Peabody's Tech


As I get ready to start a new week there's something I remain troubled by.

Early last week I began to notice on certain support web sites, (which will remain nameless), rather severe reactions from developers toward some of its users who were using beta versions of the upcoming iOS or Mac OS, and, who were merely attempting to notify fellow users that the beta versions of these OSes render the developer's application unusable with certain hardware and software configurations. In several of these cases I noted that the user attempting to post the notice made it perfectly clear that the notification was not a review or a criticism, only a notification to those who may be contemplating trying the beta versions with latest versions of Apple's OS(es). The barely polite chastisment by th moderator, of the enlightened user, was surprising to me and it has continued to trouble me off and on throughout the last week. Apple itself has disabled their Review function on their app stores if the store senses you're using a beta version of the OS. (I don't remember if this was the case during the OS 8 beta.)

In short, I get it. I am not a software or hardware developer, but have, at times, found myself endlessly frustrated with individuals who were running beta versions of one or more of Apple's OSes and proceeded to give soaring criticisms of how bad the OS was, or the app, or both. I'm reminded of the scene from the first Jurassic Park movie where the nefarious genetic engineer comes face to face with a smallish dinasour, and while holding a stick in his hand says something like, “... see the stick ... it's a stick, stupid.” I you're running beta-ware, pass final judgement before developers have had time to go through all of the latest iterations. Well, if my admittedly rough analogy holds any water at all, then I'll leave you to make the final connection. If I were a software developer this kind of thing would be frustrating, at least.

I wanted to give the current public beta of iOS 9 a go, but, there are one or two iOS apps that are fairly important to my daily life and I didn't feel I could afford to lose their functionality, so I went looking for information that might tell me if these apps were going to break if I installed the beta iOS. Ultimately, the virtual censorship that is going on by Apple and by app developers disallowed anyone from openly sharing that information. I find this disappointing, even irkesome. I totally get that no one in their right mind should judge an OS or an app in its beta phases, outside of objectively sharing bugs and problems directly with the developer – that's easy, but I believe there needs to be some appropriate culpability by the developers toward users of their products. I'm not referring to a developer just sayng their product won't work under the beta OS, whether or not they've actually tried it, just to cover their hides, I'm talking about developers at least opening their app with each beta iteration and posting the results for all to see, so that users can gauge for themselves how much of a risk they're willing to take during beta.

Personally, I like being able to take part in public betas, but, it has become hard to assess reasonable risk, because from where I sit, app developers are unwilling to cooperate with users who wish to do so and are willing to do so for without requiring payment for services. I don't believe it would cost developers anything in time and effort to use their support pages to post a simple set of results along with the obligitory and inevitable reminder that, users always use their products at the user's own risk, and all the more so if you're using a public beta of the OS.

Rather than censorship maybe there needs to be some basic public education about what a, beta version of any software really is, combined with examples of what reasonable expectiations might be. There also needs to be voluntary and full disclosure by developers as to whether or not their product is going to be unuseable with a public beta version of an OS. This whole concept can still be really good, but there's clearly a communication gap between app developers, Apple and end users.


_________ _________
Just Thinking ... And, Sharing. Yours very truly.

(Be sure to read below for an update.)

With regard to iPhones I'm pretty sure, along with many others, that Apple's not going to release a small phone this year [~1985], and that's too damn bad. But, if correct, that means I have another year to save up for Fall of 2016's new releases. Unfortunately, I think that any future “small” iPhone gear will feel a lot like getting an iPod Touch – the hardware specs will intentionally be a step behind whatever their current-year, new releases will be – that always drove me nuts using an iPod Touch – but in the end, it worked and Apple got me to buy an iPhone 5S with their antics ... I mean, strategy.

All of that is to say, I fear the age of small phones is gone and I will be compelled to get a monster phone by this time next year if I want to upgrade. I'm a performance-driven user of all things computer-driven. When I upgrade I've got to have the latest CPU, maximum RAM, best video components, screen technology and etc. Besides needing the performance in my reality, it dramatically helps downplay hardware obsolescence over time.

So, I'm going to spend the next thirteen months getting use to the idea of carrying around a monster-sized iPhone. When I pickup the phone and look at the big, beautiful screen, and luxuriate in the responsivness of the UI, I will have absolutely no issue, but, when it's time to put it away and hit the road, in the pocket it will not go. That means, back on the belt, (which I came to really loathe), and, I just don't do the back pocket – just don't.

Life is tough – isn't it?!

Update Well, life sure can be tough, but in the end,  did begin releasing relatively small iPhones periodically, and some of them were not too shabby with regard to performance. And, in fairness to me, by 1985 it really had begun to feel like there was only going to be “phabletes”, and that would never work for me. It's either an iPad or it's a phone, for me. But  did keep up the good work and proved me wrong. Yes there was a hit in battery life – it's a smaller battery, what are you going to do? But, they did it. I read in a recent issue of Macworld that there is a rumor afoot that not enough small iPhones are being sold to suite Apple's PL/P ratio [product line to profit], so they may not keep doing it. If that happens just refer to my already expressed sentiments in the original article above.

_________ _________
Just Thinking ... And, Sharing. Yours very truly.

Apple’s video application priorities – Alex4D  Video App Priorities



Sometimes I think that Apple is so torn between providing professional solutions – keeping alive the perception that only creatives create on their hardware – and competing in the consumer market place, that I think they should either farm out their professional software solutions or create a professional corporate branch. Maybe this will happen with some of the things I've been hearing about the Apple/IBM collusion, but, something tells me that IBM is not going to jump into the media production market place. They'll sell Macs with software to the accounting departments of these institutions, but probably are not going to sell FCPX along with network management solutions for that product.

Reading Alex's take on Apple's job openings just leaves me with more questions about whether or not Apple is ever going to take its professional users seriously, permanently ... And, not just professional users, but, professional users in corporate industry, not just private contractors working from home.

Edited with BlogPad Pro

_________ _________
Just Thinking ... And, Sharing. Yours very truly.

Anyone Who Prefers Tracks Over Roles is Delusional. Tracks vs. Roles

The good people over at FCPXTERT posted an excellent article addressing some of the early-on complaining about how some thought that exporting audio from FCPX was more complicated than Premiere Pro ... or at least it added some extra steps that were perceived as bothersome. I stand in agreement with FCPXPERT that exporting audio with FCPX is actually quite an improvement. However, it got me to thinking about what I believe are shortcomings with handling audio in FCPX.

And, this is more about the need for handling audio while still in the editing process, and, assuming the editor has the bulk of finishing the audio as opposed to having the luxury of an audio-post department that will do that for them. I'm beginning to need more advanced output options during the editing process in FCPX. For instance, Bussing. You could kind of do this in FCP7 by dropping audio and video filters on clips while they were still in the browser, (many complained that there was no effects buss for the master audio buss in FCP7), but of course, PP does this best. I really loved the fact that I could create a realtime mixer from audio tracks that were setup on the timeline, even without clips! So I could have a dialog track with preset EQ and processing and every clip I dropped onto that track took on those charactersitics. Alas, that is/was a big plus for me, but, still not worth giving up FCPX.

_________ _________
Just Thinking ... And, Sharing. Yours very truly.

Researcher Details Apparent Ease of Developing OS X Attacks: Apple Mac Attacks Trivial, Claims Security Researcher _________ A reaction to this article:

I really have to wonder about the behind-the-scenes politics of people and organizations that create previously non-existent malware. On the surface I get it, but it seems dubious that a person or group that creates mechanisms that break the average desktop or handheld computer have only altruistic motivations. Here are three things I always wonder about when I read these reports:


1. What happens when this person’s or group’s admiration for the computing system they portend to love wanes?

2. How long does it take for that love to wane in light of the admitted lack of appreciation that comes from the manufacturer/developer?

3. Whether or not there is or was any real admiration by the malware creator, what would it take to buy that particular creator’s particular creation?

4. Finally – I see no regulation or oversight of any kind for this practice.


Certainly germ warfare development [bio-germs] takes place, but it is somewhat regulated by the realization of the people doing the hands-on development, of just how really dangerous what they’re working with is. I would also argue that, whatever of this kind of thing goes on in the USA is watched very closely, even if it is not strictly regulated, (and I’m not saying it’s not – I don’t know if it is or not). Why would it be closely watched? For two reasons:
1. To keep it secret. 2. Because it’s dangerous to all concerned, therefore no risks can afford to be taken.

Now back to the malware lab where it seems to me that this kind of thing is carried out with no oversight of any kind, and if this thing shows up in the wild 12-24 months from now this person will have no culpability except, “I told you so”.

 Sorry, but I don’t believe this practice should be geek fodder, because there is a lot at stake – potentially, even human life – since computers are so indelible to our existence now. The more I contemplate this the more I believe this practice needs to be reigned in – there needs to be official oversight. It’s really too bad that giant companies like Microsoft and Apple, and Google, and all the rest, don’t do this all in-house – with government oversight. Software development has too long enjoyed the luxury of getting us to completely depend on products that take absolutely no responsibility for outcomes or losses due to the product’s shortcomings.


_________ _________
Just Thinking ... And, Sharing. Yours very truly.