Trent Reznor made waves in 2005 by releasing several tracks as multitrack projects for Apple’s GarageBand software. Recently, he did it again for Nine Inch Nails’ upcoming album, Year Zero.

I used to be interested in home recording (well, as interested as budget and recording space would allow.) Now, after several years and a few hardware upgrades, I’ve decided to get back in the game. So I made my own remix of the NiN track, Survivalism. You may download it here:

survivalism_rmx.mp3 – 160Kbps – 4.1 MB

It’s not perfect: I had hoped to actually record some extra keyboards for it, but my keyboard is at a friend’s house; it’s neither EQed, compressed nor mastered; it was done in around two hours. But I think it’s alright, and might even hesitantly assert that it’s a bit poppier than the original track, and builds quite well (whereas the original launches almost immediately into a frenetic, electro-punk thrash.)

Let me know what you think. Oh, and please listen the whole way through – I hope the slower beginning doesn’t put you off.

Coming soon: thoughts on using Garageband to create and complete this project.

This is a response to this, an article by Paul Kedrosky about the iPhone. I’m not going to say he’s completely wrong, and I’m not going to say that the iPhone will be a spectacular success (I do think it will do very well, however, and the lust factor is very, very high.) I am simply amused by his bullet points, and their similarity to arguments I think I’ve heard before.

Presenting…the five biggest issues with the iPod in 2001 (these will only be moderately amusing – at least, hopefully they will be – if you read the source article in question.)

1. The clickwheel. How do you operate a clickwheel in your pocket, or under a table by feel?
2. The closed system. Is Apple serious that it won’t let third-party partners build software for the thing? If so, and put simply, the device will fail. (Yes, I know he tacks on “A closed-box consumer electronics mentality will work in music players” in order to justify this point, but the iPhone must be a useful tool first, and (perhaps) a development platform as a distant second – or has Linux on the desktop (and its lack thereof) not taught people anything?)
3. The Apple relationship. While every operating system has its haters, Apple has more than most (both for its hardware and its operation system.) Tying the iPod exclusively to OS X forces some of the loudest among the digerati to wait for a newer version before they can begin touting the device for Apple.
4. (No, I’m not going to touch the vaporware status bullet point, primarily because I think this one’s the most ridiculous: I think there’s a pretty solid consensus that, since FCC filings are made public, Apple had to present now, lest its considerable thunder be stolen.)
5. The price. To be honest, I’m not as hung up about the price than most people, and I think the $399+ price is less immportant than the preceding factors. Then again it’s leaving a very large pricing umbrella for other audio player vendors, so this is going to be a confusing ride this year in that market.

While I know the iPhone is going to dominate discussion around the Mac Web (and with good reason!) for awhile, I wanted to share some thoughts about Apple’s other product announcement today at Macworld – the Apple TV.

There’s a lot to like about the Apple TV: it sports a plethora of connectivity options; its hard drive will cache and store content (ensuring smooth playback); it’s built with HD in mind; and its interface is dead sexy. With updates Apple could add functionality making more Internet content available (Youtube, anyone) and the offering only gets better. If I had a huge archive of iTunes movies and TV shows it’d be a no-brainer. But it’s not. Why? The Apple TV has one colossal downside: what do I do with my DVD collection?

Now, I know this isn’t the biggest problem. The Apple TV would, presumably, sit next to your already-existing DVD player, meaning you could still watch DVDs the way you always have. Plus, I wouldn’t want to clutter up such a nice set-top box with an internal DVD drive, so I’m not suggesting they go that route. What I’m wishing for is an Apple-branded and supported way of importing video into iTunes in the same way that iTunes imports audio from CDs. Just like CDs, DVDs are clunky! They scratch. They get lost. Pick up a few seasons of 24, The Simpsons and Battlestar Galactica and you’ve got a hundred DVDs scattered around your house. Want to watch a specific episode? Get hunting.

Keep in mind, I’m not saying importing this content would be easy, or even possible. What about DVD encryption? How would you deal with DVD menus? Even beyond that, though, there’s another problem, which you’ve probably already got a response for: “Hey! Idiot! Apple wants you to buy video from their store!” I get that. That’s obvious. I probably will! However, Apple didn’t remove CD ripping functionality from iTunes when they started the iTunes Music Store!

Without some way to import existing content into iTunes (for play with the Apple TV) Apple TV might be a non-starter: people won’t own enough Apple video content to bother paying $299 to play it (and only it) on a television set. Will this severely hamper the Apple TV? Is this a deal-breaker? I honestly don’t know – Apple’s media strategy has been remarkably successful lately, and therefore these problems might turn out to be minor. I do know one thing, though: iTunes was a helluva computer jukebox before it was a successful music store.

Update: Somebody pointed me to Flip4Mac’s DriveIn, which looks like it will do exactly what I want, and is currently in free public beta. Apple. Buy this NOW, and please make it available in iTunes 8. It’s perfect.

Bookmark to:

(Before I get into this: yes, I did use Photoshop to prepare this demonstration. I really like Photoshop CS3, but you still have to call a spade a spade.)

When I downloaded the beta version of Adobe Photoshop CS3 a couple of days ago, what I noticed first wasn’t the improved speed, the new palette locations, or some feature upgrades. Nope; the first thing I noticed was the icon: a sharp, simple, blue-gradient-filled box with a couple of letters on it, which might as well mean Postscript or PlayStation:

Gone was the feather. Gone, apparently, was a sense of style. Apparently, I wasn’t the only one curious about this. However, unlike these folks, I just silently assumed this was a placeholder icon, and stopped thinking about it. I mean, c’mon: I’m not a designer, but if I created a portion of one of our webapps’ interfaces with these types of icons as menu choices, my boss would tell me to get back to the drawing board.

Well, turns out it isn’t.

Wow. Apparently, others also thought these were placeholder icons and have started questioning Adobe. Reaction has generally been quite unkind. I haven’t seen this much vitriol over an icon since BBEdit brought Comic Sans back.

I won’t rehash any of the arguments made against these icons – they’re all good ones. But one think I don’t quite understand is all the shouting about how these icons look at small sizes.

Yeah, that’s not good – but I think they’re equally as bad at large sizes. As a Mac user, with a 1600×1080 desktop, it wouldn’t be out of the question for me to bump up the size of my desktiop icons, and just throw a few of my most frequently used apps out there, for easy access. Well, with these new icons, let’s just take a look at how that might look:

See what I’m getting at? Quick – pick the two sorest thumbs.

Look. I get the periodic table. But, when viewing what’s been produced (along with the fact that Adobe hasn’t even made this shift to all of their applications – check out Acrobat and some other icons I can’t decipher – that explanation starts to sound more like a college student who stayed out all night partying, hit the word processor with minutes to spare, and whipped off something slapdash, and then just as quickly created a half-assed reason for it.

Time to hit the books, Adobe.

Bookmark to:

I have nothing but praise for the beta, Universal version of Adobe Photoshop CS3 that I’ve been using for several days. I like the modifications to the palettes (they no longer get lost like they used to) and there appear to be a lot of little niceties added to the program. As a web developer, I’ll probably never use the most powerful of Photoshop’s features, but I have been very, very satisfied with the number one reason for this upgrade: performance.

I originally bought an iMac G5. This was a great machine, until it died. After several months of wrangling with the local Apple store, I was given an otherwise equivalent 2Ghz iMac Core Duo. As a geek and web developer, I was pleased with this – now I got to install things like Parallels, and Windows XP (in order to swing my sword in that time-sink known as Oblivion.) As someone who can appreciate such things, I was also blown away by the performance of Rosetta, Apple’s compatibility layer that allows older applications not written for Intel’s processors to run seamlessly. This doesn’t meant the speed was equivalent; I was impressed that they could make these apps run at all. Indeed, Rosetta-run applications lag significantly behind their universal counterparts (and have a voracious appetite for RAM).

Photoshop was one of the worst offenders; even increasing my RAM to 1.5 gigabytes still only made it tolerable. Palettes routinely took several seconds to gain focus; zooming was far from instant; and sometimes, while swapping, the text tool was almost unusable. That’s why I (along with many, many others) was excited to see this beta version of CS3 become available. Would it make Photoshop snappy again?

In a word? Yes. But pictures (or in this case, screencasts) are worth a thousand words. I setup a highly, highly unscientific test: first, I would grab 50 pictures from a website I maintain . These pictures are all JPEGs, ranging in size from 4K to around 100K. Then I’d launch the Rosetta version of Photoshop CS1. I’d quit the program, then relaunch it by dragging these fifty pictures onto the Photoshop icon, and see how long it took. Then I’d do the same with the universal CS3 beta. (Why did I quit each program and then relaunch them? I didn’t want to have to worry about my RAM swapfile making this test take longer than it had to, for either program.)

Here are the movies.

Screencast 1: Photoshop CS1, Rosetta

Screencast 2: Photoshop CS3 beta, Universal

The verdict?
The beta manages this task in 18 seconds, while the CS1 takes 47. That’s a pretty healthy improvements. Kudos, Adobe.

Bookmark to: