The problem with the word “free”

February 17, 2011
3 comments
 
⇥ Permalink

Jan Wildeboer, writing about the limitations imposed by Microsoft on the Windows Phone 7 developer agreement:

Note the full scope: in whole or in part. This means that you cannot use Libraries that are under this ominous “Excluded License”. Or use documentation that is licensed under the ominous “Excluded License”. You get the point. If you use whatever stuff that is under this ominous “Excluded License” your app will not be added to the marketplace.

So far, so good. This is, indeed, a limitation imposed by MSFT on all its standard development contracts.

So each and all “equivalents” to the GPLv3, LGPLv3, Affero GPLv3 license are excluded. Any license that allows requires redistribution at no charge is excluded.

The consequences of this strange exclusion are not fully clear to me as I am not a lawyer. But one thing is extremely obvious. Microsoft wants to keep its platform clear of Free Software. Period.

This coming from the company that publicly calims to be a friend of Open Source, that wants to make windows the best ever platform for Open Source should make app developers think again if this mobile platform is the platform of choice.

See, this is the problem I have with proponents of “free” software. A lot of them just don’t understand the meaning of the words they use.

Let me explain.

Microsoft has a problem with the GPL. I think they’ve been pretty clear on that particular fact; for example, here’s Steve Ballmer, quoted in a piece by The Register:

Ballmer was trying to articulate his concern, whether real or imagined, that limited recourse to the GNU GPL requires that all software be made open source.

“The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source,” Ballmer explained to an excessively credulous, un-named Sun-Times reporter who, predictably, neglected to question this bold assertion.

Agree or not (and, for the record, I happen to disagree with his assertions here), there is nothing sneaky or sinister about the fact that Microsoft doesn’t allow GPL software in its store. It’s right there, in black and white, and it’s no different from GPL proponents imposing their terms on anyone who decides to use their software: righteous or not, they’re both limiting other people’s freedoms to impose their own.

Most importantly, however, is a far cry from saying that Microsoft isn’t friendly to open-source projects, because open source is not “just” the GPL. Open source is a movement that encompasses a much broader set of licensing terms and distribution philosophies. Microsoft is not a fan of OSS, perhaps, given that its entire business model is based on charging people for software, but they have very much evolved over the years to incorporate OSS into their modus operandi and to participate in the broader communities that their software touches.

This is not just splitting hairs. As a proponent of OSS, and an opponent of the GPL, I find the continued confusion both annoying on a personal level and hindering on a professional one. People who profess to value honesty and truth should do a better job.

Disclaimer: Microsoft is a client of Blue Parabola—and curiously enough, BP has developed several pieces of OSS software (released under a BSD license) for the company.

[Via Simon Phipps.]

⇥ Is Apple cramming the future down publishers’ throats?

February 16, 2011
One comment
 
⇥ Permalink

Has Apple thrown a curveball straight into the face of publishers and content distributors? On the surface, it certainly seems so—and there are plenty of people who are convinced that’s the case. My friend Lex, for example, says that the new policies, which force App Store developers to offer the same in-app purchase options as they offer ex-apphostile both to developers and to consumers.

In principle, I tend to agree with a good part of Lex’s assessment—certainly pertaining to today’s marketplace. Companies like Amazon, Netflix or Rhapsody will find that their ability to leverage iOS as a distribution platform gratis has completely dried up. From this point on, they will either have to pony up 30 percent to Apple or get their apps out of the Store. It’s a none-too-subtle way for Apple to assert complete dominance over the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad as content delivery platforms.

Some have suggested that the developers affected by the changes might create “iOS-only” products designed to go around the limitations imposed by Apple. For example, Amazon could create a special iOS-only version of the books the sell through Kindle without having to change the pricing for all its other products. I have no idea if that’s even possible under today’s rules, but it would nonetheless be a losing battle: you can’t easily “go around” an organization that can arbitrarily change the rules of the game without any restraint.

The resulting loss of choice is, undoubtedly, a setback for the consumer. The fact that people won’t be able to move their content outside of the Apple ecosystem means that they will be held captive in the clutches of the Cupertino mafia.

The publisher perspective

Or does it?

Let ’s look at it from the point of view of the publishers. I think it’s safe to say that almost no consumer today makes their purchases directly from a publisher; the vast majority buys either through a bookstore or through an online seller like Amazon. The same probably goes for music, but let’s focus on books for a moment.

The terms under which Amazon resells electronic books through the Kindle are not dissimilar from Apple. In fact, Amazon’s terms can be far more draconian if you don’t have the power to negotiate more favourable conditions with them, and they used far worse before Apple entered the marketplace with iBooks.

From a publisher’s perspective, then, there is little change where the new App Store policies are concerned. Today, they pay Amazon a commission on sales and, starting from tomorrow, they’ll have to pay it to Apple.

Magazine publishers are in a similar, or better position: today’s magazine distribution is a world of pain that ranges from ridiculous discounts to onerous shipping costs. This has distorted the periodicals market to the point where you can get a subscription to any newsstand magazine for half the cover price, or less. The discount is not just the publisher’s way to reward your loyalty—it’s also their way to thank you for helping them bypass the most expensive step in their publication process.

With iTunes acting as an intermediary between users and publishers, getting a hold of that personal information will become much more difficult, although not impossible. Still, the fundamental dynamics of the game have not changed.

The consumer perspective

The only companies that really suffer here are, therefore, those that act as distributors. When you think about it, they do not necessarily add a whole lot to the process: in an online world, companies like Amazon act as little more than content aggregators—a convenient place where you go look for books, magazines and music instead of having to scour each individual publisher’s website.

Curiously, the Apple ecosystem already has such a place: it’s called iTunes. And the loss of choice from the fact that iOS is a closed ecosystem is only real so long as it’s measured against its competition. The Kindle is just as closed—it happens to run on multiple platforms, but Amazon keeps as tight a lid on its content as Cupertino does on the iBookstore.

Publishers, on the other hand, remain completely free to distribute their content through as many platforms as possible and acquire customers in any way they see fit. Thus, consumers are not necessarily losing anything—they’re just being locked into a particular marketplace if they choose to remain within Apple’s ecosystem.

In the process, they gain two important advantages. The first is a simple, centralized and proven payment mechanism. Rather than pulling out your credit card at every turn, all you need to do is remember a single login and password, et voila, your subscription is served. If it were any simpler… I suspect Apple would have thought of it.

The second is the ability to keep their personal information away from the publishers unless they choose to share it. This is no small thing when you think about the way subscriptions work today: why should customers pay and give away their information at the same time? The two activities have no business being related to each other, and yet they cannot be easily uncoupled today—in part because the publishers value the information they collect, and in part because it’s really the only way they can charge customers.

Apple’s perspective

All the uncertainty about Apple’s motivations, however, evaporates once you start considering the implications of its decision for the future of publishing on the iPad.

A 30 percent “tax” on purchases made through iOS devices sounds onerous and unjust when you project it onto today’s market, where publishers have not quite yet grasped the fact that tablets are not just another outlet for the material they create for the print media. Indeed, tablets will require a complete rethinking of the very concept of content, just like radio did at the turn of the century, and television in the Sixties.

The content of the future will, most likely, be an app of some kind—requiring not just a different approach to its development, but also a new business model to sustain its existence and grow. Factoring the cost of distribution into a new business model is certainly going to be easier than trying to cram it into the existing economies of scale. In the aftermath of the launch of News Corp’s The Daily, it’s obvious that the commission the company pays Apple is simply another line item in their budget—a cost of doing business that they knew about and have factored in their calculations.

And that’s exactly what Apple wants: publishers that are committed to creating a new generation of content that has been conceived from the get-go to appeal to tablet users who will otherwise not pay for it. It may sound harsh, but revolutions always are.

Whether the plan succeeds or not remains, of course, to be seen. The decision to restrict third parties from using iOS as a content-delivery channel to their heart’s content has ruffled a lot of feathers—many of which sit atop corporate bodies with deep pockets and determined management that won’t sit by while Apple has its wicked way with their livelihood. Still, the potential is there for a true evolutionary step to occur in the world of publishing, which has been anything but fast in embracing the digital age and its unique needs.

  1. With the difference that, with an in-app purchase, Apple gets to keep 30 percent of the sale price.

⇥ On writing (better)

February 7, 2011
4 comments
 
⇥ Permalink

Over the last umpteen years, I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people (and techies in particular) have three main fears:

  • Speaking
  • Writing
  • Picking up the phone

In the past, I have talked about all three activities, but two recent events conspired to make me write this post. The first was an opportunity to co-write an article with my friend and collaborator Lex Friedman. The piece ended being killed for reasons beyond anyone’s control, but the process of actually sitting down with someone and writing in the same document at the same time brought into sharp relief the fact that many others who write for a living use an approach to putting thoughts to paper that is very similar to mine.

What pushed me over the edge, however, was the fact my son was assigned a paper on black history, which he has been enthusiastically working on for the last week or so. Being only seven, however, means that writing doesn’t yet come natural to him—just like, I’ve realized, it doesn’t come natural to a lot of other people.

Part of the problem is that schools don’t seem to teach proper composition1. Curricula are obsessed with the rules of grammar and the history of literature; the former is undoubtedly important and useful (which I’m not so sure could be said about the latter), but is secondary to being able to express your thoughts and ideas properly—which is the real goal of writing.

Writing as a process

Let’s start by abandoning the term “writing” and replace it with the term “composing.” The sound of a pen scrawling or of fingers typing is but a relatively small and unimportant part of a much larger process that, in one way or another, takes place in the mind of everyone who writes for a living. Yet, the first thing that so many do when assigned a writing process is to open their word processor or notepad and start composing.

Instead, the first activity that the seasoned writer does once assigned a writing project is… something else. I usually entertain myself with something completely unrelated while my brain processes and sorts out information and organizes my thoughts. I know of writers who go have a drink (usually by themselves—writing is a very lonely job), take a walk, make phone calls, play with their children… anything but actually sitting down and writing.

You see, before you can write, you need to figure out what you want to write. Many writing courses suggest that anything on paper is better than nothing, but I disagree. Putting words together is a complex process that requires a lot of brainpower—brainpower that cannot otherwise be used to make sure what you want to say makes any sense. It’s much better to get things organized first, and this could well be a process that takes the form of you writing down an idea or two, particularly for longer projects—and then worry about the letter side of things.

In general, I find that the complexity of this set-up process is proportional to what you have to write. For an e-mail, it might take a few seconds of thought; a newspiece might require fifteen minutes or so, and an opinion piece—well, let’s just say those are hard, which is probably why so many of the ones you find are so bad. For books, the process can go on for days or weeks.

The goal of this initial process is, essentially, to design your story. You need to decide what your conclusion is going to be, and work your way backwards to make sure that everything you want to say fits cohesively together. I don’t mind telling you that I have, more than once, started composing a piece convinced that I wanted to make a particular point, only to find out that a logical train of thought led me to a completely different conclusion. Good luck figuring that out while you’re trying to find the right words to use, worrying about syntax and orthography, and typing all at the same time.

Telling a story

When you finally do decide that you’ve thought things through and you know exactly what you want to write and what conclusions you want to reach, you can start writing. Here, there are two mistakes that I see people make; the first is that they write sentences but do not tell a story.

Every single piece you write is an adventure, with a beginning, a development, and an end. It doesn’t matter whether you are composing an e-mail to your clients or writing the next Great American Novel—you still need to take the reader by the hand and walk with them through every nook and cranny of your story. Your writing needs to be engaging, or you will never move beyond your grade-school reports.

Alas, most people write in short, halting sentences—I’m not sure if that’s because they were taught this way at school, or if it’s just a clever ploy to avoid having to properly punctuate. To a reader, that’s like driving down a flat, featureless highway in the passenger seat of a car whose mad driver constantly accelerates to maximum speed and then stomps on the brake pedal: it’s not just boring, it’s nauseating. When you read, years of habit have trained your brain to give a certain weight to the punctuation you encounter on a page; abusing it is like continuously punching the reader’s mind with brass knuckles.

Despite its small size, the period is an important signal for your mind: it tells Mr. Brain that it needs to stop reading and spend some time absorbing what it has just seen; therefore, short sentences have a jarring effect on the flow of a story and soon tire the reader. The same, of course, is true of long, winding, rambling sentences with no end.

The second problem that most people seem to have is that they think that writing is about words. It isn’t. Writing is, first and foremost, about communicating. When you write a story, the first goal should be to explain clearly and properly whatever it is that you want to say.

Remember, the focus now is on writing—getting things on paper. Don’t waste your time thinking about whether each sentence flows properly, or whether there are dissonances or repetitions in your text—and please, for the love of everything that is Good and Just, throw away that thesaurus. It’s a waste of time, and the word alternates you’ve found are, most likely, the wrong ones anyway.

To be clear, “avoiding short sentences” doesn’t mean that you must throw words at the problem; don’t use five words when three will do. You may be getting paid by the word, but your editor is not daft. He knows when you’re padding, and he knows that padding adds nothing to the meat of a story. Even if you just write for your blog, be concise and clear. It makes everyone’s life easier.

Clean up

Now that you’ve got things on paper, so to speak, it’s time to clean them up. Go over the stream-of-consciousness text that came out of your mind during the first draft, and fix anything that’s out of place. This is where you pay attention to flow, consistency, coherence and linguistic considerations like repetitions and punctuation.

The clean-up phase is both critical and amazingly boring. Getting an idea on paper is hard work and, by the time you’re done with the first draft, you’ll want to just move on to something more fun, like, say, getting sloshed or overdosing on sesame pretzels. Alas, making sure that your text doesn’t sound like it was vomited by a five-year-old is very important—trust me when I tell you that the only thing more humiliating than seeing your story being mutilated by an editor is recognizing that the editor has done a better job with it than you did.

Therefore, it pays to spend a little time making sure that your text is as good as possible. Think of it as optimizing a piece of code—something you’re supposed to do only once you know the code works and you’ve identified its weak spots.

Tricks of the trade

There are four essential tools that every author needs to master; they are called comma, semicolon, colon and period.

Am I being funny? Not at all, because the vast majority of people has absolutely no idea how to use any of them individually—let alone all together.

Punctuation is the single most important aspect of your writing; it helps resolve ambiguities and it provides a rhythm for the flow of your discourse. Maybe it’s the fact that I have an almost fetishistic attachment to proper punctuation, but I’m convinced that a good use of the gamut of marks available to you will make up for a lot of other mistakes. Some of the best articles I’ve ever seen come out of the php|architect pipeline have been written by authors who had, at best, a basic knowledge of English, but who could write engagingly and coherently by using all the tools at their disposal, transcending their language handicap with ease.

Remember that punctuation is not just a typesetting concern. It is a tool of incredible power that helps you mark the hills and valleys in your story; in a way, it is to writing what proper inflection and timing is to speaking: get it wrong, and readers will not understand what you’re saying (or, worse, misunderstand it). If you have to choose between good grammar and good punctuation, focus on the latter, because editors can fix your grammar, but bad punctuation will actually skew the meaning of your work.

You might be wondering why I haven’t talked about style. The reason is simple: style is always unique. You can try and imitate someone else’s, but you will always end up subtly modifying it to make it your own—it’s just inevitable. The only way you form a style is by reading—as much as possible and from as many different sources as you can—and by writing until you’re comfortable with whatever experience your text projects.

Dealing with feedback

Writing even the simplest of things is an exercising in baring your soul. Especially when you’re writing anything other than a factual report, you’re basically showing your readers the colours of your ideas and personality—and giving them carte blanche to judge and critique them.

And they will. Everybody who ever reads your text, from your editors to your blog’s readers, will pass judgment on your ideas and, by reflection, on you as a person. Whether it’s a note from your ed telling you that you’ve messed everything up and he had to rewrite half your article, or a comment on your blog, feedback is often hard to take.

It is, however, also an important tool for learning to do a better job, which makes being able to tell the good apart from the rest very important. If you’re fortunate enough to work with a good editor, he or she can be a veritable treasure trove of learning opportunities. My editors at Macworld and our own editorial team—both subject to incessant drivel from yours truly—give me important pointers on learning to write better every time they lay hand on one of my stories2.

Good feedback, like the gooey, chocolatey filling of a French pastry, is in the middle. You’ve got to let go of the haters—people who criticize instead of critiquing. Nothing can be learned from these leeches on the goodwill of a society that allows them to access the Internet, when they should instead be relegated to a dungeon and left to fend against wild beasts on a 24/7 basis. These are the folks who judge and comment based not on what you have to say or the logic behind your reasoning, but on the exterior appearance of your writing. They’re the kind of people who get up in the middle of Schindler’s List and jeer because Liam Neeson has a piece of lettuce stuck in his teeth. Even though they like to cover their stupidity with a veneer of cultural self-importance, they are absolutely meaningless.

By the same token, you’ve got to let go of the gushers. Knowing that people admire your work is great, and something to be always grateful for, but you can’t learn anything from people who think you’re already doing the best that can be done.

It’s those folks in the middle that you have to listen to. They will, usually politely (and sometimes tactfully), point out that they disagree with your conclusions and explain what they believe the flaws in your line of reasoning are.

Ultimately, your worst critic is likely to be yourself. In fifteen years of writing anything from e-mails to books, I can think of maybe two or three pieces I’m really proud of. Plus, of course, I’m acutely aware of the fact that, although I have spent nearly as much time in Canada as I have in Italy, I will never be as fluent or articulate as many of the people whose work I admire. Still, I’ve managed to stick around for a while without getting fired from any writing job for gross incompetence—and have no plans to make myself scarce any time soon.

[Update 2001/02/08: tightened up some language I wasn't happy with. I will not, however, change the expression “to come natural” with the more grammatically correct “to come naturally.” As far as I'm concerned, it's a perfectly acceptable colloquial expression—this is a blog post, not Anal Annie's Manual of English Obnoxiousness. To those who thought that was the only thing worth commenting on, thanks for making my point about feedback. Now go back to watching Schindler's List—you've done good3.]

  1. At least in Italy. I never went to school in North America.
  2. Except when they change my punctuation. When they do that, they’re the devil.
  3. See what I did there? Clever, eh?

More modest full-body scanners?

February 1, 2011
No comments
 
⇥ Permalink

From MSNBC:

“One of the things this does is give greater confidence to the traveling public, because they are seeing the image also. They are seeing exactly what the security officer is seeing, that they can say ‘Oh, yeah, I forgot to take that piece of paper out of my pocket,’” Pistole said.
Because, of course, it’s the pieces of paper we all need to worry about. Not the radiation going through our bodies. Not the bombs safely hidden away from the TSA’s prying eyes. The damn piece of paper. Sigh.

Say what, New York Times?

From Claire Cain Miller, writing for the NYT on Apple rejecting Sony’s eReader app for the iPhone:

Apple rejected Sony’s iPhone application, which would have let people buy and read e-books bought from the Sony Reader Store.

Apple told Sony that from now on, all in-app purchases would have to go through Apple, said Steve Haber, president of Sony’s digital reading division.

This sounds damn wrong to me; the rules have always been, to my knowledge, that all in-app content must be sold through Apple’s own in-app purchasing system. No exception. End of the rule.

That’s why, for example, you can’t buy your books directly from within the Kindle app, but, rather, the app needs to push you out to Safari so that you can visit the Amazon site, go back into Kindle and sync your content. It’s not that Amazon is lazy—it’s just the way the App Store rules work.

So, are the rules changing? I don’t know—we keep hearing that they are, but, curiously, no publisher, big or small, as yet come out and flat out claimed that Apple is preventing them from allowing app customers from accessing subscription content that was not purchased in-app. All we hear are rumours and third-hand reports that, like Miller’s are rather confusing. For example:

The company has told some applications developers, including Sony, that they can no longer sell content, like e-books, within their apps, or let customers have access to purchases they have made outside the App Store.
This seem to indicate that Apple is up to something, but it doesn’t jive with the rest of the article, where the author confuses in-app purchases and ex-app purchases like the one that happen on the Kindle. It seems to me that any reasonable person would read the article and, at the end, still not know whether Sony’s eReader really allowed in-app purchases (that is, purchases where the entire transaction happens without leaving the app) without going through the App Store—in which case there is no news to be had here—or whether it works in a similar way to the Kindle app, in which case this development is, indeed, rather disturbing.

What puzzles me is that it would be damn difficult for Apple to effectively block apps that, like Amazon’s, uses an external transaction engine. Leaving regulatory concerns aside (which would be quite considerable), any app that embeds a problem would become an endless source of heartburn for the App Store testers.

One could, I suppose, make the point that this is about control, a convenient word that people seem to toss around a lot when talking about Apple. Perhaps they’re right—Apple could even argue that with no control over the purchase process, there is nothing that stops a company from selling you a children’s story and then, wham!, the next thing you know, you’re off buying insect porn.

Still, the only reality is that we don’t seem to have a clear-cut, well-explained and properly researched example of this happening; Apple, as usual, isn’t talking, and everybody else seems to do their best to muddy the waters rather than throwing in a bit flocculant and helping the rest of figure this out once and for all.