Mike Becky

Tag Archive for ‘John Gruber’

‘The Answer to Speech One Disagrees With Is More Speech’ ➝

John Gruber on the Neil Young and Spotify fracas:

It’s correct to argue that Joe Rogan has a right to say whatever he wants on his podcast, and that people who want to listen to his show should be able to. But it’s also correct that Neil Young has a right to make clear that he doesn’t want to be associated with a service that is associated with Rogan, and to publicize his stance. The answer to speech one disagrees with is more speech, and this is more speech.

Where has this Gruber been the past few years?

Also, apparently in the wake of this story, there were also calls for Apple to remove Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast, which John addresses:

Apple, clearly, does not host Steve Bannon’s podcast. Apple’s podcast directory is akin to a search engine; they index the feeds of open podcasts. They do have lines for content they won’t index (porno, of course, and hate speech), but even then, if you copy the URL for the feed, you can subscribe to it in Apple Podcasts, just like how you can visit any website you want using Safari.

If you feel so strongly that Apple ought not even include Steve Bannon’s podcast in search results that it warrants boycotting Apple’s other products and services, more power to you. But that, to me, crosses the line into being against free speech.

Again, where has this Gruber been the past few years?

If we want to de-escalate, we don’t do that by trying to silence our political opponents, we do that by actually talking to them and trying to find the topics where there is common ground and room for compromise.

On a related note, if you’re opposed to podcast platform’s removing legal speech content from their index, I would encourage you to support efforts like Podcast Index and reach out to your favorite podcast app to suggest they add support for it alongside Podcasting 2.0 features.

➝ Source: daringfireball.net

Option C

John Gruber, in reference to The New York Times’ piece on Apple, China, and user privacy:

It’s a big report, but the above is fundamentally true and gets to the heart of the conflict: physical access to the hardware in the facility is game over. But what’s missing from the whole piece is any serious discussion of what else Apple could do. Apple has no option other than to comply with Chinese law, or else stop selling products in the country.

Option A: Apple does what it did — store all Chinese users’ iCloud data on servers in China, under the ultimate control of the Chinese government.

Option B: Apple refuses to do so, and the Chinese government shuts down iCloud in China and probably bans the sale of Apple devices.

Is there an Option C? I don’t think there is.

There’s a very clear and obvious Option C — build Apple products that are less reliant on iCloud.

If access to the physical servers is the biggest privacy issue, then give users the tools to effectively opt-out of it entirely and take control of their own data.

Why can’t the iPhone backup to a shared Time Machine drive on the local network? Macs have been able to do this for years. It’s not as if iPhone’s have some sort of hardware limitation — the iPhone of today is significantly more capable than the Macs of 2008, when Time Capsule was first introduced.

Backing up your device to iCloud is actually the biggest point of failure of iMessage’s security. Despite the fact that iMessage is encrypted end-to-end when sending messages, Apple can access and view your messages within iCloud backups. If Apple offered a more convenient way to backup your iPhone locally, it would give users the option of better security if they prefer it.

Reintroducing Time Capsule would be the best way to do this, as it would be an easy, single-purchase solution for users that want to own their data.

But it could go beyond just device backups — Apple could pitch the Time Capsule as “iCloud at Home” and mimic many of the services that iCloud offers on a box that you physically control.

iCloud Photos, iCloud Drive, Notes, and any other service that syncs or stores data in iCloud could be stored locally on a Time Capsule. Apple’s servers would just be there to tell the device I’m using how to connect to the Time Capsule on my home network. In other words, Apple facilitates the connection and then my devices talk directly with the Time Capsule using end-to-end encryption.

This would seemingly eliminate offsite backups, leaving you vulnerable to data loss if there was a fire, flood, or something else that physically damages your Time Capsule. But this could be solved too. Apple could develop a system where you could pair a Time Capsule in your home with a Time Capsule in a friend or family members home giving them the ability to backup data to each other. Synology already offers this, actually.

But of course, there’s always the possibility that China pulls the rug out from these endeavors — enacting policies or practices that hamper these types of services or outlaws the sale of Time Capsules outright. But at least Apple would be making more of an effort. And a rising tide raises all ships — I imagine a lot of iPhone users would jump at the opportunity to buy an “iCloud at Home” Time Capsule to take greater ownership of their data.

And then there’s the issue of censorship in the App Store. This one is simple and I’ve advocated for it a number of times, even outside of the discussion of China — open up the platform to apps from outside the App Store. Make it more difficult to police iOS software by decentralizing.

This would almost certainly introduce the possibility of spyware on the platform, but given China’s relationship with large tech companies, one could argue that this is already happening. The difference is, if there was an app that the Chinese government didn’t want their citizens to have access to, instead of it simply being banned from the App Store, they would be be able to install it. Albeit through underground channels. But even that would be tremendously empowering.

The Invisible Hand

John Gruber, on the difference between Facebook and algorithm-free anonymous message boards:

We instinctively think that 8kun is “worse” than Facebook because its users are free to post the worst content imaginable, and because they are terribly imaginative, do. It feels like 8kun must be “worse” because its content is worse — what is permitted, and what actually is posted. But Facebook is in fact far worse, because by its nature we, as a whole, can’t even see what “Facebook” is because everyone’s feed is unique. 8kun, at least, is a knowable product. You could print it out and say, “Here is what 8kun was on December 29, 2020.” How could you ever say what Facebook is at any given moment, let alone for a given day, let alone as an omnipresent daily presence in billions of people’s lives?

John’s gone off the rails a bit when it comes to some of his writing lately, including some portions of this piece, but I agree with this specific section.

8kun, 4chan, and sites of their ilk are more honest than Twitter and Facebook because they’re a known quantity. You know what you can expect when you go there. Their open and anonymous nature means that they’re filled with some pretty despicable content, but everyone’s words are on equal footing and there’s no algorithms influencing what you see. There’s no platform using their weight to condone or discredit any of the commentary. The speech is what it is.

But with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube there is an invisible hand influencing what you do and don’t see. And because of this, it’s impossible to truly know what people with opposing viewpoints actually think and what information you should or shouldn’t pay attention to.

Every person is influenced by their surroundings — their friends, family, the shows they watch, the publications they read, and so on. You as a person and the opinions you form about, just about everything, are a product of what you surround yourself with. And when you spend a fair amount of time scrolling through social networks where the invisible hand is deciding to some degree what you see, that invisible hand has a tremendous amount of influence on your world view.

But here’s where it gets even worse. One would assume that you could simply delete your Facebook account, stop visiting YouTube, and abstain from Twitter to prevent that influence from entering your life, but that’s not actually enough. When all of your friends and family use these services, they carry that influence with them and pass it onto you through their actions and communication. It’s practically inescapable.

I still hold out hope that the open web will prevail in the end. That these platforms will eventually fall out of favor as we collectively move toward technologies that let you own your content and control what you read without the influence of an invisible hand. It’s only a matter of time before the accessibility of the tools, level of frustration with existing platforms, and cost reaches a tipping point.

But if Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and others wanted to, at the very least, delay the inevitable, they could start deemphasizing the algorithmic timelines and move to reverse chronological feeds based on posts from your friends/follows. But I don’t expect that to actually happen. The services are fueled by engagement. And anything that diminishes engagement is doomed before it even has a chance to see the light of day.

‘Itso’ ➝

It’s an old one, but was recently brought to my attention when I saw this tweet from Shawn Blanc.

John Gruber:

itso — noun, pl. itsos : typographical error involving the use of it’s for its, or vice-versa. You have an itso in the second paragraph.

I like it.

➝ Source: daringfireball.net

Amazon and Apple Strike Deal for Prime Video in-App Purchases and Subscriptions ➝

A great piece by John Gruber, diving head first into the whole Prime Video in-app purchase thing and explaining the payment method that is available in a few different scenarios.

➝ Source: daringfireball.net

John Gruber Reviews the New MacBook Air ➝

John Gruber:

The things that haven’t changed with the MacBook Air — size, weight, display — didn’t need to change. They were already great. The things that have changed — price, performance, and for me personally, especially the keyboard — have all changed significantly for the better. These new MacBook Airs are a lot cheaper, performance is appreciably improved for both CPU and graphics, and the keyboard has gone from “well, it’s OK” to “damn, this keyboard feels so good it makes me want to write something”.

I’ve used a 2018 MacBook Air as my work machine for almost a year and a half. There were only two things I wanted in my next machine — a reliable keyboard and increased performance. Apple delivered on both.

I’m due for a new work-issued computer sometime in the next few months. And because I work for the best company ever, I’ll be able to pick out the model and choose the build-to-order options that I want to use. I’ll likely wait until I see what an updated 13-inch MacBook Pro has to offer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I end up with one of these new MacBook Airs.

➝ Source: daringfireball.net

The State of iPad

The iPad was announced on January 27, 2010 — just over ten years ago. And this anniversary has started a discussion among our community about the state of iPad, where it has succeeded and where it has failed. I have my own opinions which I’ll share at the end, but I thought I’d do my best Michael Tsai impersonation and share some choice quotes from others who have written about this occasion.

John Gruber:

The iPad at 10 is, to me, a grave disappointment. Not because it’s “bad”, because it’s not bad — it’s great even — but because great though it is in so many ways, overall it has fallen so far short of the grand potential it showed on day one. To reach that potential, Apple needs to recognize they have made profound conceptual mistakes in the iPad user interface, mistakes that need to be scrapped and replaced, not polished and refined. I worry that iPadOS 13 suggests the opposite — that Apple is steering the iPad full speed ahead down a blind alley.

Nick Heer:

There are small elements of friction, like how the iPad does not have paged memory, so the system tends to boot applications from memory when it runs out. There are developer limitations that make it difficult for apps to interact with each other. There are still system features that occupy the entire display. Put all of these issues together and it makes a chore of something as ostensibly simple as writing.

Riccardo Mori:

Ten years later, here I am, with a sufficiently large and advanced iPhone on one side, and a sufficiently compact and powerful laptop (the 11-inch MacBook Air) on the other. And the combination of these two devices has effectively neutralised any need I might have for an iPad. After ten years, the only area where the iPad has truly become far better than a laptop and far better than a smartphone is art creation. For that, it’s a really astounding tool.

John Gruber, in response to Matt Birchler’s on the intuitiveness of platforms:

Advanced iPad features are mostly invoked only by gestures — which gestures are not cohesively designed. The Mac is more complex — which is good for experts and would-be experts, but bad for typical users — but its complexity is almost entirely discoverable visually. You just move your mouse around the screen and click on things. That’s how you close any window. That’s how you put any window into or out of full-screen mode.1 Far more of iPadOS should be exposed by visual buttons and on-screen elements that you can look at and simply tap or drag with a single finger.

Habib Cham:

The age-old uncertainty of whether the iPad can completely replace your PC and whether you can do work on the iPad remains. There is a simple answer to both questions: it depends on your computing requirements. To still utterly condemn the iPad as incapable of doing work is ludicrous and often a statement made by disputatious observers.

Lee Peterson:

I might dig into other comments separately but in general I have to say that I’d like iPhone development to slow down and iPad development to speed up. iOS 14 should be stability and no new features on iPhone and a real effort put into pruning iPadOS. I’d also love to see more work put in by Apple to make professional apps such as Final Cut Pro on iPad and it’s own apps such as Reminders split out of the OS and put into the store as an app that can be worked on independently just like Microsoft or Google do. […]

The iPad in my opinion isn’t tragic or a failure, it just needs a bit more focus for the power users.

Tom Warren, writing for The Verge:

Apple’s iPad may have transformed the tablet market, but it now appears to be growing into something more. The next decade of the iPad will define whether it remains as a third category of device that’s capable of occasionally bridging the gap between tablet and PC or if it’s ready to fully embrace life as a laptop.

John Voorhees, writing for MacStories:

iPad keynotes are very different today. The black leather chair is gone, and demos emphasize creative apps like Adobe Photoshop. The ‘single slab of multitouch glass’ is gone too. Sure, the iPad can still be used on its own and can transform into whichever app you’re using as it has always done, but there are many more layers to the interaction now with Split View, Slide Over, and multiwindowing, along with accessories like the Smart Keyboard Folio and Apple Pencil.

That’s quite a transformation for a product that has only been around for 10 years, and with the more recent introduction of the iPad Pro and iPadOS, in many ways it feels as though the iPad is just getting started.

Om Malik:

A decade after its introduction, I think the iPad is still an underappreciated step in the storied history of computing. If anything, it has been let down by the limited imagination of application developers, who have failed to harness the capabilities of this device.

Jean-Louis Gassée:

The iPad situation is serious. As an old warrior of the early Mac years recently said, one worries that Apple’s current leadership is unable to say No to bad ideas. Do Apple senior execs actually use the iPad’s undiscoverable and, once discovered, confusing multitasking features? Did they sincerely like them? Perhaps they suffer a lack of empathy for the common user: They’ve learned how to use their favorite multitasking gestures, but never built an internal representation of what we peons would feel when facing the iPad’s “improvements”.

Ben Thompson:

There are, needless to say, no companies built on the iPad that are worth anything approaching $1 billion in 2020 dollars, much less in 1994 dollars, even as the total addressable market has exploded, and one big reason is that $4.99 price point. Apple set the standard that highly complex, innovative software that was only possible on the iPad could only ever earn 5 bucks from a customer forever (updates, of course, were free).

I have a more optimistic outlook on the iPad than many of the bigger influencers within the community. It’s far from perfect, but I think the state of iPad is overall positive. There are issues with the multitasking interface, text selection, mediocre mouse support, and more — I trust that these annoyances will be smoothed out over time, though.

And even with these issues, my iPad is still my primary personal computing device. With the help of Fantastical, Day One, Bear, Things, Ulysses, Spark, Slack, Code Editor by Panic, Pixelmator, and more, I can do just about everything I was using my Mac for prior to going iPad-first in 2015.

There are still plenty of limitations on the iPad, but the ceiling feels higher for me than it does on macOS. The key is access to automation through Shortcuts. On macOS, I’ve used Alfred, Quicksilver, Automator, and countless other apps within the category, but I’ve never been able to build anything quite as advanced as I have with Shortcuts.

It’s difficult to feel pessimistic about a platform that is home to a productivity tool that has clicked for me like Shortcuts has. And seeing Apple integrate it into the system as deeply as they have shows that they get it. It’s just a matter of tightening things up and continuing to aim the ship in its current direction.

On Microsoft’s Surface Duo and Neo ➝

John Gruber:

But in very typical Microsoft fashion, the Neo and Duo are both just prototypes. They’re over a year from shipping according to the company, the software is so early days that the media weren’t allowed to play with them, there’s no word on pricing, and Panay admits they haven’t even decided fundamental aspects like how many cameras they’ll have.

And in the meantime, they’ve completely overshadowed the real products Microsoft actually announced yesterday.

Microsoft announced some pretty neat products, but who knows what changes will take place in software and hardware before they actually ship. How many of the neatest little features will be scrapped because they can’t quite get it right before it’s time to ship? How many hardware details will change because they discovered that the original design just isn’t sturdy enough?

Microsoft’s product announcements would be a lot more compelling if they only unveiled things that were just weeks away from release.

➝ Source: daringfireball.net