The Next Big Thing

February 3, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

Apple seems to be under a lot of pressure lately, probably more than ever. The feeling is that, with Apple, it’s never enough. No matter how healthy the company is. No matter how extraordinary sales are. No matter how great its products are. Wall Street on one side, analysts and the tech press on the other, nobody’s ever satisfied.

Since Steve Jobs’s passing, Apple has done an excellent job at refining existing products, not to mention the introduction of a new one — the iPad mini. Innovation is a term that is always associated with Apple, and with good reason, considering how many things have changed in the tech world in the last 12 years thanks to products like the iPod (2001), the iPhone (2007) and the iPad (2010). From what I’ve been reading on the Web over the last few months, many people seem to argue that the time has come for Apple to show it can ‘survive’ on its own, without the genius and the vision of Steve Jobs to lead the way. The perfect way to show that is with the introduction of the ‘Next Big Thing’, because apparently iterative improvements of existing products are not enough, no matter how successful they are.

Paradoxical suggestions: “Innovate!”, “Do what others are doing!”

So, on one hand, Apple ‘must’ release something innovative and disruptive, another breakthrough in modern technology and design. On the other, Apple ‘must’ follow in the competition’s steps, for example by producing a cheap iPhone for the emerging markets. According to some, Apple should produce its own ‘phablet’ (my hatred for this term is incommensurable), to better compete against Samsung’s offerings. Others think that the Next Big Thing will have something to do with wearable technology, in the form of a smartwatch.

If Apple is really in the process of manufacturing a cheaper iPhone, I guess it’s because of its interest in expanding its presence in China, above all. But leaving this example aside for a moment, I hope that some people realise that “Do what others are doing” is not part of how Apple behaves. Another thing Apple has repeatedly shown in the past is that it’s not particularly interested in entering all markets. Remember when Apple should have produced a netbook because netbooks were the future of portability? (Or, more accurately, because a lot of people said so, thinking it was the best course of action, completely misunderstanding how Apple thinks and acts).

No, Apple either creates a market, or enters an existing one only if it can significantly contribute to (or utterly revolutionise) that particular market. Innovation and following in others’ steps are two opposing directions in Apple’s book, in my opinion.

So, what now?

Apart from a very selected few inside Apple, no one really knows if Apple’s working on its Next Big Thing and what it’s going to be. Here’s where I start thinking out loud.

A new Mac? — A few months ago, Tim Cook said that the Mac Pro line was not over yet, that we should expect something new this year. But even taking an all-new Mac Pro into account, that can’t exactly be considered a revolutionary product. What could Apple do in the traditional computer department to create an entirely new — and in some ways revolutionary — Mac model? It must have been more than a year ago when I saw a patent application from Apple depicting some kind of hybrid Mac that could be operated traditionally, with a keyboard and a mouse/trackpad, but also supported a Multi-touch interface. In the patent images, it looked like an iMac whose screen could be made to slide towards the user and angled in such a way that the user could interact with the screen as if it were a giant iPad. While this looks doable (and certainly Apple could produce an elegant-enough solution), I can’t see an immediate practicality in such an idea. It could make for a cool-looking gimmick, but I don’t think we can call it a powerful, breakthrough innovation. (Unless, of course, Apple comes up with a compelling, unique application for such a machine.)

Form-factor-wise, Apple seems to have all bases covered. Great laptops, a cheap desktop solution (Mac mini), a less-cheap but still-affordable desktop solution (iMac) and the old-fashioned, expandable tower format (Mac Pro), so it’s hard to imagine a completely new product that is not some kind of derivative idea from one of the current Macs.

A new portable device? — Here things get interesting. I don’t think it’ll be a new phablet, it doesn’t ring as Apple’s style to me. A bigger iPhone? Perhaps. Everyone speculating about such a device seems very much focused on the screen resolution and density math. I wonder if they also considered usability. Perhaps people ‘demand’ bigger phones, considering how well Samsung’s and other big Android smartphones are selling. But Apple also cares about its users in another way: by putting in their hands a device that’s a pleasure to use. A 5‑inch iPhone, in this regard, might be a challenge.

Anyway, my speculation here is about the ‘Next Big Thing’, an all-new revolutionary product. A bigger iPhone is probably nice to have in the product line, but again, it hardly qualifies as revolutionary. Some seem to believe that Apple will produce a smartwatch. Maybe I’m not imaginative enough, but a smartwatch doesn’t really strike me as a product (or market) Apple is after. Unless it features something really unprecedented, some kind of unexpected integration with Apple’s ecosystem, some kind of application nobody thought of before that suddenly creates an obvious need for such a device, I deem a smartwatch an unlikely candidate for the next big thing made by Apple.

Conquering the living-room — A lot of people have been speculating about a new Apple TV completely rethought — as in, a new revolutionary TV set. Personally, I don’t think Apple has to manufacture some sort of giant iMac-looking device to revolutionise television, if that’s really Apple’s intent and next move. Maybe when Jobs revealed to Isaacson that he “nailed” TV, he was thinking about some kind of software product or service offering, rather than a particular piece of hardware.

Another way to enter the living-room could be through a whole new, dedicated game console. That would be an interesting take. Imagine a mutated Apple TV on steroids, a device you not only use to watch shows and stream multimedia content, but also to play games. And I’m not talking iOS titles on the big screen, something that’s already attainable by connecting an iPad to a TV set. I’m thinking ‘new Apple gaming platform’. Apple is slowly but surely becoming a threat to consoles, as Valve’s Gabe Newell recently observed, so why not give them the proverbial coup de grâce with its very own console? Yes, maybe it’s a crazy thought, but not crazier than a smartwatch.

The realm of the unexpected

Then, of course, Apple could be working on introducing something no one has thought of yet, some product or idea whose innovation and usefulness will seem so obvious that many will slap their foreheads and say Why didn’t I think of that!? Apple’s mission has always been to make people’s lives easier, and in this department there’s still a lot of room for novelty and progress. Apple’s Next Big Thing doesn’t necessarily have to be big since day one, like the iPhone was. It might be something that subtly makes its way into people’s lives and becomes a long-standing hit, like the iPod has been for a decade. It’s hard to figure out at the moment, exactly because it seems as if Apple has already a product in place for the most varied of today’s needs. But in devising the Next Big Thing, Apple will probably target tomorrow’s needs — that is, by creating new ones.

Siri, wake up

January 29, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Software

Let me begin by clearing something up: I’m not saying Siri is a useless interface. It isn’t, and has great potential. But after many attempts at finding Siri a proper place in my day-to-day, and after much frustration, I just sort of forgot about it.

I’m not a user interaction guru, though I did my share of studying and analysing the subject. But from mere observation, I can say that in choosing the best interface, people have the tendency to follow the principle of ‘maximum output with minimum effort’, or the path of least resistance if you want. In my attempts at using Siri in a meaningful way, I rarely found it quicker than doing the same operation through the Multi-touch interface.

Interpolation on speech recognition

The way I see it, speech recognition has still some way to go. The first thing to improve is the reliability and accuracy in translating dictated speech into a written text. In my experience, the software available today for an English speaker seems to offer better results than other languages.

But the problems related to speech recognition aren’t limited to this. We should also take into account its practical use in the field. Speech recognition is not something really usable in public, for the obvious noise pollution and the acoustic chaos that would ensue, not to mention the rudeness: we already have to endure those with the habit of talking loudly on their mobile phones, inflicting their business and nonsense to the unfortunates nearby; imagine if anyone who carries around a computer or portable device in public places and public spaces started dictating stuff aloud. Then there’s the issue of data privacy. There are professions that require strict confidentiality when dealing with customer information. Not to mention trade secrets and, in general, a whole range of sensitive information that must not be seen or, in this case, overheard.

This aspect alone severely limits the use of speech recognition (at least for business). But even under the best conditions of use, while I’m not denying that there’s a certain beauty in being able to dictate text to the computer and seeing it recognised on the screen, I can’t stress enough one other aspect that sometimes speech recognition advocates forget: that a dictated and recognised block of text is still far from being a complete, finished document.

I doubt very strongly that, once dictated, a text is free of typographical errors and does not require any further correction or change, unless the author doesn’t care about the final quality of their writing. When people say that this kind of dictation is a timesaver, I think that’s more an impression than the reality. It is not enough that the computer recognises the dictation (and the dictated punctuation) and inserts capital letters where needed. The text must subsequently be adapted and corrected to ensure that it is in effect a written text and not the transcription of a soliloquy.

It isn’t a difficult test to do, even without voice recognition software: think of an email or a short-to-medium-length text you would like to write, and dictate it to a tape recorder, then transcribe what you said as you hear it. First, you will need to delete redundant conjunctions and pauses; then, since we are not robots, you’ll have to adjust the syntax and the connections between sentences. When speaking, it’s easy to produce syntactically suspended passages, anacolutha, expressions that are accepted in spoken language but improper in a written text. As you can see, a mere transcription is not enough: we have to produce an appropriately written document. With such a ‘post-production’ operation, I can’t really see all this productivity gain, nor any time saved over typing the document. (At least considering the current state of speech recognition technology). 

Unless of course you want to end up writing like you talk, which I don’t think is a nice prospect. My plumber uses a transcription service to send text messages with his phone, so he can dictate and send a text without using his hands. His text messages are intelligible, but syntactically rough, and with the odd mis-transcripted word. Here the use of speech recognition makes sense, because the scope is limited and what matters is the result, not the means to achieve it. An email or any longer text delivered with the same technique would be unacceptable.

Perhaps I’ll soon be proven wrong by some breakthrough in the industry that’s just around the corner, but in the meantime I’m really under the impression that speech recognition will continue to work only in specific, limited situations. This technology is certainly useful (just think of the valuable aid it represents for disabled people), but in my opinion there’s still a long way to go before it can make a significant impact in our everyday life as an efficient input alternative to the keyboard, let alone a replacement.

Back to Siri

On paper, Siri is an interesting tool. The ads Apple created sell this feature rather well. When I updated my iPad to iOS 6, I couldn’t wait to try it, and I started playing with it as soon as the updating process was finished. ‘Playing’ being the key word here. I tried all kinds of stuff with it. The silly questions. The weather for the weekend. Setting up timers and reminders. Asking for directions. Finding information. The result was a mix of fun, unexpected results, and frustration. Being multilingual myself, I tried Siri in Italian, English, and Spanish, but even with my mother tongue, Italian, Siri’s understanding of what was said or dictated was too erratic to be considered a reliable interface. The most useful way to use Siri would be in situations where your hands aren’t free or you can’t otherwise use the Multi-touch interface comfortably. 

In an ideal word you should trust Siri to understand the basic commands you’re speaking, without you having to constantly check the device to see whether such commands have been interpreted correctly or not. In an ideal world, how quickly or slowly you talk, and your distance from the iPhone or iPad’s microphone shouldn’t matter much, as far as speed and distance are within reasonable parameters. As it is, however, a successful interaction with Siri, no matter how simple the request, still depends on too many variables. 

When OS X Lion was introduced, I tried to familiarise with certain new trackpad gestures, but failed to find them quicker or more efficient than the good old keyboard shortcut. Take the ‘Show Desktop’ gesture: spread with thumb and three fingers. I have the F11 key assigned to do exactly that, and when I’m typing it’s just quicker to press one key rather than move the hand away from the keyboard and perform the trackpad gesture. Similarly, I tried to find a way to use Siri as it was meant to be used, but the only instance where it’s actually the fastest solution, interaction-wise, for me has been setting up timers while I cook. 

(I also tried iOS’s dictation feature, only available in English, and while it has been less disappointing than expected — something even more remarkable if you consider that I’m not a native English speaker — I can’t really picture myself using it for anything longer than a tweet or a very brief email message.)

At the moment, Siri also looks a bit left to its own devices (excuse the pun). It’s been introduced more than a year ago and at this point one should expect improvements in reliability and scope of application at the very least. Instead in the freshly-released iOS 6.1 we get this new ‘feature’ that lets you order movie tickets through Fandango, which in reality (from what I’ve heard) isn’t quite the seamless futuristic process one imagines. You have to download the Fandango app, and what Siri does is basically linking you to the requested movie in Fandango (provided Siri parses your spoken information correctly, that is).

I really hope Apple takes a decided step towards what to do with it. There’s really great potential here, and Siri could bring speech recognition to a whole new level in human-machine interaction. I’m not expecting a perfect interface as it’s often been portrayed in science fiction movies and series, where sophisticated mainframes were queried and instructed simply through speech commands. What I expect is to see Siri finally leaving this seemingly eternal beta status; what I expect at this point is to see some vision behind it, something more than let’s add this gimmicky feature and see what happens.

The Hamilton Wood Type and Printing Museum needs your help

January 21, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

A couple of days ago I was reading, as usual, the Type News column on Typedia’s blog, and towards the end of the January 19 entry, I noticed this bit of news: The Hamilton Wood Type & Printing Museum has until January 31 to raise $250,000 to fund a move to a new facility. Help them reach their goal!

My current location prevents me from giving them a hand with the move, and unfortunately my current financial situation prevents me from sending them any decent amount of money. But I thought that the least I could do as a typography enthusiast was to spread the word about the Museum’s situation. 

What’s the Hamilton Wood Type and Printing Museum?

From its About page:

The Hamilton Wood Type and Printing Museum is the only museum dedicated to the preservation, study, production and printing of wood type. With 1.5 million pieces of wood type and more than 1,000 styles and sizes of patterns, Hamilton’s collection is one of the premier wood type collections in the world. In addition to wood type, the Museum is home to an amazing array of advertising cuts from the 1930s through the 1970s, and all of the equipment necessary to make wood type and print with it, as well as equipment used in the production of hot metal type, tools of the craft and rare type specimen catalogs.

[…]

The Museum, at 40,000 square feet, is no doubt one of the largest fully functional workshops in the world. Not only do the thousands of visitors who come through every year get to see how wood type was made at the foundry, students, artists, typographers and designers visit to take workshops and actually put their hands on and use the collection to create works of art and scholarship in our pressroom at the Museum. To be able to use the type and cuts and a press to make a print can broaden a design student’s understanding of typography and color and layout, and artists make work with wood type that would have surprised and delighted Ed Hamilton, the company’s founder. 

What’s happening now?

From the Museum’s press release:

Hamilton Wood Type and Printing Museum will no longer reside in the building that bears its name. The property owners recently informed the museum that the 1619 Jefferson St. building in Two Rivers, Wisconsin will close and must be vacated, perhaps as early as February 2013.

Hamilton Wood Type is urgently seeking donations to address this sudden need and to protect its vast collection of wood type, antique printing equipment and rare type specimen catalogs. The museum’s director Jim Moran, artistic director Bill Moran and assistant director Stephanie Carpenter remain committed to transitioning to a new space.

“We are definitely moving and will be staying in Two Rivers,” says Jim Moran. “Unfortunately, the hopes of staying in the Hamilton building are not an option. It will be an important break in continuity for Hamilton as a manufacturer going back to 1880. However, this is an opportunity to find a location where we can better protect, preserve, organize and demonstrate this enormous and valuable collection.”

Moran estimates it will require at least $250,000 and an army of volunteers to physically move the millions of pieces of type, plates, presses, tools and raw materials. He adds, “We are humbly, but aggressively asking for cash donations.” 

Please consider a donation

You can find more information on the Museum’s Donate page. I’ve set up a little reminder, always visible in the footer of each page of my website, that will stay online until next January 31. If you love typography and have the money and/or the means to help these people, please do. At the very least, keep spreading the word. Thank you.

Different ways, not better ones

January 18, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

The writing of Matt Alexander is one of my recent discoveries (see my post, Some interesting resources I discovered in 2012, for other worthwhile links), and I’m glad I added him to my feeds because, from what I’ve read so far, he usually brings fresh, thought-provoking perspectives to the debate. Which is definitely a good thing in the current tech-oriented writing panorama, crowded with people who don’t have much to say, really.

In a recent post, We’re Boring, They’re Sexting, Alexander certainly manages to bring a different perspective, and the result is without doubt provoking, but there are certain passages that strike me as a bit superficial and perhaps too indulgent in their generalisations.

What is Alexander’s piece about? He explains:

Several weeks ago, Josh Miller wrote a fascinating article about digital trends as seen through the eyes of his fifteen-year-old sister. Offering insight into the behavioral traits of a generation born into a digitally-interconnected world, Miller’s findings unsurprisingly prompted a vast amount of commentary and discussion. 

If you haven’t read the article by Josh Miller mentioned above, you should. It’s an interesting glimpse into how teenagers view and use many social products and services we all use (Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Snapchat, etc.) and you’ll probably be surprised, as Miller was, by the differences between your way and their way of using those products and services.

Many people were indeed surprised, as Alexander points out:

Funnily enough, the response was almost unilaterally dismissive. Although people certainly recognized the viability of Miller’s testimony, there was a distinct undertone of incredulity and doubt. Miller and his peers framed the findings as though various properties like Instagram and Tumblr were being misused by young people — that these platforms were built for altogether different purposes and young people simply haven’t yet grasped these fundamental truths.

The wrong attitude here, in my opinion, is to introduce judgment towards either party. I won’t deny I have been criticising how people (ab)use technology nowadays, and I still can’t stand how Facebook has basically commandeered many people’s social behaviour. But at the end of the day, my stance is fundamentally live and let live, that is, everybody is free to use, misuse, abuse these tools (toys?) the way they see fit. I usually react when someone starts telling me their way of using a tool is the right one or the best. We’re all different people, with different histories and different approaches towards today’s hyper-connected life and online products and services. I may criticise and offer my opinion, but ultimately everyone makes their choices and if they’re fine with them, so be it. Who am I to judge?

At this point in his piece, Alexander starts criticising those who have criticised the teenagers in Josh Miller’s article. But in defending the teenagers, Alexander gets as judgemental as those who dismissed the teenagers’ way of using those social tools. 

Sitting on the front porch of our quaint weblogs and latte-art-filled Instagram accounts, we’re collectively yelling at the kids playing in the street using these platforms in newer, happier, and increasingly care-free ways. These kids have been born into a world of social networking and privacy concerns are literally the last things on their minds. They’re just looking for the next best way to chat, flirt, and sext their way into each other’s bedrooms, whilst we continue to perpetuate unwritten societal rules of etiquette for Twitter and Facebook.

You see, I’m not sure it’s correct to label the kids’ ways of using these platforms as newer, happier and care-free, because it’s like implying that thirty-somethings and forty-somethings (like me) use these same platforms in old, sad, and uninterestingly responsible ways. Some do, mind you, but I don’t think it’s really useful to put things this way. People of different ages and backgrounds use the same tools in different ways — that’s how I would frame the whole matter.

Alexander then writes:

It’ll become clear that, although many of us in this community are the architects of the Internet as we know it today, we fundamentally do not understand what we’ve created. We’ve grown apart from this thriving entity, our value systems rooted in an age unfettered by digital interactions.

So, we’ll continue to post thousands upon thousands of words about privacy and the deplorability of Facebook, whilst a younger generation, well-engrained into the fabric of an interconnected world, will continue to embrace brand new experiences befitting of the modern age in which we live.

I don’t think it’s a matter of ‘not understand[ing] what we’ve created’ because I think that many of us do indeed understand (how could we otherwise be early-adopting and forward-thinking, to use Alexander’s words). I believe that the only true mistake in all this is to start thinking in terms of My way is better than your way. I’m fine with teenagers using social media in a completely different way than I do, if that’s what makes them happy. At the same time, I don’t think it’s wrong to warn about the privacy issues and the deplorability of Facebook. It’s exactly like my parents (or older friends) giving me advice when I was a teenager. I was, in a sense, free to be irresponsible and care-free. My parents and my more experienced friends were simply trying to widen my perspective and offering different angles for my consideration. If your carelessness in using social media platforms may put you in harm’s way, I will warn you, and for doing so I certainly won’t feel ‘old’ or ‘boring’, and for doing so it’s not that I don’t understand or grok how you (teenager) use technology or social tools.

Alexander’s position in his article, from what I understand, seems to be all in favour of “the teenagers’ ways”, while we older guys just don’t get it:

It’s almost a shame, really. As an early-adopting herd of unbelievably intelligent people, we stifle our experiences out of a perceived ruleset of the digital world. Out of these societal norms we’ve created which are, in fact, utterly out of step with the society for which these tools and platforms are actually built.

From our ivory tower, we’ll dismiss change, whilst, from beneath, a new generation will use these apps and services as they were meant to be used: to enhance their tangible lives. They’ll find new ways to interact with people and to bring people closer together.

Like I said before, such statements are implying that we thirty- or forty-somethings are incapable of using those tools and platforms to enhance our tangible lives. I’m also not comfortable with that as they were meant to be used. Again, I don’t think Tumblr, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. came with an instruction manual. The beauty of these things, in my opinion, lies exactly in all the different ways they can be used. Sometimes, while I search the Web, I encounter colourful tumblelogs which are the digital equivalent of the physical scrapbooks and diaries we kept when we were teenagers. The way some youth express themselves via their Tumblr or Instagram accounts is amazing… and completely different than how I use those tools to express myself. But that doesn’t mean that their way is better or more up-to-date than mine. Or that my way is better than theirs. We should celebrate differences, not be prescriptive at all costs (towards either method — there is no ‘better’ way).

At the moment, we in the technology community exist as a boring minority. We write about technologies and trends, but we stand in a sterilized environment at a complete disconnect from the reality of the changing world.

This is a rather unfair generalisation. I for one don’t recognise myself in this picture.

All we need to do is cast away these misperceived rules we’ve built for ourselves and feel free to just have a little fun with all that we’ve helped create.

So, don’t be boring. Your users, readers, and peers most certainly aren’t.

The presence of self-imposed rules — be they misperceived or not — and having a little fun etcetera, are not mutually exclusive. If my usage of social media apps and services is more restrained than the one of people half my age, it doesn’t mean I’m not enjoying it. It doesn’t mean I’m not ‘having a little fun’. If I shape my online presence in a certain (perhaps restrained) way, that doesn’t mean I’m uncomfortable with my online presence or that I’m not enjoying the social aspect of the online sphere. It’s simply my way of being and presenting my self. Perhaps I keep a ‘quaint weblog’, perhaps I’m old-school, perhaps I don’t post each iPhone snap I take during the day — so what? Does that make me boring? Does that make me uncool? Does it mean that I don’t ‘get’ how to be social today? I don’t think so.

I’ll say that again: we should celebrate differences, not be prescriptive at all costs towards a way or another. There simply isn’t a ‘better’ way to use these tools, services, apps and platforms.

Right now

January 14, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

Right now I’m writing this in TextWrangler 2.1.3. When the post is finished, I’ll copy & paste it in WordPress’ Web interface and publish it here.

I’m writing this on a clamshell blueberry iBook G3/300. It has both Mac OS 9.2.2 and Mac OS X 10.3.9 installed on it. It has 288 MB RAM. It has what now can be considered a tiny hard drive: 3 GB. Of those 3 GB, the OS X partition only has 803.4 MB of free disk space. But everything works fine. The screen is bright: brighter than, say, my other clamshell iBook G3/466 SE, which is a newer model. 

Across the table there is a PowerBook G4 12” burning a CD-RW of stuff to archive (mostly documentation and manuals in PDF format), and a PowerBook 5300ce performing a backup on a few ZIP disks. 

I’m writing this with three other apps opened: Preview, NetNewsWire 2.1.5 (which is very snappy and configured with some essential feeds I want to be able to read even from this machine), and Opera 10.10, which is the last version of this fine browser that is compatible with Mac OS X 10.3.9. It has six tabs open at the moment, two of which let me keep an eye on Twitter and App.net.

I’m writing from this old iBook because 20 minutes ago I decided to boot it with the intention of downgrading it to just a Mac OS 9 machine. Once this Mac had a very long-lasting battery (more than 5 hours) and an AirPort card. But I neglected it for a long time with the battery drained, and last time I tried reviving it was all in vain. The AirPort card was removed and given to a Titanium PowerBook G4, which needed it more than this iBook.

I’m writing this while connected to the Internet via Ethernet cable. It feels quaint, but I still smiled at how quickly the iBook connected to the Internet just four seconds after plugging in the cable.

I’m writing this while the battery — oh so magically, oh so surprisingly — is recharging after refusing to do so for so long. It’s at 11% now, and in 3 hours and 35 minutes the battery indicator says it will be fully charged. 

As I’m writing this, I feel my writing flowing out rather effortlessly: is this vintage, minimalistic setup? Perhaps it is. Perhaps it’s just how I roll, no matter where I am, or which device I’m writing on. But now I’m having second thoughts and maybe I won’t wipe Mac OS X. Maybe with a full battery, I’ll still find some use for this iBook. Its design may look dated, but boy is it comfortable to write on. My wrists just rest in the right position. My fingers reach every corner of the keyboard without effort. I even like the feel of this keyboard more than when I type on my MacBook Pro’s keyboard.

When you browse the Web, you realise how cramped and slightly impractical a screen resolution of 800×600 is today. But in some sites it somehow helps you focus more on the articles, while ads, banners and other visual interferences remain hidden outside the browser window’s width and height. There’s more scrolling, there’s just a bit more effort, but it’s not as annoying as you’d expect. Not for me, at least.

I’m writing this and I’m thinking about all the obsession about workflows and frictionless setups and I’m thinking “Screw it, sometimes the best workflow is what you have with you” or something like that. Maybe a bit of friction is necessary to make you go just a wee bit slower, enough to make you think about what you’re doing and not simply do stuff in auto-pilot.

I’m writing this and I’m thinking about all the obsession about when to write, and how often, and that inspiration is a myth, and that you just have to sit and write everyday, and so on. I still think that inspiration is what makes you write a bit more meaningfully. But everything works. Why does a method have to be better than another? Perhaps something starts in the most unassuming, trivial circumstances, and ends up being more meaningful than something else you’ve been mulling over for days, while consuming dozens of cups of coffee.

I’m writing this on this iBook because I love vintage technology and thankfully when it comes to working with text, I’m lucky enough to be able to use any of my Macs or devices, no matter how old, in a productive way. And that feels good.