The main issue I had with many people’s opinions was that they were all targeted at explaining to managers, c-level folks, and others about why craftsmanship was important.  They also focused heavily on how to explain to those people why they should hire someone that is a craftsman over someone that would (in most cases) be cheaper.  I felt this was the wrong approach because it was outward rather than inward in it’s direction.  How can you explain to a manager why hiring a craftsman is important when we personally don’t know what a craftsman is or why being one is important.  I heard very little discussion about what a craftsman is or why you’d want to become one.

So today, I’m going to talk a little bit about what I feel being a craftsman is and how that idea can be applied to the development/creation of software.  And to do that, we have to start at the beginning and define what a craftsman is.

What is a Craftsman

If we look up craftsman in the dictionary, we see something like this

A person who practices a trade or handicraft

So by definition, a craftsman practices a trade.  Our trade is that of software development.  When people think of the word “craftsman” they generally think in terms of woodworking.  A craftsman takes a piece of wood and turns it into something beautiful.  This kind of thing generally takes lots of practice and time.  Time spent messing up, cutting a piece too short, splitting a piece of wood, and so on.  You have to do a lot of things wrong in order to learn how to do them correctly.  Eventually you become a skilled craftsman.  You learn a lot of things to not do.  In generally becoming a craftsman is more about learning what not to do than it is about learning what the right way is.  But the main point here is that the craftsman spends time on his craft.  He works at it daily.  Looking for ways to improve and build a better whatever.  Over time the craft is perfected, at least as much as it can be.

A Software Craftsman

When it comes to software, there are a lot of ways to do things.  You can test, you can design, you can encapsulate, inherit, override, and continuously integrate.  You can spend hours refactoring, changing bits of code until they’re just so tight that on occasion you can’t understand it anymore.  All new software developers start out simply by trying to make the computer do something.  Sometimes it’s just about getting it to show text on a screen.  Eventually they graduate to automating tasks, very functionally (do this, then do that, then to something else) and without very little thought to re-usability.  Then someone shows them how to make methods of common tasks, and then eventually how to break those methods into classes (if their doing object oriented programming).  But it’s a slow process, some of these things can take years to master, many times they learn how to be better from someone else.

The general idea is the same though.  To become a good programmer, you can’t just do it in a nine to five fashion.  You have to practice it at home, spend time working on learning new things, finding those new ways to not do something.  You’re not going to learn everything by doing it at a job day in and day out.  The person learning to build furniture is going to learn how not to make chair by making the chair wrong a few times and so the same goes for someone looking to build software.  They will go through a lot of wrong solutions before they start understanding why the correct one is, in fact, correct.  Sure, someone could tell them, but then they haven’t experienced something for themselves and they don’t understand for themselves why it’s the right way.  They only know it’s the right way because someone told them so.

Driving to be Better

Really it all boils down to a personal choice.  Are you going to work to be better at your trade/craft or are you going to linger and stay in that little space that you are so comfortable in.  Why is software craftsmanship important to you?  Why should your manager care if you don’t?  Why should anyone care if you don’t?  In the end being a craftsman (in anything) isn’t about anything other than being the best you can be at your craft.  If you are developing software then you will strive to create better software regardless of who it’s for.  In the end, you’ll do the things that make you a better craftsman because they are why they make you better.  Not because someone told you to do it that way.  In the end, we all want to be the best at whatever we do.  That to me is the sign of a craftsman.  Someone who as a constant drive to be better at whatever it is they do.

Now, I’m the first to advocate privacy.  I think that you should never enter into something without understanding its impacts on your and information.  That being said, I’m also an avid user of social networks like Twitter, Facebook, Gowalla, and so on.  But I understand the implications on my privacy and look at how it’s handled once I’ve opened an account.  Google Buzz was no different.  They announced that you would automatically follow those you contact most via Gmail, it says so on the Google Buzz page.  So right off the bat, you know what’s going to happen.

That hasn’t stopped some people from having issues though.  Take this example here from the Fugitivus blog (warning: explicit language contained in post).  The person here was using Google Reader, a RSS subscription reader application from Google.  This is the part I want to focus mostly on for my point.

That point is, if you’re using an internet service, do not do something you wouldn’t want potentially shared with the world.  I think we can all agree, the internet is a mostly public forum.  Yes, there are walled services (like Facebook), but things happen, passwords get hacked, and companies make mistakes and privacy is destroyed (even if it’s only temporary).  Yes, one’s Google Reader sharing/notes/whatever should only go to those it’s intended.  But at the same time, caution must be maintained when doing something.  You wouldn’t send a questionable email out, because you never know where it might end up.  So why would you do something on a web application that you didn’t want seen by the public at large?  If you are going to use the internet, you have to accept some breakdown in privacy.  There is no such thing as a “PRIVATE INTERNET”.  My approach to internet privacy is this: “Don’t do anything you wouldn’t want seen by the public at large” – that’s it, no more or less.  If I don’t want the public knowing about it or fear that it might eventually see the light of day, well then I just simply don’t do it.

Now, before someone blankets me with a ton of statements about the blog post I linked to, let me note that I believe that the person has every right to be angry with Google, and I agree that Google Buzz needs to address many of its privacy concerns.  There are some issues that definitely need to be ironed out and I think Google will get it all sorted out.  In fact, Google has already announced some changes to Buzz’s privacy controls (it’s not a lot, but it’s a start).  Google released Buzz early and it is still very much a new product, but Google is good about the “release early, release often” (or at least they have been lately) so I think most of the major privacy issues will be resolved.

But let me just reiterate, it’s a public internet.  Even the walled sites eventually have cracks that let data out.  It’s going to happen.  So if your interested in keeping something under wraps, the internet is not the place to discuss it.

2.) Reform Malpractice laws. This can be done in a number of ways like setting a set percentage that lawyers can receive from winning a lawsuit while suing a doctor (in many cases lawyers take 40% area) to a realistic level, setting limits (reasonable) on how much a person could receive from a settlement ( I am in favor of this personally as long as the amount is fair and also if the injury or error causes permanent injury that the responsible party provides to have the costs of the injury for the duration of it.), reduce the timeframe that a patient can sue a doctor for an injury are all possible ways to do this.

3.) Streamline procedures involving medical practices and review them regularly with the heads of hospitals and doctors to ensure that the people doing the work are crafting the procedures.

4.) Enact Chargeback Rules. If you sue a doctor and your case is proven fraudulent or frivolous an award should be given to the doctor for the lost time and damage to his practice from the person accusing him.

5.) As lawyers have a rule that they must do a certain amount of pro bono work a year for people maybe adding in a rule of that nature may be worth looking at as well.

All of these ideas are just smaller pieces to a bigger puzzle but I haven’t read or heard of anyone in the “overhaul” of our health care mention anything close to this. We have spent so much time focusing on how big companies screw us we don’t or haven’t paid attention to how the actual doctor’s get pressured and screwed all the time. If we started with the fundamentals of health care at the bottom and worked up reforms may come in smaller packages but they would be real. Currently as it is we are trying to reform health care by replacing the board of a company not asking or listening to all the workers of that company what could be done to really change things for the better. Well writing about the entirety of the Heal care bill and debate would make a full time job I just wanted to throw in my two cents on it. See you all next time.

First off, people don’t usually buy movies blindly.  They want to see them.  They’ll either see the movie in theaters or they will rent it.  Only after seeing the movie will most people actually buy it, not before.  So to delay new video releases with the idea that it will sell more product is a flawed idea from the get go.  Delaying rental customers from getting new releases will only do two things.  First it will anger your customers and they will stop buying from you (this goes for you too Netflix), and secondly it will cause people to pirate movies.  A lot of people pirate movies so they can see the movie, and if they like it they usually buy it.  I’m not going to argue that others pirate movies for the sake of doing so and in turn do not buy videos, that happens, but those people wouldn’t have bought it anyway.

Then you have people like me, those of us that plan on buying large box sets once a series has finished it’s movie run (Harry Potter anyone?).  I haven’t bought a Harry Potter disc since I bought a Blu-Ray player.  The reason?  Warner Bros. will probably release a nice (read pricey) box set of all 8 movies (the last book will be turned into 2 movies) and I’d rather buy them all on Blu-Ray at once rather than go through the hassle of selling my DVDs for the first 4 movies right now.  I’d rather have a nice box set with all the movies rather than having them scattered among my collection.  The box set looks nicer on a shelf.  So for me it isn’t so much about not buying the movie as it is about only buying it once.  I hate double dipping.  My wife and I are slowly replacing DVDs with Blu-Rays but only on movies we really like and only when we find the Blu-Ray for what we consider to be a good price.

So what will I do now that I can’t get Warner Bros. new releases from Netflix the week (or two) after release?  I have no clue at this point.  But for movies I haven’t seen yet, I can guarantee that I won’t be buying them.  So Warner Bros. please get over yourselves, and pull back on this deal, I promise that long term it’s not going to help your video sales any and is really just going to anger your customers.  Netflix, if you do even 1 more these kinds of deals, I will personally cancel my account and encourage others I know to do the same.

Sure, there’s lots of evidence that it might exist.  Apple themselves filed for a patent for a table like device years ago.  But the problem is, people seem to be dead sure it’s coming out.  Just like they were dead sure at MacWorld last year, and in January 2009 before that.  Ever since the iPhone people have been “predicting” the Apple tablet.  However, since the month has flipped to January there has been tons more coverage on the device.  A device that doesn’t actually exist yet.  There’s been so much coverage that even the Wall Street Journal has written on it, stating dates for both an announcement and shipping.

Apple has a reputation for causing excitement in their products, even those that don’t definitely exist yet.  Like I said, the rumored Apple tablet has been rumored since the introduction of the iPhone.  But there in lies the problem.  It’s a rumor.  Still is.  Until someone can grab a picture of the blasted thing, it is nothing more than a figment of our imagination.  And this is where I find issue.  Sure, sites like Engadget feed on product rumors.  That’s their proverbial bread and butter.  But when the Wall Street Journal, Wired, and other non-blog oriented news outlets start feeding the rumor mill, I take issue.  When I read a blog, it’s a blog.  Regardless if it’s a popular one, there is always the chance that what they’re reporting is based solely on conjecture, rumor, or just word of mouth.  In other words, I expect that it could turn out to be a hoax, misinformation, or something else erroneous (that doesn’t mean that everything these sites discuss lacks proof, evidence, and actual fact).  But when a site like the Wall Street Journal, something that is considered a “reputable” news source,  starts playing along to me it brings it more into reality.  It means that more people will read it, it means more people will think its true.

When you compare the Nexus One hype to the Apple tablet hype the main difference is that the Nexus One exists.  We’ve see it.  Google employees have spoken out about it.  People outside Google have touched it, played with it.  The Apple tablet is still nothing more than a patent application, and some non-Apple photoshopped mockups.  See the difference?

Now, do I think the Apple tablet exists?  Yes, I think somewhere within Apple’s walls, there is a tablet.  There might even be a prototype, and they might have already shipped build plans off to China to have them built.  But, as with anything Apple, nothing is certain until Steve Jobs gets on a stage and says “Hey, here it is” because until then it’s not real.  Apple has pulled entire product announcements before, so it’s always helpful to keep that in mind as we dream of new Apple devices.

A Google Phone

To begin with, lets all acknowledge that Google bringing out it’s own device should have been expected from the start.  They have a solid, recognizable brand that people like.  Also, it makes sense for them to have a device completely labeled as their own.  It’s a smart move, especially since Android is in direct competition with the iPhone.  Google bring out a device that, in a way, shows others how to fully utilize the Android platform is good marketing for Android and will result in better Android devices.  Google has some smart people working for them, so it would be safe to say that they could do a lot with their own software to really bring out a showcase device for the platform.

So before going any further, you must first accept the fact that the Google phone exists.  If the Nexus One is actually this phone remains to be seen, as it could simply be a new top-of-the-line HTC device that Google gave to their employees to test new Android features.

Making it Work

Google has to consider a couple of things, in order to make a Google phone succeed.  First and foremost is carrier openness.  They need to at least sell it on each GSM carrier here in the states (T-Mobile and AT&T).  This is of course assuming they don’t sell it unlocked directly to customers.  But to maximize their reach they need to have a version that works across as many 3G networks as possible.

Secondly is price.  If Google sells the phone directly to the consumer in a unlocked fashion (works on T-Mobile or AT&T), they will need to self-subsidize (taking a huge loss) to bring the phone down to a price that most people are willing to pay.  People like the $99/$199/$299 prices of the iPhone.  If the iPhone was sold at it’s unsubsidized price ($500) it wouldn’t sell nearly as many units.  People (here in the US, at least) don’t really want to drop $500-$600 for a mobile phone, even if it means having no carrier contract.  So if Google wants to sell directly to the consumer, they’ll have to find a way to bring the price down.  If they go through a carrier, this becomes less of an issue as the carrier will subsidize the phone in turn bring the price down.

Why the Google Phone is Important

Google needs a device that’s completely their own.  Yes, this phone is an HTC device, but if Google had large amounts of input then it could be considered a Google phone (like the first Zune which was still a Microsoft device but made by Toshiba).  But in the long run, Google needs to be showing people exactly what can be done with the Android platform.  Because lets face it, while some of the Android devices we’ve seen so far are pretty cool they lack some of the “nice-ness” of the iPhone.  Google could create their own device, if for nothing else than to be a showcase for others.

Also, if Google takes steps towards self-subsidizing to bring people to the phone (and thus the platform), that’s important because it will bring the device into more people’s hands.  While I don’t think the Google Phone will beat the iPhone initially, Google has a good enough brand and good will with customers that they could give it a serious run for those iPhone dollars.

In the end, a Google phone will probably do nothing more than 1) showcase the Android platform and 2) give us an idea of what Google thinks a cell phone should be.  One thing that I haven’t seen discussed however is Google’s recent acquisition of Gizmo5, the voice over IP (VOIP) company.  Combined with Google Voice, there is some serious new ideas on how voice service could be handled on mobile devices in the future.  However, until Google says “yes this is the Google Phone” we’re probably just looking at a new Android device that Google is testing new features on.  But we can hope.

However, the other day when I was using Gowalla on my iPhone to check in at a place I was at (local business close to my home), I noticed something when Gowalla pulled up the locations I was close to.  What I noticed was an entry labeled “[PERSON'S] House”  (I have omitted the person’s name to protect their privacy at  least a little).  Who in their right mind thought that it was okay to add a personal’s physical residence (where they live) to a social network like this?  This is a huge invasion of privacy on that person’s part.  And if the person who’s house it is, said it was okay, why would they do that?  There are lots of crazies in the world why would you give everyone pinpoint accuracy to where you live.  It’s just not a smart move at all.

I understand that the younger generation has lived in a world of Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and other social networks.  Things like this just weren’t around when I was in my teens (no, I had to use IRC and newsgroups and the web was still young).  Granted, I’m not going to sit here and tell you that everyone on the internet is a child pornographer, perv, or creep.  But people like that do exist and while we have these social networks, one should still exhibit some discretion when they post information to the public internet.  Especially on networks that revolve around location.

To be fair, I do participate in location based social networks (Gowalla fan/user here), but I’m very particular about where I check in at.  Also, when using Tweetie 2’s (iPhone Twitter app) new geo-tagging feature, I turn it off when I’m at home.  I don’t need that level of privacy broken.  Sure, you could probably find the area I live in quite easily based on tweets, pictures, and other miscellaneous info I’ve posted around the internet.  But exact address, nope sorry (unless I’ve designated you allowed to on Facebook which if that’s the case you probably already know it anyway).  But I won’t geo-tag a tweet from home, that’s too much information the internet does not need to have cached somewhere.

People, I implore you, use common sense when using location based social networks.  Don’t put people’s personal residences in to the database and sure as heck don’t allow others to do it (even with consent).  It’s just not a good idea and too much potential bad can come from it.

When it comes to online content, streaming movies through services like Vudu, and Netflix’s “Watch it Now” the content makers are doing one of the best jobs of shotting themselves in the foot, and doing it with the up-most of consistency.

YouTube’s New Policy

Let’s look at the recent YouTube development first.  This announcement pretty much comes on the heals of YouTube releasing 1080p (full HD) video on its site.  Which means if I’m using something to stream YouTube to my HD television, I can get some streams in nice full HD, which makes it really nice to watch on my television.  To a degree it makes sense.  Especially if content makers are going to use YouTube to release content, they’ll definitely want a cut of the financial pie so Google has to take steps to ensure they somehow derive revenue from this.  But not everything on YouTube is put up by Hollywood and there in lies the problem.  There should be no issue with me streaming non-Hollywood content to my TV on an unapproved device.  There’s a simple solution for this, YouTube could simply have a second API that you have to pay to get access to, leaving them with 1 public API and 1 private API.  They’re already monitoring video uploads for copyrighted content and they take those takedown notices very seriously so there should be nothing stopping them from segregating what’s available to different APIs.

Hulu Blocks Boxee

Hulu actually has an argument.  The point of Hulu is to watch TV shows on your computer and having to watch ads.  Since the content on Hulu is provided by Hollywood, they can to some degree control how it’s viewed.  It makes sense that these content makers would rather you watch TV shows on air or on a DVR where they can bombard you with commercials rather than having you watch it on your computer via Hulu where the number of commercials is limited.  In the end though, the lack of being able to stream Hulu to my television is going to cost them viewers and with their recent announcement to start charging soon, Hulu is going to die faster than initially planned, unless they can ink deals with hardware makers and find their way onto things like Blu-Ray players (like Netflix).

Vudu & Netflix “Watch it Now”

Finally, something that makes zero sense.  Movie studios purposefully hold back video from providers like Vudu and Netflix.  Example, on Vudu if I want to rent the HDX version (near Blu-Ray quality video) on my LG Blu-Ray player, on many movies I have to wait a month after the movie is available to purchase.  These studios do the same thing with Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” for newer movies.  In fact, the Netflix instant watch feature is loaded with movies and television shows that are either old, B grade, or even just flat out unwatchable.  Yes, there are some good titles available but they are generally the exception rather than the rule.

The logic behind this is that I won’t go and buy it if I can rent it for cheap.  Which is completely the wrong thought process because really, if I’m iffy on a movie, I won’t buy it period.  However, if I can rent it or see it cheaply (say Vudu streaming rental or Netflix “Watch it Now”) I’m more likely to buy it if I enjoy the flick.  In fact I have purchased several movies due to seeing them using “old-fashioned” Netflix (you know, where you actually get a DVD in the mail).

Conclusion

All these companies are doing the same basic thing.  They are limiting how we can watch content.  They are dictating how we are allowed to watching something rather than letting the market tell them how we want to watch content.

They think that if they can control how we watch content they can in turn control how we buy it.  And this is just backwards.  Let the market figure out how it wants to watch content and then do that.  Because long term, how the average consumer actually consumes content will change.

If you’ve never used Hulu before, here’s the basic premise.  Shows from the major networks (ABC, Fox, CBS, NBC, etc) can be watched in both standard and high definition via the Hulu website.  The catch is there are some small (less than 30 second) commercials inserted through out the show.  The commercials are shorter than those you’d watch on regular TV and less frequent.  Giving people a nice way to catch the shows they missed the night before, and give TV people a way to make money.  The idea behind Hulu was to eliminate the need for people to illegally download shows through things like BitTorrent.  The good news is, it mostly worked.  Yes, people still download torrents, but Hulu as an idea worked quite well.  People, in general, were willing to put up with the short commercials in trade for the ability to watch their favorite shows online when they wanted.

However, announcing that you’re going to start charging people without a lot details is a bad idea.  If you are going to remove the commercials and charge your users, then you might have an argument.  However, if you’re going to charge me money and make me sit through commercials, then I’ll have a serious problem (and so will most Hulu users).  It is a bad move to start charging for something people have come to expect to be free, and then on top of that still subject them to the commercials.

It is important to note that Hulu hasn’t announced how a subscription service will work or what it will look like so we will all just have to wait and see.  Personally Hulu’s content providers need to wake up and realize that they’ll send people back to torrents and other illegal means of getting their favorite shows if they back a bad subscription model.  They already lost favor when they made Hulu block things like Boxee, so they really don’t need to earn themselves anymore bad ire.

There is a reason why the first amendment of the United States Constitution gives the right of freedom of speech and press (also religion but that’s not part of today’s discussion).  It is so that we as citizens can stand up in public and question our government, our leaders, and those spending our tax dollars.  It is the press’s job to poke, prod, and question our leaders decisions, pasts, and acquantinces.  However, the media, especially outlets like the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and other television and newspaper outlets have become little more than mouth pieces of the liberal left.  This isn’t just my opinion but the opinions of others I know, several who would be decidedly liberal left.  It’s no secret that the media has a liberal slant.  It’s no secret the right wingers hate it.  It’s no secret that people like Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly give in to sensationalism.  But they aren’t the only ones.

What I want to see more of is informed debate.  We have so many people yelling and arguing from both sides and they have zero clue what they’re talking about.  The left say the right’s uninformed, and the right says the same of the left.  Problem is, they’re both right and neither side wants to admit it, become educated, and have intelligent conversation that is helpful and informative.  When I go political on this blog, I really try to be informative and not just in attack mode.  I’m not saying I’m always successful at it, but I know that I make a concentrated effort to inform, debate, and listen to the other side.  People who know me, know this to be true.

But it all comes back to basic point.  How much do you trust your leaders, especially politicans.  We all know politicans are stereotypically double speakers, yet people who question the president (any president mind you) are looked at as crazy right-wingers, or leftist nutballs.  It is our job as the citizenery to question our government about everything, it is our right to protest publically against that which we don’t agree with.  We’re all different and not everyone is going to agree on everything.  I don’t agree with socialized healthcare, but you might not agree with teaching abstitence in public schools.  We all have different things we’re passionate about, but it’s those difference that lead us to compromise.  Problem is, we can’t compromise if everyone is name calling and yelling at each other.  So instead of yelling at each other as citizens, why don’t we target our energies at our politicians and leaders and make them understand what’s important to us.  Question your government, your leaders, make them scared of us (the citizens), we have control.  If you don’t like what your senators and representatives are doing, vote them out.  Speak with your vote, your petitions, your public assemblies, and your letters.  Call them on their double speak, call them on their indiscrestions, call them on their past affiliations, this stuff needs to take place on both sides.  A democracy in which the leaders do not fear their constituants (the citizenry) is not a democracy.

While I haven’t uploaded my new resume to places like Monster.com or HotJobs, in the past I was lucky if 10-12 people clicked on my resume on those sites.  The difference it has made in my search for a job is this, when I began to call people back, return emails, and Twitter direct messages I had 2 phone calls from two different recruiters, 1 email from a corporate recruiter for a consulting company, and 2 Twitter direct messages about possible jobs.  I went from having zero opportunities at 8am yesterday (when I was laid off) to having at least 4 real possible job opportunities in 24 hours.

This really goes to show the power of social networks and having good followers.  I would not have some of the opportunities if it wasn’t for my Twitter followers who retweeted my resume and LinkedIn links like wildfire yesterday.  And on Facebook, I was given instructions for no less than 2 companies on how to apply and send my resume, from real people that I know. Not bots or spam people that can you deal with on places like Monster.

Remember, next time you’re looking for a job, look to your social networks, a lot of good can come from them.

A few years ago, there was a large push behind OpenID.  OpenID, worked in  a similar way that Facebook does.  A website could set up a way to authenticate a user via an outside source, allowing the user to have a single password that they had to remember.  The idea behind this is that the one password that would be remembered would be incredibly strong.  But the user could connect to a website without having to signup for an account because the OpenID login was their login.  Facebook Connect works exactly like OpenID does, a person can log into a site using their Facebook credentials, thus allowing them to not have to remember a different password and create a new account on yet another webpage.

My question is, “Is Facebook winning the OpenID war?”. Not that there is really a war going on persey.  I’m sure some people will make the argument that the two technologies are different (and on some level they very much are), but from a end user perspective they accomplish a similar goal and since a lot of people already have Facebook accounts the userbase for Facebook Connect is larger than OpenID.  While some of the underlying technology is different, if the end result is the same from a user perspective, what incentive is there for a user to choose to get an OpenID when their Facebook credentials will work just fine?  Also, from a programmer’s perspective why implement OpenID when I can implement Facebook Connect and achieve a similar result?

Long term, I think Facebook might win out in this “single sign-on” war.  Microsoft tried but it really hasn’t won.  The only place you use your Live ID to log in is a Microsoft site.  Facebook Connect and OpenID are used in more places.  Time’s going to tell the true winner on this one but what do you think?

Let’s review: Apple released an extremely popular phone, the iPhone.  It is used by both seasoned geeks and teenage hipsters looking to be “cool” to their friends and classmates.  It has gone from having zero market share to having a nice worldwide market share in just 3 years (still not beating Nokia but Apple still has some impressive numbers).  Google, in it’s “don’t be evil” way, managed to land 2 native iPhone applications at launch: Google Maps and YouTube.  Not only are these apps native, but they are extremely popular.  Also, Google has two top 50 apps in the iPhone App Store (Google Mobile and Google Earth), and the recent release of the Google Latitude web app Google has an impressive array of applications for use on the iPhone.

So is the rejection of the Google Voice iPhone app a result of fear from Apple about Google taking over the iPhone?  Could be.  But while Apple might be starting to fear Google’s apps on their platform, they should embrace Google.  Why?  Geeks (and the general public) love Google.  They like what they see Google doing.  People pay attention to Google.  Michael Arrington of TechCrunch recently dropped his iPhone over this whole Google Voice debacle.  Apple needs to realize that they have a platform that people like to develop for, and it behoves them to allow as many developers as possible onto that platform.  Aside from blocking obvious pornography apps (and that is another debate all together), Apple needs to stand aside and let people develop and release apps to their device.

It makes sense for Google to target the iPhone even though they have the Android platform.  The iPhone is a popular device, lots of people have one, so targeting apps at it has a good pay off.  And with that in mind, there is this one simple fact: mobile application developers can survive without Apple and it’s iPhone.  The did for years before there was an iPhone.  With more mobile platforms now than before, a mobile application developer has a lot of choices: Android, Windows Mobile, Palm’s WebOS, and even Symbian.  What Apple can’t do is support the App Store without it’s application developers.  Make enough of them angry, especially big ones like Google, Apple runs the risk of losing quality application developers and thus loses quality applications on their platform.

So while Apple might be scared that Google has so many good applications for the iPhone, they should just let it go and accept it.  Apple doesn’t want to lose Google as a App Store developer, because you treat a big company like Google badly, smaller developers will begin to question how viable developing for the iPhone is and move elsewhere. Apple needs to get over it, be more accepting of apps on their platform, and make everyone happy.

If you don’t know what virtual desktops are, a quick definition would be multiple desktops without a need for multiple monitors.  The good thing about virtual desktops is, they allow you to have multiple applications open in a slightly more organized manner.  For example, you might have your development environment open on one virtual desktop, then have your email and instant messaging applications open on completely different desktop.  Or you might have your web browser open on one desktop and your music player on another.

When I work on a Linux desktop, I have my web browsing on and other common applications on my main desktop and then I have my development environment on another desktop, and finally a virtual machine running Windows on yet another desktop.  Giving me great separation of tasks and thus the ability to keep track of what I’m working on.  It’s a way to not only separate application (and work) on your screen but also mentally.  You have less going on, on a per screen basis.

Again, I have to ask, why is this feature not native in Windows?  I can understand it not being on by default.  I get that it can be a confusing way to work at first (I know it was for me).  And I can understand not wanting a million support calls asking “where did all my windows go” because that could get annoying.  Why not have a little section in the Display settings that allows me to turn this feature on and input how many virtual desktops I want?

Come on Microsoft, get with the times.  Some people want this functionality.  So much so that several have written third party applications to get it on Windows.  But serveral of them are horrible and use more resources than necessary.   When am I going to get native virtual desktops inside Windows?

Here’s the quote:

“Opponents of the measure — including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police and the mayors of Los Angeles and New York, among others — called it an assault on states’ rights and warned that it would increase gun violence”

Here’s my problem(s) with the above statement.  First and foremost, the law being voted on is not an assault on state’s rights.  The second amendment of the Constitution clearly says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

While one could debate what “a well regulated militia” means, for the purposes of my argument it means “the people” since in the time the Constitution was written, the army was the people.  But it the amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed” and with that, allowing a gun owner (and licensed concealed weapon holder) to cross state lines is a right afforded by the Constitution of these United States.

Continuing that line of thought, the tenth amendment of the same Constitution is the one that deals specifically with states rights and it says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When you read the above quote, focus on the part where it says “nor prohibited by it to the States” which means that a state can not infringe on a right specifically granted by the Constitution.  Since the “people’s right to bear arms” is something that “should not be infringed upon” in the previous amendment, the law that failed to pass through the Senate today is not in anyway “an assault on states rights” and in fact, the argument of the people and organizations is in fact a violation of federal rights granted by the Constitution.

Let’s review.  The right for a person to bear arms is the second amendment of the United States Constitution (second to freedom of speech, religion, and press), and the tenth amendment clearly says that a state law can not supersede a right granted by the Constitution.  Therefore, since the second amendment states a person has the right to bear arms, according to the tenth amendment, state laws are prohibited from creating laws that counter that amendment because creating a law that infringes on one’s rights to bear arms is a power prohibited by the Constitution.

To begin with, exclusive phone agreements are generally short term in nature.  Generally they last a year or two.  However, AT&T is currently renegotiating with Apple to maintain exclusive rights to the iPhone in fear that losing will cause them to lose customers.  The initial deal for iPhone exclusivity was around 2 years.  They’re pushing for another 2.  This I do find issue with and feel that AT&T should have the deal looked into.  More on that later.

Secondly, cell providers have to take every advantage they can get now that number portability is the rule of thumb.  Keeping customers in a market where margins are low (at least on voice, getting lower on data every year) is key to staying in the black.  So to attract customers, phone exclusivity agreements work.  It brings in the customers and then once the customers are hooked, the carrier can let the exclusivity of a device go because they already got the customers the device would bring.

Lastly, I’m okay with locked subsidized phones.  If a carrier wants to offer a phone at a lower price if purchased locked to that carrier, I’m okay with that.  Most people don’t change cell providers that frequently and others just don’t care all that much.  They stay with a service because their family and friends are on it and thus they get to use that nice free “mobile to mobile” calling that most providers have.  So, if a carrier wants to sell locked phones at a lower price, I’m okay with that.

Now where I agree with Mr. Wilson is that a phone’s exclusivity should not hinder me from purchasing an unlocked version from either the manufacturer or the carrier.  If I walk into the AT&T (or Apple) store, I should be able to buy an unlocked iPhone.  Or at the very least, I should be able to have it unlocked without having to result to hacking the device and living in fear of the next software update.  I should have the option to choose if I want to purchase unlocked or subsidized.  If I’m on AT&T and have no plans to leave for a couple of years, then I should be able to get a cheaper phone because I’m going to be locked into a contract.  However, if I just want the latest device, I should be able to walk into the store and buy an unlocked phone and I should be charged more because I’m buying the device sans service.

The key here is choice.  The problem is, we have 2 different kinds of cell service here in the United States.  There is GSM (AT&T and T-Mobile) and CDMA (Verizon and Sprint).  I can’t buy a device from AT&T or T-Mobile and have it work on either Verizon’s or Sprint’s network, because they utilize different technologies.  Until all the cell providers use the same technology, we are locked into one set of providers.

Finally, I think that long term phone exclusivity agreements should be looked into.  Allowing AT&T to have four full years of iPhone exclusivity is what I would consider anti-competitive.  A year of two of phone exclusivity is okay, it’s a way to bring in new customers, so I understand the need for phone exclusivity.  But the agreements need to be limited to within a certain timeframe.

First off look at blogging for what it is, at it’s deepest core, it’s writing.  It’s conveying ideas using words.  Before the internet this was done on paper, before that stone.  People who have been thinkers always wrote down their thoughts and captured them using whatever medium was available to them at the time.  In some cases that was just telling a person, who then told another person, who then to..you get the idea.

In an era where we limit our thought capacity to 140 some-odd characters to send to the internet via a messaging system we “didn’t know we needed” it is possible to condense some thoughts down to this paliatable size.  But not all thoughts work in the confines of 140 characters or less.  Some require exposition, they require explaination and context.  Not everyone reads, listens, and watches the same stuff you do.  So sometimes you have to provide context for your thoughts.  Why did you have it, what led you to it, how did you arrive at a conclusion.  All these are important to the overall thought process, they can also be instrumental in accurately conveying that thought.

That’s not to say you can’t be a thought leader of some kind if you limit yourself to services like Twitter or FriendFeed (which Scoble has taken to doing lately).  Robert Scoble is blogging less and using FriendFeed more.  He has found a medium that works best for what he does.  Scoble understands technology, and he understand the it’s changing world quite well.  This is perhaps the outcome of being a part of that world for so long.  He watches so many avenues of thoughts from other people that he can see trends and routines a lot of people can not. Since he’s blogging less, does that make him less of a thought leader?  Probably not.  He’s simply adopting a new method for conveying his thoughts.  Will it work long term?  Well that’s what we’ll have to wait to see.  I for one thing that it might, but it’s going to be a few more years before you can not blog, write, or something of the sort and be a thought leader.  You have to be able to provide context, that’s hard to do when space is limited.

The reason I downloaded these Live CDs is so I could test other Linux distributions (distros) and check to see if they would work with my wireless device, since all the computers in my house run on the wireless network.  I can’t install a Linux distribution unless it allows my wireless device to work “out of the box” (without needing to download additional drivers).

Sadly, I have to report that attempting to install Debian’s latest stable version from a DVD or a Live CD, neither had my wireless USB adapter working.  Same goes for the Fedora’s latest (released just this month).  Also sad, my wireless USB adapter uses a chipset who has released driver source code specifically for Linux, so it not working on two major Linux distributions is disheartening.  Ubuntu seems to be the only major distribution that supports my wireless adapter from the get go.

There in lies the problem.  Wireless is now an important part of computing.  While my main concern is my desktop, none of the CDs I tried had my wireless working without major hoops on my work provided laptop either (Dell Latitude D830).  And wireless is pretty much standard on laptops these days.  Wireless has to work and it has to be painless.  Fedora had my wireless network working, but it wouldn’t find my wireless G compatible access point for some reason.  Even typing in the SSID (network ID) manually didn’t help get it to work.  The Debian Live CD didn’t even activate the wireless at all, and the install DVD said I needed to install firmware off of a removable drive, but it didn’t tell me where I could download said firmware.

Just to note, yes, I can do a google search to find the firmware.  And yes, I could install the distribution and then download, compile, and install the wireless device drivers manually.  I’m quite capable, but that’s not the point.  The point is that, since driver source code is available from the chipset manufacturer, it should be included already.  I understand something not working because of lack of support from the manufacturer, but when they are already making the them available in a Linux friendly fashion, why do I need to download, compile, and install?  Shouldn’t the distro handle that?  What if a non-geek has the same hardware I do, would you expect them to know how to compile?  Even if you do expect them to, they won’t do it.  They’ll simply move on.

Again, wireless needs to work out of the box, you can’t expect non-geeks to go and download wireless device firmware especially if you don’t tell them where to go online to find it.  I understand that the main reason this is still an issue is because manufacturers are not opening up their drivers or releasing drivers that can be used in Linux.  We’re in the year 2009, can’t we just please have the drivers so we can run the operating system we want to run?  I guess that’s a taller order than we thought.

Social news aggregaters have been around for a few years, one of the most popular being Digg.  Digg is one of the few that really aggregates a large number of topics under a single site.  Other aggregaters exist and some are even topic specific (like DotNetKicks).  Social news aggregaters allow news items to be crowdsourced and have only the most popular (and hopefully the most relevant) bubble up to the top of the heap.  This allow users to only grab the best (as decided by community) and never have to see the stuff that no one cares about (they can of course choose to browse these if they want).

So if I can subscribe to the RSS feeds of these aggregaters main pages, I can essentially only see news items that a large number of people deem important.  I’ve cut out the newspaper, CNN, BBC, almost completely (one would assume that links to these things would pop up on these aggregaters).  This means that I get real news and avoid the fluff.

Of course the downside to this is I am at the mercy of the masses.  Digg is a perfect example of a news aggregator that has become little more than a mouth piece for the American left-wing.  In fact, I had to stop using Digg altogether because it was so hard to get away from people spouting left-wing propaganda and refusing to listen to facts when presented from a different view point.  When that happens the news source becomes worthless.  It can no longer be trusted.  In order to have a well balanced news intake, one must look at all viewpoints to determine truth and accuracy.  There are ways around this, and I’m sure someone will eventually be able to come up with a aggregation site that can’t be gamed (or at least one that is difficult to game).

People have already (mostly) moved to getting their news online.  My local newspaper has raised it prices 2 times in recent memory in order to combat fewer print readers.  Long term, the general public will come to look towards the educated masses to help them select what news to read, most (if not all) of it will be done online.  The printed newspapers are attempting to hold onto their dying media with a tight grip, but it’s usually when you hold on to something tight that you start to you lose your grip on it.

While the application looks fantastic, it’s buggy as all heck.  I had random crashes when trying to add users to a tab I had just created while viewing their profile.  It would randomly crash when loading a tweet or a user.  But also, it didn’t handle refreshes in a way that made sense.  I would see new tweets when I had the app open, but if I closed the app and loaded it up a few minutes later after doing something else, those tweets I saw when I was in TweetDeck would be gone when I came back and sometimes would not be shown after the app refreshed the tab.  Missing tweets don’t work well in a twitter app.  Finally, the lack of a landscape keyboard option is almost a deal breaker for me.  With how much I tweet from my iPhone I need a landscape keyboard option, since I type faster and with more accuracy that way.

I’m sure I could have gotten over the missing tweets thing, it might even have been user error, but the random crashes really made the app unusable.  Combined with the lack of landscape keyboards and you’ve really got an app I just can’t  use.  So for now, I’m sticking with Tweetie.  There’s a reason that it’s one of the top iPhone Twitter apps even though it cost 3 bucks to purchase.  It’s a solid app and easy to use.

Did you install TweetDeck to your iPhone?  What do you think?  Are you having similar experiences to mine or are yours completely different?