did EXACTLY what all the haters recommended Apple do. But this is just over the top. How desperate do you have to be to try and make this out to be a big deal?