The War On Religion
NOTE: This post is about Christians. People that call themselves Christians are a numerous and diverse group and I’m obviously not referencing all of them here. If it makes you feel better, substitute “Fundamentalist Christians” any time I say “Christians” then you don’t have to feel like you’re a part of the group I’m talking about. Of course, any benefit that you gain by making that substitution should probably be cancelled out by the fact that these backwards asshats are, for all intents and purposes, the arbiters of your chosen religion. If you’re a Christian it’s really in your best interest to get these morons to shut up.
There’s been a lot of talk over the past several years about a supposed “War on Religion.” Reports of this elusive war are varied, but almost always take a similar format: Something with a reference to Christianity, or to God, or both, that used to be allowed, is no longer allowed. Fox News is the biggest perpetrator, but most news outlets have reported on this war. Now, with an exclusive story, a non-reporter, virtually undistinguished except by the fact that he has a little common sense, is going to tell you why it’s all bullshit.
You’d think that I’d start an article about a supposed war on religion (or lack thereof) by talking about religion… or wars. But there’s time for that later. First I want to talk about pie.
Mmmmmmm… Pie.
Let’s say you’re a parent with two children. Just for the sake of keeping this somewhat relevant we’ll call them Cain and Abel. Cain is the older child and is still going through that phase where he feels like Abel is getting all the attention. While they’re at school, you bake a pie for them to share. You cut it into perfectly neat pieces, and set them justice the kids to enjoy when they return. Cain comes in first and dives into the pie, his fat sausage fingers digging deeply into the first piece, his light blue eyes glazed over with greed and sugar addiction. Abel comes home a few minutes later, and you happily tell him that there is pie waiting for him in the kitchen, he’s quieter, but you can tell he’s excited. He goes hobbling off into the kitchen eager to get a freshly cut piece of pie. You smile to yourself and think “I’m a good parent!” You get to revel in that feeling for only moments before…
CRASH
The sound of something heavy hitting the wood floor echoes through the house, followed by a wail of pain. You rush in to see what’s going on and you see Cain and Abel fighting on the ground, their sneakers squeaking as they leave trails of black gunk on the wood floor. Their chairs haphazardly launched across the room, knocked to the ground. They’re both crying, and despite being smaller Abel is putting up a good fight. You ask them to stop fighting, and they do but only long enough for Abel to explain that Cain wouldn’t let Abel have any pie. “It’s mine!” says Cain, Abel starts crying and angrily pushes his brother, and the fight begins anew. You’ve had enough,
“ENOUGH!” (See, told you)
“NOW NO ONE GETS ANY PIE. I HOPE YOU’RE BOTH HAPPY!”
The “War on Religion” argument always crops up when Christians feel as if their pie is being taken away. But they forget it wasn’t their pie to begin with.
Before Abel was born, when you made a pie for your kids, it was Cain’s by default. There was only one kid so that kid got all the pie allotted for “the kids.” Does this mean that the intention was that Cain would always get the whole pie? Of course not. Any adult would know that this “Cain getting the whole pie thing” was only temporary. We can forgive Cain for making the mistake because Cain is a child. My question is when are Christians going to stop behaving like greedy children? Jon Stewart, as usual, sums things up perfectly:
You’ve confused a war on religion with not always getting everything you want. It’s called being part of society.
But my religious freedom depends on telling everyone else what to do!
Nowhere is the ridiculousness of this argument more starkly presented than with the recent contraception issue. For those that don’t know already, Christians were all up in arms fairly recently over a law that required insurance companies to cover contraception. Now I talked about this before and I don’t want to rehash how stupid their position is (so stupid). But let’s just ignore that for a second and just operate under the assumption that their opinion isn’t going to change (because given the rampant anti-intellectualism in the Christian community it probably won’t) It still doesn’t matter, because saying that insurance companies have to cover something you disagree with IS NOT AN ASSAULT ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. It’s just recognizing, honoring, and supporting other opinions. Just because contraception is covered by insurance doesn’t mean that you have to use contraception. If you are against it just don’t use it. It’s not a war on religion. It’s asking you to recognize that you are not the only person sitting at the table, and that everyone deserves a slice of fucking pie.
Yes, I can see why that rule should apply to everyone else, but not me!
This came up again, more recently thanks to an anti-discrimination policy at Vanderbilt University, that official clubs cannot discriminate in the selection of their officers by basis of race, religion, etc. So for example, if the Black History Club decided that the person that most represented their club was a white person (presumably because Ken Burns was attending Vanderbilt at the time) they couldn’t have anything in their charter restricting Ken Burns from being president of the Black History Club on the basis of his race. Leave it to Christians to riot about this as well. Because they can no longer explicitly require in their charter that someone has to be Christian in order to be voted in as an officer (ignoring of course that the voters are Christian, and that anyone who would likely want to join a Christian club is probably already Christian) TWO Christian clubs have already left the university in protest, and people are absolutely incredulous about the fact that this is a rule. Again this is a rule that in practice will change NOTHING about the club, and it’s trumpeted as being a war on religion. Expecting religious organizations to follow the same rules as other organizations is not religious persecution, it’s just not giving religion a bigger slice of the pie.
The problem is, Christians have been spoiled for far too long, they’re used to getting everything they want all the time and now they have to share with someone else. Rather than using this to illustrate the prime argument for religion (That religion helps people become better). Christians are instead succumbing to greed, envy, pride, wrath, and something dangerously approaching lust in their desire to infiltrate others sex lives in the case of the contraception issue and something dangerously close to gluttony in the case of hogging all the pie. (Mmmmmmmm…. Pie). That’s six out of the seven deadly sins and all because they can no longer pretend that they’re the only child and are entitled to special treatment. So if being a devout believer is the sole cause for committing six (realistically four, but still the majority) of the seven deadly sins, then what happens to the argument that religion makes you a better person? Maybe if you need religion in order to be a better person you’re just a bad person. Maybe only a spoiled, greedy, immature child that thinks that the world’s only purpose is to serve them could really find a legitimate benefit from the dogmatic and judgmental religion that somehow managed to be formed from dogmatic and judgmental words like:
Father forgive them, they know not what they do.
and…
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
and…
Judge not, lest ye be judged.
Requiring people to be a part of society in order to enjoy the benefits of society isn’t assaulting their rights, it’s just… Society. We don’t teach evolution in schools because we want to assault Christianity. We do so because there is evidence of evolution and no evidence of intelligent design. We require insurance companies to cover the costs of contraception, but we don’t force anyone to take it, and therefore it’s not infringing on religious rights. And Vanderbilt university requires all clubs in their school to follow the same rules, religion isn’t being persecuted, it’s just not getting special treatment. Part of growing up in a family where you aren’t the only child is to come to terms with not always getting your way, to come to terms with ideas like fairness, and equality, and sharing, and teamwork. There’s no war, there’s no persecution, there’s just equality. And that’s something Christians aren’t used to. It’s time to grow up.
Rdio vs. Spotify
Two streaming music services enter, only one leaves. This is it, the battle royale. A couple ground rules before the fight begins. I’m rating the two services based solely on my personal experience with them, that means how they work on Apple products, and despite the misleadingly dramatic lede, I’m going to try my best to emphasize the benefits of both services, because there are definitely situations where a person might have different needs and as a result draw different conclusions than me.
The Apps
There’s really no contest here, Rdio is the clear victor. Not only does Rdio have an iPad app, a ridiculous omission on Spotify’s part, but the UI, is SO MUCH BETTER. Rdio’s browsing and listening experience is noticeably more intuitive and enjoyable than Spotify’s. That’s not to say Rdio’s experience is perfect, there’s definitely room for improvement, but just that contrasting it to Spotify’s downright terrible UI design, it’s a breath of very fresh air. I really can’t hate on Spotify’s design enough. Breathing in metaphorical air would likely kill a metaphorical canary. It’s ridiculous because the idea surrounding streaming services is so compelling (10 dollars a month for almost every song you’d ever care to listen to, on all your devices, ad free) seems almost impossible to screw up, but Spotify surrounded this otherwise brilliant idea with an app so convoluted and ridiculous that it’s actually easier not to use the service. I’m sure a lot of people put up with it in exchange for the other great things that Spotify offers, but it certainly is a huge negative spot for Spotify. I could go in and on and point out the specifics of why I dislike Spotify’s iPhone app so much, but I don’t want to bore people, suffice it to say, it’s a mess.
Selection
Selection is really hard to gauge, because I don’t listen to all the music. That being said, I do think that Spotify is the winner here. They’re a bigger company, have been around for longer and seem to have more tracks to choose from. In my comparatively limited searches I did find some music on Spotify that wasn’t on Rdio, but I had a difficult time of it. All the music I care to listen to is on both services.
It’s also important to note another benefit of Spotify here, Spotify let’s you integrate your existing local music into Spotify, which can save you anywhere from a couple minutes to weeks of setup depending on the complexity and care you have devoted to your existing digital music library. If you don’t want to spend the time rebuilding your library on the service itself (or if you listen to a lot of obscure music) you may have better luck with Spotify.
Social Network Integration
Spotify takes the cake here. (Depending on what flavor of cake you like) Spotify integrates with existing social networks, if not outright requiring a Facebook account to sign up, than certainly encouraging past the point of bothering to try. You can broadcast what you’re listening to on Facebook, or share songs you like on Tumblr, and anyone else that has Spotify can easily click on the song, and listen, download, star, and organize into Spotify’s horrible app. It’s a great feature for discovering new music, and Rdio doesn’t offer anything on the same level, their new music discovery feature operates more like a traditional radio station (albeit more integrated and ad free). If you don’t have a Facebook account this could count as a minus for Spotify because it’s so deeply integrated, but otherwise if you like sharing music with friends it’s hard to argue the benefits that Spotify offers.
Wrap Up
This is by no means an exhaustive review, there are features I glossed over, or outright ignored in the interest if brevity, but I think these three topics really cover the most important aspects of music for people. Discovery of new music (selection), Ease of use (Apps) and sharing music with friends (Social Network Integration). At the end of the day, the minor plus to selection and the major plus to social networking aren’t enough to cancel out the huge minus that Spotify has in terms of App design and usability. That might not be true of most people, but I don’t particularly care about sharing what I’m listening to on Facebook (or Twitter or Tumblr) and I haven’t run into a situation where I could find a song I wanted on Spotify but not on Rdio (unless I tried really hard). For me, eliminating the barriers to listening to the music I want to listen to is the most important thing, and Rdio shines here.
One other thing I want to point out about a slightly less obvious difference between the services. While in order to use Spotify and Rdio on mobile devices you’re looking at paying $10 a month for either service, the way they handle limitations to the service is a little different. Spotify imposes a soft device limit of 3 devices (they will automatically deregister the oldest device used if you use a fourth) and Rdio doesn’t have a device limit, but only allows you to listen on one device at a time. How this plays out for families is hard to tell, because Spotify is somewhat nebulous about their device limitations and how they work, if you’re only using an iPhone to listen to music, you could theoretically have a “Family Plan” of sorts on Spotify, whereas on Rdio you’re paying for another (albeit discounted) subscription plan. The minute you start adding other devices into the mix though (say you and your significant other have a computer in addition to a phone) the potential benefit of Spotify appears to disappear, (unless their soft device limit is just a simultaneous listening limit, in which case that’s a big point to Spotify for families, but that’s not the impression I got from researching it.)
So that’s that. If you care about having access to the most music possible, and sharing it in new, innovative and exciting ways with friends, go with Spotify, but if you’re looking for the easiest and most rewarding way to listen to a large selection of music on your Apple devices, go with Rdio. The end.
Tilt to Live (Taken with instagram)
Instagram: Meta (Taken with instagram)
Made with Paper
Made with Paper
Scumbags
Only Readability offers the publisher compensation for the content that they’re essentially taking, and capturing value from. I’m puzzled as to why John Gruber of Daring Fireball would go so far as to say that the Readability guys are scumbags for doing so.
Again, two networks are taking content from publishers. One keeps all of the money for itself, the other shares money with the publishers, even in arrears. I suspect that neither of these companies are “scumbags” (here are some scumbags) but I’ll leave it to you to decide who is more ethical in this situation.
(via Information Diet | Instapaper vs. Readability)
The problem that the article above fails to mention is that Readability is using the fact that they give money to publishers as a marketing tool to generate paid users of their service. The fact that they tell users that 70% of the money is being allocated to the blogs that they read is disingenuous, because it isn’t, if someone hasn’t opted in by the end of the year, Readability keeps that money. It’s not outright evil (they are giving publishers that play ball some money after all, but it is misrepresenting the facts in order to profit off users of their service. It’s a scumbag move to use the fact that 70% of the money you give gets allocated to publishers, and then not actually, you know, allocate that money to the god damn publishers.
If, instead of keeping the extra money for themselves, Readability allocated the rest of that income back to publishers that did opt in to Readability, there wouldn’t be a problem. Readability isn’t doing that, because they want to represent an ideal version of the facts that positions them as kind and generous content scrapers (and Instapaper as a greedy alternative) while not actually having to pay out any more than the bare minimum.
Marco Arment, the creator of Instapaper, is honest about where the money goes. It goes to helping keep his one man business of generating nice looking long form articles to read later afloat, it helps him afford to continue to make Instapaper the great app that it is.
The creators of Readability are misrepresenting the facts in order to give themselves a competitive advantage over Marco, while taking the money that was supposed to go to the content publishers and use it to deliver yet another freemium app that most users won’t choose to buy into anyways.
I’m not arguing that some money isn’t being given to publishers. It is. I’m not arguing that there shouldn’t be a better way of keeping the writers that we enjoy reading on the Internet in business. There should be. However, a company structuring their freemium business model in a way that misrepresents how much money is actually going to publishers in order to gain a competitive advantage over a one man show that’s already charging for an app that they give away for free…
And more importantly, creating an environment where people don’t actually have to pay them to use your service if they don’t want to, and leaving it up to some future brilliant idea to actually make money (after they’ve put the indie developer, who had the gall to charge a perfectly fair price for an excellent service, out of business), is exactly the sort of behavior I believe deserves the classification of “scumbag.”
But I’ll leave it up to you to decide who is more ethical in this situation.
via David Chartier (@chartier)
The War Against Youth
If you follow the money rather than the blather, it’s clear that the American system is a bipartisan fusion of economic models broken down along generational lines: unaffordable Greek-style socialism for the old, virulently purified capitalism for the young. Both political parties have agreed to this arrangement: The Boomers and older will be taken care of. Everybody younger will be on their own.
Great Article (thanks Dan and Megan!)
Survivor
NPR has an interesting article, that I suggest everyone read, that led to an interesting discussion between my wife and I, that lead in turn to this blog post. I suggest everyone read the article (linked after the quotes below) but here are a couple of highlights to get everyone up to speed.
Less than four months later, Robert died at the age of 44. Karen then resumed the couple’s attempt to have another child. And in 2003, after a successful round of in vitro fertilization using her husband’s sperm, she gave birth to twins.
The government concedes the twins are Robert’s biological children. But the Social Security Administration says that it determines eligibility based on the inheritance laws of each state, and in Florida, where the couple lived, children conceived after the death of a parent cannot inherit property, unless specifically provided for in a will.
(via NPR.org)
So, a couple wanted children, which is wonderful, but the husband was sick, which is terrible, so they shrink wrapped some sperm for later, which is an amazing technological advancement. After the husband died, the wife decided to use the preserved baby makers to make herself a miniature version of her now dead husband, and got twins. This, as far as I’m concerned is a tender of loss, monogamy, and technology, but that’s when things take a turn for the worse.
As quoted above, right after the twins were removed from her nether-region she applied for survivors benefits for the two children, and was denied. This lead to a campaign on her part to right this grave injustice, blah blah blah government is evil.
Except that it wasn’t injustice.
Survivors benefits exist for a reason, they exist to help offset the fact that a loss of life means a loss of a paycheck that would have otherwise been expected. Services like these are helpful, because they provide a safety net when things go wrong. Things did go wrong here, her husband got sick, and died, leaving her alone with a child.
But notice that I said one child. Not two or three children. The decision that she made to make some more babies happened well after her husband was dead, she should have been under no illusions that he would not be providing a paycheck and yet, because she was able to cheat her husband’s death biologically to bring more of their mutual progeny into the world, she thinks she’s entitled to also cheat the system and get more money. That isn’t right.
I may be putting it bluntly here, but I think that most logical people would agree with me here. She’s trying to game the system, if she wasn’t able to afford more children from the combination of her own income (I don’t know whether she has one or not) and the existing Survivors benefits she receives for herself and her first child, then she should not have had any more children.
This isn’t a Republican issue, it’s not a Democrat issue, it’s an obvious issue.
Except that, for most people, it won’t be.
Because rather than this turning into a honest conversation about how people like good old Karen here shouldn’t be allowed to claim Survivors benefits for beings that didn’t survive the death of anything, because they didn’t exist yet… Instead it will (silently or otherwise) just continue to inform the opinion that runs rampant today that the fact that opportunists like this exist is a reasonable excuse for abandoning a system that provides a lot of good for a lot of people.
Then, because advocates for the system feel attacked, they’re going to overreact with their defensiveness, and Karen, or people like her, are going to get lumped into that big pile of deserving people, which means that three things are going to end up happening:
- People that game the system are going to continue to get away with it.
- Republicans will hate the system more.
- Democrats will hate Republicans more.
And That’s Just Bullshit.
I’m sorry, but it really is, because if Americans stopped making complex issues into black and white, us vs. them bullet points, and started having real conversations about the issues, far more people would be in agreement than in disagreement. We draw these party lines and pretend we’re so far away from each other, when we really aren’t. Most people agree that cheating the system is bad. Most people agree that social programs like Medicare, Welfare, and Social Security need to be improved. Most people agree that abortion is one of the worst possible methods of birth control, and should be avoided whenever possible.
So if most people agree, than why do we fight so much?
These are hot button, campaign deciding issues. Yes, there are vocal minorities on both sides that have such fanatical opinions that they aren’t really worth listening too, but you know what? Those are the people we spend the most damn time listening too! They’re on the radio, on the TV, they only exist because we give them attention.
If We Ignore Them, They Will Go Away.
And once they disappear, back to the friendless obscurity that their idiotic ideas would breed naturally under any normal set of circumstances, the only people that will be left are people, who despite having somewhat different opinions, will at the very least be able to understand where the person on the other side of the fence is coming from. But we don’t do that. We pander to the radical. We make mountains out of molehills. We make black and white, out of grey.
But this idealist utopia, can actually exist, as long as you ask the right questions. Instead of asking:
What are your thoughts about Social Security, or Welfare, or Medicare, or Obamacare?
We should be asking questions that force people to step away from their respective rhetorics and really answer from a personal level. Questions like:
- Do you think we should have a safety net that helps people get back on their feet if they have a setback?
- Do you think that the goal should be to get people working again as quickly as possible?
- Do you think we should do everything in our power to make sure this money is going to people that really need it?
- Do you think though, that it’s better that some people are able to cheat the system, than having a system where people who truly need the help, fail to receive the care they need?
Who disagrees with that shit?
There aren’t opinions here. There are correct answers, and there are stupid answers. If there is honestly a person out there who when asked these questions would respond:
No, I honestly believe it’s better that a handicapped grandma, whose husband was a veteran should starve to death, just so we can make sure that the black people aren’t having extra babies to get more money.
Then I don’t want to know. I’d rather just ignore that such a selfish, ignorant, and bigoted asshole can come from my species, because it would make me embarrassed to be a human. Let alone an American.
But I can’t ignore it. Because there will be a twenty minute segment about him or her playing every two hours on the 24 hour news. Because at the end of the day, we’d rather watch our country fall apart than put it back together, we’d rather let it burn than put the fires out. We’d rather fight than work together, We’d rather be written into the annals of history as a dismal failure than become the shining example of the promise of a brighter future that I know we can be.
I don’t buy that. I don’t want to be a loser. I don’t want to be a man that’s so hung up on ideological battles that he forgets the fight that really matters, the one against ignorance and intolerance, I don’t want to be a failure. I want to be a survivor.
The New iPad Review
The Screen
I absolutely cannot get over how fantastic everything looks on this screen. Even if there were no LTE, the camera had stayed the same, the battery life took a hit, and even if the new iPad were significantly slower than the iPad 2. It would still be worth every penny just because the screen, which on an iPad is the entirety (or close enough) of the interface, is so exquisite, every detail so pristinely rendered, that it would be worth almost any compromise.
But There Were No Compromises.
Thankfully I didn’t have to compromise, or I guess it’s more accurate to say that the compromises that do exist are so minimal, that they’re hardly worth considering. The issue with marketing, reviewing, explaining, or discussing an improvement like the Retina Display is very difficult to conceptualize unless you’re looking at one. Technology enthusiasts may grasp how difficult such an astronomical transition it was, in terms of the processing power required to quadruple the number of pixels rendered. Design enthusiasts may understand the benefits that such a screen would provide, and people that are passionate about both technology and design (or those who experienced a similar, though by no means as radical transition from the iPhone 3GS to the iPhone 4) may have been adequately excited to hear about this development, but even I, understanding the technical difficulties, the benefits, and knowing roughly what to expect from the transition having experienced a smaller scale Retina Display first hand in the iPhone 4 and 4S, even I, a four year veteran of Apple Retail, and passionate advocate for their products, was not prepared.
In the days leading up to the release of the new iPad, I poured over every review I could read, I watched the videos multiple times, I don’t think I’ve been this excited for a new Apple product since the original iPhone, I read many first hand accounts of people that had been lucky enough to see the new iPad before its official release, but I recognized that all of them were having trouble conveying the impact of the Retina Display. They all agreed it was amazing, but how do you describe to someone that sudden feeling of clarity? It’s like when I was seven years old, and got my first pair of glasses, and was shocked at the fact that I could see individual blades of grass in the backyard through the bay window of my parents house. That’s the closest I can get. I know it’s ridiculous, but just looking at the icons on the home screen is awe inspiring. It’s like a magic trick. I know there are pixels there somewhere… Why can’t I see them?
The Battery
Partially because it’s new, and partially because I’m this much of a nerd, I’ve been using the new iPad pretty much constantly since it was removed from the box on Friday afternoon. I’ve been downloading apps, playing graphically intensive games, watching videos, shooting videos, taking pictures, reading books, browsing the Internet, and experimenting with different writing apps with the aim of blogging more. The screen of the iPad has been on far more often than it has been off. I have drained the battery, make no mistake. But from the moment I woke up this morning until now (approximately six hours) excluding several short breaks, this new iPad has been used in a similar fashion, and despite not being plugged in the entire time, I’m still well above 50% battery. (65%). The battery is one of the most important parts of any portable piece of technology, it’s something Apple has rightfully poured tons of attention into, and unfortunately, it’s something that most people only notice when it’s not performing well. No one notices their car battery, and no one should have to notice their iPad battery either, the fact that a heavy user like myself, doesn’t need to leave the iPad plugged in while working, should alone be a testament to the quality of the battery, and the fact that they can fit a battery of such high quality into a device that weighs less than 1.5 pounds is just amazing. They nearly doubled the capacity of the iPad’s battery in this generation, and managed to do so without significantly contributing to the weight or thickness of the device. (Both increased, but only slightly, and these are the only two trade offs in upgrading to this device over last years model.)
The Camera
The camera in the iPad 2 was terrible. (The camera on the first iPad was nonexistent) and a lot of people complained. Personally I don’t see the camera on my iPad getting much use, regardless of its quality, but it is useful if it’s the device I’m using when one of my cats does something ridiculous. Improving the camera, as far as I can surmise, was informed by the Retina Display. You won’t really notice the difference in the quality of the screen of this device if the images that you are looking at are lower quality than should really be displayed on either screen. So the camera was improved. It’s 5 megapixels, supports 1080p video recording (with image stabilization) and has the optics that the iPhone 4S pioneered. For non-nerds that essentially boils down to this:
- It takes great pictures
- It shoots great video
That’s all that’s really important. I don’t have to reach for my 4S to take a picture. If I’m going for a hike, or walking around all day, I probably will use my iPhone, but the iPad is more than adequate.
LTE
I haven’t been able to test LTE (fast cellphone tower based internet) because I don’t get LTE service in my home, but it doesn’t really matter. The existence of LTE makes the iPad more practical for frequent flyers, and for those that don’t already have high speed Internet in their house. It’s faster than most people’s broadband connections, and it goes wherever your iPad goes (except for my house). It’s awesome. Ok, the fact that it works everywhere is an over-exaggeration. Verizon has better LTE coverage than AT&T, and neither are even close to what I would call ubiquitous, but if you can take advantage of it, it’s worth having. Though with data limits the way they are now, it’s incredibly easy to exhaust your monthly allotment of data, especially if you’re a heavy iPad user like myself, so be cautious.
Closing Thoughts
- The presence of dictation (but not of full blown Siri) is helpful. I look forward to the day of having Siri on all my Apple devices, but the simple truth of the matter is that it isn’t ready.
- iPhoto for iOS is an excellent app, I particularly love the journal feature, but it isnot Easy to learn.
- The improvements to GarageBand are nice (up to four people can jam simultaneously now) and the inclusion of trailers for the new iMovie is so much fun. I know all of my day trips and vacations will likely be accompanied by an overly epic trailer for the foreseeable future
- iOS 5.1 is a welcome improvement, particularly in how accessing the camera from the lock screen functions, but I see that applying more to the iPhone than the iPad.
- I really wish there was some sort of indication in the App Store whether or not an app was updated to take advantage of the Retina Display
- iCloud continues to see a slow and steady trickle of improvements that make it even more useful.
- I know I spent a lot of time talking about the screen, but you need to see it in action. Do yourself a favor, and go to your local Apple Store, spend about 10 minutes reading a book, looking at pictures, and playing around with the new iPad, and then do the same on the iPad 2 (they still sell them) Yes, the iPad 2’s screen is great, but comparatively? It just sucks. After you’ve seen the difference for yourself, ask yourself why you’d want to spend any amount of time beyond what is absolutely necessary, subjecting your eyes to something that isn’t as flawless as the screen on the new iPad. I know that I’ll be spending as little time looking at other screens as I possibly can.
