That’s how long it has taken AT&T to decide that it’s groundbreaking unlimited plan for the iPad is a little too consumer-friendly for a company so focused on wringing every dollar out of each subscriber. In other words say, goodbye to the affordability of the iPad as a streaming entertainment device.

read more from "30 Days (in the hole). Thanks for nothing, AT&T."

What the hell? Another click-bait headline for an article filled with Apple-bashing garbage, designed to bring the masses in with their teeming, steaming fingers commenting away? Not really. It’s actually a complimentary comparison (though for the very reasons it is, many of the likely readers of this article will be offended).

So I sit down to the computer and note that AOL (a former employer of mine) turned 25 years old recently. Kara Swisher of WSJ marked the occasion appropriately and in the article, she said something that is easy to forget:

…AOL–which really does deserve much praise for its pioneering and innovative efforts to introduce the Internet to mainstream consumer without the snobbery so typical of Silicon Valley techies toward regular people

Think about this one for a minute, because it’s true. There are millions of geeks who would be happier if the “normal people” were never let onto their internet, but there are hundreds of millions of people who are happier to be on now, thanks to AOL (or America Online, and it’s oddly named international variants). Yes, AOL wasn’t alone, there were a, ahem, host, of other providers too, but with AOL being the number one provider for many years, they deserve the credit (or derision, depending on your point-of-view).

So, what do we have? A pioneering company making products that served its own worldview (cynically, the “walled garden”), successfully, it might be added, bringing in people from a wide variety of backgrounds, allowing them to use technology in ways few had seen, expected, or even predicted in wild Carson-esqe fits of premonition. You had the Earth being blanketed by floppies and CDs. You had consumer companies testing the waters for new methods of product development, product delivery, marketing, sales, support, and all sorts of other angles, trying to figure out how to use the new medium to benefit customers and benefit corporate bottom lines.

Ignoring the AOL corporate missteps (which let’s face it, are really important, but covered quite well elsewhere and are not germane to the upcoming point), does this sound like anyCorp else you might know?

Let’s focus on a few similarities that might spark ideas.

1. The company blazes a trail, in most cases regardless of what potential (or real) partners might want
2. The company has a grand vision for (most of) the markets it enters and hews to that vision religiously
3. The company is led by a visionary (whether you agree with the vision or not)
4. The company dominates in certain markets
5. The company “officially” disdains the seedier portions of its market, ceding it to others
6. The company generates enormous amounts of press for its decisions, roadmap, products, and statements (again, whether you agree with the contents of those elements or not)
7. The company is a lightning rod for passionate discussions on the net about the net
8. Geeks are explosively fragmented about the company, its goals, and its products
9. The company is the embodiment of all that is evil. Just ask its detractors.
10. The company is responsible for invoking Godwin’s Law more often than Microsoft, Red Hat, IBM, AT&T, and Comcast put together. (Ok, maybe not. Maybe it just seems that way.)

Guess who it is yet?

Of course, it’s Apple, and the words to this point have just been to lay out the argument presented in the title; Apple is the AOL of today, and if you’re inclined to critical thinking and a modicum of reading comprehension, you probably already know why I say this. If I’ve lost you along the way, hold on, because here is the longer version.

The Geeks Shall Not Inherit the Earth

I’ve written elsewhere about the Apple/Adobe feud and the rapidly increasing adoption of HTML5 (and other) technologies proves Apple right, self-fulfilling or not. I’ve written elsewhere about Apple’s use of microSIM in the iPad and how this was likely to be the harbinger of future products. Based on the “iPhone 4″ leaks, it definitely seems to be appropriate. What do these, and so many other Apple decisions have to do with each other? They are both business decisions and consumer decisions. They are not strictly technical decisions. Sure, there’s a technical aspect to it, but any hue and cry raised by technologists goes mostly unnoticed, and rightfully so. If geeks ran the earth, we wouldn’t have alternatives to Windows (or maybe not even had Windows, as pure command-line was good enough, right?) From the number of slots in a computer tower to the use of floppy disks to USB to many other “technologies”, Apple is not afraid to move the customer base forward to the goals, as defined by Apple, not as defined by you, me, or some other legacy geek who might not understand the broader market implications. Apple is brave, just like AOL was brave, tackling problems that are not even necessarily identified as issues at that point in time. The confidence of being right is many times enough to actually be right.

The Press Doesn’t Get It

While most of the bad press for AOL has died down in the last few years as the company attempts to recover from a variety of issues, it’s not difficult to find examples of how AOL had to bow to its critics and change, had to become just like everyone else, how the company is doomed, doomed I tell you because it forged its own way. This is where many critics are likely to stand up and say, “See? We told you!” considering AOL’s current difficulties, and are just as likely to add the argument to Apple: “If the App Store doesn’t open up, if the approval process doesn’t change, if Apple and Google don’t drag each other into the broom closet for hot make-up action during the next Cupertino fire drill, if Apple doesn’t open up third-party advertising networks, if Apple doesn’t do this and if Apple doesn’t do that…”. Well, the critics might be right, but Apple is succeeding just fine right now without doing all those things. Just like AOL succeeded in its time. Apple controls its own destiny, just like AOL. Will Apple misstep? No one can answer that one, not even its most vehement critics. Only time will determine that one. Is the approach inherently bad? It does offend geek sensibilities, because control like this must be for evil purposes, right? Every man, woman, and child on the planet has a right to pay large numbers of dollars (or pesos, or lira, or marks, or rubles, or rupees, etc) for the right to an unfettered, virus-compromised, porn-overrun, “speed up your cellphone by clicking here” malware-infested, hard-to-understand, infinitely-capable-but-infinitely-complex computer, rather than the device they thought they were buying. Gee, I’d hate to infringe on that right.

One thing about the critics (well, and the proponents like me, alike): We come from a class of people who, by definition, are less likely to get the point the first time. We are trained to deconstruct products, services, companies, and even people into categories that we understand, into pockets of information that match our experience and predilection. You know what? We tend to be technologists, not true consumer behavior analysts. Some of us might get lucky and attempt to raise ourselves above the technogeek muck, but it takes work, attention, and a desire to truly understand the dynamics at work to accomplish this. In this world of instant news, instant analysis, I suspect that few take the time to “stop and think” about these sorts of things when there’s another deadline around the corner and success can be had in many definitions without doing the extra work.

If It’s Easy, It Has to be Bad

Remember one of the dominant AOL slogans? “So easy to use, no wonder it’s number one!” There’s a reason that the iPhone, iPod, and now iPad are selling so well, and it’s not the installed Mac OS base. And as the Flash proponents might like to say, since Flash is “95% of the video on the web” (um, ok…), these devices are selling this well on everything else. No wonder Adobe is fighting so hard, no wonder Flash developers are fighting so hard, when the market (by sales of iDevices) is showing that in large chunks, their work is unnecessary.

Really, this is a bias introduced by either a lack of understanding or a fear of the results. Feudal lords kept the serfs uneducated for fear of the revolt from a literate populace. Personal computers were held back from many corporate desktops in favor of mainframe solutions simply because the men in white coats could not necessarily control what happened on the desktop. The IT world oscillates between client-server and thin-clients on about a ten-year cycle and while the vocabulary changes, the reasoning (sometimes valid, sometimes not) effectively stays the same. Functionality vs. security. Training vs. productivity. Access vs. expenditure. So, in the context of the repeating technology arguments, AOL was the target of so much hate from people who “knew what they were doing and didn’t need training wheels” (regardless of whether these experts were using the AOL service or not). Apple has been and is the target of similar hateful invective; the original Mac OS/Macintosh/System was a toy (and occasionally that chestnut is still raised despite the Unix underpinnings of Mac OS X), the iPhone should be open and anything should be able to be installed on it, Apple makes various policy and security changes just to protect its business model (Really? Making a device “less functional” as the critics would claim causes Apple to sell more hardware?), and on and on. I’m certain there will be geek historians that write the tale years from now and will note the similarity of how the technorati rose up against consumer-popular companies like waves only to crash back into the sea, the “walled gardens” unfazed by noise.

Having the Balls to be Right. Or Wrong. But Not Mediocre.

Each of these things is more a symptom (or an attribute) of how Apple is today’s AOL, but it’s still dancing around the core, and that is that each company’s vision (and visionary) has a plan. A goal. The ability to execute. The market presence to bootstrap. The resources to succeed. In short, these companies believe in what they are creating and are willing to “bet the farm” on creating something great as the result. Or failing spectacularly, if that’s what happens, but either way, staying true to the vision means that there will be success or failure. There won’t be years of muddling around in obscurity trying to please everyone and every task while succeeding only well enough to prevent a change in direction. Steve Case was able to execute his vision, with spectacular results (at the time). Steve Jobs has been executing his vision, with spectacular results.

AOL brought connectivity (technical, telephone, human) to a world where BBSes and timeshares were the purview of übergeeks, where not just knowledge but understanding of baud, POTS, and command lines were previously necessary.

Apple is bringing a stellar vision of connected and useful devices to a world that is only used to personal computers, complete with the expectations of incompatibility, inconsistency, and insecurity reign.

So yes, Apple is today’s AOL.

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.

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.

read more from "Apple is evil. Film at 11."

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!

[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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

[Please note: This article was originally published on sentientfood.com 3-Feb-2005.]

What do you do with a book that’s essentially a $65 (reduced from the almost $100 when first published) advertisement for a $3500 training class? You dive right in to see just how much information you can get out of it. The book promises much and covers numerous topics, from the C language to Unix memory management to Rendezvous-support in its 25 chapters. Does it deliver?

Short answer: Yes, with some minor issues.

The C language is familiar to many programmers who’ve been around for a while, but may only be an academic curiosity to the more recent comers to the field, given that Java and C++ (or even Perl or PHP) are more likely to be used these days. Because of that, there are some ‘gotchas’ that need to be understood in order to work at the C-language level in the Unix underneath Mac OS X. Dalrymple spends 53 pages on the fundamental interactions of C. Much of this is good information if you’re coming from a non-C background, though there are times when the information is a bit basic even from that perspective. These chapters are really meant to be skimmed (or to be a refresher) so this isn’t really a problem.

Once you get past Conversational C, the book moves north into more interesting territory for those foreign to the guts of Unix. This is where you start learning to take control of the environment, to be able to turn your source into an application and see the results. Developers spoiled on integrated development environments (IDEs) may be in for a shock when faced with command-line build configurations like:

cc -g -Wall -o preprocTest preprocTest.m

but the whys and wherefores are fairly well explained in the context of the projects that come with each chapter. Most people know how to make the compiler behave through the IDE; here you’ll learn what that translates to on the command line, including special pre-processor tricks, linking, and more. Later on, command-line debugging with gdb is covered as well.

Wrap up the rest of first 11 chapters with things like files (ignore at your own peril), memory management (this isn’t your father’s heap space) and libraries (plugins anyone?), and the stage is set for the real heavy learning. From this point on, you progress deeper into making a real Mac OS application, building on the “why” from the previous chapters, covering such topics as authorization, distributed objects, directory services, and multithreading. Performance tuning is even included, and rightfully, after all the major topics are broached.

The book isn’t perfect; there are a handful of typos and misspellings. The organization of the chapters apparently reflects the chronology of the class topics on which the book is based, and as such, makes sense in the context of going through the material in a week’s time. It can, however, lead to some frustration if you put the book down and come back to it later, as would be typical of many of the target market programmers.

This certainly doesn’t prevent the book from being useful, nor does it hamper learning all that much, but there are some odd placements, such as covering CVS (source code control) all the way at the end in Chapter 24 or placing the debugging information between memory handling and exceptions. If you’re not already familiar with some of the topics and you don’t barrel right though, re-reading previous chapters might help cement understanding of some of the topics.

Each chapter includes challenge exercises and deeper info “for the curious”. The extra info is interesting for the geeks, but I was disappointed not to be able to find solutions to at least some of the challenges on the book’s otherwise thorough companion site: http://www.borkware.com/corebook. Learning by doing is the way to go, but readers who get stuck don’t have an easy cheat-sheet to figure out where they’re going wrong.

This book is expensive, but less so than when it was first released. Price is no reason to avoid the book, however. There’s a great deal of useful information in it, whether you’re coming from Classic Mac OS and want to understand Unix better or if you’re new the Mac OS development world and want a glimpse into what Mac OS X puts on top of the Darwin functionality.

Rating: Recommended

Title: “Core Mac OS X and Unix Programming”

ISBN: 0-9740785-0-6

Authors: Mark Dalrymple and Aaron Hillegass

Edition reviewed: 1

Printing reviewed: 1

Pages: 560

Price: $65 (US)

Buy from: http://www.atlasbooks.com/marktplc/00981.htm

Topic: Software Development

Reviewer background: The author of the review has been programming in various languages since the early 1980’s on mid-range and microcomputer platforms, including traditional Mac OS toolbox, PowerPlant, standard C/C++, and more recently, web development. Additionally, the author has managed teams of developers using these technologies and many others.

Disclosure Statement: This reviewer is a long-time friend of Mark Dalrymple and has had previous business dealings with both Mark and Big Nerd Ranch. The review copy of the book was provided free of charge.

[Please note this article originally appeared on sentientfood.com 15-Jan-2005. It has been updated to make links current for the new publishing system, where necessary.]

Be sure to read the 2-Feb-2005 update to this article.

For small software developers, especially shareware developers, creating and managing software license keys can be a real hassle. Most solutions require significant investment in commercial software or in hardware dongles. The freely (or cheaply) available solutions tend to be complicated or incomplete. This article describes what will be, for many, a complete license solution. It is suitable for all types of software, and since most of the sources are included, it is open for inspection/review prior to incorporation.

This article also alludes to (in places) and directly describes (in others) a service built around the concepts presented here. This service brings license management into an affordable realm for even the smallest of development organizations. Relevant information is scattered throughout the article and more details are available at the end, or you can just go straight to the service.

What has gone before

First things first – acknowlegement of the originator of this idea (or at least the concepts this code is derived from) is in order. The article “Using OpenSSL for license keys” from the site SIGPIPE 13 was the most cogent source of information found when the author of this article was researching licensing solutions for his own use.

Without the foundation established by that article, this one (and the functionality it provides) would not exist. Please read that article for more detailed background on the reasoning behind some some of the approaches implemented here. It should be noted that there are no connections between the previous author and this one and the previous author should not be held accountable for any errors in this article.

read more from "Using OpenSSL for Software License Keys, revisited"