Genius
Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. -Albert Einstein
Apple - iPod nano with Multi-Touch
12 Key Features Apple iPad Lacks
Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities. - Oscar Wilde
Genius always finds itself a century too early. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Apple Predicted Siri 24 Years Ago
The man of genius inspires us with a boundless confidence in our own powers. - Ralph Waldo Emerson
To see things in the seed, that is genius. - Lao Tzu
Steve Jobs was a genius. No, he did not personally invent everything Apple produced during his tenure. No, he did not even push Apple engineers to directly invent everything they produced. Rather, he was inspire what he saw around him and he used his vision to create products that simply worked and worked simply. Apple products have a reputation, be they hardware or software. To the naysayers and detractors, it centers around form over function, imitation and naive simplicity. To the proponents and fans, it centers around form fitting function, inspiration and naive simplicity. The art is in making what was once complex, simple. Part of making products that appeal to people, not merely to consumers, is making them appealing. The design of Apple products is not simply a marketing ploy, it is one of the defining characteristics. The simplicity of design is not a dumbing down but a purification. That is the genius that Steve Jobs brought to Apple.
Poor Qwikster. Netflix Hardly Knew Ye.
So, as reported on TekGoblin, Netflix has now renounced their pronouncement announcing Qwikster, the spinoff which would have split the DVD rental business off from the streaming business. I had written previously about the Netflix saga and as before I don't think Netflix has done themselves any favors but I also don't think they are dead in the water. I also received one of these automated emails and my first thought was that perhaps the Qwikster Twitter guy was just asking for too much money.
If nothing else, I personally like the fact that they listened to the customers complain about now having to split activities across two sites and have decided to keep things in one house. From a business perspective though, it certainly does come across as being indecisive, which is never a happy-maker with the shareholders. It's the right decision, but it shouldn't have to have been made as Qwikster should never have seen the light of day. Still, that's easy to say in retrospect.
Initially I took the message, particularly the announcement of no new price changes, to be a positive thing, perhaps an indicator that they had secure new licensing to replace Starz! once it goes away, but the more I think about it, the less sure I am of this. If they had secured new licensing, they would want to shout about it, not obscure the fact. The rest of the email discusses addition of new content now, under existing licenses. It doesn't mention anything about what will be available in a year or two. And then there's the whole Qwikster flip flop.
On the one hand, eliminating Qwikster before it actually had a chance to start was, as I said before, the smart move. Frankly, it should have been done before Qwikster was even announced. No one outside of a board room should have ever heard of it in relation to Netflix. Then, when it was announced, customers got angry. It was bad enough that prices went up but then to force them to maintain essentially two lists of content to view and rate was just silly. Even from a technological perspective, the two sites could have shared accounts and data. There was no need to tell customers they couldn't manage lists in one location. It was a stupid move. But they addressed that with Qwikster's death, so kudos earned and given.
But the rapid switch in strategy makes one wonder why the sudden change in direction. Again, at first I took it to be a good sign that Netflix was willing to listen to customer dissatisfaction with the Qwikster split and do something about it. But then if it made sense for the bottom line to do the split and now they have decided against it, what reasoning did they use? Because customer dissatisfaction with the split mostly seemed centered around managing those two queues, a technological issue that could easily be addressed without giving up whatever economic incentives the split would have provided. Yet now those incentives don't seem so important anymore. I can only think of two reasons.
One is because there are new licensing agreements coming soon and so they plan to try to stir up as much goodwill as possible to win back lost customers in order to make the new content available to as many viewers as they can. As a result, they keep the DVD rental business within the fold and continue to play nice with those who make use of the service, in order to quell the discontent. That would be swell but then why keep us in the dark about it? Why not delay the Qwikster launch until they have the new licensing wrapped up and can announce it alongside Qwikster's death. Instead, we get an email telling us prices won't be going up and oh, we've added a bunch of new content lately or will add more soon. That new content is simply from existing licenses. It doesn't represent the premium content which Netflix is tussling with Starz! over. (Or was until the deal went bust) What of that?
The other reason why Netflix might want to bury the idea of splitting the DVD business out is because they believe they may need it to survive. With negotiations dead with Starz!, the Netflix team has no doubt been courting other content providers to find more premium content to show viewers. If they had no luck, they would need to stave off elimination until they could get someone to work with them on terms that would not further alienate their base due to price hikes. In this, they would look to become the next Apple, arm twisting content providers into a more consumer friendly model with consistent pricing at lower rates than the content owners want to accept. But if they couldn't find anyone willing to license to them on such terms, they would have no choice but to keep the DVD business around to keep profits up.
The interesting thing is that in this second scenario, we wouldn't necessarily know it if it happened. We would see Qwikster buried soon after it was announced, we would see some PR come out about new content now available (but under current licensing), and then we would see... nothing. Nothing further would need to be said because the negotiations would be taking place with various content owners. And if they won a new license, you can bet we would hear it trotted out and used to show that Netflix is a great bet. But if they failed to secure new licensing, you would continue to see the DVD rental business pursued relentlessly, with perhaps an apology concerning not being able to transform the industry or something to that effect.
I'm an avid Netflix user. I like it and hope the model thrives, especially because it's pretty friendly to Mac users what with Netflix built into the AppleTV. I hope they secure new content licensing. I don't know if they would survive if new premium content required a higher tier of pricing or some sort of pay-per-view option, as that is ground already well-tread by other services. In some respects Netflix is attempting to commoditize movie and TV programming, making it something much less expensive than it is elsewhere and far more accessible. I think this is to be commended and insofar as Netflix continues to be a player in this arena, I'm rooting for them. I just hope they start showing some consistency.
Review: OtterBox Defender for iPhone 4
The iPhone 4 (and the soon to be seen by all the cool kids iPhone 4S) is a lovely phone. I don't mean it is good at being a phone, I mean it is quite literally lovely to look at. I love Apple kit as much as the next Mac-head but I don't think I'm speaking solely from bias here. I'm willing to state there are other non-Apple phones which are quite nice to look at, too, for example. But for all the attractiveness of the iPhone 4 and it's newer sibling, it feels fragile. With essentially a glass shell with only a metal band around the edge, it seems ripe for the breaking.. a sad notion. Of course, that is where cases come in and while there are many cases to choose from, I don't think they come much better than the OtterBox Defender.
The first thing you're probably wondering is why I'm reviewing a case which has been out for quite some time. Put simply, because I want to. But if you absolutely must have a proper answer, given the iPhone 4S is coming out and everyone and their grandmother has already pre-ordered the things, there are likely more than a few people out there who are going to be looking for a good protective case for their work of art phone. And while it may be that new reviews will crop up for cases, even new reviews of old versions, I wanted to put my own review forward to let others know the pros and cons.
A few tidbits of info first. The case itself is a nearly full enclosure meaning there are some contact spots which are left uncovered. For example, the Apple logo on back is exposed for artistic reasons. The speaker and microphone areas are revealed and while there are flaps to cover the charge port, headphone port and mute switch, they can easily be flipped open and so I wouldn't count that as a proper enclosure. The point is, unlike some other OtterBox products, you will not want to test this one by submerging the encased phone in water. It will get wet. Quickly. You will not be happy. You have been warned.
The case itself consists of two plastic frames which clip together to provide a mount point for the rubber skin. The front frame provides the cover for the screen while the rear frame provides the cover for the camera. The rubber skin provides the rest of the covering. There is also a belt clip which provides a convenient method for carrying the encased iPhone 4/4S. Note that while I refer to the iPhone 4S, and while the dimensions of the iPhone 4 and 4S are identical, looking at the Apple site to compare the two phones it seems that some external bits (the mute switch for example) are slightly out of place on the 4S and so the iPhone 4 Defender case might not work for the 4S. OtterBox has created an iPhone 4S specific case so you would be advised to use that one if you purchase a new iPhone 4S.
The Pros
It works. If I say nothing else about the OtterBox Defender series, let it be known I said this much. I do not consider myself a clumsy person but in my attempts to hold my iPhone 4 correctly, I have dropped the thing many times, typically when I was in a parking lot full of loose gravel or around demolitions or toddlers and other destructive materials. In all such situations the phone has come away unscathed. Even the case's front screen covering has been resistant to damage, a big plus given the abuse mine has received as it has meant I have not had to replace the case. When you are looking at protective cases, the single most important attribute you should consider. Here, we give full marks.
The rest of the pros lie in what the case does not do. It does not seem to interfere with the signal strength, not that I saw anyway. I also found that whether using it in speaker phone mode or as a regular phone, I could not only hear the other party just as clearly but they found no difference when listening to me speak.
My protestations to the contrary notwithstanding, I am apparently not as dexterous as I would have you believe. Taking that into account, the OtterBox Defender makes the flaps pretty easy to manipulate in order to plug a jack in, plug power in or hit mute. I don't know that these flaps are strictly necessary given the bits they protect are still in recesses and thus protected as well as anything else on the device but that they are there does not seem to represent a major difficulty in getting to the protected parts.
The Cons
So what's the yin to the aforementioned yang? As a friend of mine put it "You've turned one of the smallest phones in the world into one of the largest." While not strictly true, the overall effect of enshrouding your iPhone 4 in a Defender is to give it additional substance. Whereas an uncovered iPhone 4 seems to slip elegantly into a pocket, attach a Defender case and you feel as though you have weaponized your pants... which in this case isn't nearly as fun as you might think. They do provide a belt clip, which I use, but ... well... it's a belt clip. I have absolutely no fashion sense and even I recognize the faux pas involved in using a belt clip to hold your phone. It feels something akin to carting your Prius around in the bed of your Ford F450.
Also, the screen and camera covers collect ... dirtiness. You might have heard about the iPhone 4's oleophobic glass treatment, designed to resist the oily smudges left by human digits. You haven't? Neither has OtterBox. Perhaps they can't add it to the protective film they use, but regardless, it isn't there. As for the camera cover, it took awhile before I realized that in fact I was not going blind, nor was there a mysterious fog in my apartment... no, the odd look to my iPhone photos was immediately replaced by crystal clarity when I removed the phone from the case. I've used a Qtip to clean the camera cover and that has helped somewhat but for whatever reason that cover seems to be a dust magnet.
The Conclusion
Overall, I'm pleased with my purchase. It does just precisely what it says on the box. I don't have a landline, so my iPhone is my sole means of communicating with those outside my cave. Thus, I have a more pragmatic view of my iPhone than as a fashion accessory. But then I also don't think of much of anything in terms of fashion accessories, so my view may be somewhat skewed. I will say that if you have somewhere to put it (like, say, a purse) where it is out of sight and not likely to rip a hole in your pocket, the added bulk isn't so bad once you are handling it. And the screen can be kept relatively clean with the occasional wipe down from your shirt or other available clothing. For guys who don't have man-purses (or whatever the hell they are called), you're going to have to either go with the belt clip or man up and put that sucker in your pocket. I don't know if it would necessarily stop a bullet but I imagine there would be some intense negotiation before it got through.
Seth Godin’s Forever Recession
Seth Godin wrote of what he calls the "forever recession" on his blog. His opening quote:
There are actually two recessions:
The first is the cyclical one, the one that inevitably comes and then inevitably goes. There's plenty of evidence that intervention can shorten it, and also indications that overdoing a response to it is a waste or even harmful.
The other recession, though, the one with the loss of "good factory jobs" and systemic unemployment--I fear that this recession is here forever.
In it we see his thesis statement, that we are all talking about the recession when in fact we are feeling the effects of two recessions. He goes on to discuss the recession that we can't really fix and that we should in turn embrace the coming revolution (which he mentions in the post title). In essence I agree with him, but I don't know that everyone will be capable of embracing the coming change.
The loss of production capability in the US due to competitive failures (driven mostly by labor costs which will only fall with a great deal of pain) is putting increasing numbers of people out of work. This production is moving to facilities outside the US because, frankly, they are too cheap to compete with on price. And as Seth notes, these jobs "can be systemized, written in a manual and/or exported". You can get the same quality of goods from overseas as you can get locally in many cases, and the buyers in the US by and large look at price once quality needs are minimally met.
The problem comes in moving toward that new future where "everyone has a laptop and connection to the world" and so "everyone owns a factory". Not everyone has a skill set that lends itself to that sort of environment. The person who works on the line at an automobile manufacturing facility (or any other manufacturing facility) is not prepared to take on the kinds of tasks one can source over the internet.
Am I being arrogant when I say this? No. Not everyone is cut out for producing content for consumption on the web. And I mean content in the broadest sense. Music, art, writing, software, these are the primary outlets on the web today. Not everyone is cut out to produce something in one of those categories. I daresay the majority are not. Even with training, many will still fail to make the standard for making a living in that world. That doesn't make them any less of a person. These people might be very good at what they do, sharp as a tack, but not be cut out for these kinds of jobs.
My point in all of this? There isn't a clearcut progression from point A (factory jobs which are disappearing in the US) to point B (jobs which Mr. Godin describes as part of the new way). I suppose that means I'm less pessimistic than he is. I think the way is cleared for those who are already in a computer related job to move from the more typical 9-5 style desk jockey position into the job/gig based situation Mr. Godin describes, but I don't see much room in the new world for those coming from the production line. Not without a great deal of retraining and a great deal of pain. More, perhaps, than he sees. For my part, I hope I'm very very wrong.
Richard Stallman is a Jerk.. and Wrong
The title of this post is pretty indicative of the tone and content of this post. If you worship at the altar of Richard Stallman and promote all things Stallmanesque then I contend you are not likely to enjoy the rest of this post.
How to be a Jerk in Just 102 Words
First, I'll let you read what Richard Stallman decided needed to be said in response to the death of Steve Jobs:
Steve Jobs, the pioneer of the computer as a jail made cool, designed to sever fools from their freedom, has died.
As Chicago Mayor Harold Washington said of the corrupt former Mayor Daley, "I'm not glad he's dead, but I'm glad he's gone." Nobody deserves to have to die - not Jobs, not Mr. Bill, not even people guilty of bigger evils than theirs. But we all deserve the end of Jobs' malign influence on people's computing.
Unfortunately, that influence continues despite his absence. We can only hope his successors, as they attempt to carry on his legacy, will be less effective.
Where to begin? Mr. Stallman, you clearly have strong feelings about the free software movement, I get that. Clearly you can get a lot more mileage by being caustic than sweet, particularly when you still feel you need to generate traction in the mainstream. But your attempt at riding one man's popularity into his grave in order to promote an agenda while maligning his contributions seems designed solely to backfire and alienate you from anyone aside from your most devoted fans.
I am not alone in finding your statement repugnant and disrespectful, no matter how you might attempt to soften your stance (i.e. "Nobody deserves to have to die"). Even those who might agree with your stance on free software appear to be taken aback by your (call it what it is) callous, opportunistic abuse of another man's death. You seem to oppose corporate entities making hay off the work of others, yet even some of Apple's biggest competitors refrained from stepping on this moment. Whatever goal you might have hoped for, you have only shown yourself to be petty and bitter and unwilling to grant that another person's life might have offered worth to the world in spite of your opposition to their principles.
And How to be Wrong, Too
And let's take a look at those principles, shall we? You dislike that Jobs promoted a device which is "designed to sever fools from their freedom". So glad to see you take a shot at the living. I think you miss the point. If Mr. Jobs were still alive and asked if he designed the iPhone or any other Apple device to be in some way less free, I imagine he would have said that wasn't the point, that in fact most people do not care. His goals were simply orthogonal to freedom, in the sense of which you speak. It wasn't on his radar. The freedom Mr. Jobs espoused was the freedom not to be bound by the limitations of poor design. Of complexities which distract the user from creating. Of dealing with tools which never saw the word "No".
I find myself forced to admit you have made positive contributions in your efforts to push the free software agenda. But I find it shocking that you can be so oblivious to the positive influence Steve Jobs had on the world. I am not the type to build someone up beyond where they deserve to be, but you have to admit that inasmuch as your drive and determination has pushed a movement, Mr. Jobs' drive and determination has pushed industries (plural), and has allowed hundreds of thousands of people to do more to create and produce and communicate.
And my final point on the matter... put up or shut up, Mr. Stallman. The mass appeal of Apple products does not lie purely in marketing muscle. They are appealing specifically because they are well designed, highly polished and focused on what consumers need. They simply work. More importantly they get out of the way to do so. While there are well designed free software products which can make a similar claim, the most common refrain of casual users is that when compared to non-free solutions, functionality is either missing, poorly designed or difficult to understand. In short, the tool gets in the way of the worker. Perhaps if the movement which you champion so vehemently (and yet are serving so poorly with this sort of vitriol) was more capable of producing software that serves the user more effectively, you might gain some leverage. Until then, deal with the fact that most people are not interested in what you are pushing. And try to learn what it means to actually respect another's accomplishments rather than attempting to tarnish someone's image in order to further your own cause.
Is Apple Aiming for the Enterprise Now?
One of the things that comes up from time to time is the dominance of Windows and dearth of OS X in the Enterprise. It is no less true now than it has been in the past... OS X is not a major presence in business and in particular big business. In the past, Apple made overtures toward the business market with their Xserver and Xsan products, but those have been discontinued, leaving only the Mac Pro as the high horsepower OS X server of choice and the Mac Mini as the budget oriented OS X server platform. What does this mean for Apple in the Enterprise? Not much, or at least nothing different than what they have always been. Still, a few interesting tidbits came up during Tim Cook's presentation that makes one wonder if Cupertino hasn't kept business market share plans somewhere in their back pocket.
We Want More
In previous keynotes, there hasn't typically been a global interest in discussing overall install base for the Mac. There has been discussion of laptop install base because that has historically been a strong point for Mac sales relative to the rest of the industry. But desktop sales have typically not been mentioned prominently. To be fair, Tim Cook didn't really go into desktop sales specifically but he did discuss overall install base very prominently during the opening of the keynote. And more importantly, he stated "there are still 70% of people buying something else. We still have a lot to do."
Now, no CEO is ever going to state "We have plenty of customers, we don't need any more." They would be kicked out of their posh office and deservedly so. They might even have to forego their golden parachute. But looking backwards, this sort of aggressive discussion of expanding the overall user base has been atypical of Apple. Surely they have always wanted to expand their hardware sales but it hasn't been discussed so matter of factly before. That makes it interesting, but that alone isn't what got me to thinking about business sales.
We Have More
During the discussion of iPad statistics, they pointed out 92% of Fortune 500 companies are looking at the iPad for internal use. I have to agree with Mr. Cook, that is remarkable. Of course, they're naturally going to mention things which put the iPad in a positive light, and the fact that the iPad is the dominant tablet at the moment means there is plenty to talk about. Still, it is striking to me that there is such an emphasis on business uptake of the iPad.
Combine this with the other factoids, uptake in the medical industry, the recent adoption by some airline pilots to reduce the number of physical books they have to carry with them, the 95% overall satisfaction rate with iPad users, and you have a serious reason to think that the iPad, and Apple by extension, is going to end up firmly entrenched within the business sector.
But Wait, There's Still More
Finally, there is another interesting piece of information that was shown; satisfaction rates for smartphone users. At the top of the heap was Apple with the iPhone. Noticeably missing from anywhere near the top of the heap? RIM's BlackBerry. Personally, I have seen a large number of our clients shift from BlackBerry to iPhone or Android phones, with a bias toward the iPhone. RIM's BlackBerry phones are, of course, known for being the phone for business professionals with presumably superior communication technologies. But with that low a satisfaction rate among RIM customers, at least some of them have to be switching. And what are they switching to? No doubt some of them are heading to iPhones. Toss in the fact that RIM entered the tablet war with disastrous consequences and you have a recipe for many dissastified business professionals turning toward Apple products.
So where does that leave things? Apple has been using the halo effect to push sales of each item of hardware through popular usage of other pieces of hardware. While the iPhone has been popular, the iPad is taking it to a whole new level, especially in the business sector. The fact that Apple is taking note of their overall market share, both in mobile and on the desktop, suggests they are aware of the overall position and that they can have a place in business. They haven't given up on OS X Server as a product and might yet reintroduce server hardware but in the meantime can continue to work toward presence on the desktop at the small and enterprise business levels. I don't purport to know what Apple is planning but it certainly seems like they have an eye on what could be.
iPhone 4S – Did You Expect a 5?
The Wall Street Journal, and others, seem to be bummed that Apple announced the iPhone 4S without the expected hoverboard and dishwashing upgrades. Apparently, having a faster processer, faster graphics chip, support for both GSM and CDMA on the same device, more capacity, sharper camera, incredible voice control capability, support for faster downloads via HSPA+ along with an extra letter 'S' wasn't enough.
The fact is that for any other device, the hardware bump from iPhone 4 to iPhone 4S would represent sufficient advances as to warrant a version bump, no sweat. But because of the expectations which Apple has built up around their devices, it is almost inevitable that they can't keep up with expectations. In the weeks leading up to today's announcement, blogs and news sites trotted out lede after lede baiting users with tantalizing might-be's and possible could-have's. Some were spot on, some missed the mark. Regardless, there was precisely one voice missing from the hype machine. Yep, Apple. Apple made no grand pronouncements other than that it would be about iPhones. There were bits and pieces which we could glean from their activities and from various leaks (perhaps some more astroturfy than others but still) but nothing that set expectations terribly high. Some even surmised that some of the news leaks just prior to today's Apple announcement were intentionally leaked by Apple in order to lower expectations that were running rampant leading up to the iPhone 4S unveiling. And given how many Debbie Downers are disappointed in the hardware bump, I can hardly blame Apple for wanting to set expectations lower.
Jazzed About the iPhone 4S
To be honest, while I'm appreciative of all of the enhancements, it's the GSM/CDMA on a single device on top of availability on Sprint that I'm most jazzed about. Because of the support for both cell protocols, the iPhone is being called a world phone, which is now a fair statement. It now means that I can take my phone to whichever carrier I desire to take it to, without having to worry about the hardware inside which tied it to one set of carriers or another. It adds the element of freedom that has been missing with the iPhone since it was first released. And while I haven't had an opportunity to check for myself, Sprint is known for having lower data and voice plan rates. I don't know if that will translate to lower rates for iPhone users, but if so, that might apply a little additional downward pressure on fees that have only gone up since the iPhone's debut. I wasn't considering myself to be in the market for a phone upgrade but I might take a look at what Sprint will offer and, if it makes sense to do so, make the switch.
Really, there is a lot to love with this upgrade. If you can't find something that at least piques your interest, you aren't trying very hard. It seems strange to hear people complaining that they didn't get the toy they weren't promised in the first place and instead have to settle for the toy that is still clearly better than what they already have. I suppose, though, that it speaks volumes about the popularity of Apple and what people expect from their design team.
The Best Programming Tool… Ever
The best programming tool I've ever used was a whiteboard with dry erase markers. When I worked for IBM, we had a team of, oh, about 10 or so developers working on an internal project with usage spanning the globe. We turned out tight code on a tight schedule and we did it with relatively few errors and hell if we didn't come in under budget, just for kicks. We had a really great team of developers but one thing which I think had a big impact was having a huge whiteboard in every. single. office.
We were, at the time, technically part of the services division, even though we had absolutely no outside contact with customers. We provided purely internal benefit through our software. In a nutshell, we wrote the ticketing and billing software for the maintenance and support services for IBM. When you called IBM for support on your AS/400, we were the ones responsible for tracking that little guy and making sure you were billed appropriately. This involved working with several systems and a home brewed database (it was some time before we completed our migration to DB/2) but it was well done. We didn't get many complaints.
I don't know if it was due to being part of the services division or if it was something IBM was doing as a whole (I suspect the latter) but at the time, we were undergoing a management shift as well as a process management shift. Our management shift was moving to matrix management where projects had business managers and individuals had HR managers so you were reporting to two entities and.. well.. the less said the better. The process management involved weekly meetings, lots of status updates and tons of charts. But in spite of all of this, the whiteboard kept us on time and under budget.
Each office held two developers (or architect or team lead, whatever). The wall as you walked in was taken up by a massive whiteboard with two or three dry erase markers plus an eraser and maybe some whiteboard cleaner. You had to go the breakroom and grab some paper towels if you wanted to actually use the stuff.
Anyway, we used the hell out of those things. You could walk into any office and immediately know what they were working on by checking out the edges of the board, where long term task lists were kept. But the big plus were the middle areas, where technical notes and diagrams were kept. We would do object designs and data flows and leave them up for a month or so until things were complete. Need a gigantic scratch pad to work out the logic for your module? No problem, just stand up and walk over to the whiteboard and write down the contents of your mind.
Perhaps the lone problem was lack of space. Make no mistake, these whiteboards were huge, wide enough to span two cubicles. Still, if the problem was sticky enough, you wanted, nay, needed more space. And of course you were sharing with your officemate, so you had to be mindful of what space they needed. As it happened, we had a few extra rooms where we could use whiteboards unfettered by occupancy restrictions. It was a wonderful time.
Since then, I have been to many locations and seen many team sharing arrangements. The supremacy of the whiteboard has typically received at least a nod in the form of a shared whiteboard in a common area but never was worshipped as it was when I was at IBM.
Things have probably changed since then. Times certainly have. There are whiteboard software applications that allow users to draw to a shared space on their computer, but it's not the same. Using a mouse to try to draw programming diagrams and notes is like trying to build a ship in a bottle using salad tongs. And if you have a Wacom tablet or similar device you're probably not the focus of this post. No, there is no substitute for the real thing. The whiteboard is the king of programmer tools. Long live the king!
Bad News For MiniStumble (StumbleUpon Safari Extension)
As you may be aware, I've been working on a StumbleUpon Safari extension to mimic the functionality of the Firefox plugin. I've written about it here on my blog, created a page devoted to the MiniStumble project and also attempted to gather input from the StumbleUpon forums.
Yesterday, my StumbleUpon forum posts were removed, the only message in the otherwise automated email being "not legal". I then submitted a request for more information on the StumbleUpon feedback page. The following is the response I received:
Your request (#######) has been updated.
You can add a comment by replying to this email.[Name Redacted], Sep-30 05:17 pm (PDT):
Hello Lynn,Thanks for writing to us,
While we appreciate your enthusiasm for StumbleUpon, unfortunately, we do not allow third parties to create StumbleUpon extensions and we do not recommend you to invest resources on building such an extension from us. Our legal team may be contacting you with more details.
Thank you for your interest!
Best,
[Name Redacted]
StumbleUpon Support TeamRead our blog: http://www.stumbleupon.com/sublog/
Be our friend on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/StumbleUpon
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/StumbleUpon
Check out our YouTube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/stumbleuponStumbleupon, Sep-29 03:44 pm (PDT):
I'm developing a Safari extension for StumbleUpon based upon the code in the Firefox plugin. This would provide similar functionality to the web toolbar but because it doesn't embed the stumbled content into an iframe it is resistant to frame breaking logic. Additionally it would be always on rather than having to use the toolbar. You know all the reasons it is better to use a plugin/extension in lieu of the web toolbar.I had posted some links on the forums in response to people asking for just this. Today they were all removed and the only text I got in the email was "not legal".
I would like to know if the implication is that there is an actual legal issue or if that was intended to just mean "not allowed on our forums".
Furthermore I would like to know if there is any chance that I could receive assistance on this, or perhaps offer my own assistance to you in developing a proper, StumbleUpon officially sanctioned Safari extension.
There is definitely desire for a Safari extension to use in place of the web toolbar with the obvious benefits.
I would absolutely love to hear back from you to help clarify things for me.
Regards,
Lynn
As you can see, the claim is being made that not only do they disapprove but that what I am doing is illegal. I'm not sure what exactly is illegal about it. I have my own ideas on why they are as protective as they are about outside parties working on something like this but regardless it would appear that I'm kicking against the goads as it were. As this was intended to be a free offering for myself and other Safari users, to improve upon the web toolbar experience, I have no inclination to fight StumbleUpon on this, especially if they plan to bring in lawyers.
I'm going to update the project page and remove the link to the extension itself and take it down as well. Had I known it would meet with this resistance I wouldn't have gotten anyone's hopes up on bringing this forth. My hope is that they will take the hint that this is really something that people want and that some are willing to invest time and effort into doing if it isn't done for them, and therefore build one themselves with all the bells and whistles. Based on what I see in the Firefox plugin, I think it is absolutely a manageable goal to get a similar capability going on Safari.
When the Tail Wags the Dog
The Register is reporting that the Firefox team is considering blocking Java in response to the BEAST attack, which allows the attacker to intercept data from an otherwise secured connection. The move would be contentious given the impact it could have on anyone using Java in their Firefox browser, including users of Facebook's video chat as well as Java applets deployed internally at companies who depend on the Java functionality for their business. Without getting into the details of the problem, it seems that the Java plugin, developed now by Oracle, is causing a big headache for Firefox and their options are both limited and unappealing given possible user backlash. It's just another example of why company's are increasingly tempted to not work with other software projects to obtain new functionality, instead opting to fork existing projects, create their own solutions or just go without the new tech altogether.
A recent example involves Amazon's fork of Gingerbread (aka Android 2.3) to power their new Kindle Fire. Many decried the decision, particularly since Honeycom (Android 3.0) was available and targeted specifically at tablets and the newer Ice Cream Sandwich (Android 4.0) was going to be available just around the corner to unify the handset and tablet focused Android versions. More than just forking the code though, Amazon opted to create their own Android App Store meaning users may find themselves needing to repurchase Android apps already purchased elsewhere to get them onto their Kindle Fire or at least having to jump through additional hoops to use all available Android apps. Regardless, the fork means that Amazon is not beholden to anyone else for updates or features and given the open source nature of Android, will be able to pull any choice bits in from newer Android releases without having to work on anyone else's schedule.
We also saw this with Apple's decision to create Safari. Prior to OS X, Internet Explorer dominated the Apple browser market. Given that as connectivity became more widespread, browsing the web became a more prominent activity, Apple was moved to provide a more Apple-esque experience for browsing. The WebKit project provided the core of the browser which resulted in Apple boasting a well known browser of their own on several platforms and no longer relying on another company to provide that key experience.
Apple also showed their desire not to be reliant upon other company's technology in how they have handled Adobe's Flash. Flash has never seen the light of day on an iOS device and is no longer shipping pre-installed on Macs. There were clear performance issues (the 2009 Apple keynote mentions plugins at 10:23 but in retrospect it seems clear the reference was mostly to Flash) but more important were the control concerns. Apple has retained tight control over the user experience of their platforms, control which would only have decreased had Flash become more pervasive on Apple devices. Apple has put considerable effort into providing technologies which developers would have a hard time making use of on a meta platform like Flash, so the less dependence upon Flash by Apple, the more control they retain over their own platform.
Historically we have also seen what happens when companies attempt to coexist with competitor technologies. Witness OS/2's slow death (or lack of uptake) because developers could just develop for Windows and let the OS/2 Windows layer handle running the non-native application. Users never got a taste of what a real OS/2 app could accomplish. And while RIM's PlayBook was practically stillborn, the last gasp effort to renew life by declaring that Android apps would be allowed to run on the device was generally considered a bad idea by pundits since that, as with other similar decisions, would result in less push for developers to target the platform natively.
The lesson here is simple. Only trust third party components to the extent that you can do without them entirely. The more your own platform or project becomes dependent upon the functionality of other plugins or platforms, the more beholden you are to their schedules and priorities. It can be difficult to predict when a shift like that is going to happen (or already has), but it can be crucial.
Follow Me
Recent Posts
- Data Access with .NET Framework 4 (Exam 70-516)
- Building Buzz for your iOS App
- Facebook Page Tab and WordPress
- Facebook Page Tab, SSL and Hosted Websites
- SEO Marketing – Read the Label