Year: 2013

[Craig Grannell commenting on the latest round of Apple’s software not working because of date issues](http://reverttosaved.com/2013/01/04/do-not-disturb-apples-qa-guys-are-sleeping/):

>Do Not Disturb failing to work is something that shouldn’t have happened, because someone should have remembered Apple’s previous failings with time-related features and rigorously tested it. That the feature did fail points to either a lack of engineers/testers at Apple, or a lack of giving a shit, and neither of those things is really acceptable.

It’s hard to argue with Grannell here. That Apple’s response was a knowledge base article that included no apology is also bullshit. There’s some things really concerning about this entire mess — and it is a mess — that I want to point out:

1. That Apple’s only response is a support article.
2. That Apple feels it is acceptable to users to “wait it out” instead of issuing a fix — assuming, of course, Apple can fix this in a day or two.
3. That yet another date bug slipped through Apple’s testing.
4. That the general Apple tech-press has largely decided to give Apple a pass, leaving only the “usual” naysayers to their business.

How is this problem so acceptable to Apple and to those that love Apple?

[Apple has refused to comment](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/01/ask-ars-why-will-apples-do-not-disturb-bug-fix-itself-next-week/). That even Jim Dalrymple, the purveyor of calling bullshit, [offered no commentary](http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/01/02/do-not-disturb-will-fix-itself/). [That John Gruber made a small joke out of it](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/01/02/do-not-disturb) (granted at Apple’s expense, but still [less of a slap on the wrist than Google got](http://thebrief.io/2013/friday-january-4th/#google_gets_off_the_hook_in_ftc_antitrust_investigation)). [Even the Android loving *The Verge* didn’t jump down Apple’s throats](http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/2/3828300/apple-do-not-disturb-fix).

What the hell?

[Susan Crawford has a great piece in Bloomberg about the sorry state of America’s fiber Internet plans](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-27/u-s-internet-users-pay-more-for-slower-service.html) (via [The Loop](http://www.loopinsight.com/2012/12/31/the-shoddy-state-of-u-s-internet-service/)):

> Also in 2011, six Time Warner lobbyists persuaded the North Carolina legislature to pass a “level playing field” bill making it impossible for cities in that state to create their own high-speed Internet access networks. Time Warner, which reported $26 billion in revenue in 2010, donated more than $6.3 million to North Carolina politicians over four years. Eighteen other states have laws that make it extremely difficult or impossible for cities to provide this service to their residents.

There should be little doubt in American minds that Cable companies are greedy and out to service themselves only. I’ve had a lot of run-ins with Comcast over shoddy service, and even worse customer service, but more troubling than an evil corporation is an evil corporation that hamstrings the government. Which is what the cable companies are succeeding at right now, and it’s bullshit.

I think it’s a bit of a stretch to maintain that Internet access is as necessary as water or power, but I don’t think it is a stretch to say that lacking high quality Internet service significantly hampers innovation and a country’s ability to stay relevant in a global economy.

Add fiber to the (long) list of things that America needs to get its act together on.

Here in Tacoma, Washington we have Comcast, and [Click](http://www.click-network.com/Internet/tabid/73/Default.aspx). Click is actually run by the city and offers solid service with decent speed. When Click initially rolled out, any building that wanted to add their service had to install Click cable lines and jacks, because Comcast claimed ownership to the others. (Today I am told they have worked out this bullshit and share the lines. ) So I lived in one apartment that had two cable jacks right next to each other in every room. One was Click, one was Comcast, but by the time I moved in they agreed to share the jacks and thus one outlet actually didn’t work.

My [recent post on Dropbox versus iCloud](https://brooksreview.net/2012/12/linchpin/) sparked a [little debate on App.net](http://treeview.simon.geek.nz/home/thread/2187381#a2187381) (click the link below the last comment to show all comments) and in my inbox. The common thread that I have seen from naysayers — those who believe Dropbox will always be better than iCloud — is simply that access to the file system is still needed. People believe that file system access is not only wanted, but necessary for *any* advanced computer user. I find this line of thinking short-sighted: Looking more at “the now” than “the future”.

Dropbox is the best of the best right *now*, however, Dropbox is not likely the best for the future. Future technology is going to look more like iCloud than it does Dropbox — we know this already because tablets and smartphones are far more popular than computers and when is the last time you popped open Finder on your iPhone? This, understandably, worries many geeks.

People don’t want to be tied to one app for a certain file type, stuck in these app silos where the data only exists within one app. This feels like a dictator telling us how we can use *our* devices and it understandably rubs advanced users the wrong way. Moreover the huge fear is that if we go the way of obscuring the file system, like it is in iOS, advanced users will be stuck in a world where we lack control over our own creations.

You can see this pain right now by saving a PDF to iCloud in Preview on your Mac and then trying to retrieve that PDF on your iPad. You can’t retrieve it on your iPad because there is no Preview for iPad that can access that file. And even if you have PDFPen installed on your iPad, you still can’t access that PDF file. This is a legitimate problem.

More frustrating still is that many users see this as restrictive and unnecessarily constraining a user to one single app. What if you want to write in ByWord on your iPad, Simplenote on your iPhone, and iA Writer on your Mac? The only way to “share” one file between the lot is with Dropbox, not iCloud.

And while it’s up to Apple to solve the stupidity that is iCloud in TextEdit and Preview, the larger problem of obscuring the file system seems easily cured by Apple.

The only thing that iCloud really needs is an iOS style “open in” dialog for transporting files around. Add that dialog to all iCloud enabled apps and I can’t see any need for Dropbox if you stay within Apple’s “world”. ((Meaning you use iOS and OS X only.))

Users don’t need to see the file system as much as they just need to be able to open their files in any app that they wish. You could argue that you like folders, which mix file types, but I think it’s becoming clear that this is just not as necessary as many people *think*.

Enter: [Plain Cloud](http://cookingrobot.de/plaincloud/).

Plain Cloud is a little app that lists all iCloud apps with how many files each app is storing in iCloud. Click on an app and Plain Cloud opens the folder containing those files in Finder. Very simple.

This doesn’t solve all problems geeks have with iCloud, but for users in between novice and geek, a tool like Plain Cloud actually makes iCloud *easier* to grasp and use than Dropbox. (Easier to understand too.)

Here’s the iCloud workflow for typical users:

1. Enable iCloud
2. Open files from a dialog that pops up listing all the files you have made in that app.
3. Saving is automatic.
4. If you ever need access to a specific file outside of iCloud, open Plain Cloud.

That’s an order of magnitude easier than the same workflow with Dropbox. Dropbox requires you to authenticate, select where you want the file saved, find that same location when you want to open the file, and choose the app to open the file with.

Basically: Dropbox requires using Finder, and [Finder sucks](https://alpha.app.net/rands/post/2260591).

iCloud requires that you use Finder via an “open” dialog, but that dialog is friendlier looking and better designed than Finder itself.

The biggest shortcoming I see with iCloud is simply that it’s Apple only and yet I’m not sure how much that shortcoming matters. iCloud is a huge selling point for Apple if, and *only* if, it’s widely liked, which bodes well for users hoping things get better.

I think the easiest way for Apple to appease those less than impressed with iCloud is to add the “Open in…” dialog to all iCloud apps and finally allow users to “share” iCloud documents between apps.

This is not to say that Apple will change anything fundamental about iCloud. I don’t think we will see a move towards Dropbox-like ubiquity, but I do think Apple will make a few smaller tweaks that effect how apps interact with iCloud, which will greatly improve the service.

John Gruber [makes a bold claim, while commenting on Sullivan’s post](http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/01/02/the-dish):

>DF, among [other](http://decknetwork.net/) notable examples, is living proof that advertising can be quick-loading, noticeable but un-distracting, and unrelated to the corrupting influence of pageviews.

I hold Gruber’s site in very high regard, but his assertion that ads from The Deck are living proof of an ad that is “noticeable but un-distracting” is pure hyperbole.

I reloaded that *Daring Fireball* article at least 50 times and grabbed screenshots of the page with every new ad shown — 14 in total. Of those 14 new ads, I tested each by looking at them one after another and I found that 7 pulled my eye immediately from the content to the ad. That’s not what I would call “un-distracting”. Fifty percent of the ads *were* distracting (albeit in a highly subjective test) — I think a better term for ads from The Deck would be: *less* distracting than any other ad on the web.

The problem that publishers face is that ads *must* be distracting to be effective. That’s why I hope Sullivan succeeds: he’s going paywall without ads. I wish more people had the balls to do that.

This is also where Gruber is getting tripped up with ads from The Deck: They are indeed great ads, mostly (there was one American Apparel ad that featured a nude woman only covered by a red bag — not offensive to me — but I’d be pissed if that was on my site) but no matter how great an ad looks, it’s still an ad. Ads are made to distract — even if just a little — it’s still a distraction.

So here’s hoping 2013 is the year that content becomes king and advertising is shown the backseat, or better yet, the door.

*Note: This article first appeared in [The Magazine, Issue 4](http://the-magazine.org/4).*

Recently I [mentioned](https://brooksreview.net/2012/06/yojimbo-sync/) in passing how I had moved from a one-computer setup to a two-computer setup: keeping one machine at work and one at home. I further differentiated the machines by only having work-related items on the work machine (so Mail.app only had my work email account on it and so forth). My work machine was my MacBook Air, while the machine at home, a retina MacBook Pro, had both work and personal stuff on it.

This seemed like an ideal split. I never sent email from the wrong account. I felt more efficient at work. And I only had to carry my iPad from home to work and back. But it was only a few weeks before the drawbacks set in and I reverted back to a single machine that I always bring with me.

The speed differences between the two computers and the lack of a Retina display on the MacBook Air I had predicted would bug me *before* I divided my life into two computers. In fact, I didn’t notice these hardware factors most of the time. The real reason I went back to just one machine is that it remains too hard to switch seamlessly between two machines without missing a beat.

Yes, I can synchronize files using Dropbox and keep documents and other settings up to date with iCloud. Those two services get you close, but they fall short of the seamlessness that I want while working. Every switch is jarring, reducing my efficiency and causing me to duplicate efforts.

For instance, I use Keyboard Maestro to handle macros, and the program doesn’t yet have synchronization built in, nor allow a straightforward way to keep sequences up to date across multiple computers. The [support wiki notes](http://wiki.keyboardmaestro.com/Syncing_Macros_Between_Macs), “So to sync the macros file you must ensure the Keyboard Maestro editor is not running on the target Mac, and you must explicitly ask the target engine to reload the macros after the sync.” This is exactly the sort of thing I didn’t want to have to manage.

If a Keyboard Maestro macro was only made on one machine, not the other, I couldn’t use that macro without remaking it. More often, I edited the macro on one machine and not the other, which is actually *more* annoying because I don’t remember the small edit and/or which one was edited — meaning I just had things not working consistently across two machines.

I ran into a number of other problems that didn’t seem at first to be as significant. I’d find I had installed an app on one machine, but not the one I was using. I would forget to log out of Messages. I disliked having to take the time to install updates on two different machines when, in my working style, I wanted both to be identical—as if they were the same computer.

But what put me over the line was not being able to keep the “state” of both machines identical. Even though I use Coda 2 on both Macs, if I was working on a code change on one Mac right before I had to leave, I would have to:

– Save all changes.
– Head home or to work.
– Open Coda 2 on second machine.
– Connect to site with files.
– Open every file I had open.
– Remember where which file I was editing, and which line.

That’s not horrible, but it was a huge pain. With two machines you simply cannot step from one machine to the next and pick up work where you left off. (You might argue Coda 2 could make this easier, but then you need to argue that every piece of software should preserve state across multiple computers.)

From my working perspective, the two-computer setup was like having a malfunctioning magic desk. All the papers would be transported from one desk to another, no matter where it was, with no effort. Except when I arrived at the new desk, all of my papers were mystically mixed up. Sure, the papers were all there and ready to use, but they weren’t where I left them.

I returned to lugging around a retina MacBook Pro wherever I go rather than having to deal with the constant “setting up this desktop to match the other desktop” routine. Until a point at which the precise working environment of a computer seamlessly shifts from place to place, one computer just works better.