Thinking Ahead

I’ve drawn up a sort of extrapolated timeline for myself and where I’d like to go with my writing. Lately, the things I write have been a little sporadic in where their published; some have gone to my tumblr, some here, a few at both, and a lot has gone directly to the inboxes of scholarship contest submissions, never to be seen again.

I’d rather not continue on in this way; writing good stuff and constantly trying to find it a home. This site – coming up at two years in existence – was originally intended to remain my centralized place to publish my own content. However, it’s slowly taken the form of unnecessary baggage in relation to my web presence.

So like I said, I’ve come up with a sort of timeline, or action plan for where I’d like to go in the future – and, sadly, The Talking Bird is not a part of it.

That’s the bad news. But the good news is really the rest of that timeline:

My tumblr-hosted site, collindfletcher.com, is going to roll in a lot of the responsibilities this site takes as part writing portfolio, part contact landing site, and part where I can keep others up on future projects.

Alongside that, I’m excited to have begun an entirely new project – in the form of a single-purpose blog – that is entirely different from the purposes of this site and of collindfletcher.com. It’s called The Kessel Run, and while you can read more about it here, I’d present it as a whole new beast in which I’ll be dedicating a large portion of my writing-time for (hopefully) the next two years.

As for pieces unrelated to The Kessel Run, I plan to publish a lot of what I write in various outside sites, rather than try to rebirth The Talking Bird as a new entity – for now. I’ve come to realize that I prefer being a contributor to a larger picture rather than a single voice inside a small one. And for the next four (maybe less) years, my long-form writing should appear less frequently, and in other publications.

Sometime around May 30th (that’ll be the two-year anniversary if you’re keeping track), I’ll be closing up shop on the Talking Bird. The site’s had a good run, and it’s a little sad to see it go. But I think the future holds far more exciting things than this dinky little site anyway.

collindfletcher.com

thekesselrun.net

Taking A Look at Panic’s Status Board

Status Board

Today the beloved Panic released their new iPad app, Status Board, upon the world. Lucky for me, they were kind enough to give me a copy a few days ahead of time to try it out. Panic’s pretty excited for this app to get into the hands of users, and frankly, I am too.

Novelty No More

Technically speaking, Panic’s Status Board has been around since 2010 – hanging on a wall in their Portland office. It began as a television displaying project statuses for software that the company had been working on. However, they moved on to include more information such as tweets to the company’s account, local bus times, and important dates. After Cabel, ringleader of the Panic team, wrote about the Status Board on the company blog, it turned into the cool office novelty of sorts as data nerds everywhere coveted the custom information panel. Inspired by this large amount of interest, Panic’s new app now gives those data nerds their toy.

What it does

The word “Widgets” has always had a negative connotation in my mind. To me, it recalls floating things that get in the way and don’t necessarily show me valuable information (see: Windows Vista widgets, OS X Dashboard). The idea has always been, theoretically, a good one, but has never been executed in a way that proved itself useful. So when someone says Status Board is a collection of widgets, it makes me cringe a little.

Really, the app is more like a space to be filled with resizable panes of data. Each type of pane can range from basic data accessible to the OS such as Twitter, calendars, email, and weather, as well as more complicated widgets. These include an RSS-like newsfeed which allows you to input URLs, graph and table displays based on CSV or JSON files, and a DIY pane that allows you to display URL-sourced information.

As you plug data in to the back-end of these widgets, they can also be resized and shifted around the space to build your own perfect display.

Who It’s For

Well that’s the thing – probably not everybody. But when you consider Panic’s other well-respected products, you’ll understand that they’ve never made something that was meant for everyone. Status Board may not be a development tool, but Panic’s heritage of code-based tinkering doesn’t shy away from the structure.

That said, the app doesn’t speak for itself in the sense of what I am supposed to do with this. Mainstream app-buyers might find the $10 price tag a bit much for something that displays Twitter and email side-by-side. But for those who understand, and are excited by the input functionality it offers, $10 is more than worth the price. The app should be viewed as more of a tool than something that gets set up once is finished. And if you’ve ever used the other tools Panic has made, you’ll understand why this thing’s well worth it.

Why It’s Pretty Exciting

Sometimes what turns out to be the most exciting things in tech don’t reveal themselves right away. At first, they’re more like spaces that need to be filled with the exciting new ideas of others. And that’s how Status Board looks right now.

The most exciting thing I did was display the exported CSV of my Sleep Cycle app. Thus, next to my Twitter, news feed, and email inbox, was a detailed bar graph of my nightly sleep quality percentages and hours slept.

Not very useful.

But the next few weeks will get pretty crazy as people try new things and really put the app’s capabilities to work. Every once in a while we’re given something new; but rather than it telling us what to do with it, we’re supposed to tell it. And that’s when things get exciting.

 

My thanks to the wonderful people at Panic for the opportunity to try it out.

A Truly Hybrid Windows OS

Last month I was forced against my will to make a decision. Windows 8 or else; and I chose else. I had been running the Consumer Beta since it was released in October, but obviously Microsoft wasn’t okay with running the free – and rightfully unstable – version of an OS well past its launch day. Every two hours my computer would shut down, only to reboot with a friendly reminder that I could receive an upgrade discount on my purchase of Windows 8. I was the one tied to a chair, while Microsoft was the villain speaking very kindly to me as he tapped a hammer against his palm. “We can be best friends as long as you cooperate,” he says.

Rather than take up the offer, however, I kicked him in the shin and jumped out the window while still tied to the chair. Certainly not the ideal way of escape; but at least I didn’t accept the offer – nor continued taking hammer-blows to the knee.

So in other words, I reinstalled Windows 7.

Loading the beta onto my Dell Studio was supposed to be a transition to 8. I was too excited not to try out the new operating system, being that Windows 7 had become very stale. However, using the beta for six months slowly dissipated any anticipation for running the new OS on my old hardware. Thus, when it became time to make the switch, I decided I’d just go back to the way things were rather than make the upgrade.

Booting in to Windows 7 was a bittersweet experience. In the months that I’d been using the 8 beta, I had grown accustomed to the brave new UX functions Microsoft has introduced – such as the start screen replacement and charms. But the return to that good ‘ole start bar and desktop applications just felt right. It was natural to open photos in a regular desktop application rather than a jarring full-screen takeover of the metro app. Or just the simple search bar found within the start menu made opening applications quicker. It’s not that I hadn’t grown used to 8′s execution of these functions, it just became painstakingly clear that the way things ran in 7, Vista, XP, and beyond were the right way of doing things.

That return to UX was the sweet part, but aesthetics was where it felt horribly bitter. Windows 7 didn’t look nice when it launched, and feels awful now that its older. It’s now clear that Aero, Windows’ last design language, wasn’t really a language at all; it was simply a UI wrapping over whatever application you were running. “Metro” (for lack of a better word), however, is a language. It’s a look, a feel, an identity for a modern computing environment. The aggrandized typography and flat, simple colors focus the user on the content. And not to mention ran more efficiently on my aging processor. Despite being built six years after my Dell had been put on market, Windows 8 felt like it was better built built for that aging spec. The new operating system is a feat of engineering – if not in design – for its ability to processes better on limited hardware.

Fundamentally, Windows 7 and Windows 8 are two environments with very goods and very bads. The classic functionality of Windows 7 is meant for old hardware, not the revolution we see before us. Touch screens, tablets, etc.; all these things are built for the new environment Windows has created in 8. However, the entire market is not willing to adapt to this revolution so suddenly. Microsoft can pretend that everyone will upgrade their old Dells and Acers for a fancy new Surface, but the numbers show that that’s not happening.

So here’s the dream: build a truly hybrid OS. Windows 8 may still have the classic desktop scheme, but the few changes they’ve made disrupts the basic workflow Windows users have grown accustomed to for years. Microsoft should build a platform grounded in the new era of Windows, but develop it for the aging – yet dominating – market of legacy Windows users. Rebuild the basics of 7 and XP into an environment that aligns with Metro design standards. Re-architect the platform to run as efficiently as Windows 8 does now. And most importantly, make it cheap, and make it simple.

I truly feel that such a move would mend the alienation I, and the majority of other Windows users, now feel. It’d build a bridge for the users that still know and love the classic environment, but aren’t ready to adopt future Windows 8 iterations. Such a “Legacy Edition” would be a proper introduction to Microsoft’s bold new direction, contrary to the awkward confrontation of a stranger the company is pushing now. I applaud their adoption of the industry’s future, and frankly, I think Microsoft executed the development of a unique, modern, OS quite well. However, the company’s user base as a whole is entrenched in the awkward stage of its transition. A hybridized OS would bridge the gap, and fundamentally take care of its faithful user base. This sort of move might come across as boring when compared to their competitors, but it’d simply be good customer service.

My trackpad-and-keyboard Dell laptop isn’t meant to be upgraded to Windows 8, but I certainly don’t want to feel ancient while running 7. For the thousands of others in the same boat as I, a truly hybridized Windows operating system is the ideal solution.

Note:

In an attempt to diversify my opinion, I took this concept to the Verge Forums, where I hoped to gain some interesting feedback.

Naturally, it turned out as helpful as one might expect from a Microsoft forum (especially on the Verge). But if you weed through the trolling and whatnot, you’ll find a few well-made points in the discussion. Take a look here.

Dropbox and the Windowed Ecosystem

Windowed EcosystemLast week Mailbox, the unique and incredibly successful iOS email app, announced it had been acquired by Dropbox. The response from the tech community was an ostensibly unanimous declaration of approval being that, generally, acquisitions of hopeful new startups are often seen as a conclusion to the underdog story. Yet this acquisition was viewed as more of a continuation for that of Dropbox.

Ingrid Lunden for TechCrunch analyzed what this move means for the cloud storage company:

It’s a sign of how Dropbox wants to be more than just a cloud storage company. This is the other motif behind all of Dropbox’s acquisitions. Storage is the thing that people pay for now, but down the line there are two reasons why Dropbox would want to have more.

Reason one, she says, is to diversify revenue streams. Yet it’s her second point that is most interesting:

Alongside that, it may want to have more services to keep consumers on Dropbox’s platform rather than going elsewhere — just like Google, Apple, Microsoft and others do.

Maybe Dropbox is not only looking to expand its “platform,” but to develop an entire ecosystem.

I, like many others, use Dropbox as more than just a cloud storage system for a few on-the-go documents. Dropbox has fundamentally replaced my computer’s hard drive. Every piece of data I manage – whether it be a text document, PDF, or photo – is uploaded to Dropbox. I am thus able to open, edit, and save on any device I use. Abstractly, Dropbox functions for myself as a less literally-taken version of Splashtop, the Remote Desktop application. From every device I am able to access the core of data without the disparity of locally stored information.

Perhaps the next step for Dropbox is to create what I’d call a “Windowed Ecosystem.” In such a system, every personal file a user accesses is autonomously stored in Dropbox’s cloud under their own personal account. If integral in a device’s OS, there would be no need for a Dropbox app, it would simply be the file system of the device. The difference of function, however, is that any device the user accesses under their personal account will make the same data available to them. Thus, every device, every screen, users access are like differently sized panes of glass; windows facing the same view. Software as we know it would be treated as hardware; as it is merely the interface attached the hardware. The true software would become the single point of access Dropbox gives the user for their data.

Yet if you look closely at the moves the largest tech companies have made, this Windowed Ecosystem is very much the goal for the entire industry. iCloud and SkyDrive are in-house attempts at implementing Dropbox’s already-established service. Google, however, is also building out this same system, just backwards. Being that all their services are based on the web, Google has created the scenery each window looks out to. It’s now up to them to develop the panes of glass; hardware which integrates with the data. Though Android isn’t made for this type of system, Chrome OS is.

Though we’ve grumbled that Chromebooks are machines purposed only to run a browser, it’s clear that this is the fundamental architecture of a Windowed Ecosystem. If your computer’s desktop were to remain your desktop, your hard drive’s filesystem became Google Drive, and your media became Google Play, etc., then Chrome would simply return to function as your browser. If this were realized, Chrome OS could truly become the omnipresent OS of the future, execution of the Windowed Ecosystem, and Chrome OS as we currently know it would simply be an awkward missing link in this evolution for Google.

And like I said, Android isn’t made for this type of architecture. But let’s not forget that this happened. When you look at the big picture, Google’s many facets may now be loose strings in a cohesive knot that just needs to be tied together.

But the simple truth is that Dropbox really has the advantage. Dropbox can become the cross-platform Windowed Ecosystem. Apple, Google, and Microsoft should see CEO Drew Houston’s invitations for collaboration as business temptations of the devil. The platform Dropbox is creating would butt-out any native cloud implementation any of these companies wishes to pursue, and Dropbox has more-so the vision and understanding of how these systems work. Therefore, we, the users, should see collaboration as an opportunity for this system to be strongest; unhindered by any business-induced missteps of any of these companies are prone to make.

Considering the slow state of iCloud and the mess of Windows, the only true opponents in this race are Dropbox and Google: the tortoise and the hare. Google’s nature as a company is stacked up to accomplish this new system. But the unfortunate nature of the company is also a hare-like tendency of making a mad dash to the finish line, yet getting caught up in its own discord. Dropbox, however, is the tortoise. Slow yet sure. Resolute in independency, and incremental in its advancement. Google may appear as a more adept candidate for this vision, but but Dropbox may be the tortoise who sneaks across the finish line while all eyes are on the hare.

So what does all this have to do with Mailbox? Technically, nothing. But what the acquisition does prove is forward motion in the company. That, with email management now under its belt, Dropbox is working towards becoming more than just an app on my iPad and a folder on my computer. As Lunden said, the company is showing signs of evolving into something greater than just a cloud storage company. Tighter integration with web-based services within Dropbox will increasingly add bricks to the structure of a next-generation ecosystem.

An Unsubmitted Essay

So I wrote an essay for this year’s National Peace contest, and to make a long story short, having a week to do the whole thing left me missing the deadline. It may be a little unwieldy for causal reading, but there’s no reason not to stick it here.

The Acquiescence of Women: Liberia, Kyrgyzstan, and the Necessities for Peace

In history, the acknowledgement of women towards peace has been a sympathetic one. In being cast as victims of conflict, their role as inhibitors of contention have been diminished. “Too little focus and insufficient resources are allocated strengthening the capacity of women,” states Sherrill Whittington, an independent consultant involved with gender and its role in governance. Rather than make women exempt from the process, she argues, we should view them as an underutilized resource for the process of peace building. Having a gendered approach to war and peace is characterized by a recognition of commonality among humanity, and a fundamental understanding for the interdependent roles both genders contribute in the establishment of a successful society. The case for female inclusion –an anomaly when compared to past efforts-‐ is best observed by two very recent events: the civil war of Liberia in 2003, and the ongoing conflict currently taking place in Kyrgyzstan.

In 1997, after several years of civil strife, Charles Taylor was elected the President of Liberia with 75% of the vote. Such popularity, however, was not due to wide approval for his platform, but out of fear for any other outcome. The people of Liberia found themselves governed under a regime fueled by tyranny, helpless to the corruption characterized by its abuses of human rights. In addition to the use of children for soldiers, Taylor’s fighters were known for the torture and rape of Liberian civilians who stood in their path. In 1999, an organized rebellion against the Taylor regime, the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD), launched a counter-‐attack upon government forces. While in opposition to Taylor’s government, the rebel militia provided no relief for the civilians. Young boys were forced to join the soldiers, and the girls and women were often victims of rape and assault. It is estimated that between 80% and 90% of women in Liberia had been victims of rape during that fourteen-‐year period in which the country was under civil war. By the time it came to a close, over 250,000 Liberians had been killed -‐a number that accounts for roughly 10% of the nation’s entire population at the time. For fourteen years Liberian women endured these unthinkable times of hardship. When relief finally came, however, it was derived from the most unlikely of places.

Many factors contributed to the eventual resolution of this conflict in Liberia, but it was an organization of woman activists whose effort may have given the final push needed for peace. Led by the Lutheran church leader Leymah Gbowee, the Women in Peacebuilding Network (WIPNET) brought a strong awareness to the hardships Liberian citizens were forced to endure. It began as an organization for prayer among the women of two congregations, but soon grew into a massive group whose peaceful protests were staged outside the city hall and airfield. Wearing white to portray their non-‐violent intentions, their protests garnered the attention of the international community, many other damaged women of Liberia, and eventually that of Charles Taylor. The hurting nation of Liberia saw, for the first time in many years, an unbreakable unity whose voice for peace drowned out the overwhelming noise of violent conflict.

WIPNET had begun among women in a Lutheran church, but the group soon opened its doors for those who also belonged to the Muslim faith. In the same room, women of two separate beliefs sang, clapped their hands, wept, and above all prayed ebulliently for the nation falling to pieces around them. In a society dominated by tradition, these women had set aside the differences that would otherwise cause isolation to unify them under a single thread of belief. A belief that, with every ounce of effort given, they could defy the oppression and transform their world from a hostile land of hurt to a place they could call home. Each member had a tragic story to tell of rape, aggression, assault, and even murder. The members found common ground in these tragedies; as mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and daughters.

On August 11, 2003, Charles Taylor announced his resignation as president of Liberia. Losing his fight against LURD and other allied rebel forces, Taylor’s control of the country had receded to 1/3 by the start of 2003. Also, the added pressure from the international community -‐as well as that of a certain Liberian women’s movement-‐ for a peace agreement became too great a weight for Taylor to bear; his despotism had come to an end. Both government and rebel forces signed a peace accord in Accra, Ghana, while Taylor flew to Nigeria in exile. Nine years later, on April 26, 2012, The Hague announced the verdict for his trial where he was ruled guilty for “crimes against humanity” including rape, sexual slavery, and outrages upon personal dignity. The Liberian government never returned to the suppressive regime known to Taylor’s; thus, the need for warring rebel militia was no longer present. And in 2005, Harvard-‐educated Ellen Johnson-‐Sirleaf was the first female to be elected President of Liberia.

In June of 2010, chaos broke out in the Kyrgyzstan cities of Osh and Jalal-Abad. In the course of 2-‐3 days, over 2,000 people were killed in riots within the southern Ferghana Valley. The cause for the violence originated from an ethnic division between Kyrgyzs and Uzbeks; the latter being of a 15% minority in the area. This long-‐time split has since escalated after the Tulip Revolution from five years earlier -‐an upheaval which left the economy dismantled and public approval of the government uneasy. While it’s unclear what exactly sparked the riots in the south, the violence that afflicted civilians is widely reported. Violence has decreased since 2010, but the membership of groups such as the Hizb ut-‐Tahrir has been found increasingly attractive for women in the country. In organizations such as these, strict Sharia law dictates the clothes women wear and their daily activities. They see that returning to strict religious traditions outweigh the dangerous upheaval in today’s secular culture.

In understanding the nature of these two conflicts, one can analyze the role gender has assumed in their outcomes. Comparatively speaking, the women of both Liberia and Kyrgyzstan found themselves directly affected by a crisis in which they were indirectly involved. Both were victims of conflicts that greatly compromised their ability to home-‐make; becoming uprooted from their homes, suffering the restrictions of displacement, and being denied the basic necessities for a stable environment. The basic contrast, however, is in the success of Liberia, and, as of yet, the failure of Kyrgyzstan. In order to unify in voice and break through to peace, the women of Liberia ignored the differences between them and emphasized upon the most important commonality among them: the need to return to their state of family. This voice was what garnered the attention of men whose actions affected their contentment. Additionally, the men of Liberia, whose decisions also weighed upon the nation, did not respond in violence towards their pleas for peace. In unification, cooperation, and understanding for one another, the people –both men and women-‐ found the respect necessary to obtain peace. Through this settling of differences, the women were not only able to end the strife, but establish sustainability; led, ironically, by the first female president of not only Liberia, but Africa.

Conversely, Kyrgyzstan has not yet put such a method into practice. While the Liberian women were able to societally progress in their reaction to the crisis, women in Kyrgyzstan –of both Uzbek and Kyrgyz ethnicity-‐ have retrogressed to a previous state of religious restriction. Many factors contribute to this contradictive outcome, but the most prevalent may be the origins of their thinking –in education. Women in Kyrgyz society are often forced to abandon their education. This, then, makes them more susceptible to the extremist propaganda of coercive religious laws. Their lack of judgment causes women to see submission to man as a reasonable alternative to the violent culture before them. What is seen is an antithesis to the path Liberia had taken to peace. Rather, the women of Kyrgyzstan are blinded from the commonality among them, and are therefore allowing themselves to be afflicted by a calamity in which they had no part in the initiation.

There is a firm difference between the socially constructed definition of gender and that of sex. Rather than acknowledging the biological characteristics of men and women, gender recognizes the individual roles each sex assumes. These roles complement each other; they uphold that one sex cannot thrive without the other. Aside from biology, history has also shown that both man and women are necessary for the establishment and maintaining of a successful foundation whether it be a family or a nation. Thus, the acquiescence of women to the dominating nature of men directly denies this fundamental role. This case is made in the current failed state of Kyrgyzstan, and in the success of Liberia. Women not only need to be included in peace building, but are necessary for the symbiosis of a functional society.

Thoughts on the Google Drive iPad App, Written in the Google Drive iPad App

First it should be noted that this was a really big update. I’ve had Google Drive installed on my iPad for a few months now, however this was the update that made me need to use it. A little while back, Google’s homepage bar changed the ‘Docs’ link to ‘Drive.’ Everyone flipped. It was confusing for all the Docs users to finally reach a state of “oh, it’s still Google Docs… technically.” While I don’t understand why Google chose this method for rolling out their cloud service, most of us have gotten used to it. Later came the Drive iOS app, to which we all gave praise for finally having received the long-awaited Google Docs mobile experience. A game changer for iOS productivity, the missing link of Apple/Google synergy, the fabled messiah of the post-PC world. Alas, upon download, we all dismally came to understand that this app was no such thing. A simple file system app. A gallery in the cloud. A pane of glass between us and our uneditable documents. Then today’s update came. The update. The big one.

Like all of Google’s recent iOS apps, the aesthetic UI is really nice. The unification of design across Chrome, Gmail, and Google+’s iOS apps carries over nicely into this one. Browsing through stored documents feels very similair – if not identical – to the experience found in the Dropbox app. It’s a simple process to transport documents between various folders via drop-down menu. Sure, it isn’t quite as simple as dragging an icon from folder to folder as on a desktop, but considering it follows the same experience as iA Writer and Dropbox, I tend to think this menu-based method is one we’ll get used to.

But all that doesn’t matter if the text editing isn’t any good. Good thing it is. They did a fantastic job bringing all that you’re used to in web-based Docs to this iPad version. Every character option is there, alignment, bulleted/numbered lists, indentation; it’s all there. Even the typeface selection remains. Spellchck is oddlee mising, but perhaps we could use a little accountability anyway. The default typeface and font size might come across as too small for those who are used to iPad text editors such as iA Writer or Byword. 11 pt Arial* is a bit miniature on the iPad, but thats entirely customizable. Conversely, this isn’t so much a design flaw as it is just Google sticking to the web version’s default settings.

And that’s really what makes this update a good one. There were no compromises in bringing the web-based desktop version to a mobile platform. They’ve brought every main function to the iPad without limiting it to a slimmer experience -like many mobile adaptations tend to do. As I said before, I don’t understand why Docs and Drive couldn’t remain as separate entity, but perhaps it’ll make more sense when I go to manage this document in a file system. If the function of the app is meant to primarily be a file management app – with a quick editing feature for mobile on the side -, then Google went above and beyond their intent. As Docs had established itself as a competitor towards Word and Pages, the Drive app now holds its own against other iOS text editors. The only difference is that it has a far greater ecosystem (as the big ones on iPad only sell Mac companion apps), and is bundled with a far more robust system of management. Remember, Drive is cloud storage for all file types – not just documents -, most of which can be previewed in-app.

Is this this my new primary text editor for iPad? Probably not. I still feel like iA Writer and Byword are both more focused on this specific platform. Drive feels a little more professional, but I still prefer the simplicity in design in which those apps are going for. Plus, saving to Dropbox is probably a better method for storing a document as well. It’s much easier to manage files through the good ole’ drag-and-drop system on your desktop rather than going through the Google website.

The point being that this is everything we wanted from what’s basically the Google Docs iOS app. Right now, the iPad is perfect for content consumption and web browsing, but I’m still not quite convinced it matches the productivity functionality to fairly be considered a post-PC device. This app, however, is a big step in getting it there.

Note: I finished writing this, and saved the document in the app. However, as far as I can tell, there was no available export… not even email. That solidifies that primary function of “file management, with quick edits for mobile as an extra feature.” I tried every thinkable method for getting the document from creation to being published all on my iPad, but to no avail. Even using the mobile Safari Drive site will only allow you to email the document as an HTML file. So.. for now, the app can’t even compete with the apps that can export the document to a destination for publication. It’s great for creating a document, or editing a previously created one. But when the document is ready for any kind of export, you’ll have to take it to your computer.

Flock of the Nerds

I’ve slowly made the conversion to DuckDuckGo, an “alternative” search engine now nearing its fourth-year anniversary of existence. It at first looks like just another Google, but it’s when you begin to use it that you understand it’s almost hacker-like function. Specific syntax and open-source development make it much less simple than Google, but also more compelling. If Bing and Yahoo are meant for obvious functionality, DuckDuckGo is the IFTTT of web-search.

But at no point does DuckDuckGo feel like anything outstandingly new, either. And they’re not trying to be. Any meta-related blurbs you see from the service will tell you first and foremost about the very simple feature of privacy. With their FAQ’s and blogs, they clearly acknowledge the existence of Google, and distinguish themselves as an alternative for those who are: first, aware of, and second, don’t want Google’s crap.

Famously, Steve Jobs proudly touted the Picasso quote, “Good artists copy, great artists steal,” as a mantra for the advancement of Apple’s products. And while that quote can be taken in a sly way, most would agree that the context Jobs was using it in inferred no fowl play. The mindset it invokes is that people will always come up with new things, but it takes the better creative to turn it into something that works. While Google is by no contest the largest and most successful of the two companies, DuckDuckGo has taken advantage of an opportunity that Google basically handed them.

In the early days, Google invented -in fact was- a product that changed the world. However, in their drive for expansion of services and increased functionality, they’ve drifted from what made them good in the first place. When this thought became obvious, Google declared open season for re-creating the core purpose google.com had once served. DuckDuckGo stole Google’s product, except they’ve made it work better. No fowl play if Google brought it upon themselves.

The DuckDuckGo/Google paradigm is just an example of a trend that we’re beginning to see in the industry. The internet now is about social. And with that, its very clear who the winners and losers are as to who’s carrying that social element forward. Like Google, the sun of Facebook and Twitter’s humble beginnings have now set, and the repercussions of becoming a fully mature company are beginning to affect the user. When speaking of the life cycle of a tech company, history actually does repeat itself.

Google has become too large for their own good. This makes it feel clunky and unfocused, yet not without its occasional big hits (i.e. Android, Gmail). Facebook is oftentimes the subject of everything that’s wrong about the Internet- not in the quality of a product, but the addictively unproductive functionality it serves. And albeit being just as big a company, Twitter has been known to be the much friendlier service to both users and developers alike, yet has just within the past weeks shown signs of spoil in its recent API changes.

Rather, think of it this way: Google is Darth Vader. Good-natured in the beginning, but its literal form of potential turned it into something else entirely, an “evil” presence that rules the galaxy; and there was nothing we could have ever done to stop it. Facebook is becoming Darth Vader; it’s the Anakin of Episode III, turning on Jedi, killing younglings, and clearly having chosen its destiny of ads and suppression towards the user. Yet it hasn’t quite become the villain just yet. Twitter is the Anakin of early Episode II;  innocent, while scaring others with its subtle signs of turning towards the dark side. Yet we still trust it, as Twitter is still a Jedi. They’re still the good guy.

Its a very recognizable cycle that we stand by and watch happen all the time. The internet has only been around for twenty or so years, and something I wonder is whether this is a cycle that will last forever. Or is it a phase; a side-effect of an entirely new thing such as the internet?

Perhaps RIM is an example of the endpoint of the cycle; on top of the world at one point, but coming down hard due to its lack of self-awareness and/or lack of industry-awareness. What about, say, the auto industry? While some companies might be better than others, its clearly a level playing field. No company sits on top of all the others for a while, then suddenly watches itself crash and burn. Or the print industry. Everyone has their preferred source of news, or magazines. This cycle is something that obviously exists, but is really only observable in the internet industry.

“When you consider we’ve been publishing on paper for over 500 years and on the Internet for only a couple decades, it’s no surprise we haven’t figured it all out,” writes Evan Williams,  ”It’s still early days.”

Evan Williams has a big say in this situation. He was a co-founder of the “Blogger” platform (invented the word, in fact) and later co-founded Twitter, to which he was at one point CEO and later stepped down to continue creating new things at his company, Obvious Corp. He wrote this in a sort of self-defining blog post for his latest platform, Medium. He explains that the entire purpose of Medium is to develop a community of user-creators who contribute the site with their own content: whether it be writing, or photography, or both. The goal is not for someone to browse content as organized by creators, but to browse the content as organized by the nature of the content. You have no profile or personal hub; all you possess on Medium is your content.

By definition, Medium is yet another blogging platform with just a few tweaks; as all other platforms are. But by ideology, Medium is an alternative to other platforms for those who care. It’s repeated many times throughout its meta discussion: many of us have grown tired of these other services, yet not so much the company itself as of the way people use it. In an ironic coming-full-circle circumstance, Evan Williams has developed a product that is stealing his older product, Blogger, and making it about quality. Just like what Steve Jobs was talking about.

When I use Facebook, Twitter, and even Tumblr, I use them sparingly (at least compared to most people). While one’s experience is determined by who they follow, they -in a wider scope- are a convoluted mess of janky outside integration and useless duck-face culture. However, when I post on Facebook, I try to imagine myself in some sort of official Facebook video, posting meaningful things that I hope will benefit others.

In other words, I’m a nerd. I use these social platforms in a way that shows I care more about the adhering to the company’s intentions than I do about just using it.

Medium is as far away as possible from being mainstream. The only ones who really know anything about it are the people like me: the nerds. But right now, it feels like it will always remain that way. In his post, Evan Williams wrote:

Still, some things haven’t evolved as much as we would have expected. Lots of services have successfully lowered the bar for sharing information, but there’s been less progress toward raising the quality of what’s produced. While it’s great that you can be a one-person media company, it’d be even better if there were more ways you could work with others.

He understands the social, self-publishing state of the internet we know now is something that can’t, and shouldn’t, last forever. With Medium, Obvious Corp. is stealing an idea (a function), and making it better; not for everyone, but for the nerds. For the people who care about good content. Medium isn’t vaporware, or a fad that will eventually be bought by some larger competitor. It will remain a place for people who want to escape from the saturation of low-quality usage that now populate products which allow us to create things. Yet at the same time, it will never grow as large as the big guys like Twitter, Facebook, or even Blogger.

Similarly, Obvious Corp. has a hand in another “idea stealing” service which caters to the same nerds as does Medium. Branch addresses the culturally broken system of online commenting. Take a look at the comments on any Youtube video and you’ll know that the comment system’s original intent is now being abused. By developing threads specific to a certain topic, contributors to a conversation are allowed within the conversation only by the conversation starters. No trolling allowed. It’s nothing particularly fancy, but its functionality is obvious for a nerd who seeks out meaningful conversations.

Medium and Branch are both the DuckDuckGos of their kind. They recognized an original idea, watched it become something less than it could’ve been, and “stole” that original idea to turn it into something that works. They, in a sense, are the Luke Skywalkers of the analogy. Luke possessed that same insurmountable potential as his father, understood how he had succumbed to what shouldn’t have been, and became the Jedi Anakin was meant to be. A fully established Luke Skywalker company functioning now might be Vimeo. It stole Youtube’s function, and became a community for the nerds who cared about the content.

So its a cycle. And if that’s the case, then right now we’re sitting in the middle of it. We’re watching the internet’s big ideas start in humble beginnings, grow as they entered the mainstream, and are now watching them fall away from the ideas of potential they once were. As these Anakins become Darth Vaders, we’re also watching the Luke Skywalkers begin to rise against the Empire. A new hope. Branch will not replace Twitter, Medium will not replace Blogger, DuckDuckGo hasn’t replaced Google, and Vimeo hasn’t replaced Youtube.  But I’ll still continue to use them within my white fence of quality; alongside the rest of the picky nerds.

Maybe we’re being pretentious. But with each internet migration that takes place, each flock of the nerds, we’re dutifully progressing the cycle. And that’s important. Perhaps this cycle won’t last forever, and we’ll begin to form the simple polarity as is with the print industry. Those who care about quality writing in a particular subject will subscribe to their own magazine. No winner, no loser. I hope that the future of the social internet will be a more populated place with their own cultures. Perhaps then there shall be peace in the galaxy.