Recent Articles

[Reginald Braithwaite asks: Why the fuck?](http://raganwald.posterous.com/why-the-fuck)

>Why the fuck are the greatest minds of our generation toiling away in the Googleplex, harnessing the greatest computing resources in history, trying to figure out how to get Scott Hanselman to click on ads?

Braithwaite asks a really good question — his motivation, or underlying point, is to ask why people aren’t working on more important issues like better medical equipment. Though the question is very good, I think the answer is fairly simple:

1. Google, et al, is where the money is.
2. Google, et al, are where the jobs are.
3. Google, et al, are where their friends are.

Those are easy things to understand, but there’s more than that at play. I’d argue there are a couple of less obvious things at work:

1. Medical research, while well funded, is a slow and frustrating field. Where at Google or Apple a product/idea can be used by millions in a matter of just hours, your work in medical fields may take years to get approval from the necessary “authorities” before you get to see end users using your creation.
2. Your friends just don’t get that excited when they hear that you work for a no-name medical company — but they want to know more when they hear you work for a company that they know and use everyday.

I don’t think there is any right or wrong here, I just think that it’s easier for a young talented mind to choose Google, Facebook, Apple, or others, than it is for them to choose a medical research company.

Thomas Verschoren has added some thoughts to [my argument *for* iCloud](https://brooksreview.net/2013/01/app-silos/) — specifically he [doesn’t like how iCloud deals with archived data](http://pintofcode.com/blog/2013/1/14/archived-cloud):

>What Dropbox offers, and iCloud doesn’t is an archive. Dropbox is a place to make your content available everywhere, anytime at a moments notice, but only when you need it. iCloud only has storage as an option. Files are in your app, or you delete them, they can’t float just behind the horizon for future use.

Verschoren makes some really smart points. The most damning is the case of photographs. With iCloud you only get the most recent 1,000 shots (via Photo Stream), but with Dropbox you can fill your account to its max with photos.

This is another case where an easy change could be made. I’d love to see Apple implement a data and photo archive similar to the iTunes Match service. I can *see* all the music I own on my iPhone, but all of that music actually *isn’t* on my iPhone until I want it to be.

This is the hard part about Dropbox and cloud services: iCloud documents are all in an active and synchronized state. With iTunes Match only what I want is on each device — the rest resides in “the cloud”. With Dropbox, however, *everything* exists on one master device (your main computer) and mobile devices only store pieces of that data when you explicitly tell them to.

There’s obvious benefits and downsides to each.

#### iCloud

Positives:

– Data is there when you open the app, little to no waiting for downloads.
– Music is basically on-demand with an option for the newest music you buy to automatically be on every device.
– The newest version of every file and photo is just *there*, the assumption being that this is the most important data.

Negatives:

– Impossible to archive old data in a way that removes it from your device while keeping it easily accessible.
– Syncing isn’t always reliable.
– Old photos aren’t available forever.
– Apple, and App Store, only.

Overall iCloud assumes your newest stuff is the most important. The fix is easy: photos and documents work more like iTunes Match.

## Dropbox

Positives:

– Works on every device.
– You have to choose what data is stored on mobile devices.
– Tons of space for archiving and no limits on media types (only storage size restrictions based on account level).
– Syncing is rock solid.

Negatives:

– Must wait for synced changes to come in.
– Must store *all* the data on at least one master device.
– If you have no internet connection, you’re out of luck on mobile unless you had foresight to pre-load that data.

Overall Dropbox works exceedingly well even though the file management is manual, which is less appealing to novice users and works against the iOS “no file-system” model. The cost is higher than iCloud and it’s less useful when your Internet connectivity is limited.

The fix is to get the data fully in the cloud and not tied to one device, and optionally allow background downloading of new files to mobile devices.

## Ideology

In these back and forth arguments about Dropbox and iCloud, one thing keeps ringing true: some people prefer one approach over the other. I don’t think either service takes the *best* approach to cloud data — both have substantial room for improvement.

Ideally only the files I’m using would actually be on my devices. Everything else would be securely stored elsewhere. I liken this system to iTunes Match, but perhaps a better model is Apple’s own Fusion Drive.

[Here’s how the Fusion Drive works, as explained by Lee Hutchinson](http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/10/more-on-fusion-drive-how-it-works-and-how-to-roll-your-own/):

>Schiller’s comments indicated that Fusion Drive keeps track of what files and applications are being frequently read, physically moving (or “promoting,” as it’s commonly called in enterprise tiering solutions) those files and applications from the HDD to the faster SSD. At the same time, files and applications on the SSD which haven’t been referenced in a while are moved back down (“demoted”) to the HDD, to make room for more files to be promoted.

How does a great cloud storage system work using the Fusion Drive model? Just swap “SSD” with “your local device” and “HDD” with “cloud”. The OS intelligently decides which files it should keep locally — everything else gets off-loaded to the cloud.

Of course this approach relies on a couple of things:

– Fast and stable internet access.
– Transparent file manipulation.

Basically the OS would have to mount the cloud volume and transparently make it part of your normal Mac drive. This makes a ton of sense for mobile devices because cellular connection is ubiquitous and fast in most areas. It’s a harder sell for laptops, which rarely have a cellular connection built-in and are often used in areas with no Internet connection (e.g. a plane).

Essentially we’re talking about a hybrid system that always keeps the most recent files locally stored and up to date on every device. The “archive” files all reside in the cloud, ready to be accessed when required, with no single device needing to be the “master”, from which everything is synced. This would benefit the user by allowing them access to everything they need in a relatively small space: for example, a 64GB SSD.

It’s iTunes Match meets Dropbox meets iCloud.

[Nick Bilton with a quote from John Maeda](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/disruptions-design-to-propel-technology-forward/):

>“The automobile was a weird alien technology when it first debuted, then, after a while, it evolved and designers stepped in to add value to it.”

I really like this Bilton post, as there is a ton of little tidbits that you can pull from it which give a great idea of how technology and gadgets are changing.

Bilton follows up that quote with this:

>Walk into most car showrooms in America and sales clerks might spend more time explaining the shape of the heated seat than the engine that moves the car along. Several decades ago, he might have been heralding pistons and horsepower.

It’s a great analogy for computing because it is not only accurate, but it is about cars.

I think Bilton is largely right if one considers mobile devices only, but for desktop and laptop computers there is only so much you can do about the design of the device and this is where the secret feature of the iPad lies.

The iPad will likely be *the* mobile computer that people use in a not too far off future, because every aspect of the iPad is better designed then, say, a MacBook Air. The hardware is better, battery life better, tactile response is better, software is better, and so on…

The iPad may not be better at every computing task, or even most computing tasks, but it’s only a matter of time before that changes and what it is better at is eons ahead of a standard laptop. The iPad was designed just to be a better computer and anything that it currently cannot do stems from a lack of computing power, or a lack of the right software. Both of those problems are easier to overcome than any one problem that faces a MacBook Air.

So I don’t read that quote and salivate over what is to come from a laptop. I read that Maeda quote and salivate over what is to come from computing devices we haven’t even dreamed of. I point no further than to your first experience using an iPad — for me that was a ‘wow’ moment and it still is.

[John Timmer writing for Ars Technica about Fox News’ practice of ‘false balance’, which in this case takes NOAA’s weather data to task](http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/false-balance-fox-news-demands-a-recount-on-us-warmest-year/):

>What are we to make of this chaotic jumble of unreliable sources and internal contradictions? As far as Fox is concerned, apparently nothing; the article doesn’t draw any conclusion about the science whatsoever. It’s a classic example of false balance, allowing the reporter to present a biased picture while maintaining the appearance of impartiality.

False balance is a result of not wanting to ever be wrong. I don’t think this is at all about presenting more balance — no I think this is about covering your own ass. If every time I said something really sucks, I hedged with saying that some really like it and that updates could make it not suck, I’d be doing the same thing as Fox.

If I did that every time I made a definitive statement then no one could ever say I was wrong, because in actuality I never really said anything important to begin with.

[It’s like reviews on *The Verge*](http://curiousrat.com/home/2013/1/14/perspective-on-web-journalism).

[Federico Viticci has a smart response to](http://www.macstories.net/links/open-in-is-not-the-solution/) my [post about App Silos](https://brooksreview.net/2013/01/app-silos/):

>Therefore “Open In”: a menu that copies a file from Location A to Location B, getting from one document to two documents, now available in two different locations. And I would argue that the second most complicated aspect of managing documents is: figuring out the “right” version of a file.

Viticci is right, of course, that’s something I hadn’t considered. The duplication effect would be horrible, so perhaps a better solution is something more akin to “send this here file to that there app”. Or just a button that reads “Send to…” or “Move to…” depending on which wording Apple likes better (my vote is Send to).

That would essentially allow you to relocate a file from one silo to another instead of duplicating it. The trouble here for users would simply be remembering where they sent the file, but that’s still less frustrating for average users than seeing the actual file system as you do in Finder.

[Patrick Welker has an amazing Keyboard Maestro macro for all OmniFocus users.](http://rocketink.net/2013/01/keyboard-maestro-as-omnifocus%27s-little-helper.html) Be sure to look at the rest of his site, and then kiss your weekend good bye.Just [another reason](https://brooksreview.net/tag/KM-SERIES/) why Keyboard Maestro really is an amazing tool.