MobileMe gets new leadership, Jobs admits Apple made a big mistake

Apple's MobileMe service has proven to be a horror It's been a curious thing to watch: Apple makes mistakes all the time, but they are usually small mistakes, easily swept aside in the tide of their own user's enthusiasm. But MobileMe wasn't just a cool service with some flaws: it ripped itself out of Apple's usually fertile loins like some Belial-esque monstrosity and immediately went for the throat of those who had expected to love it most.

The good news is that Steve Jobs is pissed. In an internal email to Apple employees yesterday evening, Jobs admitted that MobileMe was "not up to Apple's standards" and should have been rolled out in small chunks rather than as a "monolithic service."

"It was a mistake to launch MobileMe at the same time as iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and the App Store," Jobs said. "We all had more than enough to do, and MobileMe could have been delayed without consequence." No kidding.

The bad news: Apple still doesn't think MobileMe is up to snuff. Jobs says that Apple will "press on to make it a service we are all proud of by the end of this year." Pessimistically, that means beleaguered MobileMe users could have four months of teeth gritting ahead of them.

It also looks like the MobileMe team has been reorganized. The group will now report to iTunes honcho Eddy Cue, who also heads up the Apple Store. Cue will report directly to Jobs. There's no word on what happened to MobileMe's previous department head: fired out of a cannon into an industrial shredder is my bet.

Steve Jobs: MobileMe "not up to Apple standards" [Ars Technica]

Cablevision Remote DVR Doesn't Infringe; Decision Shows How New Tech Twists Copyright

Article from Techdirt by Mike Masnick.

As TiVo and other DVRs became increasingly popular, various cable companies realized it probably made sense to offer similar features themselves. While some started selling home DVRs, a few realized that perhaps they could short-circuit around this by offering a remote, centrally-managed DVR instead. Time Warner was one of the first to announce such a project -- but almost immediately, the other half of Time Warner (the content guys) freaked out, and Time Warner's eventual offering was neutered of any really useful feature.

Basically, the various broadcasters are still freaked out about the idea of time shifting and commercial skipping -- even though both are perfectly legal. However, that won't stop them from doing whatever possible to stop such innovations from coming to market. So, two years ago, when Cablevision also decided to create its own remote DVR solution, various TV networks sued to stop it. Even though the actual offering was almost entirely identical to a perfectly legal TiVo, a district court ruled that Cablevision's remote DVR system infringed copyrights. This, by the way, highlighted how the entertainment industry lied when it insisted it would never use copyright law to stop a new consumer electronics offering from coming to market.

The good news, today, however, is that an appeals court has reversed the decision and sent it back to the lower court -- effectively pointing out that if using a DVR at home is legal, it's difficult to see how using a DVR that is based at your cable provider is any less legal. However, if you read the full ruling, you'll get a sense of just how ridiculous copyright law has become today, and how it is not at all equipped to handle modern technology:

As you read through that decision, you'll certainly see the points that Rasmus Fleischer highlighted earlier this year, when he pointed out how silly it was to distinguish between where something is stored, and whether it's accessed locally or remotely. However, copyright law is simply not set up at all to handle this simple fact, and tries to make silly distinctions between where copies are made, how stuff is transmitted and what counts as a performance and what doesn't. That leads to all sorts of twisted logic, which resulted in the initial ruling -- and the order overturning it and sending it back to the lower court (while the right decision) is equally twisted in spots. Basically, if there's anything to get out of this ruling, it's that copyright law is simply not equipped to handle the internet.

Update: Murky Coffee Fiasco makes the Washington Post Metro Section

Article here, quoted below:

Espresso, Extra Bitter
Man's Tiff With Barista Spills Onto Internet

By Joe Heim

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 17, 2008; B01

Who knew a cup of coffee could create such a tempest in a teapot?

Not Jeff Simmermon, whose request for a triple shot of espresso over ice at Murky Coffee in Arlington County turned into a heated Internet squabble, sparked debate about whether the customer is always right and provided a reminder about the intended and unintended consequences of blogging.

The drink request Sunday, said Simmermon, who was visiting from Brooklyn, was denied by a barista who told him that Murky doesn't do espresso over ice. Irked, Simmermon said he asked for a triple espresso and a cup of ice, which he said the barista provided, grudgingly.

Service. No smile.

Then -- and this is Simmermon's account -- the barista scolded him, saying that what he was doing to his espresso was "not okay" and that the store's policy was to preserve the integrity of the drink. The employee said that allowing customers to dilute espresso was not in keeping with said policy.

Coffee-rage moment in 3, 2, 1 . . .

Simmermon, 32, said that he interrupted the barista with an angry blast about how he would have his coffee any way he pleased, thank you very much, and that he told the barista he had his own policy about doing what he wants with the products he pays for. He mixed in a couple of expletives, but that was the essence of it.

That might have been the end of the saga, but Simmermon did what comes naturally to literate victims of perceived everyday injustices in the 21st century.

He blogged about it.

In a post on his Web site, And I Am Not Lying For Real ( http://andiamnotlying.com), Simmermon detailed the encounter, his anger and, somewhat befuddlingly, his order at Murky an hour later for the "strongest iced beverage your policy will allow." He accepted the barista's recommendation for an Americano with four shots "and light on the water." (He said he enjoyed it.)

He also posted a picture of the dollar bill he left as a tip, on which he wrote "[naughty word deleted] you and your precious coffee policy."

Since coffee shops are little more than way stations and IV drips for many bloggers, it's not surprising that Simmermon's post quickly made the rounds in cyberspace. Murky's owner, Nicholas Cho, was alerted to the dispute and responded with an open letter on the cafe's Web site ( http://murkycoffee.com). He defended his berated barista, David Flynn, and ticked off a litany of store policies that would have made Seinfeld's Soup Nazi duck for cover:

"No modifications to the Classic Cappuccino. No questions will be answered about the $5 Hot Chocolate (during the months we offer it). No espresso in a to-go cup. No espresso over ice. These are our policies. We have our reasons, and we're happy to share them."

At his cafe yesterday, Cho explained the policy: "The way we do espresso is different than what people are used to. It's a very exacting technique. . . . When you pour it over ice, it creates a certain acidic reaction that makes the drink sour."

He also said some customers have the audacity to order an espresso over ice, then fill the glass with milk at the dairy bar -- creating their own iced latte, at a significant saving.

In his letter on Murky's site, Cho wrote: "To others reading this I will say that if you don't like the policies, I respectfully recommend that you find some other place that will give you what you want, or select something that we can offer you."

But regarding Simmermon, who said in his post that he would only return to Murky Coffee "carrying matches and a can of kerosene," Cho's anger was undiluted.

"While I certainly won't bemoan you your right to free-speech," he wrote, "I have to respond to you in your own dialect: [naughty word deleted] you, Jeff Simmermon. Considering your public threat of arson, you'll understand when I say that if you ever show your face at my shop, I'll punch you in your [another naughty word deleted]."

Whew. Decaf anyone?

The battle of the blogs escalated, and a cabal of caffeinated commenters soon weighed in.

On a typical day, Murky's Web site receives 200 visits. On Tuesday, there were more than 15,000, Cho said yesterday. His e-mail inbox was filled with messages full of vitriol and praise.

Simmermon said his post about l'affaire Murky drew record hits for him, too -- 100,000, at last count.

But yesterday, he expressed regrets.

"I have mixed feelings about it, and I'm not really proud of the behavior that triggered this," he said. "These things take on a life of their own, and I don't want to be a part of it. He had a bad day, the owner had a bad day, and I had a bad day. That's all."

Cho is also ready to move on, if not exactly back down.

"You have to fight blog with blog," Cho said with a laugh. "That's the price you pay when you throw your words out there."

Cho and Simmermon seemed astounded at the amount of commentary the postings received.

"Ultimately, it's just coffee," Cho said.

Exactly. Can't we all just get a latte?

Furthermore, Cho makes another followup response on the company's blog, claiming that the majority of the comments left on the previous two posts were supportive, but then, the majority of the comments left on the current post appear to be negative. Also - the VAST MAJORITY of the Washginton Post commenters are also negative, all supporting the customer. It looks like this has indeed turned out horribly for Cho, not surprisingly.

Update: Murky Coffee Fiasco turns into Blogstorm

I posted at length about this story yesterday. It was first posted on BoingBoing & Metafilter. Now the Consumerist picks it up. Other notable Washington DC area blogs, DCist and The DCeiver are also covering it. It's a hot topic on Twitter. Also, a commenter on DCist had found this old post about how the DC Murky, before it was closed down due to the owner oweing $427,000 in back taxes, has multiple health code violations. This Nick Cho douchebag is a class act. Yeah, Murky Coffee for the lose.

The Street on Welfare

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, March 18, 2008; Page A19 Never do I want to hear again from my conservative friends about how brilliant capitalists are, how much they deserve their seven-figure salaries and how government should keep its hands off the private economy.

The Wall Street titans have turned into a bunch of welfare clients. They are desperate to be bailed out by government from their own incompetence, and from the deregulatory regime for which they lobbied so hard. They have lost "confidence" in each other, you see, because none of these oh-so-wise captains of the universe have any idea what kinds of devalued securities sit in one another's portfolios.

So they have stopped investing. The biggest, most respected investment firms threaten to come crashing down. You can't have that. It's just fine to make it harder for the average Joe to file for bankruptcy, as did that wretched bankruptcy bill passed by Congress in 2005 at the request of the credit card industry. But the big guys are "too big to fail," because they could bring us all down with them.

Enter the federal government, the institution to which the wealthy are not supposed to pay capital gains or inheritance taxes. Good God, you don't expect these people to trade in their BMWs for Saturns, do you?

In a deal that the New York Times described as "shocking," J.P. Morgan Chase agreed over the weekend to pay $2 a share to buy all of Bear Stearns, one of the brand names of finance capitalism. The Federal Reserve approved a $30 billion -- that's with a "b" -- line of credit to make the deal work.

I don't fault Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, for being so interventionist in trying to save the economy. On the contrary, Bernanke deserves credit for ignoring all the extreme free-market bloviation. He doesn't want the economy to collapse on his watch, so he is willing to violate all the conservatives' shibboleths about the dangers of government intervention. As a voter once told the legendary political journalist Richard Rovere: "Sometimes you have to forget your principles to do what's right."

But if this near meltdown of capitalism doesn't encourage a lot of people to question the principles they have carried in their heads for the past three decades or so, nothing will.

We had already learned the hard way -- in the crash of 1929 and the Depression that followed -- that capitalism is quite capable of running off the rails. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was a response to the failure of the geniuses of finance (and their defenders in the economics profession) to realize what was happening or to fix it in time.

As the economist John Kenneth Galbraith noted of the era leading up to the Depression, "The threat to men of great dignity, privilege and pretense is not from the radicals they revile; it is from accepting their own myth. Exposure to reality remains the nemesis of the great -- a little understood thing."

But in the enthusiasm for deregulation that took root in the late 1970s, flowered in the Reagan era and reached its apogee in the second Bush years, we forgot the lesson that government needs to keep a careful watch on what capitalists do. Of course, some deregulation can be salutary, and the market system is, on balance, a wondrous instrument -- when it works. But the free market is just that: an instrument, not a principle.

In 1996, back when he was a Republican senator from Maine, William Cohen told me: "We have been saying for so long that government is the enemy. Government is the enemy until you need a friend."

So now the bailouts begin, and Wall Street usefully might feel a bit of gratitude, perhaps by being willing to have the wealthy foot some of the bill or to acknowledge that while its denizens were getting rich, a lot of Americans were losing jobs and health insurance. I'm waiting.

Defendant Andersen's attorney on RIAA suit: "They can't run now"

Friday may mark a significant milestone in the RIAA's legal campaign against file-sharing, as it is the deadline for exonerated RIAA defendant Tanya Andersen to refile her malicious prosecution lawsuit against the record labels. Soon afterwards, discovery will begin, and all sorts of unsavory details about the RIAA's legal campaign against suspected file-sharers are likely to emerge.

Andersen is a single mother living in Oregon who was sued by the record labels in February 2005. She eventually filed a counterclaim against the RIAA, and when the labels voluntarily dismissed their case against her last June, she filed a malicious-prosecution lawsuit. In it, Andersen accuses the RIAA of fraud, racketeering, invasion of privacy, libel, slander, deceptive business practices, and violations of the Oregon state RICO Act.

Last month, a federal judge dismissed Andersen's original complaint, saying that she had "not adequately stated claims for relief," but gave her a one-month window to refile. Her attorney, Lory Lybeck, told Ars that he plans to file a new 80-page complaint tomorrow. "The focus of the amended complaint is essentially the sham litigation and abuse of the federal judiciary to operate this criminal enterprise that has harmed Tanya Andersen and thousands of other people," Lybeck said.

With a new complaint, the case is certain to move forward into the discovery phase, as the judge has told both sides that she would not entertain any further motions to dismiss this case. It's an uncomfortable place for the RIAA to be in.

"Usually, the parties are entitled to liberal pretrial discovery of anything related to the subject matter of the case," copyright attorney Ray Beckerman told Ars. "So the scope of the amended complaint will have a big impact on what is and what is not discoverable."

Lybeck tells Ars that he'll be digging into agreements between the RIAA, RIAA member companies, MediaSentry, and the Settlement Support Sentry. Part of that will involve looking at compensation, like how much MediaSentry gets from each settlement. "I'd love to know what kind of bounty MediaSentry got paid to supply erroneous identities to the RIAA," Lybeck says.

One of the allegations in the amended complaint will involve MediaSentry's status as a private investigator. "MediaSentry claims it is able to gain access to people's hard drives without their permission and collect information," notes Lybeck. "It's illegal because they're not licensed to do that work."

The amended complaint and subsequent discovery will also focus on what Lybeck calls the "flawed nature" of the RIAA's investigations. "We know [the RIAA] cannot identify individuals," he says in response to a question on false positives. "We want to know how many dolphins the RIAA is catching," referring to a former RIAA spokesperson's 2003 comment about accidentally catching a few dolphins when fishing with a net.

The RIAA is likely to fight the discovery process tooth and nail, however, as the information that is unearthed could prove to be extremely embarrassing, if not problematic. "They've operated in this zone of secrecy for five years now, and we hope to put a stop to that," Lybeck stated emphatically, "because it will become obvious that their conduct is illegal an their whole scheme is flawed at its basic core."

So far, the RIAA's attorneys have been uncooperative on discovery issues, according to Lybeck. He says that he has reached out to RIAA lead national counsel Richard Gabriel, who was argued the labels' case in the Jammie Thomas trial, in order to move the process forward. "He's refused," Lybeck said. "I assume we're going to run into the same stall and delay tactics."

Gabriel took issue with Lybeck's characterization, accusing him of making "false statements" about his conduct. "As I discussed with Mr. Lybeck, the Court dismissed all 13 of his client's claims," Gabriel told Ars. "As a result, there are no claims pending at the moment, and his request to schedule discovery is premature. We are eager to resolve all outstanding issues in this case and look forward to doing so in a rational way that follows the process outlined by the Court."

The judge has barred further motions for dismissal, so unless the RIAA decides to settle—a move Lybeck believes is in the group's best interest—the case will proceed through discovery and to trial. Unlike the thousands of lawsuits filed so far, the RIAA does not have the luxury of walking away from this case if there's a real chance of embarrassing information being released. "Once discovery happens in the cases the RIAA brings, they run," Lybeck says. "This is our case now, and they can't run."