Unfortunately, when he woke up, the phone had been remotely bricked, so he couldn't get the contact info back again...
So, without any better option available, such as calling Apple and saying "I found something that I think one of your engineers lost but I don't know which one - I'd like to return it to the poor guy" he instead went with the other option of shopping the phone around to media outlets looking for the highest bidder and ended up making $5 grand.
...and if it's allowed to propagate to the open platform we're all screwed.
Forgive me if I write you off for spouting hyperbole. I think there is a VERY long list of things that are significantly more likely to result in us all being screwed than Apple's choice of a closed system for developers...
I know I'm going to get modded into the stone ages for this but, honestly, I find it amusing that you're posting about "groupthink" on Slashdot. Sorry, but let's be real, Slashdot is a collection of groupthink communities (Linux, Apple, MS, opensource, copyrights, etc., etc., etc.).
I honestly cannot understand how apple's monopolistic behavior hasn't attracted the same attention that Microsoft's did
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's because THEY DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY!
Let me be even clearer, lest you're confused - they don't have a majority of the market (it's market share is around 16%) nor are they the market leader (Nokia and RIM are both ahead of Apple - Nokia by an almost 2-to-1 margin).
Call me crazy, but I believe you should be the market leader with a majority of the market share to even vaguely be considered to have a monopoly.
When they are the market leader; when they have a majority of the market, then and only then can people be justified in starting discussions about abuse of a monopoly but, until then, they aren't abusing anything. There are too many other possible (and in some cases, more successful) avenues available to developers for Apple to even vaguely be considered a monopoly by anyone other than an Apple-hater who's trying to stir the pot.
Is it coincidence that iPads are being "confiscated" shortly after Apple announced the international launch of the iPad was being delayed? I think not!:)
There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.
And some day the left parties will grow a collective pair and form a coalition, as is entirely allowed in our political system, and they will work together to ensure the Conservatives don't have power. The Conservatives managed to make "coalition government" into a bad word but it is what our system of government is designed to allow and support. If you don't have support of the majority of the government then you aren't allowed to run the government.
It would be real nice for the left parties to grow a pair, and damn soon.
If they manage to get one person into parliament and that one person makes sure to keep IP rights discussions on target with the rights of consumers in mind then I don't think your dream is too far off target. Heck, as the Green party has shown, you don't even really need to get a seat - just being a part of the process can help ensure your agenda gets air time. Now, the Green party manages to come across a bit too crack-pot for most to take them seriously so here's hoping the Pirate party manages to get a better spokesperson who can come across seriously and keep discussions on target and focused without sounding too "fringe". Regardless, as a Canadian, I view this as a good thing.
I know I'm going to get modded to hell for being a pedantic fanboi, but it's "iPhone" - lowercase "i", uppercase "P".
Anyhow, as to your point, I think you have a valid point which you've expressed poorly. I've use Opera on the iPhone and it is notably inferior to Safari _BUT_ I could see people using it if they have limited data plans and are doing browsing while on 3G. It is fast and renders well-enough to get the job done. If, however, you're not worried about bandwidth (have the bandwidth to spare or are on wifi) or accurate page rendering is important, then Safari is going be the better choice. Any review of Opera should acknowledge it's weaknesses but simultaneously recognize it's strengths. It is an inferior browser that is very fast and utilizes much less bandwidth. There are times when that is entirely acceptable as a choice and thus it should be on people's iPhones alongside Safari. I know I'll be keeping it.
...the data used to quantify piracy isn't reliable.
Um, I'm not sure how to say "DUH!" without sounding like a smartass so, well, let's just call me a smartass.
DUH!
Seriously, of course the data is unreliable - it was paid for by the media corporations in an obscure and twisted mass circle of references that would make any academia's head spin. I hope and pray that this investigation is treated seriously and delves deep enough to find the truth that the numbers that the media corporations have been bandying about for years now are all bogus.
I think everyone would be fine discussing piracy and it's impact on the industries involved just so long as _REAL AND ACCURATE_ numbers were used rather than the trumped up bullshit that we've seen so far.
Apple is misusing its controll of the app-store to...
Control of it's own store? How can they misuse control of their own store? Target and Walmart and every store on the planet has the right to dictate what can and is sold in their stores (and, for the record, Walmart exerts an ENORMOUS amount of influence on its suppliers if they want to show up on Walmart shelves...). How is that any different than this? Because Apple has a monopoly? No they don't. They don't even have a majority of the market. In the mobile market, they may be hugely successful and are continuing to do well but they aren't even remotely in a monopoly position - not even vaguely by any measure of the term "monopoly". There are several successful competitors out there with their own app ecosystems available.
Sorry, but let's keep things in perspective. You may not like Apple's degree of control and restrictions (and you certainly wouldn't be the first in that group) but they are not misusing anything - at least not any more so than Walmart misuses control over their floorspace.
The fact that that, after Macromedia's was acquired...
Adobe stopped caring because they didn't have any real competition and thus could simply coast along because, really, who were they going to lose customers to? I'm kind of surprised that buyout was allowed given that it completely removed any hint of competition in the graphics software market. And, as I said, since that buyout, the quality of Adobe's software has taken a dramatic downturn showing they know they don't have to try as hard, any more.
And my guess is, so long as the patent system functions as it is, nobody will ever be able to come along and create a suite of software to compete with them now that they own virtually every patent related to graphics production through software...
The claim that graphics designers prefer Macs is a myth anyway.
News to me considering I am a graphic designer and the _VAST_ majority of designers I know (I would estimate at least 90%-ish) use Macs. _DESKTOP PUBLISHERS_ may enjoy cranking out flyers and restaurant menus on a PC but real graphic designers _HEAVILY_ favour Macs. Don't mistake one for the other - they are not the same thing.
I know that may sound elitist but do you call someone who knows how to write code a programmer? Do you call someone who knows how to install an OS and run Spy Sweeper an IT technician? Just because a person uses Photoshop and has placed bold, italic, underlined text on a page does not mean they are a graphic designer. Hell, if they've placed underlined text on any page, ever, that's probably a clear sign they're not a graphic designer...:)
This is becoming less and less true with each new version. They are removing core features (Hello! Contact Sheet! You _REMOVED_ that? WTF?) and making changes that make their software just a little bit worse, slower, and less stable. Seriously. I've been using Adobe software for a lot longer than I care to admit and since CS3, their software has been downright bad. I am shocked at some of the issues and changes that have been released and can only imagine it's an intentional choice on Adobe's part, not poor design decisions (though that certainly is a possibility, especially given that they no longer have any real competition with any of their key software so they can just coast by without a care of losing customers to another company...).
The only way Apple will stop strong arming Adobe is for them to suddenly pull Photoshop from Mac OS.
You don't think there's already a move by Adobe away from MacOS? Interesting. You clearly don't use Adobe's Creative Suite in your day job.
Many of us who do have noticed a distinct shift in their design philosophy away from making a Mac program for graphic designers towards making a PC program for graphic designers which happens to run on the Mac. The examples are small yet numerous and it paints a clear picture, to anyone who actually thinks about it for a second, that Adobe was the first to turn their backs on the Mac community. I believe there's been a cold war brewing behind closed doors for years now and, while Apple may have been the most obvious about bringing it into the light, Adobe was the first to act on it with their shift in design philosophy with CS3.
Perhaps I'm not being clear - what _you_ think doesn't matter for squat. This is about legal issues and, as we know, laws and reality and opinions don't always mesh. In fact, they rarely do.
Has Facebook gathered this information? Yes. Has it invested time and effort into building a database of market research which is the core of its business model? Yes. Is this information available to the public? Yes. Beyond those two facts, what can be proven and decided in a courtroom has yet to be determined and, until two teams of high-priced lawyers decide to duke it out, we can only speculate as to what the outcome will be. For now, Facebook's defense of "their property" has amounted to "we have a team of lawyers on our payroll that are willing to take this to court in a big way - how about you?" And the little guy backed off. Facebook needs to be careful because they might find that someone else also has a team of highly-paid lawyers that are willing, eager, and able to make a case of this. And the other team of lawyers might, just might, be able to make a very compelling case that the information is publicly available and thus not Facebook's "property." After all, what you may think about this situation may seem clear and obvious but I hope and assume you can recognize that a case can certainly be made to the contrary and, in the courtroom, that's all it takes sometimes...
Like I said, Facebook's defense strategy of "we have deep pockets" is dangerous. There are lots of people and companies with deep pockets. They might run into one of them...
Explain to me how publicly available information is "their property." Now, imagine that discussion happening in a courtroom because, should someone else decide that's a tough case to make, Facebook might be forced to try to make it. Facebook has some deep pockets but there are others out there with similarly deep (or deeper) pockets and they might consider that battle financially worth the effort. Just because Facebook sued one guy who didn't have pockets deep enough to fight the battle doesn't mean squat. Facebook is staking claim to information that is publicly available and that claim is pretty flimsy. Defending it solely with "deep pockets" is a dangerous defense.
If they want to sell data (as they clearly do given that's what their business model is built upon) then they should take greater precautions to ensure that it is protected. If they leave that information out in the open, for anyone with a hint of insight to find, then they should not be surprised to find their valuable data in the hands of someone else. He didn't delve into their private information - he simply accessed publicly available information that anyone with an internet connection could view.
Facebook got lucky - the data was gathered by just an average Joe without the backing to fight a legal battle. Had it been someone significantly larger, the result may have been "go ahead and sue - we'll see you in court." And, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if Facebook would win that sort of battle. And that's a battle that Facebook decidedly does not want to lose - it would mean the end of their business...
I'd be curious to learn if that information is still available (as I am certain it is...) because someone/some company might decide that's pretty valuable _PUBLIC_ information and might, just might, decide they're willing to battle Facebook's legal team for it... Expensive legal battle over very valuable marketing data... If you have the resources for the fight, it might be a fight worth waging...
Facebook may have gotten lucky once but they may not be so lucky next time...
My iPad has no 3G, therefore it has no GPS. But applications were constantly asking me for permission to use my location. This seems like an oversight: if you don't have a location sensor, don't ask!
If you're going to review a product, at least make an effort to understand its functionality and features. The iPad (and iPhone and iPod Touch) are capable of geolocation based on your wifi connection. My iPod Touch (1st gen) is able to locate me within about 50-100 meters of my actual location just from wifi information. It's actually quite impressive.
Given that this has been the case for quite a long time and is not a new development, there is no excuse for someone reviewing the product for Slashdot to be unaware of it. Also, given that you apparently are unaware of it, it puts pretty much every one of your opinions on the product into perspective - namely, that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to be reviewing the product.
In other words, I stopped reading at that point. If I'm going to read a review on a product, I like it to be a vaguely informed view. It has nothing to do with you obviously knocking the device - I read all of Cory Doctorow's review and he blasted the product. I disagreed with the majority of his review, but I read it because it was an informed review. I stopped reading your review because you don't know what you're talking about.
I know I shouldn't, but I expect better from Slashdot...
Ok, I was bored with your message from the get-go because it amounts to "Apple is a corporation trying to make money just like every other corporation out there." Ok. Yeah. And? Guess what - damn near any company that answers to shareholders, especially once they become even vaguely successful, is going to do everything they can to make a profit. Nothing new. We know. Kthnxbai.
But, then, after spouting off all the rhetoric that is already obvious, you throw in one of the most over-used cliches currently making the rounds - one that simply annoys the ever-lovin'-crap out of me.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
At the very least, if you could be so kind, could you reserve that useless gem of wisdom for discussions of politics where it's at least vaguely relevant even if it is played out and utterly predictable? Please leave that trite garbage out of tech discussion. Please.
Agreed. It amuses me that the stories we saw for the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPod Touch are almost identical and we're getting very similar stories now with the iPad. You would think people would figure it out as history repeats itself but...
Good. Now, as someone who periodically does web design during my day job, could the iPad set its sights on killing off IE6? That would make me a very happy designer.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, when he woke up, the phone had been remotely bricked, so he couldn't get the contact info back again...
So, without any better option available, such as calling Apple and saying "I found something that I think one of your engineers lost but I don't know which one - I'd like to return it to the poor guy" he instead went with the other option of shopping the phone around to media outlets looking for the highest bidder and ended up making $5 grand.
Or he stole the phone and immediate started shopping it around because he knew he had something valuable and Gizmodo bought stolen goods and could be fucked under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
I know which of these options I'm guessing is closest to the truth. Greed. It's a powerful motivator.
...and if it's allowed to propagate to the open platform we're all screwed.
Forgive me if I write you off for spouting hyperbole. I think there is a VERY long list of things that are significantly more likely to result in us all being screwed than Apple's choice of a closed system for developers...
Hyperbole.
I know I'm going to get modded into the stone ages for this but, honestly, I find it amusing that you're posting about "groupthink" on Slashdot. Sorry, but let's be real, Slashdot is a collection of groupthink communities (Linux, Apple, MS, opensource, copyrights, etc., etc., etc.).
I honestly cannot understand how apple's monopolistic behavior hasn't attracted the same attention that Microsoft's did
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's because THEY DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY!
Let me be even clearer, lest you're confused - they don't have a majority of the market (it's market share is around 16%) nor are they the market leader (Nokia and RIM are both ahead of Apple - Nokia by an almost 2-to-1 margin).
Call me crazy, but I believe you should be the market leader with a majority of the market share to even vaguely be considered to have a monopoly.
When they are the market leader; when they have a majority of the market, then and only then can people be justified in starting discussions about abuse of a monopoly but, until then, they aren't abusing anything. There are too many other possible (and in some cases, more successful) avenues available to developers for Apple to even vaguely be considered a monopoly by anyone other than an Apple-hater who's trying to stir the pot.
Sorry. It is what it is.
Is it coincidence that iPads are being "confiscated" shortly after Apple announced the international launch of the iPad was being delayed? I think not! :)
There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0942385/
Hmmmmm. Maybe you don't know what you're talking about, in the least. I suspect he's more than willing to do an ensemble piece.
And some day the left parties will grow a collective pair and form a coalition, as is entirely allowed in our political system, and they will work together to ensure the Conservatives don't have power. The Conservatives managed to make "coalition government" into a bad word but it is what our system of government is designed to allow and support. If you don't have support of the majority of the government then you aren't allowed to run the government.
It would be real nice for the left parties to grow a pair, and damn soon.
If they manage to get one person into parliament and that one person makes sure to keep IP rights discussions on target with the rights of consumers in mind then I don't think your dream is too far off target. Heck, as the Green party has shown, you don't even really need to get a seat - just being a part of the process can help ensure your agenda gets air time. Now, the Green party manages to come across a bit too crack-pot for most to take them seriously so here's hoping the Pirate party manages to get a better spokesperson who can come across seriously and keep discussions on target and focused without sounding too "fringe". Regardless, as a Canadian, I view this as a good thing.
I know I'm going to get modded to hell for being a pedantic fanboi, but it's "iPhone" - lowercase "i", uppercase "P".
Anyhow, as to your point, I think you have a valid point which you've expressed poorly. I've use Opera on the iPhone and it is notably inferior to Safari _BUT_ I could see people using it if they have limited data plans and are doing browsing while on 3G. It is fast and renders well-enough to get the job done. If, however, you're not worried about bandwidth (have the bandwidth to spare or are on wifi) or accurate page rendering is important, then Safari is going be the better choice. Any review of Opera should acknowledge it's weaknesses but simultaneously recognize it's strengths. It is an inferior browser that is very fast and utilizes much less bandwidth. There are times when that is entirely acceptable as a choice and thus it should be on people's iPhones alongside Safari. I know I'll be keeping it.
...the data used to quantify piracy isn't reliable.
Um, I'm not sure how to say "DUH!" without sounding like a smartass so, well, let's just call me a smartass.
DUH!
Seriously, of course the data is unreliable - it was paid for by the media corporations in an obscure and twisted mass circle of references that would make any academia's head spin. I hope and pray that this investigation is treated seriously and delves deep enough to find the truth that the numbers that the media corporations have been bandying about for years now are all bogus.
I think everyone would be fine discussing piracy and it's impact on the industries involved just so long as _REAL AND ACCURATE_ numbers were used rather than the trumped up bullshit that we've seen so far.
Apple is misusing its controll of the app-store to...
Control of it's own store? How can they misuse control of their own store? Target and Walmart and every store on the planet has the right to dictate what can and is sold in their stores (and, for the record, Walmart exerts an ENORMOUS amount of influence on its suppliers if they want to show up on Walmart shelves...). How is that any different than this? Because Apple has a monopoly? No they don't. They don't even have a majority of the market. In the mobile market, they may be hugely successful and are continuing to do well but they aren't even remotely in a monopoly position - not even vaguely by any measure of the term "monopoly". There are several successful competitors out there with their own app ecosystems available.
Sorry, but let's keep things in perspective. You may not like Apple's degree of control and restrictions (and you certainly wouldn't be the first in that group) but they are not misusing anything - at least not any more so than Walmart misuses control over their floorspace.
The fact that that, after Macromedia's was acquired...
Adobe stopped caring because they didn't have any real competition and thus could simply coast along because, really, who were they going to lose customers to? I'm kind of surprised that buyout was allowed given that it completely removed any hint of competition in the graphics software market. And, as I said, since that buyout, the quality of Adobe's software has taken a dramatic downturn showing they know they don't have to try as hard, any more.
And my guess is, so long as the patent system functions as it is, nobody will ever be able to come along and create a suite of software to compete with them now that they own virtually every patent related to graphics production through software...
The claim that graphics designers prefer Macs is a myth anyway.
News to me considering I am a graphic designer and the _VAST_ majority of designers I know (I would estimate at least 90%-ish) use Macs. _DESKTOP PUBLISHERS_ may enjoy cranking out flyers and restaurant menus on a PC but real graphic designers _HEAVILY_ favour Macs. Don't mistake one for the other - they are not the same thing.
:)
I know that may sound elitist but do you call someone who knows how to write code a programmer? Do you call someone who knows how to install an OS and run Spy Sweeper an IT technician? Just because a person uses Photoshop and has placed bold, italic, underlined text on a page does not mean they are a graphic designer. Hell, if they've placed underlined text on any page, ever, that's probably a clear sign they're not a graphic designer...
...(and run well)...
This is becoming less and less true with each new version. They are removing core features (Hello! Contact Sheet! You _REMOVED_ that? WTF?) and making changes that make their software just a little bit worse, slower, and less stable. Seriously. I've been using Adobe software for a lot longer than I care to admit and since CS3, their software has been downright bad. I am shocked at some of the issues and changes that have been released and can only imagine it's an intentional choice on Adobe's part, not poor design decisions (though that certainly is a possibility, especially given that they no longer have any real competition with any of their key software so they can just coast by without a care of losing customers to another company...).
The only way Apple will stop strong arming Adobe is for them to suddenly pull Photoshop from Mac OS.
You don't think there's already a move by Adobe away from MacOS? Interesting. You clearly don't use Adobe's Creative Suite in your day job.
Many of us who do have noticed a distinct shift in their design philosophy away from making a Mac program for graphic designers towards making a PC program for graphic designers which happens to run on the Mac. The examples are small yet numerous and it paints a clear picture, to anyone who actually thinks about it for a second, that Adobe was the first to turn their backs on the Mac community. I believe there's been a cold war brewing behind closed doors for years now and, while Apple may have been the most obvious about bringing it into the light, Adobe was the first to act on it with their shift in design philosophy with CS3.
Prove that.
Perhaps I'm not being clear - what _you_ think doesn't matter for squat. This is about legal issues and, as we know, laws and reality and opinions don't always mesh. In fact, they rarely do.
Has Facebook gathered this information? Yes. Has it invested time and effort into building a database of market research which is the core of its business model? Yes. Is this information available to the public? Yes. Beyond those two facts, what can be proven and decided in a courtroom has yet to be determined and, until two teams of high-priced lawyers decide to duke it out, we can only speculate as to what the outcome will be. For now, Facebook's defense of "their property" has amounted to "we have a team of lawyers on our payroll that are willing to take this to court in a big way - how about you?" And the little guy backed off. Facebook needs to be careful because they might find that someone else also has a team of highly-paid lawyers that are willing, eager, and able to make a case of this. And the other team of lawyers might, just might, be able to make a very compelling case that the information is publicly available and thus not Facebook's "property." After all, what you may think about this situation may seem clear and obvious but I hope and assume you can recognize that a case can certainly be made to the contrary and, in the courtroom, that's all it takes sometimes...
Like I said, Facebook's defense strategy of "we have deep pockets" is dangerous. There are lots of people and companies with deep pockets. They might run into one of them...
...their property.
Explain to me how publicly available information is "their property." Now, imagine that discussion happening in a courtroom because, should someone else decide that's a tough case to make, Facebook might be forced to try to make it. Facebook has some deep pockets but there are others out there with similarly deep (or deeper) pockets and they might consider that battle financially worth the effort. Just because Facebook sued one guy who didn't have pockets deep enough to fight the battle doesn't mean squat. Facebook is staking claim to information that is publicly available and that claim is pretty flimsy. Defending it solely with "deep pockets" is a dangerous defense.
If they want to sell data (as they clearly do given that's what their business model is built upon) then they should take greater precautions to ensure that it is protected. If they leave that information out in the open, for anyone with a hint of insight to find, then they should not be surprised to find their valuable data in the hands of someone else. He didn't delve into their private information - he simply accessed publicly available information that anyone with an internet connection could view.
Facebook got lucky - the data was gathered by just an average Joe without the backing to fight a legal battle. Had it been someone significantly larger, the result may have been "go ahead and sue - we'll see you in court." And, quite frankly, I'd be shocked if Facebook would win that sort of battle. And that's a battle that Facebook decidedly does not want to lose - it would mean the end of their business...
I'd be curious to learn if that information is still available (as I am certain it is...) because someone/some company might decide that's pretty valuable _PUBLIC_ information and might, just might, decide they're willing to battle Facebook's legal team for it... Expensive legal battle over very valuable marketing data... If you have the resources for the fight, it might be a fight worth waging...
Facebook may have gotten lucky once but they may not be so lucky next time...
My iPad has no 3G, therefore it has no GPS. But applications were constantly asking me for permission to use my location. This seems like an oversight: if you don't have a location sensor, don't ask!
If you're going to review a product, at least make an effort to understand its functionality and features. The iPad (and iPhone and iPod Touch) are capable of geolocation based on your wifi connection. My iPod Touch (1st gen) is able to locate me within about 50-100 meters of my actual location just from wifi information. It's actually quite impressive.
Given that this has been the case for quite a long time and is not a new development, there is no excuse for someone reviewing the product for Slashdot to be unaware of it. Also, given that you apparently are unaware of it, it puts pretty much every one of your opinions on the product into perspective - namely, that you are not sufficiently knowledgeable to be reviewing the product.
In other words, I stopped reading at that point. If I'm going to read a review on a product, I like it to be a vaguely informed view. It has nothing to do with you obviously knocking the device - I read all of Cory Doctorow's review and he blasted the product. I disagreed with the majority of his review, but I read it because it was an informed review. I stopped reading your review because you don't know what you're talking about.
I know I shouldn't, but I expect better from Slashdot...
But, then, after spouting off all the rhetoric that is already obvious, you throw in one of the most over-used cliches currently making the rounds - one that simply annoys the ever-lovin'-crap out of me.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
At the very least, if you could be so kind, could you reserve that useless gem of wisdom for discussions of politics where it's at least vaguely relevant even if it is played out and utterly predictable? Please leave that trite garbage out of tech discussion. Please.
The portable devices for quick use already exist, and they are way better than the iPad...
*YAWN*
Sorry. You were saying something about it having less space than a Nomad and how lame it was. Well, that's what I heard, at least...
Agreed. It amuses me that the stories we saw for the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPod Touch are almost identical and we're getting very similar stories now with the iPad. You would think people would figure it out as history repeats itself but...
Good. Now, as someone who periodically does web design during my day job, could the iPad set its sights on killing off IE6? That would make me a very happy designer. :)
You're an idiot.
*YAWN*
Sorry. Nerd rage. Absolutely riveting. Please continue. I'm listening. Honest.
I know it's a Thinkgeek AF product...
LA!LA!LA!LA!I'M_NOT_LISTENING_TO_YOU!LA!LA!LA!LA!
:)
Seriously, it almost certainly is an April Fools joke, I know, but I still think it's f'ing awesome. Too pricey, but gawddamn cool.