Skip to main content

iPhone, you phone

I know it's only weeks since I was banging on about my 10-year-old mobile phone - but it has now been consigned to the great stock cupboard of electronic life. I've upgraded to an iPhone.

It might seem a feeble cave-in, when I was proud of keeping my old mobile for so long - but the idea was never to hang on to it forever, just longer than the mayfly existence of most personal electronics. I hope I keep my iPhone for a good few years too.

When they first came out I was disdainful of their locked-in proprietary nature and hated the way they forced you to go to a single phone company. But I have been gradually worn down by a series of blows - from falling in love with my daughters' iPod Touches to the sheer joy that the eloquent Dr Henry Gee has clearly gained from his iPhone.

It may be a honeymoon period, but right now it's just so exciting. I mean, you can... no. I won't bore you with the obsessive details. But can a phone where checking your voicemail messages is fun be anything but wonderful? I'll keep my enthusiasm for other features and apps to another day, though. It's possible to have too much even of a good thing.

Comments

  1. Soooo, Mr Clegg, we meet at last! (strokes white cat, extends little finger...) You have finally succumbed to my Evil and Nefarious Designs! Mwah ha ha ha ha ha! (Puts down cat, goes to immense cathedral organ and plays opening bars of BWV 565, no, you look it up).

    After some months of happy iPhonership I conclude that the best thing about the iPhone is that it doesn't have an instruction manual because it doesn't need one. That, if nothing else, is a testament to the excellent design of this contraption.

    ReplyDelete
  2. For those too lazy to look up BWV 565, here are the opening bars: http://www.hymncds.com/bach%20sample.mp3

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou