Category: Articles

[Panic has released Status Board][1]:

> Status Board takes your data and gives it meaning. Use the easy built-in widgets. Or massage your data for our Graph and Table widgets. It’s going to be awesome.

Like every other nerd, when [Panic teased about Status Board back in 2010](https://www.panic.com/blog/2010/03/the-panic-status-board/) I really wanted to get my hands on it. I had absolutely nothing to use it for, but sometimes you just must have pretty things. Status Board, the iOS app is indeed very pretty.

That first day though, I had nothing to put on it. Now, just a little while later, there are tons of panels that one can add — [Viticci has a collection of them here][2].

The best of the lot is the work done on the [Mint integration][3].

What’s more fascinating to me is the allowance for CSV files in the app. I tried this out and it works as expected. Ideally I would like more control over different aspects of the CSV display, but it is indeed a quick and pretty way to display data.

I am not sure if I will ever find a place where Status Board becomes a real tool for me, but that’s certainly not going to stop me from trying — because it’s an app you *want* to use.

[1]: http://panic.com/statusboard/
[2]: https://pinboard.in/u:ticci/t:statusboard
[3]: https://github.com/maximevalette/MintStatusBoardHelper

[Harry Marks,][1] responding to [my “country club” post about App.net][2]:

> App.net is as inclusive as you can get because it puts users and developers first, not big-name companies and celebrities. App.net treats its user base as more than just one big antenna for ads and there are actual support channels that don’t end in .py. That means a lot to me.

Marks is arguing that I am wrong about App.net being an exclusive club, and thus being *the* reason to join App.net. But I think the above quote supports my position.

It’s true that a large reason to join App.net is so that you are using a service that cares, instead of one that wants to shit ads all over you. But App.net specifically cares because the user cares. It’s not altruism driving the culture at App.net, if it was it would be free and free of ads.

Both App.net and App.net developers stand to gain from more users *and* better users. To get that kind of “better” user you need a user that cares about furthering the service, and thus the country club analogy.

My point wasn’t about exclusivity as much as it was about two other items:

1. Not everyone can, or will, pay to join App.net. Just like a country club.
2. Those that do pay to join, immediately feel invested in the service and thus will continually do their part to better it, not worsen it. Again, just like a country club.

If you are a golfer, you have no doubt golfed at a public course. Public courses are full of golfers which don’t replace divots (gasp!), drink (double gasp!), or drag their golf carts over the green and any other taboo golf infraction there is in the book. Now go to a private course of any nature and the amount of people you see doing those things almost drops to zero.

This is the difference I am referencing.

With Twitter and App.net you see a lot of the same behavior as you do between public and private golf courses. People are vigilant about SPAM on App.net and so too is App.net, and thus there is little (if any) spam that most people see. Look at Twitter. You can report spam all day long, just keep tweeting “iPad” and you will get flooded, but Twitter can’t stay on top of it. I can only speculate as to why, but they *should* be able to stay on top of it.

People follow what is happening with the App.net, pay for apps, and so forth — not so with Twitter. On Twitter people just follow what celebrity has joined, and look for the free apps that do whatever.

These are important facts which are made possible by more than just people being treated as customers, it’s about a mutual level of respect. Respect for the user, for the service, for the greens.

When people feel invested in anything, they take more care with it and that’s why App.net is like a country club.

[1]: http://curiousrat.com/are-you-the-customer
[2]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/04/first-class-baby/

[Seth Godin on skeuomorphic design and businesses][1]:

> Yes, it’s far easier to get understanding or buy in quickly (from investors, in-laws and users) when you take the shortcut of making your digital thing look and work just like the trusted and proven non-digital thing. But over and over again, we see that the winner doesn’t look at all like the old thing. eBay doesn’t look like Sotheby’s. Amazon doesn’t look like a bookstore.

The iPhone doesn’t look like a rotary phone, or an iPod+rotary phone. And on.

There’s a lot of places where skeuomorphic design is just fine: largely when it doesn’t interfere with the usability of an object. But I loathe things like bookshelves for my iBooks, and page curls, and so forth. These get in the way, as there could be so much better information display if “trying to make it familiar” wasn’t the goal.

[1]: http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths%5C_blog/2013/04/skeumorphs-failure.html

[Duncan Bayne lists the sites he is using to replace Google][1]:

> I’ve replaced Drive, Calendar and Contacts with my own installation of ownCloud. It’s great – I’ve got full two-way sync with my Android devices, and complete control over my own data.

I had never heard of [ownCloud][2] before, but it certainly looks very nice. The hardest part of trying to move away from iCloud/Drive/Dropbox is that there is simply no developer support for other options.

So while it is easy to move away, there are very few tools/apps that support other services. I fear we will find ourselves in a Google Reader type situation with Dropbox in a few years — all of a sudden we have a real reason to move, and every developer is scrambling to update their apps to support 1,000 new services that pop up.

It’d be much easier to just not have apps that solely depend on Dropbox. Much in the way that [Ulysses III][3] can use local storage, Dropbox, iCloud, and what have you.

[1]: https://github.com/duncan-bayne/duncan-bayne.github.com/wiki/Expunging-Google
[2]: http://owncloud.org
[3]: http://www.ulyssesapp.com

[Rolf Dobelli on the health hazards that reading news presents][1]:

> Online news has an even worse impact. In a 2001 study two scholars in Canada showed that comprehension declines as the number of hyperlinks in a document increases. Why? Because whenever a link appears, your brain has to at least make the choice not to click, which in itself is distracting. News is an intentional interruption system.

And:

> News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence. The daily repetition of news about things we can’t act upon makes us passive.

This is a fantastic read and well worth your time to read in full. I’ve been working to slow down my personal consumption of news and instead try to focus on books and longer-form articles, but it certainly is not easy — I’m not used to it.

The first block quote above really struck me when I think about my own writing and the amount of links that I put in a post. I’m torn between trying to have only the bare minimum of links, or instead having a bibliography of sorts at the end of each article, thus allowing the reader to move more freely through my writing.

On the flip side is the annoyance factor of such a bibliography-type change — at least I know that I would find this supremely annoying if I were the reader.

For now I will just stick with trimming the fat in my RSS reader.

[1]: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli

[Farhad Manjoo writing for Slate about the useless practice of following breaking news][1], has this point about what happens if you just catch up with one in-depth article the following day:

> And that’s it: You’ve now caught up with all your friends who spent the past day and a half going out of their minds following cable and Twitter. In fact, you’re now better informed than they are, because during your self-imposed exile from the news, you didn’t stumble into the many cul-de-sacs and dark alleys of misinformation that consumed their lives. You’re less frazzled, better rested, and your rain gutters are clear.

There’s a growing sentiment that I am starting to see among news junkies that perhaps it is time to pull back. To not following the news so closely. Instead, follow well-sourced, well-reported news — investigative journalism.

I’m horrible at *not* following breaking news, but I managed to be too busy with my own life to follow the events in Boston and Texas — instead I just caught up today with all of the stories. I don’t feel like I missed anything, I knew what was happening in a general sense while it was happening, and now I know what really did happen (including the screw ups) — and no one around me even had time to laugh at me for not being “informed”.

I highly recommend it.

[1]: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/boston_bombing_breaking_news_don_t_watch_cable_shut_off_twitter_you_d_be.single.html

[1000 Lumens, small enough to carry on your keychain.][1] Even if that was all that this flashlight project was, I’d still back it for $120. I flipping love flashlights.

However, this is a lot more than that (if you can ignore all the Tom Cruise swooning).

> Helioslight is a programming flashlight. You can change its brightness at any time from 1 to 100 per cent. The flashlight has a favorite mode, and several extra features.

> Helioslight has red light indicator that flickers once in 5 seconds that helps don’t lose the flashlight with keys in dark.

> Battery Stretch Function. The output is reduced to 10% at 10% of the battery. So it lets the remaining 10% of battery to last 10 times longer.

Basically this is a flashlight which is bright, extremely well engineered, and stupid-human-proof or as much as a flashlight can be. Pretty neat. I’m in for $120, it’s already funded, but still…

**Update**: Looks like greed has killed this project.

> Serge, an owner of company Lux-RC, decided to refuse to sell his light engine module to us when he learnt about our project on kickstarter.
At the beginning there were no conditions of using his light engine module from his side.
> We found out, he promotes his modules in premium segment, and after he discovered we want to make an inexpensive flashlight, he changed his mind and refused to provide us with his module.

Lame.

[1]: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1817932181/helioslight-most-powerful-programmable-keychain-fl?ref=email

I have spent a lot of time chiding my good buddy Shawn about [his love][1] for those hideous beasts that true-nerds call “keyboards”. You know, the ones that make all that damned noise… Mechanical, I think that’s what the cool kids call them. I never liked them. In fact, once I found the current Apple Wireless keyboard I was hooked. It’s exactly what I want, which is:

1. Attractive
2. Small
3. Just like my laptop keyboard

It’s perfect. But, being a nerd, I can’t leave well enough alone — and given that I respect Shawn’s opinion I couldn’t ignore his strong encouragement that I try a clicky-clacky-annoying keyboard.

So I did.

When Matias announced the [Laptop Pro, wireless mechanical keyboard][2], I bought it. It meets all the criteria for a nerdy keyboard:

1. It uses mechanical switches, and even calls out the name of those switches on the website.
2. It’s ugly.
3. It’s far bigger than anything a sane person would want to use.
4. It’s ugly.
5. It’s pretty loud, for a “quiet” version. Like those Hondas all the kids drive around.
6. It’s ugly, but I covered that already… I think.

The thing is, I wasn’t excited about the Matias keyboard. I know it doesn’t use the “best switches”, but the Matias presented a no-win scenario for me. The best case is that I hate the keyboard and wasted $170. The worst-case is that I kinda of liked it, but now wanted to try them *all* and would forever have a hideous keyboard adorn my desk.

Neither thing happened. I’m somewhere in the middle on this issue.

I’ve been using the Matias since I received it ((2-21-13)), which has been almost a full two months. The only other keyboard I touched during that time was the one on my retina MacBook Pro. For the first three weeks I hated the keyboard. I made more typos than normal, I was tripping over the keys, and my hands were getting tired.

I pressed on and, eventually, made less typos. Then I found it very hard to switch back to the Apple Wireless. I was stuck.

Now I had to make a decision: In two month’s use my typo rate hadn’t decreased, but my speed remained the same. That’s a loss.

However, I did start to see the appeal of such a keyboard. I can see why people like them. I get it now, but *I* don’t like it.

This isn’t a review of the Matias, because I really don’t care about the keyboard. It was the only one I found that fit my routine, my desk and my life. In the end, this is a test to see if mechanical keyboards are something that I *would* like.

I liked the feel of the keyboard, more than the Apple Wireless, but I didn’t enjoy typing on it. I can’t explain why mechanical keyboards aren’t for me; it really is a personal choice. Either you’re more comfortable typing on mechanical keyboards, or you aren’t and they’re not right for you.

The Matias made me a worse typist, with a worse looking desk. That’s the worst.

Maybe I’m just not nerdy enough for a mechanical keyboard, so I typed this on one of my six Apple Wireless keyboards instead.

***

I *am* tempted to buy and test a better mechanical keyboard. I *am* curious to know if the switches really make that big of a difference. But I won’t buy another keyboard to test. The reason is simple: cords. I *hate* cords.

Every keyboard that true keyboard-nerds recommend to me are wired and that grates on me more than the idea of using an ugly keyboard for the rest of my life. So I’m back to old faithful and there I shall remain.

[1]: http://shawnblanc.net/2012/04/clicky-keyboards/
[2]: http://matias.ca/laptoppro/mac/

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.

[Shawn Blanc, reviewing the excellent Origami Workstation for iPad][1]:

> Another great benefit of the Workstation is that it’s device agnostic and future proof. It works perfectly with an iPad 1, 2, 3, 4, iPad mini, or even an iPhone

I concur with Shawn, I bought mine close to the same time as him and love it. I don’t use it everyday, I don’t use it every time I travel, but when I do want to use it there is no fuss. It uses the keyboard that I love, that I type with daily, and it doesn’t require any attachment to my iPad.

The mark of a great tool is something that sits waiting to be used and requires minimal effort to get it ready to be used. The Origami workstation is a great tool. Like my cordless drill, it’s just a quick step away from being useful and the rest of the time it is completely out of the way.

[1]: http://shawnblanc.net/2013/04/review-the-origami-workstation-for-ipad/

[Joe Cieplinski on Apple’s current state][1]:

> Behind every one of these products is a brilliant idea. This is not a Ping situation, where Apple saw it had made a mistake and quickly cut it loose. Every one of these and many more could easily become world-changing, competition-killing features with the right amount of polish and some proselytizing. But Apple can’t do that if it starts to adopt a more Google-like “throw it all up against the wall and see what sticks” attitude.

You should take the time to read Cieplinski’s entire article as it is well stated. Yesterday when I [argued][2] for “new and shiny” my argument wasn’t for right now. I think many people construed what I said, as saying Apple needs to take immediate action (and for the record Cieplinski’s post doesn’t appear to have any relation to mine).

What I was truly saying is more nuanced: now is the time to start *thinking* about what is next.

That doesn’t mean stop improving what you have, but start targeting something new. Cieplinski’s right that Apple really does need to refine what it has — every company should always be doing that right up and until the day that product dies — but there is also a need to keep your eyes on the future. That’s why the OS X team is working on OS X and R&D is working on the future. There’s a need for both.

I would argue that right now Apple needs a few people thinking about grand visions, while the legion focuses on making what they have work better.

All consumers will see is the boring iteration stuff, but that’s what makes the grand visions so grand.

[1]: http://www.joecieplinski.com/blog/2013/03/30/hey-apple-wheres-the-fire/
[2]: https://brooksreview.net/2013/04/new-shiny-ooo-ahh/

Each time I hear about Apple’s stock price taking another hit, or being undervalued, I can’t help but shake my head. Wall Street seems hell bent on tanking share prices for Apple over the notion that, though the company is not currently sinking, they are mere moments from striking the proverbial iceberg.

You’ve heard the arguments before: iPhone is boring, iOS is boring, iPad is boring, there’s nothing *NEW*. The counter arguments from more rational folk are strong: $100+ billion cash in the bank, profit leaders in handsets and tablets, growing computer sales amid a shrinking market, no need to change, and so on.

The problem is that both camps are wrong. Yes, Apple products are a bit boring, but they are boring because they just work as expected, not because they are bad products. Apple products are boring by design, and it just so happens that boring in this case is actually good. It’s also true that Apple is banking a lot of cash everyday, but even if Apple can run the company for years off its cash stockpile without selling a single damned thing, well that doesn’t mean that everything is OK — it’s just a *thing* that Apple could do.

Either way you look at it, both the ‘Apple is fine’ and ‘Apple is doomed’ camps are looking at the wrong things and drawing the wrong conclusions.

Apple does need excitement or they *will* eventually have to start dipping into that hoard of cash. This is not to say that Apple *needs* to make a watch or a TV set, but that Apple needs to get back out front, and be the leader that everyone else is chasing.

Because, news flash, Android and Windows Phone 8 *are* damned good. Because Samsung *is* making compelling phones. And it’s only a matter of time before there is a tablet that can rival the iPad lineup.

There’s no more time for Apple to rest on its laurels, yet that’s what it seems Apple is doing.

You can preach all you want that Apple only does things when they are good and ready to do them, but that doesn’t work in today’s world. You can’t sit back and watch your competitor release a new and exciting (for someone), phone every quarter and say to yourself “pshhaw, iPhone”. That doesn’t work. It doesn’t work for Wall Street, for tech journalists, for tech consumers, and most importantly for share holders.

Each of those groups wants just one thing: new and shiny.

Samsung is full of new and shiny, but Apple really isn’t right now. Apple’s modus operandi has been: new and shiny only when making a huge splash (e.g. iPhone, iPod, iPad), the rest of the time Apple just milks the product for everything it is worth. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great strategy provided you know when the milk is about to run out.

I think this explains the stock price conundrum: The deflated stock price has nothing to do with innovation or anything else, it’s about new and shiny — and Apple is lacking in that field — so investors are worried that Apple doesn’t know when the cow is about to dry up.

Laptops and desktops are old and boring no matter what you do to them. Tablets and smart phones are hot items, and Apple has yet to make a change to their lineup that screams “new and shiny”.

Right or wrong, this is how the world works now.

This also explains the iPad mini craze. The iPad mini sold like hot cakes — to the tune of people not being able to buy them fast enough. They sold like crazy not because they were better, but because every person could instantly tell that your iPad mini was/is, “new and shiny”. That’s not *just* another iPad, it’s *the* **new** iPad.

That’s powerful stuff.

At first glance you can’t tell an iPad 2 from 4. You can’t tell an iPhone 4 from 4S, and many can’t tell you have an iPhone 5 until they are holding it. That’s problematic when consumers are eager to show off their forward-thinking, money-wasting, ways.

Apple can survive for years staying the course they are on — truly they can. But then they become Microsoft, and my how Microsoft is struggling these days. Office has no new and shiny, and the new Windows 8 doesn’t seem to matter.

The key for Apple is going to be recognizing how long they can stay in the churning-amazing-profits-era and when they have to move back to new and shiny disruption era. I don’t think Apple is there yet, but by the same token it certainly feels like we are getting close.

***

My litmus test for “new and shiny” is what I call the stranger effect. That is, if you take your latest Apple gear into a public place and use it — do any strangers stop and ask you about it?

The Powerbook G4 had that effect when I first got one, same with: iPod, iPhone, iPad, iPad mini. But when I switched to the iPhone 5, no one noticed. When I upgraded from the iPad to the iPad 2 and then to the iPad 3 — no one noticed.

When people stop asking, stop noticing, that’s when the new and shiny is gone. It’s not a sign that you need to drop everything for a new product, but I do believe it is the sign that you need to start thinking about what is next.

There’s a couple of new backpacks that have come out that I feel are worth mentioning to fellow backpack nerds.

The first is the [Synapse 25][1] from Tom Bihn. This is a larger version of the current [Synapse 19][2], meant to be of equivalent size as my [beloved][3] ((See part [II][4],[III][5],[IV][6] of my Smart Alec reviews.)) [Smart Alec][7]. The key difference seems to be that the Synapse 25 is a more pocket friendly bag.

While the Smart Alec is basically one large cavern, the Synapse seems better for those that like more pockets. I would also note that the Synapse is designed for the Cache style laptop sleeves, which are not as protective as the Brain Cell style that the Smart Alec uses. That in no way is a deal breaker, but should be noted if you want maximum protection. The Synapse is a bit heavier, but I would guess that both bags weigh close to the same when they are loaded with laptop sleeves and such.

Next up is the [Goruck SK26][8], this is essentially the GR1 (which is a great bag) without all the military detailing on the outside of the bag. Molle straps and velcro are gone, and the bag looks fantastic.

The GR1 is a very odd backpack. [I love it][9], but I prefer the Smart Alec in almost every situation. Having said that, if I could, I would trade in my GR1 for this bag right away. It looks better, and I would feel far more comfortable traveling with it overseas instead of the GR1 (due to its less aggressive looks).

*** ***
Overall two very nice new bags, it’s going to be hard resisting the new Goruck. As for the Synapse, I have no doubt many will prefer it to the Smart Alec, but I’m not so sure I will be one who would prefer it.

[1]: http://www.tombihn.com/PROD/TB0111.html
[2]: http://www.tombihn.com/briefcases/TB0110.html
[3]: https://brooksreview.net/2011/12/backpacks-my-bff/
[4]: https://brooksreview.net/2011/12/sa-pt-ii/
[5]: https://brooksreview.net/2012/02/sa-pt-iii/
[6]: https://brooksreview.net/2012/05/diaper-bag/
[7]: http://www.tombihn.com/PROD/TB0103.html
[8]: https://www.goruck.com/Gear/Details/SK26-black
[9]: https://brooksreview.net/2012/12/gr1/

[Nate Anderson, reporting an CMA (a local ISP)][1]:

> “Wow, this is really wrong and crazy,” Henkel told me, since it suggested that companies felt free to operate as a “man in the middle,” one free to inject code of their own choosing into webpage requests that were—so users believed—simply between themselves and the websites they were trying to reach.

Basically the ISP was re-routing traffic to append some scripts to each website so that ads, *their* ads, would be shown on *every* webpage. Incredible.

This smells like a lawsuit waiting to happen:

> And it turned out that the R66T code didn’t just add banner ads to sites that had none; it even overwrote its own ads onto high profile sites like the Huffington Post, which had plenty of ads of their own.

Now, R66T, also has a great “feature” that they market:

> One of their product pitches, for instance, describes a hotel Wi-Fi system that creates an “ever-present toolbar or frame around the page that can display relevant content and information” and can handle “insertion of property related ads and promotional messages, as well as blacklisting competitors’ ads throughout the entire Web session.” A further item says that property managers can “feel secure in knowing that your competitors are not able to poach your customers while they are at your property.”

Both companies have been vague in responding to this, but CMA seems to have stopped using R66T to inject ads. However both companies seem to have updated policies in an ass-covering move that likely won’t cover their ass.

When an ISP pulls shit like this, they should be shut down — plain and simple.

[1]: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/how-a-banner-ad-for-hs-ok/?utm_source=feedburner