iPhone 4 Can Survive Being Run Over by NYC Taxi

On November 21, 2011 I was exiting Grand Central Terminal and waiting to cross 42nd Street, when I looked down at the pavement. There I saw a pulverized iPhone:

Found this on 42nd St., literally. Obviously run over by a taxi. What shd I do with it? FYI, not mine. Won't power on. http://twitpic.com/7hfv1q

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) November21, 2011

As you can see, the glass wasn't just cracked - as frequently happens when an iPhone is dropped - but it was shattered. There were the tiniest of glass shards dropping from this device. I carefully picked it up and carried it by the metal band to my office. I figured I'd charge it up and see if I could identify the owner. It wouldn't charge. And then it occurred to me that I might be shorting out the circuitry because it was wet due to the rain from the night before.

So I wrapped it up and brought it home where I dried it out with the help of some desiccant we had in the basement. I left the iPhone in some Tupperware full of this stuff for a few days. I also ordered some tools and parts to see if I could replace the back glass, and the front (actually called the digitizer and LCD). Then on the next weekend, I took the iPhone apart:

iPhone 4 in pieces. This is the one I found shattered on 42nd St a few weeks ago. http://pic.twitter.com/LNVNv5mW

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

Getting all the glass and grime off it wasn't easy, but in the end, I succeeded and was surprised that most of the guts looked like they were intact.

By yesterday, all the spare parts had arrived and I was able to re-assemble the phone. YouTube is a great resource with many "how to" videos. I followed this one to disassemble and reassemble the iPhone:



And I was able to easily find the parts I needed through Amazon. $63 spent. Well worth the expense to geek out on a project like this.

Let's see if I can put it all back together again. New back and front glass for iPhone 4. http://pic.twitter.com/3Gg1tVbH

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

New face on the iPhone http://pic.twitter.com/04pLqDZe

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

Motherboard and speaker unit installed #iphone4 #geekrepair http://pic.twitter.com/nhEOUKyT

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

Motherboard wired up. Battery in. New glass back goes on next. #iphone #repair http://pic.twitter.com/u8nR0Dkn

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

After charging the iPhone for a little bit, I was able to get to the home screen (there was no screen lock passcode needed). From there, I opened a few apps like Twitter and picture gallery, and was pretty sure I had the owners name. To be sure, I opened up the email app and found a non-personal email to the owner from Amazon. Within the email, I clicked on the "to" field (obviously, the email was sent to the iPhone's owner) and found the owner's email address, full name, and telephone number. The telephone number was likely the number associated with this iPhone - or perhaps a new iPhone.

Hmm...good sign? Iphone is booting up and now charging. Geeks rejoice. #iphone4 #repair http://pic.twitter.com/xz8xUNBL

— Jim Hirshfield (@jimhirshfield) December10, 2011

I suspected that the owner had bought a new iPhone since it took me 3 weeks from finding the pulverized device until I got it repaired. So I called the number, and he picked up.

I confirmed it was him, introduced myself, and asked him if he had lost an iPhone. He had (duh!). I told him the whole story - he had no idea where he lost it, or the circumstances. So he was surprised and very interested in the details - even though he had a new iPhone. I think he was mostly relieved to know what happened and to come to closure.

I offered to meet him and hand it off. He thanked me and said I could keep it. Now I'm struggling with how to use an iPhone 4 as a glorified iPod Touch with a SIM chip that's obviously been marked as lost/stolen. Might have to jailbreak it.

By late this afternoon, I couldn't even get it to boot up. I'm starting to suspect that Apple or AT&T have disabled it. I might just have a $63 brick on my hands.

Related articles

• New AppleCare+ For iPhone-Dropping Klutzes (gizmodo.com)
• Here's What Apple's Grand Central Terminal Store Looks Like On The Inside (AAPL) (businessinsider.com)

Paying for Bundled TV or Cord Cutting?

Image by largeprime via Flickr

Ryan Lawler over at GigaOm has an interesting post up regarding pay TV services. The high-level point that he's emphasizing is that kids and younger adults are not paid subscribers to a Multichannel Video Programming Distributor (MVPD) - basically Cable TV, and the like. The post's headline declares, "The Children are our Future, and They're not Paying for TV" (link below under Related Articles).

When I read that, I immediately said to myself, there was no paid TV when I was a kid. My parents didn't pay for TV until some time in the 1980's. Paid TV is a relatively recent phenomenom.

The GigaOm blog post goes on to cover some interesting data points regarding the trend towards a la carte programming - or at least consumers' demands for a la carte programming. Who needs 500 stations (or wants to pay for them) when there are only a handful of shows that are of interest?

And that's the reason I've cut the cable TV cord. In our home we do pay for programming, but we get it through streaming services (like Netflix). I'm no young adult - I have two young children - but there's plenty of content to keep everyone entertained.

There's a strong trend towards unbundling of content programming. And it's happening whether or not the cable TV, satellite dish, or telephone companies want to participate. Just like the music business, kids will pay for the content if it's packaged and priced in an appealing manner.

Related articles

• The children are our future, and they're not paying for TV (gigaom.com)
• Google looking to take on Pay TV giants (techradar.com)
• Boxee Box is getting live TV integration with new update (digitaltrends.com)
• Fox's Web strategy aims to appease cable, satellite distributors (latimesblogs.latimes.com)
• 3DTV Shipments Set to Reach 46 Million by 2013, According to GigaOM Pro (prweb.com)

My Way or the Highway

Image via Wikipedia

There's been a lot written about Steve Jobs in the last few days. He was a remarkable man.

David Pogue's piece in the New York Times, among others, does a great job describing Steve Jobs' strengths, his creativity, his genius, his focus. We've also heard the stories that he was, at times, hard to work with.

I think the "hard to work with" sentiment is a direct symptom of working with someone that has a clear and confident vision and controls, if not demands, having the final say. There's an expression, "My way or the highway" - In other words, "We're going to do this my way, otherwise you can drive off into the sunset".

That doesn't make everyone happy. But running a business isn't about making everyone on the team happy or coming to some sort of compromise. After all, isn't "compromise" often a euphemism to describe a less-than-ideal outcome?

Too many boards, product, and management teams at start-ups are paralyzed because everyone's opted into management-by-committee. Five people; five different opinions.

I'm not sure who said it first, but I heard it first from my pal Scott Rafer: "Start-ups are not democracies."

Related articles

• Steve Jobs, or how you can make things happen. (englishinguiaintermedio.wordpress.com)
• EvoApp Creates a New Infographic - Steve Jobs by the Numbers: A Visual Look at 6 Stats Surrounding His Passing (prweb.com)

If Everything is Shared Automatically, Nothing has Significance

Image by SHAREconference via Flickr

I often struggle with how much to share on this blog, on LinkedIn, on Twitter, on Facebook, and on other social media platforms that I participate on. There are so many factors that come into play, such as the audience on each platform (some are more business focused; others more personal), the "who cares" factor, TMI (too much information), and other influences. In the end, "over-sharing" has become one of the problems with social media. It's no longer social or helpful if it's overwhelming.

I've felt this way for a while now, but couldn't really articulate it well until I read a great piece by Jeff Sonderman of the Poynter Institute. In his post regarding "frictionless sharing", he brings it all home with this:

The fact that people choose to keep most things private places significance on what they choose to share. If everything is shared automatically, nothing has significance.

“Sharing without intention is not social, it’s overwhelming, it’s noise,” social media consultant Jeff Gibbard observes on his blog. “Not everything I read, I endorse. Not everything I watch, I like. Not everything I listen to, I want to share. Without intention it’s simply surveillance.”

Their target here are services that automatically broadcast what you read or the music you listen to. I believe my settings in the music service Spotify are set to broadcast every song I listen to into my Facebook stream. So far, none of my friends have complained about that - but I suspect it's overkill.

Sonderman brings up a great point that news publications have to be careful how they deploy these broadcast tools. They could end up alienating their readers if their readers' friends feel overwhelmed.

Let me know in the comments what you think and how you balance sharing versus over-sharing.

Related articles

• Poynter: How to get more people to share news from your site (blogs.journalism.co.uk)
• Why Facebook's frictionless sharing is the future (gigaom.com)
• The Pros & Cons of Frictionless Sharing (readwriteweb.com)
• Sonderman Praises NY Times' "Leaky Paywall" (nyconvergence.com)

Real Names, Pseudonymity, and Anonymity

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

In the last week or so there's been a lively debate a'brewin' about identity online. Facebook is opposed to people using anything other than their real names - primarily, it would seem, to combat cyber bullying. Google followed suit when they launched their Google Plus service - but they took a lot of heat for not letting people use pseudonyms (nicknames).

Mathew Ingram at GigaOm has a good post on Google's position on real names.

Fred Wilson has staked his position. As has the Electronic Frontier Foundation. There's more coverage on this listed below under "Related articles".

I don't think there's one answer that suits the internet as a whole. There are cases where anonymity is needed (e.g. political discourse in repressive countries). And I do (mostly) agree that real names clean up most of the bullying, nasty, and spammy comments online. But it doesn't prevent all bad behavior.

One part of this debate that some folks might be missing is that pseudonymity is not the same as anonymity. Using a nickname to create a different persona online is a fun and expressive way to participate in social media (sharing, blogging, twittering, etc). But it's not the same as anonymity.

I choose to use my real name in most places online. Many of my friends use pseudonyms (but I still know who they are; they're not trying to hide their true identity). Bottom line: I think it's a personal choice.

Related articles

• EFF, Facebook argue over 'real name policies' (zdnet.com)
• Google+ Identity Crisis: What's at Stake With Real Names and Privacy (wired.com)
• Why do social networks want your real name? (bbc.co.uk)
• A Case for Pseudonyms (eff.org)

Privacy is About Expectations More Than Anything Else

Image by ShashiBellamkonda via Flickr

Chris Kelley

I attended SecondMarket's "Cocktails & Conversations" event last night. The guest speaker was Chris Kelly, formerly the Chief Privacy Officer at Facebook. His talk was titled "The Evolution of Social Privacy" - as you can imagine a very timely and relevant presentation given privacy breaches and blunders at companies such as Apple (geo-tracking iphone and ipad users), Sony (Playstation Network debacle), and increasing regulatory action in this area.

The thing that really stuck with me is that privacy, like many things, is so critically dependent on expectations. Chris pointed out - (obvious once you hear it) - if you are transparent upfront about what you are going to do with user data, then users will be OK with that. (The ones that aren't OK with it, well they can make an informed decision to not participate; no one gets misled). The point is that if you set someone's expectations that certain online behavior (sharing photos online, "friending" other people, posting a video, tracking click behavior, targeting ads, etc) will be used in certain ways or publicly shared, then users will generally be OK with that. Don't surprise them.

It's when online services are opaque about these things that they get in trouble. So, set expectations upfront by informing users what data of theirs or about them is collected and how it will be used.

As Chris said, if you're not upfront and transparent with your users, then you probably have something to hide. I'll add that it can make you appear evil if it's intentional, or otherwise apathetic and ambivalent about a very sensitive issue.

Related articles

• Geist: Apple, Sony security slips show flaws in our laws (thestar.com)
• Privacy Turning Heads On The Hill: Pols Want To Talk To Google, Apple, Sony (paidcontent.org)
• Tips To Defend Your Personal Privacy Online (mylookout.com)

BioDigital Human - Browser Power

Source: BioDigitalHuman.com

At last week's NY Tech Meetup, one of the companies presenting was BioDigital Human. It's a collaboration of medical and computer science that is very impressive. And it's a sign of things to come.

The astonishing thing is the 3D rendering of the human body from the skeleton on out to the skin - viewable in whole, in layers, in cross-section, in dissection, and from any angle. The level of detail and utility is so much more impressive when you realize this is all done in the browser - no plug-ins, no downloads, nothing to install. (Firefox only, for now).

The applicability and implications go beyond science, medicine, and education of human anatomy. This type of utility delivered through a browser will do amazing things to advance other areas such as architecture, gaming, manufacturing, finance, and more. Certainly there are desktop applications that these industries use for visualization, but it's the power of browser ubiquity that will make rich information more accessible and engaging to more people.

If you don't have Firefox, or would rather just sit back and watch the awesomeness, check out the video of their presentation and advance to timestamp 01:17:00.

Related articles

• Google WebGL Globe: Visualizing Geographic Data on a 3D Globe (infosthetics.com)
• Data Visualization (jedward706.wordpress.com)
• How One Company is Taming Big Data With Visualizations (readwriteweb.com)