I know I’m supposed to write here about things having to do with Apple, or at least technology in general. But today, it’s hard to write — or even think — about anything other than the failed bailout plan and the 777 point drop in the Dow. Perhaps I can tie it all together by pointing to the huge plunge in Apple’s stock today.

Anyway, I normally have pretty clear and strong opinions about the controversial topics of the day. And I would be the first to admit that my views tend to be firmly planted on the left side of the fence. Still, in this case, I confess to feeling as if I am three feet under water and the answers are circling in the air above me — beyond my understanding and out-of-reach.

It’s hard to figure out what to believe when you have left-wing pundits, such as Paul Krugman and David Sirota, taking a position against the bailout bill that sounds remarkably close to what the most right-wing Republicans in the House are saying. At the same time, Democratic leaders in the House and Senate appear aligned with the stance taken by, of all people, President Bush. When was the last time that happened?

Between the conflicting jumble of opinions and the complexity of the economics, it’s hard to figure what to support.

Why should we save failing institutions who took reckless risks, while paying out huge executive salaries and employee bonuses, and yet do little or nothing to help relatively blameless individuals in similar straits? How did we even get to the point where so many institutions are “too big too fail”? Can we blame it all on Bush for eliminating virtually any hint of regulatory control? Why do we keep “privatizing profits and socializing losses”?

On the other hand, when your house is on fire, it’s probably not the best time to try to figure out who or what is to blame. Or how to prevent the next fire. First, you need to put out the flames. But is $700 billion dollars too much or too little “water”? Could it just make things worse? Should we be looking at an entirely different quick fix instead? Or is it too late for that?

Do we really need to do something immediately to prevent the entire economy from going into meltdown (as today’s drop in the Dow might suggest)? Or are politicians exaggerating the threat just to scare us into passing something we really don’t need? Or is rejecting the bailout tantamount to biting your nose to spite your face — punishing those Wall Street jerks at the same time that we watch our own savings and jobs disappear?

In truth, I believe that nobody knows where the road to recovery actually lies. It’s all a guessing game. After all, how many of these same politicians were able to correctly predict the current situation? None. So why should we have much confidence now?

Ask any of these politicians or pundits how much of their own money they would be willing to lay on the line in a bet that their position turns out to be the correct one. My guess is that you won’t see much money in the pot — assuming they have any money left after today’s debacle.

Meanwhile, while the political Neros fiddle, Rome burns.

The day will hopefully come when all of this is a distant memory. But don’t count on that day coming any time soon. This is a systemic problem, one that is shaking the foundations of Wall Street to its roots. No matter what we do now, it will be a long time before our economy returns to anything that resembles normal.

Buckle up. It’s going to be a bumpy ride.

A personal note: I will be on vacation until October 20. See you when I get back.

You’re ready to ditch your old pre-digital TV. You’ve decided to go for a Sony LCD television (a good choice, although I now favor Samsung myself). After much angst, you’ve accepted that fact that 40 inches is the biggest size screen that fits both your room and your wallet.

Great! Your work is done. All that’s left is to go to your dealer and tell him you want the Sony 40″ LCD TV. One problem. Sony makes nine (9!) such televisions, with retail prices ranging from $1200 to $2700. You can see them all at Sony’s Web site.

So how do you figure out the differences among the models and which is the right one for you? Not easily. Checking the model numbers will be of little or no help. They read more like a cipher than a useful description: KDL-40S4100, KDL-40XBR7.

A few years ago, Sony introduced the word “Bravia” to signal their top-of-the-line models. Now it’s meaningless. Bravia is used for virtually every model in their catalog.

Making matters worse, if you should decide to expand your search to include 37″ models, you’ll find pairs of matching names, such as KDL-40XBR6 and KDL-37XBR6. You might think that paired models are identical except for screen size. You’d be wrong. The 40 inch BR6 model has a superior contrast ratio and includes several features absent from the 37″ model (most notably MotionFlow 120Hz). This turns an already confusing situation into a nearly incomprehensible one.

True, the Sony web site offers an option to set up comparisons of different models. But it doesn’t help all that much. Realistically, figuring out which model is the best one for you could take hours or even days of research.

Is all of this really necessary? Not in my opinion. Sometimes, I feel Sony deliberately creates this confusion, so that only salespeople really know what’s going on, making it easier for them to steer you to the model they most want to sell you. But maybe I am being too cynical.

And not to pick on Sony, most other television manufacturers, indeed most manufacturers of any sort of electronic devices, including computers, use a similar approach.

In contrast, Apple has gone down markedly different road. Of course, there was a time when Apple’s line-up was as jumbled as Sony’s. But then Steve Jobs returned to Apple and famously commented (I am paraphrasing here): “Even I can’t figure out the differences among all the Apple models and I’m the CEO.” As we now know, Jobs simplified the product line into a 2 X 2 grid: low and high end notebooks, low and high end desktops. Despite some minor exceptions (the Cube, the Mac mini, the MacBook Air), this basic outline persists today.

Each box in the grid contains only one product: MacBooks, MacBook Pros, iMacs and Mac Pros. Yes, there are some variations possible within each product. However, except for the fully and extensively customizable Mac Pro, the variations tend to be few, minor, and easy to understand. And the names are easy to remember. You won’t see Apple release a Mac X47BV205.

Overall, Apple has followed more in the tradition of car manufacturers. The Toyota Camry name, for example, remains the same each year. There are a few basic variations in the Camry line (LE, SE, XLE, and Hybrid), but not so many that they become unmangeable. The main way each new model is distinguished is by adding the year to the name: the 2008 Camry, the 2009 Camry.

Differentiating older vs. newer models can be a bit stickier for Apple. And it’s not a trivial matter. There may be a hardware glitch that affects one Mac Pro variation but not others. In such cases, the customer needs to be able to determine exactly which model they have. Apple’s solution is either to identify a model by its specific hardware (”Dual 2.5 GHz PowerPC G5″) or by date (”MacBook (Late 2007)”). This can admittedly get a bit awkward at times. Still, compared to Sony, I much prefer Apple’s simpler, cleaner, easier-to-follow, not more choices than I need, approach.

Overall, Apple’s approach to models and model names is consistent with everything else that Apple does: the clean simple design of its Stores, its product packaging and even the products themselves. As other companies seek to do battle with Apple, coming out with competing products, they would do well to pay attention to this difference. Too often, they ignore it. Not a great idea.

On today’s menu is a trio of comments regarding recent news items:

Podcaster and Apple’s “success”

Yesterday, the Observer reported that “Apple has rejected an iPhone app, Podcaster, on the basis that it duplicates the functionality of the Podcast section of iTunes. The author is greatly annoyed, as are some other developers and observers. Apple might even be on shaky legal grounds.”

It was just a few days earlier that I had expressed my concerns about the potential downsides of Apple becoming “too successful.” One of my concerns was that “you can’t download any third-party software {from the App Store} for your iPhone or touch unless Apple first approves the software.”

The problem here is that Apple’s basis for approval may simply derive from its own self-interest. This Podcaster controversy is a perfect example of how Apple’s tight rein can wind up at odds with consumers’ and developers’ interests. Apple should not be blocking an application such as Podcaster simply because they view it as competition, especially so when the guidelines to developers do not clearly state this as a prohibition.

PwnageTool 2.1: That didn’t take long

PwnageTool is a utility for jailbreaking an iPhone or iPod touch. Last week, the Observer reported that “that iTunes 8 included changes that…combat…the PwnageTool exploit.” The developers of PwnageTool claimed that they would soon be able to work around these changes. They have already done so, and without having to patch iTunes (something they feared might have been necessary). I can confirm that the newest versions of PwnageTool and QuickPwn can successfully jailbreak devices running Apple’s latest 2.1 updates and syncing with iTunes 8.

At this point, I simply don’t understand why Apple continues to waste its time and resources on this cat-and-mouse game. Nevermind that they keep losing the battle. Why even bother? They’ve already made it clear that you jailbreak an iPhone at your own risk, voiding your warranty at a minimum. If I still want to take the risk, so I can run Terminal or OpenSSH (or whatever) on my iPhone, why should Apple interfere? If Apple simply let jailbreakers play in their own sandbox, without trying to stop them, it would be better for both sides.

Breaking into an iPhone

Last week, the Observer, citing Jonathan Zdziarski, noted that the “iPhone takes its own screen shots as an internal programming aid.” They are created to allow the zooming effect when opening or closing an app.

By itself, the screen shots are not a problem. The potential problem occurs if and when your iPhone falls into the hands of an unscrupulous hacker.

As it happens, I attended a recent Webcast where Mr. Zdziarski discussed this matter. He demonstrated how a knowledgeable user can break into an iPhone, even one that is password-protected, in a matter of minutes. It was a bit scary to see. After breaking in, the hacker can easily access the aforementioned screenshots (as they are saved to the iPhone’s hard drive). Although not very likely, these screen shots could contain confidential data.

Mr. Zdziarski focused on the value of this access to law enforcement, allowing recovery of potentially incriminating evidence from suspected criminals. However, I believe Mr. Zdziarski was being a bit disingenuous here. I suspect that these techniques are much more likely to be used illegally — on stolen iPhones.

You needn’t be too concerned here. There’s no risk to your iPhone as long as you maintain physical possession of it. And even if you lose your phone, it’s unlikely that it will ever be subject to this sort of hacking. Still, if you keep confidential data on your iPhone, you may want to rethink this decision.

I’ve spent the past few days playing Electronic Arts Spore Origins on my iPhone. Overall, I can recommend the game. Although it is a bit repetitive and a bit too easy (except for the last few levels, or so I have been told), the graphics are gorgeous and the game play maintains your interest.

However, be aware that the game is not even close to a simulation of how evolution or, more specifically, natural selection actually works.

I saw an article where the creators of the game described the mechanics of Spore as a cross between evolution and intelligent design. That’s approximately true, but only if you put the weight clearly on the intelligent design end of the scale.

The evolution (natural selection) part comes into play mainly with the struggle for your organism to survive. If you don’t get enough food or if you don’t defend yourself well enough against attacks, you die (go extinct). Manage to do the opposite and you have the chance to acquire additional physical characteristics. These improve your chances of surviving further challenges. That’s it.

Unfortunately, this is a distorted view of the process of natural selection:

• First, there’s no sex or reproduction of any kind (from what I have read online, mating and social behavior do play some role in later stages of the full Spore game; but not so in Spore Origins). In the real world, evolutionary success is virtually the same thing as differential reproductive success. Put another way, an organism that dies after producing a dozen offspring has a much greater effect on the species’ evolution than a member that lives much longer but has no offspring. This alone pretty much eliminates Spore Origins from any serious consideration as an evolution simulation.

• Related to the first point, the competition that most contributes to evolutionary change is competition among members of the same species. Predator-prey interactions are secondary. They only matter to the extent that surviving such interactions provides an opportunity to leave more offspring than a competing member of the species. In Spore Origins, you are the only member of your species; there is no intra-species competition.

• In the real world, not all changes are positive. A change due to a mutation could leave an organism worse off than it was before. Other changes may prove beneficial at first but lose their value if and when the species’ ecology shifts. Spore offers almost none of this. Although the features you can add may work better in some combinations than in others; all the features are designed to be “improvements.”

• Evolutionary change via natural selection occurs within a population over generations — as older animals die and are replaced by a younger generation. Over this time scale, the population characteristics of a species shift. Reproductively successful changes spread through the population; harmful ones do not. In contrast, change in Spore Origins occurs by a lone non-reproducing organism acquiring new physical characteristics over its potentially limitless lifetime.

This last point is critical to the evolution vs. intelligent design aspects of the game. An intelligent designer is someone that can arbitrarily select the characteristics of an organism, independent of any process of natural selection. That’s primarily the way Spore Origins works. You are the “intelligent designer.” You mete out changes as a reward for the creature surviving a game level.

While it is true that such changes can improve your creature’s future survival probability, the process in Spore Origins is almost the opposite of how natural selection works. Natural selection does not “give” you an improved eye, for example, simply because you managed to survive with the “old” one. Rather, you get a modified eye first (typically via some random mutation) and, assuming the modification is beneficial, gain increased success as a result.

Bottom line: None of this detracts from the fun of playing Spore Origins — as long as you realize that the game is not an evolution simulation. To the contrary, it is actually closer to an “intelligent design” simulation.

One more thing: EA should have provided more details as to the rules of the game. It was especially frustrating to find no explanation as to how evolution points are acquired (these are the points that unlock access to additional features for your creature). Apparently, you gain these points automatically when you complete certain levels; nothing else you do has any effect. I would have liked to have known this before I wasted time trying to uncover the “secret” of how to get these points. I still haven’t found any official confirmation of this, not even on EA’s Web site, so I may be wrong. However, a search the Web revealed many other users similarly unable to figure this out. So at least I am not alone here.

Apple today unveiled its latest round of updates to its iPod lineup. In case you are trying to sort through the announcements, in an effort to decide which iPod(s) to buy for the upcoming holiday season, here are my instant recommendations:

• The iPod touch. The iPod touch is the one to get if you can afford the extra $100 bucks (over a nano) and are not bothered by its larger size. By adding volume controls and an external speaker, the iPod touch finally achieves major feature parity with the iPhone. The touch can now be honestly described as a phoneless (okay, and cameraless) iPhone. For some people (including myself), the iPhone itself remains the more attractive choice — if only because it combines two devices (a mobile phone and an iPod touch) into one. But the iPhone is also much more expensive (when you consider the cost of the required two-year contract) and locks you into AT&T (here in the U.S.). For those who find all that untenable (of which there are many), the iPod touch is a spectacular alternative. Get one!

• The iPod nano. This is still a keeper. The nano just keeps getting better. More significantly, at $100 less than a comparable iPod touch, it remains the smallest least-expensive “full” iPod that you can buy. The nano is the one that will continue to fill the most Christmas stockings this season. For me, the nano’s biggest improvement is the combination of its new shape plus accelerometer. By allowing you to shift from a vertical to a widescreen view, the nano becomes a more pleasing device for watching video.

• The iPod shuffle. I would not recommend anyone buy an iPod shuffle — unless price is the overriding consideration. If the cost of an iPod nano is out of your reach, and you are determined to have some sort of iPod, go ahead and plunk down $49 for a shuffle. But be aware that you are getting a screenless iPod that has almost none of the features that make its siblings a success. I am not sure how profitable the shuffle is for Apple. But I strongly suspect that as soon as Apple can find its way to pricing an iPod nano below $100, it will dump the shuffle entirely.

• The iPod classic. I would not recommend anyone buy an iPod classic — unless you truly need its 120GB of storage. Why? Because for $20 less(!) than the cost of a classic, you can get an 8GB iPod touch. For just $50 more than a classic, you can get a 16GB iPod touch. If either of those sizes are sufficient (and based on the success of previous generations of iPod nanos, most iPod users find these sizes more than sufficient), you are much better off buying a touch. The iPod touch is an even better iPod than a classic and — as a bonus — offers several dozen non-iPod features (including Wi-Fi capability and access to App Store apps). Some people may claim that they prefer the classic, regardless of storage considerations, because they neither want nor need the non-iPod features of the touch. Or that they prefer the click-wheel interface to a touchscreen. Okay. So Apple can keep the classic around for those few holdouts. But, as with the shuffle, expect Apple to shunt the classic to a virtual corner somewhere. It is telling that Apple’s press releases from today don’t even mention the upgraded shuffle or classic.

I can imagine a not-too-distant future where the iPod shuffle and iPod classic no longer exist. A scaled back iPod nano may remain for those who still want its simplicity, small size and low cost. But the vast majority of Apple’s sales will be going to the touch and the iPhone. At that point, Apple’s refrain could be: “The (old) iPods are dead; long live the (new) iPods.”

P.S. As for the iPhone 2.1 software and iTunes 8.0, also announced today, I’ll be covering them in future articles.

This Sunday, Best Buy will start selling iPhones.

If you’re like me (or more correctly, like I used to be), you may be saying: “Huh? Best Buy? Who would want to go there to buy Apple products?”

Indeed, over the years, my opinion of Best Buy had sunk so low that you’d have to open a storm drain to even hope to find it.

But times change.

Buying a television

I recently decided to buy a new flat-screen television. Initially, I went to Circuit City. In the past, compared to Best Buy, Circuit City had a better selection of televisions, a more informed sales staff and most often had the best prices.

No more.

My recent visits to Circuit City revealed a weak selection of televisions (especially in the 37″ to 40″ size, which is what I was planning to buy), an unattractive and not well-maintained display area, and sales people that knew less about the products than…well than most of their customers (I imagine this last point is a by-product of the cost-cutting mass firing of their staff a few years ago).

In contrast, Best Buy had, in stock and on display, all the televisions I was interested in (and several more to spare). Their layout was clean and functional. The staff was generally well informed (although one salesman insisted that a Sony television had a 120Hz display, even though I knew it did not). With a few exceptions, even the prices were better at Best Buy (and Best Buy agreed to match the price in those cases).

These differences held true across several stores that I visited, both in California and in North Carolina.

Back to Apple

Returning to Best Buy selling Apple products — many of you may recall Best Buy’s earlier forays into carrying Apple products. They were a disaster. The main trouble (as with similar ventures by the now nearly departed CompUSA) was that the Apple products (what few they carried) were stuck off in a corner somewhere, almost as if they were there by mistake. If you asked the sales staff about the Apple hardware, they would most likely either profess ignorance or attempt to steer you to a PC. It was this type of experience that led Apple to open its own line of retail stores (and you know how that story ends: despite initial predictions of doom by the press, the stores have been a spectacular success).

In stark contrast, Best Buy now has an entire section of the store devoted to Apple products. While it certainly won’t win any design awards, especially as compared to Apple Stores, they are a far cry from the “old days.” And sales staff actually show some interest in helping you make a purchase of an Apple product.

Granted, Best Buy will never be a place where I would prefer to go for Apple hardware. The Apple Store is far better. For me, even the Web is better. Certainly the selection is better. But there are many potential Apple customers who do not live close to an Apple Store and don’t want to shop online. Or who may not be committed to buying Apple and prefer a store that offers a broader choice. Or who want a store that sells stuff besides computers and iPods. For them, Best Buy is an attractive and viable alternative.

I expect iPhones will do well at Best Buy (but you may want to check out the cautions described in this New York Times article). Of course, that means Apple will also come out ahead. A win-win situation for everyone involved.