Where’s the letter to Samsung?

Apple was questioned when they introduced fingerprint scanning technology with the iPhone 5S. Samsung has now introduced a new model of phone that also scans fingerprints.

The leading question asked by both Daring Fireball and at Loop Insight is why was Apple asked about their fingerprint scanner while Samsung got a pass? The implication is that, somehow, the American senate is showing preferential treatment to a South Korean company over an apple pie, fourth of July, 100% American company. Or, perhaps, that lawmakers are grandstanding to make a show of how they’re on top of things.

The argument is that this kind of questioning is unfair to Apple and I disagree. This is the level of scrutiny that we’d hope governments gave to all our industries, all our corporations. Not intervention or direction, but putting in the work to try to understand what is going on. We can debate the reasons that Apple is questioned but, ultimately, the answer is simple.

Apple is held to a higher standard of conduct. They’ve spent years, countless hours of hard work and untold advertising dollars to earn that expectation. They have it. When location data or fingerprints, both incredibly obviously hot topics, need to be explained it is Apple that is put in the hot seat. Because they are expected to meet our highest standards.

While Samsung may be shipping a fingerprint scanning technology that isn’t as secure as the one Apple has doesn’t mean Samsung is getting a free pass. It means that they asked the experts, Apple, and they got an answer. So hearing, “fingerprint scanning” doesn’t set off the fire alarms anymore.

Apple is now in a position where it sets the conversation. It has a canny ability to use that advantageously. Sometimes, it bites them.

It will be time to start worrying about Apple when you stop seeing them pilloried.

Brent Is Doing It Wrong So You Don’t Have To

My friend Brent Simmons has long been writing at inessential.com. Recently he’s been writing more often, sometimes many times a day, about his experience adding synchronization to my preferred note taking app of choice, Vesper.

Brent writes well. I’ve not asked him but it seems as if this is part of his process. Write the code. Consider the problems. Write them down. Do so publicly so they carry weight.

If you write software then I suggest you keep up with Inessential. It’s a rare treat to have such a plainly expressed narrative of the process behind writing these complex systems.

Objective: Copland 2010

As is our way, like all nerds before us and all the nerds to follow, it is that time where we take a look at the future of our toolset and gnash our teeth.

Ash Furrow kicks us off this time with, “We Need To Replace Objective-C”. Steve Streza follows up and expands in his piece, “Replacing Objective-C and Cocoa”. Brent Simmons then weighed in “On Replacing Objective-C” with his thoughts.

The root of this discussion is best crystallized by John Siracusa’s Avoiding Copland 2010 from back in 2005 (just 35 years after the start of the Unix Epoch). Back in 2011, Siracusa rekindled his argument on an episode of his podcast, Hypercritical. I wrote a follow on piece to Siracua’s episode: Regarding Objective-C & Copland 2010. Personally, I think this entire debate should just be called, “Copland 2010” because it puts it all in perspective. Here’s a photograph of Siracusa and myself from 2005 soon after he’d posted his original article.

My issue isn’t with the basic premise that if our toolchain stagnates then so does our chosen platform. My issue isn’t with many of the specific suggestions as to what needs improvement. And my issue isn’t with the timeline of doom, the perils of prognostication and it’s certainly not with the authors.

My issue is that I increasingly feel as if we’re being an incredibly poor client approaching a design agency.

We come to the table demanding certain fonts, colours and shapes but we’ve not identified what the actual problem to be solved is. We’ve come with a set of solutions. Each solution fits our notion of what’s wrong and how it can, should and, indeed — must — be implemented, immediately, or we face irrelevancy.

What we want to do is to describe our fantasy gown to wear to the ball, not how the stitching must be applied. Let’s try to communicate what we need at a higher level so we can actually understand the problem space rather than working backwards from the proposed solution space.

In the future our software will need to concisely express operations that may take seconds to complete, if ever, and must do so within strict security boundaries while exploiting the full compute power of the host device.

That’s what our software needs to do. That one sentence captures much of the Copland 2010 argument. Pretty much anything else is venturing off into the weeds. What does concisely mean? What do strict security boundaries entail? Express operations – functionally? (but, still expressed as imperative?) Compiled but concurrent and functional? What if recompiling on the device can use some sort of other computational asset?

My issue is that listing fashionable solutions is small and myopic yet wrapped in the grandeur of a call to revolution.

Define the problem space and attack it.

That’s what design is. You don’t get to pick, “I’m BLUE!” and then make it work. The problem finds you, and then you fix it. All the noise is a string tied between a doorknob and a bad tooth.

Ok, we could automate that. But can we do better by better understanding the problem?