Security Tip: Apple ID locked for security?
This one also doubles as a Rant Time. Having my Apple ID account locked is an issue I face far too often with Apple. Perhaps you do, too? In my case, no one knows my account ID. Yet, I face having to unlock my account frequently because of this issue. I personally think Apple is causing this issue. Let’s explore.
Unlocking an Apple ID
As with far too many things, Apple’s unlocking system is unnecessarily complex and fraught with digital peril after-the-fact… particularly if you enable some of Apple’s more complex security features (i.e., Two Factor authentication).
One of the things Apple hasn’t yet to get correct is properly securing its Apple ID system from intrusion attempts. That doesn’t mean that your account is unsafe. What it means is that your account is unsafe against malicious attacks targeting your account ID. But, there’s an even bigger risk using Apple’s ID system… securing your credentials by using an email address. I’ll come back to this practice a little later.
Once your account becomes locked, there are a number of major problems that present. The first immediate problem is that you need to remember your security questions OR face changing your password (assuming standard security). If you use Apple’s two-factor authentication, you face even more problems. If you don’t use two-factor and you’ve forgotten your security questions, you have the option to contact Apple Support to help you with your security question problems to gain access to your account. On the other hand, if you’ve forgotten your security information set up when enabling two-factor, you’re screwed. Apple can’t help you after you have two-factor set up… one of the major reasons I have chosen not to use two-factor at Apple. Two-factor IS more secure, but by using it you risk losing your Apple ID if you lose a tiny bit of information. That risk is far too great. With all of the “ease of use” Apple is known for, its Apple ID system is too overly complex.
The second problem is that once you do manage to get your account unlocked, you are then required to go touch EVERY SINGLE DEVICE that uses your account ID and reenter your password AGAIN. This includes not only every Apple device, but every device utilizing Apple services such as Alexa’s account linking for Apple Music on the Amazon Echo. If you use Apple Music on an Android, you’ll need to go touch that too. It’s not just the locking and unlocking of your account, it’s the immense hassle of signing into your Apple ID on EVERY SINGLE DEVICE. Own an Apple Watch? Own an Apple TV? Own a Home Pod? Own an iPad? Own a MacBook? Use Apple Music on your Android? You’ll need to go to each and every one of these devices and touch them.
On the iPhone, it’s particularly problematic. You’ll be presented with at least 3 login prompts simultaneously all competing with one another on the screen. Later, you’ll be presented with a few more stragglers over the course of 30 minutes or an hour. Apple still can’t seem to figure out how to use a single login panel to authenticate the entire device and all of its services. Instead, it must request passwords for each “thing” separately. So many prompts pop up so fast you have no idea which one is which because none of them are labeled as to which service they are attached. You could even be giving your account ID and password to a random nefarious app on your device. You’d never know. If you own an Apple Watch, you’ll have to re-enter it separately for that device as well. Literally, every single device that uses your Apple ID must be touched after unlocking your Apple ID. Unlike Wi-Fi passwords which you enter once and it’s shared across every device you own, Apple can’t possibly do that with its Apple ID system so that we enter it once and it populates ALL of our devices. No. We must touch each and every device we own.
Worse, if you don’t do go touch each and every one of these devices immediately upon unlocking your account, you risk having your account locked almost immediately by just one of these devices. Apple’s ID system is not forgiving if even one of these devices hasn’t logged in properly after a security lock. You could face being locked out just a few hours later.
So the rant begins…
Using Email Addresses as Network IDs
Here’s a security practice that needs to stop. Apple, I’m l👀king at you! Using email addresses as an ID was the “norm” during the mid-late 00s and is still in common practice throughout much of the Internet industry. It is, however, a practice that needs to end. Email addresses are public entities easily seen, easily found and, most easily, attacked. They are NOT good candidates for use as login identifiers. Login identifiers need to use words, phrases or information that are not generally publicly accessible or known. Yes, people will continue to use their favorite pet’s name or TV show or girlfriend’s name as login IDs. At least that’s only found by asking the person involved. Email addresses are not required when developing login systems. You can use tie the email address to the account via its profile. But, it SHOULD NOT be used as a login identifier.
When an Apple ID account gets continually locked, Apple Support suggests to change the login ID, but that’s not going to change anything. You’re simply moving the crap from one toilet to another. Crap is still crap. The problem is that it still uses an email address and, to reiterate, email addresses are easily seen, found and attacked. What I need is a login ID that’s of my own choosing and is not an email address. This way, random folks can’t go to Apple’s iCloud web site and randomly enter an email address intentionally to lock accounts. If I can choose my own login identifier, unless I give that information out explicitly to someone, it’s not guessable AT ALL and far less likely to be locked out by random folks entering junk into web based Apple’s login panels.
Oh, and make no mistake, it’s not people on an iPhone or iPad doing this. It’s people going to Apple’s web site and doing it there. There is no other place where it can be happening. And yet, we unsuspecting users are penalized by having to spend a half an hour finding and reentering passwords on all our devices because someone spent 5 minutes at Apple’s web site entering random information incorrectly 3 times. Less than 5 minutes worth of effort triggers at least 30 minutes of work unlocking the account and reentering passwords on many devices and services. And then there are the stragglers that continue to prompt for at least an hour or two after… all because Apple refuses to secure its own web site login panels from this activity. This is not my problem Apple, it’s yours. You need to fix your shit and that’s something I absolutely cannot do for you.
Notifications
Apple prides itself on building its push notification system, yet it can’t even use it to alert users of potential unusual activity on its very own Apple IDs. If someone is incorrectly trying passwords on a web site, they know where this vector is. So then, tell me about it, Apple. Send me an alert that someone is trying to log into the Apple Store or the iCloud.net site. Inform me that my ID is being used in a place that seems suspect. You know the IP address where the user is coming from. Alert me. Google does. You can, too.
Additionally, Apple stores absolutely NO information about bad login attempts. If you attempt to contact Apple Support about your account activity, they don’t have access. They can’t even tell you what triggered your Account ID lock. This level of information is the absolute bare minimum a company using centralized login IDs must offer to its users. If Apple can’t even bother to help you find out why and where your account was locked, why would you trust Apple to store your information? Apple puts all its cards on its functionality side, but it can’t put a single card on this side of the security fence? What the hell, Apple?
Apple Locking Accounts
I also firmly believe that Apple is intentionally locking accounts. When these lockouts occur, it’s not me doing it. I’m not out there entering my account credentials incorrectly. It’s not my devices, either. My devices ALL have my correct password setup. This means that either someone has guessed my email address or, more likely, Apple is intentionally locking the account. I firmly believe Apple is intentionally doing this internally and it’s not incorrect password attempts at all. The more it happens, the more I believe Apple is forcing this. I don’t know why they would want to do this, but I do believe they are. Maybe it’s a disgruntled employee who just randomly feels the need to screw with Apple’s users?
Apple’s Response
I’ve called Apple Support at least twice regarding this issue and gotten absolutely nowhere. They can’t and, more importantly, won’t help with this issue. They claim to have no access to security logs. They can’t determine where, when or why an account was locked. In fact, I do believe Apple does have access to this information, but I believe Apple Support has been told not to provide any information.
If Apple Support can’t give this information, then this information should be offered through the Apple ID account site (appleid.apple.com). This site should contain not only the ability to manage your Apple ID, it should also store and offer security information for when and where your ID was used (and where the account was used when it locked). Yet, Apple offers NOTHING. Not a single thing. You can log into this site, but there are no tools offered to the user. Apple exposes nothing about my account use to me. Google, on the other hand, is very transparent. So transparent, in fact, that they send “unusual activity” alerts whenever your ID is used in an unusual way. Google errors on the side of over-communication. Yet, Apple hasn’t done shit in this area and errors on the side of absolute ZERO communication.
Get your act together Apple. Your Apple ID system sucks. Figure it out!
↩︎
Bioshock Infinite: Or, why circular time paradoxes suck!
Note: If you haven’t yet played Bioshock Infinite yet, this article contains spoilers. Â You should stop reading now! You have been warned.
Many people are awed and dumbfounded (even Wikipedia) by the story within Bioshock Infinite. Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral, yet the article for Bioshock Infinite is extremely biased towards Infinite containing a ‘great’ story. It most definitely isn’t ‘great’ by any stretch. For some odd reason, gamers (and critics) think what’s in Infinite is a good thing and somehow even like and see it as some sort of thought provoking experience. Well, perhaps it is in some small way thought provoking, but not thought provoking in the right (or even a good) way. Let’s explore why Bioshock Infinite’s type of thought provoking experience is not a good thing and not something to be wanted or desired in storytelling.
Breaking the Rules
There’s something to be said for people who break the rules. Sometimes breaking the rules can lead to good consequences. Most times, it ends up in failure. Story and narrative creation rules have been in existence since the earliest fiction book was written. Yet, these rules have minimally changed throughout the years to keep stories satisfying and fresh. The rules for well written storytelling are already firmly established. Granted, the storyteller can take liberties if the diversion leads you back to something profound within the story. Basically, the idea behind storytelling is to keep the pace and momentum going and to flesh out characters who the reader can feel good about. Plot devices are used to keep the story on track, to know where that story is heading and what the end goal is for the characters. With the ultimate goal being to produce characters whose situations seem real and profound. Â The characters are the crux that ground the story even if the rest of the world is fanciful. Without this grounding, the story falls apart. With that said, every story has a beginning, a middle and an end. All three of these should be clearly defined so that what transpires along the way leads to a satisfying conclusion of the characters lives where the readers have invested their time.
Video Game Storytelling
With video games, the way to tell a story hasn’t substantially changed and not every video game company ‘gets’ it. Every entertainment experience today should become a cohesive character driven story to be successful. Within video games, there are two pieces to the story puzzle. The gameplay and the storytelling. Both are symbiotic relationships. One feeds off of the other. Neither should really become dominant in this mix. If the game falls too much into a storytelling role, it loses the interactivity needed to be a great video game. If the gameplay is all there is and the story only happens at the beginning and end, the story becomes an afterthought. Both have to work together to create the whole and to keep the player engaged in the game and the story. However, should one become more dominant than the other, the gameplay should win. It is a game after all.
Time Travel and Storytelling
Unfortunately, too many novice storytellers decide to use the extremely overused, trite and cliché device known as time travel via time anomalies to create and tell their (ahem) story. Worse, without clearly reasoned ideas, time travel can easily make a story become a Deus Ex Machina blunder. As it’s far too easily done wrong, time travel should be avoided in most stories as it really has no place in any quality storytelling experience. And, it’s usually not needed. For example, J.J. Abrams uses this device within the newest Star Trek film reboot. He, unfortunately, uses it to create an alternative universe where the original Star Trek crew don’t actually live. Instead, he creates a rebooted universe of his own choosing and design. His storytelling approach is to toss out the baby with the bathwater and start over on his own terms. Not only does this completely dismiss and insult Gene Roddenberry’s vision of Star Trek, it completely smacks of pretentiousness. J.J. Abrams apparently thinks he’s better than Gene Roddenberry and can somehow improve upon what Roddenberry has created. In fact, there is no need for this in the Star Trek universe. The original Star Trek universe works perfectly fine as it is for setting J.J. Abrams’ story.
In J.J. Abrams’ Trek, the only true Star Trek original crew was the aging Spock who somehow accidentally stumbled through a time hole into J.J. Abrams’ fabricated new time paradoxical Star Trek universe. After you realize this, you’ll understand just how horrible the new Star Trek film really is. The events that took place in J.J. Abrams’ Trek movie don’t exist in the universe that Gene Roddenberry created. This also means that you’ve wasted 2 hours of your life watching a contrived useless film.
Bioshock Infinite is a video game who’s designers decided to use time travel and alternative dimensions (string theory) to explain the story. The only thing the writers successfully accomplish is to produce an incomprehensible mess of a story with characters we ultimately don’t really care about. Some players saw the story as thought provoking. The only thing that Infinite accomplishes, if you begin to think on the story, is unravel its own story and you’re left with questions like, “Did it really even happen?” or “Is he alive or dead?” or “Is the story really over?”. Questions that, if you really want satisfying closure to a story as a writer, you don’t want people asking. These are not the kinds of questions that should be left over at the end of your story. These are the kinds of questions that lead people to critique the story as being trite, cliché and poorly written. You want people to value and cherish and like the story. You want them liking and asking questions about the characters, what happened to them after, where the story might go from here. You don’t want to leave your story open to ‘Infinite’ possibilities where the story leads effectively nowhere and there are so many of the same characters that you can’t even wrap your head around it. In storytelling, infinite choice is the same as no choice. Meaning, if there is no way to tell what happened, that’s the same as saying that it didn’t happen. Which then means that playing the game is pointless.
Time Travel and Time Paradoxes
Time travel is a concept that we do not know if it’s possible. It’s all theory and conjecture at this point. It could become a reality in the future, but we’re not there yet. Telling fanciful stories about time travel and multiple universes may seem like something good, but most times isn’t. The single biggest problem with using time travel and string theory in storytelling is the circular time paradox. That is, a situation that would lead the viewer to logically conclude just how the story came to exist if changing a small piece caused the creation (or unraveling) of the situation in the first place. As a concrete example, in the film Terminator 2, Skynet effectively creates itself. That is, a Skynet robot from the future is sent back in time to kill the then kid, John Connor. Yet, it fails and is destroyed. Its robotic brain technology chip is recovered by Cyberdyne Systems. Cyberdyne Systems employees then reverse engineers the chip which, through technology breakthroughs as a result of that chip, then causes the conception of the technology that leads to the birth of those exact robots and the Skynet computer. Effectively, the technology creates itself. Because of this circular time paradox, this makes stories like Terminator 2 unwieldy, unsatisfying and poorly written. Technology simply cannot create itself and stories should never be written that even hint at that. Humans should always have a hand in that creation of something or the logic of the whole story falls apart.
Likewise, Bioshock Infinite creates a time paradox where the death of Booker unravels the game’s entire reason to exist. Why would you, as a writer, intentionally negate the reason for your story’s existence? Basically, you’ve just told your readers, this story sucked and it didn’t really happen. Or in the case of a video game, the designers are saying, “Yes, we understand you’ve invested hours and hours playing this video game, but really, the story and game just didn’t happen.”
Bioshock Infinite
Oh, this game seems like it tries to keep itself on track in the beginning, but fails because its writers and the story simply get more and more lost with every new time hole (tear) that Elizabeth creates. The writers eventually can’t keep up with the time paradoxes and begin ignoring them entirely in hopes that the player will too. Unfortunately, I can’t overlook this issue. It’s one of my pet peeves within stories. While I don’t plan on keeping score of exactly how many time paradoxes take place over the course of the game, the one that matters is at the very end of the game.
If Booker and Comstock are one and the same person, and Booker kills himself as a child, Columbia can’t come to exist and neither can Elizabeth. Of course, what happens is that multiple Elizabeths drown Booker in a mock baptism which also negates the entire Comstock Columbia story. Which means, Booker would never come to visit Columbia and Elizabeth would never have been stuck in the tower. Who’s to say Anna/Elizabeth would have even been born? Yet, self-preservation and survival is the strongest human instinct that humans have. Why would Elizabeth knowingly do away with her own existence by killing her own father or even allow that to happen? That’s just not logical or rational from a character self-preservation perspective. Worse, because Irrational’s designers postulate the possibility of ‘Infinite’ realities with infinite Elizabeths, Comstocks, and Bookers, there never could be complete destruction of any one of those characters or of every infinite possible version of that story. Even worse, thinking thorough the possibility of infinite stories, how do we even know that the story we played is even the one that matters in the Grand Scheme? Likely there is a universe where Booker doesn’t become Comstock and Elizabeth and Booker have a normal happy family relationship and live happily ever after along with her mother.
Ultimately, what does any of the Infinite story have to do with Rapture? Yes, we got to see Rapture through one of Elizabeth’s doors, but the only relationship between Bioshock Infinite and the other Bioshock games is strictly in that short visit to Rapture. Nothing in this multiverse story has anything whatever to do with explaining the existence of Rapture (other than being just another alternative reality). It doesn’t explain splicers, big daddies, little sisters, big sisters or anything else that transpires on Rapture. In other words, the writers of Infinite fail in two ways:
- They fail to give us a story in Infinite that ultimately makes any sense in the end
- They fail to explain the creation of Rapture or of those people who end up on Rapture
They even fail at explaining how Columbia comes to exist. If the multiple Elizabeths are successful at drowning Booker, Comstock can’t come to exist and neither can Columbia. That means that the entire story in Bioshock Infinite doesn’t even happen. Which, unfortunately, leads to a circular time paradox. Such circular time paradoxes should always be avoided when writing time travel and string theory stories. Why? Because they leave the viewer with the question, “What was the point in that?” and provide a less than satisfying ending. It’s also not the question you want your viewers left asking after it’s all over. You want them to be thinking about the story and how they like the characters along the way. If the characters are all completely toss-worthy, as in Infinite, then it’s all pointless. You don’t want the viewer fixated on how the story even came to exist because that then turns the viewers to realize just how bad the story is and how worthless the characters are. Further, as an author, why would you ever intentionally write your entire story and characters out of existence via a time paradox? Is your story really that unimportant to you and your readers?
It’s the same reason you never write a story that ends up with the main character waking up from a dream at the end. Stories that end up as one big dream sequence are completely unsatisfying. Â Viewers think, “Why did I waste my time watching that?” It’s definitely the wrong thing to pull from a story. Time travel stories with circular time paradoxes are just as equally unsatisfying for the same reason as waking up from a dream sequence. In fact, these two plot devices are born from the same mold and should never be used unless there is a very good reason to break that rule. This is especially true if primary storyline’s time paradox negates the whole reason to even tell the story because the characters never existed. So far, I’ve not read one recent book, seen a recent movie or played a recent game that had a story that could successfully navigate time travel or multiverses as plot device.
The closest any recent filmmakers have ever come to making time travel actually work without producing circular time paradoxes is Robert Zemeckis’ Back to the Future series and Alfonso Cuaron’s adaptation of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban with its Time Turner sequences. Both stories are carefully crafted to avoid circular time paradoxes. In Prisoner of Azkaban, the Time Turner sequence isn’t used as the main story driving device. Instead, it is used in a noble way to save Buckbeak from death, which allows the film to have a very satisfying closure despite the inclusion of time travel. Zemeckis’ Back to the Future films do use time travel as the main plot device. However, these films’ stories are also very carefully crafted to avoid time paradoxes and leave each film with very satisfying conclusions. So, you ultimately care about the characters and ignore the silly time travel plot device. I would also include that the original H.G. Wells’ Time Machine movie is probably the most successful story at navigating time travel as a device within the story without creating a circular time paradox, while still providing engaging likeable characters along the way and a satisfying conclusion.
Overused plot devices
Time travel use as a plot device, while extremely popular, is mostly carelessly used. It has been used in such popular franchises as Lost, Stargate, Star Trek (series and movies), Terminator and is now being used in video games like Bioshock Infinite. Writers need to be extremely judicious with their use of this plot device. Time travel should only be used in a way that advances the story forward, but never in a way that becomes the story itself (as in Bioshock Infinite). Unfortunately, Irrational’s writers just don’t understand how to properly use this plot device within the story context and they use it incorrectly. It should never be used in the way it is used in Infinite. Instead, Columbia could have been shown to exist for other reasons than because of infinite realities.
At the end of Bioshock Infinite, it’s quite clear that the time travel piece is poorly conceived. It ends up making the main character appear as if he is having a psychotic episode rather than actively part of multiple dimensions and realities. I full well expected to see Booker wake up in a mental facility (on Rapture) with nurse Elizabeth administering sedatives to him. At least that storyline would have dismissed the time paradoxes as unreal events and showed us that Booker is just a mental patient among many. This is what is needed to ground the story and tie in the Bioshock Rapture story experience to the Bioshock Infinite story experience full-circle. Yes, that ending would have invalidated Columbia as a non-event, but the writers already did a good job of that in Infinite. Yes, I realize I’m advocating explaining off Infinite as a dream sequence (which is generally to be avoided). Because the Infinite writers already negated their own story, that mental hospital ending would at least start to explain how Rapture came to exist in the state it is in when we played the original Bioshock which is still a far better ending than negating your entire story. At this point, the Infinite story is just a jumbled disarray of ideas that didn’t congeal and that basically made the entire Columbia story a complete time wasting experience. Â We don’t care about Comstock and now we don’t know what to think about Booker. Anna/Elizabeth ends up simply being a facilitating plot device, but we really don’t feel for her plight at all during or after the story. Â At the end, she ends up a pawn (as is everyone else including Booker and Comstock). In fact, because of the time paradox story negation, we really don’t care about any of the characters.
As an FYI to future writers, ending your story with infinite universe possibilities and infinite versions of your story’s main characters is the worst possible ending for a story if you want your characters to be remembered. Because you as an author should value your story’s existence above all else, negating your characters and story with a time paradox simply sucks. If you don’t value your story, why should we?
iPad, iPod, iPhone, iConsume
While all of these new Apple devices seem really great on the surface (pun intended), with no effective local storage, the design behind these devices offers no thought on creation or export of created content. However, the design clearly targets consumption of digital goods. Effectively, this is a one-way device for content. That is, content goes in but it doesn’t come back out. The question begs, however, does Apple think that we are only consumers now? We are now relegated to being just a bunch of ravenous money spending consumers? We don’t have brains in our heads or creativity or imagination? We’re just a bunch of finger pushing consumers with portable devices?
Consumerism
If there’s anything that Apple has done in recent years with these one-way devices, it’s to solidify consumerism. That is, to sell us products that are essentially one-way content input devices. Granted, it has a camera so we can take pictures or video. And yes, they may have even managed to get a video editor onto an iPad, but these apps aren’t designed for professional level editing (or even prosumer level editing). Sure, it’s fine for some random party or perhaps even a low quality wedding souvenir, but these consumer-centric devices really don’t offer much for creativity or imagination, let alone software development. It doesn’t even much offer a way to produce a spreadsheet or a word processor document. No, these platforms are almost entirely designed for consumption of digital goods (i.e., books, movies, magazines, music, web content, games, etc).
Lack of Creativity
These devices were designed to consume, not create. Consume, consume, consume and then consume some more. Yes, some creativity apps have popped up, but they’re more game than serious. They’re there to let you play when you’re bored. Even these creativity apps must be consumed before you can use them. As these are really read-only devices (no hard drive, external storage or other ways of getting things out of the device), these creativity apps really aren’t meant to be taken seriously. In other words, these apps are there to placate those who might think these are consumer focused only. In reality, these creative apps are shells of what a real creative app looks like, such as Photoshop, Illustrator, AutoCAD or Maya. Even prosumer apps like Poser and Daz Studio are still leaps and bounds better than anything that’s available on these iConsumer devices.
Computers vs iConsumers
Computers are designed as well rounded devices capable of not only consuming content, but creating it. That is, as a computer owner, you have the choice to both produce and consume content. Granted, there are a lot of people who have no intention of writing music, painting a digital work, developing an application or writing a novel. However, with a computer, you have these choices available. With iConsumer devices, you really don’t. On IOS 4 or even Android, these devices just don’t have enough resources to run these types of full sized apps. So, you won’t find a full Office suite on the Droid or an iPhone. Even something as big as the iPad still doesn’t have a productivity suite that would work in a proper or efficient way. Granted, Android likely supports Google Docs. But, even still, I don’t want to sit around all day pecking in information on a chicklet keyboard of a phone. Give me a solid full sized qwerty keyboard any day for creation.
Cloud Computing, Operating Systems and a step backwards
Apple definitely missed the ball on this one. With a device like the iPad without any local storage, the only way this device could actually create is by using cloud computing services. Unfortunately, Apple offers nothing in cloud computing. The iTunes store is a poor alternative to that. In fact, the iTunes store is just a store. It doesn’t offer online apps like Google Docs, it doesn’t offer any types of web based or cloud based services that the iPad can consume. The sole way to deal with the iPad is through apps that you must download from the store. Yes, there may be ‘an app for that’, but many times there isn’t.
The other difficulties with apps is that they don’t work together on the device. There is no app synergy. For example, NeXTStep (the operating system that gave birth to Mac OS X and later iOS4) was a brilliant design. It offered a system where any app could extend the operating system by adding new controls or features. New apps installed could then consume those controls within its own app framework (sometimes even launching the other app to do so). With iPhone OS (any version), Jobs has taken a huge step backwards in computing. No longer is this extension system available. Apps are just standalone things that don’t interact or interrelate to or with one another. Yes, now multitasking may be back, but they’re still just standalone things. About the extent of interrelation between apps is having one app launch Safari and open a URL. Wow.. so sophisticated.
Notebook and creation tools
Granted, there are a lot of people who’s sole goal is to consume. And yes, it’s probably true that most people only want to consume. The question is, though, do you want to give up the ability to create to only consume? That’s exactly what you give up when you buy into the iPad, iPod or iPhone. When these portable devices can clearly consume and create content equally well and don’t force consumers to make this choice when purchasing a device, then the device will have its true potential. Until then, I see these consumerist devices as easy ways to give your money away. For people who don’t need portable creation tools, that’s fine. For those of us who do, then a full fledge hard drive-equipped notebook is still the only portable device that fills this void.
Cloud Computing Standards
We are not where we need to be. Again, the iPad was a shortsighted rapidly-designed device. It was designed for a small singular purpose, but that purpose wasn’t long term designed. Sure, the OS is upgradeable and perhaps the device may get to that point. Perhaps not. Apple has a bad habit of releasing new devices making the old ones obsolete within months of the previously-new device. So, even if a device is truly capable of reaching its potential, Apple will have tossed it aside for a new hardware device 6-10 months later.
Clearly, cloud computing will need to establish a standard by which all cloud computing devices will operate. That means, the standards will discuss exactly how icons are managed, how apps are installed and how people will interface with the cloud apps. That doesn’t mean that different devices with different input devices can’t be created. The devices can, in fact, all be different. One computer may be keyboard and mouse based, another may be touch surface based. What the cloud standards will accomplish is a standard by which users will interact with the cloud. So, no matter what computer you are using, you will always consume the cloud apps the same way. That also means the cloud apps will always work the same no matter what interface you are using.
We are kind of there now, but the web is fractured. We currently have no idea how to find new sites easily. Searching for new sites is a nightmare. Cloud computing standards would need to reduce the nightmare of search, increase ease of use for consumers and provide standardized ways of dealing with cloud computing services. In other words, the web needs dramatic simplification.
Cloud Computing and the iPad
The iPad is the right device at the wrong time and consumers will eventually see this once a real cloud computing device hits the market. Then, the iPad will be seen as a crude toy by comparison. A true cloud computing device will offer no storage, but have a huge infrastructure of extensible interrelated apps available online. Apps similar to Google Docs, but so many more types all throughout every single app category. From games, to music, to video, to photography, to finance, to everything you can imagine. Yes, a true cloud computing device will be able to consume as freely as it can create. A cloud computing OS will install apps as links to cloud services. That is, an icon will show on the ‘desktop’, but simply launch connectivity right into the cloud.
Nothing says that you need a mouse and keyboard to create content, but you do need professional quality to produce professional content. I liken the apps on the iPad to plastic play money you buy for your kids. Effectively, they’re throw-away toy apps. They’re not there for serious computing. To fully replace the desktop with cloud computing, it will need fully secured full-featured robust content creation and consumption applications. You won’t download apps at all. In fact, you will simply turn your portable computer on and the cloud will do the rest. Of course, you might have to use a login and password and you might be required to pay a monthly fee. But, since people are already paying the $30 a month for 3G service, we’re already getting accustomed to the notion of a monthly service fee. It’s only a matter of time before we are doing all of our computing on someone else’s equipment using a portable device. For listening to music, we’ll need streaming. But, with a solid state cache drive, the device will automatically download the music and listen offline. In fact, that will be necessary. But this is all stuff that must be designed and thought out properly long before any cloud device is released. …something which Apple did not do for the iPad. What they did do, though, is create the perfect digital consumption device. That is, they produced a device that lets them nickel and dime you until your wallet hates you.
Random Thoughts - Randocity! 
leave a comment