Here is the response:

Even so, it saddens me that equality must be forced onto people. Desire to be equal should come from within, not be rained down from above. I think you know as well as I that—if an amendment to the state constitution were put to the people of Iowa that reversed this decision—it would pass with a generous majority. (Heck, people voted against “equality” in California—California!) All this will do is allow for a lot of people to flock to Iowa in a few weeks to be “married” only to have that union invalidated when the decision is ultimately overturned. It’s actually kind of sad.

That’s all I’ll say about this for now.

Hi Ben, there isn’t anything wrong with your PSA-1. It is designed to work with the PodCaster microphone. The microphone acts as a counterbalance that stabilizes the PSA-1. You will need a mic that has a comparable weight to the PodCaster which weights about 21.5oz.

Ok great. Now he wants me to buy a Podcaster which starts at over $200. I was under the impression that the PSA-1 would work with any mountable microphone. Hmm. Well, I decided to test his theory and approximated the weight of a Podcaster microphone. It worked. Then I got the brilliant idea to hang my Blue Snowball from the boom arm using a velcro strap. Also works. Here’s a video of the hanging Snowball in action:

The nice man at Røde Support (Michael is his name) offered to mail me the adaptor that was missing from the box. Thanks! Hopefully when that comes the hanging Snowball will be no more…but for right now it seems to be working fine.

I’m so sick of hearing about how the Apple TV is a mere extension of the iTunes Store. They say it’s essentially a rental box. A rental box! As if the only reason one would purchase an Apple TV is to rent and/or buy stuff for it. I’m not denying that the device is woefully limited in the formats it supports, mainly H.264 for video and MP3 or AAC for audio (heck, it won’t even play the Audible audiobooks that every other Apple device can play). But it does do more than play media bought from iTunes. In fact, I didn’t purchase my Apple TV to play purchased content at all.

Some of the reasons I bought an Apple TV:

• My entire music collection—purchased from iTunes (and Amazon MP3 store), ripped from CD, etc.—is in the iTunes jukebox. Thus, it is on my Apple TV.
• I rip every DVD I come across using Handbrake. It has a great preset called Apple TV which creates beautiful H.264 video files. If I want it to be portable, Handbrake also lets me rip DVDs at a lower bitrate suitable for the iPhone. Once the DVD is ripped, it goes in to my iTunes library. See previous bullet.
• Podcasts. Audio, video, it doesn’t matter. Podcasts are great on Apple TV, especially the HD ones. Diggnation in HD is awesome!
• AirTunes. With the Apple TV 2.0 firmware, I can now stream my library to the Apple TV without touching the Apple TV. Ok, I have to make sure my A/V system is set to the right input, but beyond that everything can be done from my iMac. Very cool.

There you go. Four great reasons to use an Apple TV that don’t necessary involve viewing only rented/purchased content. Take that, James McQuivey.

The rant continues after the jump….

As you might have surmised from the topic of my post, my desire to unlock my iPhone stands at absolute zero. I guess my number one reason is that I’ve had AT&T wireless service through several mergers and I’ve never had a problem. Ever. In fact, I have received better service from the wireless arm of the various AT&Ts than I have from any other telecom or utility provider.

The second reason—and I think all subsequent reasons are subordinate to this one—is that Apple has every right to protect the user experience provided by their devices by any means they feel necessary. They do this with their computers and while there is some outcry regarding the practice it is not nearly as fervent as the furor over the iPhone. Let’s say I buy a copy of Mac OS X. I now own a license to use the software (note: I do not own the software itself). Apple is able to include in the license any term or condition under the sun and by purchasing and installing this software I’m agreeing to the license. Contained within Apple’s OS license is that it is only to be installed on Apple computers. Macs and their operating system cannot be “unlocked”—they are bound together by a license agreement. While it may not be illegal to install OS X on anything you please, it definitely is a violation of Apple’s license. The same goes for the iPhone. In fact, unlocking phones is explicitly permitted by the DMCA. Unfortunately, it still violates terms of service. As such, Apple can refuse to service or honor the warranties of altered iPhones. And it has. It has every right to and those who think otherwise make me a bit sick to my stomach.

I can certainly see why one might want to unlock an iPhone. Maybe they feel that T-Mobile’s coverage is better or their customer service is more responsive or perhaps they’re already a T-Mobile customer. I think Apple’s reasoning is just as valid: they want to provide a consistent experience with the iPhone for every consumer and the best way to do that is to have one carrier. One method of activation, one set of rate plans, one implementation of Visual Voicemail. It makes it easier for Apple and for the consumer. Less to choose from, sure, but certainly less complicated and easier to support.

To me, asking Apple to unlock the iPhone for use with another service is no different than asking Apple to unlock the mobile OS X software and allow it to be used on any other phone. Asking Apple to do the reverse—allowing the ability to install a 3rd party OS onto the iPhone like Windows Mobile or Symbian—is equally absurd. The iPhone, the mobile OS X operating system, and the AT&T service go together. Yes, you can run the iPhone on other wireless carriers. You could also run a different OS on it. Just because you can doesn’t me you should or be allowed to do so.

You may think I’m an Apple fanboy and to a certain extent I am, but I’m also an avid follower of business news and trends. It always shocks me when someone suggests that limiting 3rd party access to the iPhone or refusing to offer an unlocked version is detrimental to Apple’s bottom line. Sure, Apple could probably move more units if they provided more functionality or unlocked units. The way I see it, Apple isn’t selling iPhones. They’re not selling mobile OS X or even AT&T wireless service. They are selling their brand which is known for “just working.” They’ve done pretty well in this area in the past so I’m inclined to let them take their time. There is a right way to do 3rd party apps and a wrong way. A recent announcement from Apple says that officially sanctioned native 3rd party apps will be coming to the iPhone and the iPod touch in a few months. It looks like the “just works” method of installing new apps on iPhones is on its way. Let’s just give Apple a chance to do it right. If they blow it, I’ll be the first one to admit it. But the phone is their baby—let’s see what they have in store for us.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that Apple isn’t a computer company any more. It’s not an iPod company. It’s not even an iPhone company. It’s a lifestyle company. So whether or not Apple is treating the iPhone as a mobile phone or a whole new computing platform (a distinction I hear being bandied about a lot), the distillation of the whole debate is that it can be whatever Apple wants it to be so long as it successfully extends the brand image. That’s business.

That’s Apple.