Weekend read: “Only Apple”

Chiefly because I’ve been reading this and it’s the weekend, let’s have a Weekend Read. This is an interesting and chunky piece by John Gruber of Daring Fireball – I do just like the name – about where Apple stands today and specifically about one recurring issue. Apple head Tim Cook has apparently taken to repeating the phrase that “only Apple” can do various things that it’s doing.

Sounds like typical marketing guff to me. Apple uses words like “magical” a lot and everything is “incredible” so I do rather tune that stuff out. But Gruber argues that there is a point, that there actually are things only Apple can do at the moment.

It’s all to do with how Apple controls its own hardware and software so it really controls the entire experience of getting and using its stuff. If something doesn’t work, it’s Apple’s fault. If something works brilliantly, it’s Apple’s fault. The suggestion, especially from Cook, is that there is simply no other company that is doing this on this scale and with this success.

Is this true, though? Is Apple the only company that can do this? I think it’s inarguable that they’re the only company that is doing it, but Cook is saying they’re the only company that can.

I’ve been thinking about this for two weeks. Who else is even a maybe? I’d say it’s a short list: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Samsung. And I’d divide that short list into halves — the close maybes (Microsoft and Google) and the not-so-close maybes (Amazon and Samsung).

Only Apple – John Gruber, Daring Fireball (13 June 2014)

Read the full piece for a careful, weighed examination of whether Apple is really different to those – and why it’s important.

The internet did not kill newspapers

Yeah, right. But not so fast. Matthew Gentzkow of Chicago University says they were dying anyway.

His full paper Trading Dollars for Dollars: The Price of Attention Online and Offline is restricted to academic subscribers and you’re not fussed enough but The Guardian had a look and says his reasoning is that we make three mistakes in our assumptions:

Fallacy one: Online advertising revenues are naturally lower than print revenues, so traditional media must adopt a less profitable business model that cannot support paying real reporters.

“This perception that online ads are cheaper to buy is all about people quoting things in units that are not comparable to each other—doing apples-to-oranges comparisons,” Gentzkow writes.

Online ad rates are typically discussed in terms of the “number of unique monthly visitors” the ad receives, while circulation numbers determine newspaper rates.

Several different studies already have shown that people spend more time with newspapers and magazine than the average monthly visitor online, which makes looking at these rates as analogous incorrect.

By comparing the amount of time people actually see an ad, Gentzkow finds that the price of attention for similar consumers is actually higher online. In 2008, he calculates, newspapers earned $2.78 per hour of attention in print, and $3.79 per hour of attention online.

By 2012, the price of attention in print had fallen to $1.57, while the price for attention online had increased to $4.24.

Fallacy two: The web has made the advertising market more competitive, which has driven down rates and, in turn, revenues. That, says Gentzkow, just isn’t so.

Fallacy three: The net is responsible for the demise of the newspaper industry. No, writes Gentzkow, the popularity of papers had already significantly diminished between 1980 and 1995, well before the internet age.

And, he finds, sales of papers have dropped at roughly the same rate ever since. He concludes: “People have not stopped reading newspapers because of the internet.”

Newspapers’ decline not due to the rise of the internet, says professor – Roy Greenslade, The Guardian (13 June 2014)

That looks to me like fallacy #1 had some work done on it and the other two were just chucked in with a so there.

How to Learn – by Lewis Carroll

Begin at the beginning, and do not allow yourself to gratify a mere idle curiosity by dipping into the book, here and there. This would very likely lead to your throwing it aside, with the remark “This is much too hard for me!, and thus losing the chance of adding a very large item to your stock of mental delights.

A Random Walk in Science, writers include Lewis Carroll (UK edition, US edition)

Via Brainpickings, this feature is about Carroll’s four rules of learning and what he tortoise.

Google’s new design ethos

Previously… I told you about Apple’s long-standing Human Interface Guidelines that I read first as a paperback book in the 1990s but is now a free iBook. I just find the intense thought and detail fascinating, the care and the thought. Take a look at me enthusing and then get the iBook too.

Now Google has something in the same ilk. I’m telling you this moments after learning about it so I don’t yet know how interesting it is. But one of the key reasons I don’t use the free Google Docs is how clunky it is. I do change my mind every time I see that price, but still, it’s just not a pleasant experience and I would be facing that unpleasant design for 12-15 hours a day if I used it.

So I am very interested in what design improvements Google has been doing. If you are too, take a look right here.

Dial 6 for Murder (and other phone tips)

The downside of having our phones with us all the time is that we have our phones with us all the time. We end up getting calls we don’t want and there are times when we either have to make calls we’d prefer not to – or we are obliged to give out our number. You can’t stop all that but you can make it less of a problem.

Next time you get Unknown Caller and it is another sales call, do whatever you normally do and after you’ve got that out of you system, put their number into your system. Take that moment to add it under the name Spam. And the next one who calls, also Spam.

After a while you will build up this contact called Spam with an awful lot of phone numbers. But it’s surprising how often the same spam numbers call you so while this won’t cure all such calls, you will regularly see the name Spam as Caller ID and can just tap the decline button.

As for making calls, get a burner phone. You’ve seen this in movies: the baddies and/or the goodies who are falsely accused of being baddies and are on the run, they all get burner phones. They’re just another mobile phone that you buy anonymously and you only use for a specific job before throwing them away or planting them on your enemy.

Cheaper and handier than buying new phones all the time, you can just buy an app. Burner is a free iPhone app that gives your phone a new, temporary number. You only get a very limited-use number for free but you can buy new temp ones and delete the old ‘uns at any time.

If you’re thinking that you simply can’t remember the last time you were on the lamb, pursued by the police forces of Illinois and needing to run some interference for the mob, you can also use Burner for eBay. Craigslist, eBay, anything where you need to give out your number to someone but, seriously, you don’t want them phoning you for the next ten years trying to be your buddy.

I don’t get that a lot. But most every woman I know does. For them – or at least for women in the US – here’s my favourite phone trick that will surely, hopefully come to the UK too:

The experience is all-too familiar for many women. An overly aggressive suitor asks for your number. You feel uncomfortable or unsafe, manipulated or just want to end the interaction. Sometimes, it feels easier to hand over your digits than to reject the person outright; but you don’t want to field unwanted text messages or phone calls.

Been there? Over it? Go ahead and memorize this number: (669) 221-6251.

That’s the hotline for the new Feminist Phone Intervention, which automatically replies to calls or text messages from unwelcome admirers with an automatically-generated quote by renowned feminist writer, theorist and professor, bell hooks.

As the anonymous saviors behind the hotline write on Tumblr, “Why give any old fake number, when you can have bell hooks screen your calls?”

This Feminist Hotline Replies To Your ‘Unwanted Suitors’ With A bell hooks Quote – Huffington Post (13 June 2014)

I’m afraid I hadn’t heard of bell hooks. In following that link through to Feminist Phone Intervention, I didn’t learn a lot more but it was a lot more sobering. This is that site’s explanation for why its makers set up the service:

because we’re raised to know it’s safer to give a fake phone number than to directly reject an aggressive guy.
because we’re raised to know that evasion or rejection can be met with violence.
because women are still threatened and punished for rejecting advances.
because (669) UGH-ASIF, WTF-DUDE, and MAJR-SHADE were taken.
because why give any old fake number, when you can have bell hooks screen your calls?
so next time, just give out this number: (669) 221-6251
tech to protect.

Feminist Phone Intervention website

Not a great world, is it?

Sorry, Snow White, you’re out

We’ve had a meeting, us seven dwarves and, I’m sorry, we don’t need you.

Once you’ve got 7 people in a decision-making group, each additional member reduces decision effectiveness by 10%, according to Marcia W. Blenko, Michael C. Mankins, and Paul Rogers, authors of Decide & Deliver: 5 Steps to Breakthrough Performance in Your Organization. Thus, a group of 17 or more rarely makes any decisions.

Effective Decision Making and the Rule of 7 – The Daily Stat, Harvard Business Review (28 September 2010)

Have they been sitting in on BBC meetings?

Via Lifehacker.

Notification: will you marry me? (Y/N)

Back in the olden days, like thousands and thousands of years ago, you’d propose enough times that someone said yes. And then you were off to the races, if the races were myriad wedding-planning problems.

Back in the not very olden days, like an hour ago, you’d be considered fancy if you had an actual wedding planner. A person. Films have been made about this.

But today, you need your smartphone and a whole category of apps made just for you:

Wedding apps have become increasingly popular in the last few years as millennials begin to wed. “We got Facebook in college, we got the first iPhones,” 27-year-old Ajay Kamat, who co-founded the photo-timeline app Wedding Party, told TIME. “We have an expectation that when we travel or shop or do anything, there are services and apps that will help make that experience better for us.”

These smart apps—which are trying to break in to the $53.3 billion wedding industry—help brides and grooms send invites, organize guests, hire local vendors, gather all the photos guests take, register for gifts and crowdsource money for honeymoon activities. Apps like Appy Couple, Carats & Cake and Wanderable are becoming favorites among savvy couples who want to streamline the logistics associated with events like bridal showers, bachelor and bachelorette parties, the rehearsal dinner, wedding and honeymoon.

With This App, I Thee Wed – Eliana Dockterman, Time magazine (12 June 2014)

Bet the iPhone apps are better than the Android ones.

Find the best online course in anything

I’ve long had a soft spot for Lynda.com and more recently have enjoyed watching some of Screencasts Online’s work. Plus if you’re a member of the Writers’ Guild, the NUJ, Equity or the Musicians’ Guild then you can get free online courses in a huge number of things from the FEU, The Federation of Entertainment Unions and its training site.

But there are more online courses in the world than you can shake your head at and Lifehacker has found a site that helps you find the best one for you.

Online classes are a great way to learn new skills. SlideRule makes your search easier by letting you browse and search through over 17,000 online courses.P

SlideRule’s reach is extensive and covers many popular education providers, like Codecademy, Khan Academy, Udemy, and MIT Open Courseware. You can browse by provider or through subjects like Computers & Technology, Business & Economics, and Law. SlideRule also has a review system so users can rate courses and help you avoid the ones that aren’t worth your time.

SlideRule Searches for the Best Online Courses in Any Category – Patrick Allan, Lifehacker (4 June 2014)

In my poking about it, I don’t think the reach is that great: there is a clear bias toward technology subjects. But then Screencasts Online has that too and Lynda.com includes a lot.

But I am keeping an eye on SlideRule; have a look yourself and see what you think.