Skip to content →

echovar Posts

“Macs just work” It depends on the meaning of “work”

Published November 18, 2007 by cgerrish

Apple or Microsoft: Choose your platform

Scoble and Winer are crowing about the fact that Apple products break sometimes. And if you use them in the margins of their functionality, they break more often. Now clearly Apple products break sometimes, they have strange limitations and can infuriate developers who create in the space close to core functionality. They’re claiming that this contradicts Apple’s brand promise which they define as “it just works.”

It depends on the meaning of “works.” If you mean Macs always function perfectly from a mechanical and software perspective— well that’s simply impossible. And certainly Winer and Scoble should know that. Especially Winer, who once said: “I make shitty software. With bugs!” The truth of it is, everybody does. Apple does too.

The “it works” I like about Apple’s products is they’re easy for regular folks to learn how to use. They make it easy to get started, easy to get online and browse, easy to get into digital photography, easy to buy music online and transfer to an mp3 player. That’s the brand promise. The very idea that any company could have a brand promise that implies their products are perfect and never break is absurd. A lot of brands trade on the idea of quality and reliability. That doesn’t mean they never break. Those of us immersed in the digital sometimes lose sight of how difficult it can be to use a computer. A translation of “it just works” might be, “even I can use this computer.”

Chumby

A related thread is the introduction of Chumby. The digerati hail the hackability of the device, but that’s not what’s really interesting about it. It’s that it’s simple. It takes away almost all of the power and flexibility of a computer, but the user is left with enough value to make it interesting. It’s the beginning of a wave of single purpose websites and network connected devices.

Comments closed

Charting the shores of risk with Pina Bausch

Published November 16, 2007 by cgerrish

I read about Pina Bausch’s Tanztheater Wuppertal for years before I had the opportunity to see “Palermo Palermo” at the Brooklyn Academy of Music. There were moments, images, movements that stay with me to this day. She creates extraordinary stage pictures.

Pina Bausch, Julie Nelken

The key to great performance is risk. If you don’t risk failure, you will never achieve greatness. Pina Bausch is one of those artists that you must see at every opportunity. There’s always a chance of glimpsing greatness.

You might want to do a little background reading about Pina:

She’s bringing her group to Berkeley’s Cal Performances this week. I’ll be attending the Sunday performance of Ten Chi. It’s described as a choreographic travelogue exploring the sights, sounds, joys and paradoxes of modern Japanese culture.

Comments closed

SF Opera’s Macbeth: Full of sound and fury, passion

Published November 15, 2007 by cgerrish

Verdi’s Macbeth SF Opera

Attended the first performance of San Francisco Opera’s Macbeth last night. This isn’t Shakespeare’s Macbeth, it’s Verdi’s. On opening night some of the staging was a little ragged, but the orchestra and the singing was exceptional. Thomas Hampson and Georgina Lukács were very impressive. Within an unconventional directorial approach they were committed actors and showed raw passion.

The production was raw, risky, big, wild and hypnotic. It had the audience buzzing at the intermission. I saw Donald Runnicles in deep, excited conversation with Alan Jones. This would be a challenging opera for newbies, but the strong visual design and passionate acting make it an exciting opportunity to get started with opera. Buy some tickets, they’re cheaper than you think.

In the theater, it’s called “The Scottish Play.” And unlike the opera, it’s often performed because it has one of the smallest cast requirements of any of Shakespeare’s plays. But the version of the story that made the biggest impression on me was Akira Kurosawa’s film, Throne of Blood. If you can’t catch the opera, put Throne of Blood on your Netflix list.

Comments closed

Do babies need phones to assert their identity 2.0?

Published November 14, 2007 by cgerrish

What could be more fun than listening to Jon Udell and Dick Hardt talk about practical applications of Identity 2.0 concepts. And for the record, this is a case where I endorse the use of a numbering system. In order for the Web to progress we need to change the way we handle identity. We’ve created a security crisis because everyone wants to their own authentication system. We enter user IDs and passwords all day long, proving who we are over and over again. Or as Joe Tennis put it in a Twitter, we forget who we are and ask someone to email us our identity several times a day.

The video above is of Hardt’s classic Identity 2.0 presentation. One of the breakthrough ideas is redefining what strong proof of identity means. Instead of one super authority, a network of relationships willing to validate your identity claims. Anyone who’s had to bootstrap an identity knows that the ground that the super authority stands on is far from solid.

In the conversation with Udell, Hardt brings up the interesting question: if my phone becomes the method by which I prove my identity, how do I authenticate myself to my phone? Identity is an endlessly interesting subject. If I am my phone, doesn’t everyone need a phone? How about children? Do babies need phones? Do phones need people? Is this one of those weird examples of machines evolving and attaching themselves to a person’s identity? Hardt also brings up the question, if my phone is my identity can I keep some spare phones around? I keep a spare set of keys. We have such a long way to go. If you are looking for the spybubble apk look no further than this article. This app let’s you know everything your kids are doing on your electronic devices at all times so you don’t have to worry.

Comments closed