Author: Pat Dryburgh

*Disclaimer: Ben did not ask me to write this post, nor did I run it by him before I published it (not that I do any other time). These are my personal views, and do not necessarily reflect the views of this site or its owner. But seriously, I’m totally right.*

As some of you may remember from a few months ago, after I filled in for him during a week-long vacation from blogging, Ben asked if I would stay on as a contributing editor for The Brooks Review. While the English award I received in elementary school clearly qualified me for such a title, I was nervous I wouldn’t be able to perform up to the standards this site has risen to over the past few years.

Unfortunately, before I even had a chance to buckle under the pressure, I had to write an email I didn’t want to write: “I have to quit”. At the time, between work and life my free time had dwindled to the point where keeping up with even a single-post-per-week pace was impossible.

Thankfully, Ben’s response was even better than I could ask for: keep writing when you can, and don’t let missing a few weeks here and there stop you. And while up to this point I still haven’t had—or, perhaps more accurately, made—the time to write as often as I’d like, I knew I had to write this.

You see, this site is special. It may not look it (though Ben’s taste for elegantly minimal design certainly speaks to my soul), but it really is.

It’s special not because of its content, its design, or even its writers, but because of its independence. And independence not just in terms of ownership, but in editorial process and even its business model.

There are plenty of independent sites out there, many of which I’m sure you read regularly. As an independent media advocate myself, I absolutely love that the Internet has lowered the bar to entry so that anyone—[even my mom][1]—can have their voice be heard.

But while many sites like this are independently owned, many rely on a third party of some sort to monetize it. Whether it’s running an ad network spot in the sidebar or RSS feed, or even doing those sales independently, there’s a third party involved that isn’t the site owner, the writers, or the readers. There’s another voice that doesn’t really… fit.

And I don’t begrudge those sites for doing it this way. Ads ran on my own site before it was overrun with crickets. I believe in independent media, and I believe those who create it deserve to be compensated just as those who produce mass media are compensated. If all it takes is a single ad for one of my favourite writers or podcasters to plop themselves into a chair and create magic, then god bless that little ad.

But what’s exciting about this site, as I’m sure you have figured out, is its true independence. While there are a couple of us slugging away at these keys, clamouring for that tiny morsel of attention you have left after work and kids and wives ¹ and friends and drinks, we write with a singular aspiration: to entertain you.

Guys, I don’ get paid for this. I did, for that brief shining moment when I was actually dedicated to a posting schedule. But as soon as I stepped down, I told Ben to keep his money because I know both how much this site makes and how much he has invested right back into it.

I first started using the Internet back in 2003. I was in high school, I was a loner in a big crowd of people, and I was drawn to the acceptance I found on the message boards and blogs I participated in. I’ve made great friends online—among which I count Ben—and I believe this was only possible because we were each given permission to have a voice.

Having a voice [in a world that so frequently tells you not to have one][2] is one of the most important revolutions of human history. But for that to continue, we need people who can say what needs to be said; whether it’s about the crazy shit our own governments are doing behind our backs or that GODDAMN BLUE ICON, the freedom to speak *and have our voices be heard* is one of the greatest privileges we’ve ever stumbled into.

The Brooks Review does not use slideshows, articles broken up into multiple pages, or ugly fucking popovers asking you to “SIGN UP TO OUR NEWSLETTER GUYZ!” because we don’t need pageviews, ad clicks, or multiple streams of income. We need one.

We need you.

The Brooks Review runs on three things: the dedication we have to provide you with the most honest, brutal truth we can muster about things silly and significant; the love and support our readers have shown this site through your emails, @replies, and crazy-ass comments; and your money.

I’m not going to link to the page Ben’s set up for you to become a contributing member. You can DuckDuckGo that shit. I don’t want to make it easy because my hope isn’t that you’ll support this site. My hope is that you’ll support independent media, whether that’s here or wherever you find that person or group of people who says or writes or performs or draws the things you need to hear or read or experience. Because if you don’t…

1. Adendum: Or husbands. Sorry, sometimes my inner chauvinist sneaks out. Apologies. — P
   ↩

[1]: http://momsknitting.tumblr.com
[2]: http://www.tmz.com/2013/07/19/kanye-west-paparazzi-attack-assault-paramedics-photo/

Today, Amazon announced the launch of [Amazon Coins][1], a new Amazon-specific “currency” for buying apps, games, music, and other items from Amazon.

I’ve never been interested in schemes like this, for a number of reasons. First, why should I give money to a company for them to invest when I could be making even the smallest amount of interest in a chequing account. Second, there’s no guarantee the company I have purchased this type of currency from will continue to accept it indefinitely. And third, what happens when I’ve got $100 in Amazon coins and am a few bucks short from paying my rent?

I don’t see any value for consumers in a system like this. As [Garrett Murray][2] put it:

We already have money, it’s called money.

[1]: http://www.amazon.com/coins
[2]: http://log.maniacalrage.net/post/50374973629/amazon-coins-a-terrible-idea-for-consumers

I was listening to the [latest episode][1] of “Unprofessional” with Lex Friedman and Dave Wiskus, and found myself quite intrigued by one of their sponsors, [Transporter][2]:

Transporter is a private “off-cloud” storage device for syncing, sharing, accessing, and protecting your digital life. No cloud, no fees, no privacy concerns. Your files are only stored on your Transporters and computers and mobile devices that you authorize.

Basically, you purchase a Transporter device — empty or with a hard drive pre-installed — plug it into your router, and then use it just as you already use Dropbox or Google Drive. Files are accessible on devices you authorize, and you can share individual files or folders with friends and family.

There is [an iOS app][4] for accessing your data on-the-go, and while it’s certainly not the prettiest app in the world, at least [the icon isn’t blue][5].

I can see something like this being a fantastic solution for people who [may have concerns about their privacy][3] when it comes to a cloud solution. And, though there is [a higher up-front cost][6] compared to Dropbox or Google Drive, there are no recurring fees. A Transporter with a 1TB drive is $299, 2TB is $399, or if you have your own drive you can buy an empty Transporter for $199.

I’m going to pick up a Transporter with the 2TB drive this week, and will report back once I’ve had a chance to play with it.

[1]: http://www.muleradio.net/unprofessional/38/
[2]: http://www.filetransporter.com/learn-more/
[3]: https://brooksreview.net/2012/07/dropbox-security-4/
[4]: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/connected-data/id613859212?mt=8
[5]: https://brooksreview.net/2010/10/seeing-blue/
[6]: http://filetransporterstore.com

I’ve had the same computer bag for 6 years.

It’s made of a canvas-like material, faded green, with leather zipper pull tabs and the name “n*rich” in brown and pastel-blue on the flap. It was given to me by a colleague who felt it didn’t match her style. Due to its lack of padding, I use a laptop sleeve to ensure the safety of my MacBook Air. Its design is generic; a simple messenger bag with a few pockets of various sizes.

I don’t love this bag. Though one might assume after such a long relationship, I may bear some feelings of attachment to it. But, I don’t. In fact, it’s not uncommon for me to spend a few extra minutes poking through the accessories section of the local Apple store, hoping perhaps to find the holy grail of computer bags.

***

I bought my first iPhone from an Internet friend. It was a black 3GS with a bit of wear in its plastic, but overall in fantastic condition. As I expected, owning such a piece of hardware made me feel cool, but I couldn’t have anticipated the level of intimacy I felt with this slate of glass.

This 135g technical marvel became privy to my secrets, my dreams, my work and personal life. Since that time, I’ve worn my way through several iterations of this device, yet my feeling for “it” grows stronger as the months and years go by.

***

There’s been discussion of late surrounding the idea that Apple needs to do something new with the user interface of their mobile operating system. “We want to be wowed!” bemoan the pundits, waving their iPhone-clenched fists in the air demanding to be heard. The clamouring hit an all-time peak when Sir Jony Ive was handed the reigns to Apple’s entire design effort.

And it’s hard to argue against “synergizing” the beautiful minimalism of Ive’s hardware designs and Apple’s software design. No more linen! Down with Corinthian leather! Begone, bookshelves!

The geek in me wants all these things and more. Get rid of the fake shadows, gradients, and highlights. Away with superfluous textures. Rip out the stitching!

But the user in me is afraid. I love my iPhone. Not only because of its sleek shape and comfortable feel — though those are certainly important — but because of my intimacy with the user interface.

I don’t think I want iOS to radically change. Not because I wouldn’t enjoy it, but because of the familiarity I have with how it is. Would flattening the interface reduce that level of intimacy I have with it?

Of course, things must change, adapt, grow. My precious 44×44px icons may not be the way of the future. I’ll get used to whatever’s next.

At least I’ll still have my computer bag.

Of all the things I love about Dropbox—incredibly seamless integration with OS X and Windows; automated back up and revision history; access to my files on multiple devices, wherever I am; sharing photos with my parents through the free account I set up for them—there is one I value the most: that every year Dropbox charges me $99 to use their service.

When Gmail launched in 2004, it [invited 1,000 people][1] they felt were influencers. They allowed these influencers to invite a limited number of their friends and family to the service, and continued to increase the invitation limit until eventually a market that had had enough time to build to the point where invitations were being sold for $100 each [collapsed][2].

While Google was slowly scaling its product, it continued to improve one of its key offerings: [an unheard of storage limit][5]. Initially 25× their competitors’ storage capacities, the number continued to increase until it had decupled.

Today, few people worry about sending the photos they shot on their DSLR to their grandparents. One email can contain multiple Photoshop documents, rather than multiple emails containing single Photoshop documents. Documents can be retrieved years after they were received.

Google changed the way email works in the world. I no longer approach email the same way I did seven years ago. But, I’m uncomfortable. I don’t pay for Gmail. And while—unlike [some products][6] as of late—I do not fear it will be shut down any time soon, I do not like who holds the power in this relationship. I agreed to Gmail’s Terms of Service, and like everyone else I am sure, I did not like what I read.¹

My point is, Google has all of the control. Should they decide their product would benefit its customers by providing, say, more personal information gleaned from my daily correspondences, that is what they will do. I, too, receive benefit from this relationship. But I do not have control over what the cost of that benefit will be.

[Mailbox][3] is interesting. No, [I’m not using it][4], but I sure get why people are. The approach it takes is so human. I can imagine my brother and sister, two prototypical computer users, getting a lot of benefit from using Mailbox.

Today, Mailbox holds little appeal to me. This is because I don’t need a new front-end for my email. I need a new back-end.

To me, the most interesting element of Mailbox’s current offering is its server. Sure, right now it is simply facilitating the sorting of email, but imagine if it became smart. If it could read my email and perform actions based on its understanding of my behaviours, turning the way I naturally approach my email into my very own digital secretary. If it interfaced with other services I use, preventing me from missing that email regarding a task I have in my task management tool, or forwarding the address to a party I was invited to on Facebook to my Google Maps iPhone app.

And that’s before Dropbox enters the equation; with the ability to store all of my photo attachments in my Photos folder, backed up on Dropbox’s servers and available in gallery form to anyone I share them with. Or referencing a document saved in Dropbox rather than adding a file attachment, tracking its changes and backing up each revision. Or sharing a file larger than any other email service could pass through its servers.

Dropbox gives its users 2 GB of free storage. That is certainly more than most email users today need to archive all of their email attachments. Combining that 2 GB of file storage capacity with a full-fledged cloud-based email service would attract a lot of casual users. Dropbox has established its own referral/invitation strategy, which benefits all three parties involved in the transaction. Implementing the same strategy to a product as compelling as *ad-free email* could surely drive their growth over the next few years, if not longer.

And then, of course, we come to the most exciting part. Dropbox would charge for it. In my mind, it would make sense to simply add the email service to their existing pricing tiers in an effort to improve their overall product. Adding lower tiers, more consumer-friendly tiers, could convert many free-mail users into paying email customers.

I could see my parents paying for it.

And I would be comfortable, knowing that Dropbox—a company I pay money to host, sync, and back up my files *and* emails—would not want to fuck up and lose me as a customer.

1. Of course I didn’t actually read it. Come on, now. ↩

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Gmail#Extended_beta_phase
[2]: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2004/06/63786
[3]: http://www.mailboxapp.com
[4]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/02/emails-broke-yo/
[5]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail#Storage
[6]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/03/billlllllllions/

[Ryan Bateman has some more information about how Google treats its users’ personal data][1]:

Google stores your wifi password if you have an Android phone and sign into it. It stores it in Google’s servers.

According to Bateman, Google uses this information in its setup flow for new and factory-reset phones. Signing in to your Google account will download all of your stored Wi-Fi passwords, along with your contacts, calendars, apps, etc.

In theory, this is a fantastic idea. One less password the user has to enter, one less possible point of frustration.

But, consider for a moment:

Have you visited a friend and joined the Wi-Fi network in their home? Have you had guests over and allowed them on your Wi-Fi network so you could watch that hilarious Harlem Shake parody video? Maybe you’ve visited a small business, whose owner lets you onto their company Wi-Fi network because they aren’t savvy enough to set up a guest network.

My point is, you could potentially have dozens of Wi-Fi passwords on your phone, many of which are not your own, which are now—thanks to Andriod—stored on Google’s servers.

At least we can rest assured that [Google doesn’t have a history of controversial behaviour related to harvesting information from Wi-Fi networks][2].

Or [any of its users’ personal data, for that matter][3].

[1]: http://everythinginthesky.com/post/44230045159/google-stores-your-wifi-password-if-you-have-an
[2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Google#Information_collection_from_WiFi_networks
[3]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/02/i-cant-believe-ben-missed-this/

I [threatened at the beginning of the week][1] that I might take on the task of making this site [responsive][6]. Ben and I had talked about it in the past, but the thought of trying to dig my way through his [mammoth of a CSS file][2] made me want to curl up in a ball and cry.

But, I was feeling inspired tonight, and I wanted to be sure I left this place better than how I found it. Plus, the site is a single column; how hard could it be?

Well, an hour and two bottles of [Growers][3] later, [I’ll let you be the judge][4].

If you see anything wonky, be sure to [let us know][5].

[1]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/02/mine/
[2]: https://brooksreview.net/wp-content/themes/brooksian-v-4/style-test.css
[3]: http://www.growerscider.com/
[4]: https://brooksreview.net
[5]: https://brooksreview.net/contact/
[6]: http://alistapart.com/article/responsive-web-design

I really didn’t expect it to be this hard.

Writers writing about writing always bothers me. With an almost limitless number of topics and ideas just waiting to be wrestled with through words combined into sentences separated by punctuation, the idea of writing about writing just seems so… shallow.

Several writers I have come across over the past few years have written about writing. They usually touch on topics like writer’s block, distraction-free writing environments, and how to get from nothing to something. As a non-writer, I always found these posts to be amusing but pointless.

And then, [Ben asked me to guest edit his blog][1].

I’ve kept [my own blog][2] for a number of years now. The vast majority of the posts I’ve written are what have come to be known as “link posts”—short, usually effortless articles which link to another article that may or may not be interesting to a particular blogger’s readership. I write these because I truly care about sharing cool things with people. But, it is also true that without them my blog could potentially go months without seeing any new content.

That’s because an empty screen scares the shit out of me.

When I started writing here at The Brooks Review, I thought I would be churning out great posts every day, filling up your feed with awesome links, articles, quotes, and more. I think I’ve done an ok job, but it was much tougher than I anticipated. My last post—[a look at a potential privacy issue with the Google Play store][3]—took nearly an hour to put together. Not because the topic was difficult to understand, or that I spent much time researching other sources, but because what I wanted to say wasn’t coming easily. The last line, “Yeah, but guys… ‘Open’” was rewritten four or five times before I was satisfied.

My point is, this shit is hard. I really have no idea how people like [John][4], [Jason][5], [Shawn][6], [Kyle][7], [Matt][8], and especially Ben do this seemingly every day.¹

So, the next time you see another writer writing about writing, give them the benefit of the doubt. Chances are, they’re just as scared of the empty screen as I am.

1. I’m embarrassed at how few female writers I read. I didn’t realize it until I put this list together. I initially tried to research female bloggers who write frequently, but then thought that wouldn’t be honest. So, honestly, I need to read more writing by women. Any suggestions? ↩

[1]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/02/mine/
[2]: http://patdryburgh.com
[3]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/02/i-cant-believe-ben-missed-this/
[4]: http://daringfireball.net
[5]: http://kottke.org
[6]: http://shawnblanc.net
[7]: http://tightwind.net
[8]: http://one37.net

Oh, baby! If only Ben were here…

[Claire Porter][1]:

EVERY time you purchase an app on Google Play, your name, address and email is passed on to the developer, it has been revealed today.

Good news.

The “flaw” – which appears to be by design – was discovered this morning by Sydney app developer, Dan Nolan who told news.com.au that he was uncomfortable being the custodian of this information and that there was no reason for any developer to have this information at their finger tips.

[Like Marco][2], developer Dan Nolan doesn’t want to be responsible for managing and protecting the personal information of his customers. He doesn’t need the information, and isn’t sketchy enough to even dream of doing anything malicious with it. But, I have a feeling that Nolan isn’t representative of every developer on the Google Play store.

According to Nolan, this is how the Google Play store has worked since the beginning. You buy an app, that app’s developer gets your deets.¹

Now, we all know [Google cares deeply about protecting your personal information][2]. And there’s no chance that they would let developers have your information without some sort of policy established for such a transaction…

Google’s terms of service state that it may store your personal information including your name, address and billing details, but nowhere in its privacy statement does the company explicitly state that it passes on your personal information to developers, every time you purchase their app.

The terms of service state that Google will share your address and personal information if you purchase a magazine subscription through Google Play, but it makes no mention of other apps.

Yeah, but guys… “Open.”

1. Ain’t no way Brooksie would say “deets.”² ↩
2. Not a big fan of “Brooksie,” either. ↩

[1]: http://www.news.com.au/technology/massive-google-security-flaw-puts-users-details-on-display-for-all-to-find/story-e6frfro0-1226577210852
[2]: http://www.marco.org/2012/01/06/autorenewable-subscription-restrictions

Since it’s [Ben][1]’s favourite thing in the world, and since he sent me an invitation for a free month trial, [I’ve decided to give App.net a try for the week][2]. There’s not much happening on my account as it stands, but maybe that will change by the end of the week.

While I’m definitely entrenched in the tech world, I am usually slow to adopt new products into my life. Most tech geeks love the pursuit of new products, always testing out the latest “Beta” of *XYZ*.app. I, on the other hand, much prefer to read about others’ experience before deciding to take the plunge.

App.net hasn’t intrigued me the same way that Twitter did when I first signed up in 2007. The product itself feels boring. Sure, it has many of the same features as Twitter, and a few extras too. But, what problem is it solving? I already have a “stream of short messages mixed with conversations” app, thanks.

I’ll give it a week and see how it goes. Maybe I’ll fall in love and never look back. Or, maybe I’ll just [delete it all and start again][3]. Again.

[1]: https://alpha.app.net/benbrooks
[2]: https://alpha.app.net/patdryburgh
[3]: http://www.70decibels.com/enough/2013/2/12/ep-189-the-rhone-internet-protocol.html

[Mat Honan][1]:

No app will save you from e-mail. You can’t swipe and sort your way to a better you, no matter how long the line is.

I’ve never understood why some people let email have such a strong effect on their mental and emotional well-being. I strive for Inbox Zero as much as the next guy, but the 12 emails sitting there now that I’ve yet to deal with aren’t causing me stress. Why? Because I don’t let them.

I host my email with Google Apps, and access it using Apple’s Mail applications for both OS X and iOS. I use Gmail to filter and process common emails such as receipts or newsletters, but otherwise my email lives in one of two places:

1. In my inbox, and
2. In an archive folder.

I don’t tag emails, flag emails, or colour code emails. I read them, I respond to them, and I archive them. Weeks later, when I need to reference an email, I search for it.

Maybe that system is too simple for you. Maybe it’s too complex. Whatever the case, pick a system and move on. Time wasted checking email could be time spent writing about email. And seriously, what could possibly be better than writing about email?

[1]: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2013/02/mailbox-wont-fix-email/all/1

While Ben has a [beautiful daughter][1] to take photos of, play with at the park, and watch grow up and head off to prom, I don’t. So, I’m getting a dog to do those things.

Since I have another [37 lbs to go][2], I’m taking the time to do a little research into what type of dog I might be interested in. I’m even learning a few things along the way, like [the suggestion that humans may have a bit better of an understanding of the intent behind a dog’s bark than we thought][3]:

Researchers played a collection of barks to a group of people. Regardless of whether they owned a dog or not, most people could tell from a bark whether a dog was alone or being approached by a stranger, playing or being aggressive.

It’s crazy to think that for all these years, dogs have been communicating to us knowing we would understand, even if we didn’t suspect it.

[1]: https://brooksreview.net/2012/05/gx1-update/
[2]: http://hundreddown.net/show/3
[3]: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-are-dogs-saying-when-they-bark

While the [Postal Service][1] has been struggling of late, good news came earlier this year from [The Postal Service][2]: the musical duo would be [reuniting][5] for a special 10th Anniversary tour. Ben doesn’t post much about music here — I assume he’s shy about his Kenny G collection — but I was too excited not to share the [just-released, brand new song][3] from the [upcoming 10th Anniversary Re-Release of the band’s debut album, *Give Up*][4].

It’s been 10 years since the little project that could from Seattelite Ben Gibbard (aka Death Cab For Cutie’s frontman) and Angeleno Jimmy Tamborello (Dntel, Figurine) emerged from seemingly nowhere and began to burrow into the ears of anyone who came into contact with the band’s infectious electro-pop.

See, Ben? Seattle. Relevant.

[1]: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/06/us-usa-postal-idUSBRE9150KX20130206
[2]: http://postalservicemusic.net
[3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OIJaQhVoMZg
[4]: http://www.subpop.com/releases/the_postal_service/full_lengths/give_up_deluxe_10th_anniversary_edition
[5]: http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1518974/the-postal-service-reunites