Well, Ryan has already blogged it, so I guess the cat’s out of the bag: I’ve left Engadget. More info on where I’m going next in a bit. But to quash those inevitable conspiracy theories: I am not going to any of Engadget’s competitors. In fact, I’d argue that there aren’t really any serious competitors to Engadget. The site stands alone at the pinnacle of the gadget blogging world, and I don’t see that changing any time soon. So, if you haven’t caught on yet, I’m still a big fan of Engadget, and this is most definitely not the place to come if you’re looking for bitter grumblings from a disgruntled ex-employee. I will, however, shed a little light on my penultimate Engadget post, where I wrote a little something about some comments made by Apple’s Steve Jobs in a recent interview with NBC’s Brian Williams:

“You keep on innovating, you keep on making better stuff,” Jobs said, in response to a question from Williams about why a new iPod might seem outdated as soon as you take it out of the box. Then Jobs offered a bit of advice to consumers: “If you always want the latest and greatest, then you have to buy a new iPod at least once a year.”

I followed that with:

Gee, thanks, Steve. We always thought it was the dead batteries or battered shell that kept sending us back to the Apple store. Glad you could set us straight.

The post was headlined, in a somewhat tabloidesque manner, “Jobs: ‘you have to buy a new iPod at least once a year.’”

This wasn’t an unusual post; it was a typical example of the kind of snarky, sarcastic, hype-deflating humor Engadget indulges in on an almost daily basis. It was our way of saying, essentially, “yes, we know you have to upgrade every year to get the coolest stuff. But—wink, wink, nudge, nudge—it takes a lot of chutzpah for a CEO to come out and actually say it.” I also wanted to call attention to the fact that—at least for some customers—the upgrade cycle can end up being forced not by a need for the “latest and greatest” but by product defects, such as the iPod’s well-known battery and scratching problems.

I knew I would get a lot of comments, and that most of them would be negative. Pretty much anything about Apple brings out the company’s defenders and detractors, and this was no different. Unfortunately, very few of the commenters fully grasped what I was trying to do; many criticized the “misleading” headline, and defended Apple’s history of innovation. Others felt that the post wasn’t news, and that we were wasting their time by pointing out the obvious. Their vitriol wasn’t reserved for me; Ryan added a comment suggesting that people “lighten up,” and ended up sharing the wrath of our angered readers.

I’ve developed a pretty thick skin writing for Engadget, and I certainly don’t take any of the comments personally (even if they are directed at me). However, I do think the response to this particular post was somewhat telling. I think that, to some extent, I touched a nerve. It’s something of a given among certain purchasers of consumer electronics that regular upgrades are essential to get the “latest and greatest” products. By questioning this—even in a gently humorous manner—I was shaking one of their core beliefs.

Yet it’s worth noting that this kind of constant upgrade cycle isn’t necessary for all products, and is a relatively new “innovation.” As explained in the recent book “Made to Break : Technology and Obsolescence in America,” Henry Ford created the Model T to be the only car customers would ever need to buy. They routinely lasted for a decade and longer, and the car’s basic design remained unchanged for nearly 20 years. However, faced with competition by other automakers, which had begun to master the art of creating demand by producing new models every year, Ford changed tactics, and began to roll out new models with new features on an annual basis. In some cases, this endless upgrade cycle is a good thing; in the automotive and other industries, it has indeed led to many advances in technology and quality.

In other cases, however, it’s just an excuse to boost demand. And this applies to Apple as much as any other company. Though some iPod models certainly have represented a major improvement over their predecessors, others were hardly the “latest and greatest.” The shuffle, for example, was clearly created to fill a void in Apple’s product lineup—the company previously didn’t compete in the market for low-priced flash-based digital audio players. The shuffle itself, however, was (and is) an unremarkable model, largely inferior to competing products. But it secured a position for Apple in a lucrative market segment. Likewise, the iPod with video added functions that existed in competing products for years. Apple needed to add those features to stay competitive. If anything, the innovation that came with the video iPod had little to do with the product itself, and much to do with Apple’s distribution model: Apple was able to leverage the success of the iTunes Music Store to create an online market for iPod-ready videos. Don’t get me wrong. I think some iPods are great products; I even own a couple of them (along with close to a half-dozen MP3 players from other vendors). But Jobs was engaging in a bit of his usual hyperbole, and my post was an attempt to deflate that.

I think the Jobs post was a fitting coda to my time at Engadget. And, having read all of the comments (all 141 of them), if I had to write it again, there’s absolutely nothing I would change about it. Including—especially—the “misleading” title.

Good article in The Wall Street Journal about digicam shutter lag:

Most digital cameras still don’t provide what every film camera does—the ability to time a shot by pressing the button at the moment the baby smiles, the cat pounces or the Little Leaguer hits the ball. ... Camera makers didn’t want to take the snap out of snapshots when they developed digital cameras. But to hold down costs, they needed to make the specialized semiconductor that captures the image do a lot of preparatory work, calculating light levels and focal distance. ... In the age of film, when the button was pressed, the picture was captured in an instant. In the vast majority of digital cameras, there’s a delay that can last as long as two seconds.

While there are ways around this problem—most notably the commonly used “half press” trick—consumers shouldn’t have to resort to workarounds when paying $500 for a digicam. And, the fact is, the compact digicam is now a relatively mature product, and there’s no excuse for this problem to still exist. Instead of cramming 8 megapixel sensors and useless high ISO functions into compacts, manufacturers should be tackling the shutter lag problem. It can be done. About two years ago, I picked up what is still one of my favorite subcompacts: a Kyocera SL400R. Not only was it incredibly small and sleek, but it had virtually no shutter lag, and had the most advanced burst mode available on any consumer digicam (and even many pro models): 3.5 fps until the card was full. Unfortunately, Kyocera later got out of the digicam business, and nobody bothered to pick up on the company’s tech. But if they could do this two years ago on a subcompact, others should be able to pick up the ball and run with it today.

Forget the Liquify filter! For this Engadget post about the potential for development of cloaking devices, I created what has to be my finest Photoshop illustration ever. It was a lot of work, but I have to admit that it was well worth the effort!

More nostalgia. Back in the day, “Love & Rockets” was the only comic book series I read religiously. Jaime Hernandez’s series of stories about LA punks Maggie, Hopey and their pals were the graphical equivalent of “Repo Man”—stories that blurred the line between the quotidian exploits of the characters and weird sci fi subplots (in early issues of L&R, Maggie was a rocket-ship mechanic with a crush on a pilot). Later issues dropped the sci fi to focus more on the characters, which was probably the right direction for Hernandez to take, though I did miss those elements once they vanished. Now, Maggie’s back, in The New York Times Magazine, of all places (well, she never really went away, since new stories have continued to appear periodically over the past 20 years—but this is a pretty high-profile appearance). And she’s middle-aged, overweight, divorced and managing an apartment building for a living. From the looks of things, life has somehow passed her by, though she is, hopefully, about to learn some universal truths from her old friend, the legendary wrestling champ Rena Titañon. Or not. I don’t think Xaime brought her back in such a prominent venue just to pack her off with some sort of trite new-age awakening. Still, I’d like to think that Maggie can make out OK in the end. Even if she doesn’t end up with rocket pilot Rand Race, she deserves more out of life than a dead-end job and an empty home. Here’s hoping Xaime has some kind of answer for her!

I’ve always wanted to have multiple displays on my desktop—if only to have a second window to keep things like a media player and widgets open. But a solution like this is, alas, out of my reach. However, I recently decided to turn my “poor man’s UMPC” into a “poor man’s secondary display,” using Maxivista, a $20 program that lets you turn any computer into a display. As you can see in this picture, the secondary display is communicating via WiFi, but is still very responsive. I can’t run video on it, but it’s perfect for my needs. If I still want to use it as a tablet, I just disable it from the tray, and start working. Now I’m tempted to pick up a second cheapo tablet or old laptop to use as a third display. And, yes, my primary display is a 19-inch CRT. I still prefer CRTs, though I imagine I’ll break down at some point and replace this with an LCD (though I may just hold out until I can splurge on a 30-incher). The keyboard is, of course, an IBM Model M, and I’m not about to “upgrade” that to something newer!

One of the great things about subscription music services is that they provide an easy opportunity to pick up digital copies of all of those discs I couldn’t afford to buy when I was a teenager. I can now stock up on the collected works of groups like the Damned, Eater and the Jam, to supplement the paltry few 45s I owned in my youth. Many of the online compilations also include songs that were never on vinyl—and some that were previously unavailable in any format. Which brings me to one of my new favorite online-only offerings, the Speedies album “You Need Pop!” The Speedies were a hot local band when I was in high school; their guitarist, Eric Hoffert, went to my school, and we had a nodding acquaintance (meaning, I’d nod at him in the hall hoping he recognized me from his gigs, and he’d reluctantly nod back). They recorded two singles in the late 70s and early 80s, and then went on to college and careers (Eric went to Apple, where he helped create QuickTime, and Alan, the drummer, is now a State Supreme Court Judge in Brooklyn). Then, almost 25 years later, the group was approached by HP, which was looking for a song to use in a commercial for a photo printer. The manufacturer wanted to use “Let Me Take Your Photo,” originally recorded by the Speedies in 1979. The group agreed, the commercial was made, and a digital album featuring ten classic songs appeared online (and, of course, the group now has a web site and the obligatory MySpace band page). Sure, the HP commercial and subsequent online album won’t give the Speedies the fame and fortune that eluded them in high school. But it’s a great example of the way online distribution has changed the music business, and a vindication of the “long tail” theory, since “You Need Pop!” will never be in the iTunes top 100 chart, but can always be available to be downloaded by the odd middle-aged Speedies fan looking to relive his youth.

I was pleased to see this Reuters item, which questions the commonly held assumption that you “own” music you purchase via the iTunes Music Store. The ownership assumption is, of course, one of the main points of differentiation that iTMS supporters often cite when comparing their favored vendor to those offering a subscription model. However, as pointed out in the Reuters article, “owning implies control and if you bought the tracks on iTunes you don’t have complete control.” I linked to this article in an Engadget post over the weekend, and got some good comments. Most of the iTMS supporters pointed out that the service offers the closest thing to ownership that you’ll find on a DRM-based service, since Apple allows songs to be burned to a CD, which can then be ripped back into DRM-free MP3 files. However, other commenters pointed out that doing so could be considered a DMCA violation. It’s also a violation of Apple’s Terms of Service, which state that allowing customers to burn CDs is “an accommodation to you,” and that customers “will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service.” So, yes, Apple supplies a backdoor that allows the DRM to be circumvented, but using it violates both the Terms of Service and Federal law. That certainly doesn’t sound like ownership to me. For my money, I prefer the subscription model. For less than the cost of one CD per month, I can listen to unlimited music and copy it to a portable player. For anything I absolutely have to “own” (meaning copy to a CD so that I can, say, listen to it in the car, or keep if I let my subscription lapse), I can still pay a per-song fee, usually about 89 cents. The real downside of the subscription model is the risk that a service provider may change their pricing (as Yahoo did last year), leaving you in a position where you may have to pay a higher monthly fee to keep listening to your “rented” music. However, as long as there’s significant competition in the marketplace, prices aren’t likely to go up too much, making the subscription model a pretty good deal for anyone who buys more than a handful of songs per month online and doesn’t mind using software that isn’t quite as intuitive and user-friendly as iTunes (which, of course, is another story entirely). If anything, Microsoft’s recent entry into the music store business could keep pricing very competitive—at least until Microsoft drives the other stores out of business, that is.

The annual Cherry Blossom Festival at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden always attracts a diverse crowd of Japanese expats, Japanophiles, horticulture geeks, camera freaks, families with kids, Brooklyn hipsters, Hasids and blue-haired old ladies. This year, I noticed a new contingent joining the mix: otaku. You couldn’t miss them: they were the kids in game and anime-inspired outfits, drawn to the festival not by the blossoms, but by the presence this year of an anime costume booth, sponsored by the AnimeNEXT conference. While purists might object to the inclusion of anime in the festival, and its attraction to blue-haired young ladies, I think it made a great addition. After all, in Japan, hanami, or cherry-blossom viewing parties, are a national pasttime, popular with young and old, salarymen and punks, rich and poor. It only makes sense to try to bring American otaku into the fold, since they’ve already got an interest in Japanese culture. And, from what I saw in Brooklyn, the otaku may have come for the anime costumes, but got into the taiko drummers, blossoms and Japanese food as much as the next flower geek. I expect to see more of them next year, even if AnimeNEXT doesn’t show up.