We never long for what we have

We long for what we've never had, and sometimes for what we once had, but never for what we have right now.

The problem with longing is that it's so powerful it overwrites our ability to clearly see our good fortunes.

We complain about a job until we don't have one anymore.  Instead of appreciating the joy of owning your own business, you long for the days your revenue will be more stable.  Instead of being happy with our homes, we long for another bedroom, a back yard, or just a little more space.

Single people long to meet the love of their life while their married friends long for the freedom that comes with not having to answer to anyone. Newlyweds long to make babies while parents long for a date night.

Everyone longs for their youth when what matters isn't how much time has passed, but how much time we have left.

It's perfectly fine to want something more, better, or different and to then take action to get it.  That's intention, it isn't longing.  Longing is the endless daydreaming about what might be or what could have been without doing anything about it.

Barring anything resulting from the permanence of death, if we're not taking action to get what we're longing for, then what are we doing?

Maybe there's something wrong with me, but one of the ways I've learned to appreciate what I have is to imagine losing it - and then longing for it.  I don't know why, maybe it's because reality can't usually compete with fantasy, but for some strange reason this seems more powerful than just being thankful.

As it turns out, there's nothing I long for more than what I already have.

Apple predictions, guesses and hopes

Well, it's that time of year again where Apple's getting ready to release their newest products.  Which of course means everyone's predicting/guessing what will be released, what the gadgets will look like, and how much they'll cost.

The consensus seems to be that the iPhone 5 will be the same size as it's predecessor but with a bigger screen, and everyone is expecting a 7" iPad that everyone keeps calling the 'iPad Mini'.

Both of these things bother me, and I hope they're wrong.

First, I don't think it makes any sense at all to call a 7" iPad a mini anything. A 7" device would be larger than most of Apple's products, other than their MacBooks and Desktops, and it also leaves out the fact that more and more the iPod touch belongs in the iPad family and not in the iPod family.

If/When Apple ships a 7" iPad, I think it makes sense to rebrand the iPad family of products all together.  Just like when iPhone OS became iOS with the launch of the iPad, I think the iPod touch becomes the iPad mini with the launch of a 7" iPad.

Each of my kids has an iPod touch.  You know what they call it?  Their iPad.  You know why?  Because it's an iPad.  A mini iPad.  There's nothing about it that even resembles an iPod.  Even the iPod app is gone and is called 'Music' now.

An iPad, an iPad 7 (or something), and an iPad mini - that makes sense.

Unlike the nomenclature issue of calling the 7" iPad 'mini' where no one actually expects Apple to name it that - they're just calling it that for now - it does seem that there's a good chance the iPhone 5's screen will indeed be larger.

I so hope this isn't the case.

Conventional wisdom is that the bigger the screen the better.  And the Daring Fireball link to the story about the iPhone 5 screen size talks about this in a lot of detail.

I for one don't want a bigger screen though.  In a world where I can have a 7" iPad, a 10" iPad, and an 11" or 13" MacBook Air.....do I really need a little bigger screen on my phone? And more importantly, is that really an important benefit to the consumer anymore?

I don't think so.  What I do think is beneficial though is something smaller and lighter.

Instead of finding a way to keep the physical form factor the same size while increasing the screen size, I'm hoping Apple found a way to keep the screen size the same while decreasing the size of the physical device.  That would be awesome.

Of course, I'm just guessing and hoping on all of this, but the conventional wisdom just feels a little off to me on this next batch of product announcements.

 

Episode #13: William Carleton and I discuss the JOBS act

After an extended hiatus, the Project Idealism podcast returns with William Carlton, a Seattle based attorney who specializes in startups.  William and I discuss a variety of things about the new JOBS act, though much of our focus is on the crowd funding provisions.

For an excellent resource on the JOBS act and a variety of other topics, check out Williams home on the internet at http://wac6.com.

Big thanks again to William for taking the time to share his knowledge with me and our listeners!

As always, you can subscribe to the podcast in iTunes or listen to the show in your browser via the embedded player below.

Nothing is free

I was reading a post by Fred Wilson the other day titled In defense of free.  For you non tech folks that read my blog, Fred Wilson is one of the most influential investors in technology.

As I was reading his post though, I realized that many of the things he views as "free" I simply view as something that you pay for with a currency other than dollars.

Services commonly referred to as "free" such as Pandora, Twitter, Facebook and even TV shows, are all great and I use each of them almost every day in one form or another.

But I don't view them as free.  I just pay for them in something other than dollars.  And sometimes, the payment is way more valuable to the service provider than money.

When you listen to Pandora, you're paying for it with your attention by listening to ads. You pay Facebook by giving them the right to collect your personal information and web usage so they can service their advertisers more effectively.  And when you use Twitter you're paying them with your attention so that they can possibly build a revenue model.

In each case, even though you're not paying with money, you are paying with something.  I personally would love it if I could pay Facebook a nominal fee and not see any ads, have complete privacy, and not get tracked all over the web.  Alas, that's not an option.

Just because something doesn't cost money doesn't mean it's free.  So any time you sign up for a "free" service, ask yourself, what am I paying them with.

In every case, you are paying something.

$2.50 plus what?

Remember when people who claimed the notion that we were fighting wars over oil was 'conspiracy theory'.

This logo, which Newt Gingrich proudly stands behind at his podium, can be seen as nothing other than a campaign promise to go to war in an attempt to lower gas prices.

The problem of course is, $2.50 plus what?

Who should die so we can fill up our cars for $2.50/gallon?  We don't want it to be anyone we know of course.  Just make sure the people that die aren't anyone we know, okay?

These are the campaign promises that American presidential candidates have resorted to.