technology – Life on the Wicked Stage: Act 3

The Economics of AI Don’t Add Up

Bottom lines are where everything sinks to eventually

Money talks. Bullshit walks. Bubbles pop, and the world just keeps on burning while the big wheels just keep on turning. Pick a vibe. Pick a cliché. Pick a metaphor. Pick and mangle a song lyric. Just don’t try to pick a winner in the big AI race when it comes to dollars and cents. Or sense. The racers are running in circles, burning the planet and dollars trying to figure out how to keep things on a track no one has figured out quite yet.

Hint: It’s a circle, jerks.

From the beginning the hype about Artificial Intelligence has felt like it’s all about the vibes. So many vibes. I define “the beginning” as when OpenAI took the wraps off of ChatGPT and kick started the race. Maybe they should have just done a Kickstarter.

Those were heady days. I remember everyone thinking ChatGPT would replace Google. Now we’re at the point where Google is trying to replace itself.

Today, chatbots are replacing human connections, and all sorts of crustaceans are being installed on computers, causing some havoc in the hardware markets along the way. Things have now progressed to a point that folks are vibe coding up a storm, now that it seems more doable. And it’s interesting to see and hear some who were initially skeptical about the broad scope of AI now embracing it. For what it’s worth, the current vibe feels to me like AI is heading into its GUI phase of computing, only you need a keyboard or a microphone instead of a mouse to get around on a screen or without one.

And yet, when it comes to the money game, the vibe feels like the math behind all those 0’s and 1’s might not add up.

Corporations are starting to scale back usage now that the bills are coming in. Microsoft and other tech companies are pulling plugs, in most cases for third party access among the employees they haven’t let go. At the same time there’s whispers that AI costs are beginning to exceed the costs of human employees. Corporations are starting to adjust because the beans they are counting don’t look like they will add up and no one has vibe coded an accounting app yet to project when, of if they will.

Consumers are looking at that $20 month subscription cost and backing off while trying to choose which, if any, of the constantly updating models that still promise inaccuracy will give them the best monthly bang for a double sawbuck. To make the math sting even more, Google, OpenAI, Claude, etc… are tossing around $100 a month (and higher) plans for the latest and supposedly best features that make $20 a month feel like a poor man’s vibe.

There’s a technology intersection that has always been on the roadmap for computing technology since the dawn of the personal computer. To an extent, enterprise computing always subsidized consumer technology. The vibes I’m sensing hint that roadmap may be changing, and it won’t just affect the costs of using AI, computer memory, and chip production. It potentially may filter into every facet of life from medical bills, to insurance premiums, to any wholesale or retail concern that might employ AI. Don’t think for a minute that any company is going to simply eat the rising costs of AI usage, or cut back prices should using it somehow actually produce savings from cutting employees.

Call me when you hear the first company touting that they are cutting costs due to AI. Trust me, I won’t be waiting by the phone.

If a vibe has a bottom line, here’s how I see this one. We’re heading into a moment where what we think of as computing and the Internet is going to run on two diverging tracks. It’s becoming obvious that whether someone is running any of the AI robots on their own device or somewhere on the Internet that the costs are more than anyone could have predicted, or thought might become sustainable.

The $20 a month marker was a big hint early on. We were all used to the Internet come on of getting in free, being swamped with ads, and then having to eventually subscribe so our data could be collected. That $20 a month heralded a change, but only at the point of entry.

Given that we all know that advertising is coming to AI, we’re escaping the orbit that we’ve been in for quite some time that most of the Internet was free but required a level of tolerance for advertising. I’m guessing that those who can only afford the $20 a month price tag with ads will think back on the ways we’ve complained about the streaming entertainment services and their ad proliferation as quaint by comparison.

The Circle

That $20 entry fee will rise. So will the more expensive options. I’m actually surprised we haven’t see that already. The fact that AI has to continually train itself to remain relevant means it’s going to continue to need new computing cycles to consume whatever is generated in the future, whether by humans or robots. I don’t think you can build enough data centers on the surface of this planet, under the sea, or in space to afford the churn and burn. That’s the circle. In the end it’s a real estate play that yields only cul-de-sacs.

Take a look at this article from Simon Willison. Unlike my pessimistic vibe on this, Willison seems to think Anthropic and OpenAI have found their product-market fit. He’s spending $200 a month ($100 to each) and considers that a bargain since his usage of the two generated $2,180 change in token use for a month. That math certianly adds up as a good deal in the current moment. Until you consider that at some point the difference between what he’s paying and what he’s using is going to have to be put on somebody’s balance sheet in some way. These companies can’t run at a loss forever.

It’s a good piece by Willison that informs quite a bit on this discussion and worth your time, because I think that’s what the discussion is going to inevitably come down to. Set aside all of the debates about accuracy, copyright, and environmental issues. Set aside the rising consumer backlash. Bottom lines are where everything sinks to eventually.

I admire and am grateful for folks like Willison, Federico Viticci, and others who are exploring this frontier and think we should be paying attention to their efforts and learn from them. Viticci has crafted a few interesting bits of software of late and spent some coin in doing so. I’m enjoying reading about his efforts.

I may be wrong, but it feels like we might be headed to a point that to use some software in the future we’re going to need one of these ever changing and increasingly expensive AI engines on our computers to run some of the software that will be generated in the future. That will certainly come with a price tag. If, (actually in my opinion when) that happens, it will become another border defined by costs, dividing users between those who can afford the entry fee, and those who can’t.

It will also affect far more than our computing lives.

(Image from Viktoria_P on Shutterstock)

You can also find more of my writings on a variety of topics on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. I can also be found on social media under my name as above. This site does not use affilate links.

Two Weeks and Pinky Promises

Promises, promises

Two weeks. We’re all more familiar than we’d like to be with Donald Trump’s announcing anything and telling us it will manifest in two weeks. It’s become a joke worth laughing at, but without a punch line. It’s become mundane.

Two hands joined in a pinky promised. Photo by Olivia anne snyder wT_BwKOeEik unsplash.

We’ve also become accustomed to hearing promises from tech companies, that a safer and perhaps smarter course of action is to look askance with a skeptical eye, or perhaps turn a deaf ear. Autonomous driving is one of those, (as is anything Elon Musk promotes) and so too are most of the promises about achieving some sort of Generative Artificial Intelligence that might lead us all into some future where we all don’t have to work, money becomes no object, and all of our problems are solved. Let’s not forget curing cancer.

If we’re standing in the “foothills of the singularity,” I’m guessing those enjoying that view drove there instead of climbed.

It’s one thing for politicians and anyone trying to sell a product to make promises. It’s quite another when the world’s economy turns on the hype, yet never seems to suffer ill effects when deadlines are missed, ignored, or just punted down the road again and again.

Apple caught much deserved grief over its Apple Intelligence promises in 2024, as of yet still unrealized. But that seems to be one of the rare occasions when failure actually left a mark. Even so, that gigantic mistake seems to be have been quickly forgotten. It certainly doesn’t seem to have affected Apple’s bottom line. Even a class action settlement between Apple and those who bought into the promise when they bought a new iPhone doesn’t seem to have caused much of a ripple.

Even when software products are released, it feels like we’re too often in a perpetual beta, always waiting for the next update. When it comes to AI, there are so many bets being made on it being our future, even with all of the products today warning us that they are imperfect and capable of mistakes. When will someone pushing that hype tells us that those warnings will one day be gone? I’m guessing never. At least if the lawyers have a say.

I guess I’m showing my age when I say I grew up in a time when if you announced a product you were judged on whether or not you delivered. If you didn’t, how you handled the broken promise mattered.

They say all good things come to those who wait. These days there are times when I wonder if any of it is worth any of the wait. The promises sure aren’t.

(Image from Olivia Anne Synder on Unsplash)

AI Foes Are Getting The Terrorist Treatment

Quite a protection racket

I guess the AI models are predicting problems.

It’s obviously apparent that there’s an increasing sense of antagonism building around many of the issues associated with Artificial Intelligence. Data Center protests seem to be getting the most attention. The one thing you can say, is about AI is that it attracts detractors. Couple that up with the Trump administration’s policies to police speech and actions that they find unfavorable and it sounds like the interesting times we live in are about to become more interesting.

According to a report from Wired,

More than 1,000 pages of unpublished reports from the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, and fusion centers obtained by WIRED show a national shift taking place to surveil this new and worryingly broad category of people and activities deemed an emerging threat.

I encourage you to read the report. Not only do those of us who have major concerns about Artificial intelligence have all of the implications of the technology push to worry about, but apparently we may have to worry about expressing those concerns.

The chaotic atmosphere that may result from emergent AI technology in the next five years may fuel large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity, especially in large urban areas such as New York City.

On the one hand you can say that the backlash might be having the desired and necessary effect. On the other, it looks like concerned CEOs are calling in their chits after stuffing money into the pockets of the Trump administration.

Quite a protection racket. In the end, my guess is no one will be protected from any of this.

(Photo by Here Now on Shutterstock)

Sunday Morning Reading

Wandering through the Internet, disregarding along the way

We live in interesting times. I’m spending a lot of my time being interested in watching my grandkids develop, and watching everything around how I thought they might grow up change. In my opinion, change not necessarily for the better. They won’t know what things changed from necessarily, unless they choose to look into it. That assumes they’ll be able to do so the way we can now. I have my doubts about that. Regardless, that’s tomorrow. Here are some links to share in this edition of Sunday Morning Reading.

A close-up photograph captures a bronze statue of a young boy sitting on a stone bench outdoors, absorbed in reading a book.

Terry Godier says the Internet is dying. I’m not sure if it’s dying, morphing, collapsing in on itself, or just in the midst of growing pains, but I take the point. Check out The Boring Internet. (That’s a link to the text version. There’s also an animated version here. Quite nicely done.

JA Westenberg believes Nobody Is Destined For Greatness. I happen to agree. Shakespeare gave his greatest comic villain, Malvolio, lines about being born great. I wish I could label our current day villains as comic. Perhaps one day.

Derek Sivers reminds us that Geography Is Four-Dimensional. How true. There’s a reason Shakespeare more often than not capitalized the word “Time.”

Stories about religion occasionally get shared here. Mostly they are stories about how it’s really not religion, but a cover for grift and abuse. This is one of those. He Remade The Southern Baptist Convention In His Image. Then Came The Abuse Allegations by Robert Downen chronicles yet another of those tales we seem to hear far too frequently these days.

For another take involving religion, check out Neil Steinberg’s Being Formed By Christians Does Not A Christian Make. He quotes Thomas Jefferson’s “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I’m not sure we can say either of those things any more.

There was a bit of a funny fracas after Google’s all in on AI announcements this week at its annual I/O conference. Apparently for a short time after Google announced big changes to Search, you could not Google the word “disregard” and expect the usual quick definition. Google quickly fixed that. The root of the problem? “Disregard” is an AI command that you have to put in a prompt to keep the AI demons from you know, making a mistake. Check out Russell Brandom’s quick story, You Can No Longer Google the Word ‘Disregard.’

Speaking of Artificial Intelligence, the talk is all about agents. (Actually that’s been the talk for a while, the volume is just increasing.) Hayden Field thinks If Google Can’t Make AI Agents Useful, Maybe No One Can. FWIW, I think Hayden is spot on.

In an article The Economist credits as anonymous, someone thinks Vladimir Putin Is Losing His Grip On Russia. Perhaps that’s true. I don’t know about you, but I’m as tired of hearing about autocratic oligarchs losing their grip as I am about hearing all of the promises about generative AI and autonomous driving being just around the corner.

If you’re interested in just what the heck Sunday Morning Reading is all about you can read more about the origins of Sunday Morning Reading here. If you’d like more click on the Sunday Morning Reading link in the category column to check out what’s been shared on Sunday’s past. You can also find more of my writings on Medium at this link, including in the publications Ellemeno and Rome. This site does not use affilate links.

Google Is Paving A New Information Superhighway

Getting from here to there is about to change

This is a feelings post. Meaning it contains things I feel, more than things I know or can reliably speculate about. It comes in the wake of Google’s announcements at its recent I/O conference.

An expansive aerial, high-angle photograph captures a major highway demolition and construction zone cutting through a dense, forested landscape under an overcast sky.
In the immediate foreground, an old concrete overpass bridge is actively being demolished. Several large excavators—colored in yellow, blue, and orange—are positioned around the rubble, using hydraulic breakers to smash the concrete structure into a large pile of grey debris, sending up small plumes of dust. Stripped brown dirt embankments frame either side of the demolition site, bordered by bright blue temporary construction barriers.

The way I’m feeling things, Google is essentially repaving what we’ve been referring to as The Information Superhighway, better known as the Internet.

Gone (or soon to be gone) is the Google most Internet pedestrians think of when they think of Google. Google has decided it’s ready to quit A/B testing and slowly spoon feeding us Artificial Intelligence, and chosen to bulldoze new paths ahead that will be all AI, all the time, everywhere.

From what I’m seeing if you want to use Google’s products, whether it’s on a Google device, Samsung or other Android device, or even an Apple device, you’re serving Google in larger ways, while serving yourself.

This has and continues to be a race that Google has always had the resources to win, and for the next few laps at least it feels like they will. Frankly, I don’t see the others being able to compete on that scale, for the simple reason that like it or not, Google is far more entrenched in users minds as a go to than any of the others.

Also, the other competitors may be good at creating code, but they appear far more incompetent at selling what they offer. Google has become pervasive enough, that it doesn’t need to care as much.

As to feelings, this does feel bad as it feels inevitable. I liken it to the days of Interstate construction that spread across this country. Entire generations have grown up not knowing how to drive great distances without traveling along an Interstate. Sure, there are folks who avoid them and take their time along more conventional routes, but that’s a very distinct minority.

Eventually there will be entire generations that will never know what the verb “Google” meant, the way those understand it today, just like those pre-Interstate generations of drivers. Even so, I’m guessing using it as a verb will probably mean the same to those down the road in the same way my grandkids don’t distinguish driving to grandpa’s house any differently than I do, when what today would take less than an hour, back then took at least two, often three.

But like many communities that slowly died out when Interstates and expressways bypassed towns, depressing changes will come to the Internet as Google owns more of the traffic and shares less, and essentially has to charge tolls to head down it’s superhighway, that used to be free.

I’m still digesting the news from this week, and I don’t think the story has been completely told yet. There’s also no way to know that if any of these promises will ever pan out. (Google is as famous for announcing what might never come to pass as it is for search.) That’s why this is a feelings post. Perhaps one of the most unsettling feelings I have about all of this is that Apple, by adopting Google’s approach to AI, in lieu of its own failing efforts, is helping create an Internet universe that for most users, will essentially be controlled by Google. Samsung is already all in, Apple as of this fall will be too. That essentially means that buying a smartphone from one of the largest two sellers, or any other that uses Android, is buying a ticket to travel on Google’s superhighway.

The various theories that suppose Apple is doing this as a stop gap until it can come up with its own solution the way it had to with Maps back in the day, don’t hold much water in the vessel that is my brain. There’s money to be made certainly, but there’s money (lots of money) that needs to be spent to construct all of whatever Google thinks it has going. My hunch is Apple will let Google spend the dough, take the credit and the blame, (there will be plenty of both) and happily collect a percentage as long as it can still sell iPhones and other hardware.

We live in interesting times.

(Photo from Rob J. Follet on Shutterstock)

OpenAI Wants Your Financial Info

Fun and games with frontier financing

Oh, ye brave intrepid adventurers trodding through the frontier, trod on. Carve your way into uncharted territory, knowing not what lies beyond the bend. The rest of us will wait. I’m guessing the rest of us are going to be quite content doing so.

This image shows two side-by-side screenshots of a mobile application interface designed for personal finance management, featuring a clean, minimalist aesthetic with a green and white color palette.

News popped today that OpenAI wants users of ChatGPT to provide access to their bank accounts and other financial data.

Read that again.

The chatbot that’s famous for telling us it might make a mistake, and delivering on that promise, wants users to turn over access to their banking accounts to help them better understand their finances.

The article from The Verge I saw pop across my feeds begins its lede with “Your trust in AI is about to be put to the test.” It could have just as easily said, “OpenAI is looking for suckers.”

I’m not going to get into the whys and wherefores of the tech behind this. The article linked above gives you some of that info. TechCrunch has another if you care to look. There does seem to be a list of well known financial institutions that are willing to let there customers connect to the service including Schwab, Fidelity, Chase, Robinhood, American Express, and Capital One. Apparently there are over 12,000.

Quoting from the TechCrunch article:

With the new financial tool integration, users can get detailed answers to questions such as “I feel like I’ve been spending more recently. Has anything changed?” or “Help me build a plan to be ready to buy a house in my area in the next 5 years.”

Tell me you didn’t read that and immediately think that the minute a user enters that prompt they will immediately start receiving offers from those 12,000 financial institutions. That’s where this is headed. And as far as the history of the Internet is concerned, AI or not, that’s what it’s all turned into.

The reality is that just like with the health data that OpenAI also wants, whether users turn this type of info over or not, the data is going to be delivered to some data center at some point. Don’t think the three credit bureaus aren’t just waiting for the right offer to turn over your data, much the same way insurance companies are with your health data. Users donating their data will just provide another point of triangulation, and a more direct access to their inboxes.

If you ask me, this is just another exercise taking advantage of human curiosity and gullibility and turning that into more vectors to sell, sell, sell.

If those willing to head out into this new frontier of finance are willing to take that gamble, I say go for it. Let us know what you find.

My hunch it won’t be anything new.

(Image from OpenAI)

Indigo: A Well Designed Social Media App For Those Who Need It

Good design and execution matter.

Here’s something I’ve been recently thinking about software. There’s really nothing new under the sun. And the skies have been cloudy for a good while. It feels like we’ve reached a point where the only difference between apps within a category boil down to execution and design. Often not even then.

Perhaps we’ve exhausted all of the ideas for what software can do and we’re just looking for a better iteration of what we already have at hand.

I’m talking on a consumer level. Beyond whatever AI supposedly offers, and the explosion of social media apps that happened when Twitter x-ed itself out, I can’t name an app or piece of software in the last few years that wasn’t a different version of something that already existed. Even AI software feels like it’s more of the same, just at a quicker pace.

Certainly there are nuances. But over time they tend to blur. As an example, take weather apps. They’ve all recently followed the leader (I don’t know which app that was) to display variable forecasts from different weather sources. It’s a good feature given that weather services can offer different forecasts. But as most weather apps have quickly adopted similar features, once again there isn’t much of a differentiator between them. Unless Carrot Weather’s bell weather use of insults is your cup of tea.

Don’t get me wrong. Execution and design can (and should) go a long way. Even more so when all things seem much the same or serve the same purpose. Beyond price, that’s really the only big differentiator.

It’s why I’ll try out an app that looks like it doesn’t offer anything beyond what I already have. Within that personal scope, let me say that the new social media browsing and crossposting app Indigo is worth your attention if its functionality fits how you use social media.

Indigo is the creation of Soapbox, the developers who created crossposting app Croissant. (I wrote about it when it released.) While Croissant allows you to cross post to Mastodon, Bluesky, and Threads, (functionality I find useful), Indigo is meant primarily to merge and scroll through a single timeline of your Mastodon and Bluesky feeds. You can also crosspost to both if that’s your desire. Threads isn’t included, as it doesn’t allow for viewing its timelines in the same way, which is curious as it is supposedly federated with Activity Pub.

If scrolling social media feeds is your thing, Indigo is certainly worth a look. It’s very well designed, and easy to discover its functionality.

It’s a first version of the app, and as one of the developers, Aaron Vegh says on his blog, “The Indigo we’re shipping today is going to be the worst version.” For the worst and first version, I believe Aaron and Ben McCarthy have done an excellent job. (You should read both Aaron’s and Ben’s blog posts. Ben’s describes the functionality quite well.) Having followed the development of Croissant since its release, I’ll say that the care they’ve used in the past with that app points to the same for the future of Indigo.

If you use both Mastodon and Bluesky, once you sign in to both through Indigo, you see your feeds merged together. You don’t need to use both social networks. The functionality is the same if you prefer only one of the two social networks. So, if you’re user of only one, it could replace whatever app you might currently be using.

One of the nicest design touches, and obviously an essential one, is that it’s easy to distinguish where things are coming from if you merge your timelines. Mastodon links are purple and those from Bluesky are, well they’re blue.

You can tell if a post is crossposted between the two networks, and another nice feature is that Indigo will merge the two in some cases (timing plays a part) so you don’t see them twice. You can switch between each version and take actions like quoting or replying to both at the same time.

If you’ve used Croissant to crosspost, doing so on Indigo will feel very familiar. Notifications, should you choose to receive them on your device, work as you would expect. The Notification tab in the app is quite well done and easy to understand.

The app is available for the iPhone, iPad, and Mac, and a single subscription covers you across devices. There is a free tier that’s read-only. If you’re interested in Indigo, the free tier is read only. That’s good way to determine if the excellent design of the app appeals to you.

If you use both social networks and would like to combine your feeds into one timeline I think Indigo is worth a look. Let me say this about Indigo and my social media usage. The single merged timeline feature has its attraction, but it’s not something that’s a high priority for me and that brings me back to the beginning of this post.

I like to keep my eye out for developers who focus on good design and good functionality. That’s the case with Indigo. As in this case, an app may not fit my needs, but I’ll remember the developers or company behind it. It’s much the same way I follow good theatre or film directors, and good writers.

I don’t see many new ideas or new needs to fill coming down the software or app pike in the near future. That may say more about me than it does the software market these days. Even so, that view of mine has me paying even closer attention to those who care about the look and feel of what they produce.

(image from the author)

The Promise No Tech CEO or Politician Will Ever Make

A promise not made is easier to avoid than a promise made

There’s an issue out there that could change the way people think about a nuisance we all increasingly live with. That issue is spam. Emails, texts, phone calls, you name it. We’re swarmed with it like with mosquitos at dusk. And every effort you hear a tech company make to try and make unwanted calls and messages less of a problem is essentially a sop, soon to be defeated. The bad guys are better at this game, and quite frankly, the good guys don’t really care.

Cans of Spam displayed in a grid by Hannes johnson mRgffV3Hc6c unsplash.

I’ve often said that any politician running for national office promising to end spam in all forms as we know it would instantly find a constituency. I still believe that.

Politicians won’t do it, because, hey, they are part of the spamming problem. Note that they’ve exempted themselves from any soft shelled regulations they’ve legislated in the past.

These days, Tech CEOs also have an opening they’ll never take advantage of it. Not that they don’t care the way politicians don’t, but spam is good for their business. Take the AI push and the reactions to it. The folks pushing Artificial Intelligence are worried about a backlash spoiling their game from consumers, corporations, and maybe a government or two. And that backlash appears to be growing.

Who knew that if the sales pitch was AI would take your job, some would be unhappy?

Who knew that if your CEO discovered that they weren’t wracking up bottom line savings by dismissing the workforce that they’d be a bit peeved?

Who knew in what AI-induced downsizing law firms that feeding legal advice or sensitive information into an AI chatbot removed attorney client privilege?

Who knew that folks watching in plain sight as local politicians took cash to push through new data center construction that would increase their utility bills that folks would shockingly rise up in anger?

Who knew that employees of AI companies would be so concerned about how governments might use AI for surveillance and war fighting that they would petition their CEOs to stop government contracts?

Who knew that governments, that at one point were fat and happy to let AI run its race given all the cash lobbyists were stuffing in their pockets, would discover that perhaps these robots could possibly indeed bring chaos to things like financial systems and just about anything else?

Who knew that in order to keep AI chatbots from hallucinating, the user has to tell the AI chatbot not to hallucinate? It’s like telling your kid or a politician not to lie and expecting that to happen.

Here’s a small hint. Everybody knew. Everybody knows. It sounds like for the most part the chumps are catching on.

While there are spheres where AI might actually be of benefit to society AI might not get that chance unencumbered. So far on a consumer level its time saving and life altering benefits seem to have boiled down to sorting through emails and calendars, creating nonconsensual porn, making music and podcasts that nobody wants, dishing out bad therapy advice, and creating conversational partners for those who can’t converse with others in real life.

Essentially the same promises that computer technology has always promised. Only this time around the wheel it’s becoming exponentially easier to collect data from anyone using the computers. And that’s the end game.

Even with this growing backlash, tech CEOs aren’t going to make a promise to use this new super intelligence that can schedule a flower delivery, or spit out your calendar, to derail the possibility of them controlling that game. It is funny though that no one seems to have created a chatbot or LLM that can solve PR problems.

I don’t pretend to understand all of the technological ins and outs of chatbots, LLMs, MCPs, and other terms that seem to change each time a new version comes out or something goes wrong. I do suspect that the technology they are promising could fix the spam problem if that was the desire. In the same way, politicians could do so with regulation.

There’s a part of me that thinks these are actually political promises with technological problems that could actually be solved, or at least ameliorated. But promises not made are easier to deal with than keeping promises made.

There’s money to be made, and plenty of suckers willing to pony up. So why upset the game by pandering to sentiment?

(Image from Hannes Johnson on Unsplash)

MacBook Neo and iPad: Here We Go Again

Tired arguments get a new leash on life

When Apple released the MacBook Neo it was obvious to most that Apple had introduced a product that would shake up the larger laptop market. Lurking just underneath that obviousness was how it might or might not affect the iPad market. It was only a matter of time and timing, before those who, both rightly in some cases and wrongly in others, criticized Apple for not delivering the iPad of their dreams that could do anything and everything seized on the Neo’s success as a pivot point in the discussion.

An iPad Pro with a scribbled message that says iPads and Neos. There is an Apple Pencil laying on the iPad

The quest for the perfect device for everyone is and will always be an imperfect one. Much like the arguments. In addition to its impact on the laptop manufacturing markets, the MacBook Neo proves just how imperfect those arguments are. Yet, there’s already a large dollop of discourse saying that the Neo proves Apple’s iPad strategy needs adjusting. Add to that the rumors of a touchscreen Mac that continue to recirculate the same way the iPad discussion does just prior to WWDC each year.

On Michael Tsai’s Blog there’s an excellent collection of links and comments that’s worth a look if you’re at all interested in this ultimately meaningless debate. The links feed off a post from Craig Mod, titled MacBook Neo and How The iPad Could Be, that argues “iPads should be radically touch only and MacBooks should be keyboard-first.” I can’t say I disagree. But I think the discussion should go further than either/or.

There’s got to be several data centers worth of AI-scraped web articles on the ups and downs of the iPad floating around and how Apple’s strategy held it back. And yes, the iPad has had its ups and downs. But I would argue that’s mostly, not completely, a question of preference rather than any “the iPad should be this or that” win or lose proposition.

Being an iPad user since the first edition, I’ll say this. Most of the dissatisfaction I’ve seen over the years comes from those who wanted the iPad to be more like a Mac than those who used it primarily as a tablet. Without trying to be derisive, I’d venture to say that most who complained were keyboard jockeys by trade. I don’t begrudge them their complaints. From that perspective the complaints did and still do make sense. In many ways they were following Apple’s lead from the “What’s a computer?” days, before Apple abandoned that tack and sailed into broader and more lucrative waters with Apple Silicon.

Admittedly I’m showing my own preference here. I use an iPad as a tool in my work as a theatre practitioner. I’m on my feet with a script on my iPad, using an Apple Pencil to take notes. If I need to do keyboard work in the rehearsal room, I plop the iPad on a Magic Keyboard, do the keyboard related task, then pop the iPad off again and get back on my feet. When I’m back in my digs, I mostly work on a Mac. Apple’s ecosystem makes this all possible. When it works well.

Personally, I hope Apple keeps developing and delivering all of its current line of products. Stretch capabilities in some to the limit, and limit others with less.

The current lineup serves me well. Frankly, I can’t imagine any changes Apple could make that would alter how I work. I’d be content with that future, even though I know the tools I’m going to use are going to change regardless of my current comfort zone. If that future is all about creating hardware to run AI, as it appears to be, the decision points are going to shift away from most of the spec and capability differences we’ve been accustomed to in the past anyway.

Craig Mod argues that “the specificity of our tools should be radically clear.” I buy the argument, but extending the discussion I’ll say it’s better to have more capability than less. Most users don’t touch anywhere near what even the most limited devices can offer. In my experience they find their way to whatever level they need, which is a much lower one than most realize. Those of us who may made need more, don’t understand that most users couldn’t care less.

Moving on, and with the “What’s a Computer?” miscues behind us, Apple’s current challenge and our headaches stem more from Apple trying to meld its operating systems into some sort of grand cohesive vision that feels the same across all of its devices. Admirable. But ultimately flawed in the same way that each different computing device Apple sells is as different as any two users who use that same device. Vive la différence.

I’m sure Apple gets that, but until the MacBook Neo that wasn’t quite as smack the Apple press in the face apparent, even though there have been lesser featured iPads at lower price points prior to the Neo. You could argue the same about the iPhone Air, but the higher price obscures the point.

With talk of higher priced “ultra” iPhones and who knows what else supposedly on the horizon, who knows where all of this really leads. I’m guessing Apple will be more than content to have a multi-layered series of price points attracting customers from both the low end and the high end. That all leads to more users spending money on Apple services and that’s the key to Apple’s continued growth. More hardware entry points (price) bring in more users than new features most won’t ever use. It’s simple math.

As long as Apple’s hardware profit margins can be maintained across its lineup, even with lower priced and perhaps less capable hardware, it’s pretty much a slam dunk. The success of the Neo not only points to this strategy, it should also point ahead to a diversified hardware lineup that fills many needs, as long as there is a clear and distinct choice for the toolsets that suits them best.

(image from the author)

Streaming Services and Sports

Streaming fantasies

I have a fantasy. It’s a sports fantasy. Actually it’s a sports viewing fantasy. Perhaps it’s an entertainment streaming fantasy. Regardless, it’ll never be fulfilled.

Just about every streaming service has jumped onto the live sports streaming bandwagon. That’s understandable. Sports attracts eyeballs. Eyeballs equal money. Money makes the balls bounce.

Streaming services that I turn to insist on pushing their sports investments on to the top of their poorly designed homepages, forcing the user to scroll if they aren’t interested. Of course streaming services homepages are notoriously poor user experiences to begin with.

Like I said, I get all the reasons behind this. I get that the streaming executives have overpaid for the right to stream whatever they’re streaming and are trying to capitalize on the investment, on the way to raising prices to cover that cost, and perhaps find a few new viewers who might not already be fans. It feels very much like my grandkids screaming “watch this, watch this!”

To be fair, things have gotten better. Streaming services that feature live sports have at least reduced some top line over exposure along the way, or provided tabs for different categories that segment sports and other viewing genres. But they could go further.

So, here’s my fantasy.

Give users an option to not see sports programming so prominently displayed on the already atrociously and algorithmically designed homepages. A simple switch that says “give me more of this” or “give me less.” Trust me, as someone who likes to view sports, I’ll find a game or a match that I’m interested in if I want it. And I’m sure there are plenty of users who will want to see sports programming prominently featured. So let viewers choose. Those who run these networks should be interested in that choice.

Streaming services could also extend a give me more or less feature to other programming. How many times do you need to see the same title displayed in different categories, or after you’ve watched it, or have to scroll past a genre you have no interest in?

Whether it’s sports or any other entertainment genre it seems to me it would be better to gauge interest ahead of time, instead of waiting for viewership numbers after the fact. Who knows, it might be a good way to provide metrics that might actually be meaningful when it comes to thinking about where these services are going to spend money in the future.

Like I said, it’s a fantasy.