Article Archives

Filter

By Month
By Kind

The Ex-CEO, the New CEO and the Future of Apple

Aug
24

The Ex-CEO

It’s important to know what Jobs’ main function at Apple was before attempting to predict what the future of the company holds. Many news stories paint Jobs as an omnipresent micro-manager and, while that may have been the case when he took back the reins in 1997, Apple is a very different company now. It’s progressed from near-irrelevance to the trend-setting behemoth in the last 14 years.

In that time, Jobs’ role has changed. He afforded ever-increasing control to other executives, instilling them with the same mindset of elegance in simplicity that has defined the modern-day Apple. He has officially been on medical leave since January of this year, but has continued to oversee new deals and contracts, and unveil new products. His contribution is greater than the products he helped bring to market, and more over-reaching than Apple’s rise to marketplace giant. Steve Jobs leaves in his wake a company forged in his vision. That won’t change.

The New CEO

Perhaps this entire article could be replaced with, “Look, it’s going to be Tim Cook, and that’s that.”

On Succeeding Steve Jobs” — John Gruber

It’s always been Tim Cook. He’s part of the Apple dream team[1]. I’m surprised there was such frenzied speculation regarding Jobs’ successor, because it was so blatantly obvious.

Tim Cook is an executive that doesn’t really speak publicly, aside from at quarterly earnings calls and the rare keynote. That doesn’t mean his contributions aren’t felt. To give just one example, in 1996, Apple had 54 days of total retail inventory. Cook got that down to a low of 0.4 days. He is a machine.

The Future, Or Something Like It

AAPL is down a little over 5% in after-hours trading. Those who have the slightest whiff of respect for Jobs are concerned about his health. But at Apple, all will be well. I can only hope the same for Steve himself.

 

Stay hungry, stay foolish.

 

  1. Steve Jobs, Tim Cook, Jonny Ive, Bertrand Serlet and Ron Johnson. Each has played an enormous role in defining Apple today. Only two of those five retain the positions that made the company, but their impact is greater than the bodies that remain. [↑]

 

August 24, 2011

Yet Another Entry in My Series of Poorly-Considered and Ill-Advised Bullet-Point Thoughts

Jul
21

On OS X Lion

  • I haven’t installed Lion yet owing to an out-of-date backup. I’m waiting on a hard drive from NewEgg before I tempt fate.
  • Think of the new default scrolling direction as “I want to push the content this way”. It makes more sense.
  • Many of the transitionary changes in Lion (scrolling direction, dock indicators, scrollbars) all have ways to revert to the functionality of prior OS X releases. This is an odd choice for Apple, as they tend to make changes that they view as improvements, leaving in the dust people used to the legacy methods.
  • The new login screen is bordering on hideous, but the unlock screen (which uses the user’s desktop picture instead of the ubiquitous linen pattern) is beautiful.
  • I dislike the new iCal for how horrible the faux leather texture looks, but I dislike Address Book even more. It doesn’t resemble any real address book I’ve ever seen. It’s a usability nightmare. The stack of pages on either side never changes, the hanging bookmark is a button to show groups (as one would, of course, expect), and one can’t actually flip through the “book”.

On Google+

  • Google+ is an odd rethinking of the typical user privacy model. Usually, person A requests permission to see person B’s information. Person B can accept or deny this request. On Google+, it’s almost the inverse. Person A adds person B to their whitelist, and person B gets a notification that person A is now sharing their content. Person B can choose to share their content with person A or not, but person B can now view person A’s content without requesting it.

July 21, 2011

Translating Apple’s Final Cut FAQ into Plain English

Jun
29

Via Apple:

Final Cut Pro X is a breakthrough in nonlinear video editing. The application has impressed many pro editors, and it has also generated a lot of discussion in the pro video community. We know people have questions about the new features in Final Cut Pro X and how it compares with previous versions of Final Cut Pro. Here are the answers to the most common questions we’ve heard.

We added some cool new features in Final Cut Pro. These features impressed pro editors until they actually used it, and realized that none of their previous projects would work in the new version. This pissed them off royally.

Can I import projects from Final Cut Pro 7 into Final Cut Pro X? Final Cut Pro X includes an all-new project architecture structured around a trackless timeline and connected clips. In addition, Final Cut Pro X features new and redesigned audio effects, video effects, and color grading tools. Because of these changes, there is no way to “translate” or bring in old projects without changing or losing data. But if you’re already working with Final Cut Pro 7, you can continue to do so after installing Final Cut Pro X, and Final Cut Pro 7 will work with Mac OS X Lion. You can also import your media files from previous versions into Final Cut Pro X.

Fuck no.

Can I import my video directly into Final Cut Pro X as I could in Final Cut Pro 7? Yes. Final Cut Pro X allows you to import video from a wide range of devices, including many AVCHD-based cameras and DSLR cameras. You can find a list of supported cameras here. The list will grow as we continue to test and qualify new cameras. [truncated]

(no translation necessary)

Can I edit my tape-based workflow with Final Cut Pro X? Yes, in a limited manner. Final Cut Pro X is designed for modern file-based workflows and does not include all the tape capture and output features that were built into Final Cut Pro 7. Final Cut Pro X does support FireWire import for DV, DVCPRO, DVCPRO 50, DVCPRO HD, and HDV. In addition, companies like AJA and Blackmagic offer free deck control software that allows you to capture from tape and output to tape.

You still edit on tape? Get with the times, man.

Does Final Cut Pro X support multicam editing? Not yet, but it will. Multicam editing is an important and popular feature, and we will provide great multicam support in the next major release. Until then, Final Cut Pro X offers some basic support with automatic clip synchronization, which allows you to sync multiple video and audio clips using audio waveforms, creating a Compound Clip that can be used for simple multicam workflows.

Hell no. Funny story: we knew people wanted this, but we really needed to meet some deadlines. Therefore, we took a page out of Motorola’s book and shipped it in an incomplete state and somehow managed to charge $300 for it. We’re geniuses.

[boring FAQ points truncated]

Are keyboard shortcuts in Final Cut Pro X different from those in Final Cut Pro 7? Many keyboard shortcuts for navigation, start/end marking, and tools are the same in Final Cut Pro X and Final Cut Pro 7. Some keyboard shortcuts have changed to support new features. Final Cut Pro X offers powerful keyboard customization, and you can view and modify keyboard shortcuts at any time by choosing Final Cut Pro > Commands > Customize.

We took a page out of Adobe’s book and moved a few shortcut keys around. Good thing you don’t rely on those or anything. Right?

Can I use my third-party plug-ins in Final Cut Pro X? You’ll be able to use them as soon as they are updated.

Nope.

Can Final Cut Pro X export XML? Not yet, but we know how important XML export is to our developers and our users, and we expect to add this functionality to Final Cut Pro X.

Does Final Cut Pro X support OMF, AAF, and EDLs? Not yet.

Does Final Cut Pro X allow you to assign audio tracks for export? Not yet. An update this summer will allow you to use metadata tags to categorize your audio clips by type and export them directly from Final Cut Pro X.

Nope, nope and, uh, no. Aren’t you glad you paid $300 for this upgrade?

Can I purchase a volume license? Final Cut Pro X, Motion 5, and Compressor 4 Commercial and Education Volume Licensing will be available soon via the Apple Online Store for quantities of 20 or more. After purchasing, customers will receive redemption codes they can use to download the applications from the Mac App Store.

Now that you’ve read our extensive FAQ on why we took a bunch of stuff out of the product you rely on, we’ll soon be offering the chance to purchase enormous quantities of said product. It was clearly the price that consumers had a problem with.

June 29, 2011

“I’d like your pointiest boot.”

Jun
21

Men’s boots with a very pointy tip are incredulously difficult to find.

I was out with two friends when one decided that he desired such boots. We visited several stores attempting to find the desired degree of pointiness. Most were far too wide, and much too blunt. I imagine that the boots he wanted would have a degree of point so high that they could cut glass. I can’t figure out why he’d want a razor blade attached to his toes, but that’s just me. We entered Store One. My friend approaches the clerk.

“Hi. I’d like your pointiest boot.”

By the clerk’s expression, I assume my friend would have been more welcome asking for a unicorn steak with extra rainbows. Cue a scripted “right this way, sir.”

A quick perusal of the shelf, and I assume my friend would have had more selection asking for that unicorn steak. With extra rainbows. And a dusting of destroyed dreams. The clerk pointed to one particular pair which had a tip about half-an-inch tall by about three-quarters of an inch wide. “This is our pointiest boot, but to be honest, that style is on its way out. You probably won’t have much luck.”

With fashion advice coming from a guy with a brown belt, we immediately left. “I want pointy shoes, dammit.”

Store Two had a banner promoting their “Shoe-aholic” sale. We walked in with my friend strutting slightly faster, as he does when he’s just thought of something incredibly witty. This should be good.

“I’d like your pointiest pair of boots, and some shoe-ahol.”

The clerk didn’t get it. We left.

Store Three had less selection than either of the previous. Their section of non-casual shoes was pitiful, spanning a single shelf. My friend grabbed a stiletto from the shelf, prodded me in the side and asked if it would be weird if he requested a similar style in a men’s size.

He still doesn’t have his pointy boots.

June 21, 2011

Don’t Wake the Dragon, But Maybe Strike Up a Licensing Deal With It

May
19

Since the rumour mill has all but confirmed an upcoming revamp/refresh/reinvigoration of the MobileMe service, apparently to be dubbed “iCloud”, it would be a good idea to explore the problems they might attempt to solve with it, specifically with music syncing.

In recent memory, Apple has been rather slow to introduce necessary (or “necessary”) features to iOS devices; copy and paste, and multitasking are two of the more notable examples. But, as it has been said time and time again, Apple tends to implement these features in a more logical, more intuitive and better way than the contemporary best version. In the last few weeks, Amazon has introduced a digital locker, and Google just announced Google Music Beta. Both are cloud-based music storage solutions (marketing speak be damned). And now Apple seems poised to jump into this field with a service of their own.

The current crop of cloud storage spaces work beautifully for documents, bookmark syncing and photos, all of which tend to be formats measured in kilobytes or just a few megabytes. Music and movies tend to reside in libraries measuring several gigabytes. While I would like to be enthused about Google Music Beta, it requires the user to upload their library. A 1,000-song library, using Apple’s estimations, is about 8 GB. Assuming a typical home user will have a 1 mbps upload, this will take over 18 hours of solid uploading to initially sync their entire music library. That’s simply far too long. Any time music is added to or removed from your library, Google’s tool will automatically make the necessary changes in the cloud. It’s good that it’s automatic, but it still takes time. It’s 2011. Why does online storage have the same (in)convenience it did back in 1995 with FTP?

Amazon does a way better job. Any time you purchase a song through Amazon MP3, that song gets added to your Digital Locker. This also goes for movies and TV shows purchased through those Amazon services. And yet neither solution helps me much, because I am Canadian.

In fact, anyone outside of the US cannot appreciate either of these solutions. Neither Amazon nor Google sought licensing from any record label to begin their cloud locker services. You can argue ad nauseum about whether or not they should be required to get this permission, but the fact remains that they’re treading on their (lawyers’) interpretation of American fair use laws.

In summary, then, the current state of cloud music storage relies on American fair use laws and individual users to manually upload their music files. Wouldn’t it be nice to change that?

Unlike Google or Amazon, Apple sells digital music in 26 countries. Apple has a much greater advantage in ensuring that the service they provide will be available in all of (or a majority of) the countries the iTunes Store is available in. Conversely, Apple has a major disadvantage if this service were to only be available in the US.

How will this service work, then? Will the user be required to upload all of the individual music files they own, à la Google Music? This is slow and cumbersome, as established. Will all tracks purchased from iTunes automatically be made available in the cloud? This has the potential to exclude large amounts of a user’s library if that user has ripped music from CDs or purchased it from other services such as Amazon MP3 and Beatport. As an example, while I have a substantial music library, only around 500 songs in it have been purchased from the iTunes Store, significantly less than the number of CDs I’ve ripped.

It would be in Apple’s best interest to allow access to all songs purchased through iTunes by default, but also allow users to add their own music to the bucket. The problem, as ever, comes back to the record labels and local laws. Since Apple cannot determine whether or not you actually own the songs you’re uploading, they might be granting you storage of your enormous library of pirated music. This would, to put it mildly, displease the record labels.

It’s a tricky and complex issue. Not providing users with the ability to upload their own files is grounds for user dissatisfaction, but allowing them this ability will piss off the record labels. And when record labels get pissed off, ordinary people tend to suffer most.

May 19, 2011

You Suck at Making Coffee

Apr
24

That Folgers you had this morning? Those grinds were sitting around for weeks in that can, losing all their oils, aroma and flavour. That Starbucks you got at work? Some decent beans and some really shitty ones were blended and roasted until they resembled charcoal. Also, the barista probably steamed the milk until it was burned. That espresso you made when you got home? You tamped it wrong and the shot was either weak or really bitter.

It’s a simple fact: if you make coffee yourself, chances are pretty good that you’re doing it wrong. If you hit up a major coffee chain, they’re probably doing it wrong in new and exciting ways. Today, however, I’m feeling charitable, and I’ve prepared an introduction to making your caffeine buzz tastier, more enjoyable and generally better. I will help you (or, at least, your coffee making skills) un-suck.

The mentioned distributors and locations in this post focus on the United States and Canada. Though I’m sure there are some amazing roasters elsewhere, I don’t have enough experience with them. Following the body of the post are some places where you can read more — I highly recommend checking these out if you’re interested in modern coffee craft and culture.

First, though, a short history lesson. North American coffee movements are often separated into three “waves”, the first of which is the aforementioned Folgers. It introduced people to the idea of a daily cup, and put coffee in the hands of millions. The second wave brought a proliferation of chain coffeehouses, including Starbucks, Peet’s, Seattle’s Best and the like. More interesting than either of these is the third wave.

The third wave focuses on elevating coffee from basic commodity to artisan craft, and brings with it a more personal, localised customer experience. That’s not to say that third-wave coffeehouses cannot be chains — in fact, many are — but their customer service is more akin to a familiar mom-and-pop store than a purely retail feel. It describes both coffeehouses and roasters, a list of which is provided near the end of this post. Many of the third-wave techniques are things you can do at home, and they focus on the beans, the grind and the brew method.

Beans

The first thing you need is better coffee. This should not shock you, and yet most people are still buying crap like this. One of the cardinal “rules” of better coffee is that it should be fresh and locally roasted. Both of these points are arguably wrong. Beans are not best immediately, but rather after having a day or two after roasting to “rest” (though they shouldn’t sit around for weeks, either).

Your local roaster might also suck, or you might not have a lot of choice. Just because they roast in small batches a few blocks away from where you live, that does not necessarily mean that you will get a high-quality product. That’s not a problem, though, when you consider the above suggestion for allowing your beans a couple days’ rest. Some of the best roasters in the US and Canada have online stores that will put a fresh bag of coffee on your doorstep in 2-4 days.

The kind of roast is also important. Darker roasts are often used to mask bad batches of beans, as it’s more difficult to discern between taste qualities. They’re often perceived as “stronger”, but often that’s just higher levels of bitterness. To fully experience many of the unique flavour profiles various blends can offer, look for light-to-medium roasts. Since the flavour of these beans is immediately apparent, it’s harder to mix bad and good beans; therefore, you end up with a batch that has a higher likelihood of tasting amazing.

Try getting a light roast from a well-regarded roaster (a selection is listed below). You’ll notice subtle nuances, clarifying the difference between “roasted” and “torched”.

Grind

Don’t buy pre-ground coffee. Don’t grind your beans in advance. Grind only as much as you need.

Those three sentences (sentence fragments, really) summarize the most important things you need to know about grinding your newly-delivered beans. Grinding your pound of coffee all at once (or, worse, buying pre-ground) reduces the amount of oil in the beans, dries them out and causes them to lose flavour. A good-quality grinder will help you get the best out of your beans. There are three main kinds of grinder available: blade, burr and hand-powered.

It’s best to grind only as much as you need immediately. Don’t bother saving any extra (though try to minimize waste by being careful and precise). You’ll need a coarse grind for most brewed processes, including French press, pour over, siphon, Chemex, and many of the rest. Espresso requires an extremely fine grind. [/column]


Grinder Types

Blade Grinder

A blade grinder is the cheapest kind of grinder one can buy, and is the most inconsistent. The grains can vary in size significantly when on the same grind setting. However, it works fairly well for coarser grinds, as they don’t necessarily need to be even (though it helps get a consistent extraction).

Burr Grinder

The next step up is a burr grinder. A good one will set you back between $150-$400, but these grinders are essential for espresso, and produce a much more even grind even for brewed methods.

Hand Grinder

These are really only for the most demanding connoisseur. They produce an even, highly-controllable grain, but tend to be extremely expensive. If you’re reading this guide, chances are you probably don’t need one.


Methods

There are two major classes of making coffee: brewed and extracted. While the extracted class only really contains espresso, there are many ways to brew coffee. The two simplest methods are arguably pour over, and French press.

Pour Over

First, start boiling some water. You’ll need a coarse grind, so set your grinder to somewhere between French press and drip (about the same consistency as salt, but feel free to fine-tune it to your liking). You’ll need about 2g of coffee per fluid ounce (or per 30 mL, if you feel like keeping your units consistent). For a standard mug, that’s about 16g of ground beans. Put your filter in your drip cone, and pull the water off the boil. Let it sit for about 20-30 seconds. Pour a small amount of hot water in the filter, just to neutralise the flavour. Add your ground coffee to the filter, and gently pour water overtop in a circle. You only need enough water to saturate the grounds for now, so don’t let it pour through yet. When the water is absorbed, continue pouring gently, stopping as needed (don’t let the water level in the cone get above two-thirds). It should take about 3-4 minutes to complete the brewing process.

French Press

Brewing with a French press is probably the loosest method around. Everything is adjustable and every aspect responds well to your personal tastes. Try the following steps first for a general guideline, and tweak as you wish.

Again, boil some water and take it off the boil for about 30 seconds. While it’s sitting, you’ll have enough time to coarsely grind your coffee. You’ll need about two tablespoons per six ounces (convert to metric on your own). Gently pour the hot water overtop the grinds, trying to saturate them all. Let it sit for about 30 seconds, and give it a stir with a plastic or wooden spoon (you don’t want to break the glass). Put the lid on the beaker, unplunged, and let it sit for another 3-4 minutes. Don’t let it sit around much longer, because it won’t be stronger – it’ll just taste like crap. After 3-4 minutes, gently plunge the screen through the coffee. Pour what you’re going to drink immediately into your mug, and if you have any left over, pour it into an empty glass container for later to prevent it from continuing to brew.

Feel free to experiment with this method, in particular. Add more coffee if you like a stronger cup, or try a blend of grounds (just make sure they’re all coarse).

Side note: I prefer my coffee grind-free, so I pour it through a tea strainer.

Espresso

Probably the most difficult method of making any kind of coffee is espresso. Instead of having 3-4 minutes of brew time with 12 (or more) ounces of liquid, it is condensed into 30 seconds with 1-2 ounces. Instead of gently brewing and interacting with the beans, the water is forced through a fine-ground puck at 135 pounds-per-square-inch. Every aspect is important, and everything is variable. You could pour two shots, one after the other, with the same beans, grind and weather, and the results might be completely different. But practicing is worth it, as every flavour is amplified and intense.

To begin, turn on your espresso machine and allow it to heat. Some machines (especially the non-professional kind) require a little bit of coaxing – once they indicate the correct temperature, run water through the group head until it indicates that it’s heating again. Also, add a little bit of hot water to your espresso cup, to heat it up.

Set the grind on your burr grinder (seriously, don’t use a blade grinder) to a very fine setting. Grind just a little bit into your hand to feel it. The grinds should be soft, with an almost powder-like consistency. Grind your beans directly into the portafilter, tapping it against the metal grinder support every so often to distribute the grinds. Once there’s a small heap of grinds, remove it and level it with your finger. Try not to apply pressure at this point. Tamp the grounds once in the portafilter with about 40 pounds of pressure (use a bathroom scale to figure out what 40 pounds of pressure feels like). Attach the portafilter to the grouphead with a tight fit. Dump the water from your now-warm espresso cup and put the cup below the spout(s). If it’s a manual machine, you’ll need to time it yourself. Some home machines are automatic, and will stop pouring after 2 oz. of water has been passed through (for a double; 1 oz. for a single).

A proper espresso shot should take somewhere between 20 and 30 seconds. If it takes more time, your grind is probably too fine, there’s too much ground coffee in the portafilter or it was tamped with too much pressure. If it takes less than 20 seconds, it’s the converse for each point. Even if it took between 20 and 30 seconds, the shot might still suck. Espresso is finicky because even the most minor adjustment can have a massive impact on the final product, due to its condensed nature. Keep experimenting and tweaking, however, because the perfect end product is absolutely worth it. Since espresso is so concentrated, every flavour becomes pronounced and immediate. Obviously, this concentrated nature makes it the perfect base for a myriad of other drinks as well.


![Third-wave locations](http://nickheer.com/blogfiles/thirdwave/thirdwave.png)

###Roasters & Locations ####![Calgary](http://nickheer.com/blogfiles/thirdwave/3w-calgary.png) Calgary **[Be'ato Coffee](http://www.beato.ca/)** – small-batch coffee, loose-leaf tea and accessories. No physical café, but they distribute to many local coffeehouses in addition to the online store. **[Phil & Sebastian](https://www.philsebastian.com/)** – relatively new store, with a location in Marda Loop and a new one in Chinook Centre. Three daily brewed coffees, expertly brewed in the best method for that blend. **[Roasterie](http://maps.google.ca/maps/place?client=safari&rls=en&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=roasterie+calgary&fb=1&gl=ca&hq=roasterie&hnear=Calgary,+AB&cid=14523106809384314954)** – located in Kensington. Beans roasted in-house, in the middle of the store. ####![Seattle](http://nickheer.com/blogfiles/thirdwave/3w-seattle.png) Seattle **[Caffé Vita](http://www.caffevita.com/)** – according to a Yelp reviewer, “[t]heir drip coffee explodes the pants off of everyone else.” Sounds great. **[Espresso Vivace](http://www.espressovivace.com/)** – Nicholas Lander of the Financial Times thinks it’s “the finest coffee bar in the US.” I’ve never been, but that’s because I’ve never visited Seattle. Give it a try. **[Victrola Coffee](http://www.victrolacoffee.com/)** – described by Imbibe Magazine as “the very model of a third wave café”, Victrola roasts in-house, and their owners regularly group together for cuppings and tastings.

####![Portland](http://nickheer.com/blogfiles/thirdwave/3w-portland.png) Portland **[Blue Kangaroo Coffee](http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Blue+Kangaroo,+7901+SE+13th+Ave+Portland,+Oregon+97202&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=46.27475,111.972656&ie=UTF8&hq=Blue+Kangaroo,&hnear=7901+SE+13th+Ave,+Portland,+Multnomah,+Oregon+97202&ll=45.467094,-122.652891&spn=0.001713,0.003417&t=h&z=19)** – in researching for this entry, I discovered these guys. I’ve never tried their coffee, but I’ve only heard great things about it. I suggest checking it out if you’re in the Portland area. **[Ristretto Roasters](http://ristrettoroasters.com/)** – surprisingly decent prices for such a quality product. Two physical locations in Portland, and an online store. **[Stumptown](http://www.stumptowncoffee.com/)** – one of the originals of the new generation of coffeehouses. Online store with a myriad of blends, locations and roasts. ####![San Francisco](http://nickheer.com/blogfiles/thirdwave/3w-sfo.png) San Francisco **[Blue Bottle Coffee](http://www.bluebottlecoffee.net/)** – highly-regarded third-wave coffee place based in San Francisco (though with locations elsewhere). **[Ritual Roasters](http://www.ritualroasters.com/)** – widely regarded to be some of the best espresso in SFO. **[Sightglass Coffee](http://sightglasscoffee.com/)** – yet another fantastic third-wave coffeehouse, with an online store, in addition to the physical location.

New YorkNew York

**[Bluebird Coffee](http://www.bluebirdcoffeeshop.com/)** – though they don’t roast their own beans (they buy them from Counterculture Coffee), Bluebird’s espresso might be the best in New York. **[Cafe Grumpy](http://www.cafegrumpy.com/)** – how grumpy, you ask? They refuse to let customers take espresso to go in a paper cup: either you drink it there, or you bring a porcelain mug. Minor frustrations, quibbles and peculiarities aside, Cafe Grumpy has a high regard in the New York area. **[Gimme](http://www.gimmecoffee.com/)** – Gimme roasts their own beans, unlike most New York cafés, and they’re well-regarded for their “Leftist” blend. ####Other Roasters **[Intelligentsia](http://www.intelligentsiacoffee.com/)** – their “Black Cat” espresso is pretty famous, and for good reason: it’s impeccable. Intelligentsia is based out of Chicago, but they have [locations](http://www.intelligentsiacoffee.com/locations/view/Chicago+Roasting+Works+%2526+Training+Lab) across the country, in addition to selling to other cafés. **[Kafka's](http://www.kafkascoffee.ca/)** – well-known in Vancouver for their coffee and tea. One of very few places which seems to offer siphon-made coffee on a regular basis. **[Lili and Oli](http://maps.google.ca/maps/place?hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=lili+oli+montreal&fb=1&gl=ca&hq=lili+oli&hnear=Montreal,+QC&cid=16492318603656971508)** – cozy, with great coffee to boot, Montreal’s Lili and Oli is well-regarded locally.

Further Reading

  1. Brew Methods – over fifty ways to brew coffee, with some decidedly more intricate than others.
  2. Glossary of espresso terminology – group head? Portafilter? This is a great list of terminology.
  3. Intelligentsia espresso video – a great primer.
  4. Third-wave coffee in Calgary – fantastic talk from TEDx Calgary.
  5. Yield vs. Strength vs. Ratio – how many grams should you use for the perfect cup? Great guide.

 

April 24, 2011

Translation of Selected Portions of Microsoft’s “Mango” Press Release to Plain English

Apr
13

Via Microsoft:

Microsoft said it remains on track to start delivering the next version of Windows Phone to new and existing devices by the end of this year.

We still cannot work out multitasking. Apple got four years to work it out, and we think that’s a good target. Also, note that the apologies I delivered at the start regarding the lengthy rollout of our last update are to be ignored.

Livingston said that Kik’s decision to build for Windows Phone did not come easily. For Kik, and developers in general, building apps and games for a new platform is a major commitment of time and resources.

Developers aren’t sure if developing for WP7 is a good idea. We begged, pleaded with and gave buckets of money to a few because we need something to talk about until the end of the year.

Seriously, this software update is kicking us in the balls.

Microsoft’s Watson acknowledges the current environment from a developer’s perspective. “We’re not the first choice for many developers right now — we know that,”

We’re not even close. Have you seen our market share?

Other new apps and games include Skype, Australia-based airline Qantas, the game “Plants vs. Zombies,” and the augmented reality app Layar. Microsoft also announced that the wildly popular game “Angry Birds” will be available at the Windows Phone Marketplace beginning on May 25, 2011.

Remember your iPhone just a couple of days after the App Store launched in 2008? That’s us! Right now!

Since the release of the first Windows Phone 7 Developer Tools last year, more than 38,000 developers have registered with the Windows Phone Marketplace. In addition, there have been more than 1.5 million downloads of the Windows Phone Developer Tools, which have resulted in more than 13,000 apps and games that are now available.

In the past year, we’ve equalled the amount of apps available six months after Apple launched their store. We must be doing something right.

Research firm IDC forecasts that by 2015, 20.9 percent of smartphones shipped will be powered by Windows Phone.

IDC also measured my toddler’s height and predicted it would be 38 feet tall when it turns 20. Shiiiiiiiit.

 

April 13, 2011

Multitasking, etc.

Mar
15

As you’re a human being, you’ll have no-doubt grasped that this post is largely about multitasking. Specifically, it’s a discussion of mobile OS multitasking, its disconnect to human multitasking, and the larger scope of it all. As you can imagine, this will be a fairly long post. Not a novel, but not a couple of paragraphs either. So go grab something to drink now. I’ll wait.

Before I begin, some quick housekeeping notes:

  1. This post builds upon some rather fantastic posts by other writers, but with my perspective from the ground up. I have a small selection of others’ posts in the footer, and I highly recommend reading them.
  2. I’ve broken this down quite a lot more than usual. If you’re reading this in an RSS reader, I’m sorry.
  3. This is not an iOS v. Android comparison, nor is it necessarily iOS-centric. It’s the platform I am most familiar with, so it’s easiest to talk about at length (however, aspects of other platforms will be also discussed).
  4. The post begins with a quick primer[1]. Don’t skip it, though — I rather like it in-context.

Enthusiasts v. Normal People

Everyone is an enthusiast, a know-it-all and a devotee of something. Some people are crazy about music, others about fly fishing. I, for instance, am a bit of a nut for cars and photography. I’m not an expert in either field, but I respect and admire both. Let’s start with photography.

Professional photographers would scoff at the default camera app in the iPhone. It’s far too simple, and far too imprecise. There’s no way to adjust the ISO, the exposure or the white balance. But most people don’t care about adjusting those things. They open the camera app to get a quick snap of the events of that moment, and that’s it. For most people, the default camera app is all they need. For enthusiasts, alternative apps exist (such as Tap Tap Tap’s fantastic Camera+, which offers much finer control).

Let’s talk about cars[2]. Normal people want a reliable car that doesn’t look too ugly to get them from point A to point B (and maybe the elusive point C, if they’re feeling frisky). They care about the comfort of the seats, the quality of the stereo and the colour of the paint. Non-human-beings like myself want to know whether or not the engine is direct-injected, what kind of transmission it has and the power distribution ratio (if it’s four-wheel drive). I’m an enthusiast who actually cares about that sort of thing, but if I were marketing an average car, I shouldn’t expect an average customer to deal with those sorts of decisions.

In both cases, an average consumer simply wants the best outcome possible, with the fewest nitty-gritty detail decisions. They just want their photos to look good, and their car to drive well.

Multitasking on iOS

To begin, let’s state the obvious: iOS doesn’t multitask. It does something I like to think of as task juggling. Sure, a few of Apple’s applications do true multitasking: emails and SMS messages and sent and received in the background, and new events on an Exchange calendar get automatically pushed to the device. But third-party apps aren’t allowed to do true multitasking.

There are a few multitasking APIs developers have access to. Pandora can continue to stream music in the background, Flickr can upload your snapshots, and Skype can receive incoming calls. Despite the initial whininess by some pundits, it actually works pretty well in most apps for most users. Apps that don’t really do any of these things (say, a game) get put into a “sleep” state when you switch away from them. When you switch back, it restores to the state it was in before you had to answer your modal iOS notification.

This implementation has a huge upside: it helps keep battery life high by only running the most relevant background processes. It also offers a downside: applications can’t periodically refresh. That means your Twitter client, RSS reader and Facebook will refresh next time you switch to them, but not while they’re sitting in the background. Some clever people have devised some clever hackish workarounds, like Boxcar which shows push notifications for Twitter and Facebook.

These two rudimentary paragraphs are probably obvious to those who are tech-savvy, and were probably boring. They’ll tie into the overall story, though, so keep reading.

iPhone v. iPad

This method of task-switching works pretty well in the single-task, single window environment of a phone. Imagine trying to juggle a couple of instances of Safari on a 3.5-inch display. It’s hopeless. Despite its 10″ display, the iPad also adopts these UI conventions. The larger screen, running at the same resolution of desktop displays of not-that-long-ago, is dominated entirely by one application, no matter the mental real-estate that application occupies. Watching a movie, writing a tweet and editing a document are all done at 1024 × 768.

When writing a blog post, I often have a few Safari windows open, a plain text editor and my Twitter client. I’m often referencing them all, and it’s easier to keep them all open on my XXL canvas (since tidied). A computer OS treats these as separate tasks — its definition of task is an application process. My definition of task is “the thing I’m working on.” Since a modern desktop architecture supports multitasking and multiwindowing, I can adapt and treat them as one task, even if the OS doesn’t. This is in stark contrast to the iPad, because it lacks both. Another example of this would be my web development setup. Again, it consists of multiple windows for various discrete tasks, even though it’s only one thing I’m working on.

On a phone, users don’t want to micromanage tasks. Every time I use someone else’s iPhone, their multitasking tray is full of every application they’ve ever launched. This is OK, because none of them are actually running on an iPhone (Android also puts unused applications into sleep mode, and Windows Phone 7 doesn’t have multitasking).

On the larger screen of the iPad, this doesn’t work as well. Multiple OS tasks may be one user task on that kind of device, and iOS only supports single-window tasks. Viewing only one app at a time is inelegant and inefficient. If you have an Android tablet, a Finnish company has developed an application called Ixonos, which allows you to have multiple windows open at once. But if you watch the video, it also proves itself as inelegant and clunky. The controls are far too small on a 10″ screen[3] [4].

Clearly, it’s your fault

I briefly mentioned my web development setup above. It usually consists of a Photoshop window or two, a tabbed plain text editor, Transmit, and a couple of browsers to test in. It’s a setup that works really well on my desk, but is hopeless on a 10″ tablet (let alone the Samsung Galaxy Tab’s much smaller 7″ screen). But, and this is important, it isn’t the OS itself that makes web development on a tablet a horrible experience[5].

As I pointed out above, it isn’t just multitasking and multiwindowing (or the lack thereof) that affect the user experience. Even if the iPad had multi-both, it’s just too small to switch between all of those windows. In this case, as usual, it’s up to the user to delineate what is, and what is not appropriate for a tablet.

When Apple introduced the first iPad, they told people exactly what the tablet’s focus would be. They showed off the web experience, email, productivity, multimedia, books and games. It’s casual computing for average people. When Apple introduced the iPad 2, they didn’t change their focus one bit. The addition of cameras are the only slightly broadening factor, but even they fit into the scope of a casual computing device (the rear camera is an crappalicious 0.7MP). The increased RAM and the faster CPU are only there to enhance user experience when running and switching apps, not to provide the ability to run many at the same time, on the same screen.

Something about average users?

Average people (my dad, not my IT pro dad) understand the multiple windows ∴ multiple apps paradigm. They would be absolutely comfortable with a larger-display tablet. The trouble with a large tablet is that it further grains the market, because it’s niche is confusable with that of a consumer laptop. Instead of a simple tablet → consumer laptop → power laptop product line, it becomes something closer to simple tablet → power tablet and/or consumer laptop depending on what you’re doing with it → power laptop (never mind that the MacBook Air throws a wrench into Apple’s own product line).

I didn’t bring up the MacBook Air arbitrarily there, by the way. I see this hypothetical future iPad XL (or whatever) as being the Air of the tablet line. The Air is very specific: it’s a lightweight, go-anywhere MacBook that drains power from the battery through a pipette. In much the same way, an iPad XL would be the combination of the OS X desktop experience and the iOS touch interface. It’s probably the future.


Footnotes

  1. It’s pronounced as rhyming with “trimmer”. The word that rhymes with “rhymer” is the stuff you put on walls before you paint. [↑]
  2. This section is clearly inspired by John Gruber’s post linked below. [↑]
  3. For your convenience and mockery, here is a mockup of an iPad with multiple instances of Safari running. You can even try syncing this image to your iPad to see just how awful that is. [↑]
  4. Clearly a 15″ screen would be much more friendly to a multi-window tablet OS. Don’t mention those “tablet” convertible laptops, though. Windows is not a touch OS, no matter how many shells and skins are applied to try to make it one. [↑]
  5. That said, I have heard rumours that one of my favourite web development environments is getting a “lite” iPad counterpart. [↑]

Further Reading

  1. Frank, Steven. I need to talk to you about computers.
  2. Gruber, John. Various and Assorted Thoughts and Observations Regarding the Just-Announced iPad.
  3. Quintana, David. Mobile Multitasking.

March 15, 2011

Wherein I Discuss Layout Decisions

Feb
14

Yesterday, as I[1] sat nursing an enormous mug of tea, I was forced, nay, compelled to think of the myriad of reasons I don’t update this blog on a regular (or frequent) basis. If I had a long list of personal commitments, now would be an appropriate time to cite it. However, despite my student status and freelance employment, I realistically have no such list. As you’ll see, though, I think I have an excuse reason.

This blog has gone through a series of layouts and designs. It began with a very simple, narrow single-column layout, which then changed to a red-and-white scheme, which was then followed up with a design inspired by print. The most recent layout[2] emphasized photography and graphics to try to create a compelling atmosphere. Which is a problem in of itself, and created another issue.

I realized that the graphics created a picture book vibe, where the text was secondary to the presentation. While I don’t claim to be Oscar Wilde, I believe I am a competent-enough writer that the words may speak for themselves. The second problem was that each blog post was significant. Each post occupied a large area onscreen, with a custom graphic and a serif font. It took blogging too seriously, causing I, your humble writer, to take it too seriously. I blame the design and layout.

Therefore, it gives me great pleasure to present the latest incarnation, which I intend to keep for a very long time. It is undeniably the most minimal, the most basic and the most pointed design I’ve ever created. There are three major enhancements.

The first stems directly from the minimal design. As I don’t have to fill up a large amount of space, nor fill both columns, nor create a custom graphic, I am freer to post at will. Posts can be far shorter (or longer). The second enhancement is the lack of graphics, and both of these features make the blogging both less serious, yet more direct.

The third enhancement is a concept I am borrowing from a variety of places, most notably Daring Fireball: a link log. I have made a few tweaks and refinements[3] that allow for integrated, inline posting of links that are of interest to me (and perhaps to you), with the potential for my commentary below them. I am extremely pleased and proud of this feature. Note that I have excluded link log entries from the search and from archives.

Two more aspects I wish to touch on are the typography and comments. I had intended to use Baskerville throughout the site. I think it’s one of the most beautiful serif typefaces ever created. Sadly, though it looks stunning in both print and in Webkit-powered browsers (Safari and Chrome), it looks downright nasty in Gecko browsers (Firefox, Camino and others). In fact, due to Gecko’s more precise (and blockier) anti-aliasing, most serif faces don’t look great. I don’t mind Helvetica Neue, which is what I ultimately chose, but I would have preferred Baskerville.

Lastly, comments: I have disabled them. Partly because of a poetic lack of response to my related question on Twitter, and partly because most of the sites that I really care about don’t have comments. If you wish to offer a correction or opinion, you can fire a reply my way on Twitter, contact me or write your own blog post.

I hope you like this new format as much as I do.


Footnotes

  1. You will notice a significant number of personal pronouns in this post.
  2. I don’t have a link. I trust you remember it. If you don’t, picture design number three but with more graphics.
  3. Most notably to the Press This bookmarklet, which now puts the URL as a link in the title. You can grab this from the miscellanea page.

February 14, 2011

It Might But Probably Won’t

Jan
18

In my most recent post, I chatted a bit about whether or not the iPad would gain a Retina Display come April, or whenever the second-generation tablet is set to be released. I came to the conclusion that it would not, citing simple upscaling math as the reason it would not. I was shocked, then, when a new crop of rumours from Engadget claimed that it would. Now, obviously, I don’t have the kind of inside information Engadget does; everything I write is pure guesswork. It got me thinking again, though.

CEO Steve Jobs defined the Retina Display of the iPhone 4 as a display that exceeded the resolution of the human eye from about a foot away. The magic number in that case was about 300 PPI. However, an iPad isn’t usually a foot away from the eye — it’s more like three feet away. If the pixel count were quadrupled, therefore doubling the resolution, it would be 264 PPI. That’s pretty close to 300 PPI, and probably comfortably above the magic number for three feet. But.

But, as I pointed out last time we chatted, that’s still more pixels than almost as many pixels as are currently in their 27″ Cinema Display. That display is fine when powered by a beastly graphics card, plugged into a wall. However, the iPad is powered by batteries and last I checked, the graphics capabilities weren’t rated as “beastly.” And I still think that such a display is prohibitively expensive to manufacture right now.

Engadget still thinks that the display will be ultra-high-resolution, and in theory I should believe their sources (on account of having none of my own). Their sources are usually correct, and there’s some evidence for such a display in the current SDK beta. The iBooks app has a double-resolution wood grain texture, the inclusion of which probably got someone fired. Furthermore, 9 to 5 Mac points out that Apple themselves want developers to include iPad@2x images. And holy crap, would you look at this: is this the display? Uh, no,

John Gruber checked his sources and it seems that I’m correct. Gruber slips that there are high-res iPads currently testing, but he believes they’re for a 2012 launch. He also points out that the new iPad is likely to have a screen manufacturing process similar to the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch — this is something I’d guess would happen also.

No surprises, then.

PS: This is wrong.

January 18, 2011