I have been a fan of http://www.scottsigler.com for years. His horror/scifi stories are excellent entertainment. He and his team (Dark 0verlord Media) have a boundless enthusiasm for Scott's fans.

The most recent developments in how Dark 0verlord Media puts together books, eBooks and audio books just shows a real grip on how media is moving. I think it signals a shift back in favor of the content creators as well. The ability to make such quality content then still deliver it in any format the fan could want is something Hollywood can learn from.

#1 - I am keeping way less content on my iPhone than I did before moving video etc to my iPad.

#2 - I have not purchased any iPhone only apps since getting iPad. But boy have I blown some green on iPad apps of various uses.

#3 - I have spent way too much catching up on Supernatural now that I have a small tv in my hands. Yup more $$ but worth it. It's a rocking great show.

#4 - I love reading my magazines and books on iPad. Though it can be a little tedious getting pdf downloads of various Forensic and Security magazines. They really need to embrace authenticated RSS feeds. Then I can automate the download and syncing onto my dropbox account where it's easy to open the PDF on my iPad.

#5 - Developers need to get certain apps updated for iPad. 2X bites for things like IM clients.

#6 - The camera connector kit works great for photos and audio. But the iPad is NOT a true 720HD player. I can copy from my Kodak Zi8 camera onto the iPad, but not play the video till I sync it back to my Mac with iPhoto.

#7 - iPad doubles my iPhone battery life. Because I am rarely carrying my iPhone around the house any more. Heck I realized I left the house without my iPhone the other day. Then I realized it was in my pocket. I had forgotten it was even there. I was taking iPad to the coffee shop for some reading and hot tea relaxation.

#8 - iPad battery lasts a really really long time. I only have to fully charge it about every other day. And that is with watching a couple of episodes of Supernatural each night before bed.

I make no secret I enjoy Apple products. I got into Apple products after my experience with my first iPod and deciding that I was tired of feeling like I was still at work when I was home.  All the maintenance and effort to keep Windows based products working efficiently was too much like my day job. Most of the time Apple products just work for how I use them. Sure like any product made by humans Apple can have design issues.  Like any electronic device it will fail at some point in time.  With that said I am an information security professional.  I also spent several years out of college in loss prevention.  I am not a lawyer but clearly I have strong feelings on this whole situation.  And here they are.  

Recently a number of tech journalist sites pushed to get the documents from the Apple/Gizmodo affair released.  Specifically in relation to why Jason Chen's equipment was seized.  They have been all upset saying he is protected as a journalist from having his systems and data examined by authorities. They wanted to see in the documents how horrible the authorities are and how this abused Jason Chen and First Amendment protection he should have been enjoying.

In this case Gawker media has made no secret of their brand of checkbook journalism.  People like to say poor Gizmodo just paid for the right to examine the device.  Excuse me?  The RIGHT?  Brian Hogan was not the owner.  He KNEW he was not the owner.  Gizmodo could not reasonably doubt Brian Hogan was not the owner.  It was not his right of examination to sell.   There is no way anyone at the level of knowledge of Gizmodo or even most tech bloggers could not recognize the device was legitimate within minutes.   After all no one parts with that much cash on a maybe.  They took a look, they handed over cash and Brian Hogan handed over the device.  So lets look at that again.  Cash was exchanged for possession of the device that was clearly not the property of either party.  That is not selling a RIGHT of examination.  That is selling the device.

CNet has a good bit of coverage in the article titled "Apple spurred police in iPhone probe."  No kidding.  Their property went missing.  Brian Hogan had more than enough time to comply with California law and turn it over to the police.  Instead he set out to sell it.  Gizmodo then had it for more than enough time to turn it over to police per California law.  Steve Jobs asked Gizmodo for the device back.  Gizmodo refused to turn over what they publicly claimed was Apple's property.  They sure didn't say, sorry, now we are sure its not our property we'll go turn it over to the police in accordance with California law.  Then they can confirm its yours.  They demanded something from Apple before they would hand it over directly.  To me that sure sounds like ransom.

Apple has every right to report to police what is clearly gone beyond a lost to a stolen and then ransomed property. Of course they spurred police.  Just as if someone mugs you, breaks into your house etc you are going to report it to spur the authorities into doing something about it.

So the whole point I am trying to make?  All those tech journalists with their fur ruffled over Jason Chen.  Steve Jobs asked for the return of the device on April 19th.  Gizmodo replied electronically with their ransom demand for a device they knowingly paid to get possession of from someone clearly did not have the right to sell it.  You don't get a call from a large company CEO as a joke.  The very fact he contacted you tells you that it's real.  Gizmodo was even making it clear they thought it was Apple's property in their coverage.  The authorities seized James Chen's systems On April 23rd.  Big surprise. It is perfectly reasonable to believe the systems have evidence critical to showing motives. On April 22nd the roommate reported to authorities that Brian Hogan was attempting to get rid of electronic evidence.  So is it any surprise they moved the next day to preserve all other digital evidence from potential destruction, loss or tampering? Additionally it provides a second validation point of any information they find on the recovered evidence Brian Hogan was attempting to get rid of.

I say this to all the tech journalists who were getting all high ground about the seizure being a violation of the First Amendment.  Every action taken by Brian Hogan and Gizmodo quacks like the duck of a violation of California Law when you look at the timeline and the clearly both parties knew it was not their property.  Look at the attitude of Brian Hogan about the loss of the phone.  Look at the reply to Steve Jobs by Gizmodo.  It is all clearly showing motive of both of them. The timeline shows the authorities had valid concerns for the evidence of violation of California law when they seized Jason Chen's systems.  Look into that ethical abyss and hope you don't blink.  

Personally, I prefer the wait and see the facts attitude of real tech journalists like Andy Ihnatko and Clayton Morris.

Allow me to translate Adobe's recent post From http://www.adobe.com/choice/  I will put my translation in parenthesis.

At Adobe, we believe that the open flow of creativity, ideas, and information should be limited only (by what we implement and how freaking long it takes us to do it). (Our cash flow) thrives when people are (stuck with our) technologies that enable them to (pay us licensing to) express themselves and access information where and when they want. Everyone loses when technological barriers (and horrible security) impede the exchange of ideas (, security and reliability).

Openness (and proprietary complexity of code) is at Adobe's core. (Try parsing a PDF for malicious code or executables, sure you can read some of it in a text editor so that's open right?) Our first technology was an open standard that liberated publishing from proprietary printing systems, and soon afterward our PDF technology eliminated barriers to sharing documents (and malware) across platforms.

Adobe® Flash® (aka Trash and Crash) technology enables the delivery of content (and horrible computer performance experience) to hundreds of millions of people, regardless of platform or browser. In 2009, in partnership with Google, Research In Motion, and dozens of other companies, we formed the Open Screen Project, a coalition committed to making web experiences seamlessly available on any mobile device. (Never mind we have yet to get it shipping on actual mobile devices in the wild.)

We believe open markets that allow developers, publishers, and consumers to make their own choices about how they create, distribute, and access content are essential to progress. That's why we actively support technologies like HTML4, HTML5, CSS, and H.264, in addition to our own technologies. (Never mind its only Done just enough to simply wrap our own Flash, Shockwave plaftorms.)

As the web and mobile devices facilitate the free exchange of ideas like never before, we stand at the leading edge of an amazing revolution. (But we see that edge as a cliff and won't jump off it unless it's got an Adobe trademark bungee cord attached.)