Somethings Aren't Meant for Discection

I've been listening to a lot of Doctor Who podcasts recently.

Super nerdy, yes, but no surprise given your author.  So whether you're a "Whovian" or not, stay with me.

The podcast I listen to (link here if you're curious) often has the opportunity to interview many of the creative, production people that made the show.  And as I've listened to quite a few lately, I've noticed something.

The host/ interviewer will often ask questions about this show that was made 30 years or more ago that often sound like this; "when you decided to have the character do that thing, was it an intentional choice because of X?"  To which the production assistant, trying to recall 30 years back, responds with "no, we were just trying to get the thing done by the deadline."

At which point you can almost hear the host deflate just a bit.  Because they've spent years thinking that every choice was intentional or that every plot point was a planned idea.

In truth, often in "art" choices are made because we (the artists) must ship.  The product must release, the show must go on, and so compromises are made and bits are left unfinished.  

But it's funny how, if we're lucky enough to have our work still dissected and discussed many years later, those who are looking to our work for inspiration try to find meaning in everything (even where none exists).

I think that's good.  I think that comes from a place of aspiration in all us artists who wish we could be so thoughtful, so deliberate with our choices, so detailed in our work.  And I understand why we feel deflated to learn that something we thought was such a nuanced choice was really no more than a rushed "happy accident."

But I think it's important to remember the powerful lesson that the truth can teach us as well.  That for those of us who have to ship and worry about "did I get it right? was it good enough?  I wish I could have fixed X or made Y better or added Z" until those thoughts have us spiraling in self-critiques; it's okay.  Because most people won't notice the small flaws and someday, if you're lucky, some might come to see such beauty in them as to think them intentional.

But most importantly, that the art that gets remembered- the art that gets discussed for 30 more years- is ALWAYS the art that shipped.

What @CaseyLiss got wrong (and right) about the Dave Matthews Band

On this week’s podcast of Unjustly Maligned, Casey Liss did a great job defending one of my favorite bands of all time- the Dave Matthews Band.  If you’re a fan of DMB as well, take a listen.

But I wouldn’t be writing just to agree with him, so here’s my quick takes on the things Casey got wrong.

Most glaringly- “Seek Up” is NOT from Before These Crowded Streets.  In fact, the only “studio” album it appears on is Remember Two Things - the band’s first and self-produced album.  That had me yelling at my speakers a few times.

I also disagree that Before These Crowded Streets is the band’s “pinnacle” as Casey asserts.  I do, however, think it’s fair to call it the “apex.”  “Pinnacle” suggests this was the best thing they produced and- for me- that title goes to the un-released “Lillywhite Sessions” that leaked out after the album Everyday.  But that said, I totally agree that Before These Crowded Streets was the band’s “apex;” the highest point in their career trajectory and the album that we all remember as being the height of DMB fandom.  (Also unmentioned was the album Big Whiskey and the Groo Grux King which I think is also amazing but on the waning side of the apex.)

But overall, I loved the podcast.  As a fellow life-long DMB fan (and a fellow member of the seemingly small “I enjoy DMB and have never done drugs” club) hearing Casey articulate so well what so many of us think and feel about the group was just a treat.  So for a stirring defense of the Dave Matthews Band, at tip of my hat to Casey Liss (whoever that guy is...)

PS- if you don't know who Casey Liss is, you should.  So go check out his blog or follow him on Twitter (@CaseyLiss) because you'll be glad you did both.

Weekend Rant- If you want artists to get paid, buy a freaking album!

Okay, I’ve had it with all this debate about streaming music services and artists royalties. So I’m writing my final word on it right here, right now.

First, if you think artists are underpaid- buy a freaking album.  iTunes, in a store- whatever.  If you want to support the artists you like, buy their stuff.  That’s what I do.  But if you want to pay $10 a month and have access to EVERY SONG EVER AS MUCH AS YOU WANT then you are the problem and don’t act like you’re on the side of artists.  If you want to play an album 10000000 freaking times on Spotify or Rdio or any other service- but won’t spend $15 freaking dollars for it- then don’t you dare tell me you’re on the side of musicians.  You’re a hypocrite.  Buy the music if you want artists to be paid or shut up.

Second, if you still refuse to accept your role as a fan in supporting your artists and want to blame others; then blame them equally.  Spotify isn’t the problem.  The record labels are.  Spotify is trying to meet your selfish demands- every freaking song for ungodly cheap prices- and they are delivering.  But the labels who agree to those terms are just as liable in all this.  And I’m so tired of hearing artists whine about it without pointing the finger at their agents and labels too.  They inked the deal.

As much as I think Taylor Swift is a complete drama queen in all this, I at least respect her decision to pull an album she wants to get paid for.  She gets it- don’t think someone is paying enough, don’t give them the album.  Make your fans buy it.  I’m good there.

And for the record, I think the best model (not necessarily the best tech, but that could be addressed) is iTunes Match.  You buy it, you own it, but they make it available everywhere in the cloud to stream so you don’t have to use up storage all the time.  I think in principle, it’s the best option.  Unfortunately fans don’t want to have to BUY music- they want to borrow it all for less than the price of a single CD per month.

Bottom line, I’m tired of artists and their so-called “supporters” pointing fingers in the wrong places.  The real problem is cheap fans. The second problem is labels.  And anything else is just crap.

But that’s just my opinion...

Friday Five - Music for relaxing

Since Today’s theme has been music, here’s quick “Friday Five” with the artists I enjoy most on the porch with a cigar….

Corinne Bailey Rae - Her first, self-titled album is my favorite and it’s one of those you can just put on and get lost in.  Soulful and melodic yet with just the right upbeats, I’m a huge fan of miss Rae for just chilling out.

Dave Matthews Band - Not every track is meant for relaxing, but DMB is my all-time favorite band so they couldn’t not make the list.  For chilling on the porch I particularly like Dave and Tim Renyold’s acoustic sets (Live at Luthern, Live at Radio City) but there are plenty of tracks to mellow out with.  “Baby Blue” on Big Whiskey and the GrooGrux King is a really good one.

Joss Stone - Another artist who’s stuff I can just hit play and not worry about, but if you really want a treat, get her AOL Sessions album for some great live/ acoustic tracks.

Sara Bareilles - A true singer/songwriter, Sara’s stuff is so heartfelt and personal yet has a great wit.  Her lyrics are fantastic and her piano is perfectly accompanying without getting in the way. Her albums are like a coffee house performance you never want to end.

Dave Brubeck - My jazz selection for his incredible ability to make a classic new and the intricate delightfully digestible.  One of the few “instrumentalists” to make my otherwise vocal list, but Dave’s group is always worth a listen.  If you’ve never heard “Jazz Impressions of New York” you need to get on that ASAP.

There’s your “Friday Five.”  Go relax this weekend and explore some new tunes.  Then let me know in the comments which ones you liked most!  Happy weekend!

What's in a name?

By signing just two companies to  Music- Merlin Network and Beggars Group- Apple has secured over 20,000 “indie” labels and their artists.

Here’s my question….

If you’re a brand that represents over 120,000 labels and artists (as Merlin reports to do), at what point are you no longer “indie?"

Sony music’s wikipedia page only lists a few hundred artists.  No small feat, but no where near the 20,000 that Merlin and Beggars are bringing to the table.

And yes, none of this changes the fact that and one of Sony’s top acts are probably earning more and getting more exposure than most of Merlin’s or Beggar’s artists (although I hear Adele does pretty well for herself…) but my point is really this.  At what point does “indie” become just a marketing term?  Like “craft” in beer.  

Oh, and by the way, for the TRUE indie artists,  Music is the best thing that could happen.  At 71.5% take for self-published albums is huge.  The ability for ANY artist to create and engage through Connect is huge.  Look close and you’ll realize that  Music is leveling the playing field unlike any other service out there.

But that’s just my opinion...

Linked- Why is Android Still the Second Platform Developers Work On?

Well researched piece and worth a read.  

I continue to agree that fragmentation is the biggest challenge.  People are capable of making money on Android and all signs point to the App Store being harder than ever to break into or sustain.  Both of those conditions would make Android seem attractive.  But when people talk “Android” they rarely understand how deep the fragmentation problem is; it goes beyond just which “dessert" people are running.  There’s also the fact that many of the “install” numbers that contribute to Android’s superior “market share” also includes Chinese variants with completely different app stores or even Amazon’s fork.  Being in the Play Store doesn’t get you access to everyone on Android and even there, the fragmentation is heavy.

Compounding that problem is that developers want to take advantage of the latest platform and features.  Unfortunately for Android, the latest platform is always one of the smallest by share.  So to target the biggest populations on Android means targeting 2-3 year old software.  Developers, by nature, are technology leaders.  They aren’t inclined to work in the past.

But I’m going ask this question a different way entirely.  Because the more I think about it, the more I believe the premise is flawed.  So here’s my question- 

Why aren’t there more Android developers?

Maybe rather than keep assuming every developer is or should be “platform agnostic” we should asking why aren’t people driven to become Android developer in the first place?

And to me, the answer is in the ownership.  Apple treats developers like a partner and a community.  Sure, there are problems like any community would have, but overall when you hear Apple speak, they speak in a way that says- “we build platforms and we can’t wait to see what you do on them.”  That’s not Google.  To Google, developers are competition.  Because Google isn’t making money on the platform, but on the services and on the web.  So the only thing developers have to offer (services and web alternatives) are competition for Google.  

Just look at the recent developer conferences.  Google’s biggest hits were a way to skim app data (Google Now On-tap), two services that compete with developers (Google Pay and Google Photos), and an inter-app system based on- of all things- web links. 

Sure, many will argue that this year’s “sherlocking” spree at WWDC runs counter to my point.  But I’ve addressed that before.  In the end, it’s about where your heart is.  To me, Apple’s is in a place that says “we love developers and while it’s sometimes a complicated relationship, we want them to succeed because they make our platforms and hardware better.”  Google on the other hand seems to say “Android is our way of not loosing relevancy in a mobile world.  We’re going to keep using to get all the data we can, and here, developers, you can play too."

But that’s just my opinion...

Linked- Who Just Paid Microsoft Millions of Dollars for Continued Windows XP Support?

Short answer- the Navy.  Over 100,000 units still in use.

I wish this was the only scary example, but it’s not.  Countless ATMs, Registers, and other financial tools are built on XP as well and continue to be long after official support is done and gone.

This is the classic dilemma that defined much of Microsoft in the last decade.  They'd grown so large on the success of the enterprise that it became a hinderance to change.  It's why Windows 8 adoption continues to lag. 

I hope the newly crowned "Windows 10" turns it around.  I'm a big fan of Microsoft theses days and the new directions they're taking.  But as long as they keep depending on the enterprise for their bread and butter, they're going to have to fight the "what works is good enough" mentality that users have.  Guess we shall see...

The Value of Dogfood

If you’re in the business of selling software, you should be well familiar with the term “dogfood”.  In case you’re not, here’s what Urban Dictionary has to say:

(Microsoft use) A software (mostly operating system) under development, being installed and widely tested on the developers' machines, running with critical and everyday-use applications. 

Term derives from "Eating your own dogfood". Also used in the form "dogfooding".

Here’s the thing about dogfood- it’s about more than just forcing yourself to use the app so that you take care of the app.  

First and foremost, it’s about marketing.

See, if you’re trying to sell me software and you don’t even use it, you’ve got a trust challenge to overcome right from the start.  Because what you’re saying, fundamentally, is that you know there is a better product.  So much better, in fact, that you use it yourself.

If you need a product you don’t make, obviously that’s different.  But even then, you best be transparent about who you do use and why.  Especially if that product is related to an aspect of your own.

Start with a Bang

Okay, so in reference to last week’s “Friday Five” of the best TV series finales, I’m following up with my top 5 pilot episodes as well.  Let’ do this; in no particular order...

Burn Notice  What a great opener.  Fun, exciting, and hooked you right in for what would become quite the ride.  Burn Notice was a great show that started with a great opening.

The West Wing  As a political science major, I was admittedly skeptical of what West Wing had to offer.  But the pilot showed right from the start that this show had strength.  It’s amazing to go back now and see how a show that ran for nine seasons could be so well defined right from the start.

Sirens  Gone too soon, Sirens was only two season of fun before USA canned it; which was a shame because the second season it really grew into itself perfectly.  But the first episode showed how much potential it had and the show quickly built on a great foundation.  R.I.P., Sirens.

Doctor Who (2005 Reboot)  I’m going to let my geek show for sure on this one, but the reboot of Doctor Who in 2005 was a great beginning.  Looking back it seems so hokey and overplayed by today’s show’s standards, but at the time it was different, quick, and fun.  As someone who only came to the show in the modern era, the pilot did a great job of hooking me right in and keeping me around for 8 seasons to come.

True Detective  A great series, although it didn’t end nearly as well as it began.  True Detective was a great example of what a serial series can be in the US (something our British friends have been doing well for a while now.)  And it began with a great, compelling start to introduce us to intriguing characters and an arching mystery.  Any pilot that makes you crave the next episode deserves a spot on a list like this.

And there you have it- this week’s “Friday Five.”  As always if you wanna tell me what I missed, why I was wrong, or that I’m a genius TV reviewer (or frankly anything in-between those extremes as well) leave your mark in the comments section or tweet me on Twitter @JeffreyBWeaver. 

Linked- Samsung security flaws... again.

From Redmond Pie...

 ...security flaw leaves Galaxy devices open to the running of malicious code when the Swift Keyboard is installed. The flaw, according to the security researcher who discovered it, affects over 600 million devices, and that includes the brand new Galaxy S6 and Galaxy S6 edge.

...To make matters worse, Samsung’s decision to build Swift into its own mobile software means that it cannot be uninstalled by users, making the security flaw even more worrying for those carrying around the wrong handset. Simply disabling the keyboard itself is not a solution either, as Welton points out that the flaw will still be in play no matter which keyboard a user actually has active at the time.

This is just shameful.  And the scariest part to me is that the people most affected - Samsung buyers- are often the ones paying the least attention to this kind of thing.  (If they really paid attention to their mobile devices, they wouldn’t have picked a Samsung, right?)  But even for those that do pay attention, they’re stuck waiting on Samsung to provide a fix.  And we all know how good Samsung is at software updates.

And that’s not to say that iOS is perfect, but the track record is far better.

Bottom line, if Samsung ever wants to really compete with Apple, they need to figure out that “good enough, me too” hardware isn’t the challenge.  It’s the software, stupid.  Spend less time on curved edges and more time getting the basics right and I might start taking you seriously.

Update:

So, Samsung has issued a release about the flaws and promised to push out a fix "over the coming days."  However, it's limited to phones with KNOX security (Galaxy models, post 2013.)  This also assumes you didn't root the device.

We shall see.  I genuinely hope Samsung is able to get a patch out quickly to all users. And if the KNOX update works, then kudos to Samsung for adding a platform which made this update possible.  If this had happened on other Android devices, users wouldn't be so lucky.

Breaking the change barrier

Oracle took a big hit in profits this quarter as more and more of their clients move to the cloud.  Larry Elison doesn’t seem worried- but maybe he should be.  

I have no idea if Oracle’s cloud is any good.  Nor do I have any idea if their competitors are any better.  But I do know about change.  And the thing that is the hardest part of change is breaking the barrier.

Most people will choose unhappiness over uncertainty.  Even more so in the enterprise.  Change is big and hard and cumbersome and time consuming and almost never someone’s core job.  So for most companies, if they don’t love- even if they don’t like- their current solution they will stick with it because changing seems tougher.

But once you HAVE to change, typically, anything is on the table.

Microsoft has had the same problem with Windows 8.  The change from Windows 7 to Windows 8 was SO dramatic that upgrading became a hassle for users no matter what.  And so, once faced with an inevitable hassle, why not consider a Mac? (Answer- many have.)

Oracle having a cloud offering isn't a sufficient answer.  For Oracle’s clients, moving to even Oracle’s cloud is a big enough change that for many will make them reconsider everything.  It’s not just about “cloud” versus “hosted.”  Once the change barrier is broken, the difference between changing to one provider from another is so much smaller.

It’s a lesson all change leaders must be aware of- the hardest part is breaking the change barrier in the first place.  But once broken, the options become much more fluid.

Of course, as a change leader, this can be your advantage.  Once you make the change inevitable, you will find the resistance lowered and all you have to do is debate the options.

Whether you’re trying to maintain the status quo or drive change, the change barrier is key.

My future of the App Store

Plenty of people have offered up their visions for the App Store.  Better search and discovery, better ways for developers to connect with buyers, etc.  But I’m going to offer up my vision and it’s about much more than incremental improvements.

I want ONE App Store for everything.

As someone who is happily ensconced in the Apple ecosystem (exactly, I’m sure, as Apple would want me to be) I have one big complaint about my apps- there aren’t enough “cross-platform” from iOS to OS X and even when they are, it’s hard to find.

So what I would really like is one App Store for everything.  Picture this...

You’re on your iPad and you check out a great new mind mapping app.  It’s got great features, great design, and it’s universal so it works on your iPhone too.  Seems awesome.  But as a “productivity” app, you want to make sure it’s going to be on your Mac when you’re ready to work there as well.  You want it to have “Handoff” and other continuity features.  But instead of having to go fire up your computer and find out, you notice there’s an “App Bundle” icon and so you click.  And there it is- the Mac version, available with the iOS version and with a nice bundle discount.  So you buy the whole package and automatic downloads means it loads up on every device.  You start in on your iPad and set-up your profile info.  You make a password, but a new iCloud Keychain API means when you get to your Mac or iPhone later, you don’t need to “set-up” or even login again.  The software is on all your devices, logged in and ready.  And because it uses Cloud Kit, that mind map you made on the iPad is already everywhere too.

There are lots of little improvements that can keep making the App Store incrementally better.  But I want a leap forward that makes the Apple ecosystem better and a unified App Store could be the key.

Think about it, Apple.  I’ll keep watching WWDCs with a little bit of hope ;) 

Linked- “A developer has 7 changes that would make Apple’s App Store much better."

Linked

My favorites are “Hidden Gems” and “App Dating” for originality and fun.  But to me, the one that is most sorely needed is just a simple venn diagram engine.

Simply put- based on all the apps I have on my phone, show me apps that I don’t have, which other people who have my apps do.

So, for example, if everyone who uses Readdle’s Calendar’s 5, Evernote, Pocket, Deliveries, and Twitterific also have app X and I don’t, show me that.  Clearly app X has something appealing that people who have my “taste” in apps like and I probably would as well.  Don’t try to understand why- just show me the trends.

The worst kind of recommendations?  Amazon-style; where everything is a variation of the thing I already bought.  (Seriously, if I just bought an  Watch stand, why, Amazon, do you flood my front page with other  Watch stands?  That purchase was made.)  By the same token, if I recently downloaded a calendar app, quit showing me more of them.  I’ve made my choice.  Show me what I’m missing.

None of this is easy, I’m sure, but as more and more Apps are becoming the hubs of our connected lives, finding the good ones needs to be a better process.  

Reddit’s problem isn’t the bans, it’s the nuclear approach it’s taking

Wired this morning has a piece on the issues Reddit’s interim CEO is causing with the company’s enforcement of “community guidelines.”  

The bigger issue at hand is that Reddit’s leadership is changing the ships direction and expecting not to lose users in the process.  As Wired points out

 For so long, the quality that has defined the community has been its rigid commitment to an ideal of free speech and, in step with that, its hands-off approach to moderating content. Occasional trolls and morally questionable content, Reddit’s staunchest advocates would say, are the unfortunate but unavoidable byproduct of upholding those values. And if those values are not to be compromised, the thinking goes, some offenses must be tolerated.

I think it’s more nuanced than even that.  CEO Page is allowing a tactic that is too broad in it’s approach.  I believe that many, if not most, of Reddit’s users would understand bans against USERS who are found to take such actions that they cross the line from free speech to harassment.  But that’s not the tactic.  Instead, they are banning entire communities because of the participation of a few activists.  They’re banning communities of ideas, rather than banning the individuals who act on those ideas in poor ways.

And so for users of Reddit, the scary question is, who’s next?  Which community will be the next to be obliterated because a few members take it too far?

Don’t get me wrong, I fully understand that my idea is harder.  Identifying and signing out the uniquely bad actors in a large community takes more work, more time, and more effort that simply wiping out the neighborhood.  It’s carpet bombing versus door-to-door combat.

But when we compromise our principles of the easy path, it’s the most painful compromise of all.  And that’s what Reddit users are feeling right now.  They’ve watched the company level an entire community to dig out a few bad apples.  And within their own communities, they must be wondering “who’s next?"

And that’s not a way to keep people on your site.

Dealing with "toxic" co-workers

In the context of a team, it’s knowing that everyone is working for the same goals and purpose.  That no one is out for personal gain or to damage any other person or department.  So says Pat Lencioni in “The Five Dysfunctions of a Team."

I’ve always thought it’s a good definition.  But what do you do when it falls apart, through no action of your own?  How do you deal with those “toxic” co-workers who will ascribe meanings and motivations where they don’t exist?  Here’s a few suggestions...

1) Don’t use email.  In emotionally charged situations (and trust is an emotion), body language and tone of voice matter so much more than the words you are using.  If someone is going to question your motivations and/ or integrity, they will read much more into emails and texts than they could in a phone call or face-to-face.  Let your humanity show your sincerity and communicate one-on-one.

2) Over explain your why.  In the absence of information, people make up a story.  And that story is always worse than the truth.  Take the time to explain your “why” throughly.  If you feel like you’re over-explaining- good.  In practice, you can’t emphasize it enough.  If your “why” is left unclear on any level, it opens itself up to being “interpreted” or, frankly, made-up.

Of course, if you have a truly “toxic” co-worker- the kind that just makes things up and lashes out, it can be harder.  You may find yourself having to “prove a negative” or playing “he-said, she-said.”  So here are few extra tips for those moments.

First, have a third-party sit-in.  Even if only to observe quietly, having someone there who is neutral can help ensure that disputes over the facts can be resolved through impartial eyes.  And often, they may be able to chime in with that unaffected perspective when your “toxic” co-worker is bending reality right in the moment.

Second, remember that people most often reflect their worst qualities onto others.  So if you have a co-worker who is constantly accusing everyone around them of back-stabbing, lying, colluding or gossiping about them; they are often doing so as a way to “normalize” their own behavior by ascribing it to everyone else.  So be careful what you say or do around them.

Unfortunately, “toxic” co-workers are just a part of the office life.  The best companies will be good at identifying, isolating, and ultimately removing them.  But in the meantime, be smart, be sincere, be honest and transparent and you can keep doing the work you love.

No one needs another social network

For about 2 hours this week, I thought I had a GREAT idea for an app.

It was killer and solves a problem I very much have (and thus can assume some number of other people have) and for about 2 hours this weekend I was really revved up about it’s possibilities.  I was set to tackle it head-on this week.  Until I explained it to my friend.

“See it’s like Instagram, but for…” I began and was promptly cut-off.  “There’s your problem straight away” he responded.  “No one needs another social network."

The app idea isn’t dead.  Far from it.  But how I’m approaching it changed dramatically so I thought some of the conversation was worth highlighting here.  Because he’s right- no one needs ANOTHER social network.  But that doesn’t mean apps can’t be social.

The problem is the “set-up” phase.  Whenever an app decides to be “social” it almost always requires building a new network of “friends” inside that app.  It gets messy.  Do I want my “Instagram” friends only to see it, or should I push it to Twitter and Facebook as well?  If I put it on Twitter, there’s no way for my Instagram friends to get it unless we’re friends in both places.  And what if I want to check in on Foursquare AND Yelp at the same time?  It’s a mess.  

Don’t get me wrong.  I don’t want one platform for ALL my social interactions.  As in life, there are friends you keep around certain interests that may not be friends in every aspect and the ability to decide where and to whom a post goes is a good thing.  (I’m almost sounding like I’m advocating for Google+ here.  Scary.)  But my point isn’t to try and “fix” social networking.  It’s to build an app that serves a niche.

So the solution I’ve come to (and one many others may want to learn from) is to build the app in a way that makes social “connected, but not required.”  Want to simply use this app for all it’s worth from the moment you open it?  Go ahead.  You don’t have to connect and account or find people to follow.  But if you do, you may have more fun.  And if you want to share your activity to every other platform out there, we’ll make that possible too.  But I’m not thinking of this as a “social-first” app anymore.  And I think that’s a great way to go for a niche interest app.

So for all you developers and future app creators, keep something in mind.  If your pitch begins with “It’s like Twitter for…” or “It’s Facebook, but for…” or anything else like that- take caution.  Those are big gorillas to take on.  Even Google couldn’t pull it off.  I’m not saying don’t- I’m saying to really ask yourself if you need to make a social network, or just plug into them all.  And if it’s the latter, find a better way to pitch it to people.

Because no one needs another social network.

Perfect Endings

Having just wrapped up a complete re-watch of The Office (the US version, so all 9 seasons... gotta love Netflix) I had the chance to revisit the show’s undeniably awesome finale.  So after some quick reflection, here are my Top 5 series finales, in no particular order...

The Office  (The obvious choice) Talk about a perfect ending.  We fast-forward one year and in the course of fifty minutes are treated to a supremely satisfying “where are they now?” ending.  Every character is there and they’re all where you hope they’d be in terms of development.  After nine seasons it’s a show that went out on the highest note.

Seinfeld  (The personal favorite) I might be alone on this one, but to me as a long time fan, the finale of Seinfeld was just perfect.  For 180+ episodes we watch Jerry, George, Elaine, and Kramer be absolutely horrible people in the funniest way possible.  So to have all their chickens come home to roost by the end felt just right.  It was a yearbook of apathy, selfishness, and borderline sociopathy all wrapped up in a fan wank bow.  And I loved it.

Scrubs; Season 8 (The asterisk)  Let’s put an asterisk here and pretend season 9 didn’t happen because the finale of season 8 was the best possible wrap-up for the series.  Reminiscing the past and glimpse to the future let us know that all our friends were going to live happily ever after.  Just what the doctor ordered.

The West Wing (The obligatory drama)  The West Wing will also make my eventual list of best pilot episodes.  But while the ending didn’t have all the wiz, bang, and pop of the pilot, it did remind us of everything we loved about the show.  It was a warm and upbeat ending to a show that was as heartfelt as it was smart.

How I Met Your Mother (The controversy causer)  Okay, if anything is going to light up the comments section it’s this one.  Here’s my explanation.  Yes, the final season was mostly terrible.  And yes, on the night it aired I was yelling at my TV.  But on reflection, the finale of HIMYM holds up as being just what it should have been.  I could write a whole post on why, but we’ll save that for later.  I’ll just leave you with this- if you are/were a true fan of the show, take some time and think about what really was happening and see if you don’t like it more looking back.  I think it gets better with age.

There you have it- my Friday Five for the week.  What did I miss?  What did I get right or wrong?  That’s what the comments are for!  Drop me a line and let me know.  Or hit me up on Twitter @JeffreyBWeaver and tell me there.

Privacy ISN’T Apple’s product. It’s Google’s, and that’s the point.

Walt Mossberg has another great piece today over at Re/Code.  And his analysis, as usual, is spot on about how Apple is using “privacy” as a key differentiator from it’s competitors in services (notably Google, but Facebook, Twitter, and even Bing to an extent; probably many more).

But Mr. Mossberg has conflated his terms and in a debate this important I don’t think that’s the right way forward.  Words mean things and in this case, “privacy” isn’t Apple’s product at all.

Apple doesn’t own privacy.  They aren’t even selling it.  They’re simply respecting it by not invading it or asking for in trade for services.

My privacy, is mine.  That’s the point Apple was trying to make at WWDC.  It’s what Google (et al) don’t want us to remember.  We have our privacy by default.  It’s ours.  It’s not a product until WE sell it in exchange for free email or picture storage.

Apple gets that.  Their message wasn’t “we’ll give you privacy where others won’t.”  Their message was “we respect your privacy and won’t even ask you to give it up."

Google’s mindset is the total opposite.  We want all the data in the world- yours included- but since we can’t just take it (without getting into trouble- more than a few times) we’re going to offer you a treat in trade.

Mr. Mossberg’s facts are straight as they always are.  He gets it.  But his article reads a bit too much like “Apple is giving you this gift of privacy where Google offers no such treat.”  And for me in this debate, I think that’s missing a key point.  

My privacy is mine just as yours is yours.  No company can make it a “product” until they have it from us.  Google is trying to get it by any means necessary.  Apple has other ways to make money- which is why they will keep getting mine.

Extra, extra - read all about it...

Among the many announcements at WWDC this week, Apple showed off it’s new “News” app.  It’s already being labeled a “Flipboard Killer” by many, but I don’t think so.

Apple’s long history of “sherlocking” apps aside (not that there’s anything wrong with that...), I think the News app represents a bigger play.  One with two very important implications.

For one, Apple is seeking to democratize content.  It’s the same thing they’re doing with  Music (link to blog).  If you read the supporting documentation you find out that for the big players, they can publish existing RSS feeds and keep 100% of the ad revenue they are already set-up to generate.  That keeps it in-line with competing services (say the new Facebook Instant Articles.)  But if you simply register as a content provider on their site you- heck ANYONE- can have their content made available through the app.  And if you’re a small start up you can opt-in to iAds and even make a little money.  Apple clearly this year is making plays to make upstart content creators more accessible to everyone.  

This goes hand-in-hand with part two, which is to reduce the reliance web search.  With the new Siri APIs and her ability to cull information from within apps more easily, make no mistake Apple is looking to reduce your reliance web search (i.e., Google).  Now, even a search for news will likely return articles in the News app above web results.  Or asking Siri about a current event will bring up News app articles above Bing results.  

So then the question becomes- why?  Is it just a slap at Google?  The continuation of the “thermonuclear war” Jobs declared?  If you can’t beat them in court, beat them off your platform?

Maybe a little.

But I like to think that Apple’s motives are bit more altruistic.  Like perhaps they see this as better privacy (less web, more on-device) and more open (instead of Google’s or Bing’s paid results up top, focused on popularity or relevancy?)  With the money A) not being as important since they are a device company and B) coming from ads layered on top of any content (like News is doing).

Bottom line, I see these as more than just apps or even services.  These are platforms.  And they’re just getting started.

Proactive versus On-Tap and the future of AI Assistants

In the past couple of weeks, both Google and Apple have given us their respective visions of what a personal assistant should be on our mobile devices and the differences are a sharp lesson in the fundamental differences in the company’s philosophies.

Google Now On Tap will “tap” into the apps and other services on your phone to deliver you contextual information.  

Apple’s newest enhancements to Siri are… basically the same.

In fact, both companies did the same thing in a demo at their respective developers conferences.  Google showed a request for “what is his real name?” (in reference to the artist Skillerx who was playing on the phone) and Apple asked Siri to “remind me about this later” in reference to a web page opened on Safari.

In practice, it’s the same trick.  Having the phone tackle improper pronouns based on current context.

In execution, they couldn’t be more different.

Google is solving the problem by building an OS layer that will scan and use everything on your phone.

Apple is making an API available to developers who want to plug in.

And that is a distinction that speaks to the heart of each company’s philosophies on privacy and user data.

Google has no qualms about writing a scripting layer that will see everything on your phone.  Yes, you can opt out all together; but for Google it’s all or nothing.  Give us everything or get none of our services.

Apple is letting developers (and by extension, savvy users) make the choice.  Don’t want your finances to show up?  Pick an app that doesn’t use the API.  In theory, developers could even make the API link opt-in on a per-app basis inside their own settings.

Bottom line, Apple is saying “opt-in” by default where Google is saying “opt-out."

So what does it mean for users?

Well, first, expect that Google’s offering will have higher adoption by default (of course, there’s still that little OS upgrade hurdle to overcome) whereas Apple’s developers may be slow to adopt the API and include their apps.  But over time, I think Apple’s offering will be more compelling as the app developers figure out the best way to use this API and what information their users want included (another key difference- Google is doing it’s own aggregation; Apple is letting developers lead.)

In the end, both platforms are going to get better and continue to push each other forward.  And clearly, more intelligent personal assistants are the path.  But if you (like me) care about how we get there, pick your platform carefully.

If Twitter doesn’t decide what it wants to be, someone is going to decide for them

(Note* I had this post stacked to run next week (6/15/15) but in light of today's news that Twitter's CEO is stepping down, I'm posting it now.)

In the past two weeks, two of the best names in Twitter client development- The Iconfactory and Tapbots- each made big releases to their respective softwares.  Tapbots came out with a fantastic revision to their Mac app; with updated Yosemite design and some killer desktop window features.  Meanwhile the Iconfactory did a great upgrade to their iOS apps to add “quote tweet” features and revamped navigation options.

I should know.  I use them both.  And that’s a problem.

See, Twitter is all about keeping up on the latest and so one of the most important features you can have is “timeline sync” or, basically, the idea that every device knows where I left off and can pick up at the same spot in the stream.  It’s a great trick, super useful, but you kinda need the same software on every platform to make it happen.

Now before you go running to the comments thread; yes I know Twitter’s propriety software can do it.  So can apps like Echofon in the Apple-sphere.  I’ve tried them.  They’re not as good.

And the thing is, it’s not so much Tapbots or the Iconfactory’s faults that they aren’t able to attack every platform with vigor.  It’s Twitter’s. I won’t re-hash as there are lots of other good articles that explain the “token” problem.  But bottom line, Twitter is making life difficult for developers and, by extension, its users.

At the core, Twitter is having an identity crisis.  Does it want to be a service- making it’s money on knowledge graphs and stream access?  Or does it want to be a platform, like Facebook, where everything lives inside the apps?

I’m not sure they know.  But that’s the problem- it’s not leadership; it’s chaos.  And it’s making them prime for a buy-out.

Which brings us back the headline.  Twitter needs to decide what it wants to be- a service or a platform.  Trying to be both is like trying to straddle two boats in a raging ocean- pick a ship or get wet.  Because if Twitter doesn’t decide, the choice is going to be taken away.  Either in the form of a buy-out from leaders who hate seeing all that wasted potential.  Or because one (or worse) both “boats” are going to get tired of waiting and speed off.

Leadership requires making the choice.  Otherwise you’re just a jellyfish.

(PS - for what it’s worth, I’d love to see Twitter go the way of a service.  Monetize the knowledge graphs, charge for access to the stream, and serve up ad targeting demographics to developers.  Let software people make great software and quit trying to lock us in to proprietary apps that get creepier by the day…)

 Music - All Substance, No Flash

Usually, when Apple takes the stage to unwrap their latest new offering, the criticism is simple - It looks great, but it won’t “just work” the way they promise.

Yesterday, I think the opposite took place.

There is an abundance of commentary happening about  Music; ranging from what Eddy Cue was wearing to labeling it Ping 2.0.  And I’ll quickly admit my own head-scratching at what played out on stage.  Unlike everything that came before it at the keynote, Tim Cook’s “One More Thing…” was a mess of bad presentation.  Rambling and failing to find it’s structure, it was clearly lacking the polish that the first half had.

But underneath it, I believe, is a compelling product.  

While there are many questions left to be answered (again, the fault of faulty presenting) from what I can see, I like the ideas Apple is putting forward. 

Specifically, it’s "one app to rule them all."

One of the biggest reasons I’ve never made it past the dabbling phase with Spotify, Rido, or even Beats, was the daunting task of re-establishing my music library.  I have playlists I like and don’t want to have to re-build.  I have lots of my own music that often streaming services don’t offer.  iTunes has the advantage of being my established music repository for over a decade and I don’t want to lose the play counts and star-ratings I’ve been collecting.  Maybe those things don’t matter to someone just getting onto a mobile device (which is perhaps why Spotify works for younger listeners) but for me it’s been a limiting factor.  What it’s always lacked is “discovery” and that’s what  Music will hopefully bring in spades.  And while the social aspects may have a “tried and failed” history to overcome, if it can enhance my experience without getting in the way, I think there’s room.

That all said I think there are a couple of things that would be needed to really make this work (and maybe these all exist but got lost in the poor messaging.)

Make the “Connect” easy to populate.  I don’t want to have to “set-up” another social network.  Apple has years of my listening history at it’s disposal, so put it to work.  Make it so I automatically follow my top 15 - 20 most played artists.  Then offer me occasional posts from similar artists with a quick “follow” button.  Same on Beats1 radio - give me a quick way to “follow” artists I like, but don’t make me “set it up.”  If they’re really ambitious, use my Twitter data and import those too.

Make discovery as good as Netflix.  Much easier said than done, but the Netflix recommendation engine is first in class for one big reason - it doesn’t try to “understand” but instead uses venn diagrams to get me things I’ll like.  Don’t bother with “same genres” or look for similar musical note patterns.  Just take all that buying data you have for millions of users and tell me what everyone that buys what I buy bought but I didn’t.  It’s that simple (in theory).

And one other request - can you please make my viewable music filter dependent on my connection type?  I have iTunes Match today and I like that I can get at my entire library without having to download it all.  But I would LOVE if you only showed me that when I’m on wifi.  Right now, that option is binary regardless of my connection.  But I would LOVE if I could only see my downloaded music when on cellular and all my streaming only when I’m on wifi.  It’s the little things.

Perhaps one of the very few things Apple has lost in the post-Jobs era is that polished showmanship.  The  Watch introductions suffered the same rambling and rocky start, but I have been loving mine so far.  I’m hoping the same is true for  Music.  That long after the sloppy keynote is over Apple will ship a product that, in use, has a solid, compelling foundation and a is a platform that will mature well.  

We’ll find out June 30th when I have no doubt so many will be starting our 3 month free trial.

 Music isn’t just a service, it’s a platform

And not just because of “Connect."

Look at how it’s being marketed.  To young, up and coming musicians.  To unsigned acts.  To kids with a dream and a will; not just to labels and larger than life artists, but to the young upstarts that will shape and change the industry.

Apple is hoping to do for music what it did for software.  

That’s why it was at WWDC (along with the obvious of wanting to launch it next month).  Because WWDC is about creators and the platforms Apple makes for them.

This is more than competing with Spotify et al.  This is about skating to where the puck is going in music.

Back to Blogging

Yeah, this has been BEYOND neglected... my bad.

I'm gearing up to see about bigger and better things ahead, so I'm trying to regain my "blogging legs."

I'm kicking it off with a series on WWDC all week.  Keep subscribed for the latest or follow along on Twitter as well @JeffreyBWeaver

And look forward for more to come!

Apple Apps and Services - Raising the Bar for “Good Enough"

A lot of hype came out of Monday’s WWDC Keynote about apps that Apple has “sherlocked.”  But I think there’s another way to look at all this.

When Apple makes enhancements to core apps, I don’t believe it’s to take marketshare or money away from developers.  I think it’s to raise the bar in a way that makes developer’s apps more valuable.

Often times, developers make money by filling a gap that Apple’s software leaves open.  Think “flashlight” apps on iPhone or a calculator on the iPad.  These missing fundamentals become an opportunity on which developers can capitalize.  However, rarely are these places where developers are pushing the boundaries or advancing the platform and so eventually, Apple catches up and makes a native version that render the 3rd party app redundant.  The “flashlight” apps are perhaps the best modern example; why pay for a separate app you have to launch that turns on a light if Apple includes a free way to do it right inside your control center?

Similarly, when Apple announces improvements like they did at WWDC to the Notes app or launches a new offering like News, the cry is that it will “kill” apps already in that space.  And there I disagree.

Let’s look at Notes.  The features and functions Apple is adding (In-line pictures and links, checklists, etc) have been available in many third-party apps for a long time.  Evernote, for example offers all these and much more within their free tier.  So are people going to abandon Evernote in droves now that Apple’s offering is more compelling?  Hardly.  Apple’s improvements still don’t bring Notes up to par with a service like Evernote.  But it does leap it above the many “just slightly better” offerings in the app store; which are often hastily developed, minimally maintained, and monetized through ads.  Apple leaves plenty of room on the high-end for great developers.  Moves like this are just to raise the bar on the low end.  To make the native offering “good enough” that a user only upgrades when they need something substantially better.  And when that need arises, it can usually command a price tag.

News is much the same.  It’s not going to kill Flipboard for those who have spent a lot of time curating that app to their exact tastes; nor does it offer many of the premium features Flipboard can.  Instead, it’s a gateway to show people what a News app can do for them and a minimum bar that all other news apps must hurdle to command a price.  In this way, Apple pushes the quality of apps and the platform ahead by raising the bar for everyone. (I happen to think there’s a lot more to the News app, but more on that later.)

A rising tide lifts all boats.  By raising the standard for these apps, Apple is asking everyone to push beyond what it does and provide greater value for it’s customers.  It’s what makes iOS and OS X such strong platforms.