Hardware

The HTC Desire features a 1 GHZ Qualcomm Snapdragon Processor, 576 MB RAM, a 3.7 inch Super LCD screen with a resolution of 480×800, and a 5 Megapixel camera with an LED flash. It includes an 8 GB MicroSDHC card, but supports up to 32 GB. The camera is capable of 720p video once it receives the 2.2 “Froyo” update to the Android operating system. For physical buttons, the Desire has a power button up top, a volume rocker on the side, an optical trackpad below the screen and four other buttons (home, menu, back, and search). It connects to the computer, and charges with a micro USB port and features a standard 3.5mm headphone jack up top. The only problem I’ve had so far with the buttons is that the headphone jack and power button are reversed from what the Apple iPhone (which I’ve switched from), so I’ve accidentally turned on the screen when placing the phone in my pocket, and pressed the headphone jack in vain more than once. Both the SIM card and the microSDHC card are housed behind the battery cover, and the battery has to be removed to get at them. This is mildly disappointing, but how often are you really going to be switching memory cards? The battery is a 1400 mAh Lithium-ion, and while many reviews have complained about the battery life on this phone, I’ve found it to be far better than that on my old iPhone 3G. The only thing about this phone that I was nervous about, while waiting for it to ship, was the screen. I had read on a number of sites that the Super LCD screens had a far worse contrast ratio when compared to the AMOLED screens the Desire is using elsewhere (Samsung has decided to hoard all the AMOLED screens for themselves, so HTC had to switch). I have to say, however, that the screen is simply beautiful, and far better than anything I’ve seen on a phone, with the possible exception of the iPhone 4. The phone also lacks a front-facing camera, like the ones you’ll find on the iPhone 4 and Samsung Galaxy S Vibrant with Bell, but it’s always seemed more of a gimmick to me, and I don’t see myself wanting that feature. In the box, the phone comes with a micro USB cord, an AC adapter, stereo headphones and a bunch of guarantee info and user guides. I was mostly unable to test the quality of the headphones since they wouldn’t fit in my ear (a problem I have with more non-in ear ear buds), and I just got frustrated and switched to my normal headphones.

As I mentioned before, the Desire has a 1 GHz Snapdragon processor and 576 MB of RAM. Even with all the UI flourishes that are added with HTC Sense, the phone is extremely snappy, and never sluggish. It easily blows away my old iPhone 3G and my sisters 3GS, and matches, at the very least, the iPhone 4. I am just amazed at this phone. Especially when I consider that about 10 years ago, the first computer that was actually mine, had lower specs than this phone.

Software

The HTC Desire runs Android OS 2.1 (“Eclair”) with HTC’s Sense UI on top of it. HTC has rolled out the 2.2 (“Froyo”) update in Europe, but it has yet to hit Canada. The Sense UI just makes Apple’s iOS look antiquated. Everything from the colour screen, to the widgets, to the full application menu, to the notification system, is just… better. I haven’t played with the stock Android UI, but I have toyed around with MOTOBLUR on the Motorola Dext and the UX Platform on Sony Ericsson’s Xperia X10, and I have to say that the HTC Sense is my favorite of the bunch. Both the MOTOBLUR and UX Platform just feel over complicated compared to the HTC Sense.

Like many Android phones with a custom UI, the Desire has 7 home screens. The layout is definitely iOS reminiscent, however, it does manage to avoid feeling like it’s trying to clone iOS. It feels more like they took the good aspects of iOS, removed the bad aspects and just improved it. I do have to agree with Tyler Hardemen at thewunderbar, that Palm’s WebOS handles multitasking better than Android, however I’m not sure if I agree about the notifications. I never actually owned a Pre, just played around with them at the Bell store, so I’m not sure how it’s notifications worked. (I also have to disagree that TELUS doesn’t have a phone to rival the Galaxy S, but more to that later).

Applications

As an expatriate of the Apple iPhone, I was a little nervous about the app situation. While Android’s app numbers are growing, it still pales in comparison to the Apple App Store. That said, the apps I needed the most are either already on the Android Marketplace (Facebook, Soundhound), or have replacements (Seesmic instead of Tweetdeck, Mileage instead of Roadtrip Lite). Another thing I love about Android is that it’s ok to release an app that replaces the functionality of what was included on the phone. For example, I’m really not a fan of the stock Android keyboard, but a quick search brings up a number of alternatives, including SwiftKey. It’s not all roses with the Android Marketplace, however, as finding new apps is a pain. Rather than search the Marketplace, I’ve just been looking for articles on recommended apps on sites like Engadget. This is one thing I really miss from the Apple App Store.

Summary

The question I’ve been asked over and over again since buying this phone is “is it better than the iPhone?” Personally, I think it is, however, if you want an iPhone, buy an iPhone. While I think this phone is far superior, if you’re looking for an iPhone, you will find a reason to hate the HTC Desire. If, however, you are looking for an amazing smartphone, and were debating between Android and Apple, give this phone a serious look. The only phone, in Canada, that could possibly rival the Desire, in my mind, is Samsung’s Galaxy S Vibrant. This is, simply, the best phone I have ever owned, and I absolutely love it. It’s a little disappointing that TELUS hasn’t been advertising this phone at all. When they got the Milestone, they pushed it like crazy, and Bell is running a number of ads for the Galaxy S Vibrant, and I’m worried that this phone will get looked over. If the freaking wunderbar managed to forget about this phone, I have to wonder how many non-techie’s will notice it.

First, let’s look at the First Amendment in the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, let’s take a look at the Fourteenth Amendment (which some Republicans want to repeal for idiotic reasons)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

Those two quotes make it pretty clear that separation of church and state is absolute, and that it applies to all religions, not just ones that the GOP believes in. This goes beyond a legal question, however, since even most Republicans are admitting that there is nothing illegal about the mosque, they claim, instead, that such a mosque is “unethical” and a “slap in the face to the victims of 9/11″. How? Yes, the terrorists that blew up the World Trade Centers on September 11, 2001 were Muslims; and no, nations in the Middle East would never show us this kind of tolerance, but that doesn’t matter.

Why? Well, for starters, just because those terrorists were Muslim, doesn’t mean that all Muslims are terrorists, and to treat them like they are is ignorant and wrong. It is no different than saying “The Beltway Snipers were black, so all black people are snipers”. I realize the opponents to this mosque will say “we don’t think all Muslims are bad….”, but that’s a damn lie. The fact that they’re opposing this means they think a mosque is a symbol of Islamic extremism. When they see anything remotely Islamic, they immediately think of 9/11. The fact of the matter is, most Muslims are decent, peaceful people. I have met a few Muslims in school, and I can honestly say that they are some of the nicest people I have ever met. While I will never understand hijab they wore, that doesn’t take away from the fact that these are good people. We, as a society, need to stop this mental connection between 9/11 and Islamic extremism.  9/11 wasn’t perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, it was perpetrated by terrorists that happened to have been “Muslim” (much in the same way Scott Roeder is a “Christian”). Beyond the simple fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, keep in mind that there are Muslims that dug through the rubble of the World Trade Centers trying to save people and there are Muslims in active duty in the United States Army. But even if that weren’t true, it doesn’t matter because they have the same rights as anyone else in America.  If you’re an American and you don’t like it, try moving to China. I hear they don’t have freedom of religion there.

I referenced earlier the fact that the Middle Eastern nations would never show us the same liberties, but that doesn’t matter either. True, if you tried building a church in Iran or Saudi Arabia, it probably wouldn’t end well, but that doesn’t matter. We are better than these countries. Yes, I’m aware that I’m Canadian, but for the purpose of the rest of the article,I may refer to “the West” as “we”, since most of countries referred to as “the West” have similar human rights. Anyways, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than these countries hold themselves to. I absolutely hated George W. Bush and still maintain that he was one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history, but I will admit that we was better than Ahmadinejad or Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud. This is the same reason I oppose torture: we are a better society. We don’t stone women for dressing promiscuously, we don’t support torture and we don’t discriminate against people because of race, religion, gender, or (in Canada, at least) sexual orientation. We believe in unalienable human rights, and we stand by them at all times. As Jon Stewart one said, “if you don’t stick to your beliefs when they’re tested, they aren’t values, they’re hobbies.” Freedom of speech refers to all speech, even the most heinous speech and freedom of religion refers to all religions, even those you disagree with. In fact, those are what these laws are for. We don’t need laws to protect popular speech (or religion), we need the laws to protect unpopular speech (and in this case, religion).

I have a question for anyone who opposes this “mosque at Ground Zero”: would you oppose the construction of a church near the site of the Oklahoma City bombing? Chances are the answer is no. Why not? Timothy McVeigh professed that he maintained the “core values” of Roman Catholicism. Wouldn’t building a Catholic church near that sight be a slap in the face to everyone who died in that bombing? For the record, there is a Catholic church right across the street from the Oklahoma City National Memorial (though, in all fairness, it was built before the bombing). The fact of the matter is, Muslims are as responsible for 9/11 as Catholics are for the Oklahoma City Bombing, which is to say not at all.

“But, the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because we’re not Muslim”, some of you will exclaim. That’s, frankly, a childish and false examination of the events. While the attacks were by no means justified, they were more political than religious. Motives for 9/11 included U.S. sanctions against Iraq, American presence in Saudi Arabia and American support of Isreal (which is political as well as religious).

Despite what the “critics” have said, this has nothing to do with location. It doesn’t matter where this mosque was being built, people would be complaining. People are protesting mosques being built in Brooklyn, California, and Florida. You can’t get much farther away from Ground Zero and still be in the United States than Florida. This has nothing to do with location and everything to do with racism, plain and simple.

My name is Travis Harder and I am writing to express my disagreement with your recent decisions regarding your late night schedule. I feel that moving Jay Leno back to 11:35, pushing Conan O’Brien back to 12:05 and Jimmy Fallon to 1:05 is not only a mistake, but simply wrong. The fact of the matter is, Jay Leno is past his prime and isn’t funny anymore, to anyone except old people. True, Conan has not done as well as David Letterman recently, but that is because you have failed to give Conan a good lead in. Obviously, it makes sense to get rid of Leno, however, moving him to 11:35, screwing Conan and Jimmy Fallon over in the process makes no sense. If people aren’t watching Leno now, what makes you think they’ll watch him when he goes back to 11:35? Sure, he had viewers before he “retired”, but he’s not going back to a hour long comedy/talk show, like he had before. People watched Leno because he had the big name guests. Putting him in a 30 minute show, relying solely on his comedy will fail. Pushing Conan and Fallon back half an hour will give David Letterman and Craig Ferguson a major advantage, and people aren’t going to watch half an hour of Letterman and switch to NBC for Conan. Furthermore, Conan has now said that he will not host The Tonight Show at 12:05. If you are going to lose a host either way, lose Leno. At best, you’ll get another 5-10 years of bad comedy and low ratings with him, whereas with Conan, you will get many years of a genuinely funny show. It was bad enough when you lost David Letterman because of Leno, don’t lost Conan as well. Fox has already said that they would be willing to do a show with Conan, and I will follow Conan to Fox if he takes them up on that offer. Think about this: if Fox decides to go into the late night game, they will logically want a later show to follow Conan O’Brien’s. Jimmy Fallon can’t be happy about his treatment, either. It’s not unreasonable to think that he may follow Conan to Fox, leaving you with, what, Carson Daly to host Late Night? Where is the upside to this? How do you benefit by pissing off the host of your flagship late night show? How does causing more splintering benefit NBC? Let me end this by saying that if you do not cancel your current plans to move Leno back to 11:35, I cannot continue to support the network by watching. Furthermore, I will contact any company that advertises on Leno’s show and let them know that as long as they are advertising with Leno, I will not purchase their products and/or services.

Travis Harder

For starters, he’s off when it comes to how Google, Microsoft and Sony operate. As publicly traded corporations, they do not enter a market if they don’t think they can make a profit. If they started entering random markets just to be charity cases, the CEO would be replaced pretty quickly. True, when they first released the systems, both Microsoft and Sony sold their consoles at below cost, and Sony still loses money on the PlayStation 3, but they aren’t losing money in the industry. Microsoft and Sony both receive a licensing fee from games sold for their systems, as well as a cut of DLC, and, in Microsoft’s case, $60/year on every Xbox Live Gold account. He used the example of “not needing to make money” for working in Microsoft and Sony’s favour and causing the Sega Dreamcast to fail. The Dreamcast, while an amazing system, failed for a number of reasons, and not being involved in other industries wasn’t one of them. The fact of the matter is, the Dreamcast ultimately lost because its predecessor, the Saturn, was a failure, so many were hesitant to give Sega a chance. When the PlayStation 2 was released, Sony easily trounced Sega, mainly because of positive brand recognition from the first PlayStation. The PlayStation 2 won over the Dreamcast because of better brand recognition and marketing, not because Sony also made cameras and could sell the PlayStation 2 for less. When the PlayStation 2 was released, there was a shortage and many people were paying upwards of $1000 on eBay for it, so price was not an issue. Also, Sony and Microsoft aren’t the leaders in the video game market, if we go by sales, Nintendo is with (based on October 2009 figures) 50.39 million Wii’s sold worldwide (warning: PDF). Microsoft follows with (based on January 2009 figures) 31.20 million Xbox 360′s sold worldwide and Sony taking up the rear with (based on July 2009 figures) 27 million PlayStation 3′s sold worldwide. I realize it’s unfair to pick figures form different time spans, but I was too lazy to look for worldwide sales figures from the same month. Besides, it’s highly unlikely that Microsoft has over taken Nintendo in that 9 month span (I apologize if they have).

Similarly, when Google enters a new market, it does so with the intention of making money. True, their amount of capital allows them to take a loss for a while, but the end goal is to make money, not to do something “for funzies”. Usually, their method of choice is to make money from advertising, as opposed to outright sales. While Google often does dominate the markets it enters, such as search, email, online maps, it does so not because its competitors can’t compete with free, but rather because they offer a better service. For Google Maps, Google makes money with advertising, and while I haven’t had the chance to use a Motorola Droid (not available in Canada), or Google’s turn-by-turn navigation, I imagine they plan on implementing it into that as well. When you type, for example, hotels, into Google Maps, it will have at the top of the results, a sponsored link, as well as a sponsored link in the map itself, when giving a list of hotels.

To think that Google is not planning on doing this (if they have not already done so) with turn-by-turn directions is foolish. If you are in a strange city, looking for a place to stay and the first place to come up when you type in “hotel” is the Days Inn, there’s a very good chance you’re going to go there, instead of a Holiday Inn or Super-8. If Garmin and TomTom cannot compete against Google, it’s no one’s fault except Garmin and TomTom. They still have an advantage, currently, in that Google’s turn-by-turn navigation is only available on the Motorola Android for the time being, and changing cell phones just for free turn-by-turn is a little impractical. Obviously, the goal is to make it available on all Android devices, and people will take that into account when buying a new phone, but there will always be people who want an iPhone or Blackberry instead, and even many Android owners may wish to have a dedicated GPS. What Garmin and TomTom need to do is to tell consumers why we should spend our money on their dedicated devices, rather than use the free app on a Motorola Droid, much like companies that make MP3 players already do. Garmin and TomTom have an advantage over MP3 player manufactures, however, in that they can also make apps for other devices, such as the Apple iPhone and Motorola Android. If Garmin and TomTom are going to neglect the advertising model, or the software app angle (as Garmin so far has), and they lose out to Google, that is not the result of an unfair advantage, or monopolistic practices by Google, it is the result of companies refusing to adapt to changing conditions. On the other hand, if Garmin and TomTom continue to make products that are so good, that people will pay for them, despite having free alternatives, good on them.

Does this mean we shouldn’t keep an eye on Google, to make sure they don’t become an monopoly that controls ever facet of our lives? Of course not. So far, Google has provided only competition, and as long as they continue to do that, there is no issue. That being said, if Google starts taking over the marketplace, we obviously want to prevent that, but that’s why there are anti-trust laws. We don’t want Gmail to be the only way to get email, or Google Maps to be the only mapping service available, and the anti-trust measures that are in place should be enacted if that starts to happen, but until then, we can’t blame Google if its competition refuses to adapt, and as a result, goes out of business.

Is @McCainBlogette vying to be the prostitute in the next undercover ACORN video? What is she thinking? Hope her kids never see that.

Really? You’re comparing Meghan McCain sitting at home in a tank-top, showing some cleavage to prostitution (SFW)? Note that the woman the camera is focused on for most of the video is not the one pretending to be a hooker. Also, you really think her future children (keep in mind Meghan currently does not have any children) will be traumatized if they saw this picture? She’s showing off a book to her Twitter followers, not parading around on stage in a swim suit (maybe not the best example, considering Bristol).

I’ll repeat my question: why the big deal? Was the picture more revealing than one would expect? Yes. Was it as bad as anything we see on TV? No. Was it NSFW? Not really (questions probably would be asked if a co-worker or boss saw you looking at that picture, but the same could be said for a lot of SFW websites). The only two reasons I can think of for the outrage are her political affiliation and her build. I noticed when looking that the replies to her, a very good chunk of her supporters were identifying themselves as either liberal or Democrat, while most of those offended (only saw one declared liberal) called themselves conservative or Republican (most told her to leave the party). Part of the problem is, Meghan McCain is a social liberal in a party of social conservatives, so when she posted this picture, the Republicans who were following her freaked since they saw something outside of their close-minded puritanical views. The other option is that Americans are so taken in by the media that they believe that in order to be attractive, a woman has to be bordering anorexia. I sincerely hope this is not the case, since I want to believe that the western world is more realistic than that. While Meghan McCain’s weight has be criticized by some douchebags, I mean “critics”, she really isn’t fat. I won’t cover the weight thing, since that’s an issue better suited for someone like Ms. McCain to tackle, which she did in a recent article on The Daily Beast.

The fact of the matter is, nothing about Meghan McCain’s picture was scandalous. Many women wear much worse when they go to the grocery store (as a grocery store employee, take my word on that), without people trowing a fit. She was wearing a tank-top while at home alone, big deal. If you were really offended by a little bit of cleavage, you seriously need to grow up. There are no politics to that, it doesn’t matter who you supported or voted for in the last election, if you were offended, you have issues. To those that say there was no reason to post the picture, do some research into what Twitter is for. It’s meant to share random thoughts, what you’re doing, etc. It’s not meant to be serious business, it’s meant to be fun. No, it’s not the most professional picture in the world, but she’s not a politician, she’s a writer and occasional political commentator and that picture is 100 times more professional than anything Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly or Rush Limbaugh ever say on their shows. No, I didn’t use the clip of Limbaugh making fun of Michael J. Fox since, frankly, that clip pisses me off too much to even find.

I really hope that the “controversy” is merely a result of the Republican Party being one of puritans who believe that anything other than a pantsuit or Sunday dress is scandalous. The people that elected George W. Bush into office twice being out of touch I can deal with, society at large being effed up, that scares me.

Obviously, some will argue that with the economic recession starting to hit Alberta, we cannot afford to increase spending. Quite frankly, this is wrong. In a recession, we must have manageable deficits to minimize the effect of a recession, and pay it off when the economy picks up again. What should have happened was when we were in a boom, the government should have put the surplus into a savings account, so we could retroactively pay off the deficits that we would be forced to go into during the inevitable recession. Instead, our idiot former Premier Ralph Klein and his moronic successor Ed Stelmach decided to do nothing and let the province run on “autopilot*”. Only an eighth-grade dropout could come up with an idea so mind numbingly stupid. The second he came up with the idea of a government that does nothing, he should have forfeited his salary. He was never elected to do nothing. Where I work, if you do nothing, you get fired. In the next election, did we fire Klein? No, we re-elected him. This is a man who once insulted handicapped recipients of Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH), claiming that “…they didn’t look severely handicapped to me…”. No, Ralph, they didn’t. You know why? Because we don’t give M.D.’s to people who can’t even finish grade 9, never mind grade 12 or university.

When Ralph Klein finally retired, many thought that the era of doing nothing (other than slash-and-burn spending) was finally over. Oh how wrong we were. Instead, we got more inaction (if you don’t count giving himself and his cabinet a massive pay raise). To put that raise into perspective: the increase alone is almost as much as my mom makes in a year. It is over double what I make in a year. Stelmach justified this increase by saying that it would attract brighter people to politics. Ignoring the obvious jokes about him implying that his own cabinet (including himself) are not adequate for this province (they’re not), keep in mind what they get. $184,000/year for cabinet ministers and $213,450/year for the Premier. Think about that. Chances are very good that you did not make anywhere close to that. How can this man claim to represent you, and have any idea on the economic challenges that you face when he makes four times what you make? His bright idea for dealing with the recession is to have Ralph Klein era budget cuts. This begs the question: what is there left to cut? Rather than cut anything you can see, Stelmach, why not give yourself a pay cut? If the economy is so dire, give yourself a 50% pay cut. You’ll still make more than double what the rest of us make.

One has to wonder, how does this party keep getting elected? How is it possible that a party full of nothing but imbeciles and dunces can hold onto power for 38 years? Is this province really so collectively stupid that they are incapable of having any thought process other than “I’ve always voted conservative, so I’ll keep voting conservative”?  In 2011, when we go to the polls again, I urge everyone to remember this history of mental retardation when it comes to governing and strategically vote A.B.C. (Anything But Conservative). If we ever want to have a government that understands the people, we need to get involved and put this current on on the street. Until the next election, write both your current MLA and Ed Stelmach, and let them know about your displeasure with the current path of the government.

*It should be noted that, despite our common last name, I am not related to Dr. Lois Harder

This is just shameful. There is no reason for ISPs to throttle internet access and is simply counter-productive. Many Canadians wonder why we are always behind the rest of the world, technologically speaking, and this is out answer. The CRTC refuses to regulate our ISPs and enforce net neutrality, thus letting the companies do whatever they want. TV is dying, and new media is the future. Unfortuantly, new media access in Canada will be stunted due to the fact that P2P traffic, such as bit torrent will be restricted and bit torrent is a cheap way for people to distribute files, such as podcasts, Linux image files and WoW updates. Yes, it sucks that it’s going to cost the ISPs more money for upload, but so what? It’s a cost of business. If you never want to embrace changing technology, get out of the technology industry. It’s shameful that not only can these companies rule in a virtual monopoly, they can take advantage of that situation and screw over their customers, knowing that they will not be able to take their business elsewhere, unless they want to go back to dial up.

According to the latest episode of TWiT (this WEEK in TECH), the FBI is investigating this matter. While no one is arguing that Revision3 should not have made their tracker public, Media Defender should not have reacted this way. When Media Defender noticed that this tracker was open, and that one could obtain copyrighted content using it, they should have contacted Revision3, as the forum member did, and let them know about this. By DDoSing Revision3, Media Defender broke the law and caused Revision3 considerable financial harm.

Perhaps the most interesting thing, however, is not the attack that Media Defender committed, but rather when it committed the attack. Media Defender was silent for the five weeks when Revision3 was unknowingly providing access to copyrighted content, but the second that Revision3 cut off access to the illegal content, they attacked. It seems that they did not care so much about copyrighted content as they did to having access for their files. Once the tracker was locked down, they responded the same way a two year old would at the grocery store when you take away the candy he wants to buy, throwing a massive tantrum.

On TWiT, Jim and Leo Laporte speculated that perhaps this whole incident occurred because Media Defender and so-called old media companies that back it do not understand the concept of new media organizations such as Revision3, and cannot grasp the idea that BitTorrent would be used for anything other that piracy. This brings out a major problem with old media. Old media is a dinosaur losing out to new media. People are getting sick of paying $20-30 for a DVD or Blu-ray disk, then being told what they can and cannot do with it. Companies such as Revision3 give you their content and basically say “you can whatever you want with it as long as you aren’t making money with our work”, and people love this. A person can take the latest episode of Diggnation or The Totally Rad Show and put a copy on their iPod, a copy on a DVD and another copy on their laptop, and watch them wherever they want. Aside from their monthly internet bill and the time required to download the shows, there is no fee and you get high-definition and high-quality content. Even shows with advertising such as Diggnation, The Totally Rad Show, Hak5 and TWiT, the advertising is minimal compared to that of many television shows, which like layer it on in excessive amounts.

The only way for companies such as CBS, NBC, Fox and Disney to survive in the long run is for them to finally embrace new media, and remove many of the restrictions. Let the user download the latest episode of their favorite television show, even if they don’t live in the United States (hint, hint Comedy Central, NBC and MTV), DRM-Free, and let them do what they want with it. Restricting the rights of their customers is nothing short of suicide and will lead to the inevitable downfall of television, music and possible movies.