I’ll admit, I hesitated. It is a constant theme in my adulthood to follow my favorite sports teams with caution. I fool myself into thinking it is some sign of maturity to not let myself get wrapped up in the emotion. In reality, it is self-preservation because me wrapped up in the emotion is no fun for everyone. Whatever you want to call it, I tempered my expectations of the USMNT, reminding myself that we are, after all, American and this is soccer we are talking about. Or is it football?

So despite all my talk of dropping a benjamin on a fresh-off-the-press Onyewu jersey, I held myself back. I didn’t even wear my Donovan branded Everton away kit to any of my treks to the bar at 10am to watch our matches. But then the shot happened. After nearly 2 hours of agony and impending heartbreak Landon finds the ball at his feet after a rare rebound seemingly inches away from the back of the net. In reality it was a very missable distance – a distance, in fact, that we had missed from multiple times throughout the match. But Donovan – and US soccer and its followers – would not be denied. This was a team – and Donovan a rejuvenated man – of destiny! Or so I thought.

And so I bought.

Fearing an overloaded Donovan bandwagon (and counting my aforementioned Donovan Everton kit a rare, unique gem), I shied from ordering the white US #10. So I was torn. I berated Onyewu for the entire tournament (it was probably too soon), Bradley was the hot pick, and Dempsey, well quite frankly I should have landed on Dempsey and his #8 that once adorned my junior varsity jersey. Wanting to pay homage to my fellow defenseman, I settled on the #3 of Carlos Bocanegra.

The wild popularity of the USMNT’s success caused a bit of shortage of official jerseys and so only just today I arrived home to a freshly minted Bocanegra Jersey awaiting me on my doorstep. It wasn’t with me when I watched us stage an incredible comeback against Slovenia. It didn’t suffer through numerous missed opportunities and the one more that it took and was taken. And it wasn’t there for me to wipe the tears from a crushing defeat. Although it’s 4 weeks late, I wear it with all of the joy in victory, agony in defeat, and pride in accomplishment that I felt for those two emotional weeks. Here’s to the World Cup and, more importantly, to the US Men’s National Team! Thanks for the ride!

Two things to note: 1) I titled the post at the beginning of the evening, not after the game was over. We’ll see if he truly ends up leaving. 2) I was expecting some help from a co-author, but the co-author bailed on me as usual.

8:50pm: The wife just showed up with dinner. Gotta take a break.

8:47pm: Why is Garnett still on the bench with 0 fouls? Not that it really seems to matter at this point.

8:46pm: They just called Ray Allen an old man and it was supposed to be a compliment. Watch it, fellas, Ray got game.

8:44pm: I almost named my new dog Rondo. I didn’t want to have to explain it to the wife.

8:42pm: Mo Williams is on pace for a 40-4-4 line tonight.

8:40pm: After 12 min, the Celts by 3. That’s it, it’s confirmed. The Cavs will have to outscore the Celtics over the last 3 quarters by at least 3 points in order to keep their season alive.

8:38pm: Whoa Michael Finley is still in the league? If I was keeping up with the BS report, I’d probably know this.

8:35pm: Mike Brown just got skeerd with ‘Bron picking up his second foul and took him out. It’s a chess match out there. Apparently Brown doesn’t read kottke.org

8:34pm: ‘Bron doing “other things” for his team and the Cavs are on an 8-2 run

8:33pm: Since I’m cable-less, I’m listening to the game via NBA.com (WEEI in Boston) and using the ESPN “TV Companion” for stats.

8:29pm: I’m a little late to the party, but ‘Bron is 2/7 from the field and just got charged with a turnover.

One of the prevailing questions that lingers even a week after the initial shipment of the device (and even the punchline of a Weekend Update joke on SNL last night) is what exactly is the iPad and what does it do? While I’m not qualified to provide a conclusive answer to that question, I have had a chance to play around with an iPad for a bit and feel like I can provide some vague insight into the “brilliance” of the device.

The first “brilliant” feature of the iPad (and perhaps the most obvious) is the screen. Most detractors claim that the iPad is just a giant iPhone/iPod Touch which is a simultaneously astute and petty dig. In the most basic terms that is true, but considering the fact that the iPad’s screen is three times the size of the iPhone and costs less than the original iPhone did at launch (with more memory) I think it’s a notable achievement. Okay, so technology has gotten cheaper, big deal. But really consider the statement – the iPad is really just a bigger iPhone/iPod Touch! Isn’t the iPhone platform considered one of the greatest innovations in mobile computing? Doesn’t more screen real estate and increased processing power open up a slew of opportunities for this platform? Or is this one of those platforms that only subscribes to the smaller is sexier line of thinking? Aside from the bigger is better discussion, the screen is actually quite striking. It does suffer from some glare issues in various lighting environments but overall the color and richness of the viewing experience is fantastic and the touchscreen is incredibly responsive (responsive enough to allow me to type this entire post in landscape mode without feeling like I want to give up and move to my iMac).

The second brilliant feature of the iPad is it’s overall size. While it is a bit heavier and a little more “awkward” to hold than a typical e-reader, I find it to be a great improvement over previous attempts at similar devices. A couple of years ago, circa 2007, Intel along with a slew of partner companies introduced a line of portable mini computers known at the time as MID’s or Mobile Internet Devices. Anyone could point to a number of reasons for the platform’s failure, but a leading candidate might be the size of many of the devices developed by the hardware manufacturers. At that time, laptops were getting smaller and lighter, cell phones were getting smarter and even the most mobile of professionals and consumers didn’t see the need for a clunky yet supposedly more “mobile” device – especially when the devices had similar price points as low cost laptops. If you are going to charge a premium for a new device, you have to convince the consumer that either a) the new device replaces one of the consumer’s current “must haves” or b) the device is a “must have” whose benefits outweigh the cost of carrying an extra device. Ironically I think Apple is attacking both approaches with the iPad – they’re not trying to tell you the iPad replaces the iPhone (in theory phone calls would be possible via an app like the Skype app), nor do they want you to forget about their line of MacBooks. (It appears they are doing a good job of convincing at least a few of us that either a) or b) is true. When I started writing this review, about 300,000 iPads had been sold. Now as I finish writing, the 3G iPad has been released and Apple has confirmed 1 million iPads have been sold.)

The third, and perhaps most brilliant feature of all is the potential of the iPad. As with the iPhone, there are many who questioned the need, form, function, and eventual longevity of the iPad. Many Apple and technology followers have been waiting for a long time for an Apple branded tablet device because of the reputation that the folks in Cupertino have of churning out innovative, functional and easy to use products. I mentioned earlier that there are a lot of naysayers disappointed with the fact that Apple didn’t really bring anything new to the table with the iPad. I disagree with that perspective. The App Store is what eventually made the iPhone a “must-have” device. While the App Store is not new with the iPad (and the iBookstore is not poised to have the same effect with the iPad), what is new is the form factor: increased screen real estate + increased processing power + general improvements in technology and software = new possibilities. All Apple really needed to do with the iPad was figure out how to get a powerful platform into a small package. The rest, as they showed with the iPhone, could be left to the thousands of developers out there to unlock the full potential of the platform.

Note: I started this post on April 12th and finished it on May 4th, following the release of the 3G iPad.

It’s surprising to me, and perhaps to others, that I’ve remained so quiet on the subject considering my 1) inexplicable love for the tablet computer form factor and 2) recent conversion to Mac enthusiast. I think part of my hesitation is I haven’t wanted to put my own conjecture of what the rumored device will be like out of fear of increasing my level of disappointment when (if?) it does finally come out. But now that we’re talking about controlled leaks and unconfirmed confirmed ship dates, I figure I might as well throw my hat into the ring as well.

First let me start by stating that I want the device to be a full fledged computer – at least as powerful as a MacBook Air – but I know that isn’t going to happen. And the reason is simple: I’m among the minority of people that would actually pay the premium to have such a device. If it were up to me, the vaunted Apple Tablet would be a MacBook Pro with a screen that swivels and folds down just like my Thinkpad X41 tablet. But the price tag on an Apple device like that would limit the kind of market penetration Apple would get, and I think they’re trying to learn from their “mistakes” from the initial iPhone launch.

Now that we’ve established what the Apple tablet won’t be, let’s talk about what it could be. The primary theme that keeps popping up is media; more specifically multi-media. The iPod Touch/iPhone platform is probably the best portable media and mobile application platform on the market but there’s room for growth. In terms of media, the screen could be larger, the resolution better, and easier on the eyes for reading. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle larger screen/better resolution in combination with readability. There’s a reason Amazon’s Kindle doesn’t play movies. And this is where I think the Apple Tablet is going to be revolutionary. I think they’ve figured out a way to merge the readability of eInk with the boom boom pow of higher resolution graphics displays. I don’t even think the great innovation has to be in combining the two distinct display capabilities into one magic display. It could be as simple as having one side of the slate be a color multimedia display and the other side your typical eInk display. Of the rumors that are circulating out there, I would point to their supposed testing of two different material casings, their pursuit of TV networks for a subscription based TV service, and the design prototypes that Time, Inc demoed recently as support for this supposed 2-in-1 display design.

On a more practical side, there is also room for growth in the mobile application arena. Which must be music to Apple’s ears considering the already huge success of the App Store. I’ll admit that I’m still not a huge fan of typing long emails or creating/editing even the most basic documents on the iPhone platform. Several rumors point to a completely new UI, one with a “steep learning curve” in fact, that would completely change the way we interact with would typically interact with a mobile device. This would also go along with a supposed beta release of the next iPhone OS (version 4.0), which many believe is what will provide the logic for the device’s unconfirmed, but wildly speculated brains.

So, those are my barely cohesive thoughts on the upcoming Apple announcement: a do-almost-everything device that is a step up from an iPhone, but not quite a MacBook. I guess we’ll see what happens when January 26th finally gets here. Until then, happy speculating!

Fast forward to today and I find that rumors are swirling that Apple is reportedly pitching subscription based TV using iTunes as a distribution platform and who knows what as the destination. The number floating around is $30/month probably for the ability to download or stream content that would expire after a certain amount of time (conjecture). When Beth and I dropped cable – 1 TV, 1 HD DVR set top box – we immediately saved $100/month (we kept our internet service, of course). From what I could tell, the deals TWC is floating around now would add about $50-$60/month back to our bill under a 2 year service agreement. For roughly half that price, we could subscribe to Apple’s iTunes-based service, watching what we want when we want but with presumably more limited choices. To that point, content is the key to all of this. Tying the service to Apple TV or other hardware is easily justified by the long-term savings or multi-function uses of Apple’s other devices. But launching the service without a wide range of content content severely limits the publicity and momentum that Apple can build at launch and may ultimately doom the service.

Back in the days when I had the time and the will to watch whatever, whenever I hated the idea of a la carte pricing or a service that will probably be as limited, at least initially, as Apple’s proposed service. But as I ween myself off of TV more and more, I like the options that are popping up that will help me save some dough while still allowing me to indulge in a few guilty pleasures every now and then.