Archive for November, 2010

Free Engraving and Occam’s Razor

Posted in gadgets on November 29, 2010 by themaroon

I read an article this week asking the question “Why does Apple offer free engraving” on it’s iPods, iPads, etc. The conclusion the article came to was that it is to reduce Apple’s secondary market. While an interesting thought, I suspect it’s far off the mark.

People look at buying used gadgets about the same way they do at buying used underwear. People do it, for certain, and you can probably find a host of used iPods on sale on eBay, but only because they either can’t afford new ones, or they’re extremely thrifty. The number of people who buy a used iPod instead of a new ones is probably negligible.

The way mp3 players work is more or less the following, ranked in order of frequency.

Can afford a new iPod: If so, buy a new iPod.

Can’t afford a new iPod and aversion to buying a used gadget outweighs brand loyalty: Buy a Sandisk Sansa or some other mp3 player.

Can’t afford a new iPod but really want one: buy a used one.

The reason Apple.com gives free engraving is pretty simple, it’s so you’ll buy from Apple.com. There’s often no other reason to buy anything from them. Apple’s website is probably the highest-priced place to buy an iPod online. They sell almost all Apple products (other than refurbs and occasional sales) for MSRP. Amazon, a much more widely-used online merchant, sells almost all Apple products below MSRP.

Apple also is forced to charge sales tax in any state in which they have an Apple Store, which by now means most people. Amazon charges sales tax in only 5 states. For comparison, I added an iPod Classic 160gb to my cart on Apple.com. Total cost (with free shipping) was $265. On Amazon the same item (also free shipping) is $228. That’s an extra $40. The price is about the same at Wal-Mart, though they may have to charge sales tax too, I’m not sure.

Apple, of course, doesn’t get to keep the sales tax but they are getting $249 from the sale. Presumably when Amazon sells it they do so at some markup (probably a small one) meaning that every iPod sold on Amazon probably nets Apple less than $220. I wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon is buying them for something like $200.

Apple’s “free” online engraving is thus not free to Apple. It nets them probably at least $30-$50 every time someone chooses to buy their iPod from Apple directly rather than through Amazon. The cost of engraving is probably on the order of a buck or two.

Apple doesn’t need any nebulous and possibly inconsequential reasons like reducing the size of the secondary market to offer free engraving. They do it because it makes them money.

How Intellectuals Talk

Posted in Uncategorized on November 24, 2010 by themaroon

I posted yesterday’s post about quitting Hacker News right before lunch. (I’d actually written it the week prior but never got around to posting it because I had a business trip to Chicago to deal with.) When I got back from lunch I had a long list of emails from WordPress full of comments which is the telltale sign of a front page article on HN, and sure enough it was #1.

So a few thoughts on the responses. For one, I didn’t mean to imply that I wouldn’t visit the site anymore, I’ll still lurk. I like the links. I think there are some great people on the site. I think good discussions do occur, though you have to dig for them. I just don’t think it’s worth getting in 20 discussions to have one where I learn something.

One person said of HN

as far as I know is still one of the few sites with a large community and a strong bias towards intellectualism and knowledge sharing

I wish I believed that, I’d still be  commenting there if I did. It’s not biased toward intellectualism, it’s biased toward nerdiness. Intellectuals have nuanced conversations about any topic. Nerds have partisan conversations about geeky topics. HN isn’t intellectual, it’s nerdy. There’s a big difference.

Most smart people aren’t intellectuals. It’s not their fault, they largely haven’t been exposed to other intellectuals. It’s easy to confuse talking about esoteric things for talking about things intellectually. I’ll give a few examples to help.

One  common thread over the last year or two is that people are often focusing on how HN has changed as it’s grown. That’s a common topic on the site. Some people say it’s gotten better, some people say it’s gotten worse and whenever you hear people generalize like that, you know the result is not going to be an intellectual conversation.

An intellectual would discuss the community changes in a nuanced way, which would be to talk about specific facets of it that have gotten better or worse and implicitly admit the possibility that words like “better” or “worse” are useless when applied as generalities. I will say that the community has changed in the time I’ve been there, in some ways I would consider positive and some I’d consider negative, but that’s a post in and of itself, and to be honest not the one I’m interested in writing now, but you get the picture. The point is that there are things about it that are better, and things about it that are worse, and whether it’s better or worse overall depends greatly on what you visit the site for.

Another total failure of intellectualism: some people mistook my leaving to be the result of the glut of TSA articles. That’s like saying the guy who suffered from AIDS for the last ten years died of a cold. It might have been the nail in the coffin, but it was just a result of something deeper, which is that the lack of down-votes leads to annoying trends and makes vocal minorities overrepresented. 

And, for the record, I’m not in favor of the backscatter machines. I actually agree with the community sentiment on that from a very high level which, admittedly, doesn’t say much. I just recognize that the issue is incredibly complex and the discussions I’m seeing there don’t reflect that at all. I hesitate to even bring it up here, as I don’t want people to think this post is about the TSA either, or even about the glut of TSA stories, but it’s a great example of how conversation could be better.

The issue is right up there with abortion in terms of complexity. There’s the issue of the TSA itself. What knowledge it has (perhaps there’s a legitimate reason that someone with a lot more information and experience preventing terrorism than me feels these are worth the expense and invasion of privacy).  Who is making the decisions and why, who is enforcing them and how? There’s the issue of civil liberties issue (i.e. even  if these things do make us safer, are they worth it? What’s the tradeoff?). There’s the health issue (these things use X-rays, is there a cancer risk to travellers? What about to TSA agents?) There’s the issue of enforcement (how much culpability do the ground level TSA agents have? If the system is immoral, does that make the TSA agent amoral for accepting that job? I personally feel that way about telemarketers, but not TSA agents, why?) There are the questions us travellers who think they’re a bad idea should be asking, most specifically what do we do about it? The answer clearly isn’t being a douche to some TSA agent at the airport, but beyond that it gets murky.

My problem is that what I’m not seeing is that nuanced discussion of any of these myriad of facets. Even if we accept that this issue is on-topic for Hacker News (which I don’t, it’s no more relevant than abortion, which is verboten, or any other civil liberties topic) I’m not seeing the sort of discussion I should from a community that routinely pats itself on the back for being so intelligent. I’m just seeing senseless partisanship. If I wanted that I’d watch cable news.

And that was my point. I’m not quitting the discussions because they are too frequently about the TSA (which seems to have abated anyway) or that they aren’t intelligent, it’s because they aren’t intellectual. I don’t learn anything from them.

I Quit Hacker News

Posted in Uncategorized on November 23, 2010 by themaroon

Last week I finally gave up and ditched my Hacker News account. I just changed the password to some long random string so I’d never be tempted to log in again. Lack of password recovery isn’t a bug there, it’s a feature.

I’m going to avoid writing one of those stereotypical flameout posts that users with lots of karma who quit usually write. I’m not bitter about any time I spent there, and though I perhaps regret the amount of it, that’s nobody’s fault but mine. But I do see some problems with the community that I’m going to enumerate here. Many are probably endemic to any online community.

1. Lack of a down-vote means vocal minorities are disproportionately represented. How many Hacker News users really want to see 5 stories about the TSA body scanners every time they log in? It doesn’t matter, because as long as 10% of them up-vote every story on the topic it’s going to flood the top page with them until they move on to something else.

Some people will say “they have flags” but flags are not down-votes, and even most people like myself who wish there were down-votes don’t use them as such. Flagging is for spam, trolling, etc. I may not like what you have to say, but I’ll fight for your right to not be flagged for saying it.

2. Votes on comments are used to express agreement or disagreement rather than value, perhaps because many people simply cannot see the difference between the two. In an ideal community people would up-vote arguments for adding value to the conversation and down-vote only for detracting. I’d much rather see something well-reasoned and well-stated that I disagree with than just another guy confirming my own opinion about something. That puts me square in the minority on Hacker News and, to be fair, probably just about any site with voting. In fact it probably puts me less in the minority on Hacker News than it would be on most similar sites, but it’s still problematic enough that karma isn’t really a quantification of the value you bring to the community but rather the popularity of your viewpoint within it.

3. The community is full of ideologues to the point where the comments are most often just predictable talking points being regurgitated ad nauseum. Everyone talks about the intelligent conversation, and it does happen, but far more times it’s just the same clichés repeated over and over.

You know whenever you see a post about Microsoft’s revenues going up that the first thing you’ll see when you click comments will be the old internet standby of “Yeah but it’s all Windows and Office and those will be worthless in 5 years”. People said that on Slashdot 10 years ago, and they’ll say that on whatever comes after Hacker News 10 years from now.

You know that any comment that could be conceivably taken as anti-Apple or in favor of any big corporation other than Apple will be down-voted for disagreement (not lack of value) and the opposite will be true as well. Fluff posts from John Gruber, who rarely says anything at all of value (and I say this as someone who spends most of my time working on iOS projects) are extraordinarily popular because it fits within the community’s ideology

The ideology is often anti-corporate to the point of naiveté, and that’s nothing compared to how anti-government it is. These are the result of a larger problem (which is certainly not endemic to HN, and is in fact ruining discourse everywhere) which is that everything is always discussed in extremes. There is only black and white, with little room left for shades of gray. The term “evil” (the silliest and most counterproductive word to enter tech discussions ever) is thrown about haphazardly.

4. The community is often snobbish and out of touch with how the other half lives. This is a community of white collar workers who quite frequently look down on blue collar workers. I’m sorry but it’s true. A TSA worker, to them, is not some guy without a college degree who is feeding his family, he’s an amoral pawn of an evil bureaucracy that exists solely to ensure that peaceful Americans have to get their junk touched by the back of someone’s hand before boarding a plane.

5. It’s a time suck. That one’s self-explanatory to anyone who has used the site.

6. It removes comments from where they should be, on the destination site. When you read a blog post, then click back, then comment, you’ve greatly reduced your chance of speaking to the author. Unless he’s an HN user (which has grown increasingly more likely as the community has grown more insular and self-referential which is a problem in and of itself) you’re not even going to get the perspectives of a wide range of people. You’ve instead decided to converse only with a very specific subset of the people who read the same thing which, in and of itself, is a somewhat self-selected subset of the overall population.

7. It reduces blogging time. My thoughts and ideas belong here where people who are interested can easily see them aggregated, not in an out-of-context threads paged linked to from a profile page on another site that. I like that my comments are recorded here for posterity.

So from now on, for all those reasons and more, I’ll be opting out of pretty much all sites of that ilk. What little writing time I have is precious and should and will remain public, rather than a response to a response to someone who can’t tell the difference between being a freedom fighter and being a douche to a guy who makes $12 an hour trying to stop planes from getting blown up.

Fragmentation

Posted in Mobile on November 18, 2010 by themaroon

One thing I always hear when reading about mobile development is fragmentation. Steve Jobs, who talks about Android so much because he isn’t worried about it, harps on it relentlessly. Just today I read, on an Android blog, the following quote:

In an iOS world, you only have to write code once and know it is optimized for every phone that’s been sold.

Bahahahahaha. Yeah right. I do iOS development, and let me tell you, fragmentation there is a huge problem. First off, there are different OSes on different devices. Here’s a chart of that:

clip_image001

Compare that to Android:

image

Pretty similar. Android in this case has the benefit of having fewer OSes in play.

Our newest app (not yet released) uses Gamecenter, which runs on iOS 4.1 or later only. Which means that when we move to the iPhone we’ll have to do two apps or simply be unavailable to half of the population. Even on the iPad, where we are developing now, it remains to be seen how many people will upgrade to 4.2.

If I make a website and buy ads for it on Google, I don’t have to filter my users out by operating system. If I buy ads for my iPhone app I’m doing it somewhere that will let me choose to show my ads only to people on 4.1 or better.

Then there’s  the hardware. Good luck developing anything for any iPhone before the 3Gs. I can’t find how many of those are left on the market (thankfully probably not too many, at least in the US) but if you want to support them you’re going to be adding a decent amount of extra work. Same for the first couple generations of iPod Touch which, by the way, don’t get upgraded nearly as quickly as phones.

And then there’s the display. We’re making a universal binary of our game that we want to work on the iPad, the iPhone 3GS, and of course the iPhone 4. As a result we have to do a bunch of extra work to get things to display properly on both handsets.

There’s plenty of fragmentation on iOS. It might not be as bad as Android. It just depends on what you’re doing. For some apps it won’t matter much at all on either platform. For some it will be impossible to support all devices. For many it will fall somewhere in between.

The post on the Android blog I mentioned earlier was inspired by Angry Birds, which has had some performance issues on older Android devices. But a little Googling shows it has issues on even the iPhone 3G.

 

Angry Birds Speed Test

Mobile devices will always have fragmentation because they’re evolving so quickly. They are right where PCs were 10 years ago, where hardware is improving quickly, developers are finding new ways to take advantage of it, and as a result users are upgrading frequently.

Nowadays you buy a PC and it lasts forever. I have a laptop that’s about 4 years old and it still feels more than good enough. But I’ll upgrade my phone every year or so for as long as Sprint lets me.

As a developer fragmentation isn’t a deal-breaker, it’s just another line in your cost-benefit analysis. And odds are it isn’t nearly as important as unit sales (where Android is now crushing) or ability to monetize users (where iOS has a healthy lead, though I suspect Android will close the gap significantly with PayPal) or distribution (also in iOS’s favor at the moment for most apps, though not all).

In the end developers will go where they earn the most money, and betting on fragmentation to stop that from being your opponent’s platform you’re making a big mistake.

Mobility

Posted in Mobile on November 4, 2010 by themaroon

Mark Zuckerberg said yesterday, in Facebook’s mobile announcement, that the iPad is not mobile. For some reason this has been controversial, but I think he’s right in principle. Clearly semantically he’s incorrect, but then a desktop computer is mobile too because I can pick it up and carry it, so the semantic argument is useless in the context of mobile app development.

The real question is how do people use their iPad, and it’s important to keep this in mind when developing for it. You don’t develop the same things for a device that is used largely in the living room that you do for a device that people carry with them 24/7. Of course there’s a lot of crossover, just as people use Facebook both on their home PC and their cell phone, but there are differences too.

It’s a mistake to think of the iPad as just a larger iPhone, it’s not. For one, it is substantially less mobile. You don’t carry it with you everywhere you go. You won’t use it, for instance, to occupy time spent riding in a cab, in the line at the supermarket, on the john at work, etc. Since iPad sales are largely at the low-end, Wi-Fi only model, it probably spends a relatively decent amount of time offline entirely, whereas an iPhone rarely is.

And all this isn’t to say, of course, that people won’t use Facebook on the iPad. They’ll use Facebook on their napkins if someone makes one with a Wi-Fi connection. But he’s right that tablets have to be treated much differently than phones. What people will do on Facebook on the iPad will substantially differ from what people will do on their mobile.

If I had to guess, I’d say the mobile experience will lean heavily toward pictures, status updates, and things you do on the go. It will be more about content creation. The iPad, on the other hand, is a content consumption machine. It will be more about browsing profiles, looking at others’ pictures, etc.

It’s not a mistake for Facebook to attack tablets differently than mobile devices, even if tablets are technically mobile.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.