♦

Might the Mac’s built-in microphone be a limiting factor? I’m not sure. It’s true that the iPhone 4S—the only Apple device that currently supports Siri—sports two microphones, using one for noise-cancellation. But Speech on the Mac today works adequately with the built-in mic.

I think he’s discounting the hardware’s importance here, though. I’ve always assumed the main reason Siri wasn’t on the Mac, iPhone 4, or iPad 2 was the quality of the microphone and audio hardware. I wouldn’t know for sure, but my guess is a good analog-to-digital converter and high sample rates are critical for accurate speech recognition.

♦

Liquid courage is nice. It helps you get up the nerve to dance, spark up a conversation, relax… But you don’t need to drink in order to do this. Chances are if you’re in a club/bar, everybody else is drunk. Go ahead and act like an idiot. They won’t know. This is something I’ve experienced several times. Somebody will offer me a drink late into a night of partying, or 3 days into a party-fest and I’ll have to say “no thanks, I don’t drink.” Which almost always gets a “WHAT? Dude you were so fucking drunk the other night.” No dude, you were. And I was just having an awesome time along with you and you couldn’t tell the difference.

Don’t miss the photos.

♦

We see Fountain as a path rather than a destination. It’s not an app. It’s not even really a file format. It’s a way of getting from a jumble of words to a screenplay.

Looks excellent.

♦

♦

♦

♦

Most people, if they remember Nada Surf at all, remember them as a flash-in-the-pan group with the one song. In reality, Nada Surf has put out seven albums during its near 20-year career. The New York trio operates in exactly the type of guitar-heavy indie rock one might expect from a band that formed during the height of grunge and refined its sound in the early 2000s when softer bands like Death Cab for Cutie were all the rage. Nada Surf’s optimistic lyrics and poppy hooks — not to mention frontman Matthew Caws’ emotive vocals — make the band a joy to listen to. Take away their one hit (“Popular” peaked at No. 11 on Billboard’s rock chart) and you don’t have a musical dud, you have a solid, under-the-radar rock band that’s done pretty well for itself.

♦

♦

♦

(Or: How To Use Volume Automation Without Pissing Off Your Faders.)

Here’s some good audio editing nerdery. One of the best aspects of mixing music on a real console is the instant gratification of faders: you can easily make a track louder or softer with great precision. And if, in the process of getting lost in experimenting and thinking, you’ve pushed your faders so high that the mix becomes a mush, you can easily bring everything down at once, preserving the relative differences between tracks, but giving you lots of headroom to make improvements. This is true whether you’re on a professional mixing console or in an audio app channel strip, but in the case of the latter, the ability to select multiple tracks at once means it’s never been easier to lower a mix’s volume without changing the mix itself.

Volume automation is part of any good audio mixing app, but the problem with the feature in apps like Logic, Pro Tools, and GarageBand is that it also takes over the fader. In other words, as the volume moves up and down from your written line, the fader automatically moves itself, preventing you from using it to make manual adjustments. If you try to adjust the fader, it’ll simply snap back into place, wherever the automation tells it to go.

Now, let’s say you have, oh, 24 tracks, some of which have volume automation. And, once again, in the process of experimenting and getting caught up in in other tasks, you’ve unintentionally pushed your faders so high that all your tracks are starting sound like mush. The tracks without volume automation can just have their faders pulled down, but the ones with volume automation snap back to their automation volume. Adding to the frustration, you often don’t notice this until you play the project again, when all of your tracks are already screwed up.

A common solution is to select all the automation points on every track, all at once, and pull them down. I find this maddening — it’s tedious, less accurate, and potentially destructive to the mix. At just a handful of pixels, automation points are small, and it’s easy to accidentally click in the wrong place and screw up the volume without noticing it. Even if you’re an expert with a mouse, there’s no arguing that it’s faster (and less mentally taxing) to just use the channel strip faders, where all volume control is neatly in one place.

♦

♦

Some in the kingdom thought the cause of the darkness must be the Router. Little was known of the Router, legend told it had been installed behind the recliner long ago by a shadowy organization known as Comcast. Others in the kingdom believed it was brought by a distant cousin many feasts ago. Concluding the trouble must lie deep within the microchips, the people of 276 Fernadale Street did despair and resign themselves to defeat.

♦

♦

♦

Fender representatives said each guitar goes through about 250 steps to complete. That takes it from a block of wood to a guitar that is ready to be shipped to a customer.

♦

♦

Update, December 15, 2011: Brand New received this statement from HP on the rebranding:

In 2008, HP asked marketing agency Moving Brands to propose new ideas for various elements of HP’s brand identity, including fonts, graphics, and logos.

HP is one of the world’s most valuable brands and has no plans to adopt the new logo proposed by Moving Brands. HP did implement some of the other design elements shown in the case study.

So HP is re-branding, and Moving Brands, their agency, has a big page dedicated to showing it off. Needless to say, it sounds like a sizable effort; here are a couple excerpts:

Moving Brands partnered with HP as their lead agency to set a creative vision for the HP brand. The vision was to transform the world’s biggest technology company into the world’s most powerful brand. HP would become the blueprint of a moving brand, built for a moving world.

HP was founded on the belief that technology will improve people’s lives, and HP should always aspire for better. This founding principle was unearthed through co-creation workshops with the key stakeholders across the business groups, the HP Labs, product design and insight groups. It was articulated as ‘Human Progress’.

Now, I could offer the suggestion that HP’s problem isn’t so much their branding as it is their products or executive team, or make some crack about the clichéd practice of retrofitting an awkward message into a company’s initials, but cheap shots aside, I don’t think this effort is totally misguided. It’s good that HP goes after some kind of consistent visual identity, and watching this video certain aspects of this will probably serve them well. I rather like this:

The defining signature of the system is the 13° angle. 13° represents HP’s spirit as a company, driven forward by ingenuity and optimism about the future and a belief in human progress. It also refers to the world of computing by recalling the forward slash used in programming. 13° exists within the brand identity, in the graphic language, product design and UI.

The problem is that these ideas should be just guidelines, and not actual rules ¹, and my praise ends when they extend it to the company logo:

This takes the dedication to an idea so far that it now becomes a chore to decipher the letters they’re trying to convey. ² Why change what you already have? Compare the 1941 version — a distinct, respectable logo that has, with few alterations, stood the test of time for 70 years — to the comically unimaginative 2021 one. A single slash? That’s your idea going forward? I mean, c’mon. It sounds like something out of the Onion, or the black record cover from Spinal Tap.

Everybody on, HP off

But the logo, to me, is not the problem, the red flag that symbolizes everything wrong with HP and their priorities. This is:

Read it carefully. If you can, ignore the oblique nature of those blue descriptors ³ and jump straight to that black-circled Vision:

Everybody On: seamless, secure, content-aware experiences for a connected world.

That shallow depth of field is blurring “Vision” ⁴, but assuming I’m reading it correctly, what does this even mean? “Everybody On”? “Content-aware experience”? These are buzzwords, complete hot air. They provide no indication of what products HP makes or has in mind for the future. It means nothing to ordinary people — so generic a statement that you could apply it to any other technology company.

Why not just drop the bullshit and say something like this:

Creating personal, intuitive, robust computers and tablets, unrivaled for work and play.

Hardly final, but at least you’d know what HP does.

Vision is not about being blindly and vaguely idealistic. What products do you make? What solutions do you have to offer that will resonate with regular people like me, sans explanation, and will motivate me to evaluate you? It has to convey your sense of passion, focus, and in a world cynical of corporations, a bit of humanity.

Just look at the rest of the page. Some vague images of people looking at things and who apparently have nothing to do with HP. 3D renderings of conference rooms (?) that might as well be stock photos, and worse, products that don’t exist. How much money does it cost to produce something that isn’t even real?

1. The Poisoned. “The fact that you included Adele on this list of 100 things you like makes it a total joke.”

♦

Rather than pushing poor products, Microsoft seems to be aware of its status as the underdog in the mobile operating system arena, and is acting accordingly. Scrappy attempts to chip away at competing platforms? Well, that just doesn’t seem representative of the modern Microsoft. That is the behavior of a humble, young, and reactionary company — the Microsoft of the early 90s.

I’ve been very impressed by Windows Phone 7. Apps like Windows Phone Connector are, in my book, a great big step in goodwill. And maybe surprisingly, it paints Android more and more as a poorly-designed iOS clone.

♦

We need to stop teaching kids to play the trombone. And the oboe. And the French horn. […]

Kids should learn piano and/or guitar.

If this kind of subject stirs you, read the whole thing. It sounds tough, but I’m inclined to agree: in an age where making your own music can be done with nothing more than an iPad or laptop, single-note instruments are extremely limiting if you’re just learning the ropes of playing music.

Look: I get why we have grade school bands. The simple instruments play one note at a time, and require less hands-on instruction by the teacher. We have a publishing industry that creates sheet music so that twenty-five kids can lurch through a patriotic medley. While I think teaching kids trombone is misguided, I have nothing but respect for music teachers sticking it out in times of shrinking budgets and quantitative academic obsession. […]

However, if we got rid of grade school and junior high bands and replaced them pianos and guitars, I think the actual learning outcome — the ability to make music — would be much better. And it wouldn’t have to be more expensive; digital keyboards and guitars are cheap.

He glosses over the logistics of marching band (an institution he, like myself, believes is still important), but it’s hard to argue with his central point: unlike the clarinet, or oboe, or violin, you can play much more on a guitar, and you can play everything on piano.

♦

These “no copyright infringement intended” messages are everywhere on YouTube, and about as effective as a drug dealer asking if you’re a cop. It’s like a little voodoo charm that people post on their videos to ward off evil spirits. […]

What happens when — and this is inevitable — a generation completely comfortable with remix culture becomes a majority of the electorate, instead of the fringe youth? What happens when they start getting elected to office? (Maybe “I downloaded but didn’t share” will be the new “I smoked, but didn’t inhale.”)

♦

Let’s start with an oft-repeated question: why hasn’t Nintendo started producing games for iOS?

By itself, the answer is simple, and for no different reasons than why they don’t develop software for the Xbox or PlayStation: their games sell hardware, and Nintendo, like Apple, is ultimately a hardware company. And also like Apple, their biggest successes have come from products where hardware and software are intimately linked. Many people bought Wiis only because they came with Wii Sports, a game that couldn’t have been the success it was on any other console. Sell games separately and you take away the magic that the Wii and DS uniquely add, and that magic is what drives people to buy Nintendo products.

But now let’s extend it farther: what would happen if Apple acquired Nintendo?

It goes without saying that such an acquisition would be big for Apple. Certainly financially, but even culturally, within the company the only rival for the title of most influential acquisition would be NeXT.

Consider Nintendo’s assets, all of which would be undoubtedly major gains:

• Hardware, and related engineering experience.

• A massive, and massively popular, library of games.

• Game design talent.

• The Nintendo brand.

But the idea also gets thrown around because it’s very romantic. Apple and Nintendo share a lot of characteristics that few technology companies rarely do — a complete integration of hardware and software, and a refusal to allow software to run on outside platforms. A passion for intuitive, distinctive, and usually excellent product design that is critically acclaimed and financially successful. Extremely strong brands and fan bases. A willingness to be innovative with technology and make tradeoffs that sometimes attracts vocal critics. Without giving it too much thought, an Apple-Nintendo collaboration sounds amazing.

But I see no future where Apple and Nintendo could intimately work together — which would be the only way either company would do it — without sacrificing what makes Nintendo special.

The Apple way

Apple’s entire business is built around creating tightly-integrated hardware and software under their brand. When they acquire products, they’re transformed so thoroughly that they become Apple products.

Consider Apple’s acquisition history. Do any of those companies operate independently anymore? Apple acquires companies for their assets, not to utilize their brands. To have, or even appear to have, subsidiaries runs contrary to their intentions: to create a unified experience, where everything you get is Apple.

To be fair, Apple has also never acquired a company with the brand power and influence of Nintendo. Perhaps that would allow them to justify keeping the company independent. But at that point, it would no longer be in line with their vision of a unified experience — and modern-day Apple has proven to be stubbornly against any ideas that run contrary to this.

I do not think Apple would let Nintendo continue doing their own thing independently, with the Wii and the DS, and simply also start producing games for the Mac, iPad, and iPhone. The only solution that fits Apple’s goals of complete integration would be to melt Nintendo down into Apple, bringing in the talent to create a new Apple gaming division, developing exclusively for the Mac, iPad, and iPhone, and maybe whatever future iteration of Apple TV (which would likely include talent from Nintendo). Regardless of who works on what though, any new products would be Apple products, not Nintendo ones.

More conjecture: game availability would be through the App Store, with legacy games available on the devices that could comfortably adapt them. The Wii and DS would be kept on the market to allow time for transition — likely until Apple released their new box and ported a sizable number of games to the App Store — at which point all existing Nintendo products would be discontinued. In the end, the only Nintendo branding you would eventually see would be on games in the App Store — and even then, possibly only Nintendo games published before the acquisition.

Consider the possibilities of such a scenario. For Apple, it would be a big advantage against their competitors. You would be able to download and play games, including a significant back catalog, easily on iOS devices. The resulting TV product would likely be amazing. And perhaps most importantly, it would ensure a place for Nintendo’s game talent to thrive for many, many years — something that, if Nintendo does not eventually move forward, may be at risk.

Whither Nintendo?

I haven’t posed the above scenario to argue that it couldn’t happen. Of course it could. Maybe someday it will. And if so, I bet it would produce great products. But they would be Apple products. And that leads me to ask: does a future without Nintendo really sound good to you?

On one level, regardless of what positive results may follow, to see the acquisition and partial deconstruction of a company responsible for countless innovations in game design would be a little disheartening. It’s a purely emotional consequence, but still. It would be the closing on a big chapter in technology history.

But there’s a more pragmatic reason to oppose this scenario: the potential for competition. Let’s say, hypothetically, Nintendo bounces back and delivers a monster of a product. A tablet that competes with the iPad, or perhaps more realistically, a stellar set-top box. Whatever it may be, if Apple and Nintendo became fierce competitors, it’s very possible that each company’s resulting products would be better than if they were the same entity.

You could say that for any company, but Nintendo is unlike most technology companies. Apple currently has no rivals for the kinds of products they make. That’s not the same as having competitors — of course they compete, but Nintendo is among only a few technology companies that share Apple’s passions. If I had to pick the company who could best compete with Apple on their playing field, in a race for product quality, innovation, and user experience, it would be Nintendo.

I like this Daring Fireball excerpt following the announcement of Steve Jobs’ resignation:

Apple’s products are replete with Apple-like features and details, embedded in Apple-like apps, running on Apple-like devices, which come packaged in Apple-like boxes, are promoted in Apple-like ads, and sold in Apple-like stores. The company is a fractal design. Simplicity, elegance, beauty, cleverness, humility. Directness. Truth. Zoom out enough and you can see that the same things that define Apple’s products apply to Apple as a whole.

It’s an imperfect comparison, but: can you name any other technology company that comes as close to this than Nintendo?

In 1997 there was not much to go off of other than your gut that Apple could bounce back and make market-leading products. Similarly, there’s no way of knowing for sure that Nintendo could do the same. Doubtful, maybe.

But impossible? No. And the world would be a better place with a healthy Nintendo in it.

Not to toot my own horn, but I totally called it.

♦

Apple enthusiasts love this Alan Kay quote:

“People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware.”

I don’t blame them. I agree and I think it’s totally true.

And then they say that Nintendo should start developing games for iOS.

Like any “dream team” scenarios similar to this one, it’s a lot easier to argue for it in a hand-waving sort of way than to actually consider how it would affect, say, the two companies’ cultures. When Apple acquires software companies, they clearly become Apple products. I don’t think they’ve ever acquired a company with the kind of brand power Nintendo has. It’d be interesting, but I’m not convinced such an acquisition would be good for either company.

♦

This is one of the things that gets me about analytics. You can measure how many people don’t click “Continue to Site,” or who don’t wait for the ad to finish. But you can’t measure how many people would have then blogged or tweeted or shared that article but then didn’t.

♦

♦

Technology companies these days are scared to death to make a product that varies too far from Apple does because they fear being left behind. Some companies even go so far as to say that Apple’s inventions were inevitable — if that’s the case why weren’t they done before? […]

Apple is not motivated by the same things that drive other companies. Market share and profits are a result of making great products. To do that, you can only have that one singular focus.

♦

♦