Posted on
by

Along with many others, I sat and watched the announcement of the iPad earlier this week. If nothing else, Apple certainly knows how to hype and put on a show! It’s a pretty device, certainly, but I have no plans on purchasing one. And as for being a Kindle-killer? I think not, and certainly hope not, being a pretty happy Kindle user. I think a comparison of the two contrasts both the differing ideas on device functionality that Amazon and Apple espouse, and also the “openness” question that has troubled the Kindle. If the Kindle is closed, what about the iPad?

The most obvious difference between the devices is the simplest: the screen. The Kindle screen is a low-power reflective e-ink screen that only displays black, white, and shades of gray; the iPad is a full-color, touch-sensitive backlit (emissive) screen that is designed for all sorts of media consumption, including music, movies, full-color magazines, and web browsing.

The Kindle is designed and optimized for reading books and text-focused periodicals. While it does have a (free) 3G wireless connection, said connection is focused on easily delivering content to the device, and light browsing of sites like Wikipedia. The Kindle is a reading device; it tries to get out of the way of the reader, and just provide the words (honestly, once I get into the flow of a work, I often forget I’m reading on a “device”). Even with the recent release of a SDK that will allow app development, I maintain that the Kindle is a limited function device, and I like that. Reading is best done on a device with limited distractions, and the Kindle is just that.

The iPad is designed and marketed for a completely different experience. It’s really more of a “netbook without a keyboard”; I can definitely see it being more of a threat to some of the devices in that market segment. Multimedia from the get-go. For me, it’s not as attractive; I read and listen to more than I watch. I use my phone (Android G1) for podcasts, audio streams, and music, and the Kindle for text (with the G1 as a fairly capable backup). I’m not a big movie and TV consumer.

Another difference, for me, is the Kindle’s ability to stand alone. A Kindle never actually needs ANY connection to a PC whatsoever; you can use the USB connector to charge the device from a computer, and when connected in that way, it can be mounted as a USB Mass Storage device. This means you can drag and drop files both ways…you can copy off your books as a backup strategy, and you can put books on the device that you didn’t get from Amazon. It’s great; but none of that is necessary. You do, of course, have to have an Amazon account to purchase things via WhisperNet, but that’s the limit. You can purchase on the device and have it immediately delivered, or open up a Linux-based netbook, buy the book via browser at Amazon, copy it down to the filesystem, and mount the Kindle as a USB device and copy it over. Works just the same.

The iPad, on the other hand, is tied completely to the same Apple iTunes software stack that the iPod and iPhone are. All purchases and media are sync’d via iTunes…which doesn’t run on Linux, for example. You can’t backup your media (in a supported way) without involving iTunes. You can’t purchase media without involving iTunes. You and iTunes are joined at the hip…at minimum.

The strategies of the companies involved (Apple and Amazon) are interesting as well, and the jockeying between them continues even as I’ve been editing this post. More to come on that and the openness question.

Posted on
by

OK, the new privacy controls are completely borked. There’s been plenty of discussion already around the Net about how this privacy enhancement can actually open up more of your info to the entire Internet, without you even realizing it. But it gets worse. Even one of the things I actually liked about the new system is broken.

The new settings promise to allow you to set each status update to your wall with a personalized setting; allowing some to be seen by all friends, some by only a few people, some by the entire FB community (or maybe whole Internet, I can’t really tell). I use a fairly customized setup, and I’d been waiting for this feature to be enabled (it was demo’d during the summer); I have friends broken into groups…very close, close, acquaintances. I set my default setting to let “very close” and “close” friends see status updates, but not acquaintances. Tried it out with a test via the web page…worked! So far, so good.

Since I like to make things complicated, I do most of my FB status updates via the identi.ca FB sync application. I wondered how that would work, so I tried it out with fingers crossed…worked! Sweet!

Except it doesn’t, completely. As near as I can tell, there’s some weird difference in Facebook between a pure status update and something with a link attached. When identi.ca posts come in with a URL in them, that URL becomes an attached link…and suddenly the post goes from something viewable only by my default group to a post viewable by any friend!

That’s more serious, in my opinion, than it sounds to some people…”why would you be upset about your friends seeing posts, Ken?”. Because a friend is not a friend is not a friend, regardless of what Facebook and LinkedIn and Plaxo and everyone want you to think. Some people I share political links with, for example…some people I don’t. We’re friends, but we don’t see eye to eye on some topics, and it’s not worth risking a friendship, so we avoid it. Which works fine, until a setting that I think will let me be flexible and do exactly this doesn’t. Uncool, Facebook.

And other apps have problems too. The Facebook for Android app seems to do the same thing…whatever process it uses for updates appears to ignore the new default privacy settings, and shows update to all friends (and maybe friends of friends…I wouldn’t know how to tell. It’s not all of FB, at least…I can check that.)

Yes, it’s possible that I’ve missed settings. I’ve spent time tweaking some settings on the identi.ca app for permisisons, didn’t seem to make a difference. But it shouldn’t be this hard. And ultimately, one would think that my EXPLICIT default setting would override pretty much anything an app did. Ha! So much for privacy.

My connection to this SN is tenuous at best…they’d better unravel this mess pretty quick. I’ve got better things to do.

Posted on
by

I’m in shock…Peter Watts, one of my absolute favorite sci-fi authors, an unfailingly nice guy, and someone I’d count as an online pal, was arrested at the US border returning to Canada earlier this week (Peter is Canadian). He’s commented on his own blog as well now, and other sf authors have picked up the story.

While we don’t know the details from every perspective, I’m certainly in the camp of those that believe that Peter is innocent of the charge that’s been made. Last I checked, we did the innocent until proven guilty thing in these parts. Regardless, this will be EXPENSIVE. I’ve already dropped some money in the legal defense fund (which is currently being organized ad-hoc on his backlist page until something more concrete is set up). I’d suggest all of you do the same.

Peter’s an amazing author, a stand-up guy, a well-spoken defender of liberty, freedom, and science…and a bit of a cranky soul. Which means we’re a lot alike, except he’s a much, much better writer. *grin* This sort of thing can happen to practically anyone nowadays…we’ve lost our way, for the sake of security. I hope things get straightened out, and in the meantime, please let us know if we can do anything at all, Peter!!

Posted on
by

Grrr…I knew going to read the full text of Dan Glickman’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee would get my blood boiling. The Wired article describing it made me mad enough, highlighting the money quote:

“Opponents of ACTA are either indifferent to this situation [Internet piracy], or actively hostile toward efforts to improve copyright enforcement worldwide,” Glickman wrote.

Them’s fightin’ words, Dan. You don’t get to tell me what I think. I am VERY against ACTA, not only because secret treaties are bad government policy, but also on the merits. That does *not* mean that I hate kittens, or do not believe in copyright enforcement at all. So stop saying what I think, how about it?

This isn’t a 10 word, “you’re with us or against us” situation. It’s a complicated issue in which you are, in my opinion, mostly in the wrong. (note: I’m not putting words in your mouth there…I’m judging your words and actions. Different thing. You’re free to do the same with me.)

I agree that you work in, and are paid very handsomely by, an industry that is being transformed and hugely affected by the impact of the Internet, cheap computing, the remix culture, and ubiquituous communication. Your business model is in trouble. But that does NOT mean that you’re automatically right for defending the status quo. You have no magic moral high ground, Mr. Glickman.

These technologies that you are trying to fight are the grandchildren of the transforming tools of 100 years ago; tools that CREATED your industry. As Cory Doctorow likes to say, “technology giveth, and technology taketh away”. You have no natural right to allowing certain technologies (example: encryption for DRM; good, you say) while outlawing others (example:, encryption [hey, same thing!] for DarkNet distribution; oooh, bad, you say). Your way of doing business has been hugely profitable while it lasted…but that time is nearly over. You must innvoate, you must change…or you will fail. Simple as that.

And even today, without ACTA, you are the beneficiary of decades of copyright legislation that has seriously unbalanced the nature of the bargain that copyright represents. Even today, media companies are able to sue families for hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing a directory of songs, or threaten students who write the wrong software tools…only failing in that attempt through shame brought down on them via that very Internet you find so threatening.

With the ACTA treaty, it would be even worse. The treaty provides for criminal prosecution of commerical scale copyright infringement (whatever that means), even if it it does not involve financial gain. What does that mean for, say, a P2P system? The users ARE the distributors; conceivably everyone logged into the system is culpable. Add the 3 strikes [via assertion, no less, not even a requirement of legal proof!] and your Internet can be cut off provisions, and the consequences of this treaty look pretty disastrous. I’d negotiate it in secret too, if it was my idea!

Making secret wishlist treaties in back rooms (and yes, that’s what you’re doing…it doesn’t make it not so just because you happen to be in the back room) isn’t the way to reform copyright policy in a democracy. Letting giant corporations who’ve already twisted copyright law into something it was never intended to be dictate the terms of ANY treaty, open or not, is not in the interests of our society.

Let’s get things out in the open, stop calling each other enemies of apple pie and such, and accept the nuance. I’ll admit, that will harder for the media companies that for people like me, because that’s VERY different than the way they’ve handled things for a long time. But it’s the right way.

Posted on
by

OK…much like the last time I tried this, I have a lot going on. But what the heck…I’m going to give NaNoWriMo a try again this year, and see if I can finish a 50,000 word novel in November! Wish me luck!

I’ll put a progress widget in the sidebar in a day or two, but it’s Day 1, and the site appears to be over capacity right now…it would just show up as a broken link today. I’ll be sure to keep folks informed, though!

Posted on
by

I like reading and thinking about the future of news. I’m a news and journalism junkie, as well as a long-time Net user, so the topic is near and dear to my heart. I follow people online like Jay Rosen and Dan Conover, who provide pretty much a continuous flow of links to thoughtful postings regarding the evolution of news and journalism in modern Web era. Great, thought-provoking stuff. One of the more recent topics of discussion has been the recent “bring back the paywalls” meme, which could result in several of the large news organizations restricting their articles from the public Net. The NYT is talking about it, as is the Fox News group (see Murdock’s comments on the topic), as is Steve Brill, who has founded Journalism Online as a “digital publishing services company”.

When I read the arguments for these efforts, I just can’t wrap my head around it. Not that I think that making money is inherently evil or anything; not at all. It’s the I’m only going to let people SEE my stories that have paid me directly thing, like the Internet is akin to some sort of members-only club selling tickets at the door.

This model goes against the very nature and strength of the Web; the hyperlinking that allows sites of all sizes to relate useful topics, subjects, and references together. Breaking this ability breaks part of what makes tools like Google so useful; search sites USE those links to help determine which sites are authoritative on a given topic.

This is well-tilled ground, of course; newspapers have been in and out of the paywall game since news came to the Web. But 2009 is a year or crisis for papers, and news in general; the recession is affecting ad revenues, and the combination of that, the effect of sites like Craigslist on classified revenues (revenues which have supported news gathering at papers for generations), and burgeoning online content providers seems to have finally knocked the final supports out from under some papers. They’re starting to fall, and it’s starting to get ugly.

The latest iteration provides food for thought…I really like to try and understand where these folks are coming from. Are they visionary, or desperate to maintain the status quo? In a recent discussion with Steve Brill, Zachary Seward asks about how the news ecosystem of the web might react to Brill’s new endeavor (quote follows, but I encourage you to read the entire piece. It’s excellent):

Seward: There’s certainly a working theory out there that the minute any of those big-city papers start charging, they’re going to encourage competition that they don’t currently have. That the free blogs that are much derided now for not providing reporting will, in fact, you know, begin to put up much, much more competition—

Brill: Why? Why will they be able to? How are they going to pay for it?

Seward: Perhaps by starting with a model that is, you know, that isn’t a 150-person newsroom, and so even if the end product is not as good, it’s free, and that’s sort of the hardest thing to compete with.

Brill: But again, if what you’re striving for is to get the 5 or 10 percent of your most committed readers to pay, then you can afford to have that happen. And you can’t afford not to do it.

Wow. Again, the entire thing is well worth reading to get a better handle, but I can’t help but visualize a very confused dinosaur in a tar pit…

Posted on
by

I just finished watching the Health Care town hall meeting in Reston, VA yesterday that was disrupted by protest. I support anyone and everyone’s right to discuss and debate, even (and especially) those with whom I disagree. But I strongly oppose ANYONE (including people whose philosophies I agree with) using some of the tactics that were used yesterday:

Howard Dean & Rep. Moran Health Care Town Hall in Reston, VA

The people (even who disagreed with Dean and Moran) who actually were willing to ask questions and discuss things had a good opportunity to do so. Other folks…were asshats.

I’m very glad I watched this, and I want to make sure that I watch more, and include debates where people that I agree with are allegedly disruptive. We have to debate, folks. We have to discuss. That doesn’t mean we’re going to agree; I find it exceedingly unlikely that you’ll convince me that torture is ever a good idea, for example. But having a dialogue is important…disrupting a dialogue is never productive.

And btw…I don’t mean that protest is never appropriate. It can be, and I’ve done it myself. But disruptive protest in the middle of an open discussion about any issue has a pretty high standard to meet in order to be appropriate.

Long story short: that meeting video is excellent; give it a view.

Posted on
by

Symposium for the Future » It is easy to fall in love with technology… (by danah boyd). – danah boyd is an absolutely fantastic researcher and teacher in the realm of technology and social interaction. She deeply studies this stuff…well, well worth following. Her personal blog is a must-read for anyone who follows social interaction on the Web…or who has a teenager. *grin*