Geek Swagger.
Archive for May, 2008
3G iPhone rumor roundup
May 13th
If you follow Apple news at all, for the last week or two you've been absolutely drowned by the tidal wave of rumors, information leaks and otherwise about the long-awaited 3G iPhone. My personal favorite website for following such things is , just because I like the layout of their site and I can quickly hit up the home page for small stories that tell me what I need to know, but that's beside the point. What I'm trying to get at here is that for a while everytime I've checked out MacRumors there's been at least one or two new posts about information regarding a new iPhone, whether rumored or authentic. I'm honestly kind of tired of hearing about it, I mean at this point the 3G iPhone might as well be confirmed. I don't need anymore evidence...I wish Apple would just put something on their homepage saying here's the cost, here's the specs, here's what's new and get it over with. The assumption though is that we'll have to wait until (June 9th is Steve Jobs' keynote) for confirmation. That being said I want to go over some of the rumors and such like ahead of time in this post.
Let's start out with the big one - the iPhone is supposed to get 3G access. If you don't know about 3G, it's a much faster network than AT&T's current Edge which the iPhone is limited to. In preparation for this article I've spent some time watching of loading a website on Edge and loading the same website with 3G, and I have to say for the most part the difference isn't mindblowing. For as big of a deal as people made about the first rev of the iPhone not having 3G you would think the difference would be substantial. After watching these videos I'm pretty content that, if I owned an iPhone, I would definitely prefer to use wifi even if I was able to use a 3G network. Of course the videos I've seen might just be representative of an area with bad 3G coverage and I've heard a lot of different opinions of 3G (some people saying it's much faster than Edge, others saying the difference is negligible) so it's not a guaranteed boost. Like I said, wifi still seems to run the show.
The biggest reason for 3G not being enabled for the first iPhone was that it's notorious for devouring battery life. That's a concern that most iPhone users have brought up - sure 3G is great but at what cost? If you can only use your phone for an hour what's the point? That's where the next rumor comes in - there's a presumed to be one of the 3G enabled phones which has a toggle switch to turn 3G on/off. That means that you won't be forced to use 3G when you don't need it and you can save some battery life. Obviously to see the iPhone software referencing a 3G network also gives more evidence to back up the announcement in the first place. I think that's a necessary feature, nothing really surprising or anything but like I said it gives more credence to the rumor.
Next up is the rumor which fulfills another highly requested feature - proper GPS. The iPhone has which does a pretty decent job without actually having true GPS built into the device. The only problem of course is that the iPhone will only give you a rough estimate of your location instead of pinpointing it exactly, but for the most part I think it suffices. Well, another of the rumored upgrades to the iPhone is integrated GPS. That's great, but again it's another feature that will destroy battery life. At this point we're at like a half an hour of battery life if you're running both 3G and GPS simultaneously (I'm joking of course, but it makes you wonder). I hope they have a beefed up battery to go along with all these other upgrades - personally I think this one is kind of a bust. I can't see them introducing both the 3G and the GPS at the same time, especially when I think Apple would like to maintain a healthy relationship with Google. Think about it, Google Maps, ? Google Docs, Reader and Gmail all have to be pretty popular on the iPhone (especially after comes out and applications can be developed). Most importantly is the battery life though, and because the iPhone doesn't have a user-replaceable battery (and therefore there's no option to buy backup batteries) I can't see it going down.
The next batch of rumors all have to do with the iPhone's aesthetics - there has been a lot of information leaked from case manufacturers as far as dimensions go and it would seem that there are some subtle differences. Here's a quote that basically details the changes:
Companies overseas have already started working on products for this one, which is basically the same size as the current iPhone, but has slightly different curves, coloration, and materials. Specs for either or both of these models could be nothing more than disinformation put out to burn developers, but they could also be correct.
Basically the rumored changes are that the phone's back is now tapered slightly differently and has a bit of a slope to it instead of a nice rounded corner, and it's supposed to be a bit thinner. Again, this kind of disproves the whole 3G+GPS deal, it's hard for me to imagine that Apple could make the iPhone skinnier while adding all of those extras but who knows. There has also been a lot of information about new colors - from and white to even red. There have been some pictures claiming to be the new 3G iPhone but it's still unknown whether they're official, fakes, or just pictures of upcoming iPhone cases.
Now Playing:
,
My new niece!
May 12th
There will be a proper post up tomorrow morning, but I had to post this first. My brother and his wife had an addition to the family today at 7:29PM! She came a few weeks early but everyone's healthy and that's all we can ask for! No name yet, but she came in at 18 1/2" long, weighing 6 pounds and 3 1/2 ounces (I feel like I'm introducing a boxer - "10 wins coming by way of knockout!").
Her parents put up a baby guessing game, there's a ...let's just say I was way off! I did notice that the closest guess was by Mark, he was only an ounce and a half off but I call shenanigans, I noticed his guess came on June 2nd, and of course today is May 12th. Guesses from the future don't count!
You can click the thumbnail to see a larger version. =)
I just got home from seeing her and it was amazing how alert she was! Congratulations Donny and Amanda! I know Lilly will be an awesome big sister.
Preview: Metal Gear Online
May 10th
This week I didn't get to finish any games despite making a lot of progress in Grand Theft Auto 4, but I figured it was a good time to talk a bit about the Metal Gear Online beta that I started playing a couple weeks ago. There's a lot of anticipation for Metal Gear Solid 4 and a lot of Playstation 3 fans are hoping that it's a "system seller" game that will jumpstart the PS3. Metal Gear Online is the first time the Metal Gear series has been given a multiplayer component, and there has been a lot of speculation as to whether or not Konami - a Japanese game developer - could make a multiplayer game that would appeal to a Western audience.
Let me start out by saying that the process of actually signing up to play the game was, to put it nicely, difficult. When the beta first went live I had to download a patch that was half the size of the entire internet, it left my PS3 running all day. Then, once the patch was done downloading, I was told politely to go to Konami's website to register for a username to play the game. "Alright" I said, "I've come this far, nothing can stop me now!" Nothing except for a website that is getting absolutely hammered with traffic that is. It took me three (yes 1, 2, 3) days to finally be able to register for a username. Not only that, but you actually have to register for two usernames, one is your Konami ID then the other is the actual Metal Gear Online ID. The best part about the whole process is that the site would tease me almost looking like it was going to work only to get to the very last step and crap out. Pretty infuriating. Also the in-game interface for getting into a lobby is kind of clunky, and actually joining a game can take up to five minutes. The nice thing about it taking so long though, is that people are more apt to stay in a game so once you get in you'll probably be playing for as long as you want, you don't have to worry about everyone leaving and having to sit through another five minutes to get into a different lobby.
The game strips out a lot of the classic gameplay mechanics most gamers love about the Metal Gear Solid franchise, particularly stealth. There's a game type called "Sneak Mode" which, it would seem, would encourage stealth but that ends up not being the case. Usually from what I can see the sneak mode always just falls apart into your typical team deathmatch. The premise for sneak mode is that two teams are fighting to get the most kills (whoever has the most at the end of the round wins) while one rogue player gets to play as Solid Snake with all of his gear. The only problem with that is that it seems like no one ever wants to be Snake, and if they do there isn't much of a tutorial on how to play him. What you're supposed to do as Snake is, because you're so well outfitted (you can use his active camouflage to hide, his robot friend to take down enemies) you can take out members of both teams as they try to fight each other. If Snake gets a certain number of dog tags without being killed (you get a dog tag by holding up a member of either team, effectively sneaking up on them and pointing your gun at them) Snake wins. Still, because the mode can be comprised of a bunch of players it can basically be like 15 players versus Snake, so let's just say Snake doesn't win very often.
If you aren't Snake then you get some pretty standard equipment - you can choose between a myriad of primary weapons (assault rifles, SMGs, shotguns) as well as side-arms (pistols, even a gun that shoots darts which knock out an opponent without killing them). There's also a nice selection of explosive devices ranging from your standard frag and flash grenades to more interesting goodies like claymore mines and C4. You acquire your kit by spending in-game money, each weapon costs a certain amount and you only start out with a limited budget. Then, as you play, you are rewarded with more money for doing well - for example if you kill someone from the opposing team you get some cash. Each time you die this cash is added to your initial bankroll of $1000 so you can improve your kit as you play. It's basically just like CounterStrike.
Where things get a little interesting is that you can equip different skills to your soldier sort of like perks in the Call of Duty 4 multiplayer. Some examples of skills are added proficiency with certain weapons (Assault Rifle bonus, Shotgun bonus, and so on) as well as bonuses for using certain explosives like the claymore. Additionally you can get bonuses that help you out in different ways, one of my favorite bonuses is the movement bonus which makes you faster. So really though, depending on what your skill set is your actual weapon choice is already chosen for you. That is to say if you give your soldier a bonus in assault rifles chances are you aren't going to be picking a shotgun as your main weapon as that's kind of contradictory. You can change your skills between rounds though, so if you want to experiment the option is there, it just won't happen during any one single round.
Another component of classic Metal Gear Solid games that is sort of missing in MGO is CQC - Close Quarters Combat. A lot of the fun of games like Metal Gear Solid 3 was sneaking up on a guard with only your knife equipped and slamming his face into the ground to knock him out. Sure, CQC is in Metal Gear Online but unless you're really good with it trying to take someone down in CQC is like giving yourself a death sentence. That's because of a couple reasons - one, the game is set up so that more often then not a team runs around together, so if you CQC someone (which doesn't kill them instantly, it only knocks them out) there's are really high chance that one of his buddies will just pump you full of lead while before, during or after you take them out. Secondarily, if you just knock your opponent down with CQC he can still fire his weapon from the ground - this is great if you're the person knocked down because it takes away some of the 'cheap' aspect of randomly getting knocked out, but at the same time it makes actually killing someone with CQC a big pain. First you CQC them then once they're on the ground you have to avoid their gun fire while you switch to a gun to shoot them - basically it rarely happens, especially because the mechanic for switching weapons in the game isn't very good. To switch weapons, equip camo, pretty much do anything you have to stop, hold the right trigger, then use your analog stick to flick through a bunch of different items. It's something I only ever do when I know I'm absolutely alone otherwise it spells disaster. All that being said, even if you don't kill someone it's really satisfying to jump out from around the corner and knock a guy carrying a big-bad assault rifle into the ground. You also get points just for the knockdown which is nice.
Another one of my gripes about the game (and a lot of other games) is that it has an auto-aim feature. Auto-aim should never be allowed in competitive multiplayer (yes, I'm looking at you GTA4!) because when using it one of two things happen:
1. You get a cheap one-shot kill
2. The auto-aim decides to lock on to someone or something other than the person attacking you, and you take a fall
You can choose to turn auto-aim off but that doesn't mean everyone else has it off so you'll still find yourself getting rocked from across the map with one shot all the time off of someone who got lucky with auto-aim. I think there's a setting in the server options to turn auto-aim off but I've played on quite a few servers and all of them kept the option on.
I know it seems like I've pointed out a lot of negative things about the game but all-in-all, it's pretty fun. Definitely the best multiplayer experience I've had on the PS3 so far (granted the other one was Warhawk which, after playing the Battlefield series as much as I have pretty much looks like a joke). The regular deathmatch and team deathmatch games are pretty fun, and as a shooter it holds up pretty well. It also has a cool capture the flag gametype where you not only capture the flag (in this case it's this little monster thing which spawns on the map) but you also have to coordinate with your team to take it back to your base and defend it for a certain amount of time to win. I had a lot of fun playing that gametype. Basically it was an overall positive experience and it's definitely a game I'll continue to play. I also look forward to playing the final release when Metal Gear Solid 4 finally drops on June 12th!
Also, one last thing I just remembered - the game gets points just for actually using the Greek letter for beta ( ß ) to denote the game is a beta version. =P
Music for free, what a premise
May 8th
This isn't exactly the newest news ever but it's something I had to comment on because it makes me happy to see. Trent Reznor of fame is now free from the stranglehold of a record label and, as a result, has been able to stick it to the recording industry by putting Nine Inch Nail's new album on the cheap. Really, really cheap. So like five dollars, right? I mean that's been done before. Take Radiohead for example, "just pay what you think the album is worth" they say....but now it has been taken one step further.
You can get Nine Inch Nails - The Slip right now for free. Not free and then pay later if you like it, just free. Not only that but you can get it roughly a billion different formats ranging from your standard .mp3 to better-than-CD-quality 24/96 WAVE all for free. What happens is you put in your email, the email addresses of a couple friends if you want to give them the heads up, and they email you the link. You hit up the page, decide which format you want and grab your free album. It's pretty much awesome, and I can see it becoming a bit of a trend as we move forward from independent artists especially. The reason? Well, piracy is an issue. Not nearly as big of an issue though as the people who see the negative side-effects of piracy without actually being pirates themselves. For example, I can buy an album but making a back up copy is
It's becoming more and more true that artists aren't apt to make money off of their actual music (even if they sell well they don't see a very big percentage anyways) but rather off of merchandising and live shows. The only problem with trying to sell merch and tickets is that you need people listening to your music first, otherwise they'll never fall in love with it enough to spend some cash. That's why giving away your music is so powerful. Without a monetary barrier in place there's a way higher chance that someone will pick up your music and give it a listen, even if they aren't a fan or aren't familiar with your music. I have known about Nine Inch Nails for a long time, even liked a few of their more popular songs, but wouldn't classify myself as a fan. Any other time if there was a new NIN album out I would say "that's great" and ignore it. When I heard I could get it for free though, I went ahead and did so. I'm just one person but I'm sure a lot more were in the same situation.
There are some artists that have made their careers on giving their music away for free - the first artist I think of off the top of my head would be . He gives away all of his music and has formed a huge cult following as a result. That's especially huge with the younger crowds, the people who are most likely to come out to a show and get into your music and most importantly spread it among their friends. If you look up a you'll see they're totally nuts, and I have to say a lot of that has to be because he's played to his audience and made it easy for them to get into his work. Another artist that's much less known (I've heard very little about him personally besides once that he was mentioned on a podcast) is . I heard a sample of one of Brad's songs on a podcast like I said, and I went out immediately and grabbed his whole album . It's really good stuff too, music that I would have missed out on had there been a monetary barrier in the way.
Now Playing:
,
Microhoo – The Aftermath
May 6th
. Microsoft showed interest in acquiring Yahoo around the beginning of February, and since then there has been a lot of drama and discussion about whether the move would be good or bad for Microsoft or Yahoo, what it implied, and whether the deal would ever get done. At least one of those three questions has been answered now - the deal has not been completed. On May 3rd one Steve Ballmer to Yahoo's Jerry Yang expressing his appreciation to the Yahoo staff for their cooperation during the proceedings, and also admitting his remorse that the acquisition never happened.
Late last week everyone was absolutely sure that Microsoft wouldn't be backing down. In fact, I listened to over the weekend and a notable Microsoft pundit and author of "" - - said that she was positive the deal would be done the day after the podcast was recorded. I think they said the recording happened on May 1st, so that would be May 2nd that she was sure it would go down. Much to our (and her) surprise though, it was not to be. Why was everyone so sure though? Steve Ballmer held a at Microsoft presumably speaking about the situation of the acquisition. Ballmer isn't noted for his subtlety or willingness to submit, so the natural assumption was that he was speaking about how he planned to go the distance and do whatever needed to be done to get the deal done. As it turns out, that was not the case.
Microsoft recently upped their bid for Yahoo to 47.5 billion dollars (or 33 dollars a share) in order to urge Yahoo along. That's a significant amount of money over the original bid which was 31 dollars a share (44.6 billion). In the end though, Jerry Yang insisted that they would not sell for any less than 37 dollars a share, which calculates to be a whopping 53 billion dollars. That's a huge sum of money, much more than Microsoft has ever spent on a company in the past, and so as of today Microsoft has stopped seeking Yahoo. A lot of people assume that the reason Yahoo increased their price was because , offered some help to Yahoo, and urged them that they were getting a bit of a raw deal from Microsoft. If that's the case then I have to question Yahoo's commitment in that case as Google is a direct competitor to Yahoo. Not only that but it's absolutely in Google's interest that this deal was not completed.
It's no secret that the reason Microsoft wanted Yahoo in the first place was to compete with Google. Steve Ballmer is dead set on making a play in online advertising, and of course Google dominates that particular market. In joining with Yahoo the hope was that Microsoft would be able to pick up a lot of the search technology that Yahoo has developed over the years, and as a result become a better competitor for search. Also, just for reference, Microsoft is also competing with Google in other areas. For example they just unveiled a which enables file management and computing in the cloud (read the internet). The important thing to note about Live Mesh aside from its potential to be a really powerful tool is that it is poised to compete with Google's online suite. What I mean by that is Google's document and spreadsheet application available as . Computing in the cloud is the next big thing and despite these rather modest beginnings it's important for Microsoft to get moving in the field as soon as possible so they aren't blown out like they were with online advertising.
With all that said I sort of feel like this was the best move for Microsoft. There was already so much criticism aimed at Microsoft for wanting to get Yahoo. Yahoo, although they're a fine company, isn't exactly doing these days. Not only that but it was assumed that a lot of the most talented people at Yahoo weren't really into working for Microsoft, so the potential for Microsoft to let a lot of valuable engineers slip through their hands was a consideration. So really, it's a good move to hold off. Like I said at the beginning of this post though, Ballmer isn't known for backing down. What I mean by that is that I wouldn't consider this issue "down but not out." Now that Yahoo has denied Microsoft the acquisition their stock is expected to drop off while Microsoft will see a bit of a boost. Therefore, there's a possibility that Microsoft will just wait for Yahoo's stock price to drop a bit and then they'll come back to Yahoo and say "hey, remember that deal? See how bad you're doing now that you didn't accept? We can't offer you our original bid but we're still interesting in acquiring you so that you can recoup some of the costs."
We shall see...
Now Playing:
,
Buy, Borrow, or Bury: Rainbow Six Vegas 2
May 3rd
Let me start this edition of Buy, Borrow, or Bury by apologizing for not getting a post up last weekend. I had finals the week before, so I didn't get much of a chance to play anything. Anyways, enough excuses! This week I'm going to review Rainbow Six Vegas 2, the follow-up to the renewal of the Rainbow Six franchise surprisingly titled Rainbow Six Vegas. I know, I know, how do they think these names up right? =P
When the preview videos and screenshots started surfacing for this game a lot of people were worried because, for the most part, it seemed like more of the same. With games clocking in at $60 these days no one likes to see that. I kind of thought the same thing when I saw the videos but there's one important thing to note - the videos (at least the ones I saw) were all of multiplayer games and nothing of the single player campaign. They were showing a lot of the same maps from the first game, plus a lot of the same weapons and it just looked like the same thing. I can say that that's basically the case. For the most part, the multiplayer is identical to how it was in Rainbow Six Vegas, plus some guns, maps, and modes.
If you didn't play the Vegas 1 the game is basically a tactical shooter. As far as the multiplayer goes that means you start out on a squad with some of your friends and you play against an opposing team. There are your standard gametypes (deathmatch, team deathmatch) as well as the cooperative terrorist hunt gametype where you hunt down enemy AI opponents with your friends. There are a ton of different weapons ranging from assault rifles, sub machine guns, light machine guns, pistols and so forth. You can also outfit your character in different clothing and armor which adds a whole new element to the game - should you go with minimal armor in favor of mobility or load up on armor and move slow as a turtle? The choice is yours, and you can always just go for the middle of the road and get the both of best worlds. If you have an Xbox Live vision camera you can also scan your face and apply it to your in-game character which is cool.
There are some additions to the multiplayer this time around though that weren't obvious in the videos. First off, this time the story mode is completely cooperative. When you're playing through the normal single player story campaign you'll be listed as "needs help" in the Xbox Live guide. That way your friends know that you're playing alone and can jump in to help you out if they'd like. It's pretty handy on those spots where you're stuck, just ask a buddy to join you and you'll get past in no time. Plus everything's more fun with more than one person I think. Another thing they added is you can now earn ranks for multiplayer in the single player mode. In Vegas 1 whenever you got a kill or won a round you would get some points. After you won a certain amount of points you would rank up and earn new gear. Now you also get awarded points in single player which is pretty nice. I played through the entire single player campaign and I think I earned about 5 ranks or so, so when I went online I could really pimp my character out with armor and weapons.
As far as the single player goes, I think it's amazing. As I said at the beginning of this review there was some concern because of the multiplayer videos that were posted, but the single player in Vegas 2 really steps it up over Vegas 1. They made it so that nearly every room was fun to play by adding multiple points of entry. What this means is, you can attack through the doors, go to the roof and breach down through a highlight, get to the room through a stairwell - there's a ton of possibilities. Of course you also command your AI squad members, so you can breach a room filled with bad guys from multiple different directions at once and confuse the enemy. I think half of the fun I had with the game was planning and executing an attack and watching things play out. It's really fun, and it was way too underused in Vegas 1. Like I said this time around it seems they set up every room to have different ways to play it if you want. They also added levels that play perfectly to this idea of using ropes and positioning to get through. For example, there's a level early in the game where you're in a rock climbing gym, and so obviously there's a ton of fast ropes and rappels for you to use to navigate around the level. The enemy can use the same strategy though, so you always have to watch your back!
Another nice thing about the game is the pacing of the story. Let me preface this bit by saying that the story is kind of garbage. It's completely incoherent and I had no idea what was going on the bulk of the time all the way up until the end. Still, that's not really what you play a game like this for - you play it to feel like badass swat team member taking down terrorists! That being said, they paced the progression of the game really well. Instead of being split up into separate levels they split the game into 7 different chapters, each with about 4 acts (an act is kind of like a short level). At the end of most acts and especially at the end of each chapter something epic happens. Whether you go down in an amazing firefight, some explosion happens, you rescue someone - something ALWAYS happened at the end of the chapter to keep me interested. That's a big improvement from Vegas 1 where only one or two intense moments went down in the entire game.
This game surprised me. I went into it not expecting much and came out with it pretty amazed at how good it was. It kept me so interested that when I picked up GTA4 earlier this week I played it for a little bit and put it back away so that I could go back to Vegas 2. With all of the hype that has surrounded GTA4 I think that speaks volumes. That being said, I'm going to have to give Rainbow Six Vegas 2 a Rent. That's not to say there isn't a lot of value there - the campaign is good enough that going back and replaying it is definitely an option (especially since they worked in the rank system to solo games) plus the multiplayer, although not exactly revolution, will keep you playing the game for a while. Still, there are some better games out there as there usually is, and if you're only looking for a single player campaign chances are you can buzz through the game in a week or so.
Thanks as always for reading, make sure to come back every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday for more new posts! If you have any questions or critiques please post a comment or hit up the contact page for ways to contact me. See you Tuesday!
TWiT goes live
May 1st
These days it seems like the prospect of doing just straight audio content on the internet is old hat. Now everyone wants to do video. A year ago was just starting out, and Justin would stream his life 24/7, even when he slept. Since then it seemed that live streaming of content, no matter how boring, has gotten more and more popular. There are sites like and that have a ton of viewers and let people broadcast in a manner of minutes as long as you have a webcam. I know that I've gotten interested in a few people's streams - first at and then more recently some YouTube members' streams that are a little more low-key.
So with all that being said it's no surprise that Leo Laporte has decided to take the TWiT network live. The brilliantly named , for now, showcases Leo as he records his . If you've watched his stream before things look a lot different now, he's since moved out of the top floor of his office and is now downstairs in a nicely furnished room. He sits behind a large wooden desk with his microphone and does what he does best, record podcasts. Yesterday was his first day of recording, and as I'm writing this I'm listening to him record the podcasts with from Mad magazine. I'm a huge fan of having something going in the background that isn't necessarily music, and I don't really listen to the Giz Wiz podcast very often, so it's kind of nice to be able to pop in and see what Leo's doing while I'm getting something else done.
It goes without saying that I was a huge fan back when it existed, I know I've mentioned that many times on this here blog. If you were a fan too and you somehow haven't heard of TWiT I'd suggest giving TWiT Live a look. Leo has said a bunch of times on his many podcasts that he plans on fleshing it out a bit more, he said he'll start inviting some of the panelists from the various shows to his office so that they can do videos of the podcasts with the entire crew present. So far I haven't had the chance to catch that in particular but it should be cool once it happens. He's also said that he'll probably get some people to hook up a webcam so that, even if they aren't available physically, you'll still be able to see him on a large display he's got next to him. When the Tech TV show called moved to Canada they used to do this all the time, guests on the show would be on via webcam. It's really nothing new, but it should be interesting none the less!
All of this leads me to wonder where we'll go next. Because the technology is sort of limiting, the bulk of this online video streaming content has someone sitting behind their desk in front of their computer doing God knows what. Needless to say this can get a little boring after a while. TWiT Live is different because Leo's actually producing content while he's broadcasting, but that's not true for the bulk of broadcasters. That's where comes in. What Qik does is use video-capable cell phones to stream video just like a web cam, only they're obviously much much more portable. I've watched some of these videos too, mostly content from notables like and . When I was watching Kevin's stream he was broadcasting a that was pretty funny. As far as Veronica's Qik videos I've only seen one where she was folks about a cold that was apparently going around. The cool thing about all of this though is that Qik takes video broadcasting on the road. The only downside to Qik is that right now it only works with certain Nokia phones (, collect the whole set!) so it's not exactly open to anyone.
Now Playing:
,
