The Digital Home

According to USA Today, AT&T and Apple have agreed to extend their exclusivity relationship through 2009, meaning the next iPhone will be made specifically for AT&T service.

The report claims that Apple originally signed the deal with AT&T through 2008 and next year would start selling iPhones on other carrier services. But after AT&T offered a $300 subsidy on each iPhone instead of the revenue-sharing model that became such a hot issue last year, Apple decided it was in its best interests to stay on with AT&T for one more year and take the subsidy.

Undoubtedly some will say that AT&T may have made the best deal in quite some time and I tend to agree. But still others will say that Apple did the right thing in taking the money and although it's forced to sign up for another year with AT&T, it's still the right move.

Those people are dead wrong.

Apple's decision to stay in this deal with AT&T not only makes me wonder if Steve Jobs is thinking clearly, but it also solidifies my belief that Apple has a little too much faith in its product.

At the risk of sounding like a Google apologist (which I am blatantly not), why are all these people making such a fuss over Google Street View? Can't they get a grip and realize that, contrary to their megalomania, no one really cares what their home looks like and few (if any) people are looking up their address to see inside their bathroom windows on Street View?

According to Google, the company did not invade a family's privacy by taking pictures of their home for Google Street View.

"Plaintiffs' privacy claims fail, among other reasons, because the view of a home from the driveway that can be seen by any visitor, delivery person, or telephone repairman is not private," the company said in response to the suit, according to a copy posted at The Smoking Gun.

"Today's satellite-image technology means that...complete privacy does not exist," Google said in its response to the complaint. "Plaintiffs live in the 21st century United States, where every step upon private property is not deemed by law to be an actionable trespass...Unless there is a clear expression such as a gate, fence, or 'keep out' sign indicating that the public is not permitted to enter, anyone may approach a home by a walkway, driveway, or any other route commonly used by visitors, without liability for trespass."

Of course, the family Google allegedly caused "mental suffering" to disagrees.

I remember a time in business when we were told that the customer is always right. Sure, they may not have the greatest grip on the reality of the situation and they may misunderstand things every now and then, but when it's all said and done, they're supposed to be happy.

But in today's world of lawsuits and overzealous attorneys, it's quite apparent that ISPs couldn't care less about customer happiness and would rather perform acts that are suspect, to say the least.

Case in point: The FCC said on Wednesday that Comcast illegally interfered with file-sharing activities on its service and by slowing down BitTorrent traffic, failed to act within the auspices of the law and its agreement with customers.

"Our network management practices were reasonable, wholly consistent with industry practices and . . . we did not block access to Web sites or online applications, including peer-to-peer services," Sena Fitzmaurice, a spokeswoman for Comcast told the Washington Post.

But were the company's practices reasonable? That's debatable. But one thing is abundantly clear: ISPs have lost all value in customer relationships and over the past few years, have shown their severe distaste for consumers.

In an interesting interview last week with the San Jose Mercury News, EA's CEO, John Riccitiello said although his company is doing quite well in the video game space, it committed a major blunder earlier on in this generation and now it's trying to play catch-up.

"One thing that's different [this generation] is we typically figured out who the market leader was going to be before the start of the cycle and bet with our development resources on that platform," Riccitiello told the Mercury News. "We made the wrong call there (by betting on the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360), which made this transition harder than it would otherwise be. But now we're catching up, and I think we're fine."

Regardless of whether or not EA actually is fine, don't you think the company should have admitted this long ago? And let's also not forget that EA isn't alone in this. Countless other developers have denigrated the value of the Wii and even today, most of them don't want anything to do with it even though it's selling like gangbusters.

It needs to stop. Instead of clinging to the faulty belief that only Sony and Microsoft matter in the software space, developers need to start focusing more on the Wii and develop games that are not only innovative, but more in the vein of those titles they're creating for the competing consoles. And in the end, I think we'll all win.

After a process that took more than a year and officially set the record for the most ridiculous merger mulling in the history of the United States, the FCC finally approved the XM-Sirius merger by a 3-2 vote down party lines.

And although its treatment of this deal was bad enough over the past year and a half, the final outcome is even worse. It not only solidifies my belief that NAB has the ear of the FCC, but that both organizations are extremely concerned that satellite radio will finally become a major force in radio.

According to reports, "the companies agreed to a three-year cap on prices, set aside 8 percent of their channel capacity for minority and noncommercial programming, and agreed to pay $19.7 million for past FCC rule violations. The companies also agreed to bring interoperable radios to the market within a year."

On top of that, the FCC will embark on a new initiative to explore the possibility of including HD radio functionality into the XM and Sirius radios. That said, it didn't go so far as to make it a requirement just yet.

And while some believe that this deal is a major blow to terrestrial radio, I think that argument is hogwash. The reality of the situation is that XM and Sirius were led around by the nose while the FCC and companies like Clear Channel did everything they could to weaken the two firms.

Earlier this week, Apple started a firestorm by telling its shareholders that Steve Jobs' health is a private matter. I argued both here on The Digital Home and on CNBC's Closing Bell, that Steve Jobs' health does matter and with no heir apparent in sight, how can shareholders feel secure in their investment?

I won't rehash the argument here, but it does beg one question: where is that heir apparent and who is he or she?

Apple, unlike almost every other company in technology space is so tied to its CEO that whenever he appears on TV or says anything of substance, it becomes a major media event and has an impact on the company's stock price. Beyond that, I would argue that there hasn't been one CEO currently sitting atop a company that has had the kind of impact Steve Jobs has had.

Think of it this way: before he was ousted, Jobs was the most important element in Apple's strategy. Sure, he made mistakes and the company suffered, but his tenacity was what kept that company going.

After this ouster, Jobs watched on the sidelines as his company fell into a malaise. The company's executives presided over an extreme degradation in the Apple product and practically everyone was wondering how long it would last.

And then, Steve Jobs came back and, well, saved the day. He presided over the greatest gain in shareholder value the company had ever seen and restored his company to the position of one of the most feared, yet popular brands in the business. Along the way, he made countless investors multimillionaires.

There are times when I read the news in the morning and I can't help but wonder what some people are thinking when they announce something new. Usually, that amazement revolves around weird products or dumb deals. But today, it's something entirely different: a tax on Internet use.

According to The Independent, Internet users could face an annual tax of 30 British pounds (about $60) to download music over the Web in an attempt by the music industry to use Internet service providers to stop illegal downloading.

"U.K. Culture Secretary Andy Burnham is supporting calls from sections of the music industry for a yearly levy of 20 pounds ($40) to 30 pounds ($60) to be imposed by ISPs on customers who want to share music," The Independent reports.

Obviously blind to the implications of this arrangement, the music industry believes it could actually help a larger portion of the public, who would have otherwise been criminalized at the hands of illegal downloading. Not to mention, it could recoup the industry's estimated $2.4 billion in annual losses at the hands of illegal downloading.

"If you get enough people paying a small enough amount of money you can turn around the wheels of the music industry," music industry veteran Peter Jenner told the publication.

"Both ISPs and the music industry need to take responsibility for this issue. But we need action as the industry is suffering," another industry insider told The Independent.

Yikes. Is this really where the music industry is going next? Sure, it's just in the U.K. right now and there's no indication that it'll go elsewhere, but don't you think that if it works there, it'll come here?

Once again, the low-hanging fruit is the victim.

"Steve loves Apple. He serves at the pleasure of Apple's board. He has no plans to leave Apple. Steve's health is a private matter," said Tim Cook, Apple's chief operating officer on a conference call with investors on Monday.

Since then, investors have been calling for an update on their CEO's health -- to no avail.

"Every client call today I've had has brought up the health issue," said Charles Wolf, a securities analyst at Needham & Company to the New York Times. "I think the drop was based on the margin; that's when the stock really cratered."

Regardless, it brings up an interesting question: does Steve Jobs' health matter? Sure, he's a CEO of a public company and his decisions will have a major impact on shareholder value, but should his own health matters stay private? After all, I don't want my health records displayed in a public forum and it's not something that I enjoy talking about.

It makes sense for his health issues to be private, right?

Think again.