While the devices in our pockets might be increasingly powerful general purpose computers I feel like we use them more for communication than for computation. That’s not to say that communication does not require computation (it does, lots of it), but we’re not using our devices with the goal of solving problems via computation.

This is perhaps a very programmer-centric viewpoint of mobile technology, but one that is important to consider. Even someone like me, who writes code on a regular basis to solve a variety of both personal and research problems, does very little computation on mobile devices. In fact, the most I’ve been using my Nexus for is email, RSS reading, Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare. While all those services definitely have good uses, they are all cases where most of the computation happens far away on massive third-party datacenters. The devices themselves act as terminals (or portals if you prefer a more modern-sounding term) onto the worlds these services offer.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying that I want to write programs on these devices. Though that would certainly be neat, I can’t see myself giving up a more traditional computing environment for the purposes of programming anytime soon. However, I do want my device to do more than help me keep in touch with my friends (again, that’s a worthy goal but just the beginning). So the question is, what kind of computation do we want our mobile devices to do?

Truth be told, I’m not entirely sure. One way to go is to have our phones become capable personal assistants. For example, I would like to be able to launch an app when I walk into a meeting (or better yet, have it launch itself based on my calendar and geolocation). The app would listen in on the conversation, apply natural language processing and generate a list of todos, reminders and calendar items automatically based on what was said in the meeting. Of course there are various issues (privacy, technology, politics, corporations playing nicely with each other) but I think it’s a logical step forward.

As payment systems in phones become more popular, I’d like my phone to become my banker too (and I’m not just talking about budgeting and paying bills on time). For example if I walk into a coffee shop my phone should check if I’m on budget as far as coffee shops go and check coffee shops around the area to suggest a cheaper (or better, for some definition of better) alternative. And it doesn’t just have to be limited to coffee shops.

Mobile technology is sufficiently new that most of us don’t have a very clear idea of what to do with it (or a vision of what it should do). Most so-called “future vision” videos focus more on interfaces than actual capabilities. However this technology is evolving fast enough that I think we’re going to see the situation improving quickly. With geolocation-based services, NFC and voice commands becoming more ubiquitous and useful the stage is becoming set for us to make more impactful uses of the processors in our pockets. As a programmer I would love to be able to hook up my phone to any cloud services or private servers I’m using and be able to interact with them. The mobile future promises to be interesting and I’m definitely looking forward to it.

The unlocked iPhone 4S would end up costing me a tad over $800 after tax and Applecare. I was also getting bored of the iOS ecosystem and its closed, silo system for apps. So instead I got myself a much cheaper unlocked Android phone – the Google/Samsung Nexus S. I’m pairing that with a $30 a month T-Mobile data and phone plan. I’m still waiting for a new SIM card to show up but till then I’m making use of the ample wifi coverage that’s a side-effect of living in a college town. For now, I’m only going to talk about my first impressions on the Nexus S itself.

Google Nexus S (via Wikipedia)

The Nexus S is Google’s previous flagship phone. Its current flagship is the Galaxy Nexus which Google is also selling unlocked. However it’s almost twice the price I paid for the Nexus S and in my opinion, isn’t sufficient of an upgrade to justify the price. Even though it’s about a year old by now (and technically running the old version of Android), I haven’t had a problem with it so far.

It looks pretty different from the iPhone and the plastic feel takes some getting used it. I also think it slips more easily, but that might just be a personal problem. The back of the phone has something of a ridge at the bottom which I guess is supposed to make it easier to hold. Though the build quality does feel inferior as compared to the iPhone, I like it and have no major complaints.

The Android sofware feels like a breath of fresh air as compared to the iPhone. It is considerably more customizable and I like the presence of both tradiiontal apps as well as “widgets” that add functionality directly to your home screens. I’ve found widgets great for quickly looking up data like the weather, Twitter mentions or what system services are currently running.

The tinkerer in me loves how customizable the Android system is. Changing the look and feel is just the beginning. There are a lot of bells and whistles and options and sometimes it can be a rather confusing. For now I’ve only stuck to the usual set of apps (Twitter, Foursquare, Camera) but I’m looking forward to trying out new and interesting apps in the future. More than that I feel like Android would be a really good platform if I decide to get into mobile dev anytime soon.

There are a few things about the Nexus S that I’m concerned with. I think the battery life is a tad too short, especially with the geolocation services on all the time. Luckily, the battery monitor widget makes it simple to turn off services with a touch so maybe some manual management might make it better. While the Google apps are really well integrated (especially Google Voice) and apps from large companies are well done, third-party apps seem to be of considerably less quality than iOS equivalents. I don’t really blame the developers given the multitude of devices but it does mean that finding good apps for simple things like RSS is more difficult than it should be.

Despite the glitches and minor annoyances I really like the Nexus S. The hardware is pretty solid and I like Android so far. Right now having a fully functional smartphone is still pretty new to me, but I’m hoping that when the novelty wears off I’ll dive into actually programming the powerful computer in my pocket.

The article helped me express an uncertainty that’s been floating back and forth in my mind for some time. I use my iPod Touch on a daily basis and I’ve been loving the multitouch trackpad on the new Macbooks. I love the swiping motions for window management and moving things around. At the same time I’ve started drawing by hand again (I loved drawing as a kid) and I realize that putting a pencil to paper is a rather complex but very fulfilling activity. Strangely enough I think that both the pencil and the touch-based iOS interface have a lot in common. In both cases, the actual physical device almost disappears letting you focus on the underlying application. The iPad or iPhone itself is just a thin frame around whatever app you’re using. The pencil is basically just a simple pointer but allows us to create an infinited range of images with it.

However in both cases, the expressiveness offered by the device is not enough. Pencils are not enough to express all the images we might want to create. That’s why we have pens, brushes, chalk, crayons and a variety of papers and canvases. The flat touch interface is also not enough, especially if we are confined to a small surface that fits in one hand. The question then is how we can take the simplicity of our current touch interface and extend them to a larger set of expressions and interactions?

Case in point is the camera interface on the iPhone. For a long time there was a software button that you had to touch to take a picture. But that meant sticking your finger in the middle of the picture. Normal cameras have a better interface: there is shutter button on the top that keeps your hands far from the actual image (even if you’re using a LCD screen instead of a traditional viewfinder). This deficient interface on the iPhone led to the Red Pop, a giant red shutter button and now iOS 5 turns one of the hardware volume buttons into a shutter button.

The Red Pop camera interface for the iPhone

Having a fluid, upgradeable, customizable software interface is nice and I like smooth gradients and rounded corners as much as the next guy. But our hands evolved to use actual physical matter and before computer interfaces we built a lot of interesting physical interfaces. Apple has hooked us on the idea of sleek, smooth devices with no extraneous. While it’s great to lose unnecessary knobs and edges the Apple design philosophy might not be best in the long run, especially if your device’s UI doesn’t neatly fit into the touch-drag-swipe system of gestures.

Ultimately it would be great to have “smart matter” physical interfaces – the flexibility and programmability of software with the physical usability that solid matter offers. Imagine some sort of rearranging material (based on some form of nano- or micro-technology maybe?) that can be be a simple smooth shell around your interfaces but can change to form buttons, sliders, knobs or big red shutter buttons as your application requires. But in the years (decades?) between now and then we need other solutions. The range of accessories and extensions available for the iPhone (including the Red Pop, tripods, lenses etc.) seem to suggest that enterprising young device maker could use the iPhone (and it’s successors and competitors) as a computing core to which they can attach their own physical extensions. With a more open and hackable platform (an Android-Arduino hybrid perhaps) we might see a thriving device market as well as an app market. Am I a dreamer? Hell yeah, but as the projects I’ve linked to show, I’m certainly not the only one.

I’m not a UI or UX designer. I’m sure there are people at Canonical who have been studying these areas for longer than I have. But I am a daily Linux user. In fact I would say that I’m a power user. I’m no neckbeard, but I think that by now I have a fair grasp of the Unix philosophy and try to follow it (my love for Emacs notwithstanding). The longer I see Ubuntu’s development the more it seems that they are shunning the Unix philosophy in the name of “user friendliness” and “zero configuration”. And they’re doing it wrong. I think that’s absolutely the wrong way to go.

It seems that Canonical is trying very hard to be Apple while not being a total ripoff. Apple is certainly a worthy competitor (and a great source to copy from) but this is a game that Ubuntu is not going to win. The thing is, you can’t be Apple. That game has been played, that ship has sailed. Apple pretty much has the market cornered when it comes to nice shiny things that just work for most people irrespective of prior computer usage. Unless somehow Canonical sprouts an entire ecosystem of products overnight they are not going to wrest that territory from Apple.

That’s not to say that Canonical shouldn’t be innovating and building good-looking interfaces. But they should play to the strengths of both Linux the system and Linux the user community instead of fighting them. Linux users are power users. In fact I think Linux has a tendency to encourage average computer users to become power users once they spend some time with it. I would love to see Ubuntu start catering to power users instead of shooing them away.

It’s becoming increasingly clear that Apple does not place its developers above its customers. That’s a fine decision for them to make. It’s their business and their products and they can do whatever they like. However as a programmer and hacker I am afraid. I’m scared that we’re getting to the point where I won’t be able to install software of my choosing without Apple standing in the way. I’m not talking about just stuff like games and expensive proprietary apps, but even basic programming tools and system utilities. That’s not something that I’m prepared to accept.

Given the growing lockdown of Apple’s systems, Canoncial should be pouring resources into making Ubuntu the best damn development environment on the planet. That means that all the basics work without me tinkering with drivers and configurations (something they’ve largely accomplished). It means that there’s a large pool of ready-to-install software (which also they have) and that it’s possible (and easy) to install esoteric third-party tools and libraries. Luckily the Unix heritage means that the system is designed to allow this. Instead of trying to sugar coat and “simplify” everything there should be carefully thought-out defaults that I can easily override and customize. Programmability and flexibility grounded in well-tuned defaults should be the Ubuntu signature.

It makes even more sense for Canonical to take this angle because Apple seems to be actively abandoning it. A generation of hackers may have started with BASIC on Apple IIs, but getting a C compiler on a modern Mac is a 4GB XCode download. Ubuntu can easily ship with a default arsenal of programming tools. Last I checked the default install already includes Python. Ubuntu can be the hands-down, no-questions-asked platform of choice for today’s pros and tomorrow’s curious novices. Instead of a candy-coated, opaquely-configured Unity, give me a sleek fully programmable interface. Give me a scripting language for the GUI with first-class hooks into the environment. Made it dead simple for people to script their experience. Encourage and give them a helping hand. Hell, gamify it if you can. Apple changed the world by showing a generation the value of good, clean design. Canonical can change the world by showing the value of flexibility, programmability and freedom.

Dear Canonical, I want you to succeed, I really do. I don’t want Apple to be the only competent player in town. But I need an environment that I can bend to my will instead of having everything hidden behind bling and “simplification”. I know that being a great programming environment is at the heart of Linux. I know that you have the people and the resources to advance the state of computing for all of us. So please zig to Apple’s zag.

PS. Perhaps Ubuntu can make a dent in the tablet and netbook market, if that’s their game. But the netbook market is already dying and let’s be honest, there’s an iPad market, not a tablet market. And even if that market does open up, Android has a head start and Amazon has far greater visibility. But Ubuntu has already gone where no Linux distro has gone before. For most people I know it’s the distribution they reflexively reach for. That developer-friendliness and trust is something they should be actively leveraging.

I want to make the argument that if using multiple monitors is not boosting your productivity then either you are not using them correctly, or that your work does not require two monitors in the first place (which is perfectly fine). But going back to one small screen is not suddenly going to make you more productive. Productivity is a function of both the work you do and the tools you use and it annoys me when so-called “technology bloggers” hold up interesting tools to be the end all and be all.

Rants aside, the issue of multiple monitors is something that I’ve been thinking about on and off for the past few years. At various points I’ve gone between one and two screens. Over the summer I had a dual monitor desktop setup. Now I have my Macbook Air at home and a single 22″ monitor at work. Since I have a standing desk at work I don’t hook my Macbook up to the monitor. If there is a way to make the Air float in mid-air please let me know.

Here is my thesis: multiple monitors are most useful when your work actually needs you to be looking at multiple pieces of information at the same time. Any time you find yourself quickly switching between 2 or more applications, tabs or windows, you could probably benefit from adding a monitor (or two). Personally this happens to me all the time when I’m programming. I have one monitor devoted to code and one devoted to documentation about libraries I’m using. When I was taking a screenwriting class I would have my script on one monitor and the other would be devoted to research (mostly Wikipedia because I was writing an alternative history piece involving the British Empire).

I’ve always used multiple monitors with virtual desktops (or workspaces as they’re called now). They blew my mind when I first started using Linux and I couldn’t live without them now. Some window managers (OS X in particular) treat multiple monitors as one big extended desktop. I think that’s the wrong way to go about it. I prefer using XMonad with multiple monitors – it turns each monitor into a “viewport” onto my set of up to 9 single-monitor desktops. That means that I can control and move what’s on each monitor independently which gives me much finer control over what I’m seeing at any time. If I have code, IRC and documentation open in three different workspaces I can keep code open on one monitor and move in between docs and IRC on the other if I need questions answered. This level of control is also why I think smaller dual monitors are better than larger single monitors.

Xmonad is also a tiling window manager which automatically arranges my windows to make the most efficient use of my screen space. It makes OS X’s fullscreen app mode look like a toy in comparison. Instead of futzing around without laying out my windows by hand I can have preprogrammed setups that are guaranteed to be the same every single time. This comes in very handy when you need to look at three terminals logged into three different computers at the same time. Spatial memory can be very powerful and it’s one more trick in the productivity bag. It’s also why I love Firefox Panorama, but that’s a matter for another post. XMonad also lets me use space that would otherwise go wasted if I had to spend time and effort manually setting it all up. Large screens actually get partitioned into usable layouts. window manager that will do it for you. If your second monitor is filled with

Two things to note about my usage: first, I do work that actually benefits from having multiple things open side-by-side. Second, I use tools that are molded to suit my workflow, not the other way around. And therein lies the fallacy when people start saying that going to smaller, single monitors increases their productivity. If you’re a writer who doesn’t need her research open side-by-side then you’re not going to benefit from another monitor. If you absolutely need to focus on PhotoShop for long periods of time then a single big monitor might be the best. As I’m writing this blog post I’m using one-half of my piddly 13″ Air screen. If you’re having trouble using space on a large monitor you should get a email, Twitter, IM and other distractions then of course it’s going to make you less productive. If you’re fighting with your technology rather than shaping it to your will then it’s not surprising that you get more work done with less tech.

The last thing I want to talk about is physical positioning. The article I mentioned at the beginning does make one valid point: If you have a dual monitor setup then either the seam between the screens is right in front of you or one is off to the side. The article also claims that having a monitor off to the side means that it’s less used (or completely unused). You don’t want to be staring the seam by default, but I’m not sure that having the monitor to the side is such a bad thing. Again, when I’m writing code I like having the code front and center and having the documentation off to the side isn’t such a bad thing. If your monitor to the side is really unused you should consider the points I mentioned above. Manually dragging windows to the side can be a pain and I think this might be biggest killer for a lot of people.

When I’m at a desktop with two monitor I tend to sit directly in front of my “main” monitor (whatever has my code up) and have the second one off to one side. XMonad makes sure I’m never dragging anything over and moving my head or eyes a few degrees every now and then isn’t a big deal. Your mileage may vary. But when I have a laptop connected to an external monitor, I prefer having the external one propped up so that the screen is above the laptop. Configurations with a small laptop side by side a larger monitor always struck me as odd. Having them stacked above each other makes the workflow slightly better. In Linux (or Gnome at least) you can definitely get the vertical stacking to work right, I haven’t tried it with OS X.

In conclusion, please think carefully about your workflow if you’re considering changing your monitor setup. Use tools that will work with you, not against you. Don’t think that a particular setup will work for you just because someone on the Internet promotes it or some piece of software makes that the default. People and companies get things wrong. Even Apple. There is no substitute for using your own head, especially when it comes to personal matters like workspace setup.

PS. I know that I haven’t linked to the original article. I did it on purpose because links are the currency of the Web and I don’t want to reward what I consider to be sloppy thinking and inaccuracy. If you really want to find it, Google is your friend. If you think I should link anyway, feel free to convince me in the comments.

Let’s be honest: most of our computer systems are hopelessly insecure. And making them insecure isn’t as simple as installing antivirus software from a big vendor. Depending on just how secure you need or want to be, you potentially have to go very, very deep. In a lot of cases the trouble is not worth it. Want to take down my VPS running my personal website and storing my Git repos? Go ahead, it’ll take me all of five minutes to shut it down and spin it back up, maybe half an hour to restore everything. That’s far easier to do than statically analyzing every line of the Linux kernel, the GNU utilities and the web stack for vulnerabilities (and then fixing them without introducing new ones or breaking things). This is not to say that these aren’t worthwhile, important activities, they’re just not top priority for most users.

However, it’s another matter entirely when the systems are mission critical — banks, defense, the Internet backbone – or they’re running inside our body. Coming back to the original problem, medical technology is quickly progressing to the point of us having fully functional implants replacing faulty organs. Insulin pumps are just the start. Cochlear implants and artificial limbs have been around for a while. Bionic eyes are slowing pushing forward and real cyborgs exist. We’re not going to see full cyberbrains just yet and we’re definitely not throwing out the wetware for full synthetic bodies. But as the number of computers inside our bodies gradually increases it’s never too early to start thinking about how we’re going to keep them safe, especially if we want them connected to the Internet (and we will).

Having our implants connected to the Net is a matter of convenience as well as health and safety. Real-time monitoring, remote diagnostics and over-the-air software updates would greatly cut down on the amount of time you spend in your doctors’ waiting room. However, if you want your arm or eyes hooked up to the Internet you definitely want to be careful about who can connect to them. Asymmetric encryption and signing for all communications (especially updates) would be necessary, just for starters. I can see some kind of code-signing for the software itself being beneficial. But it raises of the question of whether the user can/should be able to hack their own organs. I really don’t want to jailbreak a critical organ if there is a possibility of bricking it. But at the same time I do have a right to my own bodyparts, biological or synthetic.

Aside: I wonder why cars don’t come with 3G connections for remote software upgrades. If the Kindle can do it, it can’t be that hard. Then again car manufacturers haven’t exactly been the most innovative and forward thinking in recent years. Maybe I should be talking to Elon Musk.

Even if the proper technical measures are in place, there is still the question of just who do we trust to provide and potentially control our body parts. I don’t mind Apple storing my music and Amazon can store and sync my books. I do mind them locking me in, which is why I’m still hesitant to go completely digital. But do I trust either of them (or any for-profit corporate entity) with my vital organs, or even non-vital ones? Furthermore do they get keys to shut down “malfunctioning” organs, for some definition of “malfunctioning”? What safeguards are in place to prevent them for misusing these keys? Given the life-threatening nature that such shutdowns might have, requiring a complex legal procedure to overturn shutdowns is dangerous and ethically negligent.

When implants start becoming mainstream and popular we’re going to start seeing issues and problems similar to the ones with computer systems. There are always going to be people who want differing degrees of control over their technology, whether that technology be cars, computers or prosthetics. It would be interesting to see something like a “homebrew” implant scene come up, though I doubt it would rival the popularity of the homebrew computer scene. Like many important problems the questions are both technical and social in nature. So, who do you trust to write the operating system for your brain?

OpenPCR joins a list of recent technological milestones including 3D printing, cheap embedded microcontrollers, ubiquitous computing and broadband Internet connections. The technological scene is supported by social phenomena like the open source movement, coworking and hacker spaces and organizations like Kiva and Kickstarter. The rise of increasingly powerful DIY technology and the surrounding social systems is pushing us toward what can best be described as the Age of the Maker.

Going from idea or innovation to self-sustaining product doesn’t require large factories or upfront investments anymore. As projects like OpenPCR and Coffee Joulies show it’s feasible to create a truly novel, popular product combining nothing more than talented, hard-working creators and willing customers. I’d like to believe that this is the beginning of a new industrial age, one that produces a similar improvement in the quality of human life without many of the bad side-effects of the last one. This revolution focuses on the individual and the small team rather on the factory. Sure, there are businesses and there is manufacturing, but the point of it all is not just profit. Profit is important, but a lot of people and groups I just mentioned are doing it largely because it’s fun and exciting.

Technology and the means of production are becoming increasingly democratic. What can be accomplished by small groups of focussed individuals leveraging modern technology is truly amazing. The software industry has already shown that small groups of people can create products and services that change the world. Today’s generation of makers and hackers are taking that a step further – showing that such world changing innovation doesn’t have to be limited to software.

I’m not an economist, but I’d argue that in many ways we’re seeing a reinvention of capitalism. Financial capital doesn’t have to be concentrated in the hands of a few – it can be widely distributed among the masses – millions of customers around the world. What is needed are people with ideas and skills that can bring that capital together just-in-time to create a product – the makers. And we now have the services required to bring the capital in (the Internet, Kickstarter, Kiva) and the cheap infrastructure needed to get the product out (UPS, FedEx, etc.). With OpenPCR, Arduinos, 3D printers and the we’re democratizing and distributing the means of production.

If you’re someone who likes building cool, interesting things there has never been a better time to be alive. The Industrial Revolution brought about mass production and cheap commoditized goods. But it also decimated independent artisans and craftsmen. Today we’re just getting ready to put all the manufacturing power of modern industrializaton back in the hands of individuals with ideas and skills. With today’s technology Leonardo da Vinci may have been able to build his flying machines.

What have you made today?

Simple but bold: Only use your computer for work. Real work. The work of making something.

This ties in well with a tweet by the erstwhile _why the lucky stiff that I came across a few weeks ago:

when you don’t create things, you become defined by your tastes rather than ability. your tastes only narrow & exclude people. so create.

Creating and making things is important. And not just on a one-off, once in a while manner, but on a regular, consistent, day-to-day basis. The reason that most of us get into programming, writing, designing and related fields is that we loved building things. Let’s face it: the joy of making something is pure, unadulterated crack. Sure it’s hard to get started and it can be even harder to keep going when things don’t go the way you want them to. And by the time we get done, we’re drained and tired and just want to sleep. But the rush of taking something out of our minds, something that was just a thought and putting into a definite shape and form is unequaled.

Unfortunately, as Seth Godin says, we’re using the same tools for both work and play and that doesn’t turn out well. It’s hard to concentrate on writing or hacking when there are email and Twitter alerts clamoring for our attention. And it’s not just the momentary interruptions. Even if you aren’t getting bothered by notifications, it’s hard to gather the mental energy to create when it’s easier to play a game or check the latest Internet happenings. Seth Godin’s solution is actually deceptively simple: use separate machines for work and play. In fact, this is something that I had written about in my rules for computing happiness.

Originally I had planned to wait until graduate school to put this division into effect. Since I was going to get a work machine form the department I would use it for work only. There would be no social software on it, no Facebook or Twitter, no RSS feeds and maybe not even email. I would have a separate Macbook for my non-work stuff, social or not. I’ve heard horror stories about graduate students hemorrhaging time until suddenly it’s five years later and the thesis is only half done. I did not plan on being one of them.

I considered keeping my current setup, but Seth’s post led me to think if I could make any quick, effective changes. The answer was staring me in the face. I’ve had a Google Chrome netbook for a few months now that comes with just the ChromeOS. However there is a developer switch that you can use to unlock it. Yesterday I flipped the switch and installed Ubuntu. I now have a lightweight, portable, lightning fast machine that I can use for getting work done. Also since this is a clean install I can consciously avoid installing stuff that has no place on a work machine. I have the standard Gnome terminal, Emacs and Firefox 4.0 and that’s it. There isn’t even music or a media player. Since I always carry my iPod Touch, that can be my ‘play’ machine. It has all the distractions that I indulge in and my entire music library (which isn’t that big).

I’ve been playing the productivity game long enough to know that no technological tool or setup is a silver bullet for the problem of wasting time. The new setup is going to work only if I use it properly and consistently. There is going to be some work involved to break my old habits and set new, better ones but this is a start. Someday I’ll get around to reforming my other machines but till then this work/play setup will do nicely.

When you get to a webpage that has associated RSS feeds, Chrome will auto-detect them and put a small RSS icon in the address bar. When you click that icon you get  a list of available feeds. That’s fine because it exposes important information in an unobtrusive form and makes more detailed information easily available. Once you click whichever link you do want to subscribe to, you get taken to another page which shows a preview of the feed articles and lets you choose which feed reader you want to subscribe to. To be fair, this step can be removed by picking a default feed reader. In my case I choose Google Reader. But instead of just adding your feed to Google Reader, you are dropped into Reader where you have to click the subscribe button to actually subscribe to the feed. Though I’ve seen far worse signup processes, this could all be boiled down to a single step process if Google Reader and Google Chrome OS worked just a little bit better together (yes, I said Google twice to make a point).

I’ve done this lots of times already, but today it really bothered me. A few hours before I subscribed to my friend’s feed, I read Andy Ihnatko’s review of the iPad 2. If you’re considering buying the iPad 2 (or just interested in it) take half an hour and go read it. I want to highlight the part of the article that really stuck with me (and fueled my annoyance at the Chrome/Reader signup process).

The iPad 2 Smart Cover is emblematic of what makes Apple a great technology company. I kind of want to hide one in my jacket pocket every time a tech company is giving me my first briefing on a new tablet, and bring it out at a decisive moment.

“Halt,” I would say, unrolling the Smart Cover and holding it before me like a talisman to ward off evil. “Did you put as much thought into your entire tablet as Apple put into this deceptively simple screen cover?”

See, I’m increasingly coming to the view that the small things matter. Not only do they matter, they are downright important and worthy of serious attention especially if they are part of products you want to get into the hands of lots of people. Unfortunately this does not seem to be clear to people and companies that are making said products, even companies that should know better.

As much as we’d like to pretend that humans are logical beings and use products and services based purely on their technical merits, the truth is we’re not Vulcans. Using beautiful, well-designed products and living in attractive environments actually makes us feel better and more productive. And when it comes to making a solid, fine-tuned experience, the small stuff matters. It really matters.

Not to sound like a total fanboy, but Apple realizes this and executes it well, and is one of the few companies that do. Interestingly enough, Apple’s penchant for polish and good design spills over into the whole ecosystem of Mac apps. OS X is the only platform where I honestly say that some applications are beautiful. The web is a becoming close second thanks to the increase in quality of rendering engines. I think this is an analog of the “broken windows theory” — Apple actively discourages broken windows on its platform. It’s own products are useful, well-designed and a joy to use. They’re continually raising the bar, in terms of hardware, software and the combined experience.

Demanding perfection and not shipping bad products is not a easy choice to make, but is certainly pays. Again, Apple last made $14 billion in profits. In profits. And is now the second largest company in the world. Companies like Moleskin, Behance and Rhodia make beautiful, thoughtfully designed stationary products and they’re not cheap. But they’re worth it. If you’re serious about creating products and services that people not only use, but want to use, then you should sweat the small stuff and work on creating the filter.

I don’t consider myself particularly sentimental, but a lot of things that I have are “firsts” — my first iPod, my first laptop and so on. At the same time I don’t like clutter and I don’t want to hang on to things I know I won’t be using. For some things the decision is easy: my Eee PC netbook I’m going to get rid of because it just doesn’t fit into how I like to work. It’s just a bit too small and underpowered for me to get real work done on it. The Chrome netbook works for when I’m on campus and connected and I’m saving towards a Macbook. Similarly I’m not keeping my Mini — it’s dying slowly (the wifi and optical drive are both dead) and a new Macbook will take over everything I use it for. My larger linux laptop will stay, even though it’s older than the netbook. It has a larger screen and I got an upgrade to 4GB of RAM (thanks to my summer work at Virginia Tech). The battery is dead, but it’s too heavy to carry around comfortably anyway (again Macbook to the rescue). But it makes a great Linux development machine.

But I also have 80GB iPod Classic (I believe it’s in the first generation of Classics), a 16GB iPod Touch, a 7MP Canon Powershot camera and probably a few other things here and there that I’m forgetting about. For each of these there are reasons to keep them around and reasons to get rid of them. The Classic is a better music player than the Touch and has more space. The Touch is my mobile Internet device and gets a good amount of use as a PDA and Twitter/RSS client. The camera, well, it’s a camera and it doesn’t really get much use. The Touch and the camera could both be replaced by an iPhone, but getting one of those is much less definite than the Macbook. And the Classic was the first device I bought with my own money. So even though I barely ever use it (except maybe for infrequent gym trips) it does have some sentimental value.

Decisions, decisions. Though writing this post has helped me clean up my thoughts, I haven’t made up my mind. In an ideal world, I’d be able to take my computers and turn them in for a shiny new Macbook. Likewise, I’d take my Touch and camera and turn it into an iPhone. But part of my dilemma is that I probably won’t be doing a straight upgrade (because I’m a starving college student and I want to wait till Lion Macbooks come out). The latest I can keep stuff is the end of May when I graduate. Going by Apple’s record new Macbooks won’t be out until September which means I’ll be out of a properly portable computer for summer. That doesn’t seem like a smart idea (considering I’m a programmer and all that). It’s been awhile since I’ve been in the market for a completely new replacement computer and this selling/buying process is starting to bring back bad memories of playing the upgrade/wait game.

At this point I’m considering getting rid of as much as I can and just dealing with the months I find myself laptop-less. There are still some things that I need to think about: I don’t know what I’m doing over summer and there’s the little question of actually getting rid of my machines. I don’t want to just throw them away. I’d like to be able to give them to someone who will find some use of them. (Which means if you really want something I mentioned, contact me).

Braindump complete.