All Things

I started out writing this as yet another comment to my earlier post about Twitter, but think I’ll make it a separate post. In any case, here are two good articles about serious uses of Twitter that I found from a post on the Setting Contexts blog:

The Top 5 Ways Smart People Use Twitter

What Twitter Means for Marketers

Regarding the 5 uses in the first article, I’d add:

1. Marketing & Communication: It’s interesting to just look at Twitter and quickly see what so much of the buzz is about. I do think there’s a good chance of picking up on tech or consumer trends much quicker, if you’re listening to the right folks. A good tool for finding those “right” folks is an obvious key add-on to the service.

2. Microblogging: Not everyone’s brain works this way, but for me there’s a lot of times I want to throw out a random thought, question or link that might be of some benefit or deserving of further investigation (e.g. by a journalist). I’ve added my Twitter account to my Technorati blog list, so now there’s a somewhat decent chance these thoughts might get discovered, though Twitter does need an automatic ping function.

3. Business Networking: I’m hopeful about this; I do well in one-on-one conversation but don’t stand out in a crowd. There’s a lot of folks I’d like to connect with that I’ve never had an immediately compelling enough reason to do it, though it would probably be beneficial for both sides.

4. Breaking News & Getting Scoops: I got this part as soon as I saw the CNN logo on Twitter. Unfortunately, I don’t think most news outlets have figured out how Twitter could drive traffic to their sites. As with RSS, the NY Times is at the forefront of this.

5. Streamlining Your Electronic Inboxes: I’m really hopeful that Twitter can help to reduce the email onslaught, since reading a Twitter update is so instant. I made a suggestion about this, for example, to Kristin at French Word a Day last week, as I thought it was an excellent example of a daily email service that could benefit from a Twitter update.

As I noted before, I expect we’ll see a whole lot of other uses emerge for Twitter, since in essence it’s a whole new basic form of communication. Here are a few more interesting examples of Twitter applications I’ve found recently:

Austin Weather

Kansai Train Announcements

French Practice

Interesting Links Forwarded by Robert Scoble

Twitter Timer

Also someone reportedly found some help after a car accident: Thoughts on Twitter.

Finally, with regard to the second article mentioned at the beginning, there’s this interesting assertion: If Markets Are Conversations, Then Twitter Is Money.

I’ve been reading about the Twitter instant-messaging/social networking site for a while, and decided to finally check it out. My screen name is aeroG, and you can go there to see some of my initial annoyances, some of which have been resolved. After a few hours of messing with it over the last couple of days, here’s my early assessment:

Twitter is asynchronous instant messaging for adults.

While my teenage daughter is glued to AIM, etc., much of the time, I can’t hardly get her to check the emails I send her. I guess email seems way too slow for her. Email seems just about the right speed for me, because I don’t have a boss who’s expecting instant answers all day long. In any case, there are some times where a faster pace is useful, but I’m usually juggling other stuff like most adults.

Twitter might well be a good answer for this need, and it seems to be growing in popularity, at least for the moment. After working with it a little while, I can see that it has a lot of potential for news alerts (BBC, CNET and CNN, for example). You’re also supposed to be able to get a weather forecast, but as you can see on my page I haven’t gotten that to work yet.

I don’t know for sure if these pages are run by the media sources themselves, or just somebody copying (plagiarizing?) their news, since the updates are spotty. BBC seems to be the most frequently updated, but none are working at anywhere near their potential.

I’m surprised media outlets aren’t jumping all over this; it seems like a great way to generate traffic to their news sites. It would sure be nice to have all the latest updates from both the news sources and people you want showing right there on your Twitter page, and it would go a long way toward ensuring that folks kept using Twitter themselves on a frequent/regular basis, which is the idea.

That said, I can’t help thinking that there are going to be some serious privacy issues with Twitter. For example, I didn’t expect to see my full name displayed on my page, after I had to choose a screen name. Worse, when I tried to edit it, their system wouldn’t allow it. Maybe I can live with that, but I don’t see why users shouldn’t have control over that as with all the other social networking sites.

Obviously, if someone wanted to stalk someone else, their Twitter page would be the first place a stalker would look. You can set it private, but there certainly needs to be much finer control over privacy aspects of the site.

Despite these weaknesses, Twitter seems to have enough capability (it works to/from phones and IM services as well) to have a great deal of potential usefulness. I wrote how Xanga quickly evolved from a writing platform (reportedly its intended use) to a social networking site, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some so-far unforeseen application becomes the primary use of Twitter as well.

I haven’t been blogging much this summer, been very busy with other stuff. What time I have had has been going mostly to AeroGo, which is slowly but steadily growing in traffic. In particular it’s been getting a lot of high-quality international traffic, so I’m hoping I’m on the right track with that. I’ve got a lot of ideas for AeroGo as well as many other things I want to do on the internet.

One of the things I’ve noticed about my blogs (four in total, so far) is that even though traffic is still modest, since early on they’ve gotten fairly good Google rankings. This makes me hopeful that I may in fact have a good sense for how to use the net to advantage, though it really took me several years to settle on a blogging approach. At first, when setting up and running a blog was more difficult, I figured I’d have to put everything into one blog, but I just never could see how that would work.

Though I don’t generally write about what I ate for breakfast, even in my personal blog Light Side, I thought it would be awfully presumptious to think folks would wade through personal stuff in order to find something they were interested in. The #1 issue in writing is to write to your audience, and with one blog it seemed impossible to define a target audience, at least for me. It wasn’t until last year that I resolved this dilemma of the one and the many, by deciding the solution was several, or possibly many, blogs, aimed at particular topics, with this blog All Things covering everything else.

I knew I was on the right track upon realizing that tightly-targeted blogs would get much better treatment by search engines. Moreover, several blogs linking to each other would raise the rankings of each, whereas one blog with many topics might actually hurt rankings

Right now this is how my blogs are targeted (maybe this will be helpful as an example):

• Light Side: Personal & Education
• AeroGo: Aerospace & Practical Engineering Management/Career Advice (targeted primarily at high school & college students)
• RealCurrents: Current Events/Issues/Politics
• All Things: My various other interests, especially Technology & Business, but also others that don’t fit elsewhere

Originally, I expected considerably more variation in the topics in All Things, but as it’s worked out, most posts are about technology and/or business. Perhaps this means there should be a separate blog for these topics, but I don’t have anything in mind for this yet.

Another thing I’ve noticed this summer, with my limited posting, has been that even when I wasn’t writing, traffic seemed to be slowly rising, except on my personal blog. While I actually cover quite a bit of stuff on Light Side, I haven’t really tried to drive traffic to it, at least yet (I still have some trepidations about that). Nevertheless, I’m contemplating starting a separate site to handle the type of personal/educational advice I occasionally write about there, which has garnered some interest but could be better organized on a separate site.

On the other sites, however, I wonder if I was starting to see a sort of slow-motion snowballing effect as traffic gradually grew even when not writing. The jury’s still out on this, since I was getting an increasing amount of comment spam until I made some changes, and so wonder if a lot of these hits are just spammers (though the large number of hits to my post about GM’s OnStar system - a prime spammer target - really declined after that).

I doubt much traffic growth would occur on its own for blogs filled with short entries, but when you write posts with a fair amount of depth (and several times as many resulting search words), it seems possible that a point of critical mass might be reached where links from other sites, search engine effects, etc., could combine to make traffic grow. It’s my hunch that’s the case for a well-targeted site, but even so it remains unclear whether the effect could be enough to be significant.

In my view the internet, at some level, is one big, giant, experiment. Actually it’s several: technical, business, and social experiments at least. As such, I’m trying to observe its behavior and learn how it works, insight that I’m sure will prove profitable in many ways. Of course, the internet is also a huge political experiment, as I expect we’ll discover, maybe not this time, but perhaps in two more years.

Owen Linzmayer got me thinking again about the Mac with two recent articles at informit.com, Ten Things I Hate About Mac OS X and Ten More Things I Hate About Mac OS X. Some of the items on his lists don’t really affect me. Nevertheless, as a Mac user from the beginning, you can be assured that I’ve had time to come up with a list of my own. Maybe it will be helpful to actually write it down here. I don’t know if Apple will find my list, but since Linzmayer is a Mac author I hope they will at least take his suggestions to heart.

I’m sure some will find fault with what I write here, but hey, this is my list, and after suffering through the valley in the 1990s I’ve got a right to my opinion. If there is a crazy part, it’s that I still sort of hope Apple will take us to the personal computing mountaintop! Well, here are at least ten of my top peeves with the Mac, mainly OS X:

1. OK, I’m going to cut right to the chase. Without a doubt, my Number One Pet Peeve is that after 22 years, Apple still hasn’t delivered on its vision for making the Mac easy to program. Originally, there was a whole group of components/aspects to the Mac revolution. These included the Mac itself (as an information appliance), an automated factory in Fremont, California, which was to crank them out inexpensively (so they could be sold to the masses), a capable serial network - AppleTalk - with many possibilities for expandibility (even though the initial hardware wasn’t expandable), and Macintosh Basic.

Macintosh Basic?? Yes, that long-lost but highly-touted language, rumored to have been sold to Microsoft to get it to renew the Apple II Basic license, was a key piece of the original vision. I’ve long wondered if Visual Basic has its roots in Mac Basic. I really don’t know, but did read once that it just kind of emerged in Microsoft, and was a surprise success for them. In all the years of press coverage on Microsoft’s alleged anti-competitive practices, I’ve never once seen Macintosh Basic mentioned. Since Microsoft is often criticized that it isn’t truly an innovator, it’s odd that they haven’t held up Visual Basic as an example of innovation.

Anyway, the vision for programming by the masses, a key part of the original Mac vision, didn’t die completely at Apple after Mac Basic disappeared. Bill Atkinson developed HyperCard, which was introduced in 1987 and was a huge success, probably the most popular thing Apple did between the Apple II and the iPod. Unfortunately, HyperCard languished, perhaps because Atkinson insisted it be given away for free. Eventually just the reader was given away, and the programming tool was priced around $100. It was obvious Apple management didn’t share the vision of programming for the masses, and HyperCard remained in limbo throughout the 1990s, until Steve Jobs pretty much killed it when Apple refused to carbonize it or let anyone else do it either (now that Apple is switching to Intel and Classic is being abandoned, HyperCard won’t run at all on the new hardware).

Around 1990, Dave Winer created a scripting language, Frontier, for the Mac. Apparently Frontier wasn’t visual or really all that simple (I don’t know what Winer’s vision for it was), but Apple management woke up long enough to scuttle Frontier by creating AppleScript, a supposedly easy-to-use scripting language for the Mac. Several years ago, after refusing to heed the pleas of HyperCard devotees, Jobs seemed to hold up AppleScript as an entry-level programming language for the Mac by creating AppleScript Studio.

This is just my bias, I suppose, but I’ve always been rather skeptical of AppleScript, and have never wanted to mess with it. Even Matt Neuberg, who wrote the book, has noted that “AppleScript is a curious language, to say the least. It’s a dinosaur, an almost unchanged survival of code written in 1993 to run on a slow computer with a mere speck of RAM. The language suffers from peculiarities of architecture and design, from a dearth of accurate documentation (which my book is intended to correct), and from the fact that all scriptable applications are utterly different from one another.”

Maybe AppleScript will somehow end up being a great language, but Apple still has AppleScript Studio hidden away from users, which hardly helps to make it a programming tool for the masses. On the other hand, with OS X 10.4 (Tiger) there is now Automator, a much more visible and simpler tool than Studio that some seem to like, so maybe this is progress. Nevertheless, I’m still waiting for Apple, as the vendor of choice for creative types, to exhibit a real devotion to the vision of programming by end users.

Well, moving right along …

2. Doesn’t run Windows apps. Need I say more? OK, I guess I ought to mention that now with Intel, perhaps a future version of Virtual PC (or just OS X?) might finally do this efficiently.

3. Wasted screen real estate. Screens are huge compared to the original Mac’s 512x342 monochrome display, yet as screens have grown, Apple seems to have wasted a lot of that space, with bigger icons, etc. It’s nice that you can have big icons and fonts, and some things are adjustable, but I wish Apple would put more thought into making the most of the screen, since it’s still a major limit to productivity.

4. Folder panes. This is related to #3. I don’t use Windows, but one of the things I notice is that folder panes, which are in my opinion a highly-productive interface, seem to be used more commonly, and the listings are smaller, so more can be seen at once. Entourage uses a folder pane, but I can never fit enough on the screen at once. When I was recently trying to decide between a new eMac or 17″ iMac, my choice was made once I realized the 17″ LCD (because of its different aspect ratio) actually would display less vertically. That would make the Entourage folder pane even less visible at once, and I can barely stand it as it is!

5. Drawers. This seems to have been Apple’s answer for a ubiquitous folder pane interface. When I first read about drawers, I thought I would love them, but as they’ve been implemented, I hate them, because they impact window positioning (see #6) and the listed items are too big (see #4). What would be better would be a reallocation of window real estate, rather than having to reposition to see the drawer, etc.

6. Sloppiness with window positioning. To be fair, this is mostly an application programming issue, but I wish Apple could find some way to get applications to always remember precisely how windows have been positioned and to return them when they are reopened. Dave Winer’s outlining program More, for example, offered a great deal of control over window positioning, which again is important in order to make the most of screen real estate. More also had a Resume file that would save the exact state of opened files, so when you restarted you were returned to just where you were. I know some programs have something like that, but it would be nice if Apple standardized it somehow.

With OS X, apps aren’t restarted as often, but I hate wasting time getting started on something, when the computer could easily do that for me. Besides, unlike Apple’s mostly visual types, I’m the kind of person who looks at the edge of things, so misaligned edges look messy and distracting to me. I know this will sound like a rather minor quibble to most folks, but to me it isn’t.

7. Small/clunky open/save dialogs. I agree with Linzmayer on this one. One of the most obvious things about using an old program such as More in Classic is the tiny size of the open/save dialog boxes. On the early Macs this was done both because the screen was small and also so if the program crashed you might be able to retrieve (by hand) some of what you just wrote (well, it worked for me a number of times). The new dialog boxes are a vast improvement, but as with window management, resizing them is an unnecessary recurring annoyance.

8. The spinning pizza/beachball. The pizza is cute for the first couple of times you see it, but it’s all downhill after that. One culprit behind this is Apple’s longstanding policy of not packing Macs with enough RAM (or even room to add enough RAM). This prompted the accusation that the Mac was underpowered and continues to feed that perception. The problem has persisted with the recent Mac Mini.

9. Inconsistent strategy for a low-end Mac. Here I’m not talking about Apple clones. That’s a separate debate and maybe Jobs was right on that one. In any case, Apple’s market share, and Apple’s user base, have both suffered tremendously over the years from Apple’s lack of commitment to having a competitive value-priced Mac in its product lineup. At times Apple has had a strong entry at the low end, such as the Mac Classic or the first-generation iMacs, and these have just about always sold well. At other times, there has been little or nothing for someone on a budget.

Right now we are unfortunately in the latter situation. To be fair, Apple is in a transition to Intel which is ostensibly going to lead to lower-cost hardware, but right now prices are going up. The Mac Mini was raised to $599, but this isn’t really the kind of computer that would appeal to a budget user. Its frame-rate benchmarks are pretty bad, so it wouldn’t appeal to kids, and it isn’t really suitable for a home office either.

I think the magic price point is somewhere around $649-699 for a full system. If Apple could hit that target with something that did well playing games, they could probably sell a ton of Macs (even the Mini sells for a lot more than this once you add in the memory, display, etc.). Even if they can’t reach it, a price void all the way to about $1000 is just too much. The iMac and eMac used to fill this void, but the iMac is now way above that range and the eMac has been discontinued.

This kind of thing would never happen in other industries. Can you imagine Honda discontinuing the Civic? As with the Mac, the Civic isn’t the cheapest small car, but in the same way Apple needs to stake a claim at the low end of its market and stick with it.

10. Third-party driver issues. I know this, too, isn’t really Apple’s fault, but I’ve read of so many people having problems with scanners, multi-function devices, etc., that the plug-and-play capability of the Mac seems seriously threatened. I hope Apple will put somebody in charge of this, say a “driver evangelist” who will work with peripherals providers to iron problems out. I also wonder if the Intel transition will make this situation better or worse.

Bonus Peeve: Yes, Owen, those eternally-bouncing dock items are downright irritating! Like the pizza, the physics of computer-screen motion is fascinating for a brief while, but when you’re deep in concentration enough is enough. At least I was fortunate to discover recently that Entourage has a preference to turn that off. Now I don’t get that bouncing icon every 10 minutes when my email comes in.

Someone ought to design a widget to shoot those bouncing dock items, and provide some needed comic relief. Well, maybe you could make it an arcade game and shoot them all!

Friday Peter F. Drucker, often credited with founding the field of management science, died at his home.

It was perhaps ironic that Drucker died on Armistice (Veterans) Day, as he once attributed the quick start in his career to being placed early in positions that should have been given to men in the middle of their careers, except Europe in the 1930s didn’t have such men. They had most all died in the War. Gifted with the ability to see and clarify trends years ahead of others, Drucker left Hitler’s Germany in 1933 and London, for the U.S., in 1937.

Drucker was one of a handful of prescient Austrians of the 20th century, able to see past the blur of rapid technological change and political upheaval to discern more fundamental social issues and the need for moral action. Unlike Ludwig von Mises‘ analysis of macroeconomics or F.A. Hayek’s work in sociology, Drucker ostensibly focussed on management of profit and non-profit organizations (including government), and managing oneself. Nevertheless, his insights into social trends were some of his most valuable contributions.

Drucker’s own preference was for French economist J.B. Say, who supposedly coined the term “entrepreneur” around 1800. Innovation and “knowledge work”, a term Drucker himself originated, were always important topics in his writings, including his valuable Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Drucker frequently emphasized the need for receptivity to the unexpected market and for disciplined abandonment of yesterday’s successes. In this he seemed to parallel the thought of yet another Austrian, famed economist of innovation Joseph Schumpeter, with his similar concept of “creative destruction” as the driver of growth in an economy.

Regarding Drucker’s impact on my own life, I first discovered his works as a sophomore engineering student, while volunteering with an organization known as the World Space Foundation. WSF was trying a new, non-profit approach to space exploration, and garnered some attention for its work on developing a solar sail spacecraft, though its greatest contribution was likely in the area of Earth-crossing asteroid research.

At this time NASA was really in a funk concerning lunar exploration, which had completely dried up (and would remain so for another dozen years, until the military’s Clementine spacecraft and, after a long history of determined development, Lunar Prospector). I was intrigued with the possibility that maybe we could do a lot with even modest funds in a non-profit context.

Having already concluded some time previously that innovative organizational forms might play an enabling role in space development, over the next couple of years I developed an appreciation for management science and for Drucker’s works in particular. Drucker’s thought-provoking books have always proved fascinating, even if not so easy to apply directly, and were an engrossing introduction to the study of management.

Eventually I concluded that a non-profit organization would have a difficult time maintaining enough control to pursue a long-term research program, but that for-profit enterprises might do this effectively, though much discovery and innovation in the areas of organizational and individual function was still needed. This area of research, in fact, has been my primary focus for the past 18 years.

Perhaps Drucker’s best-loved book is The Effective Executive, originally published in 1966. Drucker described it as a real-world treatment of the subject, and argued that effectiveness was a set of practices that must be learned - and practiced - starting with the executive’s managing of his time, not the work itself. Newt Gingrich, after capturing the House of Representatives for the Republican Party and becoming Speaker, credited the book with guiding his success, which led to a new surge in its popularity.

One of Drucker’s strengths was his ability to see that management, as a discipline, transcended particular organizational forms. He was equally interested in improving effectiveness in both the profit and non-profit sectors, and his latest brief but valuable work, published this year, was Managing Oneself.

It is in the profit realm, however, that Drucker’s comments are sometimes most difficult to unravel. His discussion (Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Ch. 6) of the role of business, and of profit in particular, is thought-provoking yet seemingly incomplete. Similarly, some of the concepts brought out early in Managing for Results beg to be pursued at a conceptual level rather than with the detailed analysis of product contributions that follows.

As with any great researcher, Drucker was as adept at asking the right questions as answering them. I continue to find his works profitable reading, however that may be defined!

I’ve written about the Astros and my own thoughts about baseball over the years, including the 90s when I was really turned off by the second strike, etc., on my personal blog, Light Side.

Here’s some html I’m supposed to post in order to get my Technorati account to include All Things:

Technorati Profile

One of the things I’ve thought about doing with All Things is adding a list of various things I want to learn about. Actually, it would have to be limited only to top priority things, since there’s always a million things that I’d like to learn about, if only I had the time.

Two things that would be near the top of such a list would be the X-Plane flight simulator, which I do have but rarely can find the time to use, and the Eclipse software development tools framework, which I keep deferring downloading and installing, waiting until I’m ready to start so I get the latest version, since it keeps getting better and better.

As the title indicates, this post is about Eclipse, not X-Plane, though my reasons for wanting to learn them share some similarities. Both packages take a broad view, with an architecture that is intentionally very extendible, allowing the toolset to be used in a lot of different ways. Both continue to rapidly improve, and both seem to already perhaps be the best toolset available.

While X-Plane is limited to flight simulation, it allows a lot of manipulation of aircraft, flight dynamics, etc., to where it’s becoming possible to do serious engineering with the package. Hopefully it will continue to grow in scope and capability.

With Eclipse, scope is perhaps the key word to use in describing it. As I understand it, its newly-redesigned plug-in architecture and general design make it suitable for use with most any language, potentially, and all kinds of add-on tools.

It’s starting to look like, outside the Microsoft .NET/Visual Studio ecosystem, that most all software development tools vendors are either moving to Eclipse or risking marginalization. Borland, long viewed as one of the best tool vendors, is now embracing Eclipse. Others such as Sun and JetBrains still seem to be holding out, but I wonder why.

I can’t help but think Eclipse might be the best opportunity to come along in software in a long time (and a potential threat to Microsoft). Rather than fighting, tools vendors should realize it’s what customers want. It’s certainly very interesting to me, the kind of person who needs more structure than the average programmer type, but doesn’t want to be limited by just a few choices. Now, if I can just find some time to learn Eclipse!