Yep, I have had my trusty iPhone 4s for two years and I plan to stick with it until the iPhone 6 comes out, or at least until it is introduced.  

The iPhone 5s looks interesting but the new features just aren't enough to make me want to sign another 2 year contract or pay full price for a new phone.  Let me explain the top 5 ways I currently use the phone and it may help explain why I am not updating:

1.  Other than phone calls, it is mainly used for emailing.  The iPhone 4s is perfectly fine for checking and reading email.

2.  Audio - I use iTunes Match, Downcast, MOG, SiriusXM, and iHeart radio on nearly a daily basis.  These work fine on the 4s.

3. Twitter - no issues on the 4s.

4.  Rowmote Pro - helps control a Mac Mini and jailbroken AppleTV that are hooked up to a TV.  The smaller more balanced design of the 4s is probably better than the longer 5 for this purpose.

5. Calendar, alarms, Siri - all work perfectly fine now.

In short, adding some length to the iPhone 4s and a little better processing power just won't change the way I use my phone.  The fingerprint reader would save a minute or so per day, but it is not worth the contract and price of a new phone for this purpose.  Also, while the camera (especially the flash) is supposed to be better, it still has a lot of compromises without a real zoom and 8MP files.  The downside to 8MP is the inability to use cropping as a way to zoom in on a far off subject.  I don't shoot video very often, so the slow motion effect doesn't hold any appeal.  In other words, these would offer little change in the way I use my iPhone.  Also, right now my iPad 3 and iPhone 4S use the same connectors.  I have a mount in my car based on this connector.  As a result, I am not in a big hurry to change to the new connector.

One of the main problems for old tech is simply boredom with seeing the same thing everyday.  It is why a lot of people choose to update annually.  However, with iOS7, I feel like new life has been breathed into the iPhone 4s.  It is already like having a new iPhone.

The only thing that would change the way I use the phone would be a larger size.   I would use Safari more often, Flipboard more often, Snapseed more often, and it would simply change the way I use my phone.  Yeah, I know Samsung makes great, large phones that would fit my needs, but I don't want to give up Airplay, Photostreaming, and the other features that work across the Apple system.  

Apple changes the physical form of the iPhone every other year, so I am expecting a larger iPhone next year.  I believe they will really push Siri and say that you no longer need to touch the entire screen with one hand because Siri is so "magical".  I think this is already possible, but it won't be marketed until Apple brings out the larger phone next year.  I also think they will continue to improve Siri and it will make it easier for everyone to envision using it on a more frequent basis.  I noticed just the other day that I can now ask Siri to take me to Bluetooth settings and it will take me right into Settings so I can connect to any of my Bluetooth devices.

If, for some crazy reason, Apple decides to keep the long, narrow design next year, I will have to unhappily move to another system.   I will just have to get used to using my iPad for Airplay and figure out a way to move photo files from whatever system I choose to my iPad and network for editing.  I have a Synology NAS that will probably make that easier than I expect.  I just haven't put in the time to investigate this issue because of my current expectations for the iPhone 6.

This article is a response to the "Death of the Home Stereo System" article at CNN.com.  My plan is to take sections of the article and reply to them as a modern day music fanatic.

"All I had to bring was my laptop. That's pretty much what everyone had," says Rubio, who attended Emory University in Atlanta and now works for a local marketing and communications firm. "It was actually pretty good sound. It would get the job done."
"Get the job done"? That sounds like the white flag for an era that used to be measured in woofers and tweeters, watts per channel and the size of your record collection."

I doubt people took their record collections and watts per channel everywhere they went back in the so-called "golden age" of audio.   Now you can plug in a Dragonfly DAC and connect a pair of quality headphones and get fantastic sound quality anywhere you can carry a laptop (which is everywhere).  Your mobile choices in the past were much more limited.  If you were lucky, you had a mobile cassette player that did not compare to the sound quality from this type of setup.

"What's happened in the marketplace, the midmarket for audio has completely been obliterated," he says. "You have this high-end market that's getting smaller all the time, and then you've got the convenience market, which has taken over -- the MP3s, the Bluetooth devices, playing on laptops."

I don't believe that these devices are a compromise as much as they are answering an issue related to portability.  Also, most "mp3 players" now handle lossless formats.  For the audiophile, this is a better option for portability than wheeling around your components, speakers, and record collection in a wheelbarrow.

Also, I don't believe the midmarket for audio has been destroyed.  There are tons of DACs, amps, headphones, speakers, and receivers that aim at the midmarket.  In fact, I believe audio quality is improving at lower prices with each passing year.

As an example, I have a $30 T-amp that produces decent sound with a pair of efficient speakers.  You could not come close to the price (especially when you use present value formulas) for this sound quality in the past.  

The plus side to receivers is that the tech in the high end market of yesterday is now available in the lower  priced ( less than $1000 - not sure what is meant by midmarket) market today.   I have an extremely cheap Sony receiver (I think it was around $200 when I bought it) in my office that has audio pass through (this is needed if you are using a separate DAC) and can play anything you throw at it.  The same features a couple years ago would have been over $1000, easily.   Actually, it has features not available in $5000 receivers from 5 years ago....like the ability to play HD audio formats via HDMI instead of having 6 component audio connectors.

"Greg Milner, the author of the audio recording history "Perfecting Sound Forever," remembers the process. There were components. There were boxes of tapes and CDs. There might even be some vinyl.

It could be a pain, no question. The equipment was heavy. There were all those wires, plugs and jacks -- Line In, Line Out, Aux, Phono, CD, keeping track of the positive and negative strands of speaker wire. It was an effort just to break down and set up the stuff, never mind moving it."

Exactly, these things weren't made for portability.  CDs and vinyl are both still around and more people are buying vinyl than they have in years.  However, CDs are often bought and then ripped to a computer in a lossless format for the convenience of playing anywhere. 

"However, we also started focusing more on visuals. Penchansky traces the decline of the stereo system to the early '80s rise of the music video, which brought visuals to the fore. Suddenly, the concert hall in your living room -- or the audio imaging in your head -- was gone, replaced by surrealist pictures overwhelming the television's tiny speaker.

That branch of consumption has helped lead to the home theater.

Penchansky has nothing against HDTVs and 7.1 systems, but believes that, for the most part, it's a "sonic compromise." With a pure audio system, "There was no way that television, even today, simulates the realism of visual experience the way (good) audio can simulate an audio experience."

I agree that the video had a lot to do with the popularity of the home theater.  However, I think it had less to do with MTV than Dolby's Pro Logic combined with the VHS tape.  This allowed a more immersive experience for movie fans.   When DVDs hit the scene, the typical 3 channel setup expanded into 5.1 for Dolby Digital and DTS.  The flexibility of listening to a stereo soundtrack and a more movie theater like experience made people move the two channel setup out of their main living spaces.  The addition of a subwoofer also added much more oomph to the low end of the audio spectrum, especially when compare to the typical bookshelf speakers many people were using.

Personally, I don't believe this has to be a trade off.  I have a vintage two channel Marantz receiver and my Denon surround system blows it away for two channel music and obviously for movies.  The Audyssey calibration software built into many receivers addresses acoustical issues with less than optimal rooms.  To me, this was a significant step up in sound quality for all audio sources.  

The author seems to think this is a sonic compromise, but I don't agree with that assessment.   Listen to Dave Mathews and Tim Reynolds on Blu-ray in TrueHD audio and tell me that a video and audio experience combined don't measure up.  The flexibility of a multichannel setup also allows the user to take advantage of DVD-Audio and multichannel SACDs.  To me, a two channel only setup is more of a compromise.   You can't even listen to the great RCA Living Stereo or Mercury LIving Presence SACDs with the third audio track (which is how they were originally recorded) with a two channel only setup.

"Now, why even bother?" he asks. "If you can take your entire music collection and more in something that fits in your pocket, why would you not do that?"

The upside to using audio files isn't just pocket portability (although that is a major factor).  It is also about having your entire collection available from anywhere, including every room in your house or streaming it to your computer at work.  In the past, if you wanted to listen to a CD in your bedroom, you may have had to go out to your car to get the CD before being able to play it.  You may have it on a rack in the living room or in a CD player in another system.  Now you can pull the music from a server (computer, NAS, hard drive) and play it without needing the physical CD.  I have Airplay devices all over the house and it is great to be able to play a lossless version of any album I own from anywhere in the house or even stream the audio to every one of those units at the same time.

Finally, this may or may not be the so-called  "golden age of audio", but I do believe it is the golden age for the music fan.  Convenience leads to people listening to more music.  Services like MOG and Spotify allow subscribers to listen to millions of songs or thousands of albums.  Last night, I was watching Leno on the Tonight Show and he had Gregory Porter as the performer.  I had never heard of Mr. Porter, but I enjoyed his soulful performance.  This morning, I pulled up his new album on MOG (in a very acceptable 320kbps) and listened to it on my Denon 4311Ci setup.  It was great!  In the so-called golden age of audio, I probably would have never heard from him again.  It was too expensive to spend money on a full album that I might not enjoy and I would have forgot all about by the time I made it to the record store.  

When I was a kid, I remember going to library and checking out a couple of albums (I seem to remember a strict limit of a couple of albums at a time).  If I wanted to dig deeper into the John Coltrane album collection, I was out of luck because they only had a copy of "Blue Train".  With MOG, I can listen to every album (or at least most of them) in his collection.  I can also just push a button to take me to similar artists if I want to continue to explore.  

I do believe there is a disconnect between the music fan and the audiophile.  Many music fans can listen to music on AM radio and enjoy it.  It is about the music.  The audiophile often listens to their equipment and concentrates on the inadequacies.  I admittedly have more music fan in me than audiophile, but I have spent money on DACs, headphone amps, and other things to improve the sound over a standard set earbuds.   Unfortunately, I think being an audiophile often leads to discontent and the inability to just relax and enjoy the music.   This doesn't mean I don't strive for the best bang for the buck sound, but I don't  continually chase sound quality when I am fully aware of the law of diminishing returns. 

In short, I believe this is the golden age for music!

There were rumors this week that Apple was testing a ...wait for it... 6 INCH IPHONE!  Yep, here is the story from MacRumors.

While there is no guarantee that Apple will actually make a phone this large, it is encouraging to know that they are at least looking at a design that is bigger than the current iPhone 5.  

Personally, I have a tiny iPhone 4S and my contract is up in October.  Actually, I had offers to trade it in earlier, but decided against it.  In the new age of LTE and having a fast connection all the time, my desire for a larger iPhone has only increased.

As I have explained on my Mac Attack page, I switched to using Mac computers after I bought my first iPad (the Original).  My enthusiasm for Apple was at an all time high and my love for their ecosystem only solidified that opinion.  I still love their ecosystem, but their choice of going with a thin "bookmark" (per David Pogue) design for the iPhone 5 was a disappointment.

While I wish that a bigger size was coming out this year, it isn't supposed to happen.  As a result, I have decided to wait until 2014 to see if they increase the size (width).  With Siri, is it really all that important to be "one hand" friendly?  I personally don't think so.   Personally, I use my iPad more than my iPhone and I can' t remember every wishing I could stretch my thumb all the way across the screen.  Unfortunately, if they stick with the "bookmark"  design next year, I am going to switch to one of the new phones from another company.  Apple knows that many of their clients want larger phones, so I expect them to make one.  

By the way, I don't know if a 6 inch phone is too big to fit in a pocket, but I suspect that Apple knows that it will need to fit in a pocket if it is going to be popular.   Also, some people will say that they followed other companies that make larger phones, but I really don't care.  They just need to make a better large phone...  The last time I checked, they didn't invent the smartphone, either.  They just made it better.

The media seems to cover Tim Tebow on a daily basis.  Typically, I see these articles on Yahoo's homepage, but ESPN and just about every other place that covers sports seems to cover him constantly, while at the same time, they tell us that he is irrelevant.  

The article today re-titled "Tim Tebow's Stubborn Rejection of NFL Team" (keep in mind that the actual title was "Tim Tebow reportedly turns down NFL team’s inquiry at position other than quarterback"), but Yahoo (not surprisingly) felt the need to rename it to fit their agenda of bashing him on a daily basis.

My personal story is that I am not a Florida Gator fan and keep my religious beliefs to myself.  However, I am a fan of football.  As a result, I saw the Phenom known as Tim Tebow when he played at Florida.  His stats were extremely impressive.  The list from Wiki follows:

"At the end of his college career, Tebow held 5 NCAA, 14 Southeastern Conference, and 28 University of Florida statistical records.[73] He was the SEC's all-time leader in career passing efficiency (170.8), completion percentage (67.1%), passing touchdown to interception ratio (5.5 to 1), rushing yards by a quarterback (2947), rushing touchdowns (any position) (57), and total touchdowns responsible for (145).[2][74] Among many mentions in the NCAA Division-I record book, Tebow is ranked second in career passing efficiency, third in career yards per attempt (9.33), 8th in career rushing touchdowns, and also owns the record for most consecutive games in which he both threw at least one touchdown pass and scored at least one rushing touchdown (14)"

I believe most of the people that hate him have no idea that he owns several passing records in the SEC.   If you only read Yahoo reader comments, you would be surprised that the guy could even throw a ball, much less have the all time SEC record for passing efficiency (second all time in the NCAA).

I don't think there is any argument that Tim Tebow isn't one of the greatest college football players in history.  The stats, Heisman Trophy, and NCAA Championships prove it.

So where does the NFL get its talent?  College Football is the obvious answer.  However, I am aware that Tim Tebow is not your prototypical quarterback.   The NFL leadership has always wanted "pocket passers".  "Pocket Passers" are guys like Dan Marino that sit in the pocket and deliver a bullet with a fast release.  In all fairness, I should mention that I am a fan of many of these particular QBs (they have dominated the league forever, so it shouldn't be a surprise).

Several years ago, in 2001, Michael Vick entered the league.  Under Dan Reeves, the Falcons changed their offense to fit with his abilities.  He was easily the most exciting player to watch in the league, but over the next couple of years, they constantly tried to change his style to become a "pocket passer".  Even though he never fit that mold, and despite his stint in prison, he was still given a chance to play with the Eagles.  So, on occasion, NFL teams have been known to take a chance and fit an offense around a player rather than selecting a player to fit an offense.

The NFL seems poised to accept more versatile QBs than ever.  Last year, RGIII, Colin Kaepernick, Russell Wilson, etc..  seemed to be bringing in a new era of the modern QB.  In the age of constant blitzing in the NFL, having a mobile QB that can move the ball toward the goal line has recently become more commonplace.  Also, the argument used to be that "running QBs" often get hurt.  All players are getting hurt these days.  Peyton Manning and Tom Brady have been the best pocket QBs in the league and both have had significant injuries.  

The public has only had one season to judge Tim Tebow's NFL performance.  In 2011, the Denver Broncos started the season with Kyle Orton as their starting QB.  He started the season 1-4 and was "pulled" in the 6th game of the season after the Broncos were behind by 16 points.  Tebow didn't win that game, but they only lost the game by 5 points.  I watched several of those games (I have NFL Sunday Ticket) and usually the Broncos would restrain what he was allowed to do until they had their backs against the wall.  As an example, in his first full game against Miami, the team was losing 0-15 after 3 and a half quarters.  The last three minutes of the game, they scored 15 points, took the game to overtime, and won.  As a result of this strategy, he had several "come from behind" victories during the stretch that lead them into the playoffs. 

In the playoffs, against the Steelers, he threw for 316 yards and two touchdowns (31.6 yards per catch is an NFL playoff record).  While I am not saying he was the greatest passing QB in the league, I think that there is proof that he can pass the ball when he is asked to even against a great defense like the Steelers had at the time.  I also think this provides proof that he is an NFL quality QB.   In the NFL, one playoff win over a several year career has been known to lead to 100 million dollar contracts.

Last season, the Jets rarely played him. Even when their starter was horrendous, he never got a shot.  The rumors were that the Jets owner picked him up without the okay from the couch.  As a result, the coach didn't want to play him.  The situation was similar in New England.  The owner wanted him, but the coach had no desire to put him on the roster.  

So, here we are with the NFL season just starting, and there is not a team that will give him a shot, even as a backup.  The Dallas Cowboys actually have Kyle Orton (you know, the guy that started 1-4 for Denver) as their backup QB even though Tebow has been shown to produce much better results with the exact same talent. 

While I am not arguing that there is a conspiracy (although, I am also not arguing against it), I do believe that most teams are afraid to use him as a backup because of the pressure that the fans would put on their starter.  Also, because his critics hate him with a passion, a coach would face a "told you so" media onslaught if he was played and it didn't work out (when was the last time ESPN spent hours discussing how stupid Jacksonville was for playing  Blaine Gabbert?  Do you think they would have the same restraint if Tebow had the same record for a team?).  Also, the team would need to run a different offense to take advantage of his unique skill set.  I wish one of the horrible teams in the NFL (Jacksonville are you listening?) would pick him up and set him loose.  I think it would be extremely entertaining.  Also, I would bet that their jersey sales and ticket sales would climb (possibly skyrocket).   

To get back to the article I mentioned, I don't blame Tebow for not signing on to an NFL team at another position at this point (assuming the rumor is true).  He made plenty of money in his few years in the league, so he doesn't have to throw away his dreams at this time.  There is a long season ahead and, if history is any indication, there will be QB injuries and he could still get a call.  If he doesn't eventually make a team this year, I would not be surprised to see him play in another league as a QB before playing a different position in the NFL.  A lot of people don't know about Kurt Warner's path to greatness, but I bet Tebow is aware of it.