I've been looking for various software applications, nothing large, just utilities mostly.  I'd like to find a utility which will allow me to synch a smartphone with Google calendar.  I tend to run my entire business out of my pockets, which leaves me well encumbered with tiny bits of wrinkled paper which I'm sure may contain things important.  I also need to organize paperwork around the studio, track deliveries of artwork/photos, and do general workflow organization.  I found several solutions but noticed an unpleasant trend toward subscription based sales.

The subscription model is not new, it's served the corporate world long and well, but I don't recall seeing it all that much in consumer software.  But the rise of Software as Service has brought the subscription model to the masses. Here's how it works.  I want to use software package A.  Instead of buying the software and installing it on my computer, I buy a subscription to the software, and use it from the manufacturers computer by connecting to it with a Web browser.  The subscription expires, and I no longer have access to the software, or data.

This seems fair to me, I don't mind forking over a few bucks since I don't have to maintain an installation of the software myself, and most services really aren't that expensive.  Typepad, for instance, is only something like $5 per month.  What's not so fair is when I have to install and maintain the software on my computer or server, yet still have to buy a subscription.  There's no longer any service involved, yet I still have to pay as if there is.  And I object.

Many of the companies engaging in this practice will be caught with their hands in the cookie jar, I'm sure.  You can only drink so much from the same well, and users are already discovering what many of us have know all along.  There is an Open Source equivalent of darn near every consumer commercial software application, or software as service application, available in the market today, and it works perfectly well, thank you.

Sam Adams has posted an open letter on his blog that is worth reading.  If you don't know, Portland City Commissioner, and potential mayoral candidate, Sam Adams, is the target of a viscous smear campaign by evil developer and potential mayoral rival, Bob Ball.  The details of the allegations against Adams will not be repeated here.  They are easily found if you are interested, but the fact that they are unfounded and exceptionally viscous is enough, and Adams deserves better.

This is not a political blog, nor do I want it to be.  But given Adams' support for the arts in Portland, and his active involvement in the community, it's time to offer some support in return.  Adams' contributions to art and artists in Portland are a matter of record and it would be a significant loss to our culture were he absent from local politics.  Even with that ridiculous tram, and the chaos and destruction he's created in downtown Portland.  But we're not all perfect.

Which is what got Adams in this trouble in the first place.  An obvious desire to do good, to help a young man who had the audacity to ask, has been turned into innuendo and rumor of the worst sort.  Now I don't know Sam Adams, I've never met him personally, but I've seen him around.  Portland is a very small town in many ways, and you don't have to spend much time downtown to encounter, well, everyone.  Adams seems like an honest, likeable, respectable man.  An unlikely politician perhaps, but also someone I think I'd enjoy meeting, which, when I think about it, isn't something I can say about most of our public figures.

Bob Ball, on the other hand, appears to be exactly the sort of creature who would exploit another man's good nature.  I don't recall behavior like his in Portland, a town remarkably free of mudslinging, at least on the local level, but then I don't pay much attention.  I miss alot, and I would have missed this, too, if it weren't for Adams' contributions to local art and culture that keep me reading his blog.  And in many ways, I wish I had missed it.  No one needs the likes of Bob Ball, least of all Sam Adams.

The Phillies enter the last week of the regular season today with a very real shot at the playoffs. By all accounts it's been an amazing season in every sense of the word. After a 4-11 start they are suddenly 2 behind the Mets in the east, and tied for the wild card with the slumping Padres. Nothing new for the Phils; they were tied for the wild card with San Diego at the same milepost last year and collapsed with a typical fizzle. This year, however, it seems the Padres are imploding, not the Phillies.

Now the question on every every Philly fans mind, of course, is how will they blow it this year? The past few years have played to the same pattern as this one: have a miserable April and May, stagger through the Summer, then come on strong in late August for a stretch run. This season, however, schedule is on their side with a 6 game home stand in a park well suited to their offensive prowess. And while their pitching struggles, and the bull pen shouldn't be trusted to hold any sort of lead, they keep finding ways to win.

Playoffs or not, this year's Phillies are some of the most exciting in a long time. They are fun to watch, can explode for 10 run innings, and seem to be enjoying every game. Welcome to baseball in September. It'll be a fun week, and I for one anticipate baseball in October!

Technorati tags: philadelphia, phillies, philly, baseball, playoffs, wild card

Del.icio.us tags: philadelphia, phillies, philly, baseball, playoffs, wild card

Is it just me, or do most podcasts sound like low production versions of Wayne's World? I listen to a few podcasts regularly, and even the higher quality programs still seem little more than meandering conversations on nothing. Of course, there are exceptions, such as Run as Radio, produced in a talk show format with interesting, targeted, well presented information, but most podcasts come across more like TWiT, forty minutes of mind numbing chatter among indistinguishable voices. In fact, it was while listening to the latest TWiT I realized podcasts are more like radio than anything else, and when non-radio folk produce radio content it's not always great, and when amateur folk eschew all production value it's even less so. Which leaves a vast and growing repository of podcasts which could be better, and more entertaining, simply by accepting their own shortcomings.

I love radio. I have an amateur license, KD7KLD, I collect and restore old radios, although not nearly as much as I used to, and I have a large and growing collection of old radio programs. The old radio programs make wonderful listening; most are engaging, holding my attention even if I am doing other things while listening, and some are downright irresistible. Broadcasts of The Mercury Theater are classics for a reason, and when you hear them you know the captivating power of audio. In fact, there are few who aren't familiar with The Mercury Theater production of The War of the Worlds and it's resulting chaos. Of course that level of reaction is atypical, but does not invalidate radio's ability to engage an audience.

I attribute most of the quality and interest of old radio programs to selective choice of recording. I seek out programs I know are good and interesting, which skews the statistics a bit perhaps. But I seek podcasts the same way, and I have found too few as engaging as most of the radio programs in my collection. Podcasts generally don't live up to the same production values, and I mean all production values. Sure, technically, podcasting is far ahead of any old radio production, and certainly on a par with modern radio production, but that's a wash since most aren't as listenable as good contemporary radio shows.

What it seems most podcasts lack, at least to my lay ear, is everything else. Sure, the technology is there, but I'm not so sure every podcast is read from a script. I am sure most radio is. I'm not sure every podcast hires talent. I'm sure most radio does. The things radio does is because of the shear expense of the thing. It costs alot of money to produce a show for broadcast, and that money demands the right people for the right job. Podcasts, on the other hand, can be produced on relatively little. A computer, some recording software, a place to put your podcast and you're in business. It's the empowerment of technology, and it does open the door to a great number of folks. And, while the hobbyist is always accommodated, professional, industrial, commercial, or any audience seeking podcasts should strive to sound better than 1970's FM radio. I don't want to be lectured, I don't want to eavesdrop, I don't want to be bored, and I especially don't want to hear how much you want me to help pay for your podcast and bandwidth, even if you have great information.

There are plenty of examples of what is not good listening, for whatever reason, be it poorly written scripts, poorly spoken words, uninteresting content, lousy story, and so forth. There are fewer examples of what is good listening. But podcasting is still young, and like very early radio shows, it can, and will get better. When podcast creators realize technology does not empower them beyond their creative limitations, and when broadcasting professionals of all crafts move more solidly toward podcasting, we'll hear a marked improvement in both quality and variety of podcasts available. We'll also see an associated increase in cost, but for those willing to pay it, it will be money well spent.

The Phillies are tied for first in the east! A solid victory over the Braves last night, plus another loss for the struggling Mets puts the Phils in a tie for the division. Three games to go, and no reason they shouldn't run the table. What a weekend it will be indeed!

For the first time in 14 years it's baseball in October. Celebrate!