all micro contact rss

Ping: Interesting, but who knows?

So Apple threw its hat into the social networking ring yesterday. I signed up, of course, just to see what it was all about.

The jury is still out on this one for me, but there were a few things I immediately liked:

No browser. I almost never log in to my Facebook account from my computer. Unless someone asks me a direct question, or I want to check out a photo that someone tagged of me. I never go to the Twitter web site, either. I do, however, use Twitter all day long on my phone, my iPad, and in Tweetie for Mac. To me, browsers are for browsing. Literally everything else is better suited to a real app. So the fact that Ping happens in iTunes on the Mac and on my phone is perfect for me.

Sign up was super simple. Apple already has my info, thanks to my iTunes account. So there was literally nothing to do to get signed up, except to agree to sign up.

Privacy. Couldn’t be easier. Either I let anyone follow me, I approve all followers, or I don’t let anyone follow me. That’s it. Three choices. Pick one.

Look and feel. It’s not an ugly web site. It’s iTunes, which is familiar. (iTunes may not be Apple’s prettiest user interface, but it’s Helen of Troy compared to Twitter and Facebook.) The look borrows just enough from the iTunes music store to be easy and familiar. It’s also fairly snappy. Navigating around is about a thousand times easier than a Facebook page.It’s limited to music only. I actually think this is an advantage. There are certainly things missing in Ping, but I appreciate that Apple isn’t trying to do everything at once here. This is a place to discuss old and discover new music, and nothing more. That’s refreshing, in the way that Twitter is all about the 140 characters and nothing more. Facebook has turned into a convoluted mess.

I found a few friends and a few artists I liked somewhat easily. Most of my favorite artists weren’t signed up yet, of course. I assume that will change in time. But that did lead me to the bigger question:

Is Apple the right company to be doing a social network? Apple likes control, and it likes to guard secrets about new products. Those are two things that don’t mix with a social network.One of my friends on Twitter quipped that Apple must think we all like Lady Gaga, because it was suggesting that we follow her. The system should be able to analyze our libraries and pick artists we’re more likely to want to follow, in other words. But that wasn’t the reason why Ping suggested Lady Gaga. It suggested Lady Gaga because she was one of only a handful of artists it could suggest. Apple wanted to keep the details of Ping a secret before yesterday, so they only told a few choice artists about it, just to have some content out of the gate. The price for that secrecy was a bunch of people signing up on day one with few people to follow.

That need for secrecy led to a sour experience for some people, right out of the gate.

As I watched Steve unveil Ping I immediately thought that it would be a good service for artists. What a great way for them to get the word out about their music. Be active on Ping, develop a reputation, have a lot of people like your work, and that will most definitely lead to more sales. You’d have to be a bonehead not to sign up and spend a little time on Ping if your music is sold on iTunes.

I also saw how Ping would obviously lead to more revenue for Apple, as the iTunes store was likely to benefit from all those extra links. In the end, this is all about money, and that’s fine. As long as the benefits to the rest of us are great enough.But I’m not completely convinced of Ping’s benefits to the rest of us. Sure, I can follow my friends, see what they’re listening to, and find a lot of new music. But that assumes I like the same music a lot of my friends do. And that’s not a safe assumption.

I have a few friends with similar tastes, but most of my friends listen to crap, to be honest. And they probably think what I listen to is crap. So where does that leave us?

I could limit my “circle of friends” on Ping to just those who share my musical tastes. But how are my other friends going to feel about that? Chances are, as with Facebook, I’m going to follow them out of guilt and just let them spew nonsense all over my recent activity. Which means Ping will end up being yet another service where I have to wade through a sea of uninteresting garbage to get to the one or two good recommendations I want.Ideally, Ping would analyze my iTunes library, find others with similar tastes, and recommend just those people for me to follow. I don’t want to follow my friends; I want to follow other fans of what I like.

I also don’t like that I can’t really just start a conversation about something at random on Ping. I can “like” an album or song and then comment on that, or I can find an album or track and “Post” on it, in which case I suppose I can ask a question like: “Does anyone have this new Pat Metheny recording? What do you think of it?” But everything revolves around those iTunes store links. I can’t ask what people think about Pat Metheny in general, ask when his new tour will kick off, etc., without tying it to an iTunes link. It’s inconvenient, and a bit pushy, if you ask me.

So I’ll keep my eye on Ping. And I’ll of course check it out when I’m looking for some new music. And I’ll try to follow my favorite artists, so that I know when their new stuff is coming out. But Apple has to add more to this musical conversation before I’ll be convinced whether or not it’s going to take flight.

We’ve seen a lot of social networks fail in the last few years. Maybe the world really doesn’t need more than Facebook and Twitter. Maybe that’s all the distraction we can handle.

I think Apple is right to try and make something work here, considering the captive audience of iTunes users it has at its disposal. They have to protect their dominance of the online music world, after all. But I fear that they are getting into this more out of a sense that they HAVE to, rather than because they want to. They can make this happen, but it’s going to take some more thought.

Looks like Apple Listened to Me

> Either way, I expect *something *to be done by September for Apple’s next event. I can’t see Steve letting this one go and risking further embarrassment if there’s any way it can be avoided. Can you? 
via [jcieplinski.posterous.com](http://jcieplinski.posterous.com/opinion-its-time-to-call-up-akamai)
Okay, I’m sure no one at Apple reads my blog, but I’m glad they finally decided to take my suggestion and [stream tomorrow’s event live](http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/08/31alert.html "Apple Announcement"). That should take care of those pesky MiFis breaking Steve’s demo.

Anyone want to venture a guess as to why reliable web access will be an absolute necessity for tomorrow’s announcements.

Android and anti-piracy

> Google Android evangelist Tim Bray responded to Case’s concerns in a [post](http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2010/08/licensing-server-news.html) on Google’s official Android blog. He says that the sample verification code supplied with the LVL framework wasn’t really intended to be used unmodified. Because it was created to demonstrate how to use the framework, it was deliberately written with an emphasis on simplicity rather than robustness. Bray also contends that the sample applications compromised by Case didn’t use robust code obfuscation, which would have made it considerably more difficult to compromise the software. > > “The licensing service provides infrastructure that developers can use to write custom authentication checks for each of their applications. The first release shipped with the simplest, most transparent imaginable sample implementation, which was written to be easy to understand and modify, rather than security-focused,” Bray wrote. “Some developers are using this sample as-is, which makes their applications easier to attack. The attacks we’ve seen so far are also all on applications that have neglected to obfuscate their code, a practice that we strongly recommend. We’ll be publishing detailed instructions for developers on how to do this.” > > Bray’s points suggest that LVL offers more effective protection when it is used properly and developers don’t just copy and paste Google’s contrived example validation code, but he also acknowledged that the framework is not mature yet and still has room for improvement.
via [arstechnica.com](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2010/08/google-cracked-android-anti-piracy-system-used-wrong-by-devs.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss)
Same old story from the Google evangelists: “Nothing is our fault. Everything is your fault.”

This, I believe, is yet another reason why developers are not flocking to Google. And I’m not convinced Google cares.

Essentially, what Google is saying to developers is the same thing it has always said: Everything is your responsibility. If you want security in your apps, build it yourself. We’ll hand you some sample code, but the heavy lifting is up to you. We don’t care if people pirate your intellectual property. As long as they click on ads.

Understand, Tim Bray is a key spokesperson for Google, not some low-level idiot with a Twitter account. And he literally said that the security code for Android “was written to be easy to understand and modify, rather than security-focused.” The security is not security-focused?

And people still take Android seriously?

Whatever you may think about the future of mobile technology, I can assure you that security is going to be THE issue in a couple of years. Hackers are already starting to target all the major mobile platforms; Google is handing them the keys instead of installing new locks.

Apple, in stark contrast, locks down the security of iOS so hard that it often gets criticized for being a complete control freak. And that is probably true, but still. At least as a user, I get the sense that they care a little about me.

I’m not a developer (though I do some work for one), but when given the choice between a security protocol that’s baked into the platform that I essentially get for free (minus a few hassles), and one that I have to create myself from scratch—that’s a pretty easy financial decision.

This notion that Google is going to sell a billion Android phones and then suddenly a market for software will appear is complete craziness. And as I said before, I don’t think Google even cares. They want ads, and ads in apps are proving very ineffective, anyway. What Google really wants is to drive everyone to the browser again, which is clearly not what the users want.

So again, someone remind me how Google is supposed to win this battle in the long run? They are poised to be the least cohesive, most insecure platform with the least appealing apps. And their phones aren’t even cheaper than the competition. So where’s the world domination part come in?

Daring Fireball Linked List: Whither the iPod Classic?

Dan Frommer wonders whether Apple is set to eliminate the hard-drive based iPod Classic next week. I wouldn’t be shocked if they did, but I bet they won’t. The iPod Classic is like the Mac Pro — not something that sells in huge numbers compared to Apple’s mass market products, but it fills a lucrative and important niche. Some people really do want 200 GB of music in their pocket.

via daringfireball.net

Yeah. I’m one of them. Actually, I don’t want 200GB of music in my pocket; I want it in my car. And make it 500GB while you’re at it.

There’s no good reason to update the iPod Classic. But there’s no good reason to kill it, either. Not unless Apple can sell at LEAST a 128GB iPod Touch at a reasonable price. A 256GB iPod Touch would be even better.

I’ve been quietly hoping that my Classic will last long enough so that I don’t have to replace it before Apple releases such a Touch, but if I have to replace it, I will.

The iPhone makes a great personal iPod when I’m commuting by train or walking, but in my car it’s a lousy iPod.

The next Apple TV: I'll buy one, but don't expect a revolution

> Even with the refresh, Jobs isn’t convinced the new version will be a mainstream hit, says the person familiar with Apple’s plans,” Burrows wrote. “Most consumers aren’t ready to cut the cord on their cable company, or put up with the tech-nastics required to stream content from the iTunes collection on their PC to their living room big-screen TV.
via [appleinsider.com](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/08/25/steve_jobs_isnt_conviced_new_apple_tv_will_be_a_mainstream_hit.html)
This story in Bloomberg has all the trademarks of an Apple leak to the press to temper expectations.

The mistake people keep making when analyzing the merging of traditional home entertainment with computers is in thinking that this is a technology problem that somehow Apple, Google, Netflix, etc. haven’t been able to solve. That’s ridiculous. Apple could design a perfect TV/Movie experience in its sleep.

And it’s not, as the quote above suggests, that people aren’t ready to “cut the cord on the cable company”. Most people I know would jump at the chance to stop paying for crappy cable service. I already have.

The problem is the content. Cable operators have tremendous influence over the content owners, and they want no part of this revolution. They want to charge people $100 a month for cable indefinitely. They have absolutely no interest in releasing their stranglehold on your favorite TV shows. Not to Apple. Not to Google. Not to anyone.

It’s about money.

It’s very similar to the situation we have now with the Energy business. All the money is in Oil, and all the players have a vested interest in selling oil until the very last drop is gone. So solar, wind, nuclear, hydro stand little chance of getting anywhere fast.

My good friend at Webomatica mentioned in his blog this week that his television viewing experience since he dropped cable is fraught with confusion, technical issues, etc. But notice that his suggested solution is right on the money: It’s not that any one of his different devices doesn’t work well; it’s that he needs four different devices and services just to get all the content he wants. He doesn’t want cable back: he wants one box that does everything without being a slave to cable.

People are ready for this revolution. They just don’t have adequate resources to make it happen. And neither does any one tech company. This will take years of chipping away at the wall.

Change will happen; the TV revolution will happen. Just not in early September, no matter what Apple announces. It will be another step forward, as the original Apple TV was a step forward, the Roku Box was a step forward, the Tivo was a step forward, etc. But Jobs is right; Apple has no more power than any other tech company to crack this nut.