Archive for June, 2010
Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 | Opinion | Comments Off
I’ve had the iPad for almost a month now, and I’m still loving it. Its not any one thing it does that makes it so great, its a million little thing. The big screen makes everything easier to use. Browsing the web is so much better. Reading email is wonderful- especially in landscape mode with emails on the left and a message on the right. Using apps that were made for the iPad helps make the apps better: Twitteriffic, IMDB, MLB At Bat (AMAZING for a baseball fan like me), NetNewsWire, and Flight Control, among others. And everything is really fast- on top of everything else that makes the device.
But of course its not perfect. Even though its running iOS 3.2, its really a 1.0 version for the platform. I expect 4.1 to be much better. One thing I hope they improve is file sharing between devices. Its very clunky to transfer files and keep them up to day. I’d love to see better integration with at least MobileMe for transferring files. MacObserver has a good article about the less than stellar iPad file sharing.
I think that will be fixed in time though.
Monday, June 28th, 2010 | Opinion | Comments Off
About two weeks ago, part of the online tech community erupted in a debate about comments. The most well known site that does not have them is Daring Fireball. There was a site back in January called DaringFireballWithComments.net, but that was taken down since it stole all of John Gruber’s writing. Others joined in the hate against comments. I’m here to defend them.
In this defense, I’m going to reference three articles:
- John’s “I’ll Tell You What’s Fair” (scroll to the end)
- Derek Powazek’s “Your right to comment ends at my front door”
- Marco Arment’s “Comments”
First off, I must address Derek’s title as a baseline for my argument (John makes similar statements in his article). Of course anybody who hosts their own website can decide whether or not they want to allow comments, and if so how much commenting they allow. I am not assuming I have a “right” to comment on anybody’s articles on their website. That’s a stupid argument, and its a strawman from those arguing against comments. I am not arguing that anybody must allow comments, I’m arguing that as a good internet citizen, they should allow comments.
Now with that out of the way, let’s get into the meat of the debate. John writes
You write on your site; I write on mine. That’s a response. I don’t use comments on Wilcox’s site to respond publicly to his pieces, but somehow it’s unfair that he can’t use comments on my site to respond to mine? What kind of sense is that even supposed to make? And if there aren’t any comments on DF, how are DF readers “adding to the noise”?
This is one of the main arguments those who hate comments trot out. “I’ll write here, you write there.” Okay, but then he describes Daring Fireball as a “conversationalist” website. Well, conversations have two sides. In this case, one is the writer, the other is the reader. The best part of the internet, is that with comments, the reader can have a voice. They can offer feedback- and that feedback can be seen.
That last part is the key. Emailing the writer makes the counter-argument hidden. Writing a response on another blog makes it near hidden, because most readers don’t have the notoriety of John. None of the other readers is likely to see that response. And while there are many bad commenters out there, there are also many commenters who can make coherent arguments against a position. Shutting them out kills the conversation, and the community loses in the end.
I also disagree with the widespread notion that comments are “discussion”, or that they form a “community”. Discussion and communities require mechanics such as listening and following up that are rarely present in comments.
As does John:
Comments, at least on popular websites, aren’t conversations. They’re cacophonous shouting matches. DF is a curated conversation, to be sure, but that’s the whole premise.
Sure sometimes they aren’t conversation. I’m not arguing there aren’t bad commenters. But those commenters can be handled. Methods such as no anonymous posting, verified email addresses, and yes, banning bad commenters. The thing is when people see what others are getting away with, they push the bounds further. And further. But when they see others getting punished for bad comments, they stop. And they behave.
I think Derek has it right here:
I may enable comments again someday. But what I really want to do is fundamentally redesign the commenting experience. Most comment systems are practically designed to create stupidity. I know there’s a better way. But that’s another post.
Certainly there are systems that are horrible at maintain the level of discourse internet society should expect. And he is right, its not an on or off question. But I think there shouldn’t be an off. Especially when he says things like this:
But I’ve seen incredible communities form in the confines of comment forms. I’ve seen funny, helpful, informative, intimate, amazing conversations. I’ve seen groups of people come together using the crudest of tools to form intense personal bonds. I’ve seen it literally change lives for the better.
And as John Siracusa as remarked
Not a day goes by where I don’t read a comment that’s at least as interesting, entertaining, or insightful as the text it’s attached to.”
And I find the same thing. I skip over the rif-raf and find interesting points and arguments. I find back and forth debate and see both sides. The idea of allowing comments is not about shouting a point, its about expressing it, and possible convincing somebody to see a different point of view. That’s the beauty of debate. If hones arguments and builds better ones.
Finally, I’ll end with this: those who do not allow comments make it appear they do not want that debate. They want their experience free of people questioning them. John has said it doesn’t fit in with his experience. I think that says a lot about his arguments. Of course, even if they don’t mind the debate, not having comments proves they would rather not deal with it. And that’s not good for the internet.
Thursday, June 3rd, 2010 | Opinion | Comments Off
Jason Snell has an excellent article called “Time for Apple to open up the iPhone” where he makes a good case to for Apple to allow unapproved apps on the iPhone. He argues quite well that Apple’s reputation is being harmed without any good benefits.
He thinks Apple should do what Andriod does, and have a deep hidden setting to allow unsigned apps, with a giant warning. Most customers would never know, but they ones who did would be aware of the (very small) risks.
Read the whole thing, its good.