TRST_Blog

(via Yoann Lemoine aka Woodkid — h/t Jeff Hamada)

(h/t Matthew Mattice)

Image Unavailable: Valentine Goods Leather iPhone 4/4S Back - Back Profile

I have been in the market for a "case" for my iPhone 4S for a little while now. I tried as hard as I could to avoid having to do so, but as beautiful as the device is, it's just far too slippery. I work outside during the day and the danger of having my phone slide out of my pocket, fingers, or whatever is very high.

I searched far and wide, nearly everyone makes a case for the iPhone and the most prolific are those massive "full protection" cases, like the Otterbox Defender. I am not so fearful of dropping my phone that I want to wrap it in a bank vault, so I looked for alternatives. I had to stop and ask what exactly I needed in a case. Did I need protection from 0.50 cal. bullets (↬ "dabneybailey")? Or, did I want a bumper case made out of aluminum?

Continuing this exhaustive train of questioning I discovered that all I really needed was something to help with gripping my phone as I pulled it from my pocket. Moreover, I think the iPhone's design is gorgeous, so I want a case that preserves that aesthetic as much as possible.

With my requirements in hand I stumbled across the internet in pursuit of my perfect case and found the Valentine Goods Leather iPhone 4/4S Backs ($25-$60 depending upon design). The New York based company specializes in designing and producing what are essentially big leather stickers for your Apple products. Their designs are incredibly diverse, ranging from simple black leather to very exotic stingray leather backings for your iPad, iPhone, and even your MacBook.

Image Unavailable: Valentine Goods Leather iPhone 4/4S Back - Side Profile

I ordered the Asphalt colored backing (although I can't be entirely sure why, I am more of a basic-black-or-tan kind of guy) and waited anxiously beside my mailbox. It arrived in a small envelope with the company's logo stamped on top. I apologize for not taking pictures of the arrival/unboxing but if you have ever bought screen protectors for any device you're not missing much here. Although, to be fair, those screen protectors weren't made of leather and didn't smell nearly as nice.

The process of applying the backing was very easy. It only took about a minute (I'm a perfectionist) and peeling and adjusting the leather was no issue whatsoever. The adhesive backing… Never mind, I'll just quote from the Valentine Goods product page:

The unique adhesive we use, specially made by 3M, makes for an easy and secure application with absolutely no residue upon removal. The backs can be removed and securely reapplied several times.

And I have found no evidence to refute their claims thus far.

The backing gives the iPhone's exterior a little soft "spring" to the touch. Which gives me far more confidence in handling my phone with my thick work gloves on, or even staying put in my device-destroying chino pockets.

I had not expected that the leather would be anything but smooth, however, its surface is (very) slightly textured. I suspect this a result of the design application process, but honestly, I have no real clue. Ultimately, I enjoy the feeling but if you are considering buying your own and rough texture is a deal breaker (for whatever reason), I would email their support staff before ordering.

My initial verdict: I like it. It fits my needs very well and the design is quite handsome. Moreover, it doesn't cover the beauty of my iPhone too much. At $25 some might find the price a little steep, but speaking for myself, I am a firm believer in value over price. At bottom I feel this was a great purchase and overall a great product.

(I am unsure whether a disclaimer is warranted or not, but I purchased this product with my own money. Valentine Goods doesn't know anything about my existence, perhaps, besides that I placed an order with them.)

I can't believe I missed it, but this blog officially had its first birthday on April 20th. I think this is a sign. It's time to put down the brown-bagged-40 and get back to work.

I love the song, and I really, really love the performance.

↬ Mark Mosher

There seems to be a smidgen of controversy regarding Mary Papova's newly created Curator's code. I have pledged my own support to the cause, feeling that there's some value in the project that is worth the effort. Some of my favourite writers disagree. The accounts I am referring to are those by Benjamin Brooks, Jim Dalrymple, [Marco Arment][5]. (There are certainly other arguments against, but I would like to focus on a specific feature of these accounts.)^[1]

[5]: http://www.marco.org/2012/03/12/not-a-curator 'I'm not a "curator" - Marco.org'

For anyone who isn't familiar with the Curator's code it is a short hand system of notation for attributing both original sources of content and referrals to original content. To recognize the former you use a ᔥ ("via") and for the latter a ↬ ("hat tip"). I won't paraphrase each of the complaints laid against the Curator's code (you can read them for yourself) but the way I read them, they each have the character couched in economics.

I understand the internet is a transaction medium for some, and perhaps even to most. There's a great economy in pageviews and visits that is the primary source of income for many bloggers. I am not one of those bloggers. So, it should come as no surprise that my argument disagrees entirely from those who do. I do not see attribution as being a tool of economics.

Attributing your primary and secondary sources is instead about respect. I have never placed a link at the foot of a post to try and compensate someone for their hard work that I profit from. No, they are the creator, they deserve all of the credit/profit/whatever. My role is merely to provide awareness (not that anyone reads this site) for things that I believe have value and that other people would benefit from knowing about. I am not, as Mr. Dalrymple or Mr. Brooks might say, trying to "steal other people's shit" and profit.

Almost the same goes for the "hat tip", if I find something through your weblog, then you should have some mention. I respect whatever work, regardless how small, you did to share that information with me. (Especially when you have taken the time to find the original source and attribute them as well.) Like with the content creator this is not an economic function. I am not trying to compensate you through pageviews, there is no check in the mail.

For each of the instances above the content creator and whomever shared that content with me are rewarded with my respect. That said, there is another significant benefit to consider: acknowledging all of your sources adds value for the reader.

To illustrate my point, imagine the difference between a "works cited" list and a bibliography. Every source who shapes the final product even if they are not directly quoted is included in the latter. In an essay, a blog post, an academic paper this only amounts to extra work for the writer, but for the reader it adds a greater dimension and depth to the work. Anyone could follow the narrative you have laid bare from conception to finished product in nearly the same fashion you did. They are able to verify and authenticate your work, hence, provide a strong foundation for further work to be done atop your own. And regardless the fact that they may never do so, the option is there should they choose.

To press forward with my analogy the Curator's code then becomes less of an directive and more of a citation style with an implicit claim to transparency. Like the academic world there are different citation styles, the web will undoubtably have different methods for attributing sources. Whether you employ the "via", "ht", or "source" syntax shouldn't matter, so long as you consistently take effort to give credit, spread awareness, and allow for your readers to better understand your own work.

That is what I hope the Curator's code stands for.