Perhaps. But check out The New Yorker’s fabulous cover tribute to Jobs:

Says it all really, doesn’t it?

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

At this point I’ve already ripped most of my Beatles music from CDs and put it on my iPod, but this is great news for younger generations who’ve never heard of the Beatles – or CDs.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Even if the iPhone4 doesn't work properly, it's still nice to look at.

NEW YORK TIMES media columnist David Carr had an interesting piece in last Sunday’s paper looking at the role Consumer Reports played in the iPhone4-reception debacle.

The magazine said it can’t recommend the phone because of issues with the antenna, which wraps around the outside of the device. If the phone is held a certain way, dropped calls can result.

In an effort to manage this mess – Antennagate – Apple is offering to send iPhone4 buyers free “bumpers,” cases that wrap around the edge of the phone and appear to mitigate the problem. (Consumer Reports had suggested using duct tape.)

Apple CEO Steve Jobs at first denied there was an issue, and blamed the media for blowing the whole thing “so out of proportion that it’s incredible.” But he was forced into addressing the criticism, Carr notes, largely due to the editorial authority of Consumer Reports:

“The iPhone’s antenna problems might have remained a dust-up between Apple fanboys and skeptical bloggers except that Consumer Reports — that stolid, old-media tester of everything from flooring to steam mops for the last 74 years — came out with a report detailing the issue and concluding that ‘due to this problem, we can’t recommend the iPhone 4.’

“The article in Consumer Reports was devastating precisely because the magazine (and its Web site) are not part of the hotheaded digital press. Although Gizmodo and other techie blogs had reached the same conclusions earlier, Consumer Reports made a noise that was heard beyond the Valley because it has a widely respected protocol of testing and old-world credibility.”

Jobs acknowledged the impact of being dissed by the venerable mag: “We were stunned and upset and embarrassed by the Consumer Reports stuff,” he said, “and the reason we didn’t say more is because we didn’t know enough.”

Carr thinks the matter “is a reminder that media that are unsupported by advertising can often have an impact that more traditional publishing, or even the most tech-savvy, enterprises don’t.”

It was a coup for Consumer Reports, to be sure, even though they were simply doing what they always do. But I doubt the wacky-antenna hullabaloo will have much of an impact on this phone phenom’s sales. Apple has already sold more than three million iPhone 4s in the U.S., and on July 30 will begin peddling them in 17 other countries, including Canada.

Even if Apple doesn’t completely solve the reception problem, they can rest assured that Canadians, no strangers to crappy wireless service, likely won’t notice a difference.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Related: Jobs is both a genius and a jerk

Apple CEO Steve Jobs. (Photo: Asa Mathat | All Things Digital)

EARLIER THIS MONTH at the D8 Conference near Los Angeles, Apple CEO Steve Jobs discussed the impact of his company’s latest gadget: the vaunted iPad.

In an interview, Jobs was asked whether this new technology – which, among other things, provides print-news organizations with a tool to offer digital content in a more engaging and interactive fashion than through conventional websites – will “save journalism.”

“One of my beliefs very strongly is that any democracy depends on a free healthy press,” Jobs said (a cliche, sure, but always nice to have the notion reinforced). “News gathering and editorial organizations are really important.”

What he said next came as a bit of a surprise to me, though, given how inextricably linked Apple is to the new-media world:

“I don’t want to see us descend into a nation of bloggers, myself. I think we need editorial more than ever right now.”

This triggered an enthusiastic round of applause from the audience, which presumably included more than a few traditional journos (the likely source of most of that clapping).

But then it probably behooves Jobs to side with mainstream news organizations here. His company stands to make a fair bit of dough by partnering with them on developing apps for the iPad, among other pursuits.

“Anything that we can do to help the New York Times and the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal and other newsgathering organizations find new ways of expression, so that they can afford to get paid, so they can afford to keep their newsgathering and editorial operations intact – I’m all for,” the Apple CEO said.

“What we have to do is figure out a way to get people to start paying for this hard-earned content. And so this provides us a potential opportunity to provide them even more value than just a web page and to start to charge a little bit for that.

“I’m trying to get these folks to take more aggressive postures than they charge for print because they don’t have the expenses of printing, they don’t have the expenses of delivery – and to charge a reasonable price and go for volume,” he added. ”Because I think people are willing to pay for content.”

Nice one Steve-o. I agree. And I would kill to see Jobs debate new-media guru Clay Shirky — Mr. “Information Wants to be Free” — on the whole pay-for-content thing, and on the future of the news business in general in the Internet age.

It would be an entertaining match-up. As I’ve said before in this space, my money’s on the Apple chief.

>> Here’s the clip from the interview:

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

ON SLATE THE

Manjoo was focusing on “non-voice phone usage – texting, e-mailing, Web browsing, and other activities that you can do at the same time as chatting with someone else.”

Fiddling with phones when you’re with company has become more or less socially acceptable these days. That said, having had an iPhone for about three months now, I’m all too aware of the addictive and dependency-creating nature of the device – that nagging sense that if it’s not with you, you could be missing out on something huge. (Is it even possible not to have your iPhone/BlackBerry with you?)

Needless to say, I never felt this way when I had a piece of crap old school phone that could barely manage a text message, nor for the two decades of my life that didn’t involve the use of a cell phone. Remember when it was OK to be unavailable for an hour or two?!

Anyway, we can’t turn back time or progress. And my iPhone has changed my life for the better, certainly in helping me stay on top of matters both professional and personal. It’s an expensive device, but damn convenient to have.

Manjoo isn’t debating any of this.

He’s asking readers if there should be boundaries about when and how we use the devices in social situations. I love my phone, but I also acknowledge that it’s usually hard for me to focus on much else when it’s in my hands.

Majoo presents some scenarios to help determine the ground rules:

1. You and your partner plopped down on the couch to eat cold pizza while watching a rerun of Law & Order? Would it be OK to check your e-mail then?

I say yes. It’s informal; as Majoo notes, there’s another distraction in the mix anyway; it’s not as if you’re looking deeply into each other’s eyes and the phone risks ruining the romantic vibe. You’re watching Law & Order and eating pizza… you should feel free to check your e-mail.

2. You and your significant other are at a neighborhood diner. Can you check your phone here? How about if you’re at McDonald’s? What about a white-tablecloth joint? Or say you’re taking a long walk in the park together on a sunny day. What’s acceptable in that setting?

Go for it. People can’t get uptight about etiquette at McDonald’s. At a white tablecloth joint? Perhaps whipping out your phone is a bit tacky here; ditto for the long walk in the park. Things might be different, though, if both parties have phones and there’s a mutual understanding about when/where they should be used.

3. Now let’s replace your spouse with other people. You’re at the movies on a second date, and as you wait for the theater to go dark you get a text from a friend asking how the date is going. Do you reply? How about if the text comes during the movie? Second date?

My gut says no. Maybe if you go take a leak, then it’s cool to check in with your buddies. But a second date can end either wonderfully or unsuccessfully … can you afford to run the risk of affecting the outcome by texting “Sooo getin action 2nite” to your boys in the middle of a dark theatre with her right beside you?

Manjoo’s final scenario to consider:

4. You’re at a birthday dinner with a dozen people you don’t know very well and don’t really care to impress—do you make pointless small talk with the unemployed stock trader sitting beside you, or do you read your Twitter feed?

Definitely read your Twitter feed. Talking to a stock trader, especially a whiny unemployed one, doesn’t sound very enticing.

***

It’s an interesting exercise, but in reality I think it would be impossible to come up with rules of cell phone etiquette that can possibly apply to everyone.

In the end, I think it comes down to a person’s personality. Those who are generally conscientious and have some semblance of social grace will probably recognize if/when it’s OK to check their phone and when it’s not.

People who are rude, self-absorbed and generally clueless about their own behaviour are probably going to check their phones regardless of whether it’s inappropriate or tacky. Classless buttheads generally don’t care all that much about etiquette.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

Apple CEO Steve Jobs introduced the iPad after months of speculation and carefully calculated media leaks.

THE BIG NEWS of the past week – at least for those of us who await Apple’s latest toys with bated breath – was the unveiling of the much ballyhooed iPad tablet.

The unfortunate name choice aside – are there no women working in the Apple marketing department? – print media people have been debating the possibility the iPad could be the salvation for the struggling newspaper and magazine industries.

Most folks scoff at the notion that they should ever be made to pay for the news they read online; it’ll never happen, they say – unless you’re talking about niche products such as the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal.

But is it possible that the iPad could enhance the digital news-reading experience to such a degree that it just might give people a good reason to pay for the pleasure?

Perhaps it’s akin to my rationale for still buying CDs in the age of digital music: I’ll shell out the dough for them if they offer value-added features – quality liner notes, attractive packaging, photos, DVD extras, etc.

The iPad seems to represent the best of both worlds, combining the visually appealing design/layout of a printed news product with the interactive features of the internet, such as video, web browser/links and e-mail (On the flip side, it doesn’t support Flash and doesn’t have a camera.)

This Sports Illustrated demo offers a sense of how awesome the tablet experience could be:

For someone like me, who finds it difficult to read long-form articles online, having them laid out like they are in an actual physical newspaper/magazine might make things more enjoyable and tolerable.

(Then again, one of the reasons it’s hard for me to get through lengthy articles on the web is because of all the distractions that beckon me every second… e-mail, Twitter, Facebook, and the list goes on.)

The iPad certainly looks cool, but is it going to be the solution to getting people to pay for online news?

It counts for something that Apple CEO Steve Jobs was joined at the iPad launch by the New York Times’ digital operations chief, who unveiled a NYT app for the new gadget. (And it’s worth noting that a week earlier the Times announced it would be introducing a pay wall in 2011.)

Apple helped rescue record companies from certain demise in the face of digital file sharing when it introduced the iTunes micro-payment system that has proven to be wildly successful.

Something similar has been proposed for online news operations, but so far the idea has been met with skepticism.

If newspapers and magazines are going to survive in the brave new digital media world, they’ll need to figure out how to get people to pay.

It may seem an impossible feat, but if any two companies are going to find a way to make such a business model work, I’d put my money on the New York Times and Apple.

ryan@roadtostarrdom.com

>> FORTUNE: How tablets will change magazines, books, and newspapers

>> 10 sages read the future of print