On May 7th, Vote Labour

This could be the most important election of our lifetimes. Britain will change. Britain could fall back into its prejudice past. Or further into the hands of the undeserving rich—the bankers and Rupert Murdoch. Or Britain might, hopefully, finally, become a country run for us: the people. The hard-working and the deserving.

No matter who you are and how you are born everyone deserves to be safe, healthy and ambitious.  Labour understands that like no other party.

The Conservatives believe in a country where benefitting the rich is the priority. Ukip are not only anti-EU and borderline racist, but climate change deniers, homophobes and also prioritise the rich. The Greens, while admirable, deserve the seats they have but are too socialist to get any more; only vote for them if you’re in their targets. The Lib Dems can’t be trusted to hold their ground; they’ll change to suit whatever party will get them into power.

Labour, on the other hand, stand for:

Fairness. They will cut the irrational and harsh Bedroom tax that has claimed lives and freeze VAT, making the money back with a mansion tax, and by closing tax loopholes that benefit the underserving rich.

Education. They’ll lower tuition fees so everyone has the opportunity to a good education. And if university isn’t for you, they guarantee apprenticeships to school leavers.

A Stable Economy. Every commitment in the Labour manifesto is costed. There will be no additional borrowing in a majority Labour government, unlike previous ones who were, admittedly, wrong.

Health. Labour are the party of the NHS. They are the only ones, I believe, who can be trusted to keep it a top priority. Unlike the Tories who are busy making unnecessary top-down reforms, Labour will improve the NHS at the bottom, where it benefits you.

Under-Promising, and Over-Delivering. Miliband claims to be the first politician who will ever do this. I trust a man who doesn’t throw around unrealistic numbers for an election win.

Cutting immigration while remaining charitable. Immigration needs to be reduced. Our public services should only go to those who work hard in our country. But we must remember, and Labour do, that we are far better off than billions around the world. We aren’t always the number one priority.

Labour are the party of the people. They will help you and those who are in need. In a country led by Labour, everyone will have an opportunity to be who they want. Those who work hard, do well. It’s as simple as that.

Britain succeeds when working people succeed, not only when those at the top of society do. Don’t let the rich and powerful take away your rights and security.

Keep Britain fair. Keep Britain yours. Vote Labour.

And remember: it is your duty to Vote on May 7th, whoever it is for.


Last Minute ‘Spring Forward’ Predictions

The following aren’t solicited or backed up by too much evidence. But over the past months I’ve read pretty much every rumour and idea about what will happen later today and thus have some ideas I’m relatively confident about.

Apple Watch Pricing

Apple Watch Sport – We know this starts at $349, likely for the 38mm model, and the 42mm will come in at $399. It’ll come with a choice of sport band.

Apple Watch – I feel some of the estimations of this watch are too high. This is a fashion accessory, but I see it as the mainstream model. It’s always front and centre on Apple’s websites. I’m predicting a $549 starting price, up to $599 for the 42mm model, each with a choice of sport band. Other bands will be extra and cost considerably more.

Apple Watch Edition – $4999 is a good starting point in my head. It’s not too crazy, but it’s clearly premium. That would be a 32mm model, but as the sport bands don’t suit this model, I expect all bands to be sold separately — one won’t be included. Gruber hits the band price predictions head on, in my opinion but I really can’t see any combination that has currently been announced crossing the $5999 mark. Remember Apple are using 75% gold, to possibly save money as well as increasing hardness. This is a luxury watch, but not a Rolex.

Macbook Air

I can’t not believe 9to5Mac’s sources on this one. But if the change is going to be radical enough that all existing ports, including traditional USB, Thunderbolt and MagSafe will be removed it’s an entirely new product. The new ‘Macbook’.

But what if the new Retina Macbook was called the ‘next-generation Macbook Air’ much like the Retina pro was years ago. It’s very possible.

The rest is pretty much obvious or set in stone. There won’t be a TV or a car. And iOS 8.2 will be useful but buggy.

The Apple Car is Exciting, but Don’t Jump to Conclusions

Apple are secretly building a car, the WSJ reports:

Apple has several hundred employees working secretly toward creating an Apple-branded electric vehicle, according to people familiar with the matter. They said the project, code-named “Titan,” has an initial design of a vehicle that resembles a minivan, one of these people said.

The tech industry collectively turned their heads in a mix of bemusement and excitement when news broke yesterday that Apple could compete with Tesla and Google in the automotive market. But too many dismissed it as ‘un-apple’ and nonsensical for a company that relies on yearly release cycles. Those who did that are wrong.

There is no word on when or if Apple actually plans to release a car. It could be in ten years or more, or never. They have billions of dollars of cash doing nothing, so why not experiment behind the scenes?

And just because it is Apple it doesn’t mean they will need to dominate the market. They don’t need to be the new BMW or Mercedes or Bentley or Ford, at least not for a few decades. They can be a Tesla, a niche but profitable car company that makes luxury vehicles at premium prices.

The Apple Car is not the iPhone or the Apple Watch or the Mac. I wouldn’t be surprised if they called it a ‘hobby’, like they once did the Apple TV.

Don’t jump to conclusions based on some premature rumours. Let the people work.


iOS 9 to Focus on Stability Over Features: A Marketing Misstep?

9to5Mac, known for stellar sources, reports:

For 2015, iOS 9 is going to include a collection of under-the-hood improvements. Sources tell us that iOS 9 engineers are putting a “huge” focus on fixing bugs, maintaining stability, and boosting performance for the new operating system, rather than solely focusing on delivering major new feature additions. Apple will also continue to make efforts to keep the size of the OS and updates manageable, especially for the many millions of iOS device owners with 16GB devices.

This is welcome news, as a decline in Apple’s software quality, while exaggerated by some members of the media, has become apparent as of late; iOS 8 is unstable, but nowhere near as bad as Android 5.0, for example. It’s refreshing to hear Apple listening to their users’ concerns, especially as some of my ‘non-techy’ friends have been apprehensive to update their phones recently.

However, without a set of tentpole features I imagine that a large proportion of users will ask ‘what’s new’, and Apple won’t have a convincing answer. Many still are ignorant of iOS 8’s extensions and Today widgets, so why should they care about ‘bug fixes’, whatever they are?

OS X Snow Leopard, an under-the-hood update for the Mac, was a huge success for Apple, but this was a time before Macs were ‘mainstream’, they were just breaking out into some schools and colleges at the time. Now there is a more critical and yet more technologically apathetic audience to please, and it will be hard to do that with an stability focussed update.

I feel it could be wise for Apple to release iOS 9 later than usual. They could announce it in September and release it in early 2016. Most people won’t miss it, and then maybe they’ll have the time to add some exciting, ‘mainstream’ tentpole features as well as smoothing out operation. Whatever they do, Apple need to make sure as many users as possible update, and reducing the OTA file size is a promising first step.

Birdman: A Rare Work of Ambitious Cinema That Verges on Perfection

Birdman follows Riggan Thompson, an actor who played an infamous superhero character, as he makes a comeback through a Broadway play. The filmmakers created the illusion of one long-take, in this film with 9 Oscar nominations including Best Picture. It stars Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough and Amy Ryan.

From the little I had read about Birdman before I pressed play—on a night in which I would be starved from sleep, contemplating an incomprehensible amount of metaphors that would give any English student an aneurism—I knew it would be a film I would like. I had heard it was ‘new’, ‘different’ and of course Oscar-nominated. So when the Steadicam started its first swoop around Keaton’s character’s dressing room, I couldn’t help but analyse this film critically. I quickly became conscious that I was spending too much brain power admiring the carefully considered framing of shots instead of taking in the story itself. I was worried I was missing the point. Was the faux-long take was too distracting, I asked myself as I searched for its value; I became one of the critics the film itself so vehemently and ironically denounces.

Soon, however, the cinematography faded into the background as it balanced masterfully on the line between complimentary to the story, and exciting to movie-buffs and the drumming in the soundtrack became as vital to pacing the film as it was musically skilful. And then it became clear what is so great about Birdman—what makes it a marvel of cinema—the mastery of its composition, the performances and the dialogue aren’t garish or unnecessary, but they are immersive, to both you and your subconscious. Even with all that the film does that is new or absurd, it feels mature and wise: It’s an old man in his rocking chair reading you a story from his Kindle.

Birdman is like a dance. A splendid foxtrot where the camera paces around the setting as carefully as the actors recite their lines. When the camera stops, often inches away from the characters’ faces, we catch nuance after nuance in both the writing and the performance. Keaton, Stone and Shiner have completed the work of their lives; in their own ways they are brilliant. The emotion is raw, especially from Stone in her monologues. Keaton’s lead character is impossible not to love and root for despite all his flaws, and Shiner is skilful and ballsy enough to play a villain who is hateful but worryingly easy to empathise with. Galifianakis’ now proven dramatic ability makes me excited for his future work, and Watts’ experience on stage really shows.

The ending of Birdman, which I will resist spoiling in too much detail, is the real accomplishment. The final act brings together the skills of everyone involved while taking daring dramatic choices. The film gives you an ending, a resolution of sort, and won’t leave those who hate cliffhangers unhappy, but there are still a plethora of different interpretations of what really happened to Riggan Thompson. Is this a modern interpretation of the story of Icarus, or just a hilarious satire of Superhero movies? What did the end of the momentous long take mean? Emma Stone’s smile as the looks into the sky in the final shot opens up more questions, but to me, it says that it doesn’t matter what this film is about, whether Riggan has powers or not, what matters is that he has all he needs and wants and he can now move on; it’s really quite sweet.

There were a couple of mishaps in the film’s story, for example, Laura and Lesley’s relationship was underdeveloped and thus pointless. I also felt that the soundtrack, while excellent, relied too much on existing classical music where it could have done its own thing—it was disqualified from the Oscar for best Original Score because of this. In addition, Sam and Mike’s ‘forbidden love’ storyline ruined the notion of a bittersweet ending where Riggan had everything he wanted. He hated Mike, why didn’t he do something about it? These are just too minor to detract from the film’s genius however. They weren’t mistakes, they were intentions. I’m sure, somewhere I can find a convincing explanation to these concerns; Birdman does that, it has answers and convincing solutions for all its puzzling references and metaphors.

There is so much to read about this film, essays and analysis’ that could be for Shakespeare. In itself that doesn’t make it a good film, what does, is that these theories and interpretations only make sense when they consider the way the cinematography, acting and writing interact. The film is so thoughtful, so considered. It plays with your emotions and teases your intellect.

At this point, I’ve seen four of the eight Best Picture nominees. Birdman is the best. By a long way. I enjoyed The Grand Budapest Hotel and The Theory of Everything intensely, but Birdman is something else. It’s special. I haven’t seen a film this bold and adventurous in a while, let alone one that succeeds on every level. It’s a deep, layered, beautiful character study and an ambitious technical feat. Not everyone will like it because it isn’t ‘normal’, and the trailer ruins some key moments that are best seen as a surprise, but to me, it’s the best film of 2014, if not of this decade.

BT to buy EE for £12.5 billion

The Verge:

British telecoms giant BT has agreed to buy the UK’s largest mobile carrier, EE, in a deal worth $19 billion (£12.5 billion). The deal means BT now has access to EE’s 31 million customers, and the largest 4G customer base of any operator in Europe.

The telecoms giant sold its shares in O2 in 2002, but BT has now come back to the mobile market in a big way. As a result of today’s deal, it wields the largest 4G network in the country to go alongside its broadband, landline, and TV services.

With Three also buying O2, I worry that soon UK consumers won’t have a choice in who their mobile provider is. Let us just hope that Three don’t increase their unrivalled prices, and BT can improve EE’s shambolic customer service and price structure.

Maybe we’ll get an equivalent to T-Mobile US’ ‘Un-carrier’ program.

Notes on Snapchat Discover

Along with a subtle redesign and the controversial but fair removal of the ability to view other people’s best friends, Snapchat have taken a daring step in a direction that we would never have expected from the company a year ago when it wasn’t much more than a sexting app. And when I got the update, I was ecstatic; I had faith and the belief that Snapchat had ‘revolutionised’ bitesize journalism; I thought that they had cemented themselves within the ranks of the major internet social players. I might have been wrong.

The feature itself, the ability for publications to create channels with their own content, visual and textual, makes so much sense. Already, publications, celebrities, companies and YouTube personalities had all created accounts in which they published ‘behind the scenes’ content or supplemented their written work: The Verge did this well. Discover isn’t quite the same, though. It misses key functionality, and doesn’t offer what most users seem to be looking for.

Here’s what is wrong:

It’s too time consuming – The whole point of a ‘snap’, is that it is, well, just that. A snap of someone’s day. A moment. A tease. For example, as incredible as Vice’s video content is, I don’t open Snapchat to watch a 15 minute documentary or read a heartfelt, powerful article on a controversial topic. I want a brief burst of information, something to encourage me to think about a topic, not tell me everything about it. Yahoo News is a channel which also suffers here: I don’t want someone to read a headline to me, or over explain something I could read about later.

No saving or sharing – What you send to your friends is not there to be saved. But a recipe from the Food Network, shouldn’t be viewed just once. My fridge is not a Tesco, and I don’t want to cook a meal at 4pm when I open the app. I honestly don’t understand the point of this channel. By the time I’ve been out, bought the ingredients and waited until dinner time, there’s new content—the old is gone forever. And then how about National Geographic or Vice who I’m sure would benefit greatly from people sharing the content they create, not swiping past it or forgetting about it later; I might want to watch that video of sloths again another time.

It’s scheduled – Snapchat is about spontaneity. Content on a schedule does not fit in with Snapchat as a brand at all. It’s not even useful. I don’t want to have to organise when I’m going to view content, I want to see relevant stuff when it happens. I want to see how long I’ve got left to see that stuff. I want to know when it’s going to disappear. Food Network should give me a cool coffee shop around lunchtime, when news breaks of an event in Israel, show me some relevant Vice articles I can read in my own time, when there’s violence in the UK, show me something from the Daily Mail that blames it on the Muslims! Snapchat Discover, right now, is irrelevant.

Snapchat had so much potential. It still does. But Discover right now is a mismatch of ideas that just don’t work. It’s not social enough, what is being shown is not interesting enough, and it’s not timely. A real missed opportunity. A massive disappointment.


Let Us Admire The Greens For Being Absurd

In a piece titled: “The Greens, chaotic as they are, give a lesson to the main parties”, The Guardian’s Will Hutton puts the rise of the UK’s minor parties into perspective:

The startling rise of the smaller parties’ membership and opinion-polling presence in part reflects people’s instinctive rejection of what in reality is both democratic and economic nonsense – and a hunger for political activity that is grounded in some vision.

Politics is about workability and coherence. But the sudden rise of the Greens is a vivid reminder to our political class. Without heart and great animating goals, even momentous choices appear to collapse into managerialism. Democracy deserves better.

The Green’s economic policy is a shambles, much like Ukip’s or the Monster Raving Loony Party’s. Each of these minor political movements has risen with a vision: for Ukip it was the desire to leave the EU, the SNP’s rise was due to potential Scottish Independence, and the Lib Dem’s surge followed promised reforms in education and the cutting of tuition fees. The vision—the fanciful dream—for prospective Green voters is a fairer society. A vision so broad it is impossible, but one that it is easy to get behind.

We all want to be part of the latest craze, whether it an internet meme or a political organisation. I admire the Greens for being so driven. But with too many of us on one quixotic bandwagon, the parade of politics collapses and the electorate are left more apathetic than ever.

We might be on our way to a rainbow coalition this year. I hope we’re not. The rise of exciting and passionate minor parties has shown that Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems are the only ones capable of running the country, even if they aren’t the ideal. But when has anything been ideal?

As much as I like the Greens, I urge you not to waste your vote on them.

Don’t Blame Anyone for the Celebrity Photo Leaks… Yet

Just because there was an iCloud security flaw near to the time nude photos of celebrities leaked last week, it does not mean that Apple are to blame. Even though many of these celebrities likely had weak passwords, there is nothing to confirm that the ‘hack’ is their fault.

Headlines blaming companies and people are frustratingly inaccurate. It may have been iCloud’s fault, but a host of other factors could also be involved, as the Guardian report:

It was initially suggested that Apple’s iCloud service could have been compromised to access the images, but experts have said this was unlikely. Independent security expert Graham Cluley told the Guardian suggested that a hacker could have worked for years to gather information leading to the images, or could have hacked an address book with celebrity emails and then used phishing techniques, where users are tricked into divulging their password by fake emails. “My suspicion is that this isn’t an iCloud security flaw as such,” he said.

Wait for proper investigations to take place before making a judgment. All we need to know now is that this was a terrible exploitation that needs to be prevented somehow in the future. Celebrities are people too.

Super Premium, Incredible Value Earphones: RHA MA750i Review

My poor old Klipsch S4is broke recently. They lasted me a good few years, had set me back £80, and sounded great. As the price suggests, they are mid-range earphones, from a respected company. They were comfortable and lightweight: I was pleased.

But I needed replacements, and after hearing good things about a relatively unknown British brand: RHA, I took the plunge and purchased their highest end earphones1, at only £90. That price, for what were meant to be some of the best earphones you can buy left me sceptical. But I risked it—I had a £60 Apple Back to School voucher anyway. Needless to say, I was so impressed from the moment I saw them, let alone listened to them.

Unlike my old plastic—rather cheap looking S4is—the 750is are made from stainless steel, which are heavy, but luckily have over ear wires that come with multiple benefits such as reducing interference, and holding the weighty earbuds into your ear. The inline remote is also steel and rubber, and the 3mm jack is gold plated, with a steel cover and a spring over the wire to prevent fraying—an all too common problem with cables of this sort. It is hard to not appreciate just how durable these buds are. And they come with a three year warranty too; if that’s not enough to make them worth the cost, what is?

This build quality does bring about a downside, however. I personally prefer in-ear headphones to over-ear ones because they are so portable. The 750is aren’t that portable, and often don’t fit in my pocket. They do come with a leather carry case, however the quality of this was very poor. Not only was the logo printed wonky, but the zip hardly worked and the pouch inside that is meant to fit the headphones didn’t stretch wide enough to fit just one bud. But this is a petty complaint—RHA had to make a compromise somewhere.

Of course, the most important part of any earphones are how they sound. RHA include ten different pairs of rubber and foam tips to assure you get a perfect in-ear seal, and this goes far. It takes some trial and error, but finding the right fit creates some excellent sound isolation.

The actual drivers themselves are what really shine though. I’m no real sound coinnessuer, but these headphones rival the best of the best: I’ve used £250 Bose earbuds that compete. You would not be mistaken if you found that bass was lacking, as it isn’t as punchy as it could be, and there are some vibrations when notes get too deep, but it isn’t bad. I’d rather it be quiet than loud and muffled. The trebles are crisp, with every tap of a tambourine or hit of the hi-hat reproduced perfectly. Vocals are unbelievably smooth, along with all the other mids. They are so clear and warm and an absolute pleasure to listen to. I found alternative and rock are the genres where this really shines, as live instruments and autotune-less singers encapsulate everything these immersive buds do well.

Just to remind you, you’re paying £90. You can save £10 and ditch the iPod friendly remote too.

I cannot recommend these earphones enough. RHA are making a name for themselves as producing high quality, durable products, made and designed with care. A pleasure to use and own. Splash out and ditch those Apple EarPods. Or save some money, ignore the bigger, more expensive brands, and go for these. They are so worth it.

Show 1 footnote

  1. Shortly after writing, I found the company will shortly launch a new top-end model, the T10i, so I purchased their second most ‘premium’.