Apple Hates Creativity

Apple's iPhone is a powerful device. You can access the internet, text, call, and do so much more, all from the palm of your hand. But what if there was a way to make your device even more functional? There is a way to access features on your iPhone such as total customization, wi-fi tethering, and accessing apps directly from the lock screen. The only problem is that Apple is doing everything they can to stop you from accessing these features.

You may be wondering how to access these features, and the answer is simple: jailbreaking. Jailbreaking is when you install a software on your phone (such as Green Poison or Evasi0n) that gives you access to Cydia, which is kind of like a deep web app store. Cydia allows you to download free or paid "tweaks" that have different purposes on your phone. These include customization tweaks, such as changing the look of your app icons and hiding certain stock apps, or functionality tweaks, like ones that free up space on your device or changing the buttons on your Control Center. And while this may sound great for many Apple customers, the company does NOT want you jailbreaking. So much so, in fact, that if you jailbreak your phone, your Apple warranty is officially voided, and they will not fix your phone if you bring it in to a store. In 2010, the company tried to make jailbreaking illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, but unfortunately for Apple, that failed. Even now, Apple is spreading what I refer to as "jailbreak propaganda" to encourage users from jailbreaking through the spread of false information (I can tell you from experience that jailbreaking will not shorten your battery life or make your phone less secure.) The company has made it very clear that if you want to jailbreak your phone, they don't want you as a customer.

This disheartens me because while I love my iPhone, I love it even more jailbroken. It allows me to really make my phone different from everyone else's, and I think it makes my phone better than it would be normally. That's why I choose to take a risk and jailbreak, despite the fact that it voids my warranty (and makes Apple hate me.) I'm a creative person and I want to be creative with my phone. So what's Apple's problem with individuality?

What's Wrong with Lollapalooza?

I very much look forward to my free period on Tuesday, as it's a great time for me to relax, eat, and do homework; and today was no exception. I walked into the student lounge this morning in hopes of doing a little research and taking a break. But when I opened up my laptop to try and use the internet, I got an irritating loading screen, and after several minutes I gave up trying to get anything accomplished. At this time I looked around to see almost every other person around me staring anxiously at their laptops. My friend came in glued to his phone, and I asked him what was going on. He simply replied, "I'm trying to get Lolla tickets."

Now, of course I can't be sure that everyone reading this post is from Chicago, but in case you aren't, let me clue you in; Lollapalooza is a BIG deal around here. Essentially, it's a music festival of epic proportions. But that isn't necessarily the reason it's so popular. Chicago's youth goes crazy over Lolla because to enjoy the festival, you don't have to love music. Other festivals like Pitchfork, Summer Camp, Jazz Fest; if you buy tickets, you know what you're in for. You've listened to the artists, you enjoy the music, and that's why you're going. But not Lolla. If you're going, it might be because you recognize one of the headliners, or because you like live music, but the biggest reason people go? For the atmosphere. And I'm not talking about the nice weather. By "the atmosphere," I mean anything goes, loud drum beats, and LOTS of drugs. And this is my concern.

I'm worried that size and popularity of Lolla is not indicative of Chicago's love of good music, but rather, of Chicago's love of going crazy for three days. That's not to say I'm condemning a massive party with good music; I've got no problem with that. But I do have a problem with preppy teenagers, with no prior knowledge of the artists they're seeing, pretending to like music in exchange for free weed from festival-goers. That may sound harsh, but I fear it's true. So please, prove me wrong. Do people really still love live music? Or do rich kids just want to pay 300 bucks to do drugs in a big field?

To Spotify or Not to Spotify

As both a musician and an avid music listener, I can empathize with both sides of the recording industry; the consumer and the producer. The listener wants to listen to the music they like as easily as possible, and the artist wants to be fairly compensated for their art. So what happens when one side is completely fulfilled at the expense of the other? What happens when the consumer has everything, and the artist, nothing?

Enter, Spotify.

When I first heard about Spotify, I was ecstatic. Pretty much every artist I'd ever want to listen to (save the Beatles,) unlimited playlists, radio, recommendations; all for merely $10 a month? AND I can access it all from my phone without losing any memory? Sounds like the best service I could possibly ask for. And I enjoyed that fantasy guilt-free; for a while. But pretty soon, I started hearing people talk about Spotify, and not in a good way. Other musicians didn't have Spotify, and some claimed it was bad for the artist. At first I didn't believe it. I didn't want to believe that my favorite music streaming service was screwing over the artists it represented. Unfortunately, that's when I stumbled upon this NPR article. The headline could almost tell the whole story: "How Musicians Make Money by the Fraction of a Cent on Spotify." The article tells of Spotify's low royalties while mixing in the personal tale of Erin McKeown, a musician who puts up her albums on Spotify. The exact figure she makes per play, she says, is $0.004. Many can tell that this extremely low, but some say, well, with all the people using Spotify, I'm sure she makes a decent amount of money. Think about it like this: a thousand people listen to one of her songs. That's a lot of people. If all those people listen to her song once, she gets $4. If a thousand people bought her song on iTunes, she would make closer to $500. 

Perhaps if I weren't a musician this wouldn't bother me so much, but I know how it feels to pour out your heart into a two hour show (in addition to countless hours rehearsing,) and get paid $30 in tips to split between five people. But I also understand the plight of the consumer; you shouldn't always have to take the moral high road while sacrificing convenience and ease.

And after all this, I will openly admit, I still use Spotify. But I can justify it. For one thing, many of the artists I listen to through Spotify are people like The Doors of Pink Floyd, and they certainly aren't taking any big hits by losing some money. However, the main way in which I can justify my use of Spotify is the fact that I support the artists I listen to through the service in different ways, in addition to streaming their music. If I listen to artist I really like on Spotify, I'll buy their album on vinyl, or I'll go to see their show. Take the band "The Main Squeeze" for example. I discovered them through Spotify this year, but instead of only streaming their music, I purchased their record so I could listen to it off the web, and I've already seen them live twice. Because of that, I think it's fair for me to use Spotify, but I still have a lot of misgivings. I'm always asking myself, should I be using Spotify, or am I just hurting the artists I love?

Bill O'Reilly Goes (Against) Between Two Ferns

For those of you who are familiar with the internet, you may know that Zach Galifianakis, star of "The Hangover," has his own web-series entitled "Between Two Ferns," in which he interviews celebrities in a deadpan comedic style. I became of this show last year after I saw Galifianakis' hilarious interview with Justin Bieber, in which he makes such jabs as, "You've had three hair styles. What's next for your career?" However, this show was recently brought to my attention when I found out that President Obama actually appeared on the show. I was surprised, to the say the very least, when I found out that the President actually sat down with Zach Galifianakis for an interview, and I wasn't sure what to expect going in. The clip nearly brought me to tears. If you have not had the acute pleasure of viewing it, I strongly urge you to do so right now.

The video really surprised me for a couple of reasons, with the first being that I never thought our president could crack me up like that! I was also really impressed that he was able to navigate through the humour and still plug his new Healthcare initiative (while skillfully dodging insults from Galifianakis like, "Why would you get the guy who created the 'Zune' to make your website?") Finally, I was mostly just amazed that Obama would even participate in the creation of the show. But after I thought about it, it made some sense. One of the main facets of the Affordable Care Act is to get younger people health care, and Between Two Ferns most certainly appeals to a younger crowd. So I say, well done Obama.

Not surprisingly, not everyone shared my opinion on Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns, most notably Bill O'Reilly (what a shocker.) In a section of his show entitled "Talking Points," O'Reilly made many desperate attempts to criticize the President's appearance, including saying that "Lincoln would not have done it." I would say this made me lose all respect for Fox News, but that happened a long time ago. This is an outlandish claim not only because no one can predict what a president would have done centuries ago, but because Lincoln was one of our funnier, warmer presidents, and would have quite possibly done something like this! O'Reilly's feeble attempt to criticize Obama only cements my opinion on his participation on the show; it was a smart, personable move.