Online Predator Bills Signed Into Law Today

President Bush signed into law two bills that will make it much harder for child molesters to lurk with anonymity on the Web, especially at social networking sites.

The new law, called the "Keeping the Internet Devoid of Sexual Predators Act of 2008" or the "KIDS Act of 2008," requires registered sex offenders to provide "Internet identifiers", including e-mail addresses, to state sex offender registries. Those identifiers will also be used by social networking sites (presumably at the request of authorities) to identify suspect users at the National Sex Offender Registry.

As social networking became the huge phenomenon that it is, news reports began showing up documenting the ease at which predators could contact minors, and even arrange offline meetings with them, at social networking sites. The new law can be seen as a direct response to those stories.

Bush also signed the "PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008," which requires the Department of Justice to create and implement a national strategy, as well as a new task force, for tracking down predators on the Web and prosecuting them.

Goodbye, Kind PC World

This is my 952nd Techlog post. It's also my last one--because today is my last day as editor in chief of PC World. As I blogged here three weeks ago, I'm stepping down from this wonderful job to try my hand at building a tech site from scratch.

I started at PC World in October of 1994. I was thrilled to get the job, but if you'd told me then I'd be here for thirteen and a half years and end up as editor in chief, I'd never have believed you.

Actually, I thought there was a strong chance the gig would only last a few months: I joined the staff as associate editor for a special version called PC World Lotus Edition, with extra pages on 1-2-3 and other Lotus products, and the editor who hired me cheerfully informed me that it was likely that Lotus Edition would be discontinued within a few months. But I figured that taking the job was a good way to get my foot in the door at PCW, and that even if Lotus Edition were to die, I'd have a chance at sticking around.

So what kept me here so long? Well, as I've often told folks, getting to play with technology products and write about them is more pleasure than work; I might have paid PCW for the privilege. PC World has changed so much, and so continuously, that I feel like it's been more like five or six years, tops--I never once got bored.

Most important, I've worked with an extraordinarily smart team of editors, Test Center analysts, designers, and other folks, who taught me far more than I taught them. And I've had the honor of doing my darndest to serve the millions of smart people who rely on PCW in print and online form every day.

When I started here in 1994, PCW had a thriving online presence--but it was in the form of areas on AOL, CompuServe, and other dial-up services. Our Web site came along a few months later, and was not exactly at the center of our world. After all, we were busy competing with an array of computer magazines--including titles such as Byte, PC Computing, and Windows Magazine.

It took awhile before it was clear that I'd be here during the most astonishing transformation that ever hit the media business. Most of our print competitors went away; thousands of new competitors sprung up online. We not only covered the Web revolution, but were profoundly impacted it.

And we did just fine. We went from being a thick magazine with a small Web site to a thinner magazine with a site that's bursting at the seams with content, features, and community. Today, we serve more people than at any time in our history, and the vast majority of them are PCWorld.com visitors, not magazine readers. It's been a thrill to be part of the team that ensured that PCW made that leap.

The best thing about PCW has always been the people I work with; the saddest thing by far has been losing some of them, including Rex Farrance and Uli Diehlmann. I have memories I'll keep with me for the rest of my life--here are a few of them, in no particular order:

* Getting to travel to Tokyo, Beijing, Athens, Munich, and a host of other interesting places as part of my work...and hanging out with the staff of local editions of PC World whenever possible.

* Collaborating with Dateline NBC, in its pre-"To Catch a Predator" days, on a cross-country hidden-camera project in which we investigated the quality of PC repair at major retailers.

* Accepting American Business Media's Grand Neal award on behalf of my colleagues in 2000 for a special issue we did on broadband access. (PC World has been honored with editorial awards many times, but that occasion sticks out in my mind as a delightful surprise.)

* Learning from multiple editorial mentors, including Cathy Baskin, Eric Bender, Steve Fox, Phil Lemmons, Kevin McKean, Randy Ross, and Dan Tynan; these are the people who taught me most of what I know about technology journalism.

* Getting to spend time with Pat McGovern, the visionary founder of PC World's parent, IDG; forty-four years into the history of the company, he's still the model of an enthusiastic, hard-working, and inventive IDG employee.

* Meeting PC World readers everywhere I go.

* Working on our coverage last year of the launch of the iPhone; we spent 24 straight hours on it, generated a ton of content (including an insanely popular video), and pulled out all the stops to prove we were an online operation rather than a monthly-magazine team.

* The ritual, whenever I happened across a newsstand, of stopping to make sure that it had copies of PC World--and, I confess, sometimes moving the issues to the front if they were hidden.

* Working in San Francisco's South of Market area, where PCW has been for 21 years, and watching the rise and fall of multiple generations of tech companies in the neighborhood (not to mention the construction of one of the country's best ballparks three blocks from our office).

* Surviving the strange events of last year that involved me resigning and returning in the space of a week--then getting to spend one last year doing work I loved.

* Getting to cover the ongoing digital revolution from the thick of things--when I started at PCW, there was no such thing as Google, a PalmPilot or BlackBerry, Wi-Fi, Netscape Navigator, or DVD.

* Oh, and writing this blog.

In short, there's no place I'd rather have spent the past thirteen and a half years.

I'm delighted that it's possible to leave PC World without completely leaving PC World behind: As of tomorrow, I'm a contributing editor, and you'll see my byline here from time to time when I'm not cranking on my new site. Meanwhile, my talented, passionate colleagues will be working hardto bring you a PCW that's every bit as useful and trustworthy as ever.

It'll be odd for me to hit the PCWorld.com home page or see an issue at the newsstand and see content I had nothing to do with--but I'll be proud of PCW and the people behind it forever.

Wanna reach me from here on out? Mail sent to harry_mccracken@pcworld.com will still wend its way to me for at least awhile, but hm@harrymccracken.com will also work.

Thanks for everything, and I'll see you soon...

Live From Google's "Factory Tour" of Search

I'm at the Googleplex in Mountain View for a Google Factory Tour--which involves neither a factory nor a tour. But it is an update on Google search, and should therefore be worthwhile. I'll update this post as the event proceeds...

9:50am: The event is starting, a bit late. Google's Marissa Mayer introduces R.J. Pittman, Director of Product Management. He says search is search is important, and then talks about digital photos: 300 million of them are taken every day. Next, he says that there are 360 million image searches a day across the major search properties.

But it's hard for a search engine to figure out if images are similar. Google's image similarity technology helps here. Also hard: Identifying an object, such as the Eiffel Tower. Here, too, Google has technology that can help--"it's going to be hugely important."

"People love to search for people--that's a fact." Google has face detection that can tell if an image is John DeLorean, or the DeLorean car. Some of this technology is in Google Image Search today.

Google is also interested in very high-resolution pictures, such as gigapixel ones. It's making the best of these available through advanced image feeds. And it's getting involved with geo-tagging and other technologies for identifying where a picture was taken.

Pittman says that images can be useful for commerce, too, and announces that Google is experimenting with embedding ads with relevant graphics into Google Image Search:

(This would be the first time that graphical ads have appeared on Google, I think.)

Now, Pittman's talking about Google News. Google is using new technologies for smart local search that can tell Paris France from Paris Texas. A new quotation feature provides quotes from people in the news (example: Simon Cowell).

Then there's Google Finance. It's had intuitive charting features since it launched. A new version of the Google Finance homepage recently launched, melding finance and news--"a fantastic capability that's not available anywhere else on the Web."

Most finance sites have a stock screener feature, but they "tend to be pretty cumbersome airplane dashboards." Google Finance now has an easier-to-use screener, Pittman says. "We're setting the standard for demystifying some of the complexities." And Google Finance is now rolling out internationallly--China, the U.K., and Canada, with more to come. "We're just getting started with Google Finance, and the world is just getting a taste of what's to come."

Here's Google's Michael Cohen to talk about Google Labs.

Cohen says that some Google Labs graduates have been hits, but some Labs projects are "fifth-year seniors." He's talking about "Experimental Search," which lets you "bolt on" experimental features to your Google searches. And he says that Google Trends can show how search maps to the real world--people search more for Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man when they're in new movies, and people stop searching for presidential candidates when they drop out of the race.

Here's Marissa Mayer again. She's saying that Google Maps was a big home run out of Google Labs. And she's introducing Carter Maslan, who works on Google Maps and local search.

Maslan is saying that local search is about organizing the world's information geographically. Why is that hard? Well, you have to identify a place. He's talking about the Google engineers who are involved in trying to figure out locations photos are of. They're dealing with problems like disputed international boundaries and the fact that "New York, New York" could be Manhattan or a Vegas hotel, and the issues involved with finding, say, a rope swing in a particular small town.

"You quickly research that perfect local search requires a near-perfect mirror-world," Maslan says. He says you need a "canvas" to build the world on. He's showing all the high-quality geographic images that Google has, and showing how you can get turn-by-turn photographic driving directions from San Francisco's Moscone Center to AT&T; Park.

Now he's showing photorealistic, three-dimensional renderings of San Francisco buildings in Google Earth. They're also part of the canvas.

More cool stuff, such as a chronological, historical map of Bigfoot sightings (they peaked in the 1970s). "Then there's also mundane things," such as the ability to let any user identify and add local establishments such as soccer fields.

He's showing a heat map that shows the huge amount of geographical info that folks are adding to Google's database. So what do you do to make all that info easy to find?

Google's Zurich team works on map rendering. He's showing a search for a Swiss hotel, and how travel times are color-coded. You can compare driving and public transporation options. And server-size map-tile rendering gives you a neat view with photos sitting on top of a map.

Other engineers work on other local search items. Some work great today, like looking for beachfront hotels in L.A. Others need lots of work, like hiking information for the Marin Headlands.

Understanding local context really helps--if you mention SFO, Google can tell that if you ask how to get to "1 Market Street," you're probably talking about 1 Market Street in San Francisco. But if you search for "Kansas State"--probably meaning the university--Google Local Search still can't figure that out; it shows you the whole darn state of Kansas.

Now, we're seeing a demo of flying into the San Francisco Ferry Building in Google Earth. We're seeing the farmer's market in progress there. Eventually, Google wants to tell you things like the parking restrictions in effect during the farmer's market.

Now Marissa Mayer is introducing Johanna Wright, director of product management for Search Quality. She explains that Google understands she's searching for "broccoli" even if she misspells it--it needs to be really good at figuring out what you're looking for--whether it's a Web page or a picture or a video or a blog post. "We at Google just need to bring it to them."

Google's Universal Search feature involves multiple challenges. There's infrastructure--doing searches across multiple types of content is much more computationally demanding. There's ranking--you're kind of comparing apples to oranges. And there's user experience--how to make it simple, despite the richness of the content?

"The easiest way to understand Universal Search is just to go through a handful of examples."

The first example involves Redbone's BBQ in Somerville Massachusetts. (I've been there--it's great!) Universal Search gives you reviews of it when you search. Then we see a search for "yoga kansas city," which provides a map, locations of yoga establishments, and links to more content.

A search for the recently-announced BlackBerry Bold phone focuses on timely news and blogs, so the coverage is fresh.One for "how to make naan" provides videos--Universal Search now crawls more videos from more sites. "Lisa Leinbaugh photographs" shows images by this photographer; a photographer doesn't need to be well-known for Google to figure out to do this. "Kanagaroo jumping" shows images of Kangaroos doing exactly that.

Here's Trystan Upstill, a Google search quality guy who's lived in France, Australia, the U.K., and the U.S. He knows a lot about taxes. If you search for "tax" in the U.S., you get relevant results for the IRS; in the U.K. you get stuff on Her Majesty's Revenue and Customers. And so on.

Language localization is complex. If you search for "enrique iglesias" in Russia, Google starts off with imaging, then gives you his official site, then some Russian sites about him and then a video. It's all tricky, since Google does 100+ languages in 150+ countries.

If you search for "Bermuda Triangle" in Arabic, you get some sites in Arabic, and then links to sites translated into Arabic for you. If you search for "zoo" in LA, Google's smart enough to figure out that the world-famous San Diego Zoo is within driving distance, and leads off with it. But it won't give you a pizza place in San Diego if you're in LA. (Clarification: The zoo localization is coming soon.)

Upstill's explaining that Google will ask for your zip code to make this possible.

Here's Google's Pandak Nayak to talk about hard-to-understand queries. He explains that it's only machines that have trouble figuring them out--humans don't. For a search for "dr zhivago," the search engine knows that "dr" means "doctor." But in "rodeo drive dr burton green," "dr" means "drive," not "doctor." And in "best beaches in dr," it's short for "Dominican Republic."

Nayak's saying that as people get more confident about searching, they're getting more and more casual about how they express their queries.

Another example of complexity: "new york times square" is a search about Times Square. "new york times squaring the circle" is a search about the New York Times.

"normandy inn carmel california availability" is a clear search, but that hotel doesn't have online room availability. And Google shouldn't give you results for random other hotels that do. So it's smart enough to focus reslts on the Normandy Inn.

"wild wolf water resort niagara fall ontario" looks straightforward--but there's no such place. Google is smart enough to know the user is really looking for a resort called Great Wolf.

Johanna Wright is back. She's talking about how she arrived at Google shortly after Google Book Search launched. Originally, you got from Google Web Search to Book Search with a link that let you try your search on Book Search. But it was there even when there were no relevant book searches--until an engineer figured out how to only show the link when it was useful. Everyone at Google serves one master--the company's millions of users.

And now Marissa Mayer is saying we'll take a ten-minute break. More to come...

We're back. We see a clip from Seinfeld involving Elaine trying to get her doctor to change her medical records. And here's Marissa Mayer again, recapping the earlier presentations. Now she's talking about "the future of search." It'll be "experienced in many new modes"--cell phones, cars, etc. She's saying she only does 20 percent of the searches she thinks of, since she's often on the go or in her car.

Another challenge: Pulling in media of all sorts. Google expects to get better and better at doing at that. And it thinks it'll get better at personalization--providing better results by knowing more about you. "We're just getting started."

Now she's talking about Google Health. Most people who try to find health info online start by searching, and most of those people search at Google. Google Health is live at www.google.com/health.

And here's Roni Zeiger, product manager for Google Health (and a doctor himself). He's talking about an imaginary Google Health user named Diana. She can import medical records from Walgreens, various hospitals, and other providers, effective today.

He's browsing through information on chicken pox, including symptoms, photos, and stuff from other Google services such as Google Scholar.

Zeiger says that privacy is an important component of Google Health--Google won't share your information without your permission, or sell it.

Now he's showing how Diana can go from Google Health to a heart attack risk calculator on the American Health Association's site. Google Health automatically fills out the info it knows about Diana into the calculator.

"The most interesting features are the ones we haven't seen or thought about," he says.

Mayer's talking about Google Health partners: Walgreens, Quest Diagnostics, CVS Caremark, RX America, and many more. A guest from Quest Diagnostics comes on stage. He says he's proud to be here. He explains that diagnostic information is a critical part of any medical record. He's saying that Google and Quest both believe that timely and accurate diagnostic info is an essential part of helping people take control of their health. And he's telling us a bit more about Quest Diagnostics.

Here's a guest from Walgreens--a pharmacist, in fact. Incomplete or inaccurate drug lists are a huge problem for pharmacists, she says. She tells a story of a friend who's mom went into the hospital after a nasty drug reaction based on incomplete information. "For pharmacists, patient care is the number one priority--I don't know many people who went into this business because they like putting pills from a big bottle into a little bottle."

She's talking about Walgreen's history of pharmaceutical innovations (satellites, electronic prescriptions, etc.). They're doing it again by working with Google.

Marissa Mayer is talking about Google Health's advisory board. Here's the guy who heads it--celebrity doctor Dean Ornish. He says he's proud of what they've done so far, and there's lots more to come. Mayer says there are thousands more partnerships to form, and petabytes of data to organize.

And here's one final announcement: Google and the Cleveland Clinic have created a "Walk for Good" gadget for iGoogle. Sign up, and it'll help you keep track of your walking over the next 15 weeks. Google will make a $100,000 donation based on votes from users who participate. A guest from the Clinic is talking about its work with Google and its belief in practicing what it preaches when it comes to health. Most of what determines your health is choice, not genes, and daily walking is "the best physical activity you can do."

The Walk for Good gadget lets you set walking targets, which is very important, and help you hit them. "It'll help you understand how fun it is to get well."

And that's the formal presentation...

Aliph's New Jawbone Headset: Smaller and More Stylish

Confession time: This is a quick headset review by a guy who's never liked headsets much. McCracken's First Law of Eyeglass Wearing correctly posits that it's impossible to comfortably hook more than one device behind your ear at one time. I'm a four eyes, so I've always struggled to enjoy 3D movies. And in recent years, I consistently have trouble hooking Bluetooth headsets on my ear and feeling comfortable with them on they're there. I'm much happier simply holding a phone up to my ear,

But as of July 1st, I'm going to be a headset user: My beloved adopted state of California will give me a ticket if it spots me holding my phone up while driving. And as of this moment, the leading candidate to be my headset of choice is Aliph's $130 Jawbone, which goes on sale at AT&T; stores on Thursday.

I may be a headset skeptic, but I've admired Aliph's work for more than three years now, since we gave the clunky, corded first-generation Jawbone an award. (Everyone, including Aliph's CEO, seems to consider this new Jawbone to be the second-gen version...but that's only if you ignore the original corded version and start counting with the first Bluetooth model, which came out in 2006.) Aliph's proprietary noise-reduction technology has always let Jawbones block much of the ambient noise that makes it hard for the people you call on a cell phone to understand you, and the company's induatrial-design chops have always been impressive.

So what's new about the new Jawbone? One fact says it all: The old Bluetooth Jawbone was rather bulky, and this new one is surprisngly svelte. It's both shorter and narrower than its predecessor, taking up roughly half the space overall. Here's a quick and dirty comparison photo, with a quarter in the picture to give you a frame of reference:

The bulky old Jawbone, nice though it was, sort of felt like a barnacle hanging off your ear; the new one is small and light enough that you might forget it's there. In fact, you might forgo using an ear loop--which is why I left them out of the photo above--and simply tuck it into your ear sans a clip to hold it in place. That's certainly what I'll do when using it, and it'll be a real relief to avoid futzing with a loop.

That's what I've done with the Jawbone I've been trying over the past couple of days, and I've never felt like it was about to tumble off my earlobe. That alone makes it more appealing to me than most headsets.

Beyond the convenient size, the new Jawbone also ups the ante considerably on sheer industrial-design panache, as a $130 headset should. Its faceted surface gives it a jewel-like feel, and both the informational LEDs and control buttons are hidden beneath the surface. They're there, of course, but the LCD seems to shine right through the Jawbone's plastic skin, and the buttons perform their actions (such as turning the headset off and on) when you press the entire headset at the appropriate spot. The ear loop is wrapped in leather, like a sports car's steering wheel. (You also get additional, less lavish loops, plus ear buds in multiple sizes to customize the Jawbone's fit.)

Even the packaging exudes style--the Jawbone comes in a sizable box that holds it up like a museum artifact in a display case, and the documentation is on classy black paper that wouldn't be out of place in an art store. Basically, if Apple made headphones, they'd probably produce something very much like this. (It doesn't, but it does sell Jawbones in its stores; this new model, however, is an AT&T; exclusive for the first two months.)

As much as I admire the new Jawbone's looks, I'm not in love with it in terms of sheer function. I had trouble remembering which button sequences to push for various functions, and the fact I couldn't see the buttons didn't help--sometimes I got confused and pressed the headset where it didn't have a button at all. (Presumably, I'll remember them better with extended use, but I would still prefer more tactile controls.) Also, the new AC charger (which can also be used in USB mode) is more portable than the earlier version, but I found that if I didn't press the Jawbone into the adapter's magnetic connector just right, the connection was wonky and the headset didn't charge.

One other issue for some folks: The new Jawbone claims four hours of talk time, versus "over six" for the old one, which had a larger battery. Standby time is about the same as before, at eight days.

Ultimately, of course, the single most important thing a headset must do is to make you and the people you talk to sound good to each other. I want to use the Jawbone in more environments before I give it a final verdict, but in my initial tests, everybody involved was pleased with audio quality. Aliph has renamed its Noise Shield technology with the flashier moniker Noise Assassin, and the name is not unwarranted. It blocks background distractions well enough that I should be able to use my phone at an airport gate without putting it on mute every time an airline agent starts shouting over a loudspeaker.

All in all, this new Jawbone is an impressive piece of work. I'm not sure if it'll turn me into a headset fan, but I'm going to give it a try. And as I use it in more settings and get used to the invisible buttons, I'll report back here if I have more thoughts...

My New Adventure

As I've often said, I'm one lucky guy. In my position as editor in chief of PC World, I have one of the best jobs in technology journalism. I get to do work I thoroughly enjoy, and to be part of a remarkable team who serves an equally remarkable universe of online and print readers. PC World turns 25 this year, and I've been very proud to be associated with it for over half of that quarter century. When I joined the staff in October 1994 as an associate editor, I never, ever would have believed the ride would last this long.

I could happily do this job forever--but new challenges are good, too. And here's a bit of breaking news for you: After giving it a lot of thought, I've decided to step down as editor in chief and launch a technology site of my own--one that I'll build from scratch and launch this summer.

You can take the editor out of PC World; it's harder to take the PC World out of the editor. For one thing, my last day on staff here is June 2nd, so this isn't the last blog post you'll read from me. Even after I depart the staff, I'll be a contributing editor and my byline will likely show up from time to time.

PC World has lots of ambitious things in the works. Even though I won't be on staff, I'm looking forward to seeing all of them become reality in the coming months.

Before I sign off from this blog for the last time, I know I'll want to share more PC World thoughts and memories with you. But right now, it's time to get back to work...

A Win for PCW!

I'm pleased to say that several of us PC Worlders spent Friday night at the Western Publications Association's annual Maggie Awards banquet, which recognizes magazines and Web sites published west of the Mississippi--and we didn't go away empty-handed. Chris Null's feature "The 50 Best Tech Products of All Time," which we published on PCWorld.com last year, was recognized with the award for best consumer Web article.

The story wasn't just a hit with the Maggie judges; it was also a blockbuster with site visitors. And it remains a rollicking good read. If you missed it the first time around, check it out here...

No MicroHoo? Hallelujah!

When I saw the headline, I smiled: "Microsoft Abandons Yahoo Acquisition." Absent a surprise ending, the behemoth of Redmond's attempt to go head-to-head with Google in Web advertising by paying billions to snap up Yahoo has failed. And I'm relieved--if the merger had gone through, it would have been one of the more soul-crushing moments in recent tech history.

I didn't like the idea when Microsoft went public with its bid back in February, and nothing in the last three months has made me reconsider. With the likely exception of Yahoo stockholders, I can't imagine that anyone would have ultimately been happy with the outcome of a merged Microsoft-Yahoo--not Microsoft or Yahoo's users, not its employees, and probably not even Microsoft itself.

Not that the bid falling apart leaves Yahoo in great shape: It's likely to face a bruising reaction from investors in the form of a hit to its stock price and lawsuits from shareholders who think that CEO/founder Jerry Yang and the rest of the company's management should have taken Steve Ballmer's money and ran. The company is still short on bright ideas for truly competing with the Google juggernaut. And it may yet have to undergo dramatic change--in the form of a scaling back of its ambitions, the outsourcing of its ad business to Google, or an acquisition by somebody else. Despite everything, though, I think the company's far more likely to come up with interesting new services for consumers than if it had been gobbled up by Microsoft.

And as for Microsoft? I'm not saying I know how to run the company better that Ballmer and Company, but I kinda think it would make sense if the company gracefully backpedaled on its desire to be an advertising kingpin. Modest proposal: Howsabout going back to basics and doing everything in its power to come up with a next-generation Windows that the world will find more appealing than Vista in its current form?

So what's your opinion on all this?

The $199 iPhone: Cool! Possibly Imaginary!

As nifty as the current iPhone is, there are muliple reasons not to buy it: It's got a slow data connection, it doesn't yet run third-party applications...and at $399 with no subsidy from AT&T;, it's kinda pricey. We know that a 3G iPhone is on its way, and that Apple's upcoming iPhone SDK will make the phone into a first-rate platform for apps of all kinds. And now it looks like that 3G iPhone might be downright affordable.

In theory, at least. A Fortune blog is reporting that a source has told it that AT&T; will offer a $200 subsidy for iPhone buyers who sign up for a two-year contact, bringing the price of the hip handset down to $199. That would also address one of the most irritating things about the first-generation iPhone: The fact that AT&T; currently makes you sign up for a two-year contract and doesn't offer any sort of price break in recognition of that commitment.

(I hate phone contracts myself, so I'm assuming and hoping that you'll also be able to pay the full-freight $399 for the iPhone without a contract.)

I don't have any reason to think that Fortune's report is false, but it always pays to be extremely cautious about accepting any fact about an upcoming Apple product as gospel until Steve Jobs himself declares it to be so. And the New York Times' Saul Hansell points out that it seems implausible that an iPhone sold at an AT&T; store could be had for $200 less than one sold at an Apple Store, especially since Apple-Store iPhones must be activated on AT&T;'s network anyhow. The bottom line is that I wouldn't be the least bit amazed if the $199 iPhone turns out to be fantasy.

And speaking of being suspicious of Apple rumors, the Fortune story says that the 3G iPhone will be 2.5mm thinner than the current model. Just a few days ago, Engadget was reporting that the new phone would be a tad thicker than its predecessor. Somebody's got it wrong. (My money's on Fortune being right; it's hard to imagine Steve Jobs ever releasing a next-generation product that's even a nanometer thicker than the one it replaces.)

As I've mentioned before, I passed on the first-gen iPhone, for all the reasons I outlined at the top of this post. But if I can snag the 3G model for $399 with no contract, I'll be tempted.

How about you?

Sorry, MSN Music "Buyers!"

As I've said before, I don't have any religious opposition to the very notion of Digital Rights Management. But boy, does DRM in the real world keep turning out to be a compelling argument for the elimination of DRM, period.

I'm thinking of today's news that folks who "bought" songs on MSN Music won't be able to move them to new PCs after August. That's because Microsoft, which shut down MSN Music's "buy song" option when it launched the Zune in 2006, is deactivating the DRM servers that would allow a new PC to become an authorized device for music playback.

In this interview over at News.com, Microsoft exec Rob Bennett justifies the company's decision, saying that making the DRM work properly with operating-system upgrades was impractical. It's a shame that thecompany discovered that DRM was tough after marketing its DRM under the name PlaysForSure, a boast that was disproved again and again. ("PlaysForSure" has since morphed into the less sweeping-sounding "Certified For Windows Vista.")

So the upshot is that anyone who purchased tracks from MSN Music didn't really buy them in the traditional sense that you'd buy, oh, a CD. Microsoft's server shutdown means that the songs will be forever tied to the computers they're authorized for as of June.

The situation is pretty similar to what happened with Google Video last August, when the company stopped selling video downloads. After some squawking by consumers, Google ended up both giving customers their money back and providing an additional Google Coupon credit. I haven't seen any word on what if anything Microsoft plans to do for MSN Music customers who feel like their time and money was wasted.

Both Microsoft and Google are, ahem, rather large companies that aren't short on money or resources. And both cheerfully took consumers' money for content that those people were allegedly buying, and then decided that maintaining the DRM that made that content usable was inconvenient. It makes me glad that I've bought most of my music on CDs, where it's safe and sound from any business decisions made after the fact by the companies I bought the discs from. (A high percentage of my CDs came from Tower Records; it doesn't even exist anymore, and my music still plays just fine.)

Both the Microsoft and Google DRM decisions leave me just a little less likely to believe any claims those companies make when they're trying to part me from my money--and a whole lot more distrustful of DRM in any flavor.

If content wasn't locked up with DRM, of course, none of this would happen. Coincidentally, I've been visiting Microsoft in Redmond over the past couple of days, and I met today with Brian Seitz, senior marketing communications manager for Zune, the music device and platform that essentially replaced MSN Music. He told me that about two-thirds of the 3.5 million or so songs available on the Zune Marketplace are now available in DRM-free MP3 form--and that the company's goal is for all of its catalog to be available without DRM by the end of the year.

Sounds good to me. Perhaps Microsoft might like to give all those folks who purchased MSN Music tracks free versions of those songs in MP3 format?

Mysteries of Lending Tree

Okay, so I'm trying to buy a house. As with anything I do, I naturally wanted to do as much of it as I could online. So when mortgage shopping, I signed up for Lending Tree--the guys with the TV ads involving bankers lining up to beg for the business of consumers.

So I guess I can't complain that bankers did, indeed, beg for my business--sometimes by calling me and sometimes by e-mailing me. I settled on a bank that I didn't find through Lending Tree, so when I just got another e-mail from a Lending Tree bank, I decided to tell Lending Tree to stop soliciting my business.

But when I tried to do that, I got a database error and the following message:

Apparently, Lending Tree thinks I applied for mortgage information in December, 1899. If I had, wouldn't I most likely have found a loan in the interim, and/or passed away? And therefore be less than an attractive loan candidate?