pyehouse

Just a quickie here. We have a version 2.0 of MiniStumble, the StumbleUpon Safari extension bar! You can find more details on the MiniStumble page.

You may not be aware that I’ve created a teensy little StumbleUpon Safari extension. If not, go check it out. Apple supposedly has approved it for inclusion in their gallery, but I’ve checked and I don’t yet see it. Regardless, as the page says it is a minimally functional StumbleUpon Safari extension, only providing a few page redirects and using the badge API to query for the view count and page ID from their database. That’s all well and good but you can’t use it vote on things, and it offers no protection from iframe breakers. What’s a stumbler to do!?

Well, keeping in mind that this whole mess is SOLELY being developed because for whatever reason the powers that be at StumbleUpon.com have yet to develop their own Safari extension, I’ve been hacking around with their Firefox extension, reverse engineering it in order to do what needs doing in mine. It’s been fun and I’m making some headway but I’m not exactly sure when the next release will be. I have login capability working, but I haven’t yet tested doing anything useful once logged in.

One thing I’m a little concerned about is the fragility of what it is I’m doing. There is no official API for any of this. Assuming for a moment I actually manage to rip the guts out of the Firefox extension and make it work for Safari, there’s no guarantee the interface won’t change later on. They might alter the FF functionality such that it uses different calls. They might break some single interface that causes my whole little project to fall to pieces. Because there is no official StumbleUpon API, I have no guarantees that any of this will continue working. But, I’m enjoying doing this little bit of hackery and it seems like something useful.

I should mention too that the Firefox extension developers were thorough. I was thinking of something quick and dirty, but there are quite a few corner cases dealt with in the code and as I start bringing things over, I’m becoming torn as to whether to try to rewrite the few bits I want to pull in or try to port the entire back end over. The pain of missing those corner cases and coding for them myself or the pain of suffering through roadblock after roadblock of making Firefox extension-compatible Javascript work in a Safari extension environment. I’m leaning toward the former though the latter would, I think, be a more thorough implementation. I don’t doubt that the checks in the FF extension are necessary (like making sure to check for rapid clicking on the Stumble icon and not causing multiple async stumble requests), I may start off with a more fragile implementation in some respects, just to get it out there, followed by some touch up afterward to clean things up. I’ll be honest, I’m not doing this with my usual forethought, mostly because I think at some level I still see it as a “small” project.

Anyhow, I just figured I would mention what’s going on with it. Bear with me and mind the mess.

I want to touch on this subject once more, because I think it deserves some more attention. I imagine Metro is getting overplayed a bit, but as almost anyone will point out, Metro is essentially Windows Phone 7’s interface writ large. Or put another way, where WP7 was a revolution for Microsoft, Metro is the next evolutionary step from WP7, putting it onto the desktop in addition to mobile devices. Yet this isn’t so very different from what Apple has been moving toward with various UI elements bouncing back and forth between iOS and OS X and then, earlier this year, the ‘Back to the Mac’ themed WWDC conference. The fact is both Microsoft and Apple are pushing toward a unified UI strategy. They’re just taking different tacks getting there.

The Red Queen – Metro’s New Look

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that I don’t dislike Metro. I can’t say I like it all that much either. It’s definitely different, definitely featureful. I’m not looking forward to some of the support sessions I am no doubt going to be involved with when some of my clients end up with a new computer with Windows 8 installed and no clue how to operate the new UI. Still, I think there are a number of things Microsoft is doing right with Windows 8. One thing I’ve already mentioned that I think they’re doing wrong is making too big a change in the UI too quickly. The shift from Windows XP to Vista and on to Windows 7 didn’t involve large paradigm shifts in UI usage and even so there were some complaints for users who were used to the “way things were”. But by and large, things have gotten better, folks got used to the new look and layout and things were more or less okay. Windows 8 looks to upend all of that by introducing what is, for all intents and purposes, a completely new way of doing things. Technically anyone who has a Windows Phone 7 device now is already exposed to the core principles. But that’s a very small number of people really. I’m not trying to rehash my previous article, but I do want to point out that this whole hog approach is very purposeful. It’s not an accident that Microsoft is doing this. I think they realize just how much risk this gambit involves and I think they are going about it with eyes wide open. The question is, why? I’ll get to that in a bit.

The White Queen – iOS’s Slow Play

Apple on the other hand is taking a slow approach. They introduced iOS, with UI elements similar to those on OS X. The expanded on those elements. Then over time, things have slowly begun to merge. With Lion, we now have the Launchpad to mimic iOS home screen functionality, the scrolling and scroll bars are behaving like they do on iOS, swipes are beginning to work similarly, full screen mode is being rolled out, though not pushed out… slowly we are seeing the iOSification of OS X which itself was the basis for iOS. The emphasis here is slow. OS X is still fundamentally OS X. Take someone who’s only familiar with OS X 10.0 and sit them down in front of Lion and they’ll still be able to do anything. The reversed scrolling will confuse the hell out of them at first, granted, but once you get them past that hurdle, they’ll be fine. Put someone on an iOS device and, as has been mentioned elsewhere, the gestures and usage seem relatively intuitive. People pick it up easily and things work as you would expect them to. Yet as dissimilar as the two environments are, they are being brought together. How much further we have yet to go, I can’t say. What I can say is that on the current course, it’s going to be a subtle shift and I if the scrolling “controversy” is any indication, it will involve little fuss.

King’s Gambit

So why then would Microsoft jump so quickly to unify their UI with a fast play that may involve more pain and more screaming from consumers? Simple. The iPad. If it weren’t for the fact that the iPad is trouncing all comers in the tablet space, Microsoft would not feel the need to renovate their very non-touch-oriented OS for tablet use. Yes, Windows Phone 7 is already out and seems to be a precursor to anything in the Metro interface, intimating it was in the development pipeline before Windows 8. I’d be willing to bet that Windows Phone 7 was, in fact, a product of the effort to get Windows 8 out and available for desktop and tablet use. Moreover, I think they bet on the phone strategy because at least in the phone space there has been some indication of room to grow, with Android devices challenging the iPhone’s dominance and leaving hope that Microsoft might be able to push some of these devices out rapidly. Of course, I can’t know for sure. But tell me… if Microsoft really wanted to, couldn’t they have simply held off on finalizing Windows 8 and making it operate on smartphones and done a simultaneous release? Surely the WP7 team knew about Windows 8 development. It seems they clearly wanted WP7 out in the real world for users to play with and get used to the interface before Windows 8 was out and available. And they wanted that momentum to carry them forward into deploying Windows 8 on desktops (a lesser concern) as well as new tablet devices now based on Windows 8 and standing a chance in hell against the iPad.

Microsoft is rushing their UI unification in order to take on Apple in the tablet space, with Windows Phone 7 as the vanguard of the UI makeover. I don’t know how successful their gambit will be, but as I look it over, I think it’s the only move they could make.

I swear, I’m going to quit sleeping. I go to sleep and all sorts of things happen overnight. I wake up and it’s like gremlins have come in and moved things around. Now it seems my DVDs aren’t coming from Netflix anymore, they’re coming from some Qwikster place? Same label and everything, just a different name. Anyone see this coming?

It’s interesting they did this, though not completely surprising. Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, has made no bones about wanting to grow the streaming side and speculation has been running high that they were looking to the streaming business as the focus of their future. Honestly, in the long run I think physical media delivery is going to only be decreasingly attractive, both as a business venture and as a product (the two do go hand in hand after all). But that shift is only going to happen when fast internet is available in more homes and, more importantly, when content is given equal availability via streaming as well as physical media. Until then, sure, if you ship, they will come.

I said not ‘completely’ surprising though, didn’t I? And I mean it. For streaming to take off, one of the two factors is going to be having more content, and higher quality/current content, available for streaming. But Starz is taking their ball and going home because Netflix didn’t want to pay the new, much higher rates Starz requested. I get that. I just hope Netflix has a plan in place to replace some of that content.

Of course this may be a way to mitigate potential disaster, too. Consider… if the streaming business does take off, it won’t be hampered by what I imagine will be declining business on the DVD side in years to come. Yay. And if this gambit doesn’t pay off because Netflix can’t secure that higher quality content and all goes to hell in a handbasket… well, they’ve still got their DVD business, though at the loss of a well established brand in preference to a newly minted brand. Which they now have to share with a pothead on Twitter.

On a personal level, I really want to see Netflix succeed (you know, the new super sleek, purely streamy Netflix, not that mangy old dual business channel, clearly crufty Netflix) because I prefer to stream. It appeals to my whimsical nature when it comes to deciding what I’m going to watch. With a delivered DVD sitting there on the TV stand, I feel compelled to watch. Like I’m obligated to watch it as quickly as humanly possible just so I can return it because “oh my gosh they might be missing it and what about that mother of seven in Wichita who really needs this DVD gaaaaahhhhh”. So, dear overlords of movie and tv content, please help me out. Destress my life. Let Netflix have reasonable rates for streaming your schlock er, content. A rising tide lifts all boats and all that.

Now let me get back to watching this next episode of ‘Haven’. Gotta get this disc back this week.

I’ve mentioned before that Windows 8 Metro is going to be a very disruptive UI switch for most Windows users to make and is likely going to cause some headaches for Microsoft due to customer backlash. The timing is off, though Microsoft is making an effort to get the word out early and work to make the interface as knowable as possible well in advance. Only time will tell if they succeed well enough to avoid the complaints. That said, I should make something clear… I don’t oppose or even really dislike the Metro concept. The most visible change in Metro, and the one that I think is most likely to draw the ire of those who complain, is that of essentially devoting the entire screen to a single application at a time, a concept most mobile device users are already very familiar with. It’s only on the desktop where this paradigm becomes less common. In any event, one interesting concept in Windows 8 that I like in particular is the concept of “contracts”.

In Windows 8, an application can expose features through a contract. The contract details what the offered feature needs to work and what it will produce. Think of it like the input/output paradigm in Apple’s Automator but able to be tapped into by any application on the system, not just through a single central authority like Automator. More importantly, these features can be tapped into seamlessly, the user never having to leave the current application but still being able to tap into the full functionality present on their device. In the Metro interface, where only one application has the screen at a time, this will be a boon to developers and users alike, working to increase the usefulness in situations where one app owning the screen at a time is necessary.

Move Over Bacon, There’s Something Better ( in Windows 8 )

Sharing features between apps is of course something that’s been around for awhile. Even the earliest operating systems allowed applications to talk to one another by opening connections between apps and sending data cross. Over time, protocols were established to be able to send higher level data across instead of having to reconstruct data manually on the receiving end. By the early 90’s, Microsoft released their OLE (Object Linking and Embedding) technology, allowing the sharing of complex features between various applications. This required considerable effort to do well, though. OLE is not the only such technology though. There are many to choose from. But it seems as though the focus here is more on how it will affect the end user and less on how to integrate apps. It may seem like one and the same, but the focus drives the implementation. Here, Microsoft got the focus right.

Absent on the list of IPC protocols is OpenDoc. OpenDoc was a consortium created in the 90’s after OLE became popular and gave Microsoft a big advantage with Office. It tried to unite a number of vendors to create a standard that would rival OLE’s capabilities and allow them to offer a comparable feature set without having to bend to Microsoft’s will. Microsoft began using their OS dominance to full advantage by requiring certain compliance criteria for OS verification of an app that resulted in practically requiring use of OLE as opposed to OpenDoc. After awhile, OpenDoc went away. Why mention a dead protocol? Because Apple was a major driver behind OpenDoc and didn’t seem to learn much from it.

We see some of what Apple came away with in Services on OS X, Apple events, and a few other supported features. Automator touches on this concept of feature sharing though it’s really just a workflow tool. We don’t see any sort of attempt by Apple to nail down a standard method of allowing one app to provide full featured functionality to another app to be called out at will. As I said, Services touch on this concept, but not to the extent that OLE or Windows 8 Contracts provides. And that’s the shocker. Heck, iOS lacks even these more basic elements, allowing only the registration of a URL type and the ability to send a simple string to that URL as the only means of sending a message to another app. And that ends up causing a full context switch, pushing the user out of whatever app they were in, and doesn’t provide any means of dynamically finding feature availability. Apple should have learned more here. I imagine they’re listening though.

On the desktop, I don’t see this as as huge a deal as it will be in mobile. As far as I know, no mobile devices currently have this level of integration between apps and if it ends up working nearly as well as the hands on demos indicate, it’s going to be a nice feather in Microsoft’s cap.

Android malware is on the rise

There’s a new instance of Android malware on the loose, targeting your SMS messages, intercepting them and attempting to use them for profit. It isn’t the first instance of malware on the Android platform; there have been a number of apps posing as other innocuous, even useful, tools that harvested your data for less than honorable purposes. In fact, this latest incarnation of Android malware, named SpyEye, follows on the footsteps of Zeus, an Android version of desktop malware. TheRegister reports that Android malware exploits are set to rise precipitously over the next six months. In that same article, it is surmised that Google dare not “lock down” its applications for fear of developer reprisal, intimating that the problem won’t be rectified with a “walled garden”.

One Android Malware To Go Please

In contrast with Apple’s “walled garden”, Google has adopted what could be termed an “untamed jungle” approach. While there are multiple app stores with varying levels of vetting by the operator, there are ample methods for Android owners to download apps from any location fully on their own recognizance to determine the genuineness and safety of the app in question. This has several positive effects. First, the barrier to entry for developers is lowered as they can offer applications directly from their website without having to register and receive approval from a third party operator. Second, the user has a potentially larger pool of applications to draw from since apps that otherwise might have been rejected are now available (I’m looking at you PhoneStory).

There are downsides, too, though, as Android owners are finding out. When an app store operator vets an app, there is a much lower chance that it will be approved if it will adversely affect a user’s device. There are quality checks made which wouldn’t be outside of an app store environment. Of course, it helps if the app store operator has reasonable standards and a habit of enforcing them but any app store operator worth their salt is going to make the effort in order to preserve their reputation, else customers will bring their money to another app store that serves them better. Outside of these app stores though, anything goes. Without a formal vetting process in place, the bar is lowered for malware authors to infect users’ devices.

Of course, not even Apple requires you to enter through their gates for all of their devices. End users can just as easily install apps from a developer’s website on their iMac as any Windows user could on their PC. There is an App Store for OS X users, but it isn’t required. It offers a degree of comfort, of safety, but isn’t the only way. Users are left to fend for themselves. But the argument that Google would necessarily lose developers if they chose to lock down Android is without merit. Apple took some heat for what was perceived to be a strong handed approach in terms of what apps were allowed to do but seems to be doing quite well in spite of this. Even when Android first arrived and all of the comparisons of openness vs not-so-openness were cropping up, Apple has still done very well. Developers did not leave the platform in droves. Apple’s world did not end. So it’s not the openness, per se, that Google fears. Rather it’s that they have hyped it so much they can’t back down now. They’ve worked to convince everyone that they champion openness, and the free distribution of Android apps outside of an app store is a major part of that campaign, that any backing down now would seem like a retreat of sorts. And that, Google can’t have.

Google has revealed they are working on a new programming language, Google Dart, which one can surmise will be targeted at web development, likely on both the back end and front end. The first indication was the release of the speaking schedule for the Goto Conference in October, where two speakers will be presenting the keynote concerning this new language. If it turns out that Dart is in fact targeted at replacing Javascript on the front end, regardless of any other platform targets it might have, it is not going to transform the client side development experience without more support than just Google’s Chrome.

What is Google Dart Targeting, Really?

Based on an alleged leaked memo discussing a project codenamed “Dash”, it seems that Google is trying to supplant Javascript in the browser in order to fight the “encroachment of other, less open platforms”. This appears to be referring to native apps and in the case of mobile, iOS apps in particular. According to the “Dash memo”, the plan will be to have Dash cross compile to Javascript in order to continue to support Javascript centric browsers until such clients are capable of natively running Dash. The intent, then, is to create a new environment, entice developers to jump in and use it, and use that momentum to move vendors like Apple, Microsoft, Mozilla and Opera to incorporate Dart VMs in their browsers. There are some problems with this approach though.

A Twenty Mule Team

Google is going to be pulling against several different, very powerful forces if they make an attempt such as they seem to be undergoing. To begin with one of the problems they cite as a reason to consider Dart, a multitude of frameworks and libraries to perform various functions, is also one of the reasons many developers will want to stick with the language as they have already invested time and effort in learning and deploying these frameworks. Moreover, Google points to the use of myriad incompatible design patterns. Based on this statement, it suggests they want to perform some sort of enforcement over which patterns might be used or perhaps create alternative frameworks which use a common pattern and provide them as a means to allow developers to use a consistent set of frameworks. This suggests Google is looking to create “the One True Way” for web development by fiat rather than by allowing for the development of a standard which other entities might have a say in. If they were truly concerned about asserting the homogeneity of the Javascript ecosystem they would proffer their own such frameworks using compatible design patterns.

Then there are the other browsers. If you take a look at the speakers list as well as the list of sponsors, you will notice some absences. Namely any other browser vendor. Barring a last minute surprise, it doesn’t seem as though Dart has the backing of anyone but Google which means that the best we could hope for would be for Chrome to have Google Dart support out of the gate. Chrome is doing well, but Chrome alone will not be sufficient to convince the majority of developers to switch to its environment. What about the other vendors?

Microsoft has continued to release additional details about development on their upcoming platforms and it seems that it is going to focus on .NET and WinRS on the backend and for native code and use of HTML5/CSS/JS for UI development. It seems unlikely that Microsoft would have a great deal of concern for moving toward adoption of yet another VM for their front end functionality. Not to mention Microsoft has their own development toolchain which they want to see in use as opposed to a Google Dart based toolchain which would allow for more cross platform oriented development.

Apple, too, is focusing on HTML5/CSS/JS for support in their browsers and given the competition between iOS and Android, I wouldn’t imagine they would want to provide a leg up for developers to create apps using Google Dart that would function equally well on either platform. On top of that, Apple has already dealt with another company who owned a toolchain which focused on cross platform development. Adobe still has yet to compel Apple to release a Flash compatible update on iOS and in fact has started making overtures to the HTML5/CS/JS crowd through their announcement of Edge as well as the recent changes to their Flash Media Server to deliver alternative content to iOS devices on the fly. Apple isn’t going to let their major mobile competitor install a competing VM platform on iOS devices when that means that competitor will have a distinct edge in keeping support for it more featureful and up to date on Android.

Mozilla could possibly accept Google Dart as a native VM in their browsers, simply because they have the least to lose in such an arrangement. Unlike Microsoft and Apple, Mozilla as an organization is not pushing a competing development environment or toolchain, isn’t competing in the mobile space and in fact is really only going head to head with Google with regard to browser market share. Still, that may yet be reason enough not to jump in bed with Google. Plus unless Google Dart is made part of a standard of some kind, it’s possible that there will be even less traction in this space.

The same argument goes for Opera, perhaps even more so. Opera has a reputation for being one of the most standards compliant browsers available and again, unless Google Dart is made a standard, Opera may not wish to incorporate this VM into their product.

What’s the End Game?

Google isn’t stupid, so if it seems so obvious that uptake of Google Dart is going to be difficult to achieve, why bother? As the “Dash memo” points out, this is a high risk/high reward option. Given how many different projects Google has going at one time, creating a new VM to include in their browser and to make available for back end development isn’t asking much in terms of time and money. The risk is in the reputation. Google is going to put their name behind this and try to get developer muscle to push it into other browsers. In essence it is going to test how much weight they actually have to throw around. If it succeeds, they will have grabbed a commanding position, providing a toolchain which can target apps on their platforms to their liking and which other vendors would need to tailor their systems around. If it fails, it will be a sign that while they are big, they can’t yet force the other big players to play their game. High risk, high reward. I don’t see a bullseye in the making.

Image by renjith krishnan

Microsoft has been revealing more and more features about Windows 8, including the new Metro interface shown above. That is what the standard desktop interface is going to look like in Windows 8. You’ll be able to click a ‘Desktop’ link to interact with older legacy applications (i.e. anything developed for Windows 7 or earlier) but clicking on the ‘Start’ menu is going to land you back in this tiled world. Microsoft is trying to add a breath of fresh air to their interface but I think they’ve simply introduced the wrong new thing.

Direction of Change

Introducing change to your UI is never a decision made lightly. Companies enter legal fights over ‘look and feel’ to make sure they have a unique design, something easily recognizable to anyone sitting down to use their product. Microsoft no doubt is hoping to make their UI memorable but I’m sure is nervous about how it will be received. In fact, they were so nervous about the upcoming changes to Windows Explorer in Windows 8 that they posted a blog entry about it. In it, they didn’t just go into detail about the changes, they discussed the entire history of the interface, the commands most often used, and then ended with an attempt to convince us why we needed the new ribbon UI on a file and folder browser. Microsoft is anxiously trying to get the word out now before the product’s release, likely to avoid any user backlash over getting used to the new way of doing things.

Part of their problem, though, is that they are introducing change in a way that most folks don’t appreciate. Windows 8’s Metro interface is essentially the Windows Phone 7 UI writ large. The problem is Windows Phone 7 hasn’t been in use long enough nor by enough people for the interface to feel more at home to more people. In fact, Microsoft just recently announced plans to increase sales personnel to push additional sales. And now, before the public has really had a chance to become used to this new tiled way of doing things, they are attempting to push it into the new Windows 8 deployment.

At first blush, it would seem to be an attempt to steal a page from Apple’s playbook. Recall Steve Jobs’ “Back to the Mac” theme, where they discussed introducing iOS UI elements into OS X Lion? And in fact Launchpad is pretty much an iOS home screen with all of your apps and no groups. The difference is in the timing. Apple let the iOS experience percolate on iPhone, iPod Touch and then iPad before deciding to bring any elements back into the desktop. And even then, they didn’t make a radical departure. Perhaps bigger changes are coming. In fact, I’m certain of it. But Apple made the right move by easing folks into the iOS way of doing things first before introducing similar changes to an interface OS X users are very familiar with. In any event, the Windows 8 Metro interface is going to receive some pretty critical pushback from their userbase.

According to a Guardian post, an AOL Yahoo merger is being considered. Yahoo is worth $17 billion. AOL is valued at $1.68 billion. You can imagine, then, the chutzpah it takes to say they’re doing it wrong online. But they are. I co-own a Houston based computer support company which you’ve probably never heard of. It isn’t valued nearly as highly. So why call these two out? Simply, they deserve it.

Yahoo seems to be going through Kubler-Ross’ stage 3, bargaining, staving off the end just a little bit longer. AOL has been in decline for what seems like forever. It’s like an ant’s view of watching a human tumble to the ground. It must seem like eternity. In any event, now the rumor mill has it that the two Internet giants are considering merging. It seems a feeble gesture somehow. The problem isn’t that either of them needs what the other has. The problem is that neither is doing the right thing with what they’ve got.

Both companies provide a multitude of services to their viewers. Yahoo provides myriad social and information services including their mail service. AOL provides content from many sources which they have either developed or acquired over time, in addition to their mail service. In AOL’s case, they don’t need additional services to beckon readers into their content-laden maw. They need to improve their content by shooting for more quality and less quantity. I don’t know that anyone drops by AOL because they have the hottest stories, best blogging or most ground breaking journalism. They go there because of inertia. And Yahoo doesn’t need AOL either. Instead they need to take the multitude of services they provide now and streamline them, turning them into a single cohesive experience.

No, these two companies are strange bedfellows. They have overlap in areas where merging won’t help and their differences aren’t complementary areas. What we’re seeing is one more stage of dying. Let’s hope it’s relatively painless.

Google has made a blog post concerning the reasons for their Google Docs outage last week. In essence, a bug in their software was exposed when they added an enhancement, a bug that was only visible under heavier load than seen in the test environment. One of those “Wait, that didn’t happen in the simulator” moments. I don’t see this as an indictment against Google. Everyone makes mistakes and this is just that kind of ornery bug that is very hard to find without actually pushing your systems to max. But it still raises the question of how the cloud should be used.

Google’s concept of cloud services, where not only is the data entirely stored remotely but the functionality is accessed there too, demands a full time connection to the remote server to work. While losing access to your stash of poetry or your grandmother’s cache of recipes isn’t likely to have caused you too much upset, being unable to grab the most recent copy of the contract on your way to the merger meeting might be a little more unsettling. Sure, you probably have a copy somewhere locally… right? The fact is, when you rely on this sort of arrangement, you are potentially putting some of your most critical digital possessions in the hands of another company. Even a company as well established as Google can fail. But surely it’s more likely that your own machines would fail before Google’s would. Okay, let’s grant that. Google even outlined the steps they were taking to try to prevent this sort of problem (I hesitate to call it a disaster given what all is happening in the world these days, but some may feel the description fits) happening in the future. Are they going to also put into effect a plan that prevents a backhoe from severing my company’s connection to the outside world and thus Google’s servers? Will they also provide a plan that will prevent an accounting error from inadvertently shutting off my internet pipe? The fact is Google is not the only link in the chain between me and their servers and they’re not even the weakest link. They are only one link and one part of the problem.

Apple’s take, using the cloud as a form of automated storage, is a better bet. You get the convenience of local access plus the comforts of remote storage and availability. I won’t care (as much) if my link to Apple gets cut because my Word document (or Pages for you purists) is resting peacefully in my Documents folder. Let the backhoes come and let destruction break forth upon my internet connection. I am prepared.

That’s not to say that view isn’t without its problems of course. It means my hardware purchases will still require more hard drive capacity which means greater expense. It means that I will be responsible for keeping my software up to date instead of simply hitting a website where the software is always up to date. But hard drives are getting cheaper for the most part. It’s a downward trend for price, even for SSD devices. And the automatic update functionality for any major OS these days provides plenty of convenience for staying patched. For apps that I didn’t get from an App Store, there are still options. Developers have been including update checks in their software for years. And of course, for those that don’t, yes there will be a gap. The gap is shrinking over time.

The fact is that Google cannot guarantee that I will always be able to access my data and software anytime, from anywhere. They can hold up their end of things and frankly I trust them to do that. Not just because they have shown a penchant for being able to put together solid deployments but also because it’s becoming their lifeblood. What they cannot do is ensure I will always be able to read my poetry at 3AM. And that’s just unacceptable.