My moderate scepticism about the Post-PC era

Tech Life

There is a fairly good definition of ‘Post-PC era’ on Wikipedia. This passage, I think, is especially relevant:

When introducing Apple’s iCloud service in 2011, Jobs explained that the new platform would replace the PC as the ‘hub’ for a user’s devices with the cloud — all of a user’s devices, including a PC, would be able to automatically synchronize and access media and other files between platforms. Apple’s current CEO Tim Cook continued to elaborate on the concept that a PC would no longer have to be the center of one’s digital life, and explained that mobile devices such as tablets and smartphones would be “more portable, more personal and dramatically easier to use than any PC has ever been.”

Note that, in this scenario, the personal computer is not left entirely out of the picture, it is simply demoted and gets to be ‘just another device’, along with the tablet and the smartphone and any portable device whose screen size either makes it an oversized smartphone or a small tablet.

An increasing number of people, from what I’ve observed, like to imagine this Post-PC era as a stage in technological progress where the personal computer progressively becomes so irrelevant as not to be needed anymore. A scenario where we basically do everything on touch-based ultra-portable devices. Over the past months I have read quite the number of articles written by tech enthusiasts raving about being able to do actual work on their iPads and nothing else, their MacBooks just collecting dust on their desks.

All the talk about ‘going iPad-only’ has been admittedly rather intoxicating for me, since many of these geeks are essentially writers. Having to deal primarily with text is an activity I always found quite flexible, and as a writer myself I thought Yeah, why not, let’s try this little experiment. So I tried to go iPad-only for as long as I could. It lasted three days and a half.

Before you jump to conclusions, let me clear up something right now. I’m not saying that it’s impossible or unfeasible to do actual work by using just an iPad. Many people out there manage just fine. What I’m saying is that it’s unfeasible for me, for at least a couple of reasons.

1. A cramped workspace — The iPad’s screen real estate is simply not enough for me. And it gets worse when I use the iPad’s virtual keyboard in landscape orientation. I write the occasional piece and I happily take notes using great apps like iA Writer, Daedalus or Phraseology; but after a 30-minute session in any writing app, I simply start getting claustrophobic. I grow impatient. And if I need to switch between a few other apps, all that shuffling of apps taking the foreground starts getting cumbersome quickly. When I’m at my main machine — a 15-inch MacBook Pro connected to a 23-inch display, an external keyboard and mouse — pressing Alt-Tab to switch between open applications is way faster, and even if the flow may be similar (I keep a lot of applications in full-screen mode), on the Mac I have more space and I work much more comfortably.

2. Spatial arrangement — Apart from certain iOS text editors/word processors with an integrated Web browser, working on the iPad means uni-tasking. While this is a great concept in theory — ‘distraction-free writing environment’ and all that — in practice I feel a kind of constraint which I usually don’t feel when I’m working on the Mac. When I do translation work, in particular, I simply need to have the main screen split at least in two areas, one with the original document, the other with my translation. These two areas may be just two windows inside the same application or, more often, two separate documents open in different applications. Arranging such workspace on a Mac is trivial. On an iPad, not so much. And even if other tablets allow for such screen-splitting, and even if such a feature becomes common in future releases of iOS and other mobile OSes, I think the workspace will always be a bit more awkward, due to the smaller screen real estate of a tablet. In other words, I still very much need an interface with multiple overlapping windows, because while it’s not ‘multitasking’ in a machine sense, it’s just that kind of ‘human multitasking’ where you need to keep an eye on multiple elements appearing simultaneously on a (big) screen.

Don’t get me wrong, the iPad is an amazing device, and it’s been a great improvement for my ‘digital life’ ever since I bought one. For light work sessions, especially out of the office, is more than enough and I don’t need to always bring a laptop with me. It’s also fantastic for ‘spur-of-the-moment’ activities, like editing an image, checking RSS feeds and news, and so on. For me, it fits perfectly in conjunction with a personal computer. In my setup, it often participates in the spatial arrangement I was mentioning above, because I can ‘outsource’ to the iPad a few background tasks so as to limit the app switching on the Mac. When I need to monitor my email or some feeds, I just keep the iPad with Mail open by my side. Same when I want to quickly check a video on the Web. Often the iPad works as a digital dictionary when I’m translating and don’t want to switch too often between my translation workspace on the Mac and an online dictionary site like Wordreference.com.

And not to re-ignite the trite ‘consumption vs. creation’ debate, but I’d say that my consumption vs. creation usage ratio on the iPad is currently 70:30. Again, I’m not saying the iPad can’t be used for serious work (creative or otherwise); I’m saying that I’m not seeing myself switching to a tablet as my only computing device anytime soon. To do that, such tablet should — ironically, if you want — behave more like a traditional computer, at least in giving me more freedom to arrange my workspace. And a bigger screen wouldn’t hurt, either.

I may sometimes have a conservative viewpoint about technology, and an old-school approach, but I actually like to keep an open mind and try alternative methods to get things done. I prefer flexibility over too ingrained habits and I don’t rely much on fixed workflows. So, it’s not that I can’t use my iPad as my only work tool just because I haven’t tried too hard. I have tried, and realised that I simply cannot work as long and as comfortably on it as I do on a Mac laptop. (And for translation work, at least for how I work, using only an iPad is just too awkward and slows me down considerably.)

Worth mentioning, at this point, is a recent article by Benedict Evans, titled The irrelevance of Microsoft. In the closing paragraph, he writes:

Though it looks like we’ve passed the tipping point, this process isn’t going to be over quickly. PC sales aren’t going to zero this year. But the replacement cycle, already at 5 years, will lengthen further and further, more and more apps will move to mobile or the cloud, and for many people the PC will end up like the printer or fax — vestigial reminders of an older way of doing things.

While I don’t disagree with this assessment, I’m also thinking that the personal computer is still far from exiting the picture or becoming completely irrelevant. Sure, people are buying less PCs and more mobile devices, but what this fact tells me is that today people have a more fine-grained range of products to choose from than, say, 10–15 years ago. For those who purchased a computer a few years back only to use it as a consumption device (music, videos, photos, browsing the Web, doing some email, casual gaming, etc.), now products like the iPad, the Surface, the Nexus 7, the Kindle Fire HD, can be enough for that. These people can go from owning a laptop to just a tablet and never turn back.

A tablet might also be enough (most of the time, at least) for other people whose kind of work involves specific activities and not much app-hopping or switching.

But an interesting portion of other people, I believe, won’t leave the personal computer behind so soon. It’s not only a matter of applications (e.g. “I need to work with this specific software, and there’s no mobile equivalent for it”), but also and more importantly a matter of spatial arrangement and workspace organisation. Multi-touch interfaces and uni-tasking have certainly simplified things for many users, and have made computing way more accessible to less tech-savvy people. But mobile devices and operating systems still have some way to go to achieve the same kind of comfort and versatility of a personal computer’s interface. Advocates of the Post-PC era — or, more properly, the Sans-PC era — claim that PCs will ultimately become a niche market and will be used only by people who need to perform specialised tasks and use sophisticated, resource-intensive applications. I don’t know about that, really. Even for simpler tasks like writing, translating, and photo editing a personal computer is a more comfortable environment, if only for the bigger screen real estate and for the ability to keep an eye on different windows and workspaces without constantly switching from an app or task to another.

Feedback

Handpicked

In a recent article called Flickr and Instagram, Shawn Blanc compares the feedback and activity around his photos in both networks. If I understood correctly, the gist of it is that while Shawn is obviously more satisfied with his Olympus photography workflow (as opposed to his iPhone photography workflow), he is disappointed by the feedback on Flickr — where he posts his best, higher-quality and more artistic shots — as opposed to Instagram, where the everyday iPhone snapshots end up.

On Flickr I have 885 contacts following me. On Instagram I have 2,235. Yet my Instagram photos get far more than just 2.5 times the activity than my Flickr photos.

[…]

In short, my Instagram snapshots spark far more feedback, interaction, and conversation than my Flickr photos do. And I bet anyone reading this who has an Instagram and a Flickr account would say the same thing.

The conundrum, for me, at least, is that my Flickr photos — my best photos and the ones I am most proud of — are the shots I want to share with people so we can both appreciate them together. These are the ones I most want conversations to spark around, and yet these are the ones which get the least interaction.

[…]

At the end of the day, Flickr is the only place I’ve got to put my best photographic work. But it doesn’t feel like the right place. As much as I love the service, it’s just not cutting it. And I suspect I’m not alone.

My experience is a bit different. I’ve been on Flickr since October 2005, and I was on Instagram from its inception roughly until it was acquired by Facebook. I remember trying to do a similar comparison of the feedback I had been receiving on these two networks, but I soon realised it was a sort of trap. Yes, both are ‘photo sharing’ services, but in my opinion they have two very different underlying vibes. Leaving aside the most egregious exceptions in both services — pro photographers posting quality images on Instagram, and users mindlessly uploading dozens of dull everyday smartphone shots on Flickr — I always found Flickr to be the archive/gallery place to post one’s good-to-best photos at a slow, leisurely pace, and Instagram the place for, well, insta-uploading all kinds of here-and-now, impromptu snapshots, more frequently and at a more lively pace.

I’ve also found different audiences and different demographics in Flickr and Instagram. On Flickr I have interacted with more people who take photography seriously (some very seriously, some even too seriously); I have talked lenses and photographic gear in the forums; I have exchanged ‘pro tips’ every now and then. You get the idea. On Instagram everything and everyone are more casual; ‘hearts’ are given more lightly, in a more spur-of-the-moment way. Sometimes, ‘hearts’ are given for reasons that have little to do with how technically good a photo is. Rarely an exchange has gone further than “Nice shot!” – “Thanks!”

To sum up: different vibes, different people, different expectations, different kinds of feedback. 

Personally, over the years I’ve found feedback on Flickr more difficult to obtain, but generally more rewarding. When some Flickr contact or friend (and I have a few serious photographers among them) faves one of my photos or leaves a positive comment — or even a negative one if it’s constructive criticism — it often means more than the few ‘hearts’ I used to receive when I was an active Instagram user. I’ve always had the feeling that on Flickr, feedback had to be earned, in a sense. I’ve always felt the Flickr community to be a place of peers, and that you just can’t expect to upload a few photos you like and wait for the faves and the comments and the conversations to follow. 

Maybe things have changed a bit, lately, especially since the ‘rejuvenation’ of the Flickr mobile app, but I remember that the Flickr community has always demanded a little more participation from its members. When I had more time to devote to the social side of Flickr, I used to leave a lot of thoughtful feedback to many of the people I followed; I even wrote emails to newly-discovered people, telling them how I’d been perusing their photostreams and appreciating their work. This kind of participation and activity always paid, in the end. And although I haven’t received an overwhelming amount of feedback on Flickr over the years, I’ve always been satisfied with the quality of what I received, statistics be damned.

On workflows and automatisation

Tech Life

First things first: this piece is not intended to be prescriptive. Nor does it subtly criticise other people who love their workflows and automate as many things as possible as frequently as possible by using the appropriate technological tools. But in recent times there has been a lot of talk about ‘workflows’ and software solutions that help you automatise processes in the quest for the holy grail of frictionless-ness. And I’ve tried to jump on this bandwagon in an attempt to achieve more efficiency and productivity, but generally speaking my experience so far has turned out to be a waste of time.

The fault doesn’t really lie in the tools themselves; perhaps it’s the way I work, or my needs, or certain habits I’ve developed over time that simply make me largely ‘incompatible’ with automatisation. By watching how other tech-savvy people work, or by reading about their workflows when they discuss them on their blogs, I’ve deduced that the simpler and the more stable one’s device setup is, the easier is to come up with smooth workflows and automated solutions. When you only (!) have one computer, one smartphone and maybe also a tablet, configuring and perfecting workflows (especially across devices) still takes some work, but it’s certainly easier than working on a bunch of different computers and devices. This is a perfect example of how minimalism really helps on the road to Frictionless Land.

My setup is the opposite of minimalism. My setup is… baroque, for lack of a better word. In my Home Office, I use the most recent and most powerful machine I own, a 15-inch (non-Retina) MacBook Pro with the latest version of Mac OS X installed. At its side, the faithful Power Mac G4 Cube, which I use as a sort of extended desktop to monitor RSS feeds and other information, thanks to its huge 22-inch Cinema Display. When I’m out and about, I may carry with me one of many different vintage Mac PowerPC laptops, from a clamshell iBook G3/466 with Mac OS X Tiger, to a 17-inch PowerBook G4 with Mac OS X Leopard. (You can have a look at my different ‘mobile office’ configurations on my VSCO Grid, to have an idea.) In short, I use two different architectures, three different OS X versions (not to mention Mac OS 9 and earlier, when I fire up some of my pre-OS X vintage Macs, like the Power Mac 9500), and an array of tools which may be available on just one of these Macs, either because they’re architecture-specific (Intel-only or PPC-only), or because their most updated version only runs under Tiger or under Leopard. To use a popular expression, my setup tends to show signs of fragmentation.

And if this weren’t enough, consider that the Macs I use have also different keyboard layouts (US, Italian and Spanish), so even common keyboard shortcuts have to be carefully planned if I don’t want to perform the wrong action on the wrong Mac.

I’m pretty sure that a setup like this would drive a few nerds crazy. I’m sure some of my readers are wondering why I don’t simplify my setup, and why I keep using so many different (and old) machines, especially since my activities are limited to document and text management, image editing, photo retouching/management, a bit of graphic and type design, and a touch of audio editing. 

I keep using a bunch of different Macs because I like to keep things spatially arranged. If my work and my files are a city, each Mac represents a sector, a district of that city. When I need to unearth and examine old Word files created/received during the 1990s and the early 2000s, I work with the iBook G3 because I can use Office 98 in the Classic Environment to open those files without losing the original formatting, and, if need be, I can re-save them in a more modern format that can be picked up by more modern software. When I need to work with PDFs in deeper ways than just opening and reading them, I still use an older version of Acrobat Professional (which cost me an interesting amount of money when I purchased it, and I have no need or money to upgrade to an Intel version of the same software), and since I usually need a generous screen estate, I either use the Cube or the 17-inch PowerBook G4. When I need Photoshop, I still rely on version 7.0 on the Titanium PowerBook G4, or the CS1 version on the 12-inch PowerBook G4.

These are just very simple examples. Without leaving the city metaphor just yet, what are the ‘roads’ connecting all those different ‘districts’? Two synchronisation tools which luckily still work under Mac OS X Tiger and the PowerPC architecture: Dropbox and Notational Velocity. They represent the only bit of automatisation in my baroque setup.

I don’t mean to say that I like to manually take care of boring tasks my Macs should perform and are quite able to do so. That would be silly. If I have to batch-convert 300 JPEG files into PNG files, I certainly won’t do that by hand, one file at a time. A simple and tedious task like that is what computers do best, and I’m happy to leave it to them. But I’m not a fan of complex scripts which, after being invoked by a certain keyboard shortcut, start opening files in one application, import them into another, do another dozen actions, to finally send something in a pre-packaged email as a ZIP attachment. Just pressing the key combination by mistake could lead to potential disaster. When I tried to rely on such scripts or services, I ended up wasting more time afterwards because I couldn’t refrain from checking whether the automated workflow did everything correctly.

As I said, some may find this extended and elaborate setup maddening, and even limiting — like working with mutually incompatible tools. Some may object that I don’t rely on fixed workflows and automated processes simply because I can’t. Again, maybe I’m just accustomed to working like this, so I end up being efficient and productive in spite of all the added friction. The truth is: I feel less dependent on specific tools, processes and workflows. This, in turn, makes it easier for me to adjust to new tools, to adapt when a particular configuration, operating system or setup changes. Friction makes me stop and think about what I’m doing, inspires me to look for alternative ways to achieve something, keeps my mind alert and not asleep while the vehicle is on autopilot, so to speak.

The dearth of native Twitter clients for PowerPC Macs

Software

The latest round of “Kill the third-party client,” which Twitter officially calls updating the API, has practically neutralised all native Twitter clients for the PowerPC platform. Up until a few weeks ago, if you still used a PowerPC Mac (even as a very secondary machine), you could hunt the Web for the last working PPC version of Twitter clients such as Echofon, YoruFukurou, Itsy, and you would have been able to use such clients without any problem. I was a fan of Itsy, in particular, because of its small footprint. Using it on my 12-inch PowerBook G4 was really a pleasure.

However, the last update to the Twitter API (1.1) simply requires too much work for a developer to even consider releasing an update for the PowerPC platform. Even Hahlo, a Web-based client, has stopped working, and in a great farewell post, the developer of Hahlo writes:

When [Twitter] originally announced the plans for the v1.0 API retirement I investigated ‘upgrading’ Hahlo to use v1.1 of the API, but the changeover would have required much more than a simple find ‘1.0’ replace with ‘1.1’. An extensive reworking of the code was something I just simply didn’t have time for…

What now?

As far as I know, the only two third-party clients still working on PowerPC Macs are the text-based command-line TTYtter[1] and the Web-based Dabr. Then, of course, one could use Twitter’s own website, or their recently acquired and overhauled TweetDeck (at least the Web-based version, since the native client requires at least Mac OS X 10.6 to run), but it’s impractical to be using Twitter in a browser tab, and on older G3 and G4 machines, even loading Twitter’s site is a daunting task, and the general performance (of the site, of the browser, and of the Mac itself) suffers noticeably.

I understand it’s naïve and quaint to complain that things don’t work anymore on a platform that has seen little to no development since Apple completed the transition to Intel processors and architecture. At the same time I find quite ridiculous that someone with a machine such as the quad-core 2.5 GHz Power Mac G5, which is still rather powerful, can’t use a third-party native Twitter client just because Twitter has become increasingly capricious in pursuit of their own interests.

What I ended up doing

I still use three PowerPC Macs on a frequent basis: a Power Mac G4 Cube with Mac OS X 10.4.11, a 12-inch 1 GHz PowerBook G4, and a 17-inch 1.33 GHz PowerBook G4, both with Mac OS X 10.5.8. Before Twitter updated their API to 1.1, on the Cube I had concocted a lightweight solution using a combination of Hahlo and Steven Frank’s WebDesktop app (a sort of simplified browser to layer a webpage over the Mac desktop — see its page on Google Project Hosting), and you can see the result on this old article I wrote in 2010 (scroll to the end of the article). On the other, more powerful Macs running Leopard, as I said, I was a very happy Itsy user.

For my PowerBook G4s, I ended up ‘creating’ a TweetDeck app by mixing Fluid with the Web-based TweetDeck application. 

Fortunately I still had around an old version of Fluid (0.9.6) that works on PowerPC Macs, so, after signing up for a TweetDeck account (which is handy, since you can manage multiple Twitter accounts if you have them), I fired up Fluid and in the Create a Site Specific Browser window that appears I filled the fields as follows:

Fluid window

Once Fluid created the app based on the TweetDeck website, I logged into my account and everything appeared just fine. Then I needed to find a proper icon for the app. I browsed Google Images a bit, then found this one, which I downloaded. In Fluid (or rather, in the newly created TweetDeck app), I entered the General pane in the Preferences and pressed the Change button near ‘Application icon’:

Fluid general prefs

I selected the previously downloaded icon file, and now on my PowerBooks running Leopard I basically have a working TweetDeck ‘app’ with a decent icon. It’s quite responsive, all things considered, and it’s a good-enough solution. The good thing is that, since TweetDeck is owned by Twitter, it’ll probably survive future API changes and whatnot. The bad thing is that it’s not a third-party solution. 

TweetDeck PPC

I have tried to do something similar for my Power Mac Cube with Mac OS X Tiger, using WebDesktop instead of Fluid (which doesn’t work under Tiger), but for some reason the TweetDeck Web interface didn’t load, so at the moment I’m using Dabr in a browser window.

 


 

  • 1. However, Cameron Kaiser (developer of TTYtter), after expressing his disapproval of Twitter’s recent practices, told me via App.net: “Keep in mind I probably won’t do much more with TTYtter. It’s sort of on life support until I decide to pull the plug finally.”

 

WWDC 2013 — L’hardware

Mele e appunti

Il nuovo MacBook Air

La pagina delle prestazioni sul sito Apple fornisce tutti i dettagli sulle nuove componenti e tecnologie all’interno del MacBook Air. Nulla è cambiato all’esterno: alcuni si aspettavano nuovi Air con schermo Retina, ma è prematuro. Inoltre, a mio avviso, a meno che Apple non riesca a trovare un modo per produrre un MacBook Air con schermo Retina che offra queste prestazioni in termini di risparmio energetico e di autonomia, mi sa che non vedremo un simile aggiornamento tanto presto. Magari Apple potrebbe persino decidere di riservare lo schermo Retina come opzione ‘pro’, e lasciare che sia l’incredibile durata della batteria a caratterizzare la linea di portatili più sottile e leggera della famiglia.

Come si diceva, la novità più importante del nuovo MacBook Air è la maggiore autonomia del computer. Il modello da 11 pollici adesso dura quattro ore in più rispetto a prima (9 invece di 5), e il modello da 13 pollici passa da 7 a 12 ore di autonomia. Sono valori impressionanti, specialmente se si tiene presente che sono conservativi. Nella sua recensione del nuovo MacBook Air 13″, PC Magazine scrive (enfasi mia):

Il nuovo processore Intel Core i5-4250U da 1,3 GHz con processore grafico integrato Intel HD Graphics 5000 è nominalmente più lento di 400 MHz rispetto al processore i5-3427U da 1,7 GHz del precedente MacBook Air, ma entrambi possono arrivare a 2,6 GHz con la funzione turbo, se necessario. La più lenta velocità di base contribuisce senz’altro ad allungare la vita della batteria. Il risultato dei nostri test di consumo energetico è stato impressionante: il nuovo MacBook Air da 13 pollici ha dimostrato un’autonomia di 15 ore e 33 minuti.

Nella sua recensione, Nilay Patel di The Verge scrive (enfasi sua):

13 ore e 29 minuti. Questo è tutto quel che dovete veramente sapere — questo è quanto è durato il nuovo MacBook Air con Safari sempre attivo durante il Test della batteria di The Verge, che obbliga il computer a caricare ciclicamente una serie di siti Web e immagini con la luminosità dello schermo al 65%. Lo stesso test con Chrome ha prodotto una durata più breve, 11 ore e 29 minuti, ma sono entrambi risultati assurdamente strabilianti. Anzi, rappresentano il record assoluto nel nostro test: nessun portatile ha dimostrato una tale durata senza l’ausilio di una batteria esterna.

Insomma, i nuovi MacBook Air sono decisamente all’insegna del risparmio energetico: gli ingredienti fondamentali per ottenere prestazioni di tale livello sono anzitutto una batteria più grande e più potente (da 54 wattora contro i precedenti 50 wattora, nel modello da 13 pollici), e poi la nuova architettura Intel Core. I processori i5 e i7 di quarta generazione sono potenti quanto i processori che vanno a sostituire, ma utilizzano meno energia.

Altre piccole novità molto gradite: doppio microfono stereo invece che mono (Apple sostiene che il doppio microfono aiuta ad attenuare il rumore durante le chat audio/video e serve a una migliore ricezione della voce mentre si utilizza la funzione Dettatura); maggiore spazio di archiviazione flash per il modello entry-level di MacBook Air 11″ (128 GB invece di 64), sempre allo stesso prezzo di prima; una tecnologia flash più veloce, che da un lato garantisce tempi di risposta più rapidi quando si accende o si risveglia il Mac, ma anche una maggiore velocità di accesso a file e applicazioni, e questo contribuirà senza dubbio a una sensazione di maggiore reattività in generale. E non dimentichiamo poi il nuovo e più veloce protocollo Wi-Fi 802.11ac, che secondo Apple è ‘tre volte più veloce’ del protocollo n dei precedenti MacBook Air.

Con tutta questa serie di migliorie, c’è poco da commentare e poco da aggiungere. Il sottotitolo della recensione di The Verge è Apple produce il computer definitivo da caffetteria, ottimo insomma per prolungate sessioni seduti in qualche Starbucks, ma è una definizione che non rende giustizia al nuovo MacBook Air, che io invece definirei più come il computer definitivo da viaggio. È un po’ come avere con sé un ‘iPad Pro’, un dispositivo che si mette sotto carica durante la notte e poi uno se lo porta appresso per tutta la giornata senza doversi preoccupare di cercare una presa di corrente. E dato che mi capita di frequente di lavorare fuori sede con il mio MacBook Pro o con uno dei miei PowerBook, per me una lunga durata della batteria in un portatile è senz’altro una caratteristica più importante rispetto all’avere o meno uno schermo Retina. Se me lo potessi permettere, passerei a un nuovo MacBook Air da 13 pollici senza pensarci un istante.

Il nuovo Mac Pro

Se la memoria non mi inganna, l’ultimo computer desktop a essere presentato con tale pompa magna è stato il Power Mac G5 (vi ricordate questo spot? E date anche un’occhiata al video promozionale). Beh, l’introduzione da colossal cinematografico riservata all’imminente Mac Pro durante il keynote è stata più che giustificata, tenendo presente la considerevole quantità di potenza, funzioni e tecnologie al suo interno, per non parlare del gran lavoro di riprogettazione dell’esteriore. È stata una sorpresa fantastica, e confesso di non essere rimasto così a bocca aperta per un nuovo prodotto Apple dall’introduzione di iPhone nel 2007.

Ancora una volta, c’è poco da commentare e poco da aggiungere. Non faccio parte dell’utenza a cui il Mac Pro è rivolto, ma considerando le mere specifiche tecniche, le possibilità di espansione, la meraviglia di ingegneria e di design di questo computer interamente nuovo e rivoluzionato, non vedo proprio come possa deludere. (Anche se sono certo che da qualche parte ci saranno dei professionisti della vecchia scuola che avrebbero preferito il vecchio design ‘tower’, che si poteva espandere internamente senza dover ammucchiare pile di periferiche e dispositivi esterni sulla scrivania, eccetera eccetera). Pur non essendo il computer per me (non ho tali esigenze di potenza), sono comunque molto curioso di vedere quale sarà il prezzo finale e in quali configurazioni verrà venduto il Mac Pro. Se Apple dovesse mantenere le stesse fasce di prezzo della linea Mac Pro attuale, sarebbe un bell’affare vista la potenza e le prestazioni che offre.

Per quanto riguarda il design, questa è l’immagine che più mi ha colpito durante l’introduzione:

Mac Pro vecchio e nuovo

È incredibile quanto piccolo il nuovo Mac Pro sia rispetto al vecchio modello. Ha un diametro di 16,7 centimetri ed è alto poco più di 25 centimetri. Ciò significa che può essere tranquillamente piazzato sulla scrivania, invece che lasciato mezzo nascosto sotto di essa, ma anche che può essere trasportato con facilità nel caso sia necessario lavorare fuori sede. Credo che i musicisti professionisti, in particolare, apprezzeranno questo aspetto.

La nuova base AirPort Extreme

Permettetemi la massima franchezza: vi sarà pure un concentrato di innovazione dentro questo aggeggio, ma il design è proprio orribile. Appena ho visto un’immagine della nuova base AirPort, giuro che ho creduto fosse il prodotto di qualche burlone che aveva ritoccato alla buona la foto di un Mac mini. Capisco che la nuova base deve avere un fattore di forma ‘a torretta’ a causa del nuovo design delle antenne che devono creare l’effetto ‘beamforming’, ma mai come ora mi manca il buon vecchio design a forma di UFO delle prime basi AirPort. Un’altra cosa che odio di questa nuova estetica è il progressivo rimpicciolirsi delle spie luminose. Che male c’è nell’avere delle spie più grandi e più leggibili? Ho letto tutta la documentazione sul sito Apple, comprendo le scelte alla base del nuovo design, così come i vantaggi che offre. Semplicemente, non mi piace affatto il prodotto finale.

(E già che stiamo parlando di basi AirPort, anche se è stata introdotta ormai da un anno, vorrei ribadire quanto sia per me un passo indietro anche il design della nuova base AirPort Express, soprattutto dal punto di vista funzionale. Come dissi nel mio articolo in inglese Briefly, on the new AirPort Express:

Ora AirPort Express deve essere collocata per forza su una qualche superficie orizzontale, perché Apple ha cambiato il modo in cui la base si collega alla rete elettrica. Forse a molti il cambiamento non importerà granché, ma ho sempre pensato che una delle caratteristiche più azzeccate del design della vecchia base AirPort Express era la comodità di poterla inserire in qualsiasi presa a muro, senza cavi penzolanti, senza doversi preoccupare di cercare superfici orizzontali su cui appoggiarla, come una mensola o un tavolino. Era una soluzione ottima per disporre una base Express in spazi ristretti o corridoi, dove poteva essere utilizzata per estendere facilmente una rete wireless. […] A mio parere, se viene meno questa capacità di poter inserire liberamente tutta la base in qualsiasi presa di corrente, senza preoccuparsi di cavi e superfici, viene meno in parte anche la caratteristica di ‘portatilità’ e praticità che ha sempre contraddistinto la base Express.

Ma d’accordo, sto divagando).

Conclusione

Come ho già avuto modo di dire, è stato un gran keynote. Il video di apertura, l’hardware e il software che sono stati introdotti o anticipati, l’atteggiamento degli stessi dirigenti che si sono avvicendati sul palco, tutto ha contribuito a consolidare un messaggio forte: Ecco, noi lavoriamo così: seguiamo i nostri ritmi e le nostre tabelle di marcia per poter offrire prodotti sempre migliori. Se vi sta bene, perfetto. Se non vi sta bene, non potrebbe fregarcene di meno. E francamente sono stupito che questo atteggiamento sorprenda ancora qualcuno, visto che è l’atteggiamento che Apple ha sempre avuto sotto la direzione di Steve Jobs. Mi ha fatto sorridere il Guardian, che due giorni dopo il keynote pubblica un articolo intitolato WWDC wrapup: iOS 7, iTunes Radio’s value, and a newly confident Apple, ossia Riassumendo la WWDC: iOS 7, il valore di iTunes Radio, e una Apple nuovamente sicura di sé. È quel nuovamente sicura di sé che mi fa ridere. Apple non ha mai perso fiducia in se stessa, solo nelle fantasie della stampa tecnologica internazionale durante il lungo periodo di silenzio dei mesi scorsi. Come fa notare sagacemente John Gruber, [Durante questi nove mesi di silenzio] Nessun nuovo prodotto, nessun nuovo design. E i media del settore tecnologico ed economico sono letteralmente usciti di testa per questo, dichiarando solennemente che la vena innovativa di Apple era arrivata alla fine.

Mi pare non ci sia altro da aggiungere.