Crazy like a fox?

Apple's iPhone Is Launched In France, Via Vietnam -- iPhone -- InformationWeek

Steve Jobs has taken a lot of heat for releasing Apple's iPhone in Europe without 3G. Crazy, right? I'm not so sure. The hype surrounding the phone has allowed Apple to broker arrangements that might otherwise be considered unheard of:

The iPhone operates on Edge data networks, which are slow, so the availability of Wi-fi which the phone also can use for Internet access, is important to users. France Telecom's embrace of the iPhone would seem to be a marriage made in heaven, because the service provider has more than 2,000 paid Wi-Fi hotspots in Paris alone. In addition there are several hundred more Wi-Fi hotspots -- many of them offered by the city for free. France Telecom and the city of Paris have been squabbling over the free sites.

At the iPhone's unveiling in Berlin, exclusive German provider Deutsche Telekom's T-Mobile trumpeted its 8,500-plus Wi-Fi hotspots. In the U.K, Wi-Fi is needed even more as exclusive iPhone service provider O2 can cover just an estimated 30 % of the U.K. population. Apple and O2 have forged an arrangement with Wi-Fi provider the Cloud for iPhone subscribers to use its 7,500 U.K. hotspots.

Can you imagine any of those mobile companies agreeing independently to allow that sort of access to wifi networks? Apple is changing the game even more than it first appears by forcing these two very separate business lines (mobile plus wifi providers) together - and passing that combination on to the customer with a product that will provide longer battery life - and generally faster connections (because of the wifi deals) than any of its rivals - with a better form factor.

What would Apple truly have gained by moving down the 3G route at this time? It appears to me they've scored a coup that benefits both Apple and the consumers. Now if only T-Mobile had reached a deal with Apple in the US...all those hot spots!

"Meet the metaverse, your new digital home"

Well...maybe not YOURS - but it is certainly home to those who wrote this report and are positioned to benefit from digital advances. An interesting theory - and very likely to be true for the digital elite. But how large a segment of society will that digital elite be? And how much more of a disadvantage will those left out be at?

"The Internet in 2016 will be an all-encompassing digital playground where people will be immersed in an always-on flood of digital information, whether wandering through physical spaces or diving into virtual worlds."

Even today, I am close to having access to a near-constant flood of information with my smart phone, a laptop that rarely leaves my side, and a level of comfort with new technology that leads me to use it routinely. But I don't think that I am anywhere near the norm. And I am on the lower edge of the digital elite - a basic consumer of tools already produced, not deeply involved in the development of such tools. If my ability to rapidly access information elevates me substantially above most of my colleagues and friends (most of them at least comfortable with the basics of the Information Revolution) - and I am merely an informed amateur, how much will continued (rapid) evolution serve to further separate those on opposite sides of the digital divide? An interesting question, I think.

This one's interesting for a couple of reasons...

Firstly, it points to the instability we helped generate when we ran the Islamic Courts Union out of power in the hopes of nabbing a few individuals associated with Al Qaeda. Secondly, it points to the power of the web. How? Check out this little snippet:

An insurgent group known as the Popular Resistance Movement in the Land of the Two Migrations, which is linked to the ousted Council of Islamic Courts, claimed it was the target of the government offensive but said its fighters repulsed the attack.

"They were unable to bear the pain of bullets coming from all four directions," the group said in a statement posted on the Islamic militia's Web site.

A government official, who agreed to discuss the combat situation only if not quoted by name, said the offensive focused on parts of the city controlled by the Habr Gedir clan, which supported more radical elements of the Islamic militia and opposes the interim administration.

Yep. Middle of Somalia. Ragtag militia fighting in one of the most chaotic cities in the world...but they get information out over the web quickly - and I'd bet with a better spin than that managed by the Somali "government."

Interesting.

Very interesting political stuff

In '08 Race, Web Tactics Are Even More Integral - WSJ.com

So, for me, it comes down to one question, phrased two different ways...built from an understanding that the Republicans (at least in 2004) have shown a much better system for generating typical "grass roots" support while Democrats have tended to better cultivate "digital roots."

1. At what point will "Digital Roots" become a more powerful force than "Grass Roots"

or, perhaps better put:

2. At what point will Internet usage become so common and comfortable for a large enough body of Americans that "Digital Roots" and "Grass Roots" will no longer be distinguishable from each other?

I would argue it is very easy to make the distinctions now. Matter of fact, you can start by looking at the Internet statistics displayed in this WSJ article...John McCain (leading among Republicans) has had 296k unique visitors to his campaign site. That would place him a distant 4th among Democrats. I'll skip comparing the MySpace friends numbers because I am convinced those are still, essentially, meaningless.

So "Grass Roots" support remains more a Republican specialty. "Digital Roots" belong to the Dems. How will that affect the race? It certainly makes it easier for Dems to get their message out more quickly (if they are well organized) and likely gives them a greater ability to raise cash on short notice (assuming they also hold a lead in online fund raising - something I haven't looked into very deeply).

As the article says,

Greater emphasis by campaigns on the Internet "is recognition that the game is radically changing ... It's the Moore's Law in politics. Every two years it all doubles or more but this year, it's more than doubled."

Argh!

192 UN recognized states in 10 minutes

How could I have missed places that I've been? Ah well. I got exactly half - 96 in ten minutes.

A strong counter-rally surprises the Post

Veterans, Others Denounce Marchers - washingtonpost.com

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy.

"I've never been to a war rally. I hoped I'd never have to," said Jim Wilson, 62, a Vietnam vet from New Hampshire. "We're like what they used to call the silent majority."

If Mr. Wilson (quoted above) is correct in his assumption, this is likely an issue that goes beyond the anti-war/pro-war marchers in Washington. It speaks to the organizing power of the Information Age and how deeply it has penetrated into American society.

But the war protesters have gone too far, Lee and others said. At a Jan. 27 antiwar rally, some protesters spray-painted the pavement on a Capitol terrace. Others crowned the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue with a pink tiara that had "Women for Peace" written across it.

Word of those incidents ricocheted around the Internet.

"That was the real catalyst, right there," said Navy veteran Larry Bailey. "They showed they were willing to desecrate something that's sacred to the American soul."

And, of course, any time I see people respond to the foolishness that is ANSWER, it makes me feel warm inside...