Davison Online

Consider me opposed to the United States’ latest military endeavors in Libya. As I’m already on record against our invasion of Iraq and have long thought our lingering stay in Afghanistan pointless at best, this should surprise no one. The establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya lacks proper justification, has no satisfactory exit strategy, is an unaffordable waste of money, and won’t achieve our presumptive goal of advancing democracy. As noble as our intentions might be, war against Libya is a terrible idea.

Much like Saddam Hussein was, Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi is a genocidal madman intent on holding power in his country through any means necessary. This makes him not unlike any number of other tin-horned dictators in the world who rely on force of arms to keep their citizenry cowed. It’s despicable and often heartbreakingly unjust. It also has nothing to do with the United States in terms of security or national interest which should be the overriding principle for engaging our armed forces in any hostile action. If you’re going to ask soldiers to die for their country, it should at least be for their country. Tellingly, this principle is how history tends to judge wars as well. “Good” wars—the quotes are there for a reason—involve national security and immediate threats to the nation (the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, the Civil War, World War I, World War II) while “Bad” wars (the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Iraq wars) are fought for more abstract principles. This latest conflict with Libya easily falls in the latter category.

That the Bush Doctrine of preemptive assault has not been invoked this time around, one can only be thankful for and hopeful that its brief day in the sun is over. If ever there were a flawed military justification “we had to hit them before they might have hit us” is it. But the pledge President Obama campaigned on was this:

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

Those are his own words, and since Libya presents neither an actual nor imminent threat, one can rightly judge the president to have repudiated this stand. This is deeply disturbing to those of us who think peace, prosperity and freedom for the world is typically best achieved by not dropping bombs. I have never been more disappointed in this president.

Even without an actual or imminent threat, one must ask, “Why Libya?” We did not intervene in Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Yemen, Bahrain, and so on. One is tempted to guess “oil”—Libya is the 10th largest petroleum producer in the world—and “because we can” (“with minimal casualties to ourselves” being the corollary). The reasoning put forth by the administration, that military intervention is driven by humanitarian concerns, seems spurious given that we’ve done nothing in similar instances. (See Andrew Sullivan’s Standing By As Massacres Occur for an elaboration of this point.) In light of this, that we’re choosing to engage Libya here and now borders on inexplicable.

A great country does not wage war by halves.

—Pierre Paul Cambon, French diplomat

Cambon was talking about securing a British naval presence for the French at the outset of World War I. He believed, rightly, that the British could not make war only on the seas but would be ultimately forced to commit their army on the side of the French. In Libyan conflict, I’m not sure that anyone believes that Gaddafi will be stopped with airpower alone. If that is so, how can we hope to topple him without committing American ground troops? And if we don’t ultimately remove him from power, how is he anything but emboldened to pursue additional terrorist acts like the Lockerbie airplane bombing? (Not to mention the reprisals he’s sure to undertake against the rebels in his country.)

If we make the shaky assumption that western forces “win”—even through airpower alone—who exactly is going to pick up and put back together the pieces of a broken Libya? If Gaddafi is removed as despot, a position he’s held since 1969, who takes over? What is the military exit strategy and what constitutes victory? Basic questions like these are meant to be asked before we start shooting. That they’ve gone unasked and unanswered seems to me to be a further abandonment of the Powell Doctrine and the Weinberger Doctrine and an enormous threat to the world. Creating doubt as to why and when the US military will be called into action does not make the world safer or the American public any less nervous.

Financially, this no-fly zone endeavor is estimated to cost the US $15 billion a year. That’s assuming we don’t send ground troops. This is on top of a $685 billion military budget that does not include our wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. By contrast, the local school district in Salem, Oregon will be laying off hundreds of teachers next year, closing schools, and upping class sizes for the want of $50 million. I can’t say this more plainly: We are literally bankrupting our communities and imperiling our future through unnecessary foreign entanglements and military expenditures.

As heartbreaking as doing nothing can be in the face of a bloody civil war, limited intervention can be the best response. Look at Iraq, Libya and Egypt and tell me who has the best shot at birthing a true democracy. Why might Egypt succeed where Iraq has failed and Libya probably will? The answer, interestingly, is also the US military: We trained many of the Egyptian officers here in US military colleges. When the Egyptian military wouldn’t attack its own citizenry, President Mubarak’s game was up. This is US military intervention of the best kind, and it requires no cruise missiles, UN mandates, or hundred billion dollar expenditures. It does require political engagement and a country receptive to democracy. It won’t work everywhere, but it’s also not meant to. Democratic reform can only spring from the people; as we’ve discovered in Iraq, it cannot be imposed. In short, the US can help create democracies but we should not be, and frankly cannot afford to be, policeman to the world.

File under Super Bowl records set:
Fewest combined rushing attempts: 36, Green Bay (13); Pittsburgh (23)

As I noted in my pre-game analysis, Green Bay needed to forgo the run, which they did, and we needed a steady dose of Mendenhall, which we did not. It did not help to go down early, but our touchdown drive in the second half, where we did not pass the ball but simply ran it down Green Bay’s throat should have told us everything we needed to know: We could and should have kept with that strategy from the outset of the game. We really had no need to pass until the Pack proved they could stop the run, something they did only once when Mendenhall fumbled. This is another way of saying: A Jerome Bettis, Bill Cowher-era Steelers team would have won this game.

On the Green Bay side, they deserve credit for passing the ball. Our secondary, with the exception of Troy Polomolu (who played a disappointing game like most of the Steelers), is sub-par. Ike Taylor is a decent corner and Ryan Clark hits hard, but that’s not good enough. We really need two shut-down corners so that our linebackers can blitz with impunity. The Packs receivers had way too much separation on most pass plays and QB Aaron Rodgers is too accurate to hope for a gift. I don’t think we were close to an interception all night.

So, a disappointing outcome. Assuming we can re-sign LB Lamaar Woodley, we’re actually set up well to make another run at things next year. That’s not usually the way it happens, but at least the talent is there.

Long-time readers know that I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Pittsburgh Steelers fan. If you like winners—and what little kid doesn’t?—there really was nobody like the late ’70s Steelers, who won four Super Bowls in the span of just a few years. I’ve followed the team since, celebrating their victories and agonizing over their defeats.

Despite two recent Super Bowl victories—both of which I thought we had a good chance of winning beforehand—I dread this one. Simply put, I don’t think we match up well with the Green Bay Packers. I don’t think all is lost—I can think of a way that we can win, but it requires the Pack to do some stupid things, and that’s not a recipe for success in sports.

For all the talk of how great these defenses are, they’re both flawed in significant ways. The Pack has had issues stopping the run. In fact, here’s the one way I think Pittsburgh wins: If our make-shift, second-rate offense line and running back Rashard Mendenhall can get four yards a carry early and consistently, the Pack have a real problem. In essence, what I’m talking about is old school Steeler football where we grind out the yards on the ground and control the game clock. The Pack was 18th against the run during the season; they can be hurt this way, and if they don’t get the stops they need (the Jets didn’t), they’ll find themselves in a heckuva fight.

Conversely, the Pack should abandon the run altogether. The Steeler defense this year was the best in the history of the NFL against the run. There’s no point, except for an occasional delayed draw to help set up a play action pass later. This isn’t to say that Green Bay quarterback Aaron Rodgers shouldn’t pull the ball down and run it because he should if it’s warranted, and it can even be a called play now and then. But the hand off to the running back, whether it’s up the middle or pulling a guard, forget it. Steelers will stuff it.

Unfortunately—and this is what has me fearful—making Green Bay one dimensional (pass only) won’t win us the game. Rodgers is adept at reading coverage after the snap and delivering. Polomalu might be the NFL Defensive Player of the Year (although I would have voted for LB James Harrison), but he’s only one man of four (or five or six if we’re in nickel or dime). I don’t think we’ll be able to get sufficient pressure with a four- or five-man rush, and that set up a huge problem. How do we stop a good maybe great QB’s passing game? Historically, the answer is “we don’t.”

The last time these teams played the Steelers won 37-36 on a bomb to the endzone in what was literally the last play of the game. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think it will be that close this time, and I don’t think the Steelers will prevail.

You can’t very well expect IDG, the hosts of the Macworld Expo, to come out and admit that Macworld 2011 was an embarrassing bomb, but you can’t just plug your ears and shout “la-la-la I can’t HEAR you!” to the reality of the world either. In short, you’ve got to be at least somewhat honest with your audience.

I think the only way Macworld 2012 has any chance is if (1) Apple returns (not gonna happen) or (2) they announce it as the last Macworld ever. That latter move would require truth, as in: “Based on this year’s show, Macworld is unsustainable. We’re going to give it one final hurrah in 2012. If you’ve been once or a dozen times and never before, this is it. We’re asking you to come join us for the last Macworld ever.” You can totally tug the geek heartstrings with this kind of message, and it will work. Trust me, most of us damn near cried when Spock died.

But as I say, all this requires honesty. Instead, here’s the public relations piece IDG released about Macworld 2011, with what they said and what I think reality is:

Event’s Evolution Exceeds Expectations, Leaves Participants Educated and Energized

I can’t fathom just how low to the floor expectations must have been for this show to have exceeded them. I can’t deny “educated” (as “this show was totally not worth it” is indeed a lesson learned), but “energized” has to be a typo. I think what they meant was “demoralized” or “suicidal.”

A highly successful Macworld 2011 closed on Saturday at the Moscone Center’s West Hall in San Francisco where approximately 25,000 attendees packed the show floor to see, try and buy the latest in Apple-related products, more than 250 exhibitors launched in excess of 100 new innovations, and more than 100 educational sessions were taught by industry experts and luminaries, IDG World Expo, owner of Macworld 2011, announced today. Macworld 2012 will be held at the Moscone Center’s West Hall on January 26 – 28, 2012.

I’m all for the notion that different people can have different perspectives of the same reality, but by no stretch was this show “highly successful” other than it actually existed. Moscone’s West Hall, itself smaller than the North and South Halls Macworld used to fill simultaneously, was curtained at the edges. The 25,000 attendees was down about 4,000 from last year which in turn was a drop from the roughly 45,000 who came in Apple’s final year.

The 250 exhibitors, down from roughly 400 last year, who “launched in excess of 100 new innovations” probably stand with me in bafflement as to what it means to “launch an innovation.”

Finally, the idea that Macworld will exist at all next year seems highly optimistic given the trends. That it’s already scheduled for Moscone West does not give one any sense of hope whatsoever.

“From first-time attendees who stood five people deep to meet the developers of their favorite apps to long-time veterans of the show who attended for unparalleled training opportunities, Macworld 2011 once again delivered on its promise to educate, entertain and excite,” said Paul Kent, vice president and general manager of Macworld 2011.

At no time ever did I see a crowd “five people deep” and so far as I know, the developers of Angry Birds were not in attendance. This is clearly a written, manufactured, PR blurb, and it’s insulting. Set aside that no one really talks in parallel structure with this kind of assonance. The elephant in the room is that this show was the Hindenburg and Paul Kent is talking about how every seat on board was a good seat.

“The energy and buzz that was so evident at Macworld 2011 underscores the fact that the event continues to be the undisputed gathering place for the Apple products marketplace.”

Have you never visited an Apple Retail Store? And, my God man, the “energy and buzz” this Macworld was soul-sucking. I did the whole thing in less than three hours after purposely slowing down part way through because I was running out of exhibitors to visit. Several times I encountered people near the entrance/exit saying, “There’s another floor upstairs, right?” Macworld 2011 was like a cold shower in biker shorts: No one could quite believe the shrinkage.

“We thank everyone who participated in this year’s event and look forward to seeing them again next January for Macworld 2012.”

Unless IDG is prepared to a lot more honest than this: Not bloody likely.

UPDATE: I’ve been getting some push back on the attendance numbers I’ve used in the piece above, with at least one respondent claiming that this year’s Macworld actually saw an increase from last year (from 25,000 last year to 29,000 this year). Although I distinctly recall hearing the number 90,000 for Apple’s final year at the show, I can’t prove it so I’ve adjusted it to use IDG’s tally of 45,000. The pre-registrations for last year’s show were around 30,000 but apparently only 25,000 actually came, so fair enough: The attendance was higher this year (although I’ve got to say it sure didn’t seem that way to me). These are secondary considerations to the main point: The vendor presence both in quality and quantity was incredibly weak, and it bodes very ill going forward. IDG would do well to admit as much and give us all something (a final show, perhaps) to rally around.

Tags: Apple, Macworld

Last year I wrote:

Having just concluded three days of Macworld SF 2010 after taking part in various user conferences and walking the show floor, I remain somewhat skeptical of Macworld SF 2011.

The joy of being right is rather muted by the embarrassment of actually attending this year’s dismal show. This year’s Macworld is even smaller than last year’s. I’d say that they’ve shoehorned the affair into the smaller Moscone West except that there are so few vendors there’s no shoehorning needed. No Apple obviously, but also no Adobe, Microsoft, Brother, Canon, Nikon, etc. When one of your star vendors is Dexim, a company I’ve never heard of, you’re in real trouble.

Macworld has already announced dates for next year, but unless there’s a dramatic announcement (“Apple returns!”), I can’t see how the show makes it. I’ve been going to Macworld for about 10 years, but this is it; I’m done. I arrived at the show late and covered the whole thing in under three hours. Given Apple’s record sales in Macs, iPads and iPhones, I can only conclude trade shows—or at least this trade show—are going the way of the dinosaur.

NOTES

• iGrill by iDevices is a Bluetooth cooking thermometer that connects wirelessly to your iPhone. Demos well. iPhone-owning BBQers rejoice.
• iPhoneLife magazine, already so in need of a renaming that they append “+iPad & iPod Touch” above the title, is a dismally written affair. The glossy paper and layouts are fine, but this is a good example of what you get when you ask non-writers to be writers. Quality goes up and down by the page. Some of the reviews are coherent—informative, even—but for God’s sake don’t make this the only tech magazine to which you subscribe.
• New magazine i.Business is worse. They intend to cover Apple technology and business, two subjects that have apparently never come together before, and I wish them well. The first issue wasn’t promising, but in life you get points just for showing up, so I’m happy to revisit the periodical in another year—assuming, of course, that there’s something to revisit.
• I had an extended conversation with a fellow from Marketcircle about the state of the show. Previously Marketcircle had a huge presence. This year, only a small booth in which to meet and greet. We didn’t really get into their products, since Billings (still) won’t integrate with QuickBooks properly and Daylite (a product in which I was even certified at one time) is far too confusing for the average business owner. (How confusing? You probably have to hire a certified consultant to show you how to use it.)
• The iPad app Art Authority looks terrific. It’s $7.99, which is expensive relative to other apps in the App Store, but for a historical overview of artists and artwork, it looks fantastic. Bought it as soon as I got home to the iPad.
• I’ve already got covers for my iPhones and iPads, so I didn’t find this compelling, but if you’d like to make a customized gel skin cover for your device, these are the GelaSkins are the guys who do it. About $40 for an iPad case and $20 for an iPhone one. They’ve got a bunch of fancy pre-made ones if you don’t want to do your own, but I think the only reason to do this would be that you want to put your own artwork on the outside of your iOS device.
• If you’ve found yourself desperately wishing you could go swimming with your iPhone, iPod Touch, or, God knows why, even your iPad, the solution appeared in the form of Dry Case. Waterproof down to 100 feet, the kit can be augmented by optional waterproof earbuds and sports belts. So confident is Dry Case of their technology that they offer a one-year Dry Case replacement guarantee. That is to say, they’ll send you a new case in which to place your now waterlogged iPhone. What could be more reassuring?
• What’s that? You say you have an idea for a great iPhone or iPad app but no idea whatsoever how to code anything? Did you also say that you have a minimum of $2,000 (and more likely $4,000) to make the idea a reality? If so, AppMuse can find you the programmer you need. Give AppMuse the idea—they’ll sign a non-disclosure agreement if you like (and you really better like, if you know what’s smart)—and they’ll put it out there to their roster of programmers, three of whom will submit bids to work on your project. I have every confidence that AppMuse and several thousand bucks can make your iPhone/iPad dream a reality.
• The number one thing you can do to make your Mac faster is to place it aboard a rocket ship. A close second is to replace the Mac’s internal hard drive with an Other World Computing (OWC) Solid State Drive (SDD). Don’t worry if that’s a lot of acronyms, most tech words barely make sense anyway. Be that as it may, SSDs are insanely fast compared to traditional hard drives, and as I’ve watched the prices creep down from the thousands into the hundreds I’ve become increasingly tempted to upgrade my laptop with one of these. Most everyday tasks become 2-3x faster. See this video for proof.
• San Francisco at night is a dim, broadly-lit place with a pervasive sense of unreality. I feel like I’m inside somebody’s performance art project.
• Want to download that YouTube video with the dancing monkey? Of course you do, and darn Google for making it nigh impossible. Happily, Jaksta will let you do it. It’s not free, but use coupon code JMACWORLD (valid until Feb. 15, 2011) to get $10 off.
• If you’ll be handing off that new iPad to the kids or if you’re the clumsy sort, Ektopad iPad cover is the most rugged thing short of an uber-expensive Otterbox. I’m not saying you should turn your iPad into a Frisbee to test it out, but for an accidental drop you’ve got much better odds that the thing survives.

So, the end of an era. I won’t miss the CalTrain (any more), and the six block walk to Moscone got a little old, particularly the stinky under the bridge part. But I did enjoy the Macworld event itself for many years, and I will miss the coming together of people to celebrate all things Apple. I’ve been through technological deaths before, notable Commodore with its Vic-20, Commodore 64 and Amiga. Apple’s never been stronger, so this isn’t that.

Rather it’s a change in the way people sell things and how they receive information about products. Apple’s internalized some of it with the app store for the Mac and for the iOS devices. The Internet and the ever-increasing number of Apple Retail Stores take care of the rest, I suppose. For me, though, nothing will ever take the place of a really good Macworld show. I’m sorry this wasn’t one, but I had a few and that’s more than many can say.

Tags: Apple, iPad, iPhone, Macworld

Pretty layouts, glossy paper, and alluring subject matter will get you in the door, but if the content’s not there (and boy is it not), you’re going to have a rough go of it. I’m looking at the March-April 2011 edition of iPhone Life that I picked up for free at Macworld, and ouch. It doesn’t bode well when you have to augment your periodical’s title (“+iPad & iPod Touch”). Presumably they’ll keep throwing names up there until Apple stops introducing devices or they run out of space on the cover.

Started flipping through and the ads look nice. The Editor’s lead commentary runs down what the issue covers rather blandly, but it’s the same sort of schtick every month, so I’m always inclined to cut slack there.

The “Meet our writers….” and iPhone Life Staff page is rather amateurish. A number of writers have professional head shots, but several look like they’re out on the beach surfing, one appears to be a mime, one is holding his kid, and another is driving in his car. The author descriptions are similarly disparate. The first fellow is a “Systems test and integration engineer” and you think, “Super! He’ll know what he’s talking about.” But then we get a freelance blogger, a “technology enthusiast,” and an “uber-cool soccer mom of four.” Methinks there might be a problem in the vetting of writers.

So it’s with skeptical eye that I turned to the first column, the “Social Media Report,” entitled “Using Social Media apps for Customer Service.” Really, it was just poorly named. It should have been “Using Twitter and Hootsuite for Customer Service.” But the article did close with what appears to be a theme:

I would love to know how you use your iPhone and iPad for customer service. Feel free to post directly to our Facebook page to continue this conversation.

This is intriguing in two ways. First, an author rarely ends a piece with a call for help. While it’s certainly fine to acknowledge that one can’t and doesn’t know everything about a topic, the job of the writer is to learn and share, not plead for assistance. Take that offline and do your research. Second, this is not a conversation. There is no two-way dialogue to continue. You may start a dialog on Facebook if you like and if others choose to pipe up, but this is not that since no one was quoted in the column and it wasn’t a Q & A.

In the reader mail section, a reader writes asking for iPhone Life to institute a star rating system on their reviews. The Publisher/Executive Editor answers:

In theory, I agree with your suggestion for a rating system. However, in practice, the engineer in me finds star ratings too subjective and inconsistent. We have at least 20 authors per issue, and it would be very difficult to standardize star ratings and to a lesser extent pros and cons about every product. Further, given that there are 200,000 apps in the App store, if we write about it in our magazine, chances are it’s a top app, so the difference between 3 and 4 stars wouldn’t be meaningful.

You think, “Great answer! He agrees that star ratings are nice but explains why it doesn’t make sense for the magazine. Perfect.” But then he tacks on this:

“Having said that, a rating system is an ongoing discussion, and eventually likely you will see it here.”

What the heck? You just finished elaborating why it didn’t work for your publication! So your answer to a star rating system is “yes, no, yes”? If this is the level of backbone coming from the publisher, I dare say all is lost. Don’t be afraid to offend your readers. Or minimally, disagree with them politely. Good Lord, man, it’s your magazine.

We turn then to the lead article, the one the cover touts as answering the question, “Next iPad: Still the best?” Now this is unknowable. Apple hasn’t released iPad 2 and they don’t talk about future products. So that’s a tall order to fill unless you have insider information. As you might have guessed, they don’t. Instead, we get a run through of what Apple rumors sites and pundits have speculated that a next generation iPad might have and a comparison to other tablets all of which are vaporware except for the Samsung Galaxy Tab. In other words, we’re comparing a hypothetical tablet against other hypothetical tablets excepting the Galaxy Tab, which runs a non-tablet operating system and which “many users complained…felt like a big phone.” Excellent. Good article. Let’s tackle how many angels on the head of a pin next.

How to conclude when purporting to answer the unanswerable? Here you go:

This is definitely the year of the tablet, but the big question is, will Apple still be on top when the year comes to a close? With over fifty competing tablets looking to take a market share, the iPad will have some stiff competition. Will other platforms be able to challenge Apple’s App Store lead in both iPad optimized apps as well as compatible iPhone/iPad touch apps? Will the next generation of iPad come out with any unexpected features? Time will tell, but one thing is for sure…It’s going to be an exciting year for tablets!

Yes, the tablets I’ve talked with are all very excited. And to answer your questions: Yes, no, and probably. Thanks for your help in sorting through that, “Enterprise Editor.” I see from your bio that you “strongly believe in the technology not for the sake of technology, but rather to improve capability and efficiency,” a stand for which you should be applauded in the face of a world that takes a diametrically opposed view. For who among us—other than the Enterprise Editor—doesn’t say to himself, “I need a technological gizmo that will do nothing for me, that neither improves what I can do nor how quickly I can do it. In short, I need to have this gizmo simply because it is a gizmo.” A brave stand, indeed. I can’t wait to read what you write next.

And there it is on page 18: “Apple’s Innovative Evolution: How Apple is facing the ‘innovator’s dilemma.” The Enterprise Editor graces us again:

In 1997, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen wrote a book entitled The Innovator’s Dilemma in which he described a phenomenon where new technologies have a tendency to be quite disruptive in the market. Market leaders are focused on meeting the needs of their existing customers through incremental improvements in existing technologies, leaving the door open for new market entrants to leverage disruptive technologies. The disruptive technologies might initially only be attractive to a small, niche, or low-end sections [sic] of the market, but once they begin to mature and gain traction in the market, they can overtake the existing technologies with the previous market leader unable to do anything about it.

That’s a powerful idea (not his, of course), horribly written (absolutely his words). Are they paying you by the word? Let’s see what we can do with paragraph one:

In 1997, Harvard Business School professor Clayton Christensen wrote The Innovator’s Dilemma. He described how some new technologies can be quite disruptive in the market. Market leaders meet the needs of existing customers through incremental technological improvement, allowing market entrants an opening with revolutionary technology that initially only appeals to small or low-end customers. Once these technologies mature, they can quickly gain market traction leaving the previous market leader unable to compete.

That’s an admittedly imperfect quick fix, but it reads a lot better and, I should note, I’m not the Enterprise Editor for a national publication. The larger problem is that nobody cares particularly that some Harvard Prof wrote a book. It’s not the worst lead in the history of journalism, that quaint now-much-scorned academic discipline, but it’s not Edward R. Murrow either. So a better start might be something like:

In 1896 my great grandfather travelled from Montana to Oregon by covered wagon in a hard and somewhat dangerous journey of two weeks. Years later, he would fly the same distance in the relaxed comfort of an airplane in the span of just two hours. This is a story about Apple, technological change, and about what happens to the builders of today’s covered wagons.

Is that more compelling? I think so. It transports the reader a bit, at least a few of whom are likely saying, “Thank God. Not another iPhone app review.” More importantly, it draws the reader in while describing what the story is going to be about. I can write about technological change and Apple and iPhones, no problem. I’ve gotten the reader to at least the next paragraph without inducing narcolepsy, and I’ve probably decent chance at getting him to read several more paragraphs as well. Maybe the whole thing if I don’t mess it up.

Anyway, we get to the end of the piece and what do you suppose we find? Questions? But of course:

…What does Apple have planned next? Will they bring the simplified iOS to a laptop form-factor like the MacBook Air? Will the app revolution invade the living room with an iOS-based Apple TV? Since only Steve Jobs knows, we will all just have to wait and see.

Now that may be the single worst conclusion to an article I’ve ever read because it prompts one further question from the reader: Why on God’s green earth did I read this?

That in mind, I flipped through the rest of the magazine and watched as the quality of the various app reviews and articles bounce up and down. How could this be? Well, the answer is at www.iPhoneLife.com/writersguidelines and it goes like this: “Up front, please understand that we don’t pay authors.” Excellent. So what level of objectivity can we expect authors and, more importantly, reviewers to have? If I’m an iPhone app developer, like it turns out the Enterprise Editor is, why don’t I just have my brother/friend/cousin/mom write a review of my work for you because, you know, they really like it. Best thing since covered wagons. I’m not saying that’s what’s happening; I’m saying that’s what could happen based on the non-payment policy in place. You can’t argue, after all, that you’re paying your authors to be objective.

So I appreciate the free issue at Macworld, but no, I don’t think I’ll be subscribing.

Tags: Apple, iPad, iPhone

I took the Myers-Briggs personality test back in college some 20 years ago. In case you’re not familiar, it’s a questionnaire that measures how you see the world and how you make choices. Briefly stated, there are 16 different types based around four different dichotomies: Extrovert (E) v. Introvert (I); Sensing (S) v. Intuition (N); Thinking (T) v. Feeling (F); and Judging (J) v. Perceiving (P). By answering the Myers-Briggs questions, you indicate which side of the dichotomies you prefer which gives you a four letter indictor of what your choices mean, and before you know it you’re in Gryffindor.

Something like that, anyway, because I’ve never been convinced that my being an INTJ or at least knowing that I’m an INTJ counts for much. David Keirsey contends that my type corresponds to a Keirsey Temperament Sorter of “Mastermind” which is an ego boost if I’ve ever heard one. Furthermore, it turns out that only 1-4% of the population has the rare and one must think highly desirable INTJ orientation, making us a smaller minority than gays or lesbians or game show hosts. I, for one, am tired of being oppressed by The Man.

What does it mean to be an INTJ? This stuff tends to come off like reading horoscopes or tarot cards, but with the veneer of academic respectability (and warning “thou shall not practice social science” notwithstanding). Here’s Wikipedia’s take:

• I – Introversion preferred to extraversion: INTJs tend to be quiet and reserved. They generally prefer interacting with a few close friends rather than a wide circle of acquaintances, and they expend energy in social situations (whereas extraverts gain energy).
• N – Intuition preferred to sensing: INTJs tend to be more abstract than concrete. They focus their attention on the big picture rather than the details and on future possibilities rather than immediate realities.
• T – Thinking preferred to feeling: INTJs tend to value objective criteria above personal preference. When making decisions they generally give more weight to logic than to social considerations.
• J – Judgment preferred to perception: INTJs tend to plan their activities and make decisions early. They derive a sense of control through predictability, which to perceptive types may seem limiting.

I would tell you that by and large the above describes me pretty well. I’m not sure how helpful knowing this is—I’m more than a little afraid of sticking labels on things and diminishing them as a result—but “Know Thyself” isn’t just for dead Greeks, so it can’t be all bad.

Here, try it yourself.

It is abundantly clear that huge advantages accrue to having personal information—email, contacts, calendar, etc.—available anywhere. Apple’s MobileMe (buy the old version and save) syncing service handles most of this wirelessly. If I update a contact on my iPhone, for example, it’s automatically pushed up to Apple’s MobileMe service “in the cloud” and sent to all my other computers and devices. It’s incredibly handy, and if you have more than one device (iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, Mac laptop or Mac desktop) to keep information on, I highly recommend it.

It doesn’t sync everything, though, and it’s those last bits of informational distribution between devices that I’m struggling with. Specifically, I’ve got issues with email storage and financial recording and record keeping.

I have virtually every email I’ve sent or received since about 1993. I’ve deleted spam, some mailing list stuff, etc., but otherwise I’ve pretty much got everything. That’s a huge and personally meaningful historical record. (And one of the reasons I don’t see myself ever abandoning email for instant messaging, Twitter, or Facebook messages. In fact, I have all Facebook messages emailed to me so that I can archive them.)

I can already pick up new messages from anywhere, but what about accessing these historical emails? The more tech-savvy among you already know what I’m going to say here: I’m putting them online. Not for just anyone, of course, but for me. I’m creating email folders at my IMAP-based email server and I’m moving my tens of thousands of messages into them. I will be able to access them from anywhere. I know I’m late to the party—IMAP has long been capable of doing this and GMail has offered it for years—but I finally now feel the need and see the advantages.

The second issue is recording and accessing financial data, notably Quicken and QuickBooks. I have no solution yet other than to log in remotely to my Mac Pro in the office and record and view things. It’s not intolerable, but it’s wildly inefficient. Here’s the ideal scenario: I get a bill at a restaurant, I enter it in the iPhone and the data is automatically synced back into my main Quicken file at home (or online). Since I don’t have a good solution—I suspect the answer will have to come from somebody like Intuit—I’m not fully mobile.

But I’m getting close, and that’s a very exciting prospect.

Tags: Apple, iPad, iPhone, Travel

Virtually every trip I’ve taken since May 2000 has involved me hauling along a laptop computer. I’m a computer consultant by trade, and I’ve considered in a necessity. Sometimes I need to remotely access their Mac, sometimes it’s useful to have a visual. Either way, I’ve lugged 6 or 7 lbs. (once you count up the charger and other accessories) worth of gear everywhere.

This summer I did something novel. Twice, I left the laptop at home and went with an iPad wi-fi instead. My latest three day trip to Los Angeles, California was the clincher since I was able to do everything I needed to do on it. Future trips may involve a laptop, but it’s not automatic and certainly once I have an iPad 3G + Wi-Fi and the iOS is updated to 4.x, I think the laptop is almost done.

In fact, I’ve got to admit that I came away fairly staggered by the experience, because if I computer nerd like me can survive on an iPad, almost anybody can. Within 5 years, 80% to 90% of portables sold will be tablets like the iPad. I’m convinced of it, because the advantages are so incredibly stark. In no particular order:

1. Enormous battery life. 10 hours or so right now. Longer if you want to dim the screen, not watch videos, etc.
2. Minuscule weight. 1.5 to 1.6 lbs. is nothing to carry.
3. Instant on. No long boot up time or wake from sleep. I never shut my iPad off.
4. No abstraction layer. You touch what you want. There’s no keyboard or mouse or cursor between you and iPad, and it makes for a more intimate, easier-to-use experience. You don’t have to “speak geek” to be able to use this.
5. Best in class experiences. This is strongly related to the lack of an abstraction layer, but I can think of no better way to look at images, play with Google Maps, surf the web or watch video.
6. “Anywhere” Internet. My iPad is wi-fi only, but a 3G model (which my next one will be) gives you the Internet virtually anywhere you have cell coverage.
7. eBook heaven. I carry the equivalent of several hundred pounds of dead tree books on my iPad. I can search any book, annotate it, highlight text, set bookmarks, change the font size, look up words instantly in a built-in dictionary, and more.
8. Social Media nirvana. Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, etc. All the culprits responsible for killing your discretionary time are well-represented on the iPad.
9. App coverage: If there’s something I want to do, the odds are good that I can do it. I do genealogy. There’s an app for that. (Reunion.) I want to watch a movie. There’s an app for that. (Netflix.) The list goes on and on.

Right now the biggest limitation for me is relates to Quicken and QuickBooks. I use both programs extensively on the Mac, and the iPad doesn’t have a way for me to make entries or sync them back to the master files on the computer. The best I can do on the iPad right now is to remote into my Mac Pro at home, enter the financial data there, and log off again. It’s a decidedly inconvenient workaround, but it does work.

A few years ago, I said I didn’t think I’d buy another desktop machine. (Obviously wrong since I bought a Mac Pro.) Now I don’t think I’ll be another laptop. I think it’ll just be one iPad after another. I don’t expect to be alone on this either.

In 1995 I traveled across America via Amtrak, whose dismal on time track record and other failings led critics to call for their shutdown and to brand them (thanks to their logo) “the pointless arrow.” Not one of my trips on Amtrak was less than two hours late, so I knew exactly where those critics were coming from, though I quite liked train travel generally.

One particularly outrageous delay, though I might add not the longest, afforded me a valuable life lesson. Helpful, since it was otherwise just another example of Amtrak’s ineptitude. I was going to visit my friend Sue, a grad student at Purdue, and see how she’d spent her time since we hung out together as undergrads at the University of Portland.

The train was 20 minutes out of Chicago when it stopped dead. No warning. Just chug, chug, chug, stop. We stayed on the tracks there for something like six hours. This being the pre-cell phone era I had no way to call Sue to tell her what had happened and that I was unlikely to make the scheduled 10 PM arrival. Not that I knew anything anyway since Amtrak never gave an explanation. I heard from another passenger that a freight train had stopped on the tracks ahead and that because their union crew had worked their maximum hours, they had shut it down right then and there, and Union Pacific (or whoever) was having to round up another crew. I had no idea if any of that was true, but it was a guess that fit the facts—the main fact being we were just sitting there—and it was a fair bit more than Amtrak ever told us.

After we finally got rolling again, the engineer was playing like Casey Jones in looking to make up for lost time. We’d whip into a station, virtually throw people off the cars, hustle the appropriate people on board, and -boom- we’re outta there. Pity, sort of, for any smokers on board. They couldn’t smoke on the train and here they were being denied enough time to take a smoke break at stop after stop. And this after sitting still for six hours.

As it turns out, they weren’t the only ones who had to worry about the short station stops. Lafayette’s train station was being renovated or rebuilt or something, because it was closed. I did not know this. So the train that was due in at 10 PM, arrived in a West Lafayette gravel parking lot at 4 o’clock in the morning. The conductor pulled up the step stool I used to get off the train, said, “Have a nice stay!” or words to that effect, and -boom- the train was gone. I remember literally turning around to ask the conductor where I was supposed to go or what I was supposed to do and the doors closing while the train pulled out. It could not have been more than a 20 second stop.

I was already sleep deprived, but now I was stunned too. I was thinking, “Oh my God. Oh my God. This can’t be worse.” Sue’s obviously not here—where was here, anyway? Since Amtrak didn’t tell the passengers anything, I could hardly expect that they would have told anybody waiting in a gravel parking lot about a train delay. Sue wisely and rightfully went home to bed. I was hoping she didn’t think that I blew her off. In the spill of the single overhead street light, I saw a ’70s Cadillac that I was pretty sure was not Sue’s get-around vehicle. Other than that, gravel. Emptiness. Desolation. There was nothing else there.

Only two others got off at the stop with me, a portly fellow in my train car who headed toward a woman waiting for him at the Caddy, and some other guy to my left who exited a few cars down. I didn’t see a phone booth and as far as I knew, I was in the middle of nowhere. Actually, it didn’t matter where I was. What was open at 4 AM? “Oh my God. Oh my God. This can’t be worse.”

Then I glanced over again at the fellow to my left. What was he doing? It was a little difficult to see at first in the dark. “Oh my God. Oh my God. It can be worse. He’s tapping a cane. He’s blind!”

I still don’t know what I or, perhaps more interestingly, the blind fellow would have done if not for the kindness of the husband and wife team with the Cadillac. They gave us both a ride to the local Steak ‘n’ Shake, an all-hours joint particular to the Midwest and after a few hours I was able to call Sue and the blind guy was able to contact his party.

It’s not always possible for us to see life’s lessons as they are generated. Usually I think that if we’re open to growth, we tend to absorb things over time and they become a part of who we are. Occasionally, though, life smacks us full upside the head, and we learn important things about perspective, about how things really could be worse, and about the kindness of strangers. For me in 1995, the “pointless arrow” made it possible.

Tags: Amtrak, Travel