G4
EZ EE
KLMNO With new line of iPods, smaller isn’t always better
two-finger gesture. Past Nanomodels havemade
ROB PEGORARO Fast Forward
T
he iPod isn’t even nine years old. But that’s been enough time to dull the
marvel of a pocket-size device that costs less and holdsmore music thanmany CD racks. Each year, Apple’s lineup of
media players gets a little smaller, and each year the results — while evidence of extraordinary engineering — don’t quitemake the case for upgrading. The latest crop of iPods,
introduced Sept. 1 at amedia event in San Francisco, shows that aminiaturizationmind-set still rules at Apple. But it also shows that gadgets can be too small. Consider themost compact in
the new lineup, the iPod Shuffle. It’s a wafer of a device — about an inch and a half long— and unlike its immediate predecessor, it includes a set of physical buttons to control playback. But on thismodel, $49 for
about two gigabytes of flash- memory storage, there’s almost no roomoutside those controls to undo the clip without pressing the previous-track button. Using its clever “VoiceOver” spoken-word interface (which gets around the lack of a display by reading titles of songs and playlists to you) requires pressing a tiny, unlabeled button. Like every Shuffle but the
first version, the new Shuffle relies on a non-standard variant of Apple’s proprietary iPod cable; try not to lose it. The evenmore problematic
iPod Nano ends a history of steady improvements to this flash-memory player. Although this year’smodel — $149 for an 8 GB version, $179 for 16 GB — is smaller than its tiny ancestors, it had to sacrifice their elegant, efficient ClickWheel controls to fit into a case about just two inches on each side. In their place you’ll find a
touch-sensitive screen that looks terrific but can be amess in daily use. Numerous actions require skipping back and forth betweenmenus with gestures of varying intuitiveness — forget using it without looking at the display. Its nearly square shape alsomeans you’ll likely be looking at a sideways screen until you flip the display into the correct orientation with a
good running companions, but forget about this one — even if it incorporates a nifty pedometer application and supports Apple’sNike+ run-tracking technology. In the winter, you’ll need to remove your gloves (or buy special touch-screen- friendlymodels) to tap its icons. The new Nano also nixes not
only the older unit’s ability to record video, a defensiblemove, but also its video-playback options. Considering the features jettisoned fromthis model, it almost looks like a research project that wasmeant for focus-group testing but somehow escaped to volume production. Only the updated iPod Touch
represents amajor advance. ThisWiFi-enabled gadget catches up to the new iPhone 4 in a variety of areas. Its screen offers the same absurdly high 960-by-640 pixel resolution; its faster processor and upgraded motion sensors let it play the same games as the iPhone 4; it includes video-capable cameras on the front and back;most importantly, it adds a microphone. That last feature allows you
to use the new Touch — within areas ofWiFi access— as a sort of AT&T-liberated iPhone. Beyond browsing theWeb and checking your e-mail, you can place and receive phone calls with Skype and other Internet- calling programs (pity that Google’s Google Voice is not among them) and stage video conferences with iPhone 4 owners and other Touch users in Apple’s FaceTime software. The cameras on the Touch
can record 720p high-definition video, but they’re woeful for taking still photos, thanks to their low resolution and fixed focus. The Touch — since earlier this
year, the best-selling iPod — starts at $229 for an 8 GB model. That seems like a lot,
ROB PEGORARO/THE WASHINGTON POST
In the newiPod Shuffle model, left, which runs $49 for about two gigabytes of flash-memory storage, there’s almost no room outside the controls to undo the clip without pressing the previous-track button, thus proving that smaller isn’t always better.
HELP FILE
Q:When listening to music fromWeb radio site onmy MacBook, is there away to tape that music on a cassette recorder?
A: TapingWeb radio might seem the equivalent of using a photocopier to take a screengrab of a laptop’s display. But if you don’t own an MP3 player or smartphone but do have a car with only a tape deck, it will let you takeWeb radio on the road.
To do that, you need a Y- adapter patch cable with a 3.5
mmheadphone jack on one end and a pair of red and white RCA stereo connectors on the other. You can pick one up for $5 or so, although some stores may only stock $20 models with gold- plated plugs. Run the patch cable from the
laptop’s headphone jack to the audio inputs on your tape recorder, and then the fun begins: Getting the volume loud enough to ensure that quieter passages don’t get lost in tape hiss, but not so loud that the recording exhibits “clipping”
effects that can sound like your speakers just blewout. Try about two-thirds of the computer’s peak, record a song and play it back to check the results. If you have a smartphone,
however, it’s easier to take that in your car. SomeWeb-radio programs, such as Slacker’s iPhone, Android and BlackBerry applications, can store broadcasts for offline listening, though that may require an extra subscription. Q: A guy I used towork withwas killed in a plane crash, but his
Facebook account is still open. Howdo I get it closed?
A: Facebook has two ways to deal with this sad event
(
facebook.com/help/?faq=13941) . It will “memorialize” the deceased person’s profile— removing “more sensitive” data and letting only existing friends viewthe page—if you report the death through a form on its site (you’ll have to cite a news story or obituary about the death). Immediate family members can also use that form to request the
account be closed. (Post Co. chief executive
officer Donald E. Graham sites on Facebook’s board of directors, and the Post and many Post staffers market themselves on the site.)
Rob Pegoraro attempts to untangle computing conundrums and errant electronics each week. Send questions to TheWashington Post, 1150 15th St. NW,Washington, D.C. 20071 or
robp@washpost.com. Visit
voices.washingtonpost.com/fasterfo rward for his Faster Forward blog.
considering that a 32 GB version costs just $70more, and $399 buys a 64 GBmodel. For stillmore capacity, you’ll
have to buy the iPod Classic, which remains unchanged at $249 for 160 GB. While Apple has been
tinkering in less-than-useful ways with itsmedia-player inventory, the rest of themarket has been evolving.Most smartphones now come with music-playback software that does the basics passably well— certainly as good as the new Nano.With the demise of
proprietary “digital rights management” controls oniTunes Storemusic, the only thing tying you to Apple’smusic lineup is Apple’s iTunes program, which will only syncmusic to iPhones or iPods. But Apple’s developers seem
to have lost their way with the new iTunes 10. Its Ping social networking feature doesn’t connect to other networks — forget looking up Facebook friends — and can’t even be
used fromoutside iTunes. It is just as closed and limited as Apple’smediocre, expensiveMobileMe data- syncing service. In terms of performance and
interface, iTunes 10manages the rare feat of fitting poorly in Windows while also looking like amisfit inMac OS X. The iPod Touch has
considerable potential as a
miniaturemobile communicator. But as far as music playback goes, the iPod might be nearing the end of its white headphone cord.
robp@washpost.com
Living with technology, or trying to? Read more at voices.washingtonpost. com/fasterforward.
SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2010
Prudential, other firms probed on payments to soldiers’ families insurance from G1
inability to stop Prudential’s bad behavior.” That theVAallowedPrudential
to issue retained-asset accounts for 10 years while the contract required lump-sum payouts is “more evidence that the VA was asleep at the wheel for a decade,” said Sullivan, who was a project manager and analyst at the VA from 2000 to 2006. “When grieving families check
the box that they want a lump sum, they should get it. We re- main disappointed and irate at theVA’s failure to provide advoca- cy for veterans,” he said. Since July 28, when it was first
reported that Prudential sent checkbooks instead of checks to survivors requesting lump-sum payouts, state and federal offi- cials have demanded that the retained-asset system be investi- gated and reformed. The VAitself launched a probe of its life insur- ance program the day the first story was published. The next day, New York Attor-
ney General Andrew M. Cuomo launched what he called a “major fraud investigation” ofPrudential and other life insurers over their use of retained-asset accounts. Since then, Cuomo’s office has issued subpoenas to Prudential and at least 12 more insurance companies. The insurance departments in
Georgia and New York have also opened probes. The U.S. House Oversight and Reform Commit- tee plans to hold hearings into Prudential’s use of retained-asset accounts to pay money owed to fallen soldiers’ survivors.
‘News tome’ Defense secretary Robert M.
Gates — who was in office when the2009agreementwassigned— saidwhentheVAstarted itsprobe
that he had been unaware that survivors were being sent re- tained-asset accounts. “Until today I actually believed
that the families of our fallen heroes got a check for the full amount of their benefits,” Gates said at the time. “This came as news to me.” As a result of the VA probe, the
agency announced last week that it will change its insurance pro- gram, allowing survivors to re- quest and receive lump-sum checks. Under Prudential’s original
1965 contract with the VA and a 2007 revised contract — both of which were released as part of the FOIA response — the insurer is required to send lump-sum pay- outs to survivors requesting them. The contract covers 6 mil- lion active-service members, their families and veterans. The checkbooks Prudential
sends to survivors are tied towhat the insurer calls its Alliance Ac- count. The checkbooks are made up of drafts, or IOUs, and aren’t insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Prudential in- vests the survivors’ money in its general corporate account, where it can earn the insurer as much as eight times as much as it current- lypays in interest tobeneficiaries.
‘Very strong claim’ Prudential held $662 million
of survivors’ money in its corpo- rate general account as of June 30, according to information pro- vided by the VA. Prudential’s gen- eral account earned 4.2 percent in 2009, mostly from bond invest- ments, according to regulatory filings. The company has paid survivors holding Alliance Ac- counts 0.5 percent in 2010. Families that were supposed to
receive lump-sum payments un- der the terms of the contract before it was amended in 2009
may be able to successfully sue Prudential for lost interest, insur- ance lawyer Bridgeland said. “Survivors would have a very
strong claim for interest earned by Prudential on their money,” he said. Prudential spokesman Bob De-
Fillippo said his company is fol- lowing the terms of its agreement with the VA. “Prudential is in compliance
with its contract with the Depart- ment ofVeterans Affairs,” he said. DeFillippo declined to com-
ment on whether Prudential was in compliance with its contract between 1999 and September 2009 or to answer any other questions. Prudential chairman and chief executive John R. Strangfeld declined to comment for this story. In July, DeFillippo said Pru-
dential’s retained-asset account was a useful service for bereaved relatives of soldiers. “Forsomefamilies, the account
is the difference between earning interest on a large amount of money and letting it sit idle,” he said. Survivors can withdraw some or all of their money at any time, he said. Veterans Affairs Chief of Staff
John Gingrich said the agency approved use of the Alliance Ac- count because it wanted to help survivors. “Weneededto giveanoption to individuals that allowed them more flexibility and time to react to the tragic family situation,” Gingrich said.
‘Blatant giveaway’ VA spokeswoman Katie Rob-
erts declined to say when Veter- ans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinse- ki, who was appointed by Presi- dent Obama in January 2009, learned of the existence of the 1999 oral agreement and the 2009 amendment. She also de-
clined to make Shinseki available for comment. The VA official who orally
agreed in 1999 to allow Pruden- tial to change the terms of the 1965 contract and begin offering retained-asset accounts was Thomas Lastowka, the VA’s direc- tor for insurance, according to Dennis Foley, a VA attorney. Pru- dential began sending Alliance Account kits to soldiers’ benefi- ciaries in June 1999. Foley said the 1999 changes to
the 1965 contract were valid, even if they weren’t in writing, because they were made by mutual agree- ment by people empowered to make such decisions. “It was changed by somebody who was authorized to change it,” he said. It wasn’t until Sept. 24, 2009,
that the changes agreed to by VA official Lastowka and Prudential in 1999 were put into writing.The 2009 amendment allowing Pru- dential to hold onto death benefit payouts was made retroactive to Sept. 1, 2009, not back to 1999. By putting in writing a change
that was orally adopted 10 years earlier, theVAis effectively trying to backdate the amendment, said Jeffrey Stempel, an insurance law professor at the William S. Boyd School of Lawat theUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas. “They’re trying to reinvent his-
tory,” Stempel said. “You really can’t do that. This is a blatant giveaway by the VA with nothing for the agency or the people in uniform.” Nine of every 10 survivors ask
Prudential for lump-sum pay- ments, the VA said. Prudential sends those families “check- books” instead of checks. Documents released in the
FOIA request show some signs of concern within the VA after Pru- dential proposed the retained-as- set accounts in 1998. Lastowka, the official who allowed Pruden-
tial to introduce the Alliance Ac- counts, said that the insurer’s “checkbook” system wasn’t pro- tected by the FDIC.
‘Aware of issues’ Lastowkasaid his e-mailshows
that the decision to allow Alliance Accounts was carefully consid- ered. “This e-mail demonstrates
simply that the VA’s Insurance program was aware of issues that might be raised asweimplement- ed the payment method and that weshould be prepared to respond to inquiries,” Lastowka said. “We were confident thatweweremak- ing a decision which would bene- fit survivors.” The FOIA documents show
that on June 10, 1998, Prudential gave a presentation to the VA. It included 10 pages of key points, saying the Alliance Accounts would benefit survivors because they would provide safety, flexi- bility in how and when to use their money, competitive interest rates and customer service. In fine print at the bottom of
one of the pages, was this caveat: “Funds in the Alliance Account are direct obligations of The Pru- dential Insurance Company of America and are not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.”
Incorrect conclusions Twelve years later, the issue of
the lack of FDIC protection in retained-asset accounts flared anew.
FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair
said in August that consumers could incorrectly conclude that retained-asset accounts were in- sured by the FDIC. “The insurance company must
take care to avoid implying in any way that these accounts are in fact FDIC-insured,” she wrote in a letter to state insurance regula-
tors. Some veterans’ families have
taken their complaints to court. Five survivors filed a federal fraud lawsuit in Boston on Aug. 30 against Prudential, claiming the insurer has earned asmuchas $500 million in profits by im- properly keeping beneficiaries’ money instead of paying it out in a lump sum. The suit, Lucey vs. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, said the insurer fraudu- lently claims to beneficiaries that the Alliance Account is a lump sum.
Should be ‘made whole’ “Initiation of this ruse does not
constitute payment of anything to anyone,” the suit says. “The Alliance Account is merely a bookkeeping device used by Pru- dential to hold on to beneficia- ries’ money.” Prudential hasn’t yet filed a response in court. Spokesman DeFillippo said he can’t comment on the case. “It is important to note that
several federal judges have reject- ed claims against accounts like our Alliance Account, concluding that beneficiaries are in virtually the same position they would be in had the insurer sent them a check,” DeFillippo said. He cited the dismissal of a case against MetLife on Sept. 10. Insurance contract professor
Stempel said that regardless of the outcome of that lawsuit, it’s clear that Prudential and the VA wrongly manipulated a federal contract at the expense of mili- tary members and their relatives. “At a minimum, survivors
ought to be made whole with their missed interest,” he said.“The VA really seems to have hadthe best interests of the insur- ance company at heart, instead of those of the soldiers and their families.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192