addisonkimberly:

Snorting bath salts.

All because they’re cracking down on meth in the South. At least if you just let the tweekers be tweekers they just spend all day sorting socks, shooting cans, and beating up family members for drug money if they really can’t manage to hold a job at UPS.

“We had a deputy injured a week ago. They were fighting with a guy who thought they were two devils. That’s what makes this drug so dangerous,” he said.

So… why not just let them do meth, again? Ain’t nobody hallucinatin’ devil cops on meth. I’m pretty sure most people on meth just want to be left alone like normal people. I might be speaking from experience. I’m on meth right now.

A part of my internet upbringing is tied very dearly to instant messaging. Basically all of the memorable parts of my life from ages 11 to 14 in some way involve instant messaging, as weirdly sad as that may be to say. Point: instant messaging has always been a big part of my life, and I like to take it with me.

Android’s got Google Talk baked right in, but iOS hasn’t an official IM client. Apple’s latest OS X update replaces iChat with Messages and makes one thing pretty clear: iChat ain’t coming to iOS. Apple’s position, as with many things, is that the old internet is dead and the new internet is SMS/iMessage. It’s amazing how quickly this happened.

Since iOS doesn’t allow for apps to run indefinitely in the background, a traditional IM client that must keep a connection alive with the IM server wouldn’t work. After ten minutes, iOS pulls the plug on any app except ones with special permissions.

All major IM clients of iOS I tried, free and not free, use the only real solution there is: push notifications. Essentially your account is logged into a remote machine, and then that machine pushes the messages to your phone even after your actual phone client has been killed in the background.

The only reason I ended up trying so many IM clients is because I’m cheap. I saw Verbs early on and I thought: screw that, my messaging client should be free. From original AIM to Trillian before it went down hill, to AIM on my Sidekick and Talk on Android, it’s all been free. Why am I going to start paying now?

Since I used IM+ on my iPad, I figured I’d give it a try on my iPhone. For free it includes several days worth of background notifications. On my iPad I never used it enough to realize how inconsistent and terrible it was. Even after buying IM+ Pro for $.99 on sale, push notifications never worked reliably. I would look in my Gmail chat history and see all sorts of messages that never made it to my phone.

BeejiveIM is another popular free client with a pay counterpart. They have individually baked versions of BeejiveIM that are free, with ads, for AIM, Talk, etc, and then one pay client that features all-in-one. Beejive looks nicer than IM+, but their push notification system is similarly unreliable and after a week I gave up.

At this point I began to realize that serving instant messaging push notifications must be a demanding process. Every account has to be logged in to some machine somewhere, and thousands (if not millions) of instant messages are firing back and forth through that system. There’s probably a lot of room for glitches or overloads. That’s probably why these free clients with pay clients suck; they’re overloaded.

After this, I went to a service I had already used before: Meebo. Before it decided to turn itself into some social network something or another, Meebo tried to make money in web-based instant messaging (there wasn’t any to make). You’d think Meebo would already have the infrastructure in place, having done it for the web, for a great iOS IM client.

Unfortunately, the app is kind of ugly and crashes a lot, there’s no option for paying to get rid of the advertisements, and, you guessed it, push notifications are similarly unreliable.

At this point I gave up and got Verbs. I’d link to it in the App Store, but unfortunately due to a pretty lousy bug in their most recent version it’s been yanked from the market, so this entire post is really ill-timed. I had to pay the high-looking-by-App-Store-standards sum of $4.99 for push notifications.

This is where I have to say that I learned a very valuable lesson that we’ve heard a thousand times before but rarely if ever comes true in a way we’d like to admit: you get what you pay for. In all honesty I paid $5 for notifications in the hopes they were terrible just so I could be extremely irate about something, since free apps don’t give you much in the way of an entitlement complex, but Verbs’ push notifications appear to be flawless.

On top of that, the app is gorgeous and aside from a little unnecessarily snazzy UI—the zoom-out and flip-through dynamic for closing IM conversations is completely unnecessary, this isn’t GarageBand, it’s a ListView app—it feels essentially as Apple would build it. Right down to baffling decisions that minimize useful features: why can’t I set a global status for all my accounts? Why does it feel like toggling status is a chore? Why can’t I set my Talk account as invisible?

In the end it is like most parts of the iOS experience: what Verbs does well, it does absolutely beautifully and better than any other IM client I have ever used, and what it doesn’t do well it either doesn’t do at all or tries to hide the fact that it sucks so well you just give up trying and forget about your complaint.

I’m just happy that I don’t have to worry about missing messages anymore, and that’s the most important thing. By charging for access to the goods, Verbs has done it right.

sheetwise:

But it seems to me that Jobs HATED Google for what he saw as a betrayal.

Hate is a strong word, even stronger than pissed. Jobs was pissed off that Google essentially cloned iOS, and not just cloned but cloned with deformities and general ugliness. How would you feel if someone cloned up an uglier retarded version of your daughter and sold her to other people telling them she was just as good as your original daughter?

Well, that’s a bad example I think. But you get what I mean.

But my post wasn’t really that Apple doesn’t dislike Google, obviously competitors dislike each other, but that elevating things like this into the realm of serious personal individual emotions like hate (or implying hate with “Fuck Google”) just seems childish, or at best, disingenuous.

I’m willing to bet that part of those Apple University internal guidance things Jobs set up involve[s …] destroying Google and/or Android.

Then you see Steve Jobs as being a much more insecure, pitiful person than I do. Which might be my bad. I’d be surprised if there really is a written guiding principle at Apple that says, essentially, “Fuck Google.” Using words like ‘hate’ makes it sound like Steve Jobs would walk up to Page & Brin and punch them both in the face.

About a year ago Daily Show ran a bit about how journalists keep escalating minor conflicts until they sound like polarizing, violent situations. This is similar: Mountain Lion Delivers DEATH BLOW to YouTube. Latest OSX Build CIRCUMCISES YouTube From Sharing. Steve Jobs LOATHES Google. Etc, etc. For all we know Jobs said “thermonuclear war” with a knowing smirk, indicating he was being silly.

At the end of the day, to the user, there is no difference between YouTube and Vimeo. Except that Vimeo has always been nicer overall than YouTube in order to differentiate themselves, and now they might be getting recognized for that. Only problem is the more interesting story is the Google/Apple rivalry, so no one is talking about Vimeo.

sheetwise:

I think in your example, it’s not creepy when a single person does it because you can relate to that person. 

And why can’t we relate to the person at Target who is analyzing our data? He’s a person just like any other. People who bother thinking about the way they feel will quickly realize that not seeing the person makes no difference to the actual activity occurring. One responds to your data to your face, and one responds to your data behind your back. We choose to be upset at the person doing the same thing behind our back because ooooo shadowy.

But for a large business to do that is creepy because you see no benefit to them collecting that kind of info on you except to sell you things.

In my example the only benefit of Carla pre-emptively grabbing you cigarettes is so that she can sell you them. Maybe you’re not buying them today. Maybe you’re weird as well and decide to get upset that Carla believes you’re so addicted to smoking you HAVE to buy cigarettes, etc. There are ways to get upset about the real world, too, just most of us don’t.

Also, while i feel it’s ok for a clerk at a store to notice what i buy, i’d feel a little squikky about them noticing, writing it down, and selling that information to someone who was all “I’d like to know about his buying habits in case i’ve got something he might need.”

I don’t think anyone has accused Target of selling their information. Target uses information it gleans from you at Target stores to better market Target merchandise to you. It’s no different than Carla, who knows about your cigarette and coffee habit, offering you a lighter or some creamer. Literally no different. However, we choose to see difference when there isn’t any. Why is that?

When I say, “The way people feel about things is clearly wrong or confusing,” and you respond, “Well this is the way we feel about things,” that doesn’t make your way of feeling or thinking about them any less wrong, weird, or confusing. You should analyze the deeper why of the way you feel and see if you come up with a clear, logical answer.

I get that privacy is changing. But what you seem to forget is that our information has value. It has value to whoever wants it. I think we should be more wary of who we give it to, even if it’s just buying habits, and i think we shouldn’t just give it away. You want it? PAY ME FOR IT [while i’m dreaming, i’d also like a pony].

You are being paid for it. You’re shopping at Target, where you’re provided great products at affordable prices you may not be able to get at other stores. On top of that, they use that info to send you even more money saving coupons.

Aside from reacting like Target is in some way absolutely undeniably different from your local mom and pop coffee/convenience store, this is the other problem: when we hear about things like this we assume it’s absolutely selfish. “Target is stealing our data and using it only to force us to go to Target.”

Not really. Target is using your data so that they can provide you with incentives, that benefit you directly such as by saving you money on goods you may already intend to buy, to return to their store so you will continue to shop with them. They aren’t forcing you, they aren’t stalking you (that implies someone at Target actually cares about your personal life, and they don’t), and they certainly aren’t taking anything from you.

But what you seem to forget is that our information has value.

Cool, go make money off of it somehow. Oh, you can’t? Yeah.

This is “collector mentality”. The same sort of thing that makes crazy people who have more money than brains think that small stuffed animals have some sort of value. Fact is, your data (or your useless junk) is only as valuable as someone is willing to pay for it, something that a few members of my family found out when their “amazing collection” of junk suddenly lost all value because people realized stuffed animals are children’s toys and not actually anything worth something.

Your data is worth this: free services from Google and Facebook, and coupons from Target. That’s it. You want to say your data has value? Yeah, you’re getting that value already. If you think it’s worth more, then stop shopping entirely, anywhere, forever, because no matter where you go your ‘data’ is being ‘stolen’ from you.

The lesson here is that be it person or ‘shadowy faceless corporation’, people pay attention to your behavior when it is in their best interests. You can’t fight this, you can’t stop it, and you shouldn’t want to: it directly benefits you,  it costs you nothing, and it can’t hurt you.

So, what’s the problem exactly?

Will brings his own flavor:

For decades, Target has collected vast amounts of data on every person who regularly walks into one of its stores. Whenever possible, Target assigns each shopper a unique code — known internally as the Guest ID number — that keeps tabs on everything they buy.

Holy shit.

Ah, yes. I too was shocked when I learned that people pay attention to the things you do when you’re in a public place. It was terrifying, as significant realizations about reality often are to five year olds.

It never ceases to amaze me how much hysteria is whipped up around something you would like if it were served up in a different context. For example:

Carla, the cashier down at the local convenience store, knows that when you come in on Thursdays you normally get a pack of cigarettes with your coffee, so she pull cigarettes out for you, without you asking, while you pour your coffee. That’s great! It seems like Carla really knows you, giving you a homey “everybody knows your name” feeling that is the hallmark of good customer service.

However, if Target pays attention to your spending habits and sends you money saving coupons relevant to your life: Absolutely terrifying. I’d guess the average person subconsciously thinks Target isn’t supposed to know what we’re buying, even though we’re buying it from them, because they’re not a person standing in front of us. We react as if Target is invisibly stalking us, even though we are inside their stores, talking to their employees, and buying their goods.

I’m sure smarter people than me are studying this psychological phenomenon.

Will’s blog brought this bit to my attention, Marco Arment:

If all permissions were listed in the App Store, Instapaper’s customers would be wondering why it “needs” location (optional automatic dark mode based on sunset times) or contacts access (optional email-in contact addition, optional find-friends feature). They might refuse to buy the app because they think it needs these features to work, when in reality they’re minor features that most customers will never use.

Or the permission system could just be built in a way that makes sense: when a user selects an app to download, they’re presented with a permission list. They can check which permissions they’ll allow that app to have, and that’ll be that. If they see Instapaper needs location access and they don’t think it does, then they don’t check “Location Access” and that app is installed without the ability to access that permission.

It seems simple to me. Maybe “mandatory” permissions, required by the app to utilize it’s default function, are checked by default, and if you try to uncheck them you’re notified you can’t install the app if you do. This way if you just want to rapid-fire hit “Install” twice and ignore the permission screen, you can, and the app will be installed in the ‘lightest’ most private configuration possible.

There’s a lot of possible solutions to this problem, but no one here is interested in coming up with them because app developers are ultimately lazy, like all workers. It’s easier to just make excuses for current inadequacies than to think, and to have to change your apps to accommodate better user protection.

One thing is clear: Apple, with their App Review system, is in the best position to institute something like this. Full user control over simple, clear per-app permissions, with prudish + cautious defaults for users who just want to skip the hassle, would be a marvelous thing. No more $.99 scam apps in the Top 25 harvesting people’s address books in the background. (Oh, you don’t think that’s what those apps are doing? You think anyone has checked?)

The best way to do this is to cut the app off from access before it’s even installed. I tell you what: I’d never check the “Address Book Access” box manually when installing an app. Probably not the “Location Services” one, either. I’d just hit “Install” and ignore the optional permissions entirely until it was relevant to me. Until then, apps don’t need access. Period.

Siegler taking the high road:

Yes, it sucks that I wrote the post burning down your industry after I left, but that was also the point. A (now) outsider’s perspective on the state of the industry. 

The bravery of Siegler. When faced with what he saw as a major problem within the industry he decided to not do what every good man would do: attempt to change it, to make it better. He could have decided to break the pattern, to lead all other technology journalists by the good example he set.

But no, Siegler decided to just do the same thing as everyone else. Now that he’s ‘quit’, he continues writing the same kind of garbage on his own blog, while criticizing anyone who writes garbage just like he used to and continues to. Lead by example? Nah, let’s just join in and amplify it.

It’s amazing, really, Siegler’s exactly like the snide redhead kid from Dead Poet’s Society that exists in everyone’s childhood years. You know the one, that little dipshit no one likes but puts up with, who is quick to point out the great injustices in life to all adults but turns on the pity-me waterworks when anyone tattles on him. Now he’s all grown up, and talking righteous shit on the internet like his own shit doesn’t stink. Pretty comical. Siegler makes much more sense to me now.

Gruber applying his typical polish:

When asked why there was no YouTube support at the moment in the developer preview, Apple told Pocket-lint: “We have Vimeo, and we don’t have YouTube.”

Allow me to translate: “Fuck Google.”

Ehh, or it could just be that Vimeo is a nicer service and is typically more functional and less annoying than YouTube (and is probably more popular among Mac users due to its overall high level of polish). But what am I saying? We’re reading Daring Fireball where everything has to be turned into some polarizing, vitriolic issue.

What’s interesting here to think about is how much does John Gruber think Apple really cares about Google? Enough to drop the f-bomb? Apple has always struck me as the rich person who doesn’t really give a fuck about anyone. Gruber makes the situation sound personal and angry, as if Apple does give a fuck. Why does Gruber place Apple-personified in such a defensive position?

Heavy Hangs The Bandwidth That Torrents The Crown:

Annnnd now you’re also calling me a d*** because I expected you to wait two weeks, and you’re claiming that you’re “forced” to torrent it because the video industry is bunch of turds. How charming.

The problem is it should be available right now. There’s no real reason it isn’t. You address a similar sort of problem, but a different one here:

If a distributor shows up in any of those places with a product we want, we’ll buy it. […] and if they don’t show up in those places, they’re making torrenting that much more attractive. They’re just feeding the monster they’re trying to fight. That’s crystal-clear.

Then you say that comic books solved this problem by going digital distribution or whatever. But the problem is that comic books and, say, Game of Thrones, is not the same. The first time a comic is available is when the digital and paper version comes out. No one is left waiting for something other people have.

Game of Thrones on the other hand is already out there. HBO has put it almost within the reach of people who don’t subscribe to cable. HBO could solve this problem by opening its streaming doors to non-customers, but they probably won’t do that for another frustrating reason: corporate bureaucracy and cronyism; HBO and the cable companies have deals between each other specifically just so that they can both extract money from you. HBO can’t sell you access to Game of Thrones because cable companies want in on that action.

Now the customer is left in a lousy position: what we want is nearly within reach, but unnecessary money walls are put in between us and it. This makes us grumpy. Back to comics: it’d be as if Marvel or DC made an exclusive, and pretty costly $100+/mo service, for people to receive new comics months in advance. People who want to pay normal price have to wait. Everyone would go back to pirating from the people who have them in advance, obviously.

At this point HBO has lost a customer. Period. The customer who cannot pay for the product they want is a lost customer. Whatever they do after this moment doesn’t really matter, the fact is they wanted to give somebody their money and discovered they couldn’t. If they come back later for a second try, great, but they might not or probably won’t.

This is why piracy advocates say that a download doesn’t equal a “stolen item” exactly. The customer above was willing to pay for a product they couldn’t. This is a lost sale. They didn’t turn to piracy first, and they might not even turn to piracy at all, but that will forever be a lost sale. From that point onward that customer is more likely to pirate, borrow, rent, watch something else, or just go without than they were before.

Andy spends a lot of time beating up on the “entitlement” of the consumer, and how we’re grumpy irate screaming people (“(and I hope I’m not misquoting you)” Andy: you’re a jackass) and that strikes me as particularly confusing: how is a consumer desiring your product a bad thing? How did you turn that into something you could make fun of?

The world does not OWE you Season 1 of “Game Of Thrones” in the form you want it at the moment you want it at the price you want to pay for it. 

Then we don’t owe HBO our money, because they’ve lost the sale. We’ll take that sale somewhere else, to someone who does want it. Maybe the pirates. Maybe we’ll borrow the show from friends who’ve already pre-ordered the DVDs. Maybe we’ll just wait for it to be on Netflix. Maybe we’ll take that money to Red Lobster and say fuck television, we’ll read books instead. Either way, that money is gone.

I sometimes wonder if this simple, grown-up fact gets ignored during all of these discussions about digital distribution.

Look at how subtle he is, in talking down to people. There there, when you’re all grown-up you’ll understand the facts of life better. That’s just so delightful, isn’t it? We actually want to give people our money and can’t, and we get talked down to like we’re children by uppity bloggers. Oh well.

In the end, the facts of the situation are this: HBO lost our money. The “piracy” part doesn’t matter anymore, stop acting like it does. Stop talking down to people who do pirate in response to the ridiculous hoops and money walls that corporate cronyism has put between the consumer and the product they should have access to. The money’s already gone.

What’s it about content providers thinking they’re entitled to your money even after they tell you they don’t want it? They expect us to just wait around for them. No thanks. If you wanted our sale you should have rang it up. (Yes, I sort of went there.)

A bit of cross-promotion:

My other labor of love, my music blog, just got a big fresh redesign and re-imagining, doing away with all the “blah blah blah” and just getting straight to the music. I put a wee bit of effort into making the experience pretty snazzy looking on iOS, especially iPads.

So, if you’re a fan of music, of listening to new and different things, check out my music blog: http://staires.org