Stainless is now open source

Software

When the Stainless project started, we were using Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard. PowerPC Macs were still around, but Google Chrome would run on Intel-based Macs only. As a response to Chrome, Stainless featured its own multi-process architecture. One of the advantages of such architecture, in plain words, is that each open tab in the browser is a separate process. If a Web page has some component (or bad code) that compromises the stability of the browser, only that tab would ‘crash’, and could be subsequently closed, without bringing down the whole browser. If I’m not mistaken, at the time Stainless launched, it was the only browser for PowerPC Macs with such a feature, and I loved it for that. I have also loved Stainless’ overall speed, and it’s the only third-party browser I keep on all my G4 PowerBooks with Mac OS X 10.5.8.

Another Stainless feature I really like and use often is parallel sessions. As the Stainless homepage explains, these “allow you to log into a site using different credentials in separate tabs at the same time. This new technology is woven throughout Stainless, from the private cookie storage system, to session-aware bookmarks that remember the session in which they were saved.” For me it’s been a quick way to check two or three different Gmail accounts without opening my email client, to make just one example.

I’ve always followed Stainless’ progress as version numbers approached the 1.0 goal, but roughly after version 0.7, introduced on 22 September 2009, updates have been getting few and far between (version 0.7.5 went live on 4 November 2009, but we had to wait until 25 July 2011 for version 0.8). Even the developer’s Twitter account lacked updates, and I was starting to think that the project had been abandoned — a real pity.

But on September 28 the developer broke the silence with a tweet announcing their decision:

After long consideration and much guilt about the state of the project, I’ve decided to make #stainless open source.

Followed by another:

If you are an OS X dev who is interested in participating, please email me at software[AT]mesadynamics[DOT]com, thanks!

I have already retweeted both tweets, but I felt like posting about this hoping to reach an even wider audience. I really hope some Mac OS X developer responds to Mesa Dynamics’ plea and helps perfect this nice, lightweight browser. It would be a shame if Stainless became just another piece of abandonware.

Managing files — so what?

Tech Life

Considering Patel’s previous article about the iPod nano, Apple’s timid new iPod nano sidesteps a smartwatch revolution, I wasn’t really surprised by his iPod nano review for The Verge. Yet there are passages that strike me as a bit too sarcastic or hyperbolic, and I’d like to share my views on the matter.

Patel writes:

Files. Managing files. Endless files, in formats. Remember files? With file extensions? And sizes and bad metadata and missing cover art and all those weirdo checkboxes in iTunes that make compilation albums either go together or not go together or maybe make tracks appear in seemingly random order throughout your huge list of music files? Using the seventh-generation iPod nano in 2012 involves taking a trip back to a world in which files really matter. Files, man. Files in iTunes. You want to listen to music with an iPod nano? Then you better get ready to open iTunes and plug in a cable and transfer some hot nasty files. It’s like taking a time machine to 2010, before Apple itself started pushing everyone away from files and towards iCloud.

Yes, I remember files. Easy, because I have them before my eyes right now. Video files, text files, formatted text files, audio files, PDF files, PNG files, JPEG files, TIFF files, GIF files, preference files, source code files, you name it. And speaking of iTunes, my main library (roughly 60 GB — not that huge, perhaps, though I have a separate library for classical music that weighs about 90 GB) is in perfect order already. Yes, there have been messy situations in the past, with missing album covers and tracks not correctly grouped, but that mostly happened when I used to import some old CDs and sometimes there wasn’t a perfect match in the Gracenote database. Making the right adjustments has never been a really time-consuming thing for me, and for bad MP3 tags and general audio file management I’ve always relied on a couple of applications — Max and xACT — which are great tools for the job.

And what’s that about “taking a trip back to a world in which files really matter”? As if today files had vanished into thin air. We may indeed live in a post-PC era, but we haven’t yet entered a post-files era. Files are still everywhere, and yes, they’re in iCloud too. And should we talk about what a sandboxed mess managing files in iCloud is? If you’ve missed it, take a look at this interesting Macworld article by Christopher Breen, titled When Documents in the Cloud aren’t.

Another thing I don’t get is this sudden hate for cables and everything that’s wired. Don’t get me wrong, I too find annoying to have a desk full of cables, and have welcomed Bluetooth keyboards, mice and trackpads. I, too, like and appreciate the benefits of syncing stuff via the cloud, and my workflow would be shattered if I lacked things like Dropbox and Simplenote. But really, we’re talking about putting some music on an iPod every now and then, what’s so horribly wrong in using a cable to do that? It’s the same cable you’d use to charge the iPod, in the end.

Speaking of cables in general, I still find wired connections to be more reliable than wireless solutions in some use cases. I witnessed a Time Machine backup over wireless to a Time Capsule not long ago and, well, let’s say I really like my Time Machine backups over a FireWire 800 connection. Every time I have to download huge files from the Internet (for instance when I had to download the Mac OS X Lion and Mountain Lion installers), I still prefer a direct Gigabit Ethernet connection to the router, which in my mixed home network setup is still the fastest option. (I also remember the time when iPods connected to the Mac via FireWire instead of USB or Wi-Fi, those were fast transfers). Oh, and have you tried restoring your iOS device from an iCloud backup? Not exactly blindingly fast, right? That’s the future though. Literally, because we’re not quite there yet. Only few spots in the world can enjoy a truly fast, reliable, forget-about-cables, wireless connection. People who live in those spots tend to have a slightly different perspective on these matters — they see wonderful trees, for sure, but I don’t think they have a clear idea of the condition of the global forest, so to speak.

The problem is that asking regular people to manage their iPod’s music files in 2012 is basically the same as asking them to actually code their own iPhone apps.

Boom! Really? Bit of a stretch here, yes?

I agree on one, undeniable point: that the iPod is losing relevance. However, this doesn’t mean that there’s no target audience for it anymore. As I said in my previous piece Siding with the new ‘timid’ iPod nano:

Not every user of modern gadgets out there shares the same habits as us geeks. Not everyone has the latest iPhone, iPod touch or iPad. Some people use a ‘classic’ iPod for listening to music and don’t have an iPhone (or any other multi-touch smartphone for that matter). Some people prefer buying an iPod nano instead of an iPod touch or an iPhone for their preadolescent children. Some people may like the simplicity of the non-iOS iPods but prefer other platforms for their phones and tablets. Some people may not even afford anything above the nano’s price point. These are just the first counterexamples that come to mind.

In his review, Patel says that “streaming services like Spotify and Rdio and Pandora are clearly the future” and I won’t argue that, but again I’ll say that yes, they’re clearly the future, not the present. Let’s put aside the fact that those streaming services are not even available in more than a bunch of countries. To enjoy a service like Spotify, your device has to have a Wi-Fi connection — even better, a cellular connection. Yes, you have the (premium) option of transferring music files locally for listening when your iPhone or iPad are not connected to a network, but then you would be back to managing files locally, something horribly ‘clunky and archaic’ according to Patel.

Imagine an iPod that worked like a Kindle: you get a free cellular service worldwide and you can listen to your purchased iTunes music — and any music from whatever third-party service you subscribe to — directly streamed to your device, every time you want, wherever you are. You also have to imagine a robust worldwide cellular coverage, of course. That would be great. But we’re not there yet, at least globally. And probably we should be already. For the time being, connecting your iPod to the Mac via a cable every now and then, selecting a bunch of songs (and audiobooks and podcasts), and copying them to the iPod while it’s charging doesn’t seem such a big deal to me.

Cronaca del lungo silenzio

Mele e appunti

L’estate con due facce

Luglio è stato un mese particolarmente intenso sotto il profilo lavorativo. Come ho avuto modo di delineare in Post-holiday miscellany, l’aggiornamento che ho pubblicato su System Folder (il mio blog dedicato ai Mac vintage), in questi ultimi tempi le mie priorità sono state (in ordine decrescente):

  1. La famiglia
  2. Il lavoro
  3. La mia scrittura creativa (se avete padronanza dell’inglese, e se vi interessa, seguite il mio piccolo progetto Minigrooves)
  4. Questo sito
  5. La manutenzione dei miei Mac d’epoca, e tutti gli altri miei progetti attivi

Osservando questo elenco, è evidente che quando il lavoro comincia a inghiottire una grossa fetta del mio tempo, tutto il resto tende a passare in secondo piano. Non è che la cosa mi piaccia particolarmente: sono sempre dell’idea che dovrei investire più tempo ed energie in questo sito, per farlo diventare (anche) un’ulteriore fonte di introiti. Ci sono riuscite persone che non definirei proprio dei geni, non vedo perché non dovrei riuscirci io. D’altro canto sto già fin troppo davanti al computer per lavoro, e quando arrivo a fine giornata esausto e con gli occhi un po’ affaticati, continuare a rimanere al computer anche per cose più piacevoli è un’attività che non sempre riesco a portare avanti. Le giornate dovrebbero davvero essere di 48 ore da questo punto di vista.

Alla fine di luglio mi sono reso conto del livello di stress provocato dal lavoro e dal fatto di non essermi preso una vacanza come si deve dal 2009 o giù di lì. Ho quindi deciso di fare qualcosa di estremamente tradizionale: passare agosto in completa vacanza, non portandomi appresso né il MacBook Pro né strascichi lavorativi; ho consegnato tutto quel che dovevo consegnare ai clienti entro i primi di agosto, e ho inviato una comunicazione dicendo che sarei stato nuovamente disponibile a settembre. 

Perché “L’estate con due facce”? Perché a un luglio passato in gran parte al computer e immerso nel lavoro è seguito un agosto di calma piatta, in cui l’obiettivo principale è stato riposare davvero, scollegandomi da Internet e portando con me soltanto l’iPad — più come quaderno d’appunti e strumento creativo che per tener d’occhio la posta elettronica.

(Ad aiutarmi in questa disconnessione, fra l’altro, ci ha pensato Tre. Avevo ancora attiva una chiavetta USB con una SIM associata a un profilo dati SuperWebQualcosa, che mi garantiva una navigazione a 90 centesimi l’ora. Non avendo con me nessun computer a cui collegare la chiavetta, mi sono portato il mio vecchio iPhone 3G, ho tolto la SIM dalla chiavetta e l’ho infilata nell’iPhone, il quale avrebbe poi condiviso la connessione agendo in pratica come access point wireless. La cosa aveva funzionato benissimo sei mesi prima, quindi ho pensato non vi fossero problemi. Il secondo giorno di vacanza sono andato a un Bancomat per mettere 30 Euro di ricarica sul numero della SIM di Tre, e più tardi mi sono collegato senza intoppi. La mattina del giorno dopo, però, ricevevo un SMS che mi informava che il mio credito stava per terminare. Al che ho dedotto che il profilo dati SuperWebQualcosa era andato a farsi benedire, che avevo consumato 30 Euro di traffico in poche ore senza il benché minimo avviso da parte di Tre. Sulla pagina Web apposita non si vedeva nulla perché quella parte del sito era ‘in manutenzione’ e insomma non avevo modo di controllare profili e credito residuo. Bello scherzetto, Tre, non c’è che dire. Infuriato, ho deciso di buttare la SIM e di non avere più nulla a che fare con Tre.)

Osservazioni di un disconnesso

Malgrado sia ormai sciocco parlare di ‘vita online’ e ‘vita offline’, in quanto grazie alla progressiva penetrazione di smartphone, tablet e reti sociali stiamo effettivamente vivendo una dimensione in cui l’online e l’offline hanno contorni sempre più attenuati, io continuo ad avvertire una certa scissione tra le due sfere. Il perché è presto spiegato: ho vissuto il momento di transizione, il momento in cui da un menu ‘Connessione’ si avviava un modem (da 14,4 mbps) e si ‘andava online’. Ho vissuto un periodo in cui il collegarsi a Internet era un’attività specifica, che occupava un suo posto più o meno fisso fra le altre attività di una giornata. Era un’epoca in cui l’essere permanentemente connessi alla rete (come oggi) era tutt’altro che scontato. E molto probabilmente l’idea sarebbe stata considerata roba da matti. Oggi il tutto è assai più fluido, ma a me è rimasto dentro questo ‘andare online’ e non sono mai riuscito a considerare Internet come una parte completamente integrata della mia vita. La stragrande maggioranza del tempo che passo collegato è per lavoro, e questo sicuramente contribuisce a mantenere quella scissione fra online e offline che molti (specie i giovanissimi) oggi non avvertono.

Così, quando posso, cerco di lasciar perdere la sfera online il più possibile, e cerco di passare almeno un mese all’anno quasi del tutto ‘disconnesso’ (quasi, perché è importante che dia un’occhiata all’email almeno una volta alla settimana). Durante il mio agosto offline ho potuto osservare alcune cose interessanti.

La prima, su di me. Lo stare in campagna, in un luogo isolato e senza la possibilità di collegarmi facilmente a Internet, ha avuto un effetto benefico sia sui miei livelli di stress, sia per quanto riguarda il discorso creativo. Ecco che l’iPad non era più uno strumento per controllare la posta, navigare il Web, seguire Twitter e quant’altro, ma per scrivere, disegnare, dipingere, leggere libri, svagarmi con qualche giochino. Tutte cose — mi si dirà — che si possono benissimo fare anche quando si è connessi. Mi si dirà che Internet non è male di per sé, che siamo noi a scegliere quanto tempo dedicare al Web, all’email, alle reti sociali, e quanto tempo dedicare ad attività più creative. È vero, ma è noto che noi esseri umani siamo un disastro in fatto di autodisciplina, specie quando c’è di mezzo qualcosa di appagante. E avere Internet sempre a portata di mano è appagante a prescindere dallo scopo ultimo con cui la utilizziamo: se vogliamo ammazzare il tempo passando da una stupidaggine all’altra, Internet è perfetta. Se vogliamo soddisfare la nostra sete di conoscenza passando da un articolo interessante a un altro, Internet è perfetta. Il risultato non cambia: quando l’occhio cade sull’orologio, ecco che se n’è andata mezza giornata.

Per questo motivo non trovo del tutto stupido o inutile crearsi delle piccole barriere artificiali che aiutino a riportare il fuoco sulla nostra dimensione più personale, che ci aiutino a concentrarci su quel che può essere una lettura, un progetto, un qualcosa di creativo. Che ci aiutino a produrre determinate cose per il gusto di farlo, non sempre in funzione di pubblicare online, di ‘condividere’, di ‘socializzare’ la nostra produzione. Tornando a me e all’iPad usato senza Internet, il risultato è stato sottilmente sbalorditivo: una trentina di disegni (e Paper è davvero un bello strumento), svariati appunti per una dozzina di racconti brevi, e finalmente ho potuto terminare di leggere due lunghi romanzi e un altro libro più tecnico. Tutte cose che, normalmente, avrei forse ultimato diluendole in un arco di alcuni mesi.

La seconda osservazione, sugli altri. Non è per suonare il solito disco “Come ci riduce la tecnologia” — non nego né ho mai negato gli aspetti positivi e i benefici apportati dal progresso tecnologico — ma durante il mio periodo offline ho potuto osservare con più attenzione i comportamenti di chi mi stava intorno e… beh, un po’ mi sono intristito. Il dettaglio più affascinante, per così dire, è come lo smartphone sia diventato il tappabuchi universale. Appena c’è quel minuto libero (l’attesa alla fermata dell’autobus; la fila un po’ più lunga alla cassa del supermercato; persino — visto coi miei occhi — al distributore di benzina self-service, mentre si aspetta che la pompa riempia il serbatoio) ecco la persona di turno estrarre lo smartphone e perdervisi come ipnotizzata dallo schermo retroilluminato e palesemente dimentica di tutto quel che la circonda. 

Tempo fa girava per la rete il link a un video di YouTube in cui si vedeva una tizia in un centro commerciale statunitense così presa dal mandare/ricevere messaggi sul suo cellulare da cadere in una fontana. Sono situazioni un po’ eccessive, ma non così tanto improbabili. Nel mio piccolo ho visto anch’io qualche scenetta tragicomica, come una ragazza completamente immersa nel suo smartphone mentre cammina per strada, al punto di non accorgersi di andare a sbattere contro un ragazzo giusto mentre quest’ultimo (un turista?) stava scattando una foto; oppure la signora anziana a cui cade la borsa della spesa alla fermata dell’autobus e nessuno dei vicini se ne accorge o l’aiuta perché concentrati sui loro schermi portatili. Scene viste più spesso di quanto mi aspettassi, e che, passato il primo momento in cui viene da sorridere e scuotere la testa, lasciano un po’ di tristezza. 

Non sto dicendo che bisogna ritornare al passato, ai bei tempi andati, e buttare lo smartphone. Ma di riattivare una certa dose di buonsenso e di ricominciare a guardarsi intorno, almeno quando si cammina per strada. Di fermarsi un momento e pensare che si potrebbe riprendere a leggere il fottuto ebook una volta saliti sull’autobus o sul treno, invece di stazionare come zombie alle varie fermate. Per quanto sia bello e interessante quel che appare sullo schermo del dispositivo che si ha in mano, là fuori c’è sempre il mondo, con persone, ostacoli da evitare e leggi della fisica. O dopo le pubblicità progresso che avvertono dei pericoli di inviare messaggi mentre si guida bisognerà arrivare a creare campagne che invitano a non perdersi in chat e SMS mentre si cammina?

Il bisogno di isolarsi mentre si è fuori per la città e in luoghi di passaggio (come sui mezzi di trasporto) c’è sempre stato: prima dello smartphone c’era il lettore MP3, e prima il Discman, e prima il Walkman, ma l’ascoltare musica in cuffia permette comunque una certa consapevolezza dei nostri dintorni. Lo smartphone tende a catturare quasi del tutto la nostra attenzione, e l’isolamento aumenta. Questo potrà andar bene a molti. A me non piace e la trovo una tendenza davvero triste. Entri in un bar sulla cui porta d’ingresso c’è l’adesivo “Qui Wi-Fi gratuita”, e i tavoli sono occupati da un tizio che digita furiosamente su un patetico clone del MacBook Air mentre ascolta musica in cuffia; da un altro tizio che sfoglia pagine elettroniche sul suo iPad con una mano, e con l’altra cerca automaticamente di afferrare (senza riuscirci) la tazza del cappuccino ordinato probabilmente una mezz’ora prima; e più in là l’apoteosi: famigliola composta da padre immerso nella lettura sul suo iPad, madre immersa nella lettura di un libro cartaceo, figlia immersa… nella sua coppetta di gelato, nessuno dei quali si scambia una mezza parola. Mah.

Il dopo-vacanza, il deserto dei Tartari, e di cosa vale la pena parlare

Al mio rientro, la prima preoccupazione è stata smaltire la quantità di email che si sono accumulate in quasi cinque settimane offline. Ma a questa si è subito sovrapposta un’altra preoccupazione: i clienti che non pagano quando dovrebbero e che non si degnano nemmeno di mandare un qualsivoglia messaggio per informarmi del problema o del ritardo. Non faccio nomi, mi limito a far notare ancora una volta come il lavoro di un traduttore professionista non venga considerato degno di un pagamento puntuale, e quindi di riscontro e di rispetto. Io fornisco un servizio, come tanti altri professionisti. Si pagano senza fiatare le competenze di avvocati, notai, medici specialisti, carpentieri, idraulici, elettricisti, tecnici riparatori, ecc. Di fronte a un traduttore o a uno scrittore tecnico, chissà perché, un sacco di gente si sente autorizzata a trattare sulle tariffe, a dare consigli su come fare il lavoro, a non mantenere le scadenze quando è ora di saldare una fattura, e via dicendo. Ho le mie spese da pagare come tutti, e il lavoro di traduzione e di scrittura non è un hobby, come magari certi pensano. E se ci sono problemi reali per pagare i miei servizi, perché non ammetterlo? Perché non instaurare una comunicazione adulta? Perché tirar fuori stupide scuse che puzzano di presa per i fondelli lontano un chilometro e insultare la mia intelligenza? Misteri del mestiere.

Tornando ai messaggi email accumulatisi durante la mia permanenza offline, mi ha fatto piacere leggere interventi di qualche mio lettore che mi chiedeva sostanzialmente che fine avessi fatto. “Mi mancano le tue lunghe e meditate analisi di una volta,” scrive Giorgio riferendosi agli articoli che ero solito pubblicare sul vecchio blog tutto italiano Autoritratto con mele; “Mi aspettavo una tua opinione sulla faccenda X o sul prodotto Y”, scrive Roberto. “C’è speranza di leggerti ancora in italiano o hai lasciato perdere?” scrive Andrea. E così via.

Mi sembra doveroso rispondere un po’ a tutti: mi spiace che i miei lettori italiani si sentano piantati in asso, e non era certo nei miei piani lasciar passare più di tre mesi dall’ultimo aggiornamento. Anche a me mancano certe analisi che ero solito scrivere fra il 2006 e il 2010 (il periodo più attivo del vecchio blog). Il fatto è che ho meno tempo di una volta. Avendo meno tempo, cerco di dare priorità ad argomenti che reputo più essenziali di altri. Poi ci sono questioni che non mi interessa affrontare. O argomenti di cui si sa poco a livello fattuale e che finirebbero con l’essere pura speculazione. O altre tematiche per le quali, in tutta onestà, c’è meno da dire di quel che sembrerebbe a prima vista. Il Surface di Microsoft, per esempio. Che dire? Che sembra un prodotto interessante, ma finché non lo vedo funzionare come si deve sono tutti discorsi campati per aria, ipotesi, eccetera. 

E sono sempre combattuto: da una parte, i blogger più conosciuti e più di successo suggeriscono sempre di ‘mantenere viva l’attenzione dei lettori’ pubblicando e aggiornando il blog frequentemente; dall’altra non sono intenzionato a trasformare il mio sito in uno di quei blog che sfornano 10 post al giorno, i quali non sono altro che link veloci ad articoli altrui con una riga di commento. 

È mia intenzione proporre nelle prossime settimane una serie di articoli di opinione apparsi nella mia rubrica Appunti della rivista iCreate negli ultimi due anni. Intendiamoci, non è un’operazione vòlta a riciclare brutalmente dei contenuti tanto per aggiornare la sezione italiana del mio sito. I pezzi che ripubblicherò saranno riveduti e arricchiti (qui non ho limiti sulla lunghezza degli articoli), e comunque mi sembra giusto che raggiungano un pubblico più vasto e che al tempo stesso vengano archiviati online e non solo sul mio Mac.

Per concludere: no, non ho lasciato perdere. Sto semplicemente cercando di star dietro a tutto e di non affogare, che non è facile quando anche la salute gioca brutti scherzi. Per intanto, grazie di aver letto fin qui.

Online, offline, and the ‘need’ to share

Tech Life

First things first: The IRL Fetish, written by Nathan Jurgenson for The New Inquiry is an essay you should read in full and bookmark right away, because it’s one of the best you’ll find, especially for its clarity in describing this ‘tech life’ many of us live today. A tech life where “Thoughts, ideas, locations, photos, identities, friendships, memories, politics, and almost everything else are finding their way to social media.”

It’s a captivating, thought-provoking read. The central part, the point Jurgenson makes which I find absolutely spot-on, is this:

To obsess over the offline and deny all the ways we routinely remain disconnected is to fetishize this disconnection. Author after author pretends to be a lone voice, taking a courageous stand in support of the offline in precisely the moment it has proliferated and become over-valorized. For many, maintaining the fiction of the collective loss of the offline for everyone else is merely an attempt to construct their own personal time-outs as more special, as allowing them to rise above those social forces of distraction that have ensnared the masses. “I am real. I am the thoughtful human. You are the automaton.” I am reminded of a line from a recent essay by Sarah Nicole Prickett: that we are “so obsessed with the real that it’s unrealistic, atavistic, and just silly.” How have we come to make the error of collectively mourning the loss of that which is proliferating?

In great part, the reason is that we have been taught to mistakenly view online as meaning not offline. The notion of the offline as real and authentic is a recent invention, corresponding with the rise of the online. If we can fix this false separation and view the digital and physical as enmeshed, we will understand that what we do while connected is inseparable from what we do when disconnected. That is, disconnection from the smartphone and social media isn’t really disconnection at all: The logic of social media follows us long after we log out. There was and is no offline; it is a lusted-after fetish object that some claim special ability to attain, and it has always been a phantom.

Digital information has long been portrayed as an elsewhere, a new and different cyberspace, a tendency I have coined the term “digital dualism” to describe: the habit of viewing the online and offline as largely distinct. The common (mis)understanding is experience is zero-sum: time spent online means less spent offline. We are either jacked into the Matrix or not; we are either looking at our devices or not. When camping, I have service or not, and when out to eat, my friend is either texting or not. The smartphone has come to be “the perfect symbol” of leaving the here and now for something digital, some other, cyber, space.

But this idea that we are trading the offline for the online, though it dominates how we think of the digital and the physical, is myopic. It fails to capture the plain fact that our lived reality is the result of the constant interpenetration of the online and offline. That is, we live in an augmented reality that exists at the intersection of materiality and information, physicality and digitality, bodies and technology, atoms and bits, the off and the online. It is wrong to say “IRL” to mean offline: Facebook is real life.

Yet, while reading this very fine argument, I started having some doubts. My point of view is one of a person who has experienced ‘life before the Web’ and who has lived through the great impact and transformations brought by the Internet from the mid-1990s up to now. That is why I don’t completely agree when Jurgenson writes “If we can fix this false separation and view the digital and physical as enmeshed, we will understand that what we do while connected is inseparable from what we do when disconnected. That is, disconnection from the smartphone and social media isn’t really disconnection at all: The logic of social media follows us long after we log out. There was and is no offline; it is a lusted-after fetish object that some claim special ability to attain, and it has always been a phantom.”

I tend to see some kind of separation between the online and the offline because, well, I lived that moment when the online started creeping into my life. I lived that moment where the online started becoming an activity that separated me, in some ways, from my surroundings. I lived that moment in which logging in and ‘going online’ was somehow like going someplace else. And since I could spend (a lot of) time doing things in this ‘other place’, the experience was more addicting and detaching than, say, losing myself in a book (an ‘offline’ activity). While over the years and especially in these recent years I’ve come to accept this increasing interconnection between the online and the offline, while I’ve come to terms with the fact that technology has gone under our skin (figuratively for now, and maybe literally soon), for me the “disconnection from the smartphone and social media” is still a disconnection, and “the logic of social media” doesn’t follow me long after I log out.

That is why my position starts diverging from Jurgenson’s when he writes:

Facebook doesn’t curtail the offline but depends on it. What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media. The photos posted, the opinions expressed, the check-ins that fill our streams are often anchored by what happens when disconnected and logged-off. The Web has everything to do with reality; it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics. It is the fetish objects of the offline and the disconnected that are not real.

I politely beg to differ here: I’m not entirely sure that “What is most crucial to our time spent logged on is what happened when logged off; it is the fuel that runs the engine of social media.” Or rather, I’m not entirely sure it’s this simple. I see increasingly strange and quirky behaviours online from people who — I suspect — have less and less offline material to offer as ‘fuel’. In other, more blunt words, I notice behaviours of people whose life when not connected is practically non-existent. I notice this in the way people express their opinions in online forums and discussion threads on sites and blogs where comments are permitted. I notice certain ways of reacting, certain ways of interpreting things, certain lack of logic and common sense that in my opinion reveals how little of ‘the offline world’, of ‘the world out there’ these people have experienced. (Or how much they’ve come to rely on the online dimension only, getting information there and there only, without being able to effectively sort the wheat from the chaff.) 

This is what I find most dangerous: that this increasing presence of the online in our lives might end up throwing off the delicate balance between online and offline, and progressively become self-sustaining. I’m exaggerating a bit here with the dystopia, I know, but since Jurgenson mentions The Matrix, think about the scene where Cypher meets Agent Smith at the restaurant and says: You know, I know this steak doesn’t exist. I know that when I put it in my mouth, the Matrix is telling my brain that it is juicy and delicious. After nine years, you know what I realize? … Ignorance is bliss.

The Web has everything to do with reality — Jurgenson writes — it comprises real people with real bodies, histories, and politics.” It is true, yet at the same time we have to start asking ourselves what is this ‘reality’ we’re talking about, because the Web has everything to do with a reality the Web itself is changing and transforming every day. The IRL (In Real Life) dimension may be fetishised by some, but I’ve also encountered people who clearly fetishise the online. People for whom Facebook is indeed real life and not just an ingredient, a part of it. People for whom an Internet acquaintance has the same importance as the person they’re meeting face to face. 

Let’s be clear here. I’m not saying that people you exclusively interact with online are less important than the ones you know in person. We’re all real people with real bodies, etc. What feels wrong is the lack of focus and depth of field, so to speak: we are meeting for a dinner among friends, why does texting or chatting on your smartphone with your acquaintance overseas have to get the same focus, the same prominence, as the situation you’re living this very moment, in the here and now, with the people you’re having dinner with? I’m not saying ‘Don’t use Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and so forth’, I’m just saying ‘Why now? Why do you have to lose yourself in that portable glowing device (smartphone or tablet) right now? I’m simply advocating layers, foreground and background, depth. Do you really feel that checking in to Foursquare when you enter a pub, or snapping photos of the food you’re about to eat and sharing them on Instagram, or chatting online with your smartphone with someone who’s not even there (unless we’re talking of loved ones and significant others) makes for an enriching, fuller experience?

In short: I realise the digital and physical are enmeshed and dichotomies are silly here, but where is this inseparable interconnection taking us? Who knows, perhaps what Jurgenson calls fetishisation of the offline is some kind of reaction to the very infiltration of the online, of the digital, into our lives. Some kind of re-adjustment. 

Finally, the part I disagree with Jurgenson the most is this paragraph near the end:

Those who mourn the loss of the offline are blind to its prominence online. When Turkle was walking Cape Cod, she breathed in the air, felt the breeze, and watched the waves with Facebook in mind. The appreciation of this moment of so-called disconnection was, in part, a product of online connection. The stroll ultimately was understood as and came to be fodder for her op-ed, just as our own time spent not looking at Facebook becomes the status updates and photos we will post later.

How can Jurgenson be so sure of that? Honestly, when I disconnect from the Web and the online (and it happens for a few weeks every year), when I go for a hike or excursion, I love to feel the place, to feel the moment for myself. In those circumstances, believe me, the Internet is far far away. I write notes in my paper notebook, I take photos with my film and digital cameras, but I’m not doing those activities with the urge of sharing them online later. For me, sharing is a choice, not a need. Compared to my experiences offline, what I share online is little, really. I’m wired that way. I like to share, mind you, but online sharing is not the ultimate goal of what I do every day. 

(And by the way, sharing offline — lending books, making others listen to certain music you like by being in the same room while listening, showing photos in person, sending postcards, giving small gifts — for me is certainly more satisfying. Something I loved to do when digital photography was just in its infancy, was taking Polaroids of the sky, of the clouds, on different days and in different weather conditions, and then giving them to people I cared for so that they could use them as bookmarks. Their reaction to my little idea was indeed a fulfilling experience). 

[O]ur own time spent not looking at Facebook becomes the status updates and photos we will post later” to me sounds like too simplistic a statement, and while I shudder as I reckon that for some people it may not get more complex than that, I most certainly don’t think and don’t function that way. The time I spend offline is definitely not a function of what I may or may not do online later, or what I’ve done online before. For example, when I take a photo during a walk around town, I don’t choose the subject thinking “Hah, I can’t wait to show this on Flickr or Instagram”. I simply photograph things I love, scenes or fragments which have attracted my attention somehow. This always comes first. Then I might choose to post such photos or not. There isn’t any compulsion to share or towards online social media. There is a sphere of privacy, of intimacy, of feeling certain experiences as mine and mine only, where the online is simply not allowed to bleed in. It’s probably a subtlety, but it makes all the difference to me.

Let me rant about iOS 6 Maps a little

Software

I have two eligible devices that could be updated to iOS 6, a third-generation iPad and an iPhone 4. When I realised the step backwards regarding the quality of the new Apple Maps application (replacing the previous version, based on Google Maps), I got cautious. On the one hand, I was eager to try some of the new features and improvements in iOS 6; on the other, since I’ve come to rely on the Maps app quite often — especially for public transportation directions — I really wasn’t too much excited to ‘upgrade’ to a new Maps app which doesn’t even have such directions. Thus, the decision came easily: I would update my iPad to iOS 6, but not my iPhone 4. Until Google releases a standalone Maps application for iOS 6, I’ll leave iOS 5.1.1 on my iPhone.

After exploring the new Maps app on the iPad for quite a bit, I must say I made the right choice. One of the first searches I performed in Maps was an easy one, or so I thought: I would ask Maps directions to reach the one official Apple Store here in Valencia. I reported my experience in this brief post on The Quillink annotated. (By the way, after reporting the problem, the issue seems to have been corrected already, so kudos to Apple for the speed).

These days I’ve been trying other Maps queries, and the results are quite the disaster. Maps got right 5 search queries over 25. In some instances, I did what other users did to test the accuracy of the application: I searched for well-known places or sites whose location I know exactly, and the results I obtained were spectacularly inaccurate or led me nowhere (both literally and figuratively). I even had to slightly correct my home address, because when I tapped on it in my Contacts’ card, Maps opened and placed the pin in another town outside Valencia. Needless to say, the same queries in Google Maps returned accurate results and precise directions.

One common error in the new iOS 6 Maps app is due to its inflexibility and apparent inability to handle ambiguous or incomplete queries. You can’t expect people to write a perfectly formed address all the time. Furthermore, often users search directions for a place (such as a point of interest, or businesses, restaurants, petrol stations, banks, etc.) they really don’t know its address. When you perform a search in the previous Google-based Maps app after asking the app to pinpoint your current location, the app assumes you’re looking for places in your vicinity, and returns a fairly accurate result even when your query is approximate and generic. If I’m walking near Valencia’s centre and ask where “Calle Colón” is (Calle Colón is a rather big avenue right in the centre of Valencia), Google Maps responds by showing me a bunch of pins indicating businesses and other places I can find along the actual Calle Colón in Valencia. Apple Maps shows me the Calle Colón of a town outside Valencia. To get something useful out of Apple Maps I have to form a more precise query. In this example, I have to ask Apple Maps where “Calle de Cristóbal Colón” is. (For English speakers: it’s like the difference between asking about “Columbus Avenue” and “Christopher Columbus Avenue”).

I completely agree with Federico Viticci’s comments on Apple Maps in his immense piece The iOS 6 Trilemma:

Above, I wrote that users just want stuff to work. They don’t care about deals between companies or the strategic importance of moving away from Google. Many of those who will upgrade to iOS 6 will find a worse Maps application than the one they used to have.

Apple Maps are pretty. The standard view is all vector-based, so you can zoom in and out without losing any detail. Their icons are colored and nice. But besides that, just about everything else is a step backwards from Google Maps here in Italy, and especially in my area. 

And here in Spain as well.

[…] Every once in a while, looking for a location in Viterbo takes me to another city in Italy, although I entered the name correctly. Occasionally, this happens with local businesses too: I hit the “Locate” button, type in the name of a store in Viterbo, and suddenly I’m in Rome. […]

As I’ve already outlined, the same phenomenon has happened to me here in Valencia, too.

[…] Local business search is inferior to Google Maps. Apple has nicer icons to differentiate businesses, but the results are fewer and out of date. […]

Same here, and possibly worse if you consider that Valencia isn’t a small town. In my generic search for Greek restaurants, Siri, using the Maps framework, returned four results. Two of them were for the same business, but with the address written in two slightly different ways, so that one seemed to be near where I live, and the other in a completely different town. Oh, by the way, that Greek restaurant closed more than a year ago, and now there’s a sushi restaurant in its place. 

I also agree with Federico about the loss that is the removal of Street View, replaced by an inferior and rather useless ‘3D’ representation; and the Flyover feature, which may be beautiful to look at if you’re living in big American cities, but for the rest it’s little more than a gimmick.

[…] Even if Flyover had better imagery, animations, and was faster and more responsive, I don’t think it would be as useful as Street View. It’s a cool toy. But to get the job done – to explore cities as humans would – I have to use Street View on my computer. Humans drive and walk, they don’t fly. Flyover sounds good on marketing material – “stunning 3D images with animations!” – but in actual usage, it’s terrible. […]

Exactly.

And here comes the part where I agree most with Federico, worth of a full quote:

People want their devices to work. Normal people use these things to plan trips, go to work, wake up in the morning, catch the bus to go to school. These devices have changed and improved many aspects of people’s lives. We’re not playing games here anymore. The tech press is so entrenched in itself, we have forgotten normal people use their iPhones and iPads not for “reviews” and “exclusives” – they use them to do stuff. To get the kids to school on time. To learn a city’s landmarks and must-see locations before going there.

How are we going to tell these people that, because of Apple’s strategy, they’ll have to cope with an inferior version of Maps?

How do we tell students that public transit directions are no longer, that they’ll have to use separate “App Store apps” – which aren’t available yet?

Can we justify Apple Maps in the name of the greater good?

Personally, I can’t. Because while I could go on and let my friends read the “Company” section above and try to make them understand that, yes, that’s why Apple had to ditch Google, the truth is – they don’t care. They are going to update to iOS 6 because they’re curious, just like everybody else, and they’re going to ask about “the Maps app that doesn’t work anymore”.

They won’t say “Yeah, but at least Apple has more control now”.

They won’t say “At least Apple’s icons are nicer”.

Those are things bloggers like me write. The “normal people” will hate that the new Maps app isn’t as good as before.

And we’ll have to tell them that “It’ll get better soon”. Because it’s not great since day one.

It’s time we stop giving Apple a free pass on everything. Enough with the sugar-coating. Earlier this year, someone argued that the privacy fiasco was actually a good thing because it could have been worse on Android. What kind of explanation is that? It was bad, period. With Maps, I have a similar black & white view. The current version of Maps is, from a data standpoint, a step backwards from Google Maps, with the exception of turn-by-turn navigation, which is a great addition.

As a tech writer, I understand the importance of Apple’s new Maps, and I applaud their decision to build their own solution for the future. I also understand that, while Apple could have licensed some Google technologies such as Street View and public transit directions to include as options in the new Maps, they didn’t want to.

As a user, I can’t help but think that this needed more time, that maps simply aren’t ready in many areas, and that Google Maps was just better.

Apple’s response, “The more people use Maps, the better it will get”, is just baffling to me. As I said on Twitter, I think maps are a bigger deal than Genius playlists. When the Genius feature was new, the first days it returned me laughable results, and soon started getting better and better. The big difference is that when Genius in iTunes failed to give a useful suggestion, it wasn’t really a problem. If one likes Enya, who cares if Genius suggests Iron Maiden, right? But when you ask directions for a place you’d like to reach but you don’t know where it is, and Maps sends you 25 kilometres away, in another town, to a nonexistent restaurant, government office building, or — worse — doesn’t help you to find a hospital or clinic, well, that’s a whole other story. After submitting 15 ‘Report a problem’ in Apple Maps, I really don’t feel like doing the homework for Apple. Not when there’s already a better product around. “The more people use Maps, the better it will get” to me really sounds like “The more people find themselves lost today, the less they’ll find themselves lost tomorrow”. I’ll just go back to my paper maps, thanks.

Yes, Google Maps has been around for a longer period of time and it’s a more mature and refined product. Yes, I know that Apple couldn’t have possibly developed an equally mature and refined product overnight. But I must say, I also didn’t expect Maps to be this level of bad. And Apple didn’t start acquiring map companies just a few weeks ago, it’s been three years at least. I don’t know what’s behind the scenes, and I don’t pretend to tell Apple what it should do or have done — God forbid. At the same time I can’t help feeling Apple hasn’t invested enough in developing a good map product, especially if it’s meant to compete against something like Google Maps. 

Another thing that annoys me are certain reactions like ‘Maps works great where I live, what’s the big deal people are making?’ or people who point out that even Google Maps isn’t always perfect and accurate. Or paternalistic crap like this Apple Maps: The FAQ. It’s true that Google Maps aren’t perfect, but at this point the error, the missing or inaccurate or ridiculous result (directions-wise, at least) seems to be the exception in Google Maps and the rule in Apple Maps. Tech writers and informed geeks may understand what’s happening, but the majority of common users, the millions who will purchase the new iPhone and who are already upgrading to iOS 6 — as Viticci points out — will simply find themselves with an inferior Maps application that does not ‘just work’. Inferior not from an engineering standpoint — it’s actually prettier than Google Maps: vector-based maps, better typography, visually appealing turn-by-turn directions, etc. — but as regards to sheer reliability. Which I think is all that matters with maps and directions.