It has OS X but no one said it’d be a Mac

October 7, 2007
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

I’m talking about the iPhone mainly to say that I’m tired of all this talking about the iPhone. I believe we’ve come to a saturation point. Until Apple makes another move, there’s really not much left to say. Yes, Apple’s last move (the notorious iPhone Update 1.1.1) generated a fuss — a pretty whiny one, if I may add.

I was collecting my ideas on the whole matter, but I’m a slow writer. Meanwhile, John Gruber and Mark Pilgrim have both written what I was about to write, and have been undoubtedly more concise, insightful and informative than I would be. But I’m going to address the matter anyway, trying to focus on what keeps bothering me.

One thing first: I consider myself to be a somewhat incomplete geek, incomplete having a positive connotation. To me, being incomplete in this field means “not self-contained”. I love technology, but I don’t live for it. I like the hacker way of thinking, generally speaking: I like the constant curiosity that triggers research, the lateral thinking to get around a problem and find alternate solutions, and so on.

Back to the iPhone. It’s an amazing new and revolutionary device, granted. It’s new: this means that it’s still “young” and open to possibilities. From what I’ve observed so far, I’ve drawn the (temporary) conclusion that to be properly open for the future, it has to be closed at present time. It doesn’t take a degree in computer science to infer that the iPhone is still immature inside. And that it has to be protected for the time being until it can be properly expanded with third-party applications. Yes, I don’t think the iPhone will be a closed device indefinitely [unless Apple introduces another PDA-like device, perhaps that much-rumoured (sub)notebook?]. Apple is no fool and surely recognises the enormous potential of third-party development. But it’s not an option for now. The more I think of it, the more I’m convinced that Apple had to take advantage of a certain time slot, and concentrated a lot of resources to make the iPhone ready enough to launch in that time slot. Regarding the third-party community, I agree that Apple’s public relations have left a lot to be desired. And, I’ll make that clear, I do think that the iPhone could benefit from being a more open device.

But what’s the rush? The iPhone was launched on June 29. It’s October 7. That means the iPhone is 101 days old. Yet everyone is babbling about what’s missing, what could be improved, what the iPhone can’t do, and most of all what Apple should do according to every single protester. The iPhone is revolutionary, but that doesn’t mean it has to carry out your own favourite revolution. What’s most ludicrous is the inane criticism from people who don’t even own an iPhone, or people who believe that each iPhone feature (or lack thereof) which doesn’t meet their specific needs is inevitably a “design flaw”. Egregious example: the lack of a real keyboard. Many have said that since they cannot blind-dial or blind-write on the iPhone (because the iPhone virtual keyboard forces you to look at the device all the time), especially when they’re driving, well, that lack is a “design flaw”. But what do they really know about design? Actually, it is desirable to have a feature which invites to a safer use. When an office chair, that is supposed to facilitate a correct posture and therefore relieve the stress of a user sitting ten hours a day in front of a computer screen, fails at that and actually makes things worse because of its design — there we can talk about “design flaws”.

Again, I don’t understand this rush of hacking the iPhone and stuffing it with third-party additions. I think it comes from a small, yet crucial, misunderstanding. Probably these anxious people see the iPhone as another Mac, thus they expect it to be as open to third party development and customisation as any Mac. However, the fact that it runs OS X doesn’t make it a Mac (there isn’t even Mac before OS X in the iPhone’s case). And although it’s easy to look at it as a small computer, I think it’s better to keep considering it nothing more than a (very) smart phone, at least for now. Sure, it has great potential. Sure, I’d love to see the many additions third-party developers could invent, but you know what? The incomplete geek inside of me would be equally happy to buy and use a closed device.

I value my time. I try very hard not to waste it. When I buy an iPhone, I don’t want to spend time installing and trying gadget x, y or z. And then installing their respective updates every time their open source developers fix a bug or improve the software a little (and that means often, at least judging by the many Dashboard widgets and open source/shareware/commercial applications I use on my Macs). Of course I’m not devauling the work of developers here, I’m just looking at the iPhone from a not-particularly-geek viewpoint. I try to picture a near future when there’ll be as many “iPhone widgets” available as Dashboard’s, and — exactly as it happens with Dashboard — I find myself not needing 97% of them.

Freedom of choice is important, as many iPhone detractors emphasise when criticising the apparent closed nature of the iPhone. Many feel they should customise the iPhone to make it more personal, it’s always been the Apple way, et cetera. Oh, I remember the time when I used Mac OS 8, and there were a lot of utilities, extras, extensions, control panels (Kaleidoscope anyone?) to modify the Mac appearance to the point it looked like a different system altogether. I used such things myself, I remember the fun of changing the GUI… fun which waned more or less in a couple of days, and there I was, coming back to the Apple Platinum theme: more stable, more “classic”, it never really wore off in the end. Or take ice cream flavours. Today many ice-cream parlours offer dozens of flavours, but I notice the majority of customers often sticking to the classic ones. I’m not into behavioural psychology — my layman deduction is that it may be a matter of habit and/or simply a matter of too many choices available.

I’m not saying that the choices offered to the user should be limited, only that I noticed that the final, average user customises his/her devices only to a certain extent, surely lesser than any average geek or tech-fan out there. In this perspective, it appears clear to me that Apple has — at least initially — positioned the iPhone to target the widest possible audience, and many many people do not care to own a “closed” device as long as it’s stable, reliable, cool and easy to use, and that “just works”. And iPhone’s healthy sales so far (remember, more than one million units in just 100 days) seem to prove that.

Yesterday I went into an electronics store just outside Valencia and, to my surprise, there was an iPhone on display, hooked to one of the now ubiquitous sound systems for the iPods. I finally could touch it and extensively try it. Well, having it in your hands admittedly is an experience itself. But the very first impression (apart from being hit by the immense coolness of the device) was: I really like it as it is.

Tempi inemulabili

September 16, 2007
by Riccardo Mori
Mele e appunti

In questi giorni, in molti blog autorevoli, si è parlato di iPhone, del problema di iTunes Store e le suonerie, di iPod touch (Macworld USA ha messo in linea alcune foto che mostrano un confronto fra lo schermo dell’iPhone e quello dell’iPod touch: pare che la qualità e la resa del primo siano superiori al secondo), e via dicendo. In merito a questi argomenti non ho gran che da aggiungere. John Gruber ha già detto quel che c’è da dire sul problema delle suonerie, per esempio, e sono d’accordissimo con lui.

Invece oggi ho voglia di fare un tuffo nel passato, all’epoca del Commodore 64 e dei giochi per le macchine a 8 bit.

Ventidue anni fa circa, quando mi fu regalato il Commodore 64, fui naturalmente intrigato dall’enorme biblioteca di giochi allora disponibili, ma anche dalla programmazione che vi era dietro. Avevo solo 14 anni, ma mi affascinava moltissimo cercare di capire come i giochi e gli applicativi più seri venissero creati e, spesso (molto più spesso, forse, di quanto accada ora) portati da e verso molte altre piattaforme (Sinclair Spectrum, Apple II, Atari, Texas Instruments, ecc.).

Il mio buon vecchio C64, dopo un paio di interventi chirurgici, tirò definitivamente le cuoia nel 1992, e a malincuore vendetti le varie periferiche (joystick, registratore a cassette, unità floppy, monitor). Poi, qualche anno fa, la riscoperta e il revival di quel mondo grazie agli emulatori. Power64 è stata una benedizione. Scaricato, provato e subito comprato. È a mio avviso il miglior emulatore di C64 per il Macintosh (PowerPC) in circolazione. Ho potuto, a distanza di anni, rivedere e riutilizzare il mitico GEOS.

Dell’altro giorno è invece la scoperta di un ottimo sito Web, vero punto di riferimento dell’universo Commodore 64: Lemon64. Qui è possibile sfogliare un nutrito database di giochi, entrare nel forum e interagire con molti altri appassionati, leggere recensioni dei giochi (sia quelle scritte di recente dagli utenti del sito, sia quelle di vent’anni fa, direttamente dalle pagine scansionate di una rivista-culto del mondo C64, Zzap! [Qui il sito Web] ), leggere interviste con gli sviluppatori di molti dei giochi che ci hanno entusiasmato, e molto altro.

Compulsando Lemon64, ho trovato la recensione di uno dei tanti giochi a cui giocavo, Sammy Lightfoot, scritta dall’autore del gioco stesso, Dean Creehan (per l’esattezza, Creehan è l’autore della versione per C64). Trovo che sia una testimonianza interessante di come venivano sviluppati i giochi nei primi anni Ottanta, e di come venivano risolti i problemi legati al porting verso altre piattaforme. Ho pensato di tradurla e di condividerla qui.

Ho programmato questo gioco nel 1983. A quei tempi, il metodo con cui si scrivevano giochi per più piattaforme era il seguente: una persona scriveva il gioco su una macchina, altri ricevevano copie provvisorie del gioco, vi giocavano sulla piattaforma nativa, per poi scrivere un programma su un’altra piattaforma che fosse il più possibile fedele all’essenza del gioco originario.

In merito a questo gioco [Sammy Lightfoot], Warren Schwader ne mandava periodicamente una copia giocabile su un Apple II. Non ricevevamo il codice sorgente, e io non sono mai riuscito a parlare con Warren. Pertanto mi presi alcune libertà con lo stile della grafica del gioco. La parte più frustrante di tutto il processo era ricevere una copia aggiornata del gioco e constatare che Schwader aveva modificato parti già codificate e funzionanti.

All’epoca non esisteva un compilatore assembly per il C64, quindi utilizzammo un setup insolito che prefigurava l’approccio moderno di Windows alla programmazione. Il codice veniva scritto sull’Apple in un programma chiamato Lisa e ivi compilato, poi lo si scaricava sul Commodore attraverso la porta stampante. Ciò era possibile perché entrambe le macchine montavano il microprocessore 6502. Se si usavano due monitor, il vantaggio di questo setup era la possibilità di far girare il gioco e modificare il codice allo stesso tempo. Una soluzione piuttosto avanzata per i tempi.

Una cosa che occorre tener presente è che quando scrissi questo gioco mi fu permesso di utilizzare solo 16 KB per l’intero codice, la grafica e il suono. Ciò perché il tutto doveva stare in un cartridge. Ogni cosa doveva essere scritta e riscritta affinché occupasse sempre meno spazio. Invece di memorizzare l’elemento grafico rappresentante una sponda o una piattaforma, per esempio, ne conservavo una piccola porzione e registravo il numero di volte che bisognava replicarla. Se avessi saputo che il gioco sarebbe stato disponibile su floppy disk, ne avrei scritto una versione ottimizzata per tale supporto.

Per darvi un’idea della difficoltà del processo, mi ci sono volute 800 ore del mio tempo libero per scriverlo. Mi auguro che almeno qualcuno si sia divertito con Sammy Lightfoot…

Con un mio amico ci siamo dilettati a scribacchiare qualche giochino per C64 a quei tempi, e posso capire benissimo le frustrazioni di Creehan. Magari avessimo avuto due monitor, però!

Links for September 10

September 10, 2007
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

On the iPhone price drop

Oh, I’ve been reading a lot of reactions and comments, and I started writing my thoughts on the matter. Then I happened to read Steven Frank’s post and, well, he couldn’t have said it better. Go read him.

Fix the Leopard folders

Excellent analysis by Brandon Walkin about the new folders in Mac OS X Leopard.

Folder icons in Mac OS should serve the following purposes:

  1. Fit in aesthetically with the other Apple-designed icons provided in the Leopard install
  2. Make it very easy to distinguish between folders at a glance
  3. Quickly describe the contents of the folder

The new folders in Leopard fail on all counts for the four reasons listed below.

I’m as perplexed as you’re glossy

September 9, 2007
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

After the MacBook and the MacBook Pro (but at least with the latter it’s optional), the new iMac sports, too, a glossy screen. It’s surely part of the coolness of the new look, and the new iMacs are cool indeed. I went to the FNAC store the other week and a new iMac was on display side by side with an old one – needless to say, the ice-white old iMac looked even thicker and, well, older.

But why the glossy screen, why? I never saw the point of glossy screens. The glares and reflections of the surrounding environment can be highly disturbing, especially for those, like me, who don’t have a perfect sight. I started complaining about glossy screens since their appearance on non-Apple laptops. People, and even store clerks I provoked, usually replied to my observations telling me that I should test a glossy screen in my home and that I can’t really criticise or point to the numerous reflections when looking at it displayed in a store, because there are a lot of sources of artificial light, lots of stray reflections and so on and so forth.

Well, last year my fiancée bought herself a new 17-inch widescreen HP laptop with a glossy screen. So I could try it in the soft lighting of our home. And it’s awfully unbearable for my sight. It’s OK for browsing the Web for a while or checking emails, but I could never work before that screen 14 hours a day (I work with text and 95% of the time I sit and write in front of a screen, so your mileage may vary). I agree that photos and even DVDs look more vivid on a glossy screen, but I have to turn all the lights off and shade the daylight coming from the livingroom window if I want to watch a DVD before sundown.

For now I still work (and watch DVDs) with my two non-glossy PowerBooks. The text readability in strong daylight situation is, in my opinion, much much better with their matte screens. Take a look at this photo, for example:

My good old G4 500 MHz TiBook and its non-glossy screen

My good old G4 500 MHz TiBook and its non-glossy screen.


It’s taken at the library of the Polytechnical University of Valencia, at 10:28 AM with a very strong natural light coming from the left. The RSS feed is absolutely readable, and if I were to work with images or even watch some video, that would be very easy for the eyes and very doable. You see the girl with the striped shirt at the top of the photo? She had a Sony Vaio with a glossy screen. I don’t know how she managed to get something done, since the only visible thing on that screen was a reflection of herself, at least from my angle.

In short, I don’t really see the point of this late trend of glossy screens, and I don’t like the fact that Apple is gradually switching to ‘glossy everywhere’. It’s surely cool for the outer look of a Mac, but useful or better than a non-reflective screen? I doubt it. It’s a pity, because I really like the new iMacs and it would be a nice all-in-one upgrade for my home office, both in terms of raw speed and more compact footprint than my current combination of PowerBook G4 + 17-inch CRT display.