Word has been circulating all day today that not only will Apple be unveiling the long-rumored Apple Tablet on Wednesday as its press event, but that it may also finally be announcing that the iPhone will be available on multiple carriers, breaking the exclusivity with AT&T in the United States.
Can I get a, “HALLE-FREAKIN-LUJAH!”
According to BusinessWeek, it would break down as:
Verizon – summer
T-Mobile & Sprint – fall
Clearwire Corp. – Sometime in 2011
Being a Sprint subscriber, I’m over the Moon at the prospect that this may finally becoming a reality, but most of all I am happy for consumers and, yes, even Apple. As I wrote recently on TechnoBuffalo in “Why Isn’t The iPhone On Every Carrier Yet?“, the continued exclusivity makes no sense on any front at this point. For the consumer this will spur competition between the carriers to get the iPhone customers to be on their networks, and could possibly result in customers making a mass exodus from AT&T.
On the other hand, Apple is set to make more money than most people can even count. In the quarter report that just came out from Apple for the three month period ending Dec. 26th, the company sold 8.7 million iPhones combined from all territories, and combined with its record number of Macs sold (and an eight percent decline in iPod sales), it walked away with a profit of $3.38 billion. Now imagine the iPhone being sold across all four major United States carriers, and it is easy to see why it is time for Apple to cut the exclusivity from AT&T.
The time for a freed iPhone has come, the only question is if Apple will actually follow through with the idea. My gut tells me this is actually going to happen because it is about the only thing that makes sense at this point for the product.
… and if true, thus will begin my cursing the fact I just bought a BlackBerry Tour this past August.
Are you on Twitter? Are you following TV personality Drew Carey? If you aren’t, why aren’t you?
Drew Carey, the current host of The Price is Right, is on a crusade to give $1 per Twitter follower he has by 11:59 pm on Dec. 31st, 2009 to the Livestrong Foundation. He has promised to donate up to $1 million dollars in the fight against cancer, but the donation is pegged to how many followers he has. Mr. Carey has even said he doesn’t care if you unfollow him on Jan. 1st, 2010, he just wants to raise awareness of the cancer research being done.
This was all inspired by Drew Olanoff, a well-known individual in the social media scene, auction off his Twitter username, @drew, to raise money for cancer research. Mr. Olanoff recently had a fight with cancer himself, which it thankfully appears he has won, and he felt auctioning off a desirable four-letter Twitter username was a way to go. His minimum bid was $10,000, but Drew Carey was the first to bid, and he went right for $25,000. See, Mr. Carey got stuck with the username @DrewFromTV, so of course he wants @drew. Well, the problem was that it appeared he scared off other potential bidders, so he said if he had 100,000 followers by Nov. 9th, the end of the auction, he would pay $100,000 for the name. When he easily beat that goal, he extended it to Dec. 31st and $1,000,000 for one million followers.
As I write this, Mr. Carey is at 307,212 followers with a week to go.
… what is wrong with you people?
When Ashton Kutcher said, “Hey, I want a million followers!”, people flocked to follow him with nothing in return. When a man is trying to promote the fight against cancer and is willing to give away a million dollars of his own money, people turn apathetic? All you have to do is click the follow button … that’s it. Nothing more. If you don’t like Drew Carey, fine, unfollow him on Jan. 1st, but come on, folks, follow the man for just the next week!
I normally don’t believe in guilting people in to doing things, but come on folks: You click a button, and someone else gives a $1 to charity. All you have to do is click a button. That’s it. Nothing else is required of you. If you’re a Twitter user, please do it.
MillionDollarDrew has more information and is tracking the progress to the goal.
It’s time to make my annual look back at my goals for this year on this blog, and what I want to do with it for the next year.
In 2008 and 2009 I did this post as part of a blogging project, and while the project went a different direction this year, I decided to keep up the tradition of posting this for my own reference and to maybe get some others to think about how they approach their own blogs.
The Goals For 2009
Measurable
Comments -I wanted to see the number of comments go up this year. They did increase, but still not at the levels I would like to see, but they are better.
Daily Page Views – I was hoping for a 50% increase in page views this year, to date they are up 282.61% … I’m floored and unbelievably grateful to all of the new readers this year.
Daily Revenue – I wanted to see an increase of daily revenue of at least 50%, and while I don’t have the exact number, it is way up beyond 50%. Again, thank you.
RSS Subscribers – I hoped to be at 120 RSS subscribers by this time, and I am at 132. Would love to be higher, but at least I beat my goal.
Social Bookmarking – I hoped I would some day get to the front page of Digg … well, I didn’t, and I just don’t care. I did, however, have a really good year on StumbleUpon!
Immeasurable
Writing Skills – I wanted to improve my writing skills, and … well, I think I’ve had some success in this area, but they could still use some polishing.
Internet Goals For 2009 – Other
Scattercast – Scattercast is still nowhere near the quality I’d like it be, but its getting there. I also wanted more iTunes subscribers, and that number has crept up, but very slowly. You could help by subscribing via iTunes!
Twitter – I hoped to be at 2,000 followers by now, and I’m over 3,000, so I made it!
The Goals For 2010
Measurable
Comments – Would still like to get more discussion going on.
Daily Page Views – I really have no clue how I’m going to continue this stratospheric growth. I am blown away by the 282.61% jump over last year, but I’m going to keep working at it!
Daily Revenue – Sure I’d like to see it keep growing, but that really isn’t why I run this blog, so if it goes up, it goes up.
RSS Subscribers – I really don’t know what I can do to keep this number growing, but I’m sure going to try! Maybe 200 by next year’s post? (Why not help out and subscribe to SeanPAune.com right now!)
Twitter – My opinion of having tons of followers has changed, but they are still nice to have. Make sure to check me out @seanpaune.
What Would You Like To See?
So what would you all like to see happen on SeanPAune.com in 2010? What types of posts do you like? Which do you loathe? Is there anything you wish to praise or pan? Tell me in the comments!
Welcome to another week of the daily edition of CobWEBs, the flagship podcast of The Cynical Bastards!
For those who don’t remember from the other episodes, this is a new format for the show as we are going to try giving you daily bite sized chunks of our patented brand of cynicism over everything in the tech universe. The show will have a rotating host schedule between Steven Hodson, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and myself. You’ll always get two of us, you just never know which two!
Steven and I have a chit chat about the CrunchPad the JooJoo tablet announced today by Fusion Garage. If you have no idea what that it, you can check out my historical post from earlier today about the history of the JooJoo, but really Steven and I are talking more about the circus that surrounds the device than anything else. It boils down to being the Web 2.0 soap opera to end them all … with a $499 hunk of plastic at the end for anyone silly enough to buy it.
From the “You have to be kidding me” file, rumors are circulating in the British media that Amazon is looking at opening retail store fronts.
According to The Sunday Times, a secret American retailer has been talking to “high street” (the British version of a main street in the USA) landlords about renting retail space. While no names have been mentioned, the landlords have been hinting that it is indeed the leading online retailer.
Why would such a successful company, that has never had to deal with the headaches of a storefront, suddenly decide to do this? Some speculation centers on the idea that consumers are really beginning to take to the idea of ordering online and picking items up at a storefront at a time of their choosing. I could see this being tested in a smaller market such as the U.K., but the overhead this is going to add to Amazon’s operating costs is going to be staggering.
I can see why they would ponder this, but as someone has gone from retail to Internet only operations … you couldn’t pay me enough to go back to having a retail shop. Sure it had its good moments, but it’s like a giant anchor around your neck. I hope this does prove to just be rumor, but we shall see.
With the news that Dollhouse has been cancelled, show creator Joss Whedon is examining his options, and at least one of those includes binge drinking.
In a comment on the Joss Whedon fansite Whedonesque, Mr. Whedon came to share the news of the show’s cancellation, but discovered he had been beaten to the punch.
Hmm. Apparently my news is not news.
I don’t have a lot to say. I’m extremely proud of the people I’ve worked with: my star, my staff, my cast, my crew. I feel the show is getting better pretty much every week, and I think you’ll agree in the coming months. I’m grateful that we got to put it on, and then come back and put it on again.
I’m off to pursue internet ventures/binge drinking. Possibly that relaxation thing I’ve read so much about. By the time the last episode airs, you’ll know what my next project is. But for now there’s a lot of work still to be done, and disappointment to bear.
Thank you all for your support, your patience, your excellent adverts. See you again. -j.
Hopefully this may mean he has the opportunity now to do a follow-up to the popular Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog which was a Web only series.
Mr. Whedon has said in previous interviews that he imagined that Dollhouse would be his last foray into television, and he was more interested in pursuing ventures on the Internet and films. Considering what happened with Firefly and Dollhouse, and some hiccups with his biggest success Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, I can’t say as I really blame him.
So,CBS has opted to play 60 Minutes in its entirety, meaning that Amazing Race, the show I’m waiting on, will not start until 8:11 my time. Well, my TiVo still shows it as airing from 7 – 8, and that is when it will record, leaving me without one second of the show.
Well, I’m lucky in that I also get West coast channels, so I can still catch the show at its specified time, but since I wrote the original rant, I have learned of something that exists that would fix all of this. Apparently there are signals that channels can send out in some countries and tell the DVRs that a show is running late and it will shift the schedule on your DVR for you automatically. So say a show is starting 5 minutes late, the network sends out a signal and your DVR will change the settings from 7 – 8 to 7:05 – 8:05.
Why don’t we have this here? I can’t imagine it is the complicated to do, and the technology already exists, so why isn’t it here? Instead, people that watch any show on Sunday night on CBS are totally hosed if they set their DVRs and left their houses for the evening. DVRs are now accounting for approximately 39 percent of all television viewing, so shouldn’t a bit more concern be given to making sure they record at the right time?
It seems if you are the daughter of a former Republican presidential candidate, you are expected to dress a certain way when even in your own home, staying in for the evening.
Megan McCain, the 24-year-old daughter of John McCain, has set off a veritable storm of controversy when she chose last night to post a picture to her Twitter account of the book she was staying in and reading for the evening. It wasn’t the book that caused the uproar, but the fact that she was wearing a tank top.
Oh no, the horrors.
What Ms. McCain that was a perfectly innocent and fun photo led to an evening of her being called a “slut”, and in turn, her having to defend her choices of what she chooses to wear in her own home. What follows is her responses to her followers, strong language left intact for impact (if they seem broken up, remember you are only allowed 140 characters per message, or Tweet):
so I took a fun picture not thinking anything about what I was wearing but apparently anything other than a pantsuit I am a slut, this is
why I have been considering deleting my twitter account, what once was fun now just seems like a vessel for harassment
I am going to take some more time to think about it but seriously I was just trying to be funny with the book and that I’m a dork staying in
when I am alone in my apartment, I wear tank tops and sweat pants, I had no idea this makes me a “slut”, I can’t even tell you how hurt I am
ok I am getting the fuck off twitter, promise not to delete my account until I sleep on it, thank you for the nice words supporters
I do want to apologize to anyone that was offended by my twitpic, I have clearly made a huge mistake and am sorry 2 those that are offended.
I guess I can clearly define myself as not being a prude at this point. Was the tank top tight? Yes. Is her choice to wear this in the privacy of her own home validation for calling her a “slut”? Not even close.
Yes, she opted to take a picture of herself and share it with her 60,000+ Twitter followers, but big freakin’ deal. I have a news flash for every one out there: Meghan McCain is a female and females have these things called “breasts”, and sometimes, just sometimes, they are partially visible. Just because a woman’s breasts are visible does not instantly equate her with being a “slut,” although it would seem that some people have a hard time with this concept.
To be honest, I wasn’t even aware Ms. McCain had a Twitter account until this morning, but I’m following her now. Why? Because anyone who gets verbally attacked like this over something as simple as opting to wear a tank top (while staying in for a night to read a book … I can’t get over that part) deserves support. This is the 21st century folks, not Victorian times where cloth doilies were placed around the feet of furniture because it might remind men of a woman’s bare ankle. (Think I’m kidding? Look it up.) Shall we return to a time where women wore floor length skirts so men would never see something as scandalous as a woman’s foot?
… and here’s to hoping Meghan comes around and sees the criticism for what it really is and doesn’t quit Twitter. None of us like pantsuits, Meghan, and we need women like you to kill them good and dead for the rest of us. You can never Spanx away big tits and a curvy ass, and whole nation of voluptuous women need you to not apologize for your breasts so we don’t have to apologize for ours. Keep fighting the good fight!
True, I don’t have the “voluptuous” problem Kim mentions here, but I agree with her overall point. They’re breasts folks, they aren’t going anywhere, stop acting so shocked when you see them.
Day 3 of “The Blogopshere vs. the FTC” brings us the full set of guidelines, and wow are they head spinning.
I really don’t want to blog daily on this whole Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guideline debacle, but it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.
First off, I finally got a link to the full 81-page document (PDF link) from Steven Hodson, and although I have only read through 51 pages thus far, this is going to be mandatory reading for every independent blogger if you want to make sure to keep yourself from getting in trouble with the FTC. That being said, be prepared for the extreme ambiguity of the document on many fronts.
So far I have still yet to find anywhere that describes in detail how disclosures are supposed to be written. It mentions numerous times that you must disclose if you receive a product for free and then give it a positive review (there is some implication that disclosure is not required on negative reviews), but nowhere does it say how are exactly where it is to be placed.
The document also discusses new rules for celebrity endorsements and how they are supposed to disclose their relationship with anything they speak positively of. The problem with this is that at no time do they define what a celebrity is. On tonight’s episode of CobWEBs, Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins and I discussed this, and technically you could call iJustine a celebrity, but that is only to a handful of people on the Internet. Heck, there was even a time when I was working for Wizard magazine that I was being asked for my autograph on a regular basis, would that have qualified me as a celebrity? I was a celebrity to those people, but not to the other 99.999999999% of the population of the country, but would I have qualified for the FTC celebrity rules? Who knows, their answers are so vague.
Then to muddy the waters even further, Richard Cleland, assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC (and someone Rizzn has been trying to get an interview with for 3 months with no luck) spoke with FastCompany, and made some of the most mind boggling statements ever.
Heather B. Armstrong, author of parenting blog Dooce: “Eleven thousand dollars is a little crazy for a post. Maybe I’m being naïve, but I think a lot of people who are in violation [of not disclosing] just don’t know that they’re supposed to.”
Richard Cleland: “That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law…
Excuse me? When did the FTC start writing laws? They are a regulatory body, they are not capable of making “laws”. Perhaps he was misquoted, but if the FTC really sees this as “law”, we’re in bigger trouble than any of us first thought.
Brian Lam, editorial director of Gizmodo: “Some colleagues of mine just reminded me of how many freelance pro journalists take junkets. In the end, I’m glad these rules are being introduced, but it’s kind of stupid to attach unethical behavior to a particular publishing medium. Look at how shitty TV journalism can be, by and large.”
RC: “It’s not the medium, it’s the message. We want to establish a self-imposed ethical standard so people are aware of the conflicts of interest…
“We want to establish a self-imposed…” um … which part of this sentence makes any sense? How does person #2 establish SELF-IMPOSED anything on person #1?
This is what we are dealing with folks: vagueness, ambiguity and a regulatory body that seems to have no clue what its actual job is. If you aren’t scared yet, you aren’t thinking.
This was the most tired argument I have seen, and it simply isn’t true. If this was true, I want you to point out to me where movie reviewers disclose that they got into a movie for free or got sent a DVD copy of the movie for free. We all know it happens, but have you ever seen them disclose it? Same goes for book, movie and DVD reviews.
Now, under these new FTC rules, if I decide to review anything, and if it was sent to me for free, then I have to write a disclosure every single time I do it. Tell me how these are the same rules traditional media has been under.
“Facebook and Twitter fall under these rules also.”
Yep, all that fun you have on social media sites? Well, prepare yourself to always disclose your relationship for any product you speak positively of.
Caroline McCarthy of CNET spoke with a Richard Cleland, associate director for the FTC’s advertising division, and here is the scenario he set up to explain the Facebook scenario:
Here’s a sample scenario: a celebrity or other prominent figure with loads of friends on Facebook receives free hotel says [sic] from Hotel Chain X in exchange for running Hotel Chain X ads on his or her blog. If that person then signs up as a Facebook fan of Hotel Chain X–which, remember, could mean that the person’s name can show up for his or her Facebook friends alongside Hotel Chain X display ads on the social network–he or she could be held liable by the FTC.
“It would be the same thing if you were going to pay the celebrity a thousand dollars to go register as a fan,” Cleland said. “In that case, there wouldn’t be any question about it.”
And as for new media darling Twitter?
As for Twitter, the FTC isn’t letting you get a pass with the excuse that 140 characters–Twitter’s famous text limit–is simply too short. “There are ways to abbreviate a disclosure that fit within 140 characters,” Cleland said. “You may have to say a little bit of something else, but if you can’t make the disclosure, you can’t make the ad.”
So, think you will be exempt from this if you aren’t a blogger. Too bad. If you have any sort of relationship with a product, and you make a comment anywhere on the Web about it, you better be prepared to disclose your relationship.
“This is all about going after sploggers.”
No, it isn’t.
In a discussion between Steven Hodson and Matt Cutts of Google on The Noisy Channel, they brought up the discussion of how this will cut out bad marketing:
Steven: “No degree of FTC intervention is going to make any difference to splogs or other such garbage…”
Matt: At a respected search conference last year, I sat in the audience and watched a presenter recommend “sock puppet” marketing by coming up with fake personas to promote products. With this new guidance from the FTC (plus similar recent guidance in the UK/EU against sock puppet marketing), that sort of bad advice will be much less likely to appear at search conferences. That’s one easy counter-example.
No, Matt, it isn’t. You are talking about advice given at a conference, big deal. The Sock Puppet marketers will simply start hiring people from Africa and India off of GetAFreelancer or other such sites and have them do that sort of marketing far from the reach of the USA, UK or EU.
And that is one of my biggest complaints about this whole thing is that the unethical people it is supposedly targeting will just find new ways of working around it, while those of us who follow ethical blogging and online presence will be saddled with these idiotic new rules, libing under fear of some little slip up costing us a potential $11,000 fine. Oh yeah, that makes things so much better.
“This will stop all those fake review sites.”
Are you kidding me?
Lets say that an “unethical” blogger is currently working out of the USA with their web site on servers that reside in the USA. They want to get away from these new rules so they move their site to servers in another country, they put privacy protection on their domain name and then they sit back.
The FTC finds them lacking disclosure, they will have to get a court order to reveal the name of the person who holds the ownership of the domain. So the FTC will have to weight taking the time to get the court order, and in some cases they will have to go through a court in another country, is it really worth all of that effort, time and taxpayer money for a possibly undisclosed material relationship? You guessed it, I would go with “no.” Of course, that doesn’t mean they won’t try.
All of the “bad” sites will simply move off shore to countries that don’t care about all of this hoopla, and the innocent people will yet again be left to jumping through hoops that should have never been required.
“This system is ripe for abuse.”
Yes, it is.
We have no clue what the investigation process will be like yet, but what is to stop people from reporting you for fun or revenge? ”Oh, hey, I think so-and-so has a relationship with that company they just posted abut on Facebook.” Oh won’t that be fun to defend yourself from false accusations? This is why some people will be better off even disclosing when they purchased something to cut off any possible questioning to avoid any sense in impropriety.
In other words, people will be so annoyed by having to watch their behinds that they simply won’t want to talk any more.
“Aren’t you worrying about this too much?”
No, I’m not.
I have done more reading today, and the tone of the conversations have changed quite a bit in the second day. Check out SiliconANGLE’s FTC vs. the Blogosphere Day 2 Roundup to get a better sense of what is being said everywhere. (disclosure: I am linked to in that article and I work for SiliconANGLE … see … won’t that get annoying?)
1. Will these same ‘guidelines’ be applied against “traditional media” and if not – why not?
2. What exact form do these disclosure need to take? Per post? Per page? Per comment?
3. Is this retroactive? Does this mean that sites like Gizmodo, TechCrunch, Mashable, – well every single blog past and present will have to go through all their archives and add a disclaimer. Because we all know that posts that are even months or years old can resurface.
4.Will book publishers make signing a disclosure form a part of bloggers doing book reviews and is it really worth the effort at that point?
5. Does the country of origin of the writer matter as to whether a disclosure is included?
6. Does it matter the country of origin of where the blog served from come into play?
7 Does the country of origin of the product, service or book come into play at all?
(disclaimer: I know Steven and make fun of his Canadian citizenship on a regular basis)
The FTC has got to start defining this whole thing better, but somehow I don’t see that coming any time soon.
For a company that gets so many thing right, Apple sure doesn’t seem to know what to do with the iPod Touch.
The iPod Touch was introduced in September 2007 as an alternative to the iPhone for those that wanted the bonus features of the phone. It was a great idea, people who avoided the iPhone for various reasons snapped it up, and the device has now taken on a life of its own as a handy PDA, and quite often as an “add-on” to BlackBerry users, such as myself.
In 2008 the iPod Touch received an update along with all of the other iPods. The only additions were an external speaker, some physical volume controls and an upping of the devices memory capacity. There was nothing quite compelling enough to get owners of the first generation Touches to update, so everyone looked forward to this year to bring a lot of updates to the device.
Well, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple, has returned from his medical leave, and as his first public duty since his liver transplant, he introduced this year’s new iPod line-up. And, once again, the iPod Touch got the shaft.
While rumors had been mounting of the iPod Touch getting a camera and an external microphone, instead what we got was a faster processor and another increase in memory.
… really? That’s it?
One of the cornerstones of the iPod sales success all these years is doing enough changes to them each year to make people want to constantly keep upgrading. Well, seeing as the run down of upgrade since generaiton 1 iPod Touches is as follows
External speaker
Physical volume controls
Faster processor
Increased memory capacity
Where is the motivation for anyone to upgrade? Sure, all of those things would be nice to have, but none of them are a “killer upgrade” that just makes me go crazy without it. The most exciting thing to happen to the iPod Touch today is that you can now manage your applications inside of iTunes instead of dragging your finger all over the screen. Whee. And guess what, it works in my first generation iPod Touch, so it still isn’t a reason to upgrade.
Don’t get me wrong, if my iPod Touch was to die, I would immediately buy another one, they are great devices. All this means is that I think Steve Jobs has forgotten how he created that early success in this product line: repeat customers. In all honesty, Apple did me a favor today, they actually saved me from spending any money, so perhaps I should thank them for constantly doing silly upgrades no one really needs to the iPod Touch. Thanks,Apple!
If you haven’t heard of Spotify yet, don’t worry, many others haven’t also. However, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t become a household name within the next few years.
Spotify is a fairly young music service that launched on Oct. 7, 2008 in Western Europe. While it has been in its invitation only beta stage the service has stayed tied to Europe for licensing reasons, but a United States release is expected in the not too distant future.
So, why is this service a game changer? Well, the answer is pretty simple in that with the licensing agreements the service has struck you can essentially pull up any song by any artist at any time and listen to it. If you want a free account you will have to go through advertisements every so often, but if you have a paid account you don’t even see the ads and can enjoy endless musical selections of all your favorite performers.
Where Spotify is really set to change the game is with its just released iPhone & iPod Touch and Android applications. The apps, just released today, is only for use by the paying customers, but one feature alone may be worth it. I have embedded the demo video below for you to watch, but essentially you make a playlist of your favorite music, tell the Spotify app you want that playlist to be available while you have no 3G or Wi-Fi access (i.e. on an airplane), and it will save the music to your device memory so you can play all of the selected tracks while you aren’t near a connection.
Now mind you that you do not own these tracks, and they can’t be transferred off of your device, but who will ever need to buy music anymore when you can just have a monthly Spotify subscription and make a bunch of offline playlists?
While I have been a huge fan of services such as Pandora for ages, the problem is that I need to have some form of access to listen to it. I also have no say in what songs come up on Pandora, but with Spotify I can have access to a basically limitless stream of music from just about any artist you can think of. Once this hits the United States, you don’t think this is going to be the most talked about music service on every college and university campus?
Take a look at the video and I think you’ll quickly why this is such a huge game changer for the mobile music market, and quite possibly the music industry as a whole.
It’s time to make my annual look back at my goals for this year on this blog, and what I want to do with it for the next year.
From the “You have to be kidding me” file, rumors are circulating in the British media that Amazon is looking at opening retail store fronts.
With the news that 
If this rant sounds familiar, it’s because it is.
I guess I can clearly define myself as not being a prude at this point. Was the tank top tight? Yes. Is her choice to wear this in the privacy of her own home validation for calling her a “slut”? Not even close.
Day 3 of “The Blogopshere vs. the FTC” brings us the full set of guidelines, and wow are they head spinning.
For a company that gets so many thing right, Apple sure doesn’t seem to know what to do with the iPod Touch.
If you haven’t heard of Spotify yet, don’t worry, many others haven’t also. However, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t become a household name within the next few years.
