bbrighton

Say “No” to a Commodity Experience

April 12, 2010 in Meta Mac, Non-Fiction

Let’s come right out and say it. Apple’s recent change to the Developer Agreement may be good for Apple specifically, but it’s better for users of the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad.

If you use one of these devices, it is a good thing. Period.

Why is it good? Counter Question #1

To answer why this change is a good thing, a different question needs to be answered. Why do you like your iPhone? For that matter, why do you like your Mac (assuming you have one)? Why do you hate certain applications (again, assuming you have a Mac, but the answer is relevant to any platform)?

For most people, there are special characteristics of a device, of an operating system, of an application, that make one “brand” better than another; the features offered, the user interface, the aesthetics. For each person, the reason(s) may differ, but the decision to purchase (or use) one choice over another rests on the sum of these attractions (or requirements).

So, each of us who think to choose, choose based on what makes sense to us, what makes a difference. This is important.

Why is it good? Counter Question #2

Now that we can reasonably assume that there are benefits to your existing choices, whatever they are, what would happen if those benefits disappeared? Depending on how much time you spend using your device or software, your feelings might range from mild displeasure to pure, unadulterated fury. (For a similar reference, think Mac Word 6.) But surely absent a seemingly draconian policy from Apple, the software you know and love isn’t going to vanish and the devices that are so revolutionary fail to materialize, right?

Why is it good? Counter Question #3

Ask yourself why you have an iPhone instead of a BlackBerry, Palm, or Android phone. Ask yourself why so many people bought iPods. Ask yourself what is it that kept the Mac OS alive when it seemed that the entire world of conventional wisdom predicted its demise? The answer lies in the heart of what makes a Mac a Mac. The experience.

If you’re anywhere close to being a Mac person, you understand the concept of Mac applications compared to any other application. It’s the look. It’s the feel. It’s the way it interacts with the hardware, with the OS, with the user. It’s fused into the DNA that clearly shows when a piece of software was designed for the Mac rather than “ported” across. Why is it such a stellar achievement when a cross-platform application is embraced by Mac OS users? Because it is so hard to serve multiple masters well enough to satisfy all.

Which brings us to the very heart of why this change is a good thing for the iDevices. This policy protects the very innovation and experience the market not only cherishes but has come to expect from Apple and those applications on the devices.

A different market demands different protections

The arguments already being presented that claim this is designed to stifle innovation are misplaced at best. Quite the opposite, this policy helps to preserve the competition that breeds true innovation. As the lessons of desktop software teach every day, crapware, when prevalent enough and cheap enough, can drive out quality experience, quality hardware, and quality usability.

Is allowing intermediary technologies a guaranteed path to crapware? Actually, yes. It’s not that every instance of software generated from this path will indeed drive the dagger deeper, just as there are some decent desktop applications from similar sources, the ratio of poor results to excellent will become so high as to drown out the quality.

It can be argued that for Apple’s vision (and really, the vision of every one of us who use the devices, who make or want to make software for them) to succeed, this rule must be in place, to protect the market from those for whom lowest common denominator is acceptable, from those for whom “good enough” really is, from those for whom “changing the world” is someone else’s job.

That’s pretty damning of thousands of software developers

It is definitely true that many of the sources of crapware don’t intentionally produce it, nor is it even tasteful to them in many cases. However, many of the elements discussed here are business decisions. Effort vs. result. Cost vs. benefit. Risk vs. reward. Few businesses (and even fewer individuals) have unlimited resources to devote to a given project. In fact, that limit on resources is behind many decisions to use cross-platform tools in the first place, under the aegis that the results will be “good enough”. Depending on the target market, they might be. But there is no toolkit out there that perfectly emulates every OS feature and every hardware feature on every platform the toolkit supports. Therefore, compromises are made by default, even when the developers have the best of intentions.

Speaking of business, isn’t this just another way of saying this is to protect Apple’s business interests?

It is true that Apple benefits as a business from a policy such as this. However, only those who suffer from a lack of long-term perspective, who willingly choose to ignore historical realities, or simply lack the experience to recognize the situation for what it is, will claim that this policy does no good for anyone other than Apple.

This decision helps ensure that the value of Apple’s vision and creativity, in the hardware design and operating system implementations, has the best chance of surviving the ordeal of being encapsulated into the creations of software developers and therefore, passed along to the market which has so passionately embraced that vision.

If you like the iPhone, if you demand innovation, and if you consider it important to preserve competition, this policy change is for you.

Even if you think you don’t want it.

Apple “Think Different” posters for sale

February 20, 2010 in General

For those who have been subjected to this before, yes, I still have some to go. If you don’t know already, then step right up! Now’s your chance to get your hands on some spiffy original, in-the-original-shipping-tube, 24″ x 36″ (or 36″ x 24″ for landscape, or if you’re just inclined 90 degrees) Apple Think Different posters. These were purchased directly from Apple Starting Line so long ago. One owner. Low mileage (it’s all on the current owner).

Today is series #4: Sinatra, Feynman, Robinson, Chavez

Find some of these at Missing Byte at $400 and up individually (if you can find them at all; MB currently only has Chavez from this set listed).

I’m asking $900 (+shipping and insurance) for the set, offered until the 15-March or it sells, whichever comes first. Contact me directly for payment and shipping information, or any questions.

Spam not included.

off

Apple is evil. Film at 11.

February 6, 2010 in Meta Mac, Non-Fiction

Just as “film at 11″ is an anachronism in every sense (there is no film these days, most news is obtained at times other than 11pm), “Apple is evil” falls squarely into the same category. Yet, click-bait über alles, and we still have the mindset that everything Apple does has to either be benevolent graciousness (if you’re a fanboy) or the EndOfLifeAsWeKnowIt™ (if you’re on that other side). Folks, just like Apple itself has moved on from these discussions (more on that eventually in an in-depth analysis of the kefluffle that the iPad is creating), it’s time to figure out some new game to write about.

Wired’s Epicenter column on 5-Feb is a prime example of someone who either doesn’t get it or chooses to feign ignorance to generate hits.

So, is AT&T holding back?

January 23, 2010 in General

No surprise that AT&T is weaseling as much as possible regarding network infrastructure expenditures and so forth, but what if it’s even worse? What if AT&T really is making all the infrastructure improvements they say, but those improvements simply aren’t “turned on” yet?

The “whatever Apple is going to announce” is going to add a non-trivial data load to any network its on. It is (speculatively) almost assuredly going to be part of the iPhone ecosystem, not the Mac OS X ecosystem, which means that all the data use you see in the iPhone world is highly likely (as in imminent, unlike the apparent British use of ‘highly likely’) to spill over. More devices, more data usage.

However, I wouldn’t put it past a company with the Death Star as a logo to build out for the future while letting the present suffer.

off

You Can Keep The Dime (1994)

January 20, 2010 in Fiction

The dust mound grew with each sweep. Peter moved through the room, sweeping from end to end, making his way from one side to the other, moving the dust into a long mound on one side of the room.

He pushed the dust mop slowly, taking slow strides, stepping, stepping, stepping, stepping, turning, stepping, stepping, stepping, stepping, shaking the dust mop over the ever growing mound.

Peter looked up, through the bars, to the sky, and stare at the blue, into the bright morning light.

“Hey, you, keep moving.”

“But it is a beautiful morning. I was just admiring it for a moment. No harm in that, is there?”

off

3 sheets to the wind? What?

January 19, 2010 in Meta Mac

Digital Daily has today’s LOL moment. Unless you’re an “All roads lead to Redmond” sort of person, don’t be drinking fluids while reading this.

Even us Apple fans (no, not the Mac Macs, they’re just too weird) will accuse Apple (the previous Apple, anyway) of throwing technologies against a wall to see what sticks. It’s been a while since this happened (mostly) but it was a sore spot (and still is) for many people, even to this day. In what seems to be YAMSCOA (Yet Another MicroSoft Copy Of Apple), there really is no Apple method or product (or two- two- two-attributes in one) that MS won’t copy.

Witness the reported return of the Zune Phone.

Favorite quote, from Jefferies & Company analyst Katherine Egbert: ““However, the new phone might explain why Microsoft has allowed WinMo to dwindle to <10% mobile OS market share. Pink [the codename for this device] would be the ‘third screen’ (after Windows and Xbox) and final component in Microsoft’s ’3 screens and a cloud’ strategy.”

Um, Plays For Sure!

off

Novel snippet: Aphrodite Uncloaked

January 16, 2010 in Fiction

[Here is a snip from the beginning of a novel I wrote in the mid- and late- 90s. This is the first time any piece of it has been published online.]

Whispers and murmurs scattered throughout the crowd. All walks of people were watching with their hands covering their mouths, their eyes wide in amazement.

Thyrus stepped closer to the table in the center of the stage. With his side to the crowd, he reached toward the box on the table. He extended his index finger then hesitated.

“Who here would actually have me do this? Is there anyone in the audience who would really have me brave the dangers in this box?” Thyrus faced the audience now. He could tell they were spellbound; he watched their eyes. Every move he made, they followed. He milked the powerful hush for all he could. The strained silence broke when a young man stood up from the back half of the crowd.

off

And so we meet again

January 16, 2010 in General

It’s been a bonanza week for learning various things about WordPress and actually, just how robust my own previous publishing system was. If you want to see the older system still in action (not all the content will be moved), click the “Old Site” link in the toolbar. (And see the “about” pages for more information about how we’ve come to this point.)

Hang on for the ride!

off

Pack a lunch if you’re going to the moon… (1995)

January 16, 2010 in Fiction

“I — I — I want to go with — with you.”

“Now Charles, you know you can’t do that,” his mother replied.

“W — well, if I can’t go with you, I want to go to the moon.”

Charles’ mother kissed him on the forehead, checked the brakes on his wheelchair, then waved goodbye to him.

“You know I can’t take you to work with me, and, as for the Moon, well…. Goodbye, honey. I’ll see you when I get home. Make sure you’re back from the moon by the time I get home.” She smiled, closed the door behind her.

Charles slapped at the control for the wheelchair, released the brakes, and rolled into the living room.

“I — I — have to go some — somewhere,” he said aloud. He looked around the room and shouted, “I ha — have to go some — somewh — somewhere but he — here!”

off

Addendum to “Using OpenSSL for software licenses, revisited”

January 16, 2010 in Technical Articles

[Please note: This article originally appeared on sentientfood.com 2-Feb-2005.]

After the initial publication of the article, feedback came my way indicating there were some problems with the scheme that made it fairly easy to crack. “Fairly easy” is a relative term, of course, and it depends on the skill and the desire of the person doing the cracking and any counter-measures that the developer adds on top of the vanilla code available on this site. That being said, some of the points brought up were definitely valid.

Here are some tips, tricks, and approaches to improve the overall security of the licensing scheme.

Napster: if at first you don’t succeed, try the same thing again

January 15, 2010 in Meta Mac

[Please note: This article was originally published on sentientfood.com on 11-Feb-2005.]

Napster is at it again. As previously announced, and hyped with overpriced advertising space on the 2005 Super Bowl, they’ve released a new version of… wait for it… a music subscription service. Yawn.

The market for subscription music is small

Regardless of what all these services try to tell you, subscription music as a personal, portable listening option is a non-starter, even several years after the first attempts to manufacture the market for it. Yes, people want to be able take their music with them. This has been proven, from as far back as 8-track tapes (and before) to cassettes and CDs to the iPod family of today. Listeners see radio as ephemeral, which it is. It is there to expose you to things you might not otherwise hear, but when money changes hands, it is still expected that permanence (as much as anything is permanent) is part of the deal. Radio, even subscription radio, is seen differently than “buying music”, which at least partially explains the popularity of iTunes Music Store.

Napster targets iPod/iTMS, misses real target

Apple’s success in the music download marketplace has made it the default target for all other music download sites. That is really no surprise. That these other sites appear to be blinded by their own desire to dethrone Apple isn’t completely unexpected either, given the emotional response everyone’s favorite fruit computer company elicits. In Napster’s case, a small revenge motive might even be forgiven, since Apple has slurped up the legitimate version of the market that the original, ground-breaking Napster created. What’s really happening, though, is that the Napsters (and the Rhapsodys, and the rest of the subscription services) have lost sight of the real prize: to make new markets and own them. There might already be ways that subscriptions might work, but why try to force the issue with the millions of people who have already expressed their preference to work on the ownership model?

Why not Napster Radio?

It seems to me that it’s suicidal to dive right into a pool of feeding sharks and try to convince them that salad is really better for them. Sure, an all-you-can-eat offer might be tempting, and you might get a shark or two to, um, bite, but the reality is that you’re just going to become chum. So it will be with Napster To Go. The lesson that iTunes is really teaching the market is to look for what people want and give it to them. In Napster’s world, that apparently meant, “Hey! We have the agreements to let people listen to whatever they want as long as they subscribe, so let’s try to weasel into people’s pockets!” rather than really thinking differently about what they could offer.

Of course, iTMS has shown that the market for subscription services for personal music portfolios is much smaller than first thought. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for subscriptions or that there aren’t cool things that could be done to eventually make subscriptions a contender in the overall portable music space. Why else would there be two high-profile satellite radio options right now? Why would there be a huge race between those companies to make portable receivers (such as the MyFi device from XM)? Imagine Napster partnering with XM to make a real To Go service that you (the subscriber) program? Imagine what could be done at that point… sure, it wouldn’t have the same cache as taking on Apple, but it could carve out a place for itself among people who are used to and inclined toward subscription services. After all, with a subscription service where the music goes away when the subscription ends, that’s all the listener is doing anyway, programming a fancy radio.

Make the interface slick, make the programming options easy to use, make the songs easy to find (either specifically or recommended based on some criteria), make the stream easy to receive, in short, make it a brainless experience, just like Apple has done on the “purchase” side of the spectrum. If Napster (and the others) are going to insist on going subscription, at least take advantage of the few strengths that option actually has and run with them.

Otherwise, they’re just going to remain chum in the water.

off

« Previous entries

Next entries »

Seeking satori in all the wrong places