I discovered yet another fold in the broad sheet of social media today. The new fold I’ve found is the modest (and highly occasional) accessibility of well-known strangers and celebrities.

My discovery began today when I was cleaning up my follow and followers lists on Twitter. I keep those lists quite short and tidy. I don’t follow a hundred people because those who I do follow I take a sincere interest in and care about almost everything they say. If what they say doesn’t interest me then I stop following them. Sorry if that sounds cold, but it’s reality and I think that while not everyone would state this feeling so clearly, it’s probably how we all operate.

Anyway, pouring over my list, I came to W. Brett Wilson, the flamboyant but gentle merchant banker who’s made untold millions of dollars financing energy projects in Alberta and has expanded his investments into other personal interests including sport and entrepreneurship. I do not know him at all, beyond his participation on a show I enjoy – CBC’s Dragons’ Den – and his Twitter engagement. Now let me be crystal clear. I have no issue with him. In fact I think W. Brett Wilson is a breath of fresh(er) air in Alberta – he is open-minded, charismatic, and unafraid to engage in discussion when it comes to the earth and our exploit of it. Aside from his energy exploits (and despite what some might call hypocrisy), he seems concerned about the environment. He would also be a healthy role model, in my opinion, save for his oil industry accolades. He travels extensively, maintains what appears to be a proactive work/life balance and has a daughter who was raised in a similar way to me – sent on sailboat adventures and encouraged to travel.

It’s because of his open-mindedness that I give him more credit than I would most of the people in the oil industry. And it’s also why I followed him on Twitter. But in my tidying up of my follow list today, I was reminded of his tweet a few days ago following Sarah Palin’s speaking engagement in Calgary, which he apparently attended. His tweet spoke about how he agreed with her statement that climate change science was unfounded. Such a comment drives me crazy; not because it is necessarily untrue – science is always up for debate, analysis and perspective – but because our famous oil and gas industries use the heavily spun climate change science conundrum as an excuse to march on; exploiting and destroying our environment and polluting our back yards. Keeping the science speculative and unfounded allows the industry to continue unabated. Not dissimilar, really, to the tobacco industry’s stance over cigarettes and cancer. It’s why their respective industries’ best lawyers are publicly considered scandals but also why they are so well paid – to keep decisive action stalled because inaction, stagnation and uncertainty are lucrative to the perpetrators.

Back to the social media stuff! When I read that Brett Wilson had sided (publicly, really, which is what saying anything on Twitter is, especially when you have over 2,000 followers, as he does) with Sarah Palin’s statement, I was disappointed. Frankly it didn’t surprise me that he was at her event; after all, he is in the oil industry and I think he’s open-minded and would want to experience her three-ringed circus act. But it did and does disturb me that he refutes the science that 98% of all climatologists, who don’t have an agenda for or against climate change, have agreed on. Like a Republican at a gun control conference, he hopes and prays the statistics are wrong, and will argue against them simply to save his livelihood. During today’s cull, I remembered my disappointment and decided to divest him of my allegiance and admonish him in front of my meagre 175 followers because of his stance.

I tweeted, “Sorry @WBrettWilson, you’re an interesting guy, but after saying Palin was bang on about unproven climate change science you got unfollowed.” I wrote that comment because I felt that my follower base would be interested to know that he agreed with Palin and the purported debate surrounding climate change science, and included his Twitter handle because perhaps just maybe he’d read it and know that some people are disappointed by his belief.

My tweet was mostly symbolic. The reality is that no one truly cares about what you have to say; perhaps they get a laugh, or care just enough to make a judgement or an opinion on your comment, and then life goes on. That’s how I approached it, anyway. As with the other 1,400-some tweets I’ve made, regarding everything from overcooked salmon to a government official’s cocaine charges, they are something that I’m prepared to publish but aren’t anything necessarily newsworthy.

Now, most people with status and truly something to lose by saying the wrong thing would disregard my message (if read it at all) and carry on with life. Interestingly, however, he tweeted back to me a short time later. “@c_d_u_b so much for dialogue or debate eh?  another one of those “we know everything” scientists?  oh well – you don’t follow me anyway ..“

Is this the part of the conversation where I’m supposed to a) ignore it, b) take it personally, or c) feel threatened, put in my place and run and hide? Well, I’ve always been a d) sort of person, so I decided to carry on with him. I wasn’t speaking out of turn in my opinion. He had shared publicly that he thought climate change was BS, and I shared publicly that he wasn’t worth following to me because of it. Enough said.

But what was most interesting was that he responded at all. Many celebrities tweet. I don’t know how many, but I do know that most do not engage their loyal audience. Their twitter usage is generally one-way communication. They speak, we listen. For them to engage their audience could potentially be a public relations nightmare if they get caught saying the wrong thing, or have what they said taken out of context. As I’ve said before, it’s a revelation for a celebrity or politician to tweet, because we lowly public get to see behind the carefully manipulated brand image (unless the twitter account itself is controlled, which happens often). For as much as it can cause concern, tweeting honestly and openly can in some cases reinforce the ethos and character of its author despite straying too far off message on occasion. Such as in this case. Not only did Wilson tweet his opinion on climate change science and Sarah Palin, but he took the time to respond and deal with my accusation head-on. I’m sure part of him was hoping I’d shy away and apologize or something, but what ended up happening was a real engagement of me – some normal, run of the mill guy who does not have millions of dollars or his face splashed all over Canadian public television. And his actions impressed me. They were out of character and entirely genuwine for a person of his stature, which seems to be his MO in a lot of ways. He’d rather talk about his opinion and my issue with it than dismiss it altogether.

The back and forth went a few tweets longer over the course of the day, and I’m happy to share them with you here. I’ll mention that shortly after his retaliatory tweet, I received what I initially thought was a random tweet from a woman named Leanne Bucaro, who goes by the Twitter handle @PRChick101. She tweeted: “@c_d_u_b  Your @WBrettWilson about unfollowing re climate change.  Twitter IS being part of the conversation and opinion unfollow=uncool IMO“. Sure, I thought, I’d started a real debate here. But of course, every leaf has two sides and I figured I’d better dig up a little background on her before replying. I Googled her and found that she is a public relations professional whose clients happen to include W. Brett Wilson. Good of her to stand up for her client, I suppose. If Wilson was a little less self-assured, I’m sure she would have stepped in a little harder, advised her client to stay silent and she’d put an end to it. But no, she was merely backing him up and he was continuing on his own tack.

All in all, I think it is remarkable and gentlemanly that he would stand up for his beliefs, no matter what they are, and engage random little me in a 140-character debate. I am proud of him and respect him for it. I decided to refollow him later this afternoon. If everyone on both sides of the climate change conversation could discuss their feelings we might be a bit closer to resolving the issue. While Wilson and I never got down to the nitty gritty, I know that he is now aware of my arguments, and I his. It’s a start.

cdub: Sorry @WBrettWilson, you’re an interesting guy, but after saying Palin was bang on about unproven climate change science you got unfollowed.

WBrettWilson: @c_d_u_b so much for dialogue or debate eh? another one of those “we know everything” scientists? oh well – you don’t follow me anyway ..

cdub: @WBrettWilson I did, Brett, & find you to be an admirable and open-minded guy. but CC science? Come on man. Don’t go tobacco industry on me.

cdub: @WBrettWilson I’d love to chat w/ you about it tho. You’re obviously a good guy. IMO the oil ind. is so protective; they should be proactive

cdub: @WBrettWilson final thought: Will the oil ind. actually shift if the science ever is proven or fight it until the bitter end? What is proof?

WBrettWilson: @c_d_u_b I am open minded – which is why I encourage debate – one side says there is no debate. Reminds me of the Flat Earth Society…

WBrettWilson: @c_d_u_b Why the focus on the OIL and Gas industry when its a pin prick on the map of China’s coal interests. We need all the facts. No?

cdub: @WBrettWilson Following you again. I appreciate that you’re interested in talking about this. More broad conversation is definitely needed.

cdub: @WBrettWilson My focus is on oil & gas b/c it’s happening in my country. How do we encourage change intl’y when we don’t act as role models?

cdub: @WBrettWilson So b/c China is worse we should be off the hook? We should be assuming leadership, not wait for others. Per cap. we’re worse.

cdub: @WBrettWilson lastly – I’m seriously thrilled that you’re into talking about this. Email if you want >140 characters. -address not quoted-

The next couple of days will be all about meeting with the bank, reviewing strata council minutes and eventually waiving the conditions on our intent to purchase. That must happen by Wednesday. Once our conditions are removed we’ll begin contacting our utility providers, booking our mover and packing. Lots of packing. And what we aren’t packing, I’ll be selling on Kijiji (anyone want one, two or three sofas?). At some point in the next ten days or so I’ll be heading back to the coast – by vehicle this time – beginning the arduous task of personally moving my wine collection. The movers want no part of it; or perhaps more aptly, they just want to be compensated a little too well for it. So we’ll do it ourselves.

Vancouver has once again been amazing. The skies have been blue and the temperatures positively spring-like. The daffodils and crocuses have been up for a while, and now it’s the magnolia trees that are beginning to blossom. The sticker shock of Vancouver real estate has started to wear off, although I’ll be the first to admit that your dollar doesn’t travel very far here compared to Calgary, but that’s probably because people really want to live here. On Saturday the beach at English Bay was packed with people enjoying the sun and resultant vitamin D. Everyone and their dogs are in a good mood. Let’s hope that our success, momentum and all of these happy feelings persist a few weeks more.

More thoughts soon.

It’s been a furiously-paced month. So much has happened. So many important events. And not just events pertaining to the Olympics, though they’ve been remarkable too.

Where to begin.

Well, let’s start with the big news. I feel that now, finally, I can come right out and tell you that we are moving cities. Indeed, in April, we will be moving to Vancouver. It was because of complicating circumstances regarding my own and my wife’s current employment that I was remiss to fully disclose this announcement earlier on. But it’s not that I didn’t want to tell you. We’ve been incredibly excited about how this has all come together, and were itching to share the news, but we knew it was in our own best interests to hold off until all the pieces were in place. The position that I accepted which led to my resignation from my most recent job involves moving back to the west coast, which is something we’ve wanted to do for years now – clearly I’ve made no secret about this desire several times on this blog.

We’ve already listed and sold our house. That happened a couple of weeks ago. We listed it, received an offer a couple of days later, and then somehow kept that offer in the mix for another week to see if any others would arrive. They did not, though we are satisfied with what we earned.

Prior to, and perhaps you could say during this period, we’ve been “spring cleaning.” Clearing the house of its junk and dust, and meeting the demands that things like open houses put on you. We’ve done this expertly; each week filling our recycling and garbage bins, with little to no stress involved in the finishing touches the night before we were listed. Our house remains clean and quite bare, with only the items that we will move and those destined for Kijiji still in our keep.

We’ll be spending next weekend in Vancouver scouting properties with a realtor who’s been keeping an eye on things for the past six weeks. While no one looks forward to a change of address, the stress of both selling our house and the prospect of moving are easily sedated by the fact that we’re going back to BC. Certainly, all of our efforts to date have been worthwhile, with more to spare.

It’s been four weeks since giving four weeks’ notice announcing my resignation from my current position, which means that yesterday was my last day. Leaving my position of four and a half years, I was asked by my colleagues whether I was excited, or sad, or anything. I didn’t really know how to respond. Still somewhat in shock about the decision that my wife and I have made in initiating this transition, I think the best way to describe my emotion was melancholy. I remain a fan and passionate about the magazine I worked for, and wish it and its staff nothing but the absolute best success in the years to come. I had a great send-off yesterday, which was the culmination of a very amicable final month, where I was able to put a defining finishing touch on my work. I only wish I could have helped train my replacement, however that person has not been found yet. But I must let it go. And I’ll be able to with what will amount to six weeks off between this and my next employment. That said, obviously much of it will be spent packing and cleaning.

I’ve decided that during my time off I will work on a project that will help me leave Calgary on a positive note. While I have never disguised my sour taste for this city, it would be good for me and it to come to terms before I leave (likely forever this time). Despite being born in Calgary, its lustre has somehow worn off for me and I’ve become very jaded – from the dirty brown and grey landscape that dominates eight months of the year, to the rightest-wing social and political beliefs of any city in Canada, to the cultural symbolism of its cookie-cutter homes and suburbs, to having as little sophistication as it does coastline. Five years ago, I thought I could return and find that it was a better city than I remembered, or worst case, try to help transform it in some way, but neither worked out. Anyway, I think I’ll try to find some enduring images of promise and hope during my self-imposed vacation, as a legacy so to speak. My project will be to shoot a series of memorable photos of the places in, and character of, Calgary that I like and have come to appreciate. I doubt it will be a very big series and needless to say I’ll put some miles on the car putting it together… But I digress…

Similarly, I will probably do a post in the near future about what attracts me to Vancouver, and what parts of it I am looking forward to. Such exercises, along with finding time to do some serious thinking and soul searching both with my wife and on my own, will be important in advance of these wonderful changes.

Go Canada Go!

The enormity of expectations weighted upon Canadian athletes at the Olympic Winter Games by our host broadcasters (and thus the public) is ludicrous.

It’s not because I just finished watching Jennifer Heil finish second in women’s moguls. It’s more of a sentiment that I’ve been feeling since the 2010 Vancouver Olympic Winter Games began yesterday, and even a few days prior. How can our athletes expect to perform to the best of their abilities or be satisfied with silver medals when they are burdened by third-party blanket statements basically guaranteeing that they will win gold?

Leading up to the Games, fundraising organizations like Own The Podium iterated through their actions that all that was stopping Canada from ‘owning’ the medal count in Vancouver was money. At the Games, host broadcaster CTV took it a few steps further and pronounced about 30 times on the opening day that in no uncertain terms, Canada “will win gold on home soil for the first time.” In fact, several times today, worst-offender daytime host Lisa Laflamme said, “which one of Saturday’s athletes will it be? Manuel Osborne Paradis? Charles Hamelin? Jennifer Heil?” “Well,” she said, “the men’s downhill has been postponed, so Osborne Paradis won’t win gold first.”

Beyond arrogant, her proclamations were downright insane. Furthermore, watching Canadian athletes passionately announce to the camera, during innumerable profile film spots, that they won’t be held back, won’t be under-prepared and won’t be satisfied with anything other than gold, all I could think of was how ridiculous they sounded. They know better than all of us how unpredictable their events are, and how far we (and they) would have to fall back to earth if (and when) they didn’t deliver. Of course CTV would like as much of their coverage scripted as possible. It makes the process of broadcasting such a complex event that much easier. But that’s not the way it works, unfortunately.

These are competitive sports. You don’t expect gold, you hope for it. You hope for personal bests and top finishes. Canada’s ‘hopefuls’ are not competing against mannequins or dummies. In Jenn Heil’s case, she laid down a solid run (not spectacular) and was beaten by a skier who had a phenomenal run. What was she supposed to do about it? Charles Hamelin found himself in a 1500-metre semi-final heat that included three of the top five short track speedskaters in the world. Only the top 2 could advance. He did not finish among them. In what universe would anyone basically guarantee he’d win his semi-final and then win the final?

Of course Canada will win a gold – heck, we’ll probably win several. But to pin marketing campaigns and media blitzes on the guarantee of it, and pin those expectations on specific athletes is ignorant and disrespectful.

The Olympics attract the best athletes in the world. That’s the point of their existence. Is there anything wrong with finishing near the top? Besides, part of the Olympic experience is that great performances come out of nowhere, and that dreams are both made and shattered.

The problem with raising such expectations is that anything less than victory leaves us spectators and the athletes themselves with an overwhelming sense of disappointment, when coming in second place should be something wonderful and to be proud of in its own right. One of the most enduring images I remember from the Beijing Olympics was when triathlete Simon Whitfield won his silver medal. No one expected it, despite the fact that he’d won gold in Sydney and was one of the world’s preeminent specialists in his trade, and that is what made it so special.

It is winning silver, not losing gold. If the athletes themselves feel like holding themselves to higher standards, that’s up to them. But we should be proud no matter what.

Our Canadian brand revolves around humility, gentility, and modesty. Perhaps our over-the-top broadcasters and sponsors should under-promise and over-deliver, rather than over-promising with no control over the outcomes. Then we can all be satisfied and occasionally surprised, just like every other nation.

My SLR life began with a search to find the ‘right’ backpack. I was looking for something that would easily transport all of my stuff but wasn’t imposing in size or weight, or would otherwise discourage me from actually using it. I had five criteria to meet:

- small(er) size = volume/weight

- is of a backpack configuration (not a shoulder bag)

- carries a laptop

- has a compartment for lunch/a sweater/personal accessories

- has some measure of water resistance/waterproof build

I settled on Lowepro as a brand almost by default. I purposefully checked out other bags (Kata, Crumpler, Think Tank, etc.) during the process so as to employ the greatest due diligence, but none of them met my needs nor had the comfort, innovation, value or general appeal that Lowepro does. Lowepro is an excellent and forward-thinking brand, and I am comfortable saying that I have no need to look elsewhere.

Given my criteria, however, it seems an impossible task to create a carrier that can hold everything I want and still be of smallish nature. In fact, it is apparently an unavoidable dilemma to have to choose between a small bag, one that ports a computer and one that can stash personal items like a sweater or lunch. Lowepro has not yet released a “Black Hole 300AW,” thus the reason why I have three bags.

To date I have accumulated a Lowepro Vertex 200AW, a Lowepro Dryzone Rover and a Lowepro Slingshot 200AW. Each fits a specific niche very well, but none can do everything. These are the three pictured below:

(L to R: Lowepro’s Vertex 200AW, Dryzone Rover and Slingshot 200AW)

My feelings about each bag are as follows:

Lowepro Vertex 200AW

Pros: slim build, considering its volume; weather resistant zippers and fabric; easily accessed memory card/filter/small items pouches on front lid; versatile mesh pouches and patented Glide-Lock straps for tripods, accessory add-ons; solid, comfortable harness system; holds a 15″ laptop in a separate, protected pocket.

Cons: no room for personal items without sacrificing camera equipment space; not a small bag in general; not waterproof.

Lowepro Dryzone Rover

Pros: hardcore drysuit-style waterproof zippers and waterproof camera compartment (and it floats); generous separate compartment for personal items (lunch, clothes); solid harness system; has an innovative HydraPak portable hydration system that can be removed if desired; relatively modest size overall.

Cons: waterproof camera compartment is big and bulky – quite hard and inflexible (troublesome getting into an airplane overhead compartment); rather heavy; considering its size, camera compartment doesn’t hold a lot of camera gear; does not have space for a laptop; getting into camera compartment via waterproof zipper is tough (though understandable); adding a tripod makes this bag quite large and obstinate; missing some of the nice touches of the Vertex – a place for pens, keys, specific areas for filters.

Lowepro Slingshot 200AW

Pros: ultra-small and compact look and feel; lightweight; holds a smart amount of gear (useful for assignments and shorter trips where equipment is pre-planned and not much is needed); sling style and support strap comfortably fits on your body; small extra compartment for additional gear and separate pouch for filters and batteries.

Cons: simple zippers and materials keep cost down but make the bag itself somewhat fragile; sling style can start to wear down neck and back after a while; no ventilation mesh for airflow on user contact points; does not support or hold a tripod of any size; would not support larger lenses; accessory compartment is limited to gloves and a hat, but anything larger is out of the question.

Maybe it sounds like I’m coming down hard on each bag, but certainly that is not my intention. I enjoy the assets of each bag significantly; otherwise I wouldn’t own all three.

I find I get the most use out of the inexpensive Slingshot 200AW, since it is small, convenient and practical for daily use. I defer to this bag usually for shooting local events on assignment. I use it while shooting at important political events, and find that I can sneak around busy black-tie events without too much difficulty (or spilling peoples’ drinks). For those sorts of events I can load it with a flash, a second lens, batteries, filters, memory cards and business cards. The Slingshot 200AW also doesn’t look like a camera bag to the unfamiliar. Thus it is equally useful on urban, night-time and street-scene shoots, where perhaps you’re worried about drawing attention to yourself.

The bag I typically travel with is my Vertex 200AW. I enjoy its versatility in terms of carrying all the photo equipment I need, plus my laptop and various other things to pass the time on flights. Rather than needing a second carry-on, I can devote some of the camera equipment space to hold chargers, sunglasses and books. Clever, easily-accessed exterior pockets capably consume personal items like my iPhone, keys, notebooks and pens. And despite what it might look like in the line-up, it is not as big as you think. Its box shape is tightly packaged. There aren’t many straps flopping around and no one part of the bag is bigger than another. The Vertex 200AW also features water-resistant zippers which gives me peace of mind if it begins to sprinkle such as in this instance. If it rains hard, there’s an all-weather cover that I can deploy.

Which brings me to the Dryzone Rover. Ironically, this is the bag I use the least but is also the most expensive. Employing drysuit caliber zippers, this bag literally floats if dropped in water and protects camera gear entirely. I suppose it would make a handy floatation device if necessary. It also has a spacious compartment for lunch and a sweater, which is separate from the camera area – nice in case something leaks or spills. The Dryzone Rover provides reassurance when I’m sailing or kayaking (like on this trip) that my camera equipment will be safe no matter what. But the downside is that traveling with this bag means I need a second carry-on to handle my computer. Therefore it is purpose-specific and living in Calgary at the moment means I don’t use it a lot.

Each bag is useful, functional and wonderful. I would recommend each for the purposes I’ve outlined. But beware, if you’re in a bind and have to choose between a computer or a sweater, or between big or small, you could end up just like me and owning all three.

All, yet nothing, is changing. And so, the seawall series continues. For those unknowing of where these were taken, these pictures are of the Stanley Park seawall in Vancouver, BC. Of course you can see more by visiting my online photo gallery website - direct link to the specific gallery here.

Let’s call it spring cleaning.

Of late, my wife and I have been in a tizzy, as she would call it, cleaning our house from top to bottom. Organizing closets, the office, the storage rooms, and even cleaning the hardwood. For four successive weeks we’ve filled our garbage can and our recycling bin to the brim. And today we donated probably 70 items of clothing, 40 books and various other items like picture frames, shoes and unused binders to charity.

That last part has been the most pleasing so far. I loaded all of our donations in the back of our car, needless to say filling it entirely. Then over the lunch hour I drove across town to a Women In Need Society store. Frustratingly, the store I visited was closed, because the whole neighbourhood was experiencing a power outage. So I found another location, 50 kilometres away on the other side of town. Once I got there, after a scenic cross-Calgary trip, a store associate helped me unload the car and was very thankful for our donation. Surprisingly so. I was instantly heart-warmed and his thanks gave me pause. It felt good – to help, to make the extra effort to get to their store, and to hear his appreciation. I hope our donation makes a difference somehow.

I would dare say that our cleaning is nearly done. But then, one usually says something like that and really they’re not even close. I guess we’ll see.

Finally, putting an end to months of inuendo, I am ready to pull back the curtain somewhat, half emerge from the mist and reveal my latest burdening secret.

I handed in my resignation today, quitting the job I’ve had for nearly four and a half years. My head is in a bit of a cloud right now, both relieved and somewhat surprised that I went through with it. Like jumping off a high diving board, I was nervous but I threw myself off anyway. It had to be done.

It is with incredible enthusiasm and a sense of relief that I made this decision and notified the appropriate parties, yet it is not without some loss, humility and sadness. I’ve taken a great deal of pride in my job, though I’ve been ready for a new challenge for a while now. Instigated by developments in my industry and my general malaise surrounding advertising sales, I felt it was time for me to move on.

Conceiving this manoeuvre has been exhausting, because it had to be the right move. Not just getting out, but jumping into something else. I wanted the change to be positive; not reactive. One of the virtues that my wife and I share is that we don’t make lateral moves – I wasn’t about to make a sideways diversion to temporarily alleviate my current distress. That’s why I carefully crafted my decision over the last several weeks, seeking a change that in itself would be motivating, suitable, rewarding, interesting, challenging, and one that would take me yet another step towards the uncharted and unconfirmed lands of infinite contentment and personal satisfaction.

I am very much looking forward to my next adventure. Unfortunately (and cruelly), I must string you along a little more, as I have another and greater secret to share in the next couple of weeks regarding my new position. Suffice it to say for now, I have signed a contract with my new group and we are mutually excited. A lot of change is in the forecast and my wife and I have been making charts, lists and graphs ad nauseam in preparation.

I never spoke in detail about where I worked. I believed (and continue to believe) that a barrier between my thoughts and my working life should exist, particularly because I sometimes speak candidly about divisive subjects – namely politics – but also art, community and society in general. Some of you were smart enough to decipher my projects or were skilled in tying together loose ends, and figured it out on your own. But I will continue to remain silent about exactly where I’m going. Rest assured, I’m sure that such discovery will be possible again.

What I’ll tell you for now is that I’m staying in the wine industry, assuming a similar position of responsibility, but no longer in the publishing, magazine or advertising business. And I have excellent growth prospects and great work:life balance. More later. For now, back to the charts, lists and graphs.

I will be buying an iPad once they’re available to us meagre Canadians, which I suspect will be in the early part of summer. I know, I know… Colour yourselves surprised.

But besides the fact that, sure, I could be called an Apple fanboy, or groupie, or techie, or whatever (not follower – no, I don’t follow anything Apple-related on Twitter), this device will assist me in my professional life in several important ways.

As the Steve Jobs keynote was about to begin, I was having a chat with some Globe and Mail technology writers about the possible application of the yet-to-be-announced device and how it could simplify, if not change, my life. I imagined some of the features and uses for a Mac tablet, and had the whole thing conceived in my imagination before Jobs ever took the stage. And I was darn close.

The confirmed attributes that I am most smitten about:

- magazine, newspaper-reading ability

- calendar/day-timer management

- note taking at meetings (no prohibitive laptop screen barrier between me and my counterpart)

- email and email management

- excellent battery life

- high quality video playback (perfect for airline travel)

- sync and bluetooth connectivity with my other computers, backup devices and iPhone

The way I envisioned this product mattering to me was if I could get all of these items (and a stylus for hand-writing and a phone for tying in absent colleagues on speaker-phone conferences), and have them tidily available in a compact format. I explained it to my colleagues as such: imagine a device like this that you would take to meetings instead of a pad of paper, upon which you could take notes, manage your meetings in your calendar, add or subtract contacts within your address book, send or receive emails and perhaps tie in absentees on a speaker phone. And have all of this synced with a computer and an iPhone. The stylus and phone unfortunately didn’t materialize, but were substituted by lifestyle-oriented features – hi-def movie playback, photo viewing and iPod.

Thus, in addition to being fully functional during a busy work day, I considered what a great gadget this would be for flying. Long flights can be torturous and even the 13″ MacBook that I am typing on right now is too big to work with on a plane. The person ahead of me’s seat disturbs my view of the screen at any sort of appreciable angle. But with this, a smaller device, I can watch 10 hours of 720p video, play games and read magazines and newspapers at any angle at all. Now we’re talking!

Furthermore, the prospective print media-viewing ability of the iPad has me particularly tickled. Being in the print business, I gave this idea some serious thought. I discussed the potential of this device with my VPs and publishers the day it was announced, and what it could mean for an old-fashioned industry searching for revenue streams in the new reality of digital consumption. My thoughts went a little bit like this:

We all know that newspapers (and magazines, but particularly newspapers) are beginning to float sideways in the water, what with advertising revenues at all-time lows and a business model dependent on them. Companies continue to search for ways to monetize their content in a world where online content is almost always free, and the vast majority of the public have grown so used to reading news on the internet for free that the idea (and experiments) of charging for content have spectacularly failed.

But then along comes Apple and the iPad.

See, the music industry was in the exact same boat ten years ago. Piracy was rampant and no one was paying for music anymore. But with the iPod and iTunes, that changed. Apple created a legion of followers – some 100 million credit card accounts – who were prepared to pay, however modestly, for new music that they could conveniently manage themselves on their home computer. That music could then be played on an iPod, burned to disc, or streamed wirelessly within one’s house. It could even be put on a USB device and plugged into a car stereo. The convenience and small cost reinvigorated the music industry. While music labels weren’t earning $20 for a CD anymore, they were saving money in physical production and distribution costs, so the profit margins were hardly impacted.

This reality and turn of events can and probably will be the same for print media. And Apple’s might and cult following will be the key. If the iPad is widely adopted and partnerships are struck with some of the world’s great magazines and newspapers, we might see the tides turn on digital subscriptions and the renewal of revenue for print media. Imagine if you could enter the iBookstore or iTunes, and while flipping through titles of music and novels, you came across your favourite newspapers and magazines – the New York Times, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun; or MacLean’s, Rolling Stone and Wired. Imagine if you could purchase today’s newspaper; say for $0.99. Or a one-year subscription for $24.99. Say you could buy the current issue (or a back issue) of MacLean’s for $1.99. And once purchased, it downloaded to your library with a simple confirmation, and subscriptions downloaded every morning as you turned on your computer.

As long as the quality is there – articles that are full and rich with colour; perhaps photos can be scrolled over and videos play on demand; and ads link through to the advertiser’s website – I can see darn near everyone adopting this within 6-10 years. I see greater adoption for digital magazine and newspaper reading than I do iPods and MP3s, because older generations can better understand newspapers and magazines than they can digital music. And while old music formats subsist, old newspapers do not. But there must be concessions and long-term thinking employed, as there was with music. Newspapers will have to understand that they cannot charge the same price as they do for their physical incarnation. Where a weekday copy of the Globe and Mail costs $2, the digital version should cost $0.99. Where the Saturday Times costs $4.95, the digital version should cost $2.50. And for magazines as well. And they can’t skimp on quality. Every page should be viewable in high resolution, printable, and capable of being shared with friends and family members, just as a hard copy version is now. Any attempt to lock or restrict usage will breed contempt and sour consumers.

I for one can envision having an iPad sitting around the house, receiving magazines and newspapers; full of music and books, simply waiting to be listened to and read. Think of the trees you’ll save, not subscribing to paper copies of your favourite newspapers and magazines. And consider the professional application – for those types that want to stay in touch with media reportage – what about being able to search for a simple term and have your iPad scour through the depths of your digital subscriptions to find all relevant articles? Your very own media aggregator.

If there is enough buy-in (and certainly Apple can deliver a crowd unlike any other technology company) and say 50,000 people subscribe to the Globe and Mail’s digital newspaper edition, I can honestly see them trimming their website content down by 75%. It’s the only way these companies will be viable in 10 years.

I’ll be buying a wireless-only iPad once they’re available – no 3G for me. I don’t foresee needing the 3G connectivity, because I have an iPhone. If somehow I find myself jones’ing for connectivity and am out of a wifi hotspot, I can always tether the device to my phone. I won’t waste my time with two data plans, whilst padding Rogers Communications’ pockets.

Let’s not forget for a moment that the iPad is a gadget and a tool. It is not a computer. It seems that several tech websites and blogs were climbing over each other to knock down the utility of this device, specifically after Steve Jobs announced that the netbook was not the missing link between PDA and laptop, rather the iPad was. Thus, some of the hacks against the new device reference it’s lack of computing prowess. That it will not be able to replace or make obsolete a netbook. Personally, I don’t believe Jobs was trying to say that the iPad was a direct counter-part to the netbook, rather that the netbook didn’t fulfill the needs of a device between a PDA and a laptop (that netbooks are, in effect, just small and incapable laptops themselves). Never the less, some of the criticisms include:

- no multitasking

- no flash support

- no camera

- too thick of a bezel (seriously?)

Frankly, I don’t think any of these items are crucial to the operation of this device, so long as it’s understood that the iPad is a gadget and not a computer. And besides, these features are battery-drainers. I’d rather a smart and coherent way for me to manage my calendar, emails and clients than wildly point a camera on a 8″ x 10″ piece of steel and glass. And sure Flash is nice, but I’ve heard that Flash is on its way out anyway.

I think Apple has hit a home run with this product. Of course the G2 version will have some of the items that tech critics are crying for – namely a camera and multitasking, but for now I am impressed and eager to get one.