A few days ago Google announced a change to Search, awkwardly named (as is their wont) Google Plus your World, and the Google first responders have responded with suitable outrage (as is their wont). For a good rundown of all the noise read this TPM post. “Google just broke it’s search engine” – that’s Farhad Manjoo on Slate. The TPM guy, Carl Franzen, went with the more subtle “Google Search is Dead“.
The rub? Google has started displaying results from your social network as part of its search results. That’s the “your world” part of Google Plus Your World (henceforth G+YW). It’s the Plus part though that has tech bloggers in a huff. In particular, the fact that your social world that Google Search reports from happens to comprise of one social network: Google’s own Google Plus.
Hence the outrage: Google is disingenuously shutting Facebook and Twitter (among others) out of search results using this new “feature”.
But are they? It would help to separate the issues here.
Read the rest of this entry »
Everyone and his dog has now opined on how RIM – maker of Blackberry mobile phones, once standard accessory with power suits – can reverse its current death march. Abandon the quaint co-CEO setup. Run Windows Phone OS. So on. The suggestions are plenty. And now there is talk of acquisition.
Better, I think, Michael Dell’s advice to Apple: return the cash to shareholders (RIM was recently trading below its book value!), give employees a good severance package (that’s me, not Dell), and let it sink to rest for it was never meant to float. For RIM was built on two premises, both false.
Op-Ed by Vint Cerf in the New York Times / International Herald:
Internet Access Is Not a Human Right [T]echnology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.
Internet Access Is Not a Human Right
[T]echnology is an enabler of rights, not a right itself. There is a high bar for something to be considered a human right. Loosely put, it must be among the things we as humans need in order to lead healthy, meaningful lives, like freedom from torture or freedom of conscience. It is a mistake to place any particular technology in this exalted category, since over time we will end up valuing the wrong things. For example, at one time if you didn’t have a horse it was hard to make a living. But the important right in that case was the right to make a living, not the right to a horse. Today, if I were granted a right to have a horse, I’m not sure where I would put it.
A carefully argued piece.
If you are a Unix fossil like me then you no doubt have a religious position on the greatest editor of all time. Either your mind is wired the right way and you appreciate the beauty of Vi or you were adopted early on by a band of baboons and prefer the finger gymnastics of Emacs :-).
The Register has an interview with Bill Joy (pretty much the father of modern computing, in my opinion) in which he talks about the history of Vi, where he says:
The people doing Emacs were sitting in labs at MIT with what were essentially fibre-channel links to the host, in contemporary terms. They were working on a PDP-10, which was a huge machine by comparison, with infinitely fast screens. So they could have funny commands with the screen shimmering and all that, and meanwhile, I’m sitting at home in sort of World War II surplus housing at Berkeley with a modem and a terminal that can just barely get the cursor off the bottom line.
The people doing Emacs were sitting in labs at MIT with what were essentially fibre-channel links to the host, in contemporary terms. They were working on a PDP-10, which was a huge machine by comparison, with infinitely fast screens.
So they could have funny commands with the screen shimmering and all that, and meanwhile, I’m sitting at home in sort of World War II surplus housing at Berkeley with a modem and a terminal that can just barely get the cursor off the bottom line.
Joy goes on to say “People don’t know that vi was written for a world that doesn’t exist anymore“, which will no doubt serve as ammunition for the Emacs crowd! I think however that what might be an anachronism in one sense might in other important senses be pertinent (and even perhaps remedial) to contemporary needs and ailments.
I don’t have to look far for examples. Vi and Emacs are in typical use editors for programmers. Consider recent developments in text editing. The preference these days runs against complex multi-function tools with a zillion knobs, bells and whistles, to “distraction free” editors and simple styling methods such as Markdown.
Emacs is for lovers of complexity and with the mental (and at times physical) resources to support that complexity. Vi is for the rest of us who manage complexity by compartmentalising actions to aid concentration.
We already knew that Microsoft makes more from Android than it does from Windows Phone 7:
Microsoft gets $5 for every HTC phone running Android, according to Citi analyst Walter Pritchard, who released a big report on Microsoft this morning.
It also turns out that Google makes more off iOS than it does on Android:
As part of the Senate Judiciary hearings today, former FTC official (and new Google employee) Susan Creighton, testified under oath today that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! all bid to become the default search engine on iOS’s Mobile Safari Web Browser. [...] [A]s part of the testimony, Creighton said briefly (before she was cut off) that 2/3rds of mobile search comes from Apple iOS devices.
As part of the Senate Judiciary hearings today, former FTC official (and new Google employee) Susan Creighton, testified under oath today that Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! all bid to become the default search engine on iOS’s Mobile Safari Web Browser. [...]
[A]s part of the testimony, Creighton said briefly (before she was cut off) that 2/3rds of mobile search comes from Apple iOS devices.
Such is the bizarro world of product development funded by legacy monopoly money (Windows) and advertising (Google).
Marco Arment is understandably peeved that Business Insider is exploiting Marco’s generous license to lift and reproduce his writings wholesale. Regarding the license, he writes:
Business Insider’s mass replication of my writing is the only downside that has ever made me reconsider my Creative Commons license. If they’ve had any beneficial effect whatsoever, I haven’t noticed.
Reconsider it, he should. Such abuse is why GPL-style share-alike licenses are better than more “liberal” or “open” licenses.
Link: A Business Insider retrospective – Marco.org.
Yesterday, Steve Jobs announced his resignation from Apple. This has prompted an outpouring of touchingly sentimental stories from those who have interacted with the man. John Gruber has been collecting a bunch of them at his blog, from which I have reproduced a few links:
Alongside these personal anecdotes have emerged the usual superlative-laden hagiographies that, however well-intentioned, force Jobs into the standard mould – visionary, innovator, tireless leader, so on. In my opinion this is all wrong, and dangerously wrong. Jobs is interesting because his style flies against these impressive but ill-defined terms. He is unabashedly common-sensical and bullshit-free.
Consider this conversation reported by Rob Walker writing in the New York Times in 2003:
After half an hour of this, my inquiries really did start to fall apart, so I didn’t expect much when I resorted to asking, in so many words, whether he thinks consciously about innovation. “No,” he said, peevishly. “We consciously think about making great products. We don’t think, ‘Let’s be innovative!’” He waved his hands for effect. “Let’s take a class! Here are the five rules of innovation, let’s put them up all over the company!”
After half an hour of this, my inquiries really did start to fall apart, so I didn’t expect much when I resorted to asking, in so many words, whether he thinks consciously about innovation.
“No,” he said, peevishly. “We consciously think about making great products. We don’t think, ‘Let’s be innovative!’” He waved his hands for effect. “Let’s take a class! Here are the five rules of innovation, let’s put them up all over the company!”
The emperor has no clothes. That is his great value. Resist the urge to gussy him up!
And while we are at it, let’s try to stop writing about him in the past tense.
Google has progressed since the days of 41 shades of blue. At least in the user interface of their products. I had no insight into whether this reflects a change in the underlying process. But now there is some news on that front. Yesterday Chris Wiggins (Creative Director at Google) made a post to the “Official Google Blog” to explain the “new and improved Google experience … founded on three key design principles”: Focus, Elasticity, Effortlessness. I think the man, and the company, are serious, and I sincerely applaud them for it and wish them well. Read the rest of this entry »
Apple has a couple of great pages (1, 2) for switchers. What they fail to tell you about are the great non-Apple apps that make the Mac experience a worthwhile switch. So, here they are (at least some of them):
All of them are free. One or two are ad-supported.
Douglas Crockford, in the intro to Javascript: The Good Parts:
When I was a young journeyman programmer, I would learn about every feature of the languages I was using, and I would attempt to use all of those features when I wrote. I suppose it was a way of showing off, and I suppose it worked because I was the guy you went to if you wanted to know how to use a particular feature. Eventually I figured out that some of those features were more trouble than they were worth. Some of them were poorly specified, and so were more likely to cause portability problems. Some resulted in code that was difficult to read or modify. Some induced me to write in a manner that was too tricky and error-prone. And some of those features were design errors. Sometimes language designers make mistakes.
When I was a young journeyman programmer, I would learn about every feature of the languages I was using, and I would attempt to use all of those features when I wrote. I suppose it was a way of showing off, and I suppose it worked because I was the guy you went to if you wanted to know how to use a particular feature.
Eventually I figured out that some of those features were more trouble than they were worth. Some of them were poorly specified, and so were more likely to cause portability problems. Some resulted in code that was difficult to read or modify. Some induced me to write in a manner that was too tricky and error-prone. And some of those features were design errors. Sometimes language designers make mistakes.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
