<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:pingback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/pingback/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>Illuminating Oneself - pure-rant</title>
    <link>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/</link>
    <description>Bruce Markham's Personal Soapbox</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <copyright>Bruce Markham</copyright>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:44:00 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>newtelligence dasBlog 2.3.9074.18820</generator>
    <managingEditor>webmaster@i.llumin.us</managingEditor>
    <webMaster>webmaster@i.llumin.us</webMaster>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/Trackback.aspx?guid=82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator />
      <wfw:comment>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
I’ve been struggling the past several months. What used to be a tingle of distaste
for a brand has become a torrent of madness. Where once reason and uncertainty made
me bite my tongue, familiarity has now bred contempt. I speak of course, of Apple.
</p>
        <p>
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say here and now: I’ve never owned an Apple
product. (I’ve also never employed a prostitute or smoked PCP, but I can still argue
against their use.) 
</p>
        <p>
For the longest time, I avoided Apple products because the only things in that categorization
were computers - and I knew how to use my PC quite well, thank you. Fast forward a
decade and a half, Apple is the biggest sensation in tech. Even the pundits that despise
Apple can’t keep their mouths shut about ‘em. (Myself included.)
</p>
        <p>
Apple has graced us this month with the release of the iPad. For those of you not
following the situation, the iPad is basically a giant iPod Touch:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
Boasting 9+ hours of battery life, the 1.5lb iPad is heavy enough that you won’t want
to hold it for more than an hour at a time lest you change your workout regiment.
(Or integrate it in.)</li>
          <li>
With its “9.7-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen Multi-Touch display” you’ll
get to use your favorite content-consuming apps at double the size, but it’s ineffective
“fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating” will make it look like a CSI crime scene
and leave you needing to carry a terry cloth with you everwhere. 
</li>
          <li>
With it’s built-in speaker, microphone, bluetooth, and video codecs – you’ll be able
to do all of your favorite multimedia consumption, except for video conferencing or
taking pictures because it doesn’t currently have a camera.</li>
          <li>
Being one of the only “large” mobile multi-touch devices on the market, it features
one of the largest on-screen keyboards out there – but the extended typing they claim
you can easily do on it is still so unwieldy they’ve simultaneously released a keyboard
attachment.</li>
          <li>
It also features the all-acclaimed Safari Mobile, supporting large chunks of HTML
5 and CSS 3, so it’s ready for the web of tomorrow - but without Flash support it’s
useless for 90% of today’s internet.</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Okay, so the hardware sucks. The browser sucks. Shouldn’t it be about the apps?
</p>
        <p>
I’m a software developer, so I can appreciate “apps” - little nuggets of easy-to-maintain
code and functionality that are sold individually, for cheap prices, to the masses
- little nuggets of code that are small enough, I would be tempted to find a means
to simultaneously develop for multiple app platforms easily, so that I can move on
to the next app without hassle.
</p>
        <p>
And you know what? Microsoft gets this. Google gets this. Apple hates it.
</p>
        <p>
Fresh out of the pearly gates of Cupertino, the Apple iPhone OS 4 SDK license agreement
says, amongst many things:
</p>
        <blockquote>
          <p>
            <em>Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and
must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in
Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and <strong>only
code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the
Documented APIs</strong><br />
(e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation
or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).</em>
          </p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>
What this means, in layman’s terms, for any programmer or software shop that used
to sneak apps across the Apple border by cross-compiling their Flash, Java, or C#
into C/C++/Objective-C before deployment, they are simply out of luck.
</p>
        <p>
My brain is simply without recourse in its search for a plausible explanation. The
most I can figure is, Apple doesn’t want the slew of upcoming Windows Phone 7 apps
to be translated and submitted to the Apple App store. (That is, they want developers
to pick a side and stay on it.) Or they just really really really want to absolutely <em><strong>kill</strong></em> Flash.
It’s no secret that Jobs hates Flash. The fact that his complaints against Adobe and
Flash are retorted with the reality that Apple doesn’t have any decent high-performance
APIs to code against, doesn’t seem to weaken his resolve.
</p>
        <p>
Despite my nay-saying in the past, and my general bias towards the Microsoft development
stack, I have been secretly enthused the last 4 or 5 weeks with the possibility of
writing a .NET app that would run on Windows, Xbox, Zune, &amp; Windows Phone 7 –
and then using Mono to run it on Mac, iPhone, iPod, and iPad – all with 90% shared
code – but Apple has eliminated that possibility. I am no longer tempted to take a
bite out of the Apple development community.
</p>
        <p>
This one’s got a worm in it.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160" />
      </body>
      <title>One Bad Apple Spoils The Bunch</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/2010/04/09/One-Bad-Apple-Spoils-The-Bunch.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:44:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
I’ve been struggling the past several months. What used to be a tingle of distaste
for a brand has become a torrent of madness. Where once reason and uncertainty made
me bite my tongue, familiarity has now bred contempt. I speak of course, of Apple.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
In the interest of full disclosure, I’ll say here and now: I’ve never owned an Apple
product. (I’ve also never employed a prostitute or smoked PCP, but I can still argue
against their use.) 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
For the longest time, I avoided Apple products because the only things in that categorization
were computers - and I knew how to use my PC quite well, thank you. Fast forward a
decade and a half, Apple is the biggest sensation in tech. Even the pundits that despise
Apple can’t keep their mouths shut about ‘em. (Myself included.)
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Apple has graced us this month with the release of the iPad. For those of you not
following the situation, the iPad is basically a giant iPod Touch:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Boasting 9+ hours of battery life, the 1.5lb iPad is heavy enough that you won’t want
to hold it for more than an hour at a time lest you change your workout regiment.
(Or integrate it in.)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
With its “9.7-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen Multi-Touch display” you’ll
get to use your favorite content-consuming apps at double the size, but it’s ineffective
“fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating” will make it look like a CSI crime scene
and leave you needing to carry a terry cloth with you everwhere. 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
With it’s built-in speaker, microphone, bluetooth, and video codecs – you’ll be able
to do all of your favorite multimedia consumption, except for video conferencing or
taking pictures because it doesn’t currently have a camera.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Being one of the only “large” mobile multi-touch devices on the market, it features
one of the largest on-screen keyboards out there – but the extended typing they claim
you can easily do on it is still so unwieldy they’ve simultaneously released a keyboard
attachment.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
It also features the all-acclaimed Safari Mobile, supporting large chunks of HTML
5 and CSS 3, so it’s ready for the web of tomorrow - but without Flash support it’s
useless for 90% of today’s internet.&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Okay, so the hardware sucks. The browser sucks. Shouldn’t it be about the apps?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I’m a software developer, so I can appreciate “apps” - little nuggets of easy-to-maintain
code and functionality that are sold individually, for cheap prices, to the masses
- little nuggets of code that are small enough, I would be tempted to find a means
to simultaneously develop for multiple app platforms easily, so that I can move on
to the next app without hassle.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
And you know what? Microsoft gets this. Google gets this. Apple hates it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Fresh out of the pearly gates of Cupertino, the Apple iPhone OS 4 SDK license agreement
says, amongst many things:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;blockquote&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;em&gt;Applications may only use Documented APIs in the manner prescribed by Apple and
must not use or call any private APIs. Applications must be originally written in
Objective-C, C, C++, or JavaScript as executed by the iPhone OS WebKit engine, and &lt;strong&gt;only
code written in C, C++, and Objective-C may compile and directly link against the
Documented APIs&lt;/strong&gt; 
&lt;br /&gt;
(e.g., Applications that link to Documented APIs through an intermediary translation
or compatibility layer or tool are prohibited).&lt;/em&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt; 
&lt;p&gt;
What this means, in layman’s terms, for any programmer or software shop that used
to sneak apps across the Apple border by cross-compiling their Flash, Java, or C#
into C/C++/Objective-C before deployment, they are simply out of luck.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
My brain is simply without recourse in its search for a plausible explanation. The
most I can figure is, Apple doesn’t want the slew of upcoming Windows Phone 7 apps
to be translated and submitted to the Apple App store. (That is, they want developers
to pick a side and stay on it.) Or they just really really really want to absolutely &lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;kill&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt; Flash.
It’s no secret that Jobs hates Flash. The fact that his complaints against Adobe and
Flash are retorted with the reality that Apple doesn’t have any decent high-performance
APIs to code against, doesn’t seem to weaken his resolve.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Despite my nay-saying in the past, and my general bias towards the Microsoft development
stack, I have been secretly enthused the last 4 or 5 weeks with the possibility of
writing a .NET app that would run on Windows, Xbox, Zune, &amp;amp; Windows Phone 7 –
and then using Mono to run it on Mac, iPhone, iPod, and iPad – all with 90% shared
code – but Apple has eliminated that possibility. I am no longer tempted to take a
bite out of the Apple development community.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This one’s got a worm in it.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,82b775e3-df20-4b37-a039-ed8c7ec87160.aspx</comments>
      <category>winpho</category>
      <category>computers</category>
      <category>wp7</category>
      <category>iPad</category>
      <category>iPhone</category>
      <category>html5</category>
      <category>iPod</category>
      <category>pure-rant</category>
      <category>windows</category>
      <category>xbox</category>
      <category>apple</category>
      <category>winmo</category>
      <category>zune</category>
      <category>silverlight</category>
      <category>technology</category>
      <category>xna</category>
      <category>flash</category>
      <category>microsoft</category>
      <category>current events</category>
      <category>dotnet</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/Trackback.aspx?guid=52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator />
      <wfw:comment>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
        <p>
A friend of mine just today posted <a href="http://www.joelhousman.com/blog/2010/2/17/ipad-thoughts.html">an
epic (4,500 words!) blog post</a> he has been working on for well over a week – which
basically boils down to why “Apple is awesome and the iPad is the future”. This has
inspired me to pen my own views.
</p>
        <p>
Frankly, there are several debates here:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
Form <strike>vs.</strike> Function 
</li>
          <li>
aka Functionality vs. “Just Works”</li>
          <li>
Flash vs. Html 5 
</li>
          <li>
aka “Future Shock” vs.. All Of The Above</li>
          <li>
(maybe others, but the above seem most currently relevant)</li>
        </ul>
        <h2>
        </h2>
        <h4>Form vs. Function…
</h4>
        <p>
Apple has always been about form. Microsoft has always been function. The dichotomy
is evident from the first steps taken by each: Jobs deliriously struggled to make
the perfectly pretty computer that wouldn’t intimidate the home user, Gates <strike>created</strike> connived
a programming environment that would bring developers to the same level playing field.
</p>
        <p>
This dichotomy continues today. Apple makes these bubblegum-perfect consumer devices
– all made by one company, designed to span out and touch everyone. Microsoft focuses
its expertise on an OS and programming platform that entices developers like never
before.
</p>
        <p>
Windows has never been really pretty – (not until Vista/7, anyway) – and I have no
qualms with that. I don’t need pretty, and I don’t think even Mac users seriously
stick to that as legitimate point in their favor.
</p>
        <p>
Consider the following code check-in statistics from Ohloh:
</p>
        <p>
          <a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/S3zLJS3DRnI/AAAAAAAAAOg/_ndgcSZqe1A/s1600-h/image%5B5%5D.png">
            <img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/S3zLJ8L2iOI/AAAAAAAAAOk/4h9tPAPulG4/image_thumb%5B3%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="428" height="206" />
          </a>
        </p>
        <p>
Keep in mind that Ohloh tracks code statistics solely for open-source projects. Also
keep in mind that C# is primarily a Windows programming language, and Objective-C
is primarily a Mac programming language. I hear all the time of C#/VB/C/C++ people
writing code for Mac/Linux – because it is possible – but I’ve <u>never</u> heard
of someone using Objective-C to write a Windows or Linux application. So I’m assuming
that taking a language-preference pulse of the open-source community is a reasonable
measurement of the health of said code ecosystems as a whole…
</p>
        <p>
…and it looks like Mac is sadly lacking. Objective-C tumbled around the time Microsoft
released .NET 2.0, and Objective-C has managed to stay down throughout the entire
stint of iPod/Phone/Pad popularity.
</p>
        <p>
Application innovation always comes from application developers – and frankly, .NET
developers have more to innovate with than Objective-C developers. When you combine
this with Microsoft’s push to make “form” more important (look at Windows 7 and Windows
Phone 7 Series, for Christ's sake) – this isn’t a point so easy for Mac fans to argue
anymore. Moving forward…
</p>
        <h4>…Functionality vs. “Just Works”
</h4>
        <p>
This has been the biggest ongoing point for Apple and fans. I hear things like:
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
I plug in “X” and it just works</li>
          <li>
I don’t need to see my file system</li>
          <li>
My &lt;insert technophobe relative&gt; can use it</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Followed by, (from geeks/nerds):
</p>
        <ul>
          <li>
but I have a PC for “Y”</li>
        </ul>
        <p>
Why? Mayhaps that Apple’s dominance over their own platform has painted them into
a corner where they can literally control everything. Is it a bad thing? No. It ensures
quality. But choice suffers.
</p>
        <p>
I can buy my applications, hardware, and music from anywhere – for my PC - and I’ll
know it can work. Heck, I can buy Mac hardware and make it work. The operative benefit
– choice. I don’t want to use a cookie-cutter computer, because I want my computer
to fit *me*. I never pay extra for fancy looking chasses, I don’t buy fancy graphics
cards for work, and I don’t have a finger-print scanner on my gaming computer at home.
And you know what? Both computers cost the same, each only 2/3s of what it would cost
to get the same thing on the Apple route, and both with amazing performance for what
they are supposed to do.
</p>
        <p>
And I’ve never, ever, had a Windows crash that didn’t come from me trying something
nerdy and predictably dangerous with my system configuration.
</p>
        <p>
If you don’t want choice, then buy a Dell. Heck, buy a Mac. But you will always reach
that point where “Well, I wish I could…” or “Why did I pay…”. Sure, I know not every
computer user can be a nerd – Apple rightfully seeks to change that - but then, seriously,
if you aren’t at least a little bit of a computer nerd, why are you reading this?
</p>
        <h4>Flash vs. Html 5
</h4>
        <p>
I would like to segway into the root cause of this post. The iPad is coming. You’ll
never look at Playtex the same again. (Har har!) And I’ll admit, we’ll probably never
look at tablets the same way again…
</p>
        <p>
There, I said it. But I’ll finish the sentence with “…but the iPad is not the future
of tablets. Or the web.”
</p>
        <p>
Why? Flash runs everywhere! Except for the iPad/Phone/Pod OS. Despite the fact that
the iPad will be popular, and sell like hotcakes, to all those people that could finally
figure out an iPod Touch and never their PC, 90% of the web is currently inaccessible
to this demographic. And I don’t think Flash (or technologies like it), are going
to die out anytime soon.
</p>
        <p>
People say that HTML 5 is an open standard, and that Mobile Safari will give it a
leg up. Poppycock! Even at Apple’s wonderful growth rate, they still probably have
another 15 years (if that is even enough) to catch up with the kind of market share
they need to make Flash and its brethren hurt.
</p>
        <p>
Why? In the meantime, Microsoft is leveraging their platforms – the ones that developers
love so much – on more and more platforms all the time. Windows Phone 7 is undoubtedly
going to have its “native” apps be Silverlight – which means they will run anywhere,
out of the box, without recompile. (Anywhere = Windows, Mac, Linux). Windows Phone
7 games… (well, you know, the ones tied into Xbox Live, the largest online game network?)
…written in XNA. Which runs on Windows, Xbox, and Zune. 
</p>
        <p>
Both Silverlight and XNA are merely buzzwords for subcomponents of the .NET initiative.
English? A C# programmer like me can write an app that runs on any of the above platforms,
with minimal design overhead in consideration of portability. That means my app choices
for these platforms will be more numerous, as well as cheaper.
</p>
        <p>
HTML 5 will raise the bar on what comes built-in to a browser. There is no doubt on
that. But baked-in will never be enough. There will always be a 3D app, an involved
game, or sensitive business logic, that will need a runtime to run in. And the runtime
will always run faster than JavaScript. Be that runtime Silverlight, Flash, or Java
applet.
</p>
        <h4>“Future Shock”
</h4>
        <p>
I’ve heard this one batted around the interwebs. It seems to be Custer’s Last Stand
in the Mac world. “But, but, Mac is innovative!”
</p>
        <p>
Yes they are. The innovation has brought droves of “normal” people to <strike>computing</strike> electronics,
without even realizing what they are doing. But the people doing <em>actual</em> computing,
are the ones in that playground just over the rainbow. The one where anyone can write
software without corporate approval. The one where anyone can choose their hardware
without it coming with a ridiculous price tag. The one where the real innovation is
not in the basics, but in the ground of “what’s next?”, not re-hashing for the dumber
demographics what was 8 years ago.
</p>
        <p>
I love that Apple is innovating. I love that the attention of detail they have paid
brings a sense of panic to their competition. Apple is definitely competition.
</p>
        <p>
But when I ask “what’s next?” – I sit down on my PC and start typing. I don’t wait
for Apple to spoon-feed me something my computer can already do.
</p>
        <img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe" />
      </body>
      <title>And Bananas</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/2010/02/18/And-Bananas.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:07:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;
A friend of mine just today posted &lt;a href="http://www.joelhousman.com/blog/2010/2/17/ipad-thoughts.html"&gt;an
epic (4,500 words!) blog post&lt;/a&gt; he has been working on for well over a week – which
basically boils down to why “Apple is awesome and the iPad is the future”. This has
inspired me to pen my own views.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Frankly, there are several debates here:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Form &lt;strike&gt;vs.&lt;/strike&gt; Function 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
aka Functionality vs. “Just Works”&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
Flash vs. Html 5 
&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
aka “Future Shock” vs.. All Of The Above&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
(maybe others, but the above seem most currently relevant)&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;h2&gt;
&lt;/h2&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;Form vs. Function…
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Apple has always been about form. Microsoft has always been function. The dichotomy
is evident from the first steps taken by each: Jobs deliriously struggled to make
the perfectly pretty computer that wouldn’t intimidate the home user, Gates &lt;strike&gt;created&lt;/strike&gt; connived
a programming environment that would bring developers to the same level playing field.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This dichotomy continues today. Apple makes these bubblegum-perfect consumer devices
– all made by one company, designed to span out and touch everyone. Microsoft focuses
its expertise on an OS and programming platform that entices developers like never
before.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Windows has never been really pretty – (not until Vista/7, anyway) – and I have no
qualms with that. I don’t need pretty, and I don’t think even Mac users seriously
stick to that as legitimate point in their favor.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Consider the following code check-in statistics from Ohloh:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
&lt;a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/S3zLJS3DRnI/AAAAAAAAAOg/_ndgcSZqe1A/s1600-h/image%5B5%5D.png"&gt;&lt;img style="border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/S3zLJ8L2iOI/AAAAAAAAAOk/4h9tPAPulG4/image_thumb%5B3%5D.png?imgmax=800" width="428" height="206" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt; 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Keep in mind that Ohloh tracks code statistics solely for open-source projects. Also
keep in mind that C# is primarily a Windows programming language, and Objective-C
is primarily a Mac programming language. I hear all the time of C#/VB/C/C++ people
writing code for Mac/Linux – because it is possible – but I’ve &lt;u&gt;never&lt;/u&gt; heard
of someone using Objective-C to write a Windows or Linux application. So I’m assuming
that taking a language-preference pulse of the open-source community is a reasonable
measurement of the health of said code ecosystems as a whole…
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
…and it looks like Mac is sadly lacking. Objective-C tumbled around the time Microsoft
released .NET 2.0, and Objective-C has managed to stay down throughout the entire
stint of iPod/Phone/Pad popularity.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Application innovation always comes from application developers – and frankly, .NET
developers have more to innovate with than Objective-C developers. When you combine
this with Microsoft’s push to make “form” more important (look at Windows 7 and Windows
Phone 7 Series, for Christ's sake) – this isn’t a point so easy for Mac fans to argue
anymore. Moving forward…
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;…Functionality vs. “Just Works”
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
This has been the biggest ongoing point for Apple and fans. I hear things like:
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
I plug in “X” and it just works&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
I don’t need to see my file system&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
My &amp;lt;insert technophobe relative&amp;gt; can use it&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Followed by, (from geeks/nerds):
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;
but I have a PC for “Y”&lt;/li&gt;
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Why? Mayhaps that Apple’s dominance over their own platform has painted them into
a corner where they can literally control everything. Is it a bad thing? No. It ensures
quality. But choice suffers.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I can buy my applications, hardware, and music from anywhere – for my PC - and I’ll
know it can work. Heck, I can buy Mac hardware and make it work. The operative benefit
– choice. I don’t want to use a cookie-cutter computer, because I want my computer
to fit *me*. I never pay extra for fancy looking chasses, I don’t buy fancy graphics
cards for work, and I don’t have a finger-print scanner on my gaming computer at home.
And you know what? Both computers cost the same, each only 2/3s of what it would cost
to get the same thing on the Apple route, and both with amazing performance for what
they are supposed to do.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
And I’ve never, ever, had a Windows crash that didn’t come from me trying something
nerdy and predictably dangerous with my system configuration.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
If you don’t want choice, then buy a Dell. Heck, buy a Mac. But you will always reach
that point where “Well, I wish I could…” or “Why did I pay…”. Sure, I know not every
computer user can be a nerd – Apple rightfully seeks to change that - but then, seriously,
if you aren’t at least a little bit of a computer nerd, why are you reading this?
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;Flash vs. Html 5
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I would like to segway into the root cause of this post. The iPad is coming. You’ll
never look at Playtex the same again. (Har har!) And I’ll admit, we’ll probably never
look at tablets the same way again…
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
There, I said it. But I’ll finish the sentence with “…but the iPad is not the future
of tablets. Or the web.”
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Why? Flash runs everywhere! Except for the iPad/Phone/Pod OS. Despite the fact that
the iPad will be popular, and sell like hotcakes, to all those people that could finally
figure out an iPod Touch and never their PC, 90% of the web is currently inaccessible
to this demographic. And I don’t think Flash (or technologies like it), are going
to die out anytime soon.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
People say that HTML 5 is an open standard, and that Mobile Safari will give it a
leg up. Poppycock! Even at Apple’s wonderful growth rate, they still probably have
another 15 years (if that is even enough) to catch up with the kind of market share
they need to make Flash and its brethren hurt.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Why? In the meantime, Microsoft is leveraging their platforms – the ones that developers
love so much – on more and more platforms all the time. Windows Phone 7 is undoubtedly
going to have its “native” apps be Silverlight – which means they will run anywhere,
out of the box, without recompile. (Anywhere = Windows, Mac, Linux). Windows Phone
7 games… (well, you know, the ones tied into Xbox Live, the largest online game network?)
…written in XNA. Which runs on Windows, Xbox, and Zune. 
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Both Silverlight and XNA are merely buzzwords for subcomponents of the .NET initiative.
English? A C# programmer like me can write an app that runs on any of the above platforms,
with minimal design overhead in consideration of portability. That means my app choices
for these platforms will be more numerous, as well as cheaper.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
HTML 5 will raise the bar on what comes built-in to a browser. There is no doubt on
that. But baked-in will never be enough. There will always be a 3D app, an involved
game, or sensitive business logic, that will need a runtime to run in. And the runtime
will always run faster than JavaScript. Be that runtime Silverlight, Flash, or Java
applet.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h4&gt;“Future Shock”
&lt;/h4&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I’ve heard this one batted around the interwebs. It seems to be Custer’s Last Stand
in the Mac world. “But, but, Mac is innovative!”
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
Yes they are. The innovation has brought droves of “normal” people to &lt;strike&gt;computing&lt;/strike&gt; electronics,
without even realizing what they are doing. But the people doing &lt;em&gt;actual&lt;/em&gt; computing,
are the ones in that playground just over the rainbow. The one where anyone can write
software without corporate approval. The one where anyone can choose their hardware
without it coming with a ridiculous price tag. The one where the real innovation is
not in the basics, but in the ground of “what’s next?”, not re-hashing for the dumber
demographics what was 8 years ago.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
I love that Apple is innovating. I love that the attention of detail they have paid
brings a sense of panic to their competition. Apple is definitely competition.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;
But when I ask “what’s next?” – I sit down on my PC and start typing. I don’t wait
for Apple to spoon-feed me something my computer can already do.
&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,52967393-4a29-4846-865f-e51f58ab2bbe.aspx</comments>
      <category>javascript</category>
      <category>computers</category>
      <category>iPad</category>
      <category>iPhone</category>
      <category>html5</category>
      <category>iPod</category>
      <category>pure-rant</category>
      <category>windows</category>
      <category>xbox</category>
      <category>apple</category>
      <category>response-to-friend</category>
      <category>winmo</category>
      <category>zune</category>
      <category>technology</category>
      <category>silverlight</category>
      <category>xna</category>
      <category>flash</category>
      <category>microsoft</category>
      <category>dotnet</category>
    </item>
    <item>
      <trackback:ping>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/Trackback.aspx?guid=6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68</trackback:ping>
      <pingback:server>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/pingback.aspx</pingback:server>
      <pingback:target>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68.aspx</pingback:target>
      <dc:creator />
      <wfw:comment>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68.aspx</wfw:comment>
      <wfw:commentRss>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/SyndicationService.asmx/GetEntryCommentsRss?guid=6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68</wfw:commentRss>
      <body xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">begin rant\<br /><br />
I am proud of those close to me that spend time reflecting on their feelings and interpretations
of the world. There are too many people out there that don't care at all. And sure,
you can use introspection as a means of validation and never actually change - but
you definitely can't change at all if you don't perform analysis of any kind.<br /><br />
For the sake of argument, I would lay out an assumption before I continue: there is
neither an after-life nor a deity to govern us. (Which includes reincarnation, purgatory,
haunting houses, etc.) From that assumption we move forward into: we have one life
- does it have a purpose?<br /><br />
This depends on the context. Are you spiritual? Or are you a link in the chain of
the evolution of the gene pool? Do you have family that worked hard to bring you into
this world, and keep you here? As we grow older: do you have children? And even as
abstract of a question as, do you have bills to pay?<br /><br />
Amongst these, there are definitely <i>functions</i> to fulfill. You can spread the
word of Jesus, or create as many offspring as possible, or be there to comfort those
close to you. But to find purpose, we have to refine the definition. So let's take
a look at a definition:<br /><img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/SX8bC7QhWEI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/CgUlyy09tVc/s800/purpose-definition-1.PNG" /><br /><br />
Or alternatively:<br /><img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/SX8bCyPz7nI/AAAAAAAAAJY/NA_kV69wFPA/s800/purpose-definition-2.PNG" /><br /><br />
Notice, that predominantly, the definitions involve choice, i.e. you can define your
own purpose.<br /><br />
One thing that is hard for jaded, non-religious people to see is the utilitarianism
of being nice. For them, existing is the only goal. I've even heard phrases like "Compassion
is out because it assumes humans are worth having compassion for, if you exist you
are guilty." Of what? Existing? Surely we all agree that we are all here, and we can
all agree that most of us want to keep being here.<br /><br />
When one has been without the illumination of compassion, and doesn't have spiritual
beliefs motivating one towards compassion, sure, it is easy to forgo. But I posit
that the main reason that compassion has come into power as a revered quality is because
it is absolutely necessary. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash">John
Nash</a>, in his studies of economics, proved that acting on behalf of the group,
instead of oneself, has higher gains. Granted, it isn't self evident. The world won't
change for you just because you put on a happy face, but if you <i>purpose</i>fully
pay it forward, the great puzzle of 6 billion pieces that we call humanity does become
a bit more coherent.<br /><br />
But such niceties has its limits. It's easy to perceive diminishing returns when you
are interacting with people that do not share the same values. For example, giving
money to substance-bound family member to pay the bills almost seems like negative
progress. The point is to be edifying, not just nice. Tell the ugly truth, not beautiful
lies. When you compose yourself, you can relieve your burden and enlighten other people
in a singular motion.<br /><br />
Can you change the world, or even just other people? No. But by providing opportunities,
you might help someone else see the necessity of self-change. And regardless, you
are still helping yourself. You're analyzing the situation for your own benefit. You
are finding room to expand in.<br /><br />
Because after all: your existence may be your existence, and my existence may be my
own existence, but <i>our</i> existence is <i>ours</i>, both in isolated groups and
as a whole. Aspiring to change it is both the most selfless and selfish thing you
can do.<br /><br />
The only way to go wrong is to not understand your own purpose. Be it following Jesus,
stopping global warming, or just buying dolphin-safe tuna. If you do it from within
the wrong personal context, you'll just reinforce that you don't know what you are
doing. And sooner or later you'll do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and it
won't matter anymore. You screwed up.<br /><br />
/end rant<img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68" /></body>
      <title>Purpose : Hyperbole and Non-Sequitors</title>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/PermaLink,guid,6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68.aspx</guid>
      <link>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/2009/01/27/Purpose-Hyperbole-And-NonSequitors.aspx</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:06:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <description>begin rant\&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am proud of those close to me that spend time reflecting on their feelings and interpretations
of the world. There are too many people out there that don't care at all. And sure,
you can use introspection as a means of validation and never actually change - but
you definitely can't change at all if you don't perform analysis of any kind.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the sake of argument, I would lay out an assumption before I continue: there is
neither an after-life nor a deity to govern us. (Which includes reincarnation, purgatory,
haunting houses, etc.) From that assumption we move forward into: we have one life
- does it have a purpose?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This depends on the context. Are you spiritual? Or are you a link in the chain of
the evolution of the gene pool? Do you have family that worked hard to bring you into
this world, and keep you here? As we grow older: do you have children? And even as
abstract of a question as, do you have bills to pay?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amongst these, there are definitely &lt;i&gt;functions&lt;/i&gt; to fulfill. You can spread the
word of Jesus, or create as many offspring as possible, or be there to comfort those
close to you. But to find purpose, we have to refine the definition. So let's take
a look at a definition:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;img src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/SX8bC7QhWEI/AAAAAAAAAJQ/CgUlyy09tVc/s800/purpose-definition-1.PNG" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or alternatively:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;img src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_bSl86KFxodY/SX8bCyPz7nI/AAAAAAAAAJY/NA_kV69wFPA/s800/purpose-definition-2.PNG" /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Notice, that predominantly, the definitions involve choice, i.e. you can define your
own purpose.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that is hard for jaded, non-religious people to see is the utilitarianism
of being nice. For them, existing is the only goal. I've even heard phrases like "Compassion
is out because it assumes humans are worth having compassion for, if you exist you
are guilty." Of what? Existing? Surely we all agree that we are all here, and we can
all agree that most of us want to keep being here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When one has been without the illumination of compassion, and doesn't have spiritual
beliefs motivating one towards compassion, sure, it is easy to forgo. But I posit
that the main reason that compassion has come into power as a revered quality is because
it is absolutely necessary. &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash"&gt;John
Nash&lt;/a&gt;, in his studies of economics, proved that acting on behalf of the group,
instead of oneself, has higher gains. Granted, it isn't self evident. The world won't
change for you just because you put on a happy face, but if you &lt;i&gt;purpose&lt;/i&gt;fully
pay it forward, the great puzzle of 6 billion pieces that we call humanity does become
a bit more coherent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But such niceties has its limits. It's easy to perceive diminishing returns when you
are interacting with people that do not share the same values. For example, giving
money to substance-bound family member to pay the bills almost seems like negative
progress. The point is to be edifying, not just nice. Tell the ugly truth, not beautiful
lies. When you compose yourself, you can relieve your burden and enlighten other people
in a singular motion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can you change the world, or even just other people? No. But by providing opportunities,
you might help someone else see the necessity of self-change. And regardless, you
are still helping yourself. You're analyzing the situation for your own benefit. You
are finding room to expand in.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because after all: your existence may be your existence, and my existence may be my
own existence, but &lt;i&gt;our&lt;/i&gt; existence is &lt;i&gt;ours&lt;/i&gt;, both in isolated groups and
as a whole. Aspiring to change it is both the most selfless and selfish thing you
can do.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only way to go wrong is to not understand your own purpose. Be it following Jesus,
stopping global warming, or just buying dolphin-safe tuna. If you do it from within
the wrong personal context, you'll just reinforce that you don't know what you are
doing. And sooner or later you'll do the wrong thing for the right reasons, and it
won't matter anymore. You screwed up.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
/end rant&lt;img width="0" height="0" src="http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/aggbug.ashx?id=6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68" /&gt;</description>
      <comments>http://i.llumin.us/illuminating-oneself/CommentView,guid,6858717d-39d0-4312-8695-30ffcf8a3c68.aspx</comments>
      <category>pure-rant</category>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>