iPhone killer? Think again.

In case you were living under a rock, the much-hyped T-Mobile G1 launched today. You know, the first cell phone that runs Google's Android mobile operating system. It was also the phone that the media dubbed as the "first real iPhone killer." 

Well, it's here, and I doubt any one of the 6.9 million iPhone 3Gs currently sold and the other millions of original iPhones are vibrating in fear tonight. Google announced the Android project a few months after the iPhone first went on sale in the summer of 2007, and the G1 is the product of nearly a year's worth of work. It should be known that the actual G1 hardware is made by HTC, not Google.

What I'm really astonished to find, however, is that in the four or so months we've had to digest the images of what the G1 would look like, no one has commented on its aesthetics, or lack thereof. Bottom line: the G1 is not a pretty phone, and Android is not a pretty OS. Contrast that to the G1's chief competitor, the iPhone 3G which is, in many people's opinions (including mine) a work of design magic. The iPhone feels like something special when you hold it in your hand, like this is way more than just a phone. iPhone OS has an elegant and graceful user interface, with animations leading you from one thing to the next. Android, on the other hand, just looks cartoonish. The G1's sliding display and hidden keyboard is just lame. And don't get me started on the whole T-Mobile network issue. T-Mobile was very late in getting into the 3G game, and its 3G coverage pales in comparison with other companies like AT&T and Verizon Wireless.

I'll give the G1 one thing: push Gmail. I've long been a Gmail devotee, but I've started to really become addicted to MobileMe's push email service on the iPhone, even if it costs something like $90 a year to subscribe.  If Yahoo! can get push email working on the iPhone, why can't Google? I guess the G1 seals the deal that we'll never see push Gmail on the iPhone.

Of course, I won't make my final judgements until I actually see and touch a G1 in a T-Mobile store, but I doubt that will do much to sway my opinion. 

New MacBooks!

Well, Apple has done it again: after the iPhone 3G launch earlier this year, the company has once again succeeded at making me feel quite inadequate with the launch of the new models of MacBook and MacBook Pros, introduced in San Francisco on Monday. 

Since my penchant for tinkering around in Final Cut Studio and the Creative Suite make me more of a MacBook Pro person than a standard MacBook guy (I've been a proud MBP owner for just about a year now), I'm going to focus on the Pro variant of the new launch. In an effort to make myself feel somewhat better on the day my beloved MacBook Pro was rendered obsolete, I'm going to focus on the things I don't like about the new MBP before touching on things that I do like. 

• Glass display. I've never been a fan of the glossy screen on the original MacBooks, as I think all that glare is just too annoying. Sure, it might make the colors look prettier, but if I'm going to be staring at a screen for a few hours, I don't want to have to do it through glare from overhead lights.
• Glass trackpad. This just seems a little excessive, doesn't it? This is supposed to be a durable machine, and all that glass just makes me nervous. I have yet to drop my MBP (knock on wood), and I'd have to think that between the glass display and glass trackpad, something is going to end up in a shattered mess. At least they still have a MagSafe adapter port...
• They all look the same. Call me pretentious, but I liked how the MacBook Pro had an extremely different look from the regular MacBooks. I could spot an MBP user from across the room--now that they look identical (only the size separates them), it's going to be hard to distinguish between the two. 
• Keyboard. This might be a rush to judgement, but I've never been a fan of the chicklet keyboard. The old MacBooks had a certain spongy feel to them--but this may have been due to their plastic construction. I'll reserve my final judgement for when I actually get to type on one, but the first impressions are not good.

OK, as hard as this is, now for the things that I like about the new MacBook family and what makes me want a new one.

• Unibody construction. Cool. Just awesome. Being able to carve a notebook computer out of a single block of aluminum (or al-yoo-mini-um, if you're Jonathan Ive) is pretty amazing, and sure does a lot to protect the stuff inside that case. 
• Style. I think Apple is genetically incapable of putting out anything short of beautiful. I might complain about the glare, but you have to admit that Apple's latest notebooks are truly a work of art. It also brings everything in line with the iMac/MacBook Air style.

If you haven't watched the MacBook video yet over on the Apple website, I highly suggest you go and watch it. The production values, as usual, are very nice--and you actually feel inspired to buy one when it's over. Inspired. By a notebook computer. If I get that feeling, then Apple is certainly doing their job.

Out with the old...

When San Jose State students return from summer break this year, their school will have a completely new graphic look. Will anyone notice? Probably not, except for graphic design nerds like me.

In the spirit of Brand New, one of my favorite blogs, I've posted the old and new versions of the SJSU logo above. As you can see, the new mark is much cleaner, using a blockier logo and the SJSU logotype is now set all in the same font, albeit at differing weights. The logo mark, that sort of diamond-ish square thing, is now completely solid as opposed to the subtle texturing that the old mark featured. 

Personally, I think the change is refreshing and brings with it a renewed spirit of brand cohesion that's long been missing from San Jose State. As the new image website states, SJSU "deserves to look as professional as we are," and I think that goal is definitely realized with this new logo and image.

That's all, folks...

Well, after five weeks and a few more blog posts, that's all for this season on Rant Seven. I'll continue to post here, as one wise professor once said that abandoning your blog is tantamount to shooting yourself in the foot. Having a blog where I can talk about media, technology and other related things is something I've wanted to have for a while, it just took this summer's RTVF 110 class to actually get me to sit down and do it.

Posts will appear on a more infrequent basis, but they will be here.

Thanks for reading. I hope you've enjoyed the ride so far.

The Clear Channel "List"

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, rumors began circling around the Internet and in the general media that Clear Channel Communications, owner of over 1,000 radio stations across the country, had distributed a list of what it considered “objectionable” songs to program directors at its stations. As the rumor read, Clear Channel thought these songs were inappropriate to play in the days after 9/11. More than 100 songs appeared on this list, some from notable bands and artists like Led Zepplin, REM, Elvis, James Taylor and others.

Indeed, there was a list—however, contrary to popular belief, the list did not come from top Clear Channel brass. Rather, it came from a program director at a single Clear Channel station. Being a part of a large corporation myself, I know things like these can spread like wildfire thanks to the instant nature of email. According to an article on the website Snopes.com, which is where urban legends and rumors are often debunked, the list crept out of the Clear Channel organization after the original program director sent it to a few other Clear Channel program directors, who in turn forwarded it on, and so on. It was never a "ban," or even a "suggestion" from Clear Channel upper management.

While I still completely believe Clear Channel is one of the evil empires of the United States media industry (I find slight solace in the fact they recently sold off their entire 56-station television group and almost a third of their smaller radio stations), you have to call urban legend where it is warranted, and this is one such occasion. I’m sure that Clear Channel has had more than just a passing interest in what music is played on its stations, which isn’t hard to do considering most smaller stations have their content farmed out to DJs working at larger stations in a practice known as voicetracking.

When we discussed this in my RTVF 110 class, I brought up the fact that many radio stations and DJs "self-censor" during these times of tragedy or natural disaster. In October 2007, when hundreds of homes were burned to the ground due to wildfires raging in San Diego County, you did not hear R&B hits like Usher's "Burn" on San Diego hip-hop station Z90.3. (They did, however, play Alicia Keys' "No One" about once an hour, mixed with local news sound bites talking about the fires.) I can almost guarantee that any jock in their right mind would not add that song to his or her playlist during the height of the wildfires, or while the memories of houses—and lives—going up in flames were still fresh in the minds of many San Diegans.

Movie Review: Wall-E

At first thought, Wall-E would seem to be just another Pixar animated movie from Disney. But with hits like Toy Story, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles and now, Wall-E, Pixar can say for a fact that it can create children's movies that successfully reach--and engage--an adult audience. Wall-E is not just a film about the life of a robot, rather, it is an important social commentary on what might happen to our planet if and when the culture of buying large and polluting without regard continues. 

Wall-E begins by showing us Earth in the 2100s, after the huge corporation Buy-N-Large took over everything on the planet, government included. What we see is a dramatically represented Earth--one completely devoid of inhabitants. Trash, as you see, is everywhere, and because of the planet being completely overrun with this waste, all humans have been forced to leave the planet and seek refuge on one of BnL's fleet of super spaceships. What would happen to Earth, however? Well, BnL has that taken care of, deploying a fleet of WALL-E (Waste Allocation Lift Loader-Earth Class) robots to clean up the planet. Seven hundred years later, our lone protagonist Wall-E is the last remaining robot that works. 

What follows is the story of a robot who has grown lonely, until he is joined by EVE, a robot sent down from one of the mega-spaceships to find living plant matter on Earth, and in turn, to find out if it is safe for humans to return. When she finds a plant that Wall-E has saved in a shoe, she takes it and stores it, and eventually goes into standby mode. A doting companion, Wall-E cares for her during this time, until a ship comes to pick her up from Earth and return her to the mega-ship. 

Wall-E is not just a fictional love story between two robots. It is, however, an important commentary on the dangers of rampant consumerism--the constant overbuying and polluting of the planet while disregarding the consequences. Is Wall-E an accurate depiction of what Earth might look like several hundred years from now? Of course we can't predict the future, but anything is possible. For many reasons, these included, Wall-E is an important film to see that will entertain at the same time as deliver an important message. 

Mosque... coming to the U.S.?

Well, I had the utmost respect for CBC's sitcom, Little Mosque on the Prairie, but all that was lost when I visited their website and found it made heavy use of the Comic Sans font. Come on guys, Comic Sans? Let's get with the 21st Century...

Comic Sans loathing aside, this CBC sitcom is another example of how Canadians do an excellent job at creating television programming that contatins a clear message. In case you don't know exactly what I'm talking about here, Little Mosque follows a group of Muslims living in a small Saskatchewan town as they start their own mosque and struggle for acceptance. While the bigotry the group faces is used as a comedic device in each episode, the show's message of tolerance resonates soundly.

It's clear that Canadians are watching, too. The series premiere attracted more than 2 million viewers--in Canada, a show that draws in 1 million viewers is considered a huge success.

While 2 million viewers doesn't exactly spell success for shows on American television networks, its success north of the border has caused networks here to stand up and take notice. Fox, interestingly enough, has picked up the rights to develop a U.S. version of Little Mosque. When, or if, this show will ever make it to air here in the U.S. is pretty uncertain. If the Canadian version is any indication, Little Mosque will need to make a few improvements--namely in the acting and storyline--if it is to prove popular with American audiences.

But Little Mosque isn't the first "show with a message" that has proven popular in Canada. Over on CBC's rival network, CTV (who successfully wrestled the Canadian rights to air the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games from CBC), Degrassi: The Next Generation is one of Canada's highest-rated dramas that frequently addresses issues like coming out, teen pregnancy and more. Issues that, until recently, American shows didn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. Degrassi has enjoyed moderate success south of the border in the United States, where it is the highest-rated show on The N cable network.

The Fox deal doesn't rule out the possibility of the orginal Canadian version of Little Mosque ending up on American cable TV, however, so it is completely possible that we might see an American version competing with the Canadian version for the attention of U.S. television viewers.