Siding with the new ‘timid’ iPod nano

September 18, 2012
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

In his article at The Verge entitled Apple’s timid new iPod nano sidesteps a smartwatch revolution, Nilay Patel shares some rather blunt opinions about the new iPod nano. While I agree that the iPod line — with the exception of the iPod touch — is the least innovative of Apple’s portable device offering, I’m not so sure about the rest of Patel’s assessment. Here are a few observations.

Patel writes:

Why all the changes? According to insiders, Apple reworks the nano every few years to kick off a cycle of upgrades — the $150 nano is an impulse buy holiday present that almost makes it seem like you care about the recipient. […]

But that’s the old market, and the old way. It is, you might say, the Samsung or Sony way. It has not been the Apple way — iPod sales decline steadily every quarter, and cynically changing the nano into a tiny fake iPhone to juice sales one last time won’t stop that slide. The MP3 player market is dead, and Apple doesn’t seem to know how to move on. 

I wouldn’t say that the MP3 market is dead, not yet at least. The problem with many geek tech writers is that often they have this tendency to look at things from their geeky perspective, and at times their point of view might be a bit myopic. 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.

Now, about the iPod nano’s redesign. I guess that, rather than “changing [it] into a tiny fake iPhone to juice sales”, Apple’s concern was more like addressing one significant issue of the previous-generation nano: the user interface. Yes, the previous nano was small and very wearable and cool, and it could be transformed into a geeky ‘smartwatch’ with the right accessory, but in my opinion its user interface was a disaster. The screen was too tiny for precise touch gestures (they should have called it ‘iPod shuffle touch’). Navigating playlist was a pain in the arse. Even changing screen orientation with two fingers was neither intuitive nor a quick-and-easy affair. I know because I tried one quite extensively when they came out: on paper, I would have purchased it straight away. After trying one in person… no, thank you. I didn’t know what changes the 7th-generation nano would sport, but I was sure Apple would revert to a device with a bigger screen, especially if you want to have a decent multi-touch interface and user experience. The bigger physical controls and the addition of a Home button are other welcome improvements.

Patel continues:

There was a glimmer of hope a year ago, when Apple updated the previous watch-sized iPod nano with new clock displays and even began selling nano watch bands in its retail stores. The nano wasn’t a very good watch, but the potential was blindingly obvious — it was Bluetooth and a connectivity protocol away from being the ultimate iPhone accessory. It felt like a brewing revolution in wearable computing that guaranteed an extra $149 in revenue from every iPhone owner.

“The ultimate iPhone accessory”? Really? Are we even sure that this ‘smartwatch’ thing would have been the future for the iPod nano? Do you really want a ‘smartwatch’ with you along with the iPhone, essentially relaying to you the same kind of alerts and notifications the iPhone already provides? I don’t know, it seems a bit redundant to me (unless there’s some great feature or potential usage I’m not seeing). I feel for all those who manufactured accessories to transform the nano into a cool wristwatch, yet I find a bit naïve to expect that Apple would maintain the same (or a similar) design for the most chameleonic and unpredictable of all iPod models. 

And yes, Kickstarter campaigns for high-quality accessories such as the TikTok and LunaTik wristbands were successful and proved that there was/is interest for this kind of thing. Who knows, maybe smartwatches are the next big gadget. Maybe a lot of owners of the previous nano were just looking for an alternative way to use an iPod with an otherwise terrible user interface.

Five

September 16, 2012
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

As with anything that has to do with a new Apple product, the debate is an ongoing flow of opinions before, during and after the introduction of said product. In the case of the iPhone, every time a new model is introduced, the Internet has shown it can go absolutely crazy, with the most varied range of reactions, from the utterly silly and gratuitous babble, to the smartest, thought-provoking insights. The quantity of posts commenting the new iPhone 5 is simply impossible to follow.

I wanted to take a couple of quiet hours of my time to enjoy the video of Apple’s September 12 music event before writing anything about it because I didn’t want to feel tempted to just comment on other people’s reactions or commentaries. After watching the whole thing, I admit it was a bit difficult to come up with a cohesive piece, so I thought I’d keep this simple — but alas, not short — and share five observations.

1. The leaks

This I have to say to the many rumour sites out there: Great fucking job you’ve done, I hope you’re all pleased with yourselves. A lot of the effect of a new Apple product’s introduction relies on the surprise element. But when you already know practically everything that there is to know, the wow factor gets irreparably dampened. At the time of the iPhone 4 launch, thanks to the whole lost/stolen prototype affair, the new case design was known, but little more than that: the internal changes and new features revealed during the Apple event (above all, the Retina display) were surprising enough to make me enjoy the unveiling of the new iPhone. This time the leaks have been so egregious that everything of the iPhone 5 — outside and inside — was already predicted or outright revealed: the bigger screen, the bigger battery, the new processor, the improved camera, the support for LTE, and so on.

I usually try to avoid rumour sites and articles, but these last two months the ‘sensational scoops’ have been posted everywhere and so aggressively that even skimming through my RSS feeds with Flipboard was enough to spot leaked photos of the iPhone 5 case, and even a video in which you could see the new EarPods.

Personally, there’s nothing I find disappointing about the new iPhone 5. What is disappointing is this increasingly maddening ‘leak culture’, enabled by people who just can’t wait a few weeks to see how a damned smartphone will look like, so that they’re happy to give thousands of pageviews to stupid rumour sites.

2. The small things

When innovation is on the ‘micro’ scale, sometimes it gets overlooked or underrated. I won’t certainly describe the iPhone 5 as being a ‘revolutionary’ device, but it is undoubtedly on a great evolutionary path. (See also this smart post by Chris Breen on Macworld). You must understand that the iPhone is too important for Apple to radically change its looks at every new model generation. It is a delicate balance: on one hand, changes have to be significant enough to make an upgrade worthwhile; on the other hand, the iPhone’s general design has quickly become a classic, and deviating from it dramatically (and somewhat capriciously) would be too risky and ultimately an unwise decision. With the iPhone 5, therefore, what’s significant is a series of small changes and improvements which taken individually may not seem remarkable, but together have a cumulative force.

Really, the best description of this process is on the iPhone design page at Apple’s site:

iPhone 5 is just 7.6 millimeters thin. To make that happen, Apple engineers had to think small, component by component. They created a nano-SIM card, which is 44 percent smaller than a micro-SIM. They also developed a unique cellular solution for iPhone 5. The conventional approach to building LTE into a world phone uses two chips — one for voice, one for data. On iPhone 5, both are on a single chip. The intelligent, reversible Lightning connector is 80 percent smaller than the 30-pin connector. The 8MP iSight camera has even more features — like panorama and dynamic low-light mode — yet it’s 20 percent smaller. And the new A6 chip is up to 2x faster than the A5 chip but 22 percent smaller. Even with so much inside, iPhone 5 is 20 percent lighter and 18 percent thinner than iPhone 4S.

In a nutshell, almost every major component in the iPhone 5 is smaller than before (except of course for the battery, which is bigger) and at the same time more powerful. The result is a device that yes, is taller than the previous models, but also thinner and lighter. And more powerful. And with a longer battery life. This is not marketing speak, but a series of facts anyone can verify.

Speaking of personal preferences regarding other small things, I like how now the black model is effectively blacker than before (love that ‘Black & Slate’ combination) and the white model is… less white than before. I never liked all that whiteness in the white iPhone 4/4S, in my opinion it made the device look cheaper and more kitsch than the black model. The new White & Silver combination is, to my eyes, much more elegant.

Another feature I like — which probably didn’t attract much attention during the Apple event — is the three microphones and the fact that now noise-cancelling works both ways, for outgoing and also incoming calls, which should be great when people call you from a place with a noisy, busy background.

Yet another welcome addition are the EarPods, the new Apple earphones. I haven’t tried them yet, but considering the terrible sound quality the previous earphones delivered, these will surely be an improvement. I still don’t understand Apple’s insistence on a single white model. It would have been quite nice to have black EarPods to match the black iPhone 5.

3. The disappointment

People have grown increasingly demanding towards Apple. I really don’t know what on earth they expected from the new iPhone. That after all those leaked images Apple would have shocked everyone by presenting a different iPhone, completely redesigned overnight? After reading a bunch of reactions from pundits, commenters on tech news sites and the like, it seems that people wanted a revolutionary new design but, er, not too much revolutionary because, you know, the iPhone is the iPhone in the end and… Oh well, I give up.

Others have found the iPhone 5 disappointing because it doesn’t include features like Near Field Communication (NFC) and wireless charging. I don’t know enough of the former to express an informed opinion, but my guess is that Apple simply deemed the technology not mature enough (or not widespread enough) to be useful for iPhone users at this time. As for the second, since I also own a Palm Pre 2 and its wireless Touchstone charger, let me tell you: wireless charging may be a cool feature to show off to your friends, but it’s not worth the hardware changes that have to be implemented in order to make it work correctly and reliably. (Lots of Palm Pre owners had to have their Touchstone replaced — sometimes more than once — before finding one that worked well). Keep in mind that yes, the phone is not connected to the charger through a wire, but you always have to connect the charger to a wall socket to charge the phone. There’s very little convenience to be gained here.

But the real silly bit must be the quantity of virtual ink that has been poured about the infamous new Lightning connector, replacing the 9‑year old 30-pin dock connector. Some says that if Apple wanted/needed a smaller connector, it should have opted for the more standard micro-USB solution. In his blog, the excellent Rainer Brockerhoff explains why Apple didn’t do that, and why the Lightning connector (albeit proprietary) is a better choice:

People keep asking why Apple didn’t opt for the micro-USB connector. The answer is simple: that connector isn’t smart enough. It has only 5 pins: +5V, Ground, 2 digital data pins, and a sense pin, so most of the dock connector functions wouldn’t work – only charging and syncing would. Also, the pins are so small that no current plug/connector manufacturer allows the 2A needed for iPad charging. Note that this refers to individual pins; I’ve been told that several devices manage to get around this by some trick or other, but I couldn’t find any standard for doing so.

Of course, to maintain a bit of retrocompatibility with all the third-party accessories users have been purchasing over the years for their iPods and iPhones, Apple had to introduce a Lightning to 30-pin Adapter. Of course, said adapter is sold separately for $29. Of course, people have written the stupidest arguments about it. My opinion on the matter? It’s exactly like Cole Peters’, so go read his great piece: The Spoor of High Horses. (I so agree with him when he says “It’s not that people aren’t allowed to dislike an Apple product, or features of it […] but rather what astonishes me is the lengths these people are willing to go to in their searching out of negative aspects. Minor details are blown into overwhelming claims of failure, all in the name of getting some time in the spotlight or simply to take part in the hate-on-Apple game.” — but please read the whole article, it’s worth your time).

4. The new iTunes

I am a renowned iTunes hater. It’s possibly the single most irritating software ever produced by Apple, and the only time I liked it was when it was just a music player and nothing more. It was simple, it worked just fine. Then, the downward spiral until it became a multimedia behemoth, slow and progressively less user-friendly.

The new, completely redesigned iTunes is a huge step forward, in my opinion. The new interface borrows heavily from iOS, but in this case it is really a big improvement. From what I’ve seen in the video of the Apple event, the new iTunes gets everything right as regards to user interface and interaction. It feels lighter while retaining all its (numerous) features. Navigation is easier and better thought-out. It is also graphically more elegant and essential. The ‘Up Next’ feature is useful and interesting. And even though I basically never used iTunes minimised, I really love what they did with the Mini-player: it appears more functional and versatile than before, and I may be inclined to use it more now.

The various Apple online stores (iTunes Store, App Store, iBookstore) have also been redesigned, and it’s definitely a welcome change. The App Store in particular needed this, because we had come to a point where its user interface simply couldn’t keep up with the exponential increase in the number of apps to choose from. Search and navigation were indeed suffering. The new design appears to be a more functional change. I can’t wait to try it.

5. The increasing polarisation

A few days ago, here’s what I said in two consecutive tweets: It is increasingly difficult to talk about technology without being labelled. Either one is an “Apple fan” or an “Apple hater”. It’s not black or white! Also, it’s ludicrous that, to appear ‘objective’, one has to belittle Apple or its products, lest one lose credibility.

Up until three years ago, I was all for ‘fighting the good fight’, trying to clarify my position, to explain how I form my views and opinions by reading a lot and checking the facts before writing an article or replying to a mailing list/forum discussion. I also used to explain that I’m not a new Apple user (or fanboy), that I’ve been using Macs since 1989, that my decision to go Mac-only from circa 1993 on was not based on a whim, but after using other platforms and opting for the one which gave me the best user experience, the best hardware/software quality, and that ultimately worked best for me. This doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate the work of other manufacturers. I love webOS, for example, and my second phone is now a Palm Pre 2. I really like what Microsoft has been doing with the Windows Phone OS and Windows 8, and so on. However, in recent times I’ve grown really tired of explaining where I come from. Those who stumble on this website can very well do their part to try to figure out who is the person writing this stuff, where he comes from, what his level of experience is.

This increasing polarisation when it comes to Apple hurts any intelligent debate. People have to understand that if someone appreciates the new iPhone 5 and is not disappointed at all by what Apple decided to include and omit, it doesn’t mean he or she has to be an Apple fanboy. This ‘us versus them’, ‘everything’s black or white’ mentality is just plain stupid, shallow and childish. And I don’t find this mentality in comment threads only. It’s also in blog posts, tech articles and pieces written by people who don’t bother to do a modicum of fact-checking before writing something that either over-celebrates or (more often) bashes Apple’s work, conduct or products.

I’m not a tech journalist, my site is not a tech news site, and I don’t feel compelled to impart my opinions on everything tech-related. As a long-time Apple user myself, it’s obvious that I often talk about Apple here. But I’ve always tried to be as objective as possible in my assessments, simply because I feel responsible towards my few readers. I’m not an Apple fan or an Apple hater. I don’t agree with every decision Apple has made in the last 20 years, I don’t love each and every piece of hardware or software Apple has introduced. At the same time I still have to see a product from an Apple competitor that has truly blown me away and convinced me to choose it over an Apple product in the same league. And I’m still open to that possibility. And I’m still waiting.

The truth is, if your job is to inform people, you should put all your personal preferences aside, check your facts, and write your piece. I feel that today, a healthy debate — especially if it involves Apple in a way or another — needs less polarisation and a more informed exchange of opinions. But to properly inform readers, tech writers should do a better job than what they’re doing now. In this field, doing your homework is getting harder, but sometimes choosing quality over speed or sheer output wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

‘Fixing’ email

July 26, 2012
by Riccardo Mori
Software

Recently, my attention has been directed to .Mail, which is yet another email application project that wants to “make email right”. I started using email in 1997, rather late compared to other people in my age range, and I never really had problems or experienced any kind of particular friction when using this means of communication.

A recurring argument in recent times is that email ‘needs fixing’ because we’re not living in the 1990s anymore, because we have different needs, because email is not ‘social’ enough or fashionable enough, because it has become somehow inadequate. And so on and so forth.

Email isn’t perfect, I’m not arguing that it is. But I have the feeling that all these efforts to reform this medium are focusing too much on cosmetic things. Interface and user experience are important, don’t get me wrong, but I believe there are a couple, bigger problems to address first: reliability and flexibility.

“Delivered”

One of the features I like most of iOS’s and OS X’s Messages is that when a message is sent, you know it has actually reached your interlocutor because the word Delivered appears under your user icon. As I was saying on Twitter yesterday, it’s 2012 and I still have to deal with email snags and consequent misunderstandings because someone hasn’t received an email I sent, or vice-versa. This mysterious phenomenon doesn’t happen all the time, but it still happens remarkably often if we consider how much technology has otherwise advanced since the 1990s. Sometimes behind an email message apparently not received there’s a too aggressive spam filter, but in many other cases the message seems to vanish into thin air. In this regard, even fax technology is more helpful, because you always get a return receipt stating whether the transmission has been successful or not.

Perhaps it’s a matter of upgrading the protocols, but it would be wonderful that after sending an email message, a “Delivered” label (or equivalent status icon) would appear on the sent message. This would effectively put an end to that mild ’email angst’ and uncertainty that often users have. Sure, we usually take for granted that a message sent has been delivered correctly, but there’s always that one percent of doubt, quickly increasing the more time passes before the recipient replies (via email or whatever alternative means).

Related to this issue: how about an email client that translates in human language those nasty “Mailer-Daemon” or “Mail Delivery Subsystem” automated replies when something has gone wrong. Usually the contents of the message are rather cryptic or too generic to understand what happened (I know, nerds are fine with them, but I’m talking about the average user). Furthermore, very often these messages are in English, so people who don’t speak English don’t even know that there was a failure in delivering the message. It would be nice that the email client could interpret the error message by reading its status code and display a more user-friendly alert explaining the error with simple wording and in the language the user specified for the operating system. (For example: Your message to Gary Wilson was not delivered. Check the email address you entered because gary.wilsooon@example.com was not recognised. — or something like that).

“I want simplicity!” — “And I want complexity!”

Another problem with email management and email clients is their lack of flexibility and adjustability. Some email clients offer too many options for certain users, or aren’t versatile enough for power users. People have surprisingly different needs when it comes to something as apparently straightforward as email. Mailsmith aficionados love its scriptability, and its powerful text and filter handling features. Other people love Sparrow because it’s simple, fast, user-friendly and it has great Gmail integration. Apple’s Mail seems to be a decent happy medium between these two, and that appeals to yet another category of users. But whatever the email client of choice, you’ll always hear people complain about something: it’s not simple enough; it doesn’t have many power options; the interface is too rigid; it creates friction in my workflow; it has Features X, Y, Z that are so useless to me and I can’t get rid of them; I want Features X, Y, Z of that other client but within my favourite email app because I don’t like that other client’s interface; etcetera, etcetera.

Wouldn’t it be great if an email client could really adjust its interface and feature set according to the user’s needs? Imagine something that starts with a minimal interface, like Sparrow’s or Reeder’s minimised layout, and that has the ability to expand according to what you want to use or display. Some sort of modular interface, adding elements as needed, and hiding them if/when not needed, so that they don’t clutter the program’s interface and confuse the user. Or something like Safari, which, again, starts simple in its default layout and configuration, but can be made more powerful, sophisticated and versatile by adding Extensions in a simple, user-friendly way. I know, it’s complicated, but in the long run it can be a more effective approach than modelling an email client based on what the developer thinks the user’s workflow is or must be.

A 7-inch iPad? Not for me.

July 26, 2012
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

After a long, too long wait, I’ve finally purchased a third-generation iPad. I don’t think I’ll write a review because I feel it would just be redundant — what could I possibly say that hasn’t been said already? But for the purpose of this article, I’ll stress one thing: the size of this iPad is just fine. I have held and played with iPads (all three generations) at Apple stores and other electronics shops, and since she got hers before me, my wife has occasionally let me use it. But it’s when you have your own iPad that you really get to notice things like bulk, weight, user interaction, comfort, and so on. And after ten days of continued use, I just can’t, for the life of me, picture this device as being big or bulky. When some Android-loving acquaintances exalted the portability and the form factor of the Samsung Galaxy Tab 7, saying that the iPad was so impractical compared to it, I gave that remark the benefit of the doubt. After getting my iPad, loading my favourite apps (and exploring new ones) and starting to create my workflow, my answer to anyone telling me that a 7‑inch tablet is better is going to be a proverbial Jobsism: Are you nuts?

So, Google makes a nice, cheap 7″ tablet called the Nexus 7, and suddenly a 7″ tablet “makes sense”. Suddenly Apple has to build an ‘iPad mini’ because… because it has to kill a competition that’s basically made up of the aforementioned Samsung Galaxy, Nexus 7 and the Kindle Fire. The question that’s been nagging me since this whole 7″ iPad debate started is: Does Apple really need to introduce a smaller iPad to kill these other three devices? Perhaps it does. Perhaps it won’t be a defensive move, just a “Oh hey, look, we’ve extended the iPad family just like we did with the iPod a few years back” sort of casual move. Perhaps this purported iPad mini will be another smashing success, capable of effectively fulfilling this need for smaller tablets which personally I don’t get.

Well, let me be clear: I understand that for some people a 7″ tablet may be more appealing than a 9.7″ one, especially if it’s also cheaper. It may be more appealing because it’s smaller and fits in smaller bags, it’s more portable, it’s lighter (by the way: I’m not finding my iPad particularly heavy to transport or operate). It should also be more comfortable to hold with one hand for longer periods of time, at least according to all those who have tried and reviewed the Nexus 7. 

But has portability become the top priority in this kind of device, usability be damned? Because to me, all this seven-inch tablet affair reminds me all too closely of another kind of portable-but-awkward device: the netbook. Remember the netbook debate? Netbooks are lighter than laptops. They fit in purses. They’re great for use in cramped spaces. They share a lot of the features of laptops but they’re far more portable. Too bad the average user experience was a nightmare. I know, I know, “but the Nexus 7 is really okay, Android 4.1 is surprisingly good[1], the overall experience is good”. I haven’t tried a Nexus 7 myself, I only tried the Galaxy Tab and similar smaller tablets whose names I honestly forgot due to their being crappy devices overall, and from what I’ve understood by reading various Nexus 7 reviews and impressions, the reviewers haven’t used the device extensively (the Nexus 7 hasn’t been on the market that long). Sure, reading an ebook may be more comfortable, watching movies too (if you have to hold the tablet for a couple of hours, lighter is better). The Kindle Fire may have been a moderate success, but it’s essentially an ebook reader with some more bells and whistles. I believe that despite those bells and whistles, its main function for those who bought it is to read books. And that’s fine. A 7″ tablet is really fine for reading books. The regular Kindle’s screen is 6″ if I’m not mistaken, and it’s a nice format for reading books. In truth, since it’s gone Retina, even an iPhone can be a decent ebook reader. I know because I’ve read more than 20 ebooks on it. 

Now, back to the ‘iPad mini’: try to go beyond the simple consumption, like reading ebooks or RSS feeds or watching a movie; picture all your favourite iPad apps, especially those you use to create (text, drawings, music, whatever) and those you interact a lot with, and think about using them on a smaller iPad. I have done this little thought experiment, and I’ve concluded that no thanks, I’m really better off with the bigger screen of a regular iPad. With some websites and photo editing tools, and sometimes while playing with GarageBand I actually found myself wanting an even (slightly) bigger screen.

Again, I’m sure a 7″ iPad makes sense for some people. Like netbooks and ‘ultrabooks’ still make sense for some, to the point that they’d choose them over a regular laptop. They hardly make sense to me, simply because they sacrifice usability and a decent user experience just for the sake of mere portability (and price). It’s a trade-off I don’t accept. Similarly, with tablets, I’m certainly not a target user for a 7″ device. I’m sure that, if Apple actually introduces an ‘iPad mini’ later this year, it’ll be a more usable device than any other on the market, but I’m not entirely convinced it’ll retain the same usability as a regular, 9.7″ iPad.

I sense the objection: “What, you’re fine with the 3.5” screen of an iPhone, but not with a 7″ iPad?” Yes, I am. Because the iPhone’s interface is designed differently. If you look at ‘universal’ apps (those whose interface adapts according to the device they run on — iPhone or iPad), you’ll see that their iPhone interface is not the same as their iPad interface: elements are rearranged to achieve the best experience on either device. Plus, on an iPhone, there’s another thing to consider: it’s a smartphone. As good as apps like iPhoto, GarageBand, Snapseed, Photoshop Express, Flipboard, etc. are on an iPhone, they’re not made for long sessions. While you can edit photos, write blog posts, handle email, surf the Web, you’re more likely to spend more time with these applications on an iPad, in portable but more relaxed scenarios. The ‘iPad mini’ interface is more likely to be a slightly-shrunk version of the regular iPad interface. Still manageable, sure, but not as optimal as a 9.7″ iPad. 

Anyway, I’m really curious to see what kind of rabbit Apple will pull out of its magic hat. After all this ‘Retina display’ exposure, it’s going to be weird if the iPad mini has a non-Retina display. And if it has a Retina display, I can’t wait to see how it fares when it comes to battery life (smaller device, smaller battery I guess). 

A final thought on portability: it just seems a bit of a silly obsession to me. A lot of people keep talking about wanting smaller, lighter devices, then when I move around the city I keep seeing people with generous-sized purses, messenger bags, hefty briefcases, backpacks, because you know, you have to make room for cameras, phones, ebook readers, magazines, notebooks (the paper and/or electronic variety), and other stuff. Does a slightly smaller, slightly lighter tablet make all that difference, in such a context?

 

 

  • 1. It’s about time that a version of Android reached the ‘surprisingly good’ stage. iOS was already surprisingly good five years ago. ↩

 

Wired: The Story of Steve Jobs, An Inspiration or a Cautionary Tale?

July 25, 2012
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

Source: The Story of Steve Jobs: An Inspiration or a Cautionary Tale? | Wired.com.

Great article by Ben Austen at Wired. It’s hard to find a quote to sum it up nice; the piece is long and well worth reading in its entirety. For example, I liked this passage about Walter Isaacson:

The author admits that he now tends to defend Jobs against personal attacks, since his book has provided much of the ammunition. Isaacson sees Jobs as being hardly more blameworthy, even in his worst moments, than other powerful people. Readers he knows personally claim to be shocked that Jobs would brazenly park in handicap spaces, but Isaacson says some of them are bankers who created the derivatives that screwed clients out of their life savings and helped lead to worldwide recession. When other readers express their contempt for the way Jobs treated his family, Isaacson asks them, “Then how come you’ve been married three times and this particular daughter doesn’t fucking speak to you?” Indeed, Isaacson rejects the premise that Jobs failed with his family. He points out that Jobs ended up with a strong marriage and four loving children, all of whom were at his side during his illness. A wooden table filled much of Jobs’ kitchen, and for the last two decades of his life he came home just about every night and sat down for dinner. “Jobs could have been a better father,” Isaacson concedes. “But I look at that family, and it’s perfectly wonderful. It couldn’t be a better family.”

And this other passage, near the end:

In the end, that remains the paradox in the life of Steve Jobs. He put his uncompromising and sometimes brutal personality into the creation of products that strike us as beautiful, even uplifting. But the historical moment that he helped to create—a magical intersection of technology and commerce and culture, as our computers and computerized gadgets matured from purely functional items to expressions of ourselves—is unique to his life story. Without his unyielding approach to design, we might never have had our iPods and MacBooks and iPads. But most of us don’t need, or want, to take such an unyielding approach. We don’t operate Apple-sized corporations and redefine industries. Our employees, if we have any, will quit or undermine the company if they are repeatedly called shitheads who suck. Family members will find ways to administer payback if persistently ignored or mistreated. Jobs operated on an entirely different plane from just about anyone else. For the rest of us, trying to behave like him will make us and everyone around us miserable.

Oh, and in the in-article poll, Are you an Acolyte or a Rejector?, I voted ‘Both’.