Hypercritical

苹果战略转型 || Apple Turnaround

2025-05-21T01:43:14+00:00

过于批判

苹果的转型

我花了很多时间思考苹果应该怎样做不同的事情。我写了《苹果转型》一书，因为我的很多想法都陷入了僵局：我再也无法相信苹果会在不改变领导层的情况下做出这些改变。

当一家公司被描述为“处于转型期”时，通常意味着它需要恢复财务健康和偿债能力。上世纪90年代末的苹果正处于转型期。如今的苹果是世界上最成功的公司之一，经常报告巨额利润，因此这个术语似乎不再适用。

有一句老话：不要让好危机白白浪费。当事情变糟时，人们更容易接受以前不会考虑的改变。但完全避免危机更好。这就是苹果目前所处的境地：需要转型规模的改变，但目前并不处于那种（通常是财务）危机中，这种危机会促使其领导者做出改变。

新领导层几乎是转型的必要组成部分。一方面，这是因为财务表现不佳是少数仍能可靠追究责任的罪过之一。但另一方面，某些类型的改变需要新面孔带来的可信度。

那么，这些改变具体是什么？我认为苹果应该做些什么，但当前的领导层似乎不愿改变？需要领导层以何种程度的参与和理解才能实现这些改变？

为开发者的新协议

苹果与开发者的关系是其长期成功的关键。苹果无法独自完成所有事情。它需要第三方开发者来扩展其产品和平台的功能。开发者使苹果的产品更具价值。

苹果需要第三方开发者创造的东西，但还需要另一样东西：他们的信任和热情。2007年iPhone发布时（不支持第三方应用），苹果的开发者社区充满热情，渴望开发自己的iPhone应用。他们渴望得如此强烈，以至于在苹果2008年宣布iPhone SDK之前，就通过破解技术取得了成功。这种热情帮助苹果平台迅速达到了如今令人难以置信的成功高度。iPhone曾是一股上升的潮流，提升了所有船只的水位——至少在最初是这样。

如今，开发者对与苹果的关系感到不满。有很多理性的理由说明他们“不应该”满意，但正如我在《可能性的艺术》中所论证的，这些都无法改变现实情况。

苹果现任领导层能否改变某些政策来扭转局面？也许可以，但要赢回已失去的东西将是一场艰难的斗争。多年来，苹果拒绝采取任何措施来弥合这一分歧。即使法院要求其在这一领域做出改变，苹果也努力确保其“遵守”这些裁决对开发者来说改善效果最小。与此同时，苹果尽其所能（甚至超出）去抵制这些改变。

因此，对于苹果来说，说服开发者它已经改变了作风将非常困难，即使它想这么做。（而且，到目前为止，它显然不想这么做。）新领导层将拥有更有说服力的故事和更强烈的变革授权。

在思考这些改变可能是什么时，人们可能会认为这仅仅是改变开发者和苹果之间的收入分成比例。但金钱并不是问题的核心。看看苹果在2020年将App Store的佣金率从30%降至15%后，开发者情绪并未明显改善。

开发者喜欢金钱，但真正需要的是尊重。他们需要的是苹果倾听他们的声音并理解他们的体验。他们需要的是能够自主决定其产品和业务。

要理解仅靠App Store佣金率对修复这一关系有多大的作用，可以考虑苹果即使保持佣金率不变，也能扭转开发者情绪。也许像这样……

首先，将App审核从卡夫卡式的噩梦转变为一个理性、有效、支持性的流程，其中苹果和开发者合作成功发布软件。这意味着苹果内部有可识别的人类实体，能够及时、双向地沟通，并且能够说服开发者他们已阅读并理解了信息，同时被授权帮助解决问题。

其次，创建一个公开的漏洞跟踪器（允许开发者选择保留部分信息或整个漏洞报告的隐私，以确保专有信息不被泄露）。尽可能公开地开发苹果自己的软件。公布平均的漏洞响应时间和修复时间，并将这些数字维持在开发者满意的水平。

最后，取消所有对第三方支付方式和应用商店的限制。为第三方应用商店和支付系统提供一个公平的竞争环境（在可能的范围内）。选择的自由是确保开发者对苹果App Store分成、应用内购买系统和应用审核流程满意的最佳方式（也许是唯一方式）。不喜欢这些的开发者可以去其他地方。如果苹果想让他们回来，就必须为他们的业务竞争。

如果苹果能够很好地做到这些，它就可以维持当前的App Store分成，同时满足开发者。

最终，细节并不比选择正确的成功衡量方式更重要。当第三方开发者感觉苹果是他们的成功伙伴，而不是对手或统治者时，苹果就知道它已经成功了。

为高端价格提供高端体验

要以高价格维持客户满意度，最好的方式是培养一种始终如一支持产品的声誉。如今的苹果在这方面其实表现得相当不错。其硬件大多坚固可靠，支持体验在业内可能属于最佳之一（尽管这可能是一个相当低的标准）。

但有一个领域，苹果远未达到其理想状态：软件可靠性。高端品牌在产品按预期运行时会积累巨大的客户忠诚度。对于软件来说，实现这一目标需要不懈地追踪漏洞，直到剩下的漏洞如此罕见，以至于大多数人从未见过。

虽然对于从未在软件行业工作过的人来说，这可能并不明显，但其实这是一个领导层的问题。在创造新功能和确保现有功能正确运行（并逐步改进）之间找到正确的平衡，需要致力于这一战略的领导层。

这个行业中的几乎所有事物都会促使领导层朝相反方向发展。新功能推动销售。当有热门的新技术时，公司需要展示其能够使用它，否则就会被甩在后面。这些都是良好的、重要的动机——这也是为什么领导层很难成功地维护那些远不那么光鲜的实践，即修复漏洞和增强现有功能。

但维护是必须的。添加功能赢得游戏，但修复漏洞赢得冠军。

自从苹果现任领导层上一次展示出愿意以牺牲新功能为代价强调软件可靠性以来，已经过去了15年。从那时起，主要功能中的漏洞被允许长期存在，未被修复。

最近的苹果智能系统丑闻表明，苹果离正确优先考虑软件可靠性比以往任何时候都更远。苹果似乎愿意牺牲一切，包括自己的声誉，以确保在WWDC上宣布足够的新AI功能。如果我们想要不同的结果，似乎需要不同的领导层。

艰难的扩张之路

随着iPhone销量趋于饱和，苹果转向服务收入以维持增长。不幸的是，向现有客户销售越来越多的服务本质上会损害导致苹果巨大成功的根本理念。史蒂夫·乔布斯曾这样描述前苹果CEO约翰·斯库利的错误：

“我的激情是建立一家持久的公司，让员工有动力创造伟大的产品。产品，而不是利润，才是动力。斯库利将这些优先级颠倒了，目标变成了赚钱。这是一个细微的差别，但最终意味着一切。” ―史蒂夫·乔布斯

在iOS设置中的每一个红色徽章、每一个弹窗邀请订阅Apple TV+、每一个价值数十亿美元的产品植入广告，苹果都在以收入增长为代价侵蚀客户体验。

将财务成功置于一切之上的追求最终必然导致衰败。过去，蒂姆·库克曾展示出他对此的理解。但到目前为止，他对服务收入增长的承诺坚定不移。他要么不认为这与苹果的核心价值观相悖，要么愿意以牺牲这些价值观为代价换取增长。

苹果的新领导层无疑会面临类似的继续增长压力。如果服务收入增长不在考虑范围内，还有哪些选择？

有普遍共识认为，iPhone销量已经趋于平稳，因为苹果“已经没有更多人”了。几乎每个能负担智能手机的人已经拥有了一部。但并非所有人都拥有iPhone。安卓手机在全球市场份额中仍占主导地位。

如果苹果想要增长，它应该尝试用传统方式赢得一些新客户：制造更多人想要购买的产品。在这种情况下，意味着制造当前安卓用户想要购买且能负担得起的iPhone。

历史上，向下市场发展一直是苹果的禁忌。苹果的定价是重要的市场信号，传达产品品质和吸引力。假设苹果能与低端安卓手机竞争是不现实的。但同样荒谬的是，认为当前安卓（约70%）和苹果（约30%）的市场份额线是不可动摇的。每年都有数百万部“iPhone级别”（iPhone定价）的安卓手机被销售。苹果应该并可以竞争这部分业务。

未来之日

这些建议并不全面。一份完整的苹果应做的事情清单将包括在AI方面整顿内部事务、减少对中国的依赖、实现2030年的环境目标、重新打造一款出色的Mac Pro，以及数以百万计的其他事情，其中大部分苹果在目前的状态下都可以完成。

本文特别关注的是苹果似乎在没有新领导层的情况下无法或不愿做的事情。我已经描述了其中最重要的三点，但还有更多。这就是政权更迭的承诺和危险。新的人有希望超越过去的错误，做出新的选择。他们也可能犯新的错误，并有自己的优势和弱点。没有完美的领导。

例如，如果我必须选择一个人来成功地将苹果从目前对中国的依赖中转移出去，那会是蒂姆·库克。但这项工作需要更多年，而库克表示他可能不会在十年末之前继续担任苹果的职位。

无论何时找到蒂姆·库克的合适继任者都不会容易。但必须找到，而且越早越好。

我希望我错了。我希望苹果现任领导层能够认真审视这些长期存在的问题，并勇敢地改变他们的想法。失去的信任可以通过努力恢复。无论如何，我一如既往地支持苹果的成功。

---------------

Hypercritical

Apple Turnaround

I spend a lot of time thinking about what Apple should be doing differently. I wrote Apple Turnover because so many of my notions kept running into a dead end: I could no longer bring myself to believe Apple would do these things without a change in leadership.

When a company is described as being “in turnaround,” that usually means it needs to be restored to financial health and solvency. Apple in the late 1990s was in turnaround. Apple today is one of the most successful companies in the history of the world, regularly reporting huge profits, so the term may seem inapplicable.

There’s an old adage: never let a good crisis go to waste. When things get bad, people are more open to changes they previously wouldn’t consider. But avoiding a crisis entirely is even better. This is where Apple finds itself today: in need of turnaround-scale changes, but not currently in the kind of (usually financial) crisis that will motivate its leaders to make them.

New leadership is almost always part of a turnaround. In part, that’s because poor financial performance is one of the few remaining sins for which CEOs are reliably held to account. But it’s also because certain kinds of changes need the credibility that only new faces can bring.

So what are those changes? What are the things I think Apple should do, but that its current leadership seems unwilling to budge on? What changes require a level of engagement and understanding that Apple no longer seems to have?

A New Deal for Developers

Apple’s relationship with developers is an essential part of its long-term success. Apple cannot do everything on its own. It needs third-party developers to expand the capabilities of its products and platforms. Developers make Apple’s products more valuable.

Apple needs the things third-party developers produce, but it also needs something else: their trust and enthusiasm. When the iPhone was introduced in 2007—without support for third-party apps—Apple’s developer community was on fire with the desire to create their own iPhone apps. They wanted it so badly that they hacked their way to success even before Apple announced the iPhone SDK in 2008. This passion from developers helped rocket the platform to its current astronomical level of success. The iPhone was a rising tide that lifted all boats—at the start, anyway.

Today, developers are unsatisfied with their relationship with Apple. There are plenty of rational arguments for why they “shouldn’t” be, but as I argued in The Art of the Possible, none of that changes the facts on the ground.

Could Apple’s current leadership change some policies to turn this around? Maybe, but it would be an uphill climb to win back what has been lost. For years, Apple has refused to do what it takes to heal this divide. Even when ordered by the courts to make changes in this area, Apple has worked hard to ensure that its “compliance” with these rulings does as little as possible to make things better for developers. And all the while, Apple has done everything in its power (and some things beyond) to fight the changes.

So, yeah, it would be very hard for that Apple to convince developers that it has turned over a new leaf, even if it wanted to. (And, thus far, it very much does not want to.) New leadership would have a more convincing story and a stronger mandate for change.

When thinking about what those changes might be, it’s tempting to believe it would be as simple as altering the revenue split between developers and Apple. But money is not actually the heart of the matter. Witness how developer sentiment did not appreciably improve when Apple lowered its App Store commission from 30% to 15% in 2020 for businesses earning less than $1 million per year.

Developers like money, but what they need is respect. What they need is to feel like Apple listens to them and understands their experience. What they need is to be able to make their own decisions about their products and businesses.

To understand just how little power the App Store commission rate alone has to heal this relationship, consider how Apple might leave the rate unchanged and still turn developer sentiment around. Maybe something like this…

Start by changing App Review from a Kafkaesque nightmare to a sane, functioning, supportive process in which Apple and developers work together to successfully release software. That means timely, two-way communication with recognizably human entities at Apple. App reviewers should be able to convince developers that they have both read and understood their messages, and they should be empowered to help solve problems.

Next, create a public bug tracker (with an option for developers to keep some information or entire bug reports private to ensure proprietary information is not exposed). Develop Apple’s own software “in the open” as much as possible. Publish average response times and fix times for bugs, and maintain those numbers at levels that satisfy developers.

Finally, remove all restrictions on third-party payment methods and app stores. Provide an even playing field (to the extent possible) for third-party replacements for Apple’s own store and payment systems. Freedom of choice is the best way—perhaps the only way—to ensure that developers are satisfied with Apple’s App Store commission, in-app purchase system, and app review process. Developers who don’t like it can go elsewhere. If Apple wants them back, it will have to compete for their business.

An Apple that does all of this well could maintain its current App Store commission while also satisfying its developers.

In the end, the details don’t matter as much as choosing the correct way to measure success. Apple will know it has succeeded when third-party developers feel like Apple is their partner in success, rather than their adversary or overlord.

A Premium Experience for Premium Prices

One of the best ways to command high prices while maintaining customer satisfaction is to cultivate a reputation for standing behind your products. Apple today is actually pretty good at this. Its hardware is mostly sturdy and reliable, and its support experience is arguably among the best in the industry (even if that is an admittedly low bar).

But there’s one area where Apple falls far short of its ideals: software reliability. Premium brands accrue tremendous customer loyalty when their products work as expected. When it comes to software, achieving this goal requires the relentless pursuit of bugs until the ones that remain are so uncommon that most people never see them.

Though it might not be obvious to people who have never worked in the software industry, this is actually a leadership issue. Striking the correct balance between creating new features and ensuring that existing features work correctly (and gradually improve) requires leadership dedicated to this strategy.

Nearly everything in this industry will push leaders in the opposite direction. New features drive sales. When there’s a hot new technology, companies need to show that they’re able to use it, lest they get left behind. These are all good, important motivators—which is why it’s so incredibly hard for leaders to successfully defend the far less glamorous practices of fixing bugs and enhancing existing features.

But defend they must. Adding features wins games, but bug fixing wins championships.

It’s been 15 years since Apple’s leadership last demonstrated that it’s willing to emphasize software reliability at the cost of new features. Since then, bugs in major features have been allowed to fester, unfixed, for years on end.

The recent Apple Intelligence fiasco has revealed that the company is further away from properly prioritizing software reliability than it has ever been. Apple was seemingly willing to sacrifice everything, including its own reputation, to ensure that it had enough new AI features to announce at WWDC. If we want a different result, it seems like we need different leaders.

Growth the Hard Way

As iPhone sales have plateaued, Apple has turned to services revenue to maintain its growth. Unfortunately, selling more and more services to your existing customers is inherently corrosive to the core philosophy that has led to Apple’s tremendous success. Here’s Steve Jobs describing where former Apple CEO John Sculley went wrong:

“My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products. The products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It’s a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything.” ―Steve Jobs

With every red badge in iOS Settings, every pop-up come-on to subscribe to Apple TV+, and every multi-billion-dollar product placement deal, Apple chips away at the customer experience in exchange for income growth.

The pursuit of financial success above all else inevitably leads to ruin. In the past, Tim Cook has demonstrated that he does understand this. But thus far, his dedication to services revenue growth has been unshakable. He either doesn’t agree that this runs counter to Apple’s core values, or he’s willing to undermine those values in exchange for growth.

New leadership at Apple will surely face similar pressure to continue growing. If pursuing services revenue is off the table, what options remain?

It’s conventional wisdom that iPhone sales have leveled off now that Apple has “run out of people.” Nearly every human who can afford a smartphone already has one. But they don’t all have iPhones. Android phones still dominate in worldwide market share.

If Apple wants growth, it should try winning some new customers the old-fashioned way: by making products that more people want to buy. In this case, that means making iPhones that current Android customers want to buy…and can afford.

Historically, going down-market has been anathema to Apple. Apple’s pricing is an important market signal that communicates product quality and desirability. It’s unrealistic to assume that Apple can compete with the lowest of the low-end Android phones. But it’s equally absurd to believe that the current market share line between Android (~70%) and Apple (~30%) is unmovable. Millions of “iPhone-class” (and iPhone-priced) Android phones are sold every year. Apple can and should compete for that business.

Future Days

This list of suggestions is not exhaustive. An inventory of all the things Apple should do would include getting its house in order when it comes to AI, reducing its dependence on China, hitting its 2030 environmental goals, making a decent Mac Pro again, and a million other things, most of which Apple can accomplish as it exists today.

This article is specifically about the things it seems like Apple can’t or won’t do without new leadership. I’ve described three of the most important and impactful, but there’s more. That’s the promise and the danger of regime change. New people have a chance to rise above the sins of the past and make new choices. They can also make new mistakes, and they’ll have their own strengths and weaknesses. There is no such thing as a perfect leader.

For example, if I had to pick one person to successfully transition Apple away from its current level of dependence on China, it would be Tim Cook. But that job will take many more years, and Cook has said he probably won’t be at Apple much past the end of the decade.

Finding a good successor for Tim Cook won’t be easy, no matter when it happens. But it does have to happen, and sooner is better than later.

I hope I’m wrong about all this. I hope Apple’s current leaders take a hard look at some of these longstanding issues and are brave enough to change their minds. Faith lost can be restored, with effort. Either way, as always, I’m pulling for Apple to succeed.

苹果挞 || Apple Turnover

2025-05-09T17:46:32+00:00

苛刻的苹果扭亏为盈某些年龄层的Mac用户可能还记得Ambrosia Software，这家软件公司曾推出过标志性的共享软件杰作，如Maelstrom和Escape Velocity。在过去的十多年里，Ambrosia网站的首页都包含着这句引言： “美德并非来自金钱，而是美德带来金钱，以及所有其他对人类有益的事物。” ——苏格拉底换句话说，不要试图赚钱。要努力创造伟大的事物，金钱自然会随之而来。这是一种简单易懂的策略，但对任何公司来说几乎都难以遵循。高管层会试图告诉你，这两个目标是完全一致的——创造伟大的产品是成为盈利公司的组成部分。但他们表达的方式就如同把Frosted Flakes视为完整早餐的一部分。确实，麦片在餐桌上，当然还有牛奶、水煮蛋、果酱吐司和水果。结果发现，对于大公司而言，这幅图景中的一部分其实相当可有可无。从美德带来金钱，以及所有其他对人类有益的事物。每当我想到苹果时，这个想法就会萦绕在我的脑海中。这是最简洁的解释，说明了苹果如何从1990年代濒临破产的边缘走向如今的辉煌成功。不要试图赚钱。尝试在宇宙中留下印记。做到这一点，金钱自然会自行解决。转啊，转啊，转啊苹果最狂热的粉丝对其的不满，在不同时期曾达到高潮，包括公开要求更换领导层。引发这些事件的原因可能严重到苹果屈服于专制政权的压力，也可能微小到发布一款令人不满的新应用程序或操作系统版本。尽管我靠批评苹果谋生，但我通常不会陷入当前的争议中。当苹果毁掉了其笔记本电脑键盘时，我并没有要求蒂姆·库克下台。我只是希望他们能修复键盘。而他们最终做到了。但成功隐藏了问题，即使是最好的公司也可能迷失方向。凡事都有其季节。在我看来，苹果领导层唯一真正的致命罪过就是忽视了产品美德与财务成功之间的正确关系——不仅只是暂时的，而是从根本上、顽固地、多年以来都如此。令人遗憾的是，我认为这已经发生了。证据的压倒性是不容置疑的。在太多方式、太多年份里，苹果做出的决策并未使其产品变得更好，而这一切都是为了控制、杠杆、保护、利润——一切为了金钱。需要澄清的是，我不指的是像在Mac上对RAM和SSD升级收取高昂价格，或在App Store中对应用内购买收取过高的比例。这些只是轻微的罪过。真正令人担忧的是那些似乎不可动摇的核心信念，这些信念促使苹果做出与美德循环相悖的决策，而这种美德循环曾帮助苹果摆脱了多年前的黑暗时期。苹果，正如其过去十年或更长时间领导层的决策所体现的，似乎不再主要致力于创造伟大的产品。一次次的政策使苹果的产品对客户变得更差，以换取更多的权力、控制和，是的，金钱。当人们可以在Kindle应用内购买电子书时，iPhone会成为更好的产品。然而，苹果在过去14年里一直反对这一功能，耗费数百万美元的法律费用，直到最近法院下令才让步（他们仍在上诉）。在苹果强制规定的应用销售、支付处理、客户服务和软件商业模式等领域缺乏竞争的情况下，苹果在这些领域的独家产品已停滞多年。本应激励苹果改进的动机——创造伟大的产品——似乎已消失。而本不应激励苹果的动机——对权力、控制和利润的追求——却似乎无处不在。我不是指在小方面如此；我是指在大方面如此。我们对苹果在这些决策上的内部讨论了解得越多，就越能证实苹果已经失去了其指引方向的北极星。或者说，它已经用一颗新的、黑暗的星取代了它。而一次次的了解都表明，这些决策一直上升到最高层。最好的领导者能够根据新信息改变主意。最好的领导者能够被说服。但经历了数十年的斗争、诉讼和监管，苹果却在每一个转折点上更加固执己见。很明显，只有一条路能带来不同的结果。在每一个健康的实体中，无论是组织、机构还是生物体，旧事物都会被新事物取代：首席执行官、统治者或细胞。现在是时候为苹果带来新的领导了。我们目前所走的道路不会为苹果或其客户带来任何好的结果。春天来了，我选择相信新的生机。我发誓，这还为时不晚。更多关于此主题的内容，请参阅后续文章：苹果的转型 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

Apple Turnover

Mac users of a certain age may remember Ambrosia Software, maker of iconic shareware hits like Maelstrom and Escape Velocity. For over a decade, the Ambrosia website included this quotation on its homepage:

“Virtue does not come from money, but rather from virtue comes money, and all other things good to man.” ―Socrates

In other words, don’t try to make money. Try to make great things, and the money will surely follow. It’s a strategy that’s simple to explain, but almost impossible for any company to follow.

Folks in the C-suite will try to tell you that these two goals are perfectly aligned—that making great products is part of being a profitable company. But they mean it in the same way that Frosted Flakes is part of a complete breakfast. It’s on the table, sure…along with a glass of milk, a poached egg, toast with jam, and a piece of fruit. It turns out that, as far as big corporations are concerned, one part of this spread is actually kind of optional.

From virtue comes money, and all other good things. This idea rings in my head whenever I think about Apple. It’s the most succinct explanation of what pulled Apple from the brink of bankruptcy in the 1990s to its astronomical success today. Don’t try to make money. Try to make a dent in the universe. Do that, and the money will take care of itself.

Turn, Turn, Turn

Dissatisfaction with Apple among its most ardent fans has, at various times, reached a crescendo that has included public demands for a change in leadership. The precipitating events could be as serious as Apple bowing to pressure from an authoritarian regime, or as trivial as releasing an unsatisfying new version of an application or operating system.

Despite making my living by criticizing Apple, I tend not to get caught up in the controversy of the moment. When Apple ruined its laptop keyboards, I wasn’t calling for Tim Cook’s head. I just wanted them to fix the keyboards. And they did (eventually).

But success hides problems, and even the best company can lose its way. To everything, there is a season.

As far as I’m concerned, the only truly mortal sin for Apple’s leadership is losing sight of the proper relationship between product virtue and financial success—and not just momentarily, but constitutionally, intransigently, for years. Sadly, I believe this has happened.

The preponderance of the evidence is undeniable. Too many times, in too many ways, over too many years, Apple has made decisions that do not make its products better, all in service of control, leverage, protection, profits—all in service of money.

To be clear, I don’t mean things like charging exorbitant prices for RAM and SSD upgrades on Macs or taking too high a percentage of in-app purchases in the App Store. Those are venial sins. It’s the apparently unshakable core beliefs that motivate these and other poor decisions that run counter to the virtuous cycle that led Apple out of the darkness all those years ago.

Apple, as embodied by its leadership’s decisions over the past decade or more, no longer seems primarily motivated by the creation of great products. Time and time again, its policies have made its products worse for customers in exchange for more power, control, and, yes, money for Apple.

The iPhone is a better product when people can buy ebooks within the Kindle app. And yet Apple has fought this feature for the past fourteen years, to the tune of millions of dollars in legal fees, and has only relented due to a recent court order (which they continue to appeal).

In the (Apple-mandated) absence of competition in the realms of app sales, payment processing, customer service, and software business models, Apple’s exclusive offerings in these areas have stagnated for years. What should be motivating Apple to make improvements—the desire to make great products—seems absent. What should not be motivating Apple—the desire for power, control, and profits—seems omnipresent.

And I don’t mean that in a small way; I mean that in a big way. Every new thing we learn about Apple’s internal deliberations surrounding these decisions only lends more weight to the conclusion that Apple has lost its north star. Or, rather, it has replaced it with a new, dark star. And time and again, we’ve learned that these decisions go all the way to the top.

The best leaders can change their minds in response to new information. The best leaders can be persuaded. But we’ve had decades of strife, lawsuits, and regulations, and Apple has stubbornly dug in its heels even further at every turn. It seems clear that there’s only one way to get a different result.

In every healthy entity, whether it’s an organization, an institution, or an organism, the old is replaced by the new: CEOs, sovereigns, or cells. It’s time for new leadership at Apple. The road we’re on now does not lead anywhere good for Apple or its customers. It’s springtime, and I’m choosing to believe in new life. I swear it’s not too late.

For more on this topic, see the follow-up article: Apple Turnaround

超空间简报 || Hyperspace Update

2025-05-01T15:43:30+00:00

超批判超空间更新两个月前，我推出了Hyperspace，一款可在不删除文件的情况下回收磁盘空间的Mac应用程序。1.0版本的功能集有意非常保守。正如我在发布帖子中所写的，Hyperspace会修改它并未创建且不拥有文件的文件。这本身就是一个固有的风险。 Hyperspace的第一个版本通过完全避开某些文件和文件系统位置来缓解这些风险。我知道解除这些限制会是潜在客户常见的请求。我的计划是先以最安全的功能集发布1.0版本，然后逐步扩展应用程序的功能，直到所有这些有意设置的1.0限制都被解除。本周早些时候，随着Hyperspace 1.3的发布，我实现了这一目标。以下是克服1.0版本三大功能限制的时间线： 1.0：2025年2月24日 - 发布 1.1：2025年3月14日 - 包 1.2：2025年4月3日 - 云存储 1.3：2025年4月28日 - 库以下是这些限制的解释，为什么它们存在，以及克服它们所需的步骤。包 “包”是一个被呈现为文件的目录。例如，由TextEdit创建的.rtfd文档（即“带附件的富文本文档”）实际上是一个包含.rtffile和任何附件（如文档中的图片）的目录。Finder会将此.rtfd目录显示和处理为一个单独的文件。为了使包正常工作，其所有内容都必须保持完整。Hyperspace努力处理和恢复各种错误，但在极少数需要手动干预的情况下，要求用户修复包内的问题并不理想。由于包看起来像单个文件，大多数人并不习惯打开它们并查看其内部结构。这可能看起来有些晦涩，但有一些包类型被广泛使用，且通常包含大量数据。让我们从最大的开始：Apple的照片库是包的一种。iMovie库、某些Logic项目也是如此。这些包在潜在空间节省方面都是Hyperspace的理想目标。但它们也常常包含用户最珍贵的数据。总的来说，包内的文件不需要以不同于“正常”文件的方式处理。解除这一限制的延迟是为了让应用程序先成熟一些。尽管我拥有大量测试用户，但没有比真实用户使用更能发现错误和边缘情况的了。经过五个1.0.x版本的发布后，我终于对Hyperspace的基本功能足够有信心，允许访问包。然而，我谨慎地添加了启用包访问的设置，但默认情况下保持关闭。我还为扫描包内部和回收包内的文件提供了单独的设置。启用扫描但不启用回收，使得包内的文件可以作为“源文件”使用，这些文件永远不会被修改。最后，macOS需要特殊的权限才能访问照片库，因此还有一个单独的设置。哦，还有一个Hyperspace目前仍然忽略的常见包类型：应用程序（即.app包）。应用程序包的内容受苹果代码签名系统的约束，对更改非常敏感。我可能有一天会处理应用程序，但目前这并不是常见的客户请求。云存储任何受苹果“文件提供者”系统控制的文件都被视为由云存储支持。过去，iCloud Drive是唯一的例子。如今，第三方服务也使用苹果的文件提供者系统。例如，Microsoft OneDrive、Google Drive以及某些版本的Dropbox。在访问特定文件时，Hyperspace与其他进程之间总是存在竞争的潜在可能。但在云存储的情况下，我们知道有其他进程正在密切关注每一个由云支持的文件。Hyperspace必须小心行事。此外，由云存储支持的文件可能并未完全下载到本地磁盘，即使下载了，也可能不是最新的。与包内的文件不同，由云存储支持的文件不仅仅是普通的文件。它们需要使用不同的API进行特殊处理。在确定了“正常”文件处理，包括包内的文件之后，我准备开始处理云存储。最终，没有出现重大问题。苹果处理云支持文件的API似乎大多能正常工作，只有一些小问题。如果Hyperspace无法从这些API获得明确的确认，表明某个文件是回收的合适候选，它会谨慎地跳过该文件，而不是进行回收。库在Mac OS X的早期，有关用户在他们的主目录中发现名为“Library”的文件夹，并决定不需要它或其内容，然后将其移到废纸篓的悲剧喜剧故事。如今，macOS默认隐藏该文件夹，这是有充分理由的。其内容对您的Mac的正常运行至关重要！同样，启动卷顶部的“Library”目录也是如此。 Hyperspace之所以长期避免访问Library文件夹，是因为其内容非常重要，而且这些内容更新频率出人意料地高。与包类似，我需要在确保Hyperspace基本功能可靠之前，才决定对Library文件夹进行处理。这个功能是最后添加的，因为其他两个功能更受用户期待。通常，Library访问是通过一个设置来启用的，默认情况下是关闭的。由于Library文件夹存在高度竞争的可能性（运行中的应用程序不断与其内部文件进行交互），这可能是三个主要功能中最危险的一个，这也是我将其留到最后的原因。如果不是因为Library文件夹是意外空间节省的丰富来源，我可能根本不会添加这个功能。未来还有更多内容即将推出，包括用户界面改进，以及尝试克服沙盒机制的一些限制，可能允许Hyperspace在多个用户账户之间回收空间。（最后一个目标有点“挑战性”，但我以前做过类似的事情。）如果您想了解更多Hyperspace的工作原理，请阅读详尽的文档。如果您有兴趣参与Hyperspace未来版本的测试，请发送电子邮件给我。在某些方面，Hyperspace 1.3是我最初设想的版本。但软件开发从不是一条直线。它更像是一片森林。就像森林一样，很容易迷失方向。以更有限的1.0版本发布导致了一些愤怒的评论和Mac App Store中的低评分，但它使应用程序从第一天起就更加安全，并最终对所有用户，包括未来用户，都更好。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

Hyperspace Update

Two months ago, I launched Hyperspace, a Mac app for reclaiming disk space without removing files. The feature set of version 1.0 was intentionally very conservative. As I wrote in my launch post, Hyperspace modifies files that it did not create and does not own. This is an inherently risky proposition.

The first release of Hyperspace mitigated these risks, in part, by entirely avoiding certain files and file system locations. I knew lifting these limitations would be a common request from potential customers. My plan was to launch 1.0 with the safest possible feature set, then slowly expand the app’s capabilities until all these intentional 1.0 limitations were gone.

With the release of Hyperspace 1.3 earlier this week, I have accomplished that goal. Here’s the timeline for overcoming the three major 1.0 feature limitations:

1.0: February 24, 2025 - Launch

1.1: March 14, 2025 - Packages

1.2: April 3, 2025 - Cloud storage

1.3: April 28, 2025 - Libraries

Here’s an explanation of those limitations, why they existed, and what it took to overcome them.

Packages

A “package” is a directory that is presented to the user as a file. For example, an .rtfd document (a “Rich Text Document With Attachments”) created by TextEdit is actually a directory that contains an .rtf file plus any attachments (e.g., images included in the document). The Finder displays and handles this .rtfd directory as if it were a single file.

For a package to work, all its contents must be intact. Hyperspace works hard to handle and recover from all sorts of errors, but in the rare case that manual intervention is required, asking the user to fix a problem within a package is undesirable. Since packages appear as single files, most people are not accustomed to cracking them open and poking around in their guts.

This may all seem esoteric, but there are some kinds of packages that are widely used and often contain vast amounts of data. Let’s start with the big one: Apple Photos libraries are packages. So are iMovie libraries, some Logic projects, and so on. These packages are all ideal targets for Hyperspace in terms of potential space savings. But they also often contain some of people’s most precious data.

For the most part, files within packages don’t need to be treated any differently than “normal” files. The delay in lifting this limitation was to allow the app to mature a bit first. Though I had a very large set of beta testers, there’s nothing like real customer usage to find bugs and edge cases. After five 1.0.x releases, I finally felt confident enough in Hyperspace’s basic functionality to allow access to packages.

I did so cautiously, however, by adding settings to enable package access, but leaving them turned off by default. I also provided separate settings for scanning inside packages and reclaiming files within packages. Enabling scanning but not reclamation within packages allows files within packages to be used as “source files”, which are never modified.

Finally, macOS requires special permissions for accessing Photos libraries, so there’s a separate setting for that as well.

Oh, and there’s one more common package type that Hyperspace still ignores: applications (i.e., .app packages). The contents of app packages are subject to Apple’s code signing system and are very sensitive to changes. I still might tackle apps someday, but it hasn’t been a common customer request.

Cloud Storage

Any file under the control of Apple’s “file provider” system is considered to be backed by cloud storage. In the past, iCloud Drive was the only example. Today, third-party services also use Apple’s file provider system. Examples include Microsoft OneDrive, Google Drive, and some versions of Dropbox.

There’s always the potential for competition between Hyperspace and other processes when accessing a given file. But in the case of cloud storage, we know there’s some other process that has its eye on every cloud-backed file. Hyperspace must tread lightly. Also, files backed by cloud storage might not actually be fully downloaded to the local disk. And even if they are, they might not be up-to-date.

Unlike files within packages, files backed by cloud storage are not just like other files. They require special treatment using different APIs. After nailing down “normal” file handling, including files within packages, I was ready to tackle cloud storage.

In the end, there were no major problems. Apple’s APIs for wrangling cloud-backed files mostly seem to work, with only a few oddities. And if Hyperspace can’t get an affirmative assurance from those APIs that a file is a valid candidate for reclamation, it will err on the side of caution and skip the file instead.

Libraries

In the early years of Mac OS X, there were tragicomic tales of users finding a folder named “Library” in their home directory and deciding they didn’t need it or its contents, then moving them to the Trash. Today, macOS hides that folder by default—for good reason. Its contents are essential for the correct functionality of your Mac! The same goes for the “Library” directory at the top level of the boot volume.

Hyperspace avoided Library folders for so long because their contents are so important, and because those contents are updated with surprising frequency. As with packages, it was important for me to have confidence in the basic functionality of Hyperspace before I declared open season on Library folders.

This capability was added last because the other two were more highly requested. As usual, Library access is enabled with a setting, which is off by default. Due to the high potential for contention (running apps are constantly fiddling with their files within the Library folder), this is probably the riskiest of the three major features, which is another reason I saved it for last. I might not have added it at all, if not for the fact that Library folders are a surprisingly rich source for space savings.

The Future

There’s more to come, including user interface improvements and an attempt to overcome some of the limitations of sandboxing, potentially allowing Hyperspace to reclaim space across more than one user account. (That last one is a bit of a “stretch goal”, but I’ve done it before.)

If you want to know more about how Hyperspace works, please read the extensive documentation. If you're interested in beta testing future versions of Hyperspace, email me.

In some ways, Hyperspace version 1.3 is what I originally envisioned when I started the project. But software development is never a straight line. It’s a forest. And like a forest it’s easy to lose your way. Launching with a more limited version 1.0 led to some angry reviews and low ratings in the Mac App Store, but it made the app safer from day one, and ultimately better for every user, now and in the future.

爱、死亡与机器人 || Love, Death & Robots

2025-04-10T16:43:26+00:00

爱、死亡与机器人是Netflix上的动画合集系列。每一集都是独立的故事，尽管在形式上有一些跨季的微弱连续性，比如一集会引入过去某一季中出现的角色。我喜欢动画，但出于几个原因，我犹豫是否推荐爱、死亡与机器人给普通观众。首先，这部剧不适合儿童观看。它包含大量暴力、血腥、露骨和性内容。这并不是大多数人期待的动画内容。其次，作品质量参差不齐。我并不是指动画制作的质量，因为通常都很出色。而是指它们作为故事的表现力。每集只有十分钟到十五分钟的时长，必须在短时间内介绍角色、设定（通常是科幻题材）并讲述一个令人满意的故事。这是一种具有挑战性的格式。自2019年以来，已经发布了三季的爱、死亡与机器人。随着第四季将于五月首播，我想尝试说服更多人去尝试这部剧。这是一个罕见的情况，我不推荐从第一季第一集开始按顺序观看。那些质量不高的剧集肯定会让大多数人却步。相反，我会告诉你哪些是真正值得一看的佳作。以下是我在第一季到第三季中选出的最佳剧集列表。它们都是独立故事，因此可以按任意顺序观看，但（保持系列一贯的风格）我仍然建议按以下顺序观看。最后再提醒一次：虽然并非每一集都充满血腥和暴力，但大多数都包含这些元素，有时甚至包括性暴力。如果你不想看到这些内容，我仍然建议观看那些避免这些元素的几集。请记住，每一集都是独立故事，即使只看一集也是可以的。《Sonnie’s Edge》（第一季第一集）——这是系列的完美入门剧集。它阴郁、暴力、血腥，动画制作精美，但又带有一些意想不到的情感共鸣。《Three Robots》（第一季第二集）——这个故事中引入的角色已成为该系列的非官方吉祥物。你将会再次看到他们。这一集轻松可爱，但背景设定却显得格外阴森。《Good Hunting》（第一季第八集）——是的，传统的二维动画仍然存在！但不要期待迪士尼风格的作品。这个故事融合了奇幻、神话、科幻、性、爱情、死亡以及……至少还有仿生人。《Lucky 13》（第一季第十三集）——如果你喜欢《异形》和《明日之后》这类科幻动作片，那么这一集就是为你准备的。正如该系列一贯的风格，这里还加入了一些脑洞大开和情感丰富的元素。《Zima Blue》（第一季第十四集）——这是我认为系列中最好的一集，但它是相当奇怪的一集。我确信有些人会觉得它完全不讨喜，但对我而言却很吸引人。这一集中没有任何暴力、性或血腥内容，只有简单的一个想法被巧妙地呈现出来。《沙漠中的雪》（第二季第四集）——这一集包含了整部电影般的故事量，包括一些不错的世界观构建和大量熟悉的主题与情节。虽然没有出人意料的元素，但制作水平非常高。《Three Robots: Exit Strategies》（第三季第一集）——我们可爱的朋友机器人再次登场，这次还带上了更多黑色幽默。《Bad Travelling》（第三季第二集）——在海上展开的洛夫克拉夫特式恐怖。它极其黑暗且令人作呕。《The Very Pulse of the Machine》（第三季第三集）——我想我最喜欢那些略显俗套但奇特的剧集，因此这一集是我第二喜欢的。它将通常只在小说中出现的科幻概念与情感内核结合在一起。动画风格是3D建模与赛璐璐着色的完美融合。（如Frame Game #75中所见）《Swarm》（第三季第六集）——我会看到你的《异形》式科幻，再给你一个昆虫恐惧症和身体恐怖的堆叠。令人不安且诡异。《In Vaulted Halls Entombed》（第三季第八集）——“太空海军”遇上克苏鲁。对于我们的英雄来说，这进行得并不顺利。《Jibaro》（第三季第九集）——这一集的动画风格非常疯狂。我从未见过类似的作品。故事本身较为单薄，但这一集完全凭借其视觉效果入选。这些视觉效果令人不安、困惑，同时也令人惊叹。我不确定我是否真的喜欢这一集，但确实很特别。如果你读完以上内容仍然无法判断哪些剧集适合那些想避免血腥、性内容和暴力的观众，我推荐你观看《Three Robots》（第一季第二集）、《Zima Blue》（第一季第十四集）、《Three Robots: Exit Strategies》（第三季第一集）和《The Very Pulse of the Machine》（第三季第三集）。但请记住，这些剧集都不适合儿童观看。如果你观看并喜欢其中的任何一集，那么不妨尝试观看该系列的其他剧集。你可能会发现一些比我的最爱更让你喜欢的剧集。此外，如果你在Netflix客户端中看到这些剧集的顺序不同，那是因为Netflix会根据你的观看习惯和历史来重新排列剧集顺序。每个人在Netflix上看到的剧集顺序可能不同。由于这是一部合集系列，观看顺序并不重要，但这出乎意料且我认为不太明智。无论如何，上述链接将直接带你进入每一集。我很高兴这样的一部系列作品存在。它让我想起了我青少年时期看过的《Liquid Television》：一些奇特、常常故意越界的动画作品，隐藏在主流媒体平台中。它们并非全部都是成功之作，但那些在自身框架内成功的，我依然十分珍惜。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Love, Death & Robots is an animated anthology series on Netflix. Each episode is a standalone story, though there is the barest of cross-season continuity in the form of one story featuring characters from a past season.

I love animation, but I’m hesitant to recommend Love, Death & Robots to casual viewers for a couple of reasons. First, this show is not for kids. It features a lot of violence, gore, nudity, and sex. That’s not what most people expect from animation.

Second, the quality is uneven. I don’t mean the quality of the animation, which is usually excellent. I mean how well they work as stories. Each episode has only a ten- to fifteen-minute runtime, during which it has to introduce its characters, its (usually sci-fi) setting, and then tell a satisfying story. It’s a challenging format.

Three seasons of Love, Death & Robots have been released since 2019. With season four set to debut in May, I thought I’d take a shot at convincing more people to give this show a chance. This is a rare case where I don’t recommend starting with season 1, episode 1 and viewing in order. The not-so-great episodes will surely drive most people away. Instead, I’m going to tell you where the gems are.

Here’s my list of the very best episodes of Love, Death & Robots in seasons 1–3. They’re standalone stories, so you can watch them in any order, but (back on brand) I do recommend that you watch them in the order listed below.

One last warning: Though not every episode is filled with gore and violence, most of them are—often including sexual violence. If this is not something you want to see, then I still recommend watching the handful of episodes that avoid these things. Remember, each episode is a standalone story, so watching even just one is fine.

Sonnie’s Edge (Season 1, Episode 1) - This is a perfect introduction to the series. It’s grim, violent, gory, beautifully animated, but with some unexpected emotional resonance.

Three Robots (Season 1, Episode 2) - The characters introduced in this story have become the unofficial mascots of the series. You’ll be seeing them again. The episode is lighthearted, cute, and undercut by a decidedly grim setting.

Good Hunting (Season 1, Episode 8) - Yes, traditional 2D animation is still a thing! But don’t expect something Disney-like. This story combines fantasy, myth, sci-fi, sex, love, death, and…well, cyborgs, at least.

Lucky 13 (Season 1, Episode 13) - If you like sci-fi action as seen in movies like Aliens and Edge of Tomorrow, this is the episode for you. As expected for this series, there’s a bit of a cerebral and emotional accent added to the stock sci-fi action.

Zima Blue (Season 1, Episode 14) - This is my favorite episode of the series, but it’s a weird one. I’m sure it doesn’t work at all for some people, but it got me. There’s no violence, sex, or gore—just a single, simple idea artfully realized.

Snow in the Desert (Season 2, Episode 4) - There’s a full movie’s worth of story crammed into this 18-minute episode, including some nice world-building and a lot of familiar themes and story beats. There’s nothing unexpected, but the level of execution is very high.

Three Robots: Exit Strategies (Season 3, Episode 1) - Our lovable robot friends are at it again, with an extra dose of black humor.

Bad Travelling (Season 3, Episode 2) - Lovecraftian horror on the high seas. It’s extremely dark and extremely gross.

The Very Pulse of the Machine (Season 3, Episode 3) - I guess I like the sappy, weird ones the best, because this is my second-favorite episode. It combines the kind of sci-fi ideas usually only encountered in novels with an emotional core. The animation is a beautiful blend of 3D modeling and cel shading. (As seen in Frame Game #75)

Swarm (Season 3, Episode 6) - I’ll see your Aliens-style sci-fi and raise you one pile of entomophobia and body horror. Upsetting and creepy.

In Vaulted Halls Entombed (Season 3, Episode 8) - “Space marines” meets Cthulhu. It goes about as well as you’d expect for our heroes.

Jibaro (Season 3, Episode 9) - The animation style in this episode is bonkers. I have never seen anything like it. The story, such as it is, is slight. This episode makes the list entirely based on its visuals, which are upsetting and baffling and amazing in equal measure. I’m not sure I even “like” this episode, but man, is it something.

If you’ve read all this and still can’t tell which are the “safest” episodes for those who want to avoid gore, sex, and violence, I’d recommend Three Robots (S1E2), Zima Blue (S1E14), Three Robots: Exit Strategies (S3E1), and The Very Pulse of the Machine (S3E3). But remember, none of these episodes are really suitable for children.

If you watch and enjoy any of these, then check out the rest of the episodes in the series. You may find some that you like more than any of my favorites.

Also, if you see these episodes in a different order in your Netflix client, the explanation is that Netflix rearranges episodes based on your viewing habits and history. Each person may see a different episode order within Netflix. Since viewing order doesn’t really matter in an anthology series, this doesn’t change much, but it is unexpected and, I think, ill-advised. Regardless, the links above should take you directly to each episode.

I’m so excited that a series like this even exists. It reminds me of Liquid Television from my teen years: a secret cache of odd, often willfully transgressive animation hiding in plain sight on a mainstream media platform. They’re not all winners, but I treasure the ones that succeed on their own terms.

超空间 || Hyperspace

2025-02-25T15:00:10+00:00

超批判超空间 2025年2月25日上午10:00，作者约翰·西拉库萨我对文件系统的兴趣始于1984年发现我的原始Macintosh电脑上类型和创建代码以及资源分支如何贡献于出色的用户界面。在1990年代末期，当苹果似乎可能收购Be Inc.以解决其操作系统问题时，Be文件系统是我最兴奋的部分。但后来苹果收购了NeXT，并（最终）创建了Mac OS X，我非常期待ZFS成为Mac的新文件系统。但这也未能实现。最终，在2017年WWDC上，苹果宣布了macOS的Apple文件系统（APFS），（在历史上最大胆的技术举措之一中）秘密地将所有人的iPhone转换为APFS，然后在一次早期iOS 10.x更新中将其恢复为HFS+。 APFS不是ZFS，但它仍然比HFS+有了巨大的飞跃。其最重要的两个功能是时间点快照和写入时复制克隆。快照允许更可靠和高效的Time Machine备份。写入时复制克隆基于使快照成为可能的相同底层架构特性：目录条目与其对应文件内容之间的灵活安排。今天，大多数Mac用户甚至不会注意到，使用Finder中的“复制”命令复制文件时，并不会真正复制文件内容。相反，它会创建一个“克隆”文件，与原始文件共享数据。这就是为什么在Finder中复制文件几乎是瞬间的，无论文件大小如何。尽管自APFS引入以来的近八年里我已了解克隆文件，但除了知道在Finder中复制大文件时不会占用更多磁盘空间的小小激动外，我并未深入思考它们。但去年年底，随着我的Mac磁盘逐渐填满，我开始思考如何能回收一些磁盘空间。如果我能找到内容相同但彼此不是克隆的文件，我就可以将它们转换为克隆文件，所有文件都共享磁盘上的单一数据实例。我花了一个下午编写了一个Perl脚本（调用了一个用C语言和另一个用Swift语言编写的命令行工具）来对我的磁盘进行操作，以查看通过这样做能节省多少空间。结果发现可以节省大量空间：数十GB。此时，已经没有回头路了。我必须将这个想法变成一个应用程序。有许多Mac应用程序可以通过查找重复文件并删除重复项来节省磁盘空间。使用APFS克隆，我的应用程序可以在不删除任何文件的情况下回收磁盘空间！作为一名数字收藏爱好者，这对我来说非常有吸引力。在那一周结束时，我写了一个基础的Mac应用程序，实现了与Perl脚本相同的功能。在接下来的几个月里，我完善并测试了这个应用程序，将其命名为Hyperspace。我很高兴地宣布，Hyperspace现已在Mac App Store上架。 Hyperspace是一款免费下载的应用程序，扫描以查看可能节省多少空间也是免费的。要实际回收其中的任何空间，您必须购买该应用程序。与我所有的应用程序一样，Hyperspace有点难以解释。我在Hyperspace文档中详细地尝试过解释。我希望它能足够清晰地传达给足够多的人，成为Mac生态系统的一个有用补充。对于可能感兴趣的开发人员，这是我的第二个使用SwiftUI的Mac应用程序，也是第一个使用SwiftUI生命周期的。它也是我的第二个使用Swift 6的应用程序，而且是我从开发初期就开始使用Swift 6的第一个应用程序。我发现从一开始就使用Swift 6比将现有的发布应用程序转换为Swift 6要容易得多。尽管如此，Swift 6仍然有许多粗糙的地方，我期待着未来几年这些地方能够被进一步完善。在最近的一期ATP中，我将当时未命名的Hyperspace描述为“一个极其危险的应用程序”。就像从HFS+转换到APFS的过程一样，Hyperspace会修改它并未创建和拥有的文件。这无疑是迄今为止我创建的最危险的应用程序。（回收磁盘空间不像整理谷物那样简单……）但我也认为它可能是对最多人数最有用的应用程序。希望你们喜欢它。 © 2010-2025 约翰·西拉库萨
---------------

Hypercritical

Hyperspace

February 25, 2025 at 10:00 AM by John Siracusa

My interest in file systems started when I discovered how type and creator codes1 and resource forks contributed to the fantastic user interface on my original Macintosh in 1984. In the late 1990s, when it looked like Apple might buy Be Inc. to solve its operating system problems, the Be File System was the part I was most excited about. When Apple bought NeXT instead and (eventually) created Mac OS X, I was extremely enthusiastic about the possibility of ZFS becoming the new file system for the Mac. But that didn’t happen either.

Finally, at WWDC 2017, Apple announced Apple File System (APFS) for macOS (after secretly test-converting everyone’s iPhones to APFS and then reverting them back to HFS+ as part of an earlier iOS 10.x update in one of the most audacious technological gambits in history).

APFS wasn’t ZFS, but it was still a huge leap over HFS+. Two of its most important features are point-in-time snapshots and copy-on-write clones. Snapshots allow for more reliable and efficient Time Machine backups. Copy-on-write clones are based on the same underlying architectural features that enable snapshots: a flexible arrangement between directory entries and their corresponding file contents.

Today, most Mac users don’t even notice that using the “Duplicate” command in the Finder to make a copy of a file doesn’t actually copy the file’s contents. Instead, it makes a “clone” file that shares its data with the original file. That’s why duplicating a file in the Finder is nearly instant, no matter how large the file is.

Despite knowing about clone files since the APFS introduction nearly eight years ago, I didn’t give them much thought beyond the tiny thrill of knowing that I wasn’t eating any more disk space when I duplicated a large file in the Finder. But late last year, as my Mac’s disk slowly filled, I started to muse about how I might be able to get some disk space back.

If I could find files that had the same content but were not clones of each other, I could convert them into clones that all shared a single instance of the data on disk. I took an afternoon to whip up a Perl script (that called out to a command-line tool written in C and another written in Swift) to run against my disk to see how much space I might be able to save by doing this. It turned out to be a lot: dozens of gigabytes.

At this point, there was no turning back. I had to make this into an app. There are plenty of Mac apps that will save disk space by finding duplicate files and then deleting the duplicates. Using APFS clones, my app could reclaim disk space without removing any files! As a digital pack rat, this appealed to me immensely.

By the end of that week, I’d written a barebones Mac app to do the same thing my Perl script was doing. In the months that followed, I polished and tested the app, and christened it Hyperspace. I’m happy to announce that Hyperspace is now available in the Mac App Store.

Hyperspace is a free download, and it’s free to scan to see how much space you might save. To actually reclaim any of that space, you will have to pay for the app.

Like all my apps, Hyperspace is a bit difficult to explain. I’ve attempted to do so, at length, in the Hyperspace documentation. I hope it makes enough sense to enough people that it will be a useful addition to the Mac ecosystem.

For my fellow developers who might be curious, this is my second Mac app that uses SwiftUI and my first that uses the SwiftUI life cycle. It’s also my second app to use Swift 6 and my first to do so since very early in its development. I found it much easier to use Swift 6 from (nearly) the start than to convert an existing, released app to Swift 6. Even so, there are still many rough edges to Swift 6, and I look forward to things being smoothed out a bit in the coming years.

In a recent episode of ATP, I described the then-unnamed Hyperspace as “An Incredibly Dangerous App.” Like the process of converting from HFS+ to APFS, Hyperspace modifies files that it did not create and does not own. It is, by far, the riskiest app I’ve created. (Reclaiming disk space ain’t like dusting crops…) But I also think it might be the most useful to the largest number of people. I hope you like it.

i消息的光环效应 || The iMessage Halo Effect

2024-02-09T20:15:39+00:00

最近的Beeper争议短暂地将“蓝色气泡与绿色气泡”这一话题重新带入主流。以下是对不了解该问题的读者的简要回顾。使用iMessage服务发送的消息会在信息应用中显示为蓝色文本气泡。使用非iMessage服务（如短信或即将推出的RCS）发送的消息则显示为绿色文本气泡。 iMessage服务和信息应用仅在苹果设备上可用。这通常被呈现为iPhone的竞争优势。如果你想使用iMessage服务，唯一（合法）的方式就是购买苹果设备。如果苹果将iMessage扩展到非苹果平台，这将消除一个购买iPhone的理由——至少这是论点的核心。我认为这种对问题的普遍理解略有偏差——或者至少是出于不同的原因而正确。iMessage服务本身并不好到足以使iPhone对客户更具吸引力。真正让iMessage有吸引力的是iPhone。是iPhone赋予了iMessage光环，而不是相反。这一真理在“蓝色气泡与绿色气泡”争论的核心显而易见。绿色气泡受到轻视的一个最大原因在于，它们表明接收方没有iPhone。iPhone价格昂贵、设计时尚且备受追捧。蓝色气泡则让发件人进入拥有iPhone的“内圈”。单独来看，iMessage服务本身的吸引力要小得多。以下是一份2013年苹果内部的评估，该评估在最近的Epic诉讼中通过内部邮件被披露，讨论了让iMessage在非苹果设备上运行的想法。 Eddy Cue：我们拥有最好的消息应用，应该将其打造为行业标准。[...] Craig Federighi：你有没有想过如何让大量安卓用户（他们没有很多iOS朋友）觉得转向iMessage（从WhatsApp）是有吸引力的？iMessage是一个不错的应用/服务，但若要让用户转换社交网络，我们需要的不只是略微更好的应用。虽然我欣赏Eddy的热情，但我认为Craig更接近真相：如果iMessage真的比竞争对手好——这本身就很值得商榷——那也只是略微好一些。这些苹果内部邮件写于十多年前。在这些年里，iMessage有所改进，但竞争对手也同步进步。如今，它仍然感觉像是iPhone在支撑iMessage。从个人观察来看，我的两个青少年孩子都有iPhone，但他们在与朋友的群聊中使用的是WhatsApp。苹果几乎肯定错过了将iMessage打造为“行业标准”消息服务的最佳时机。但正如老话所说，种树的最佳时机是30年前，其次是现在。苹果在将iMessage扩展到其他平台方面几乎没有什么可失去的，而且仍然可能有所收获（即使只是让Messages中的混合安卓/苹果对话更加顺畅）。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

The recent Beeper controversy briefly brought the “blue bubbles vs. green bubbles” topic back into the mainstream. Here’s a brief review for those of you who are (blessedly) unaware of this issue. Messages sent using the iMessage service appear in blue text bubbles within the Messages app. Messages sent using something other than the iMessage service (e.g., SMS, or (soon) RCS) appear in green text bubbles.

The iMessage service and the Messages app are only available on Apple devices. This is usually presented as a competitive advantage for the iPhone. If you want to use the iMessage service, the only (legitimate) way to do so is to buy an Apple device. If Apple were to make iMessage available on non-Apple platforms, that would remove one reason to buy an iPhone—or so the argument goes.

I think this popular conception of the issue is slightly wrong—or right for a different reason, at least. The iMessage service is not so good that it makes the iPhone more attractive to customers. It’s the iPhone that makes iMessage attractive. The iPhone gives iMessage its cachet, not the other way around.

This truth is plainly evident at the core of the “blue bubbles vs. green bubbles” debate. One of the biggest reasons green bubbles are looked down upon is that they indicate that the recipient doesn’t have an iPhone. iPhones are expensive, fancy, and desirable. Blue bubbles put the sender into the “in” crowd of iPhone owners.

The iMessage service itself, when considered in isolation, has considerably less draw. Here’s an assessment from 2013 from within Apple, as revealed during the recent Epic trial by internal emails discussing the idea of making iMessage work on non-Apple devices.

Eddy Cue: We have the best messaging app and we should make it the industry standard. […]

Craig Federighi: Do you have any thoughts on how we would make switching to iMessage (from WhatsApp) compelling to masses of Android users who don’t have a bunch of iOS friends? iMessage is a nice app/service, but to get users to switch social networks we’d need more than a marginally better app.

While I appreciate Eddy’s enthusiasm, I think Craig is closer to the mark: if iMessage is better than its competitors at all—and this is highly debatable—it is only marginally so.

Those Apple emails were written more than a decade ago. In the years since, iMessage has improved, but so has the competition. Today, it still feels like the iPhone is carrying iMessage. Anecdotally, both my teenage children have iPhones, but their group chats with their friends take place in WhatsApp.

Apple has almost certainly missed the most advantageous window of time to make iMessage “the industry standard” messaging service. But as the old saying goes, the best time to plant a tree is 30 years ago, and the second-best time is now. Apple has little to lose by expanding iMessage to other platforms, and there still may be something to be gained (even if it’s just making mixed Android/iPhone conversations in Messages a bit more smooth).

空间计算 || Spatial Computing

2024-01-30T22:44:06+00:00

超批判的空间计算当我第一次在8岁的时候使用原始的Macintosh电脑时，它的图形用户界面给我留下了深刻的印象。其中一部分魔力来自于其对“直接操作”的运用。这个术语是在20世纪80年代提出的，用来描述无需通过键盘输入指令即可控制计算机的能力。而不是通过输入命令来移动文件，用户可以直接拿起文件并拖动到新的位置。我能够写出“拿起它并拖到新位置”这样的短语，而大多数人能够理解其含义，这证明了这种界面几十年来的成功。在像Mac这样的个人电脑环境中，我们所有人都理解“在屏幕上拿起”某个对象并用鼠标拖动到某个位置的含义。我们知道这些小图片代表我们和计算机都理解的事物，也明白以特定方式操作它们的含义。对于大多数人来说，这已经成为一种本能。随着iPhone和普遍的触摸屏界面的出现，“直接操作”这一术语现在被用来对比触摸界面和Mac风格的GUI。iPhone具备“直接操作”，而Mac则不具备。在iPhone上，用户用实际的手指触摸想要操作的对象——不需要“间接”的指针设备。这两种“直接操作”形式的魔力、吸引力和根本成功，很大程度上与我们作为人类存在的物理现实有关。在空间中推理和操作物体的能力是我们这个物种成功的关键。它是我们生活中每个方面的基本组成部分。数百万年的自然选择使这些技能成为我们存在的基础。我们需要这些技能来生存，因此所有生存下来的人都是具备这些技能的人。相比之下，我们通常将“知道如何使用电脑”归为以下范畴：调试Wi-Fi问题、理解Excel中的公式、在Illustrator中分割贝塞尔曲线、在Photoshop中将彩色图像转换为黑白图像等。这些都是我们必须学习如何操作才能使用电脑的特定任务。没有数百万年的繁殖选择来帮助产生一个现代人口，他们天生就知道如何将PDF转换为Word文档。当然，推理和学习的能力写在我们的基因中，但具体执行任何计算机任务的能力则不在其中。鉴于此，利用我们固有能力的界面极其强大。它们具有较低的认知负担。它们感觉良好。“易用性”是我们1980年代称之为的。 GUI的成功在很大程度上源于我们的整个生活以及所有祖先的生活都为我们提供了与界面交互所需的许多技能。在GUI中，图标代表文件，窗口代表文档，文档在框架内滚动，这种“间接性”迅速消退。交互的机械功能变得本能，使我们能够专注于弄清楚如何在Google Docs中去除表格边框，或者任何其他事情。用户界面越能呈现一个我们能够理解的世界，其中我们可以运用数千年来的运动技能，它就越感觉良好。具有简单直接关系的“空间查找器”是经典Macintosh界面的定义部分。数十年后，iPhone推出了一个同样严格空间的主屏幕界面：一个图标网格，通过其位置和外观可以识别，我们移动它们，它们就停留在我们放置的位置。现在，距离原始Macintosh已经过去40年了，苹果推出了它称之为的首款“空间电脑”。我还没试过Vision Pro（普通客户至少还需要三天才能收到），但早期的评论和苹果自己的引导式游览已经提供了其功能的概述。从空间角度来看，Vision Pro的表现如何？它是否是“直接操作”的新定义，从触摸界面手中夺回这一称号？在显而易见的一个方面，它通过更彻底地模拟三维世界，将空间界面提升到了一个新的层次，比Mac或iPhone更深入。传统的GUI通常被描述为“二维”，但它们都利用了我们解析和理解三维空间中物体的能力，通过将界面元素层层叠加，经常使用阴影等视觉提示来加强幻觉。 Vision Pro对这一理念的承诺更进一步。它打破了传统GUI中分层窗口的严格垂直性和浅显的整体深度，为我们提供了一个更深层次（字面意义）的工作环境。 Vision Pro可能在它提供的深层空间界面方面遇到困难。我们知道如何在现实世界中伸手并“直接操作”物体，但Vision Pro并没有让我们这样做。相反，Vision Pro要求我们首先注视想要操作的对象，然后用双手进行“间接”的手势来操作它。这种先看后做的交互方式与使用鼠标进行“间接”操作指针的方式有什么不同？它是否同样利用了我们固有的空间能力？时间会证明一切。但我觉得可以放心地说，在某些方面，这种Vision Pro的交互方式不如iPhone的触摸界面“直接”，因为我们在屏幕上看到一个对象后，可以直接用手指触碰它。Vision Pro上会有任何像iPhone屏幕上滑动滚动那样直观、高效且令人满意的交互吗？这无疑是一个很高的标准。当Vision Pro终于开始进入用户手中时，我无法不通过空间界面的视角来比较它与Mac和iPhone。它的前身比之前所有的计算平台更广泛地利用了我们识别和操作物体的能力。在目前的形式下，我不确定Vision Pro是否也是如此。当然，Vision Pro不仅仅是对这一特定人类技能的利用程度。它能够将界面填满用户周围的所有空间，这是Mac和iPhone无法比拟的，它为新的体验和新的界面类型打开了大门。但我确实想知道Vision Pro当前的交互模型是否能与Mac和iPhone一样经得起考验。也许还有至少一次技术飞跃尚未到来，以完善整个故事。或者也许过去的工具（例如物理键盘和指针设备）最终会成为高效Vision Pro体验的重要组成部分。无论结果如何，我都高兴看到“空间计算”这一持续了数十年的旅程仍在继续。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

Spatial Computing

The graphical user interface on the original Macintosh was a revelation to me when I first used it at the tender age of 8 years old. Part of the magic was thanks to its use of "direct manipulation." This term was coined in the 1980s to describe the ability to control a computer without using the keyboard to explain what you wanted it to do. Instead of typing a command to move a file from one place to another, the user could just grab it and drag it to a new location.

The fact that I’m able to write the phrase “grab it and drag it to a new location” and most people will understand what I mean is a testament to the decades-long success of this kind of interface. In the context of personal computers like the Mac, we all understand what it means to “grab” something on the screen and drag it somewhere using a mouse. We understand that the little pictures represent things that have meaning to both us and the computer, and we know what it means to manipulate them in certain ways. For most of us, it has become second nature.

With the advent of the iPhone and ubiquitous touchscreen interfaces, the phrase “direct manipulation” is now used to draw a contrast between touch interfaces and Mac-style GUIs. The iPhone has “direct manipulation.” The Mac does not. On an iPhone, you literally touch the thing you want to manipulate with your actual finger—no “indirect” pointing device needed.

The magic, the attractiveness, the fundamental success of both of these forms of “direct manipulation” has a lot to do with the physical reality of our existence as human beings. The ability to reason about and manipulate objects in space is a cornerstone of our success as a species. It is an essential part of every aspect of our lives. Millions of years of natural selection has made these skills a foundational component of our very being. We need these skills to survive, and so all of us survivors are the ones who have these skills.

Compare this with the things we often put under the umbrella of “knowing how to use computers”: debugging Wi-Fi problems, understanding how formulas work in Excel, splitting a bezier curve in Illustrator, converting a color image to black and white in Photoshop, etc. These are all things we must learn how to do specifically for the purpose of using the computer. There has not been millions of years of reproductive selection to help produce a modern-day population that inherently knows how to convert a PDF into a Word document. Sure, the ability to reason and learn is in our genes, but the ability to perform any specific task on a computer is not.

Given this, interfaces that leverage the innate abilities we do have are incredibly powerful. They have lower cognitive load. They feel good. “Ease of use” was what we called it in the 1980s.

The success of the GUI was driven, in large part, by the fact that our entire lives—and the lives of all our ancestors—have prepared us with many of the skills necessary to work with interfaces where we see things and then use our hands to manipulate them. The “indirection” of the GUI—icons that represent files, windows that represent documents that scroll within their frames—fades away very quickly. The mechanical functions of interaction become second nature, allowing us to concentrate on figuring out how the heck to remove the borders on a table in Google Docs1, or whatever.

The more a user interface presents a world that is understandable to us, where we can flex our millennia-old kinesthetic skills, the better it feels. The Spatial Finder, which had a simple, direct relationship between each Finder window and a location in the file hierarchy, was a defining part of the classic Macintosh interface. Decades later, the iPhone launched with a similarly relentlessly spatial home-screen interface: a grid of icons, recognizable by their position and appearance, that go where we move them and stay where we put them.

Now here we are, 40 years after the original Macintosh, and Apple is introducing what it calls its first "spatial computer." I haven’t tried the Vision Pro yet (regular customers won’t receive theirs for at least another three days), but the early reviews and Apple’s own guided tour provide a good overview of its capabilities.

How does the Vision Pro stack up, spatially speaking? Is it the new definition of “direct manipulation,” wresting the title from touch interfaces? In one obvious way, it takes spatial interfaces to the next level by committing to the simulation of a 3D world in a much more thorough way than the Mac or iPhone. Traditional GUIs are often described as being “2D,” but they’ve all taken advantage of our ability to parse and understand objects in 3D space by layering interface elements on top of each other, often deploying visual cues like shadows to drive home the illusion.

Vision Pro’s commitment to the bit goes much further. It breaks the rigid perpendicularity and shallow overall depth of the layered windows in a traditional GUI to provide a much deeper (literally) world within which to do our work.

Where Vision Pro may stumble is in its interface to the deep, spatial world it provides. We all know how to reach out and “directly manipulate” objects in the real world, but that’s not what Vision Pro asks us to do. Instead, Vision Pro requires us to first look at the thing we want to manipulate, and then perform an “indirect” gesture with our hands to operate on it.

Is this look-then-gesture interaction any different than using a mouse to “indirectly” manipulate a pointer? Does it leverage our innate spatial abilities to the same extent? Time will tell. But I feel comfortable saying that, in some ways, this kind of Vision Pro interaction is less “direct” than the iPhone’s touch interface, where we see a thing on a screen and then literally place our fingers on it. Will there be any interaction on the Vision Pro that’s as intuitive, efficient, and satisfying as flick-scrolling on an iPhone screen? It’s a high bar to clear, that’s for sure.

As the Vision Pro finally starts to arrive in customers’ hands, I can’t help but view it through this spatial-interface lens when comparing it to the Mac and the iPhone. Both its predecessors took advantage of our abilities to recognize and manipulate objects in space to a greater extent than any of the computing platforms that came before them. In its current form, I’m not sure the same can be said of the Vision Pro.

Of course, there’s a lot more to the Vision Pro than the degree to which it taps into this specific set of human skills. Its ability to fill literally the entire space around the user with its interface is something the Mac and iPhone cannot match, and it opens the door to new experiences and new kinds of interfaces.

But I do wonder if the Vision Pro’s current interaction model will hold up as well as that of the Mac and iPhone. Perhaps there’s still at least one technological leap yet to come to round out the story. Or perhaps the tools of the past (e.g., physical keyboards and pointing devices) will end up being an essential part of a productive, efficient Vision Pro experience. No matter how it turns out, I’m happy to see that the decades-old journey of “spatial computing” continues.

这是我做的 || I Made This

2024-01-11T18:51:57+00:00

超批判我创作了这个目前，生成式人工智能的实用性已经非常明确，但围绕它的道德、伦理和法律问题却远不明确。我不是律师，也不确定目前和未来与此相关的诸多法律纠纷会如何裁决。现在，我仍在努力充分理解这个问题，以便形成一个连贯的观点，说明事情应该如何处理。撰写这篇博文也是我思考过程的一部分。生成式人工智能需要在大量数据上进行训练，这些数据代表了它将被要求生成的内容。训练数据与最终生成的输出之间的联系是一个备受争议的话题。在训练之前，人工智能模型毫无价值。训练之后，模型的价值究竟有多少是源自某一段特定的训练数据？数据的所有者是否对模型的创作者或其输出拥有任何法律权利？人类的创作工作与他们的生活经历密不可分：他们所见过的每一件艺术品，所做过的每一件事，所遇到的每一个人。然而，我们仍然认为人类的创作成果值得法律保护（尽管对那些被认为与现有作品过于相似的作品有一些较为狭窄的例外规定）。有人认为生成式人工智能并无不同。它的输出与它的“生活经历”（训练数据）密不可分。它所创造的一切都受到它曾经见过的一切的影响。它所做的与人类相同，因此为什么不应该将它的输出与人类的输出一视同仁？如果它生成的输出与某些现有作品过于相似，那么我们已有法律来处理这种情况。但如果并非如此，那它就完全合法。不需要与训练数据的所有者进行任何财务安排，就像艺术家在创作新画作时不需要向她所见过的每一位其他艺术家支付费用一样。从实际和伦理角度来看，这个论点并不让我感到舒服。从实际角度看，生成式人工智能以一种可能抑制非AI创作艺术的方式改变了创意作品市场的经济模式和时间尺度，既使得创意职业变得不那么可行，也限制了市场所重视的创意技能范围。即使生成式人工智能发展到可以无需（进一步）人类输入而自给自足的程度，创作行为仍然是一个充实人生的重要组成部分。人类需要创作，我们必须建立一个支持这种创作的市场。从伦理角度看，认为生成式人工智能“只是在做人类所做的事”的论点似乎在计算机程序和人类之间建立了一种等同关系，这让我感觉不太对劲。正是这种感觉促使我思考了这个辩论的核心问题。计算机程序本身没有权利，但使用计算机程序的人有权利。没有人建议生成式人工智能模型应该拥有它们所创造之物的权利。真正提出主张的是使用这些AI模型的人，他们要么声称自己应拥有输出成果，要么至少认为模型训练数据的所有者不应拥有输出成果的任何权利。毕竟，使用生成式人工智能创作一幅画和使用Photoshop有什么区别？它们都是帮助人类更快、更好地创作更多创意作品的计算机程序，对吧？我们一直拥有增强人类创造力的技术：铅笔、画笔、尺子、圆规、鹅毛笔、打字机、文字处理器、位图和矢量绘图程序——数千年来的技术进步都在提升创造力。生成式人工智能是否有所不同？这个问题的核心在于创作行为本身。所有权和权利都取决于这一创作行为。谁拥有创意作品？不是铅笔，不是打字机，也不是Adobe Photoshop。拥有该作品的是使用这些工具进行创作的人。当然，我们可以通过法律安排将一个创作者所创作的作品的所有权转让给另一个创作者（或法律实体，如公司）。通过这种方式，价值得以交换，从而形成一个创意市场。那么，当某人使用生成式人工智能时，谁是创作者？是撰写提示语的人，因此无需任何额外的法律安排，就将输出成果的所有权赋予提示语撰写者吗？假设鲍勃给苏写了一封电子邮件，苏与鲍勃没有任何现有的商业关系，请求她画一幅穿着牛仔帽骑自行车的北极熊的画。如果苏画了这幅画，我们都会同意苏是创作者，并且需要某种安排才能将这幅画的所有权转让给鲍勃。但如果鲍勃将同样的邮件输入生成式人工智能，他现在就变成了生成图像的创作者了吗？如果不是，那么谁才是创作者？创作行为在哪里？这个问题是生成式人工智能辩论在情感、伦理（甚至可能是法律）上的核心。我回想起一个著名的网络漫画，其中一个人将某物交给另一个人并说：“我创作了这个。” 接收者接受物品，问道：“你创作了这个？” 接收者沉默片刻，看着物品，而给予者已经离开。在漫画的最后一帧，接收者独自拿着物品，说：“我创作了这个。” 这个漫画之所以能引起人们的共鸣，有很多原因。对我而言，关键在于第二帧，接收者独自拿着物品。正是在那一刻，物品的占有让这个人确信自己拥有它。毕竟，他正拿着它，这是他的！如果他拥有它，而周围没有人，那么他一定创作了它！这又让我回到同样的问题：创作行为在哪里？漫画中的人物不愿去思考这个问题，但生成式人工智能迫使我们所有人不得不去面对它。我不因公平或传统而关注这一点。技术经常改变市场。我们的社会任务是确保技术在长期内为社会带来更好的变化，同时减轻不可避免的短期伤害。每种新技术都需要新的法律来确保它成为并保持对社会的净益。我们很少能成功地将现有法律调整以完全管理新技术，尤其是像生成式人工智能这样能够彻底改变现有市场形态的技术。在目前的状态下，生成式人工智能破坏了创作者与消费者之间的价值链条。我们不必以与过去完全相同的方式重新连接它，但也不能让它悬而未决。基于创作行为授予所有权的历史做法似乎仍然合理，但这意味着我们必须能够明确无误地识别这一创作行为。如果同一行为（在没有先前法律安排的情况下）在一个情境中授予所有权而在另一个情境中不授予，那么也许它并不是最佳的解决方案。我不确定正确的答案是什么，但我觉得我正在接近正确的提问。这可能是一个我们未来会更频繁遇到的问题：谁创作了这个？
---------------

Hypercritical

I Made This

While the utility of Generative AI is very clear at this point, the moral, ethical, and legal questions surrounding it are decidedly less so. I’m not a lawyer, and I’m not sure how the many current and future legal battles related to this topic will shake out. Right now, I’m still trying to understand the issue well enough to form a coherent opinion of how things should be. Writing this post is part of my process.

Generative AI needs to be trained on a vast amount of data that represents the kinds of things it will be asked to generate. The connection between that training data and the eventual generated output is a hotly debated topic. An AI model has no value until it’s trained. After training, how much of the model’s value is attributable to any given piece of training data? What legal rights, if any, can the owners of that training data exert on the creator of the model or its output?

A human’s creative work is inextricably linked to their life experiences: every piece of art they’ve ever seen, everything they’ve done, everyone they’ve ever met. And yet we still say the creative output of humans is worthy of legal protection (with some fairly narrow restrictions for works that are deemed insufficiently differentiated from existing works).

Some say that generative AI is no different. Its output is inextricably linked to its “life experience” (training data). Everything it creates is influenced by everything it has ever seen. It’s doing the same thing a human does, so why shouldn’t its output be treated the same as a human’s output?

And if it generates output that’s insufficiently differentiated from some existing work, well, we already have laws to handle that. But if not, then it’s in the clear. There’s no need for any sort of financial arrangement with the owners of the training data any more than an artist needs to pay every other artist whose work she’s seen each time she makes a new painting.

This argument does not sit well for me, for both practical and ethical reasons. Practically speaking, generative AI changes the economics and timescales of the market for creative works in a way that has the potential to disincentivize non-AI-generated art, both by making creative careers less viable and by narrowing the scope of creative skill that is valued by the market. Even if generative AI develops to the point where it is self-sustaining without (further) human input, the act of creation is an essential part of a life well-lived. Humans need to create, and we must foster a market that supports this.

Ethically, the argument that generative AI is “just doing what humans do” seems to draw an equivalence between computer programs and humans that doesn’t feel right to me. It was the pursuit of this feeling that led me to a key question at the center of this debate.

Computer programs don’t have rights1, but people who use computer programs do. No one is suggesting that generative AI models should somehow have the rights to the things they create. It’s the humans using these AI models that are making claims about the output—either that they, the human, should own the output, or, at the very least, that the owners of the model’s training data should not have any rights to the output.

After all, what’s the difference between using generative AI to create a picture and using Photoshop? They’re both computer programs that help humans make more, better creative works in less time, right?

We’ve always had technology that empowers human creativity: pencils, paintbrushes, rulers, compasses, quills, typewriters, word processors, bitmapped and vector drawing programs—thousands of years of technological enhancement of creativity. Is generative AI any different?

At the heart of this question is the act of creation itself. Ownership and rights hinge on that act of creation. Who owns a creative work? Not the pencil, not the typewriter, not Adobe Photoshop. It’s the human who used those tools to create the work that owns it.

There can, of course, be legal arrangements to transfer ownership of the work created by one human to another human (or a legal entity like a corporation). And in this way, value is exchanged, forming a market for creativity.

Now then, when someone uses generative AI, who is the creator? Is writing the prompt for the generative AI the act of creation, thus conferring ownership of the output to the prompt-writer without any additional legal arrangements?

Suppose Bob writes an email to Sue, who has no existing business relationship with Bob, asking her to draw a picture of a polar bear wearing a cowboy hat while riding a bicycle. If Sue draws this picture, we all agree that Sue is the creator, and that some arrangement is required to transfer ownership of this picture to Bob. But if Bob types that same email into a generative AI, has he now become the creator of the generated image? If not, then who is the creator?

Where is the act of creation?

This question is at the emotional, ethical (and possibly legal) heart of the generative AI debate. I’m reminded of the well-known web comic in which one person hands something to another and says, “I made this.” The recipient accepts the item, saying “You made this?” The recipient then holds the item silently for a moment while the person who gave them the item departs. In the final frame of the comic, the recipient stands alone holding the item and says, “I made this.”

This comic resonates with people for many reasons. To me, the key is the second frame in which the recipient holds the item alone. It’s in that moment that possession of the item convinces the person that they own it. After all, they’re holding it. It’s theirs! And if they own it, and no one else is around, then they must have created it!

This leads me back to the same question. Where is the act of creation? The person in the comic would rather not think about it. But generative AI is forcing us all to do so.

I’m not focused on this point for reasons of fairness or tradition. Technology routinely changes markets. Our job as a society is to ensure that technology changes things for the better in the long run, while mitigating the inevitable short-term harm.

Every new technology has required new laws to ensure that it becomes and remains a net good for society. It’s rare that we can successfully adapt existing laws to fully manage a new technology, especially one that has the power to radically alter the shape of an existing market like generative AI does.

In its current state, generative AI breaks the value chain between creators and consumers. We don’t have to reconnect it in exactly the same way it was connected before, but we also can’t just leave it dangling. The historical practice of conferring ownership based on the act of creation still seems sound, but that means we must be able to unambiguously identify that act. And if the same act (absent any prior legal arrangements) confers ownership in one context but not in another, then perhaps it’s not the best candidate.

I’m not sure what the right answer is, but I think I’m getting closer to the right question. It’s a question I think we’re all going to encounter a lot more frequently in the future: Who made this?

苹果的蓝海 || Apple’s Blue Ocean

2023-10-29T20:11:46+00:00

我第一次了解到“蓝海”战略是在一篇关于任天堂Wii的报道中（可能是在Edge杂志上）。当时，其竞争对手们在游戏机市场争夺主导地位，通过制造越来越强大的硬件来实现高清视觉效果，而任天堂却选择不参与这场竞争。追求图形性能的“红海”早已充满了鲨鱼，争夺有限的资源并让海水变得血腥。

任天堂的“蓝海”战略是选择一个竞争对手尚未涉足的位置。在所有其他游戏机都转向高清的世代，提出制造标准清晰度的游戏机听起来似乎很荒谬，但任天堂正是这样做的。与其追求出色的图形效果，Wii则通过运动控制和低价来区别于其他产品。它取得了巨大成功。

最近，我一直在思考苹果公司的“蓝海”战略。像任天堂一样，苹果在推出产品时也做出了一些大胆的举措，其中许多当时都遭到嘲笑：没有物理键盘的智能手机、没有软盘驱动器和传统接口的彩色桌面电脑、一款695美元（按2023年货币价值计算）的便携式音乐播放器、以及在音乐盗版泛滥的时代建立的数字音乐商店。

与任天堂不同的是，苹果的竞争对手迅速模仿其创新，将这些“蓝海”转变为“红海”，迫使苹果不得不在执行层面竞争……直到它找到下一个“蓝海”。但下一个“蓝海”是什么？很容易想到Vision Pro。AR/VR头显并非新事物，但正如智能手机和便携式音乐播放器一样，它们也不是一开始就存在的。Vision Pro尚未上市，因此尚无定论。让我们拭目以待。

我还有另一个想法。它实际上与苹果早期的一个“蓝海”转变有关：移除可拆卸电池。起初，苹果的笔记本电脑都使用可拆卸电池包。有些甚至允许用户移除软盘驱动模块，替换为第二个电池。

从2009年开始，苹果在其笔记本电脑系列中逐步淘汰可拆卸电池，改用密封在机身内部且用户无法接触的电池。iPod和iPhone或许从一开始就引领了这一趋势，因为它们从未包含可拆卸电池。（iPhone违背了如此多其他规范，以至于密封电池的特性并未引起太多关注，但仍然被提及。）

苹果所宣传的优势有很多：更轻的重量、更小的体积、更好的可靠性、更长的电池续航时间。我们至今仍在享受这些好处，而苹果粉丝很少对此提出质疑。如今，非可拆卸电池在许多产品类别中已成为“红海”，它们是常态，而非创新。

当思考苹果的下一个“蓝海”时，很容易忽略过去的创新。技术进步似乎是一支只朝一个方向前进的箭，从不回头。但我不禁认为，如今回归可拆卸、用户可接触的电池已成为一个等待苹果去把握的“蓝海”机会。

请跟随我，这里。是的，密封电池仍然提供了所有相同的优势。而且，是的，回归可拆卸电池会带来所有其问题：增加体积和重量、增加液体和灰尘渗入的风险、降低外观的优雅性。

但过去几十年有些东西已经发生了变化。电池技术得到了提升，而苹果已将其整个产品线转向自家的硅芯片，这些芯片在能效方面引领行业。现在，苹果便携产品中可以容纳比以往稍大一点的体积和重量，这比以往有了更多余量。

这仍然是一次倒退，对吧？但存在一些抵消因素，其中之一正迅速变得越来越重要。首先，正如前所述，可拆卸电池如今已成为“蓝海”。如果苹果在任何产品线中全面转向可拆卸电池，它将成为其最大竞争对手中唯一一家这么做。

其次，人们仍然渴望那些被舍弃的可拆卸电池的优势：通过更换电池而非使用笨重的外部电池包来延长电池续航时间，通过更换磨损的电池来廉价而方便地延长产品寿命——而无需支付他人对设备进行精细手术的费用。

最后，与上一点相关，磨损的电池是旧技术产品被交易、回收或更换的极其常见原因。可拆卸电池是一种延长产品使用寿命的便捷方式。这将减少电子垃圾，与苹果在2030年临近时的环保目标完美契合。

当然，更长的产品寿命意味着每单位时间的产品销量减少，这似乎与苹果的财务目标相悖。但这是一个可以通过苹果最喜欢的财务工具——更高的产品利润率来解决的问题。如果苹果能够真正制造出使用寿命更长的产品，它就可以为这些产品提供的额外价值收取更多费用。

很容易想到与主流观念相悖的产品创意；但很难想到正确的那个。有时“蓝海”之所以没有鲨鱼，仅仅是因为那里没有鱼。但我觉得这个想法有其价值。我并不是在做预测，而是在提出建议。

我知道你们中的一些人仍然不认同。如何让可拆卸电池易于更换，同时又能防止外界元素侵入？可拆卸电池不会破坏苹果现有产品的外观，增加不美观的切割线吗？它们不会变得不可接受地大而重吗？如何在产品框架中切出一个大洞而不影响结构完整性？还有，由于电池连接故障或电池包与他人口袋中的金属接触而引发火灾的风险呢？问题列表还在继续。

创新从不轻松，但苹果什么时候退缩过面对挑战？作为消费电子设计和制造的行业领导者，苹果最能克服可拆卸电池的障碍并从中获益。毫无疑问，这将非常困难，但若做得好，它无疑会成为一次成功。而作为引领行业从可拆卸电池转向密封电池的公司，让苹果重新引入可拆卸电池是合情合理的。

---------------

I first read about the “blue ocean” strategy in a story (probably in Edge magazine) about the Nintendo Wii. While its competitors were fighting for supremacy in the game-console market by producing ever-more-powerful hardware capable of high-definition visuals, Nintendo chose not to join this fight. The pursuit of graphics power was a “red ocean” that was already teeming with sharks, fighting over the available fish and filling the water with blood.

Nintendo’s “blue ocean” strategy was to stake out a position where none of its competitors were present. The idea of creating a standard-definition game console in the generation when all the other consoles were moving to HD seemed ridiculous, but that’s exactly what Nintendo did. In place of impressive graphics, the Wii differentiated itself with its motion controls and a low price. It was a hit.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the blue ocean strategy in the context of Apple. Like Nintendo, Apple has made some bold moves with its products, many of which were ridiculed at the time: a smartphone without a physical keyboard, a candy-colored desktop computer with no floppy drive and no legacy ports, a $695 (in 2023 dollars) portable music player, a digital music store in the age of ubiquitous music piracy.

Unlike Nintendo, Apple has seen its competitors move quickly to imitate its innovations, turning these oceans red and leaving Apple to compete on the basis of execution…until it finds its next blue ocean.

But what is that? It’s tempting to point to the Vision Pro. AR/VR headsets are not new, but then, neither were smartphones or portable music players. The Vision Pro hasn’t shipped yet, so the jury’s still out. Let’s keep an eye on it.

I have something else in mind. It’s actually related to one of Apple’s earlier "blue ocean" changes: the elimination of removable batteries. In the beginning, Apple’s laptops all used removable battery packs. Some even let the user pull out the floppy-drive module and replace it with a second battery.

Starting in 2009, Apple began to phase out removable batteries across its laptop line in favor of batteries that were sealed inside the case and were not user-accessible. The iPod and the iPhone arguably started this trend by never including removable batteries to begin with. (The iPhone defied so many other norms that the sealed battery was less remarked upon than it might have been, but it was still noted.)

The upsides, which Apple touted, were many: lighter weight, smaller size, better reliability, longer battery life. We are still reaping these benefits today, and we Apple fans rarely question them. Today, predictably, non-removable batteries are a red ocean in many product categories. They are the norm, not an innovation.

When thinking about Apple’s next blue ocean, it’s tempting to ignore past innovations. Technological progress seems like an arrow pointing in only one direction, never turning back. But I just can’t shake the idea that a return to removable, user-accessible batteries has now become a blue-ocean opportunity just waiting for Apple to seize it.

Follow me, here. Yes, sealed batteries still offer all the same advantages they always have. And, yes, a return to removable batteries would bring back all their problems: increased size and weight, increased risk of liquid and dust ingress, decreased aesthetic elegance.

But some things have changed in the past couple of decades. Battery technology has improved, and Apple has moved its entire product line to its own silicon chips that lead the industry in power efficiency. There’s more headroom than there has ever been to accommodate a tiny bit more size and weight in Apple’s portable products.

That’s still a step backwards, right? But there are several countervailing forces, one of which is rapidly increasing in importance. The first is the fact that, as noted earlier, removable batteries are now a blue ocean. Apple would be alone among its biggest competitors if it made a wholesale change (back) to removable batteries in any of its product lines.

Second, people still crave the advantages of removable batteries that were left behind: increasing battery life by swapping batteries instead of using a cumbersome external battery pack, inexpensively and conveniently extending the life of a product by replacing a worn-out battery with a new one—without paying for someone else to perform delicate surgery on the device.

Finally, related to that last point, worn-out batteries are an extremely common reason that old tech products are traded in, recycled, or replaced. Removable batteries are an easy way to extend the useful life of a product. This leads to less e-waste, which is perfectly aligned with Apple’s environmental goals as 2030 approaches.

Of course, longer product lifetimes means fewer product sales per unit time, which seems to run counter to Apple’s financial goals. But this is a problem that can be solved using one of Apple’s favorite financial tools: higher product margins. If Apple can actually make products that have a longer useful life, it can charge more money for the extra value they provide.

It’s easy to think of product ideas that run counter to accepted wisdom; it’s harder to think of the right one. Sometimes a blue ocean is free from sharks simply because there are no fish there. But I think this idea has merit. I am not making a prediction, but I am making a suggestion.

I know some of you remain unconvinced. How can a removable battery be easy to swap and yet also be sealed against the elements? Won’t removable batteries ruin the appearance of Apple’s existing products by adding unsightly cut lines? Won’t they become unacceptably large and heavy? How can structural integrity be maintained with a giant hole cut out of the product frame? What about the risk of fire due to faulty battery connections or battery packs coming in contact with something metal in someone’s pocket? The list of problems goes on and on.

Innovation is never easy, but since when has Apple shied away from a challenge? As the industry leader in consumer-electronics design and manufacturing, Apple is best positioned to overcome the obstacles and reap the benefits of removable batteries. There’s no question it will be difficult, but if done well, it will undoubtedly be a hit. And as the company that led the transition away from removable batteries, it’s only fitting1 for Apple to be the one to bring them back.

水管工问题 || The Plumber Problem

2023-08-18T16:44:19+00:00

“水管工问题”是我创造的一个术语，用来描述观看一部涉及你比普通观众更熟悉的主题领域的电影时，电影中出现的一些不准确的描绘会分散你的注意力，让你无法沉浸其中。（当然，这种现象也适用于所有虚构作品，如电影、电视剧、书籍等。）举个例子。一位水管工正在观看一部电影，其中有一幕与管道有关的情节是剧情的关键。但所有细节都错了，这位水管工的思维开始抗拒。观众中的其他人则没有受到影响，他们仍然沉浸在剧情中。但水管工却遇到了问题。我不确定自己是什么时候想到这个术语的。我最早能找到的记录是2021年，在播客《Reconcilable Differences》第153集（47:02处）中，我向我的播客搭档Merlin解释了这个概念，显然这个术语比那更早。 “水管工问题”与“盖尔-曼失忆效应”有某种松散的关联，后者指的是“专家们相信自己专业领域外的新闻文章，却承认同一出版物中自己专业领域内的文章存在错误和误解”的现象。无论如何，今天我想到这个术语，是因为一些Mastodon上的用户向我提供了“水管工问题”的例子。以下是几个（略作修改）： Simon Orrell：我第一次接触到“水管工问题”是在1973年和父亲一起在电影院观看《北方皇帝》时，父亲凑过身来小声说：“30年代的排水管可不是这样制造的，那时候用的是钢板，不是波纹管。” Tim Allen：在《速度2》中，有一个情节涉及一艘即将爆炸性碰撞的满载油轮。我的妻子来自一个主要的石油港口城市，她无法理解剧情，因为她只是看一眼就能发现这艘油轮是空的，因此不明白为什么所有人都说它会爆炸。 Dan Morgan：《星际穿越》中的农业场景糟糕透顶。我不会在这里详细描述，但这位退休的农民和农业专家觉得很难看下去。不过我确信其中的物理描写是准确的。😂 有人还提到“水管工问题”这个术语在网上不容易找到，所以希望这篇帖子能解决这个问题。再分享一个我喜爱的额外例子： magic：在《星球大战》中，卢克关闭了他的瞄准计算机，转而依靠原力进行对死星的攻击。我曾从银河系的一端飞到另一端，见过很多奇怪的事情，但从未见过任何东西让我相信有一个无所不能的原力在控制一切。没有神秘的能量场在控制我的命运。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

“The Plumber Problem” is a phrase I coined to describe the experience of watching a movie that touches on some subject area that you know way more about than the average person, and then some inaccuracy in what’s depicted distracts you and takes you out of the movie. (This can occur in any work of fiction, of course: movies, TV, books, etc.)

Here’s an example. A plumber is watching a movie with a scene where something having to do with pipes is integral to the plot. But it’s all wrong, and the plumber’s mind rebels. No one else in the audience is bothered. They’re all still wrapped up in the narrative. But the plumber has a problem.

I’m not sure how long ago I came up with this phrase. The earliest recorded occurrence I can find is from 2021, in episode #153 of Reconcilable Differences (at 47:02) where I explain it to my cohost, Merlin, so it obviously predates that.

The Plumber Problem is loosely related to the “Gell-Mann amnesia effect” which is “the phenomenon of experts believing news articles written on topics outside of their fields of expertise, yet acknowledging that articles written in the same publication within their fields of expertise are error-ridden and full of misunderstanding.”

Anyway, I was thinking about this today thanks to some people on Mastodon sending me examples of The Plumber Problem. Here are a few (lightly edited):

Simon Orrell: My first exposure to “The Plumber Problem” was sitting in a theatre with my dad in 1973 watching “Emperor of the North” and my dad leans over to whisper, “They didn’t make culvert pipe like that back in the ’30s. It was plate, not corrugated.”

Tim Allen: In Speed 2, a plot point involves a laden oil tanker about to collide explosively. My wife, native to a major oil port city, couldn’t follow the plot because she could tell the tanker was empty just by looking at it, so she didn’t understand why everyone was saying it would explode.

Dan Morgan: Interstellar’s farming scenes were just SO BAD. I’m not going to detail them here, but this retired farmer and agronomist found it hard to watch. I’m sure the physics were fine though. 😂

Someone also mentioned that “The Plumber Problem” is not an easy phrase to look up online, so here’s hoping this post remedies that situation.

Here’s one more bonus post that I enjoyed:

magic: In Star Wars, Luke turns off his targeting computer to use the Force for his attack run on the Death Star. I’ve flown from one side of this galaxy to the other. I’ve seen a lot of strange stuff, but I’ve never seen anything to make me believe there’s one all-powerful Force controlling everything. There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny.

极度批判的T恤返场 || Hypercritical T-Shirts Return

2023-07-12T15:01:56+00:00

据说每五年，Hypercritical T恤就会回归。上一次销售是在2018年，现在终于到了！这次销售将于2023年8月12日星期六结束，所以如果你想买一件T恤，就不要拖延。上一次我暗示过T恤销售会间隔五年，有些人并不相信我。但当时是真实的，现在也依然如此。如果你想买T恤，现在就买，或者接受等待到2028年！ T恤有男款和女款，颜色包括： Hypercritical T恤 - 金色、灰色、粉色和白色 Hypercritical T恤（深色）- 海军蓝和黑色衷心感谢所有过去和现在购买过T恤的朋友们，以及继续访问本网站并收听和支持我播客的各位听众。自上次Hypercritical T恤销售以来，很多事情已经发生了变化。最显著的是，我在2022年3月独立运营，将我之前的“副业项目”转变为我唯一的收入来源。在过去十年左右的时间里，广告收入占了我播客收入的绝大部分。然而，今年像我这样的播客广告市场出现了大幅下滑，这让我感到很艰难。幸运的是，播客会员制在一定程度上弥补了部分损失。这类商品销售也有所帮助——尽管可能没有你想象的那么多。制造和运输实体产品成本高昂，而且成本一直在上涨。但每一点帮助都很重要。而且作为播客粉丝，我深知T恤的吸引力。事实上，我日常着装中令人震惊的大部分都是我收听的播客T恤。这些销售真正意义在于：粉丝想要T恤，而我希望提供给他们。是的，每卖出一件T恤，我都能赚一点钱，所以卖得越多越好。但之所以我每隔五年才进行一次销售，是有原因的。我希望这些T恤显得特别。当五年后大家的T恤开始变得破旧时，我还会再次进行销售，供那些想要更换的人购买。可以将其视为一种非常缓慢、非自动续订的Hypercritical T恤订阅计划。只是在那之前，尽量不要弄脏你的T恤。（或者考虑购买备用件！你们知道我有多爱备份……） © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

It is said that every five years, Hypercritical t-shirts return. The last sale was in 2018, so the time has come! This sale ends on Saturday, August 12th, so if you want a shirt, don’t delay. Last time, I hinted that it would be five years before the shirts were sold again, and some people didn’t believe me. But it was true then, and it’s true now. If you want a shirt, buy it now, or resign yourself to waiting until 2028!

The shirts are available in men’s and women’s styles and in light and dark colors:

Hypercritical t-shirt - Gold, Gray, Pink, and White

Hypercritical t-shirt (Dark) - Navy and Black

My sincere thanks to everyone who has purchased a shirt, past and present, and to all the people who continue to read this website and listen to and support my podcasts.

A lot has changed since my last Hypercritical t-shirt sale. Most notably, I went independent in March of 2022, turning my former “side projects” into the sole source of my income.

Over the past decade or so, advertising has made up the vast majority of my podcast income. The podcast ad market has taken a big downturn this year for shows like mine, which has been rough. Thankfully, podcast membership has helped make up some of the difference.

Merchandise sales like these also help—though less than you might think. Manufacturing and shipping physical products is expensive, and the costs are always increasing. But every little bit helps. And as a podcast fan myself, I understand the draw. A shocking amount of my daily wardrobe consists of podcast t-shirts from the shows I listen to.

That’s really what these sales are about: fans want shirts, and I want to provide them. And, yes, each shirt sold does make me a few bucks, so the more I sell, the better. But there’s a reason I only do these sales once every five years. I want these shirts to be special.

And when people’s shirts are starting to become threadbare five years from today, I’ll have another sale for those who want to buy replacements. Think of it as a really slow, non-renewing subscription plan for Hypercritical t-shirts. Just try not to spill anything on your shirts in the meantime. (Or consider buying backups! You know me and backups…)

命运音乐视频 || Destiny Music Videos

2023-02-06T03:13:36+00:00

我属于MTV一代。如果你能立刻联想到Hey Mickey、The Safety Dance、You Might Think、Money For Nothing和Take On Me这些音乐视频，那你可能也是。从第一天起，我就被这些乐队和音乐所吸引，但更确切地说，是被这种形式所吸引。有些视频讲述故事（无论故事是否连贯）。有些则更像一种氛围，正如孩子们现在常说的那样。但无论如何，声音与画面的结合，交织、同步和分离，总能触动我所有的感官。我对音乐与视频平等合作关系的喜爱也体现在我所热爱的许多电影中。Goodfellas是我最喜欢的电影之一，可以说它在结构上被组织成一系列由剧情分隔的音乐视频。最好的《星球大战》电影则以它们普遍且主导的配乐而闻名。即使在今天，精心结合的音乐与视频的炼金术仍未失去其力量。见证《怪奇物语》第四季中某个场景所引发的巨大文化影响。在所有这些情况下，不只是因为音乐与对话和音效并存。而是因为音乐向前迈进——无论是技术上（在音频混音中）还是情感上。音乐是我所热爱的大部分媒体中的主要角色。当游戏主机增加了轻松录制游戏画面的功能时，我立刻知道该如何利用这个功能。我想制作音乐视频。进入《命运》我从2014年游戏发布后不久就开始玩《命运》了。由于复杂且主要是商业相关的原因，我今天玩的游戏被称为《命运2》，但过去八年里，这两款游戏对我来说是一个连贯的体验。 YouTube上有大量与《命运》相关的视频内容，我看了很多。这些视频有两点非常明确。首先，就像电视上的高尔夫或网球比赛一样，如果你自己玩过游戏，你会发现它们更加有趣。其次，也像电视体育节目一样，这些视频中的《命运》玩家通常都是非常擅长游戏的。我不擅长玩《命运》。即使玩了成千上万小时，我仍然只是平均水平。虽然《命运》是一款拥有数百万玩家的热门游戏，但有人看到我的视频并同时是《命运》玩家的可能性却很小。这并不是成功的公式。我的游戏技能不足意味着我无法制作出真正优秀的视频所需的原始素材（即游戏画面录制），而且我的Apple科技爱好者观众群体与《命运》的世界重叠度也很小。但让我这么做是否阻止了我？没有。六年前，我开始上传一些非常糟糕（即使按我的标准）的游戏画面，几乎没有剪辑，也没有解说和音乐。（我还偷偷上传了一段恶搞视频，基于我意识到《海洋奇缘》和《西部世界》第一季都有相同的情感高潮。是真的！）我的第一支《命运》音乐视频展示了我如何不再在使用狙击步枪方面表现得一塌糊涂。这是记录了我在游戏四年后终于明白狙击应该如何进行的时刻。它展示了我从“真正糟糕”到“仅仅是差劲”的转变。（那时候，单个狙击头射击杀不了游荡的超级敌人，菜鸟们！）接下来是“任务”视频，每一部都记录了我获取游戏内物品（例如巅峰武器）的旅程。这是我在这些视频中开始发展出一种可识别的风格和格式的地方。而不是退缩于之前描述的技能和观众问题，我反而接受了它们。由于很少有人会看到我的视频，我可以无忧无虑地不担心吸引人的标题和自定义缩略图。至于理解这些视频所需的背景知识，我反而增加它们，而不是试图减少。以我的Revoker任务视频为例。要理解它的前提，你必须知道“Revoker”是一把狙击步枪，而获取它的任务需要在《命运》中与其他玩家对抗时完成大量狙击击杀。此外，你还需要了解一些关于我的事情。你可能知道（也许从观看之前的视频）我不擅长狙击，而且我最喜欢的PvP武器是霰弹枪（或者至少你知道霰弹枪被广泛认为“更容易使用”）。如果你在Revoker任务活跃时玩过《命运》，你可能熟悉任务进度在用户界面中的展示方式，而且可能进一步知道Revoker任务有多个组成部分，其中并不都是需要狙击击杀的。你需要所有这些背景信息才能理解视频中精心编排的高潮（大约在5:12处开始），那时我意识到我已经完成了任务中狙击击杀的部分，终于可以切换回一个让我感觉更自信的装备：霰弹枪和手炮。哦，这手炮？它是Luna’s Howl，其艰难的获取过程在之前的任务视频中有所记录。同样地，只有那些在《命运》中表现普通（或更差）并经历过必须用榴弹发射器在PvP中完成200次双杀和获得100枚Calculated Trajectory勋章才能完成（在削弱前，该死！）Mountaintop任务的人，才能真正体会到我视频中记录的痛苦和挣扎。为了获取“容易”的击杀而争夺重型弹药；一次击杀后立刻死亡；学习如何使用Fighting Lion，这是一把我之前忽略的武器，直到它的主武器弹药使用能力使其成为这个任务的完美选择——这一切都在视频中有所体现。如果你觉得这一切开始听起来像废话，我理解。这要求观众有大量背景信息和经验。我无法在视频中传达这些前提知识，这既是对我的编辑技能的谴责，也是对我的游戏技能的谴责。（毕竟，我只能使用自己录制的游戏画面。）然而……我仍然热爱这些视频。我热爱这样的想法：一小部分人可能会观看它们，并拥有所有必要的背景信息来充分欣赏它们。我偶尔也会自己观看它们，只是为了看看自己作为玩家和编辑的进步。我也热爱在正常生活中灵感突然涌现的那一刻，我知道要为下一支音乐视频使用哪首歌。有时，从灵感出现到最终制作视频之间会有数月的时间。我的最新发布也是如此，但很高兴我等待了足够长的时间，让它成为我使用PlayStation 5录制的60帧每秒游戏画面制作的第一支视频。这不是“任务”视频（Bungie几年前已经移除了巅峰武器），所以曾经存在的微弱叙事框架现在已经不存在了。相反，我回到了我的起点。我只是想制作一支好的音乐视频。希望有人能像我一样喜欢它们。如果你不想浏览我频道上的所有内容，这里是我《命运》音乐视频的按时间倒序排列列表。 Never Can Say Goodbye – 2022年10月13日 The Mountaintop – 2021年1月17日 Randy’s Quest – 2019年10月26日 Spinning Up – 2019年9月6日 Revoker Quest – 2019年7月7日 Redrix Quest – 2019年4月19日 Luna Quest – 2019年3月3日 Snipe’s Awakening – 2018年11月8日 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

I’m part of the MTV generation. If you can immediately picture the videos for Hey Mickey, The Safety Dance, You Might Think, Money For Nothing, and Take On Me, you might be too. I was transfixed from day one, not just by the bands and the music, but by the format. Some videos told a story (of varying levels of coherence). Others were more of a vibe, as the kids say these days. But always, the combination of sound and images, intertwined, synchronizing and diverging, pressed all my buttons.

My affection for an equal partnership between music and video is reflected in many of the movies I love. Goodfellas, one of my all-time favorites, is arguably structured as a series of music videos separated by exposition. The best Star Wars movies are famous for their pervasive and dominating scores.

Even today, the alchemy of carefully combined music and video has not lost its power. Witness the outsized cultural impact of a certain scene in Stranger Things season 4.

In all these cases, it’s not just the fact that there’s music in addition to dialog and sound effects. It’s that the music steps forward—both technically (in the audio mix) and emotionally. The music is a main character in much of the media that I love.

When game consoles added the ability to easily record gameplay, I immediately knew what I wanted to do with that capability. I wanted to make music videos.

Enter Destiny

I’ve been playing Destiny since shortly after it was released in 2014. For complicated and mostly business-related reasons, the game I’m playing today is called Destiny 2, but it’s been a largely unbroken experience across the two games for the past eight years.

There’s a huge amount of Destiny-related video content on YouTube, and I’ve watched a lot of it. Two things are very clear about these kinds of videos. First, much like golf or tennis on TV, you’ll find it a lot more interesting if you’ve ever played the game yourself. Second, also like televised sports, the people playing Destiny in these videos are usually very good at the game.

I am not very good at Destiny. Even after literally thousands of hours1 of playing, I am just about average. And although Destiny is a popular game with millions of players, the chances of someone seeing one of my videos and also being a Destiny player is quite small.

This is not a formula for success. My lack of game-playing skill means I can’t produce the raw material (i.e., gameplay recordings) needed to make really great videos, and my existing audience of Apple tech nerds has only a small overlap with the world of Destiny.

But did I let this stop me? I did not. Six years ago, I started with a few tentative uploads of some awful (even by my standards) gameplay with minimal editing, no commentary, and no music. (I also snuck in a gag video based on my realization that the movie Moana and the first season of Westworld both have the same emotional climax. It’s true!)

My first Destiny music video shows me learning how to not be irredeemably awful at using a sniper rifle in Destiny. It’s a record of the moment when, after four years of playing the game, I finally understood how sniping is supposed to work. It shows me graduating from “truly awful” to “merely bad.” (This was back when a single sniper headshot wouldn’t kill a roaming super, whippersnappers!)

Next came the “quest” videos, each of which cataloged my journey to acquire some in-game item (e.g., a pinnacle weapon). This is where I started to develop a recognizable style and format.

Rather than retreating from the skill and audience problems described earlier, I embraced them. Since few people would ever see my videos, I could remain blissfuly unconcerned about enticing titles and custom thumbnails. As for the assumed knowledge necessary to get the most from these videos, I piled it on instead of trying to minimize it.

Take my Revoker Quest video as an example. To understand its premise, you’d have to know that “Revoker” is a sniper rifle and that the quest to obtain it requires a large number of sniper kills while playing against other people in Destiny.

On top of that, it would also help to know some things about me. You might know (perhaps from watching earlier videos) that I’m not very good at sniping in Destiny, and you might also know that my preferred weapon in PvP is a shotgun (or at least you might know that shotguns are widely considered “easier to use” than sniper rifles). If you were playing Destiny when the Revoker quest was active, you might be familiar with how quest progress is presented in the user interface, and you might further know that the Revoker quest had multiple components, not all of which required sniper kills.

You need all of this context to understand the orchestrated climax of the video (starting at around 5:12), in which I realize that I have completed the sniper-kills portion of the quest and can finally switch back to a loadout where I feel much more competent: a shotgun and a hand cannon. Oh, and that hand cannon? It’s Luna’s Howl, the arduous acquisition of which was documented in an earlier quest video.

Similarly, only someone who is average (or worse) at Destiny and has suffered through the pain of having to get 200 double-kills with a grenade launcher in PvP and 100 Calculated Trajectory medals in order to complete the (pre-nerf, dagnabbit!) Mountaintop quest can truly appreciate the pain and suffering documented in my video about it. Fighting for heavy ammo to get “easy” kills with a heavy GL; getting one kill and then immediately dying; learning how to use Fighting Lion, a weapon I’d ignored until its ability to use primary ammo made it uniquely suited to this quest—it’s all in there.

If this is all starting to sound like gibberish to you, I understand. It’s asking a lot of the audience to have so much background information and experience. The fact that I’m unable to communicate the prerequisite knowledge in the videos themselves is a condemnation of both my skills as an editor and as a game player. (I can only work with gameplay recordings that I generate myself, after all.)

And yet…I love these videos. I love the idea that a handful of people might watch them with all the context required to fully appreciate them. I love watching them myself from time to time, if only to see my own progress as a player and an editor.

I also love the moment during my normal life when inspiration strikes and I know what song I’m going to use for my next music video. Sometimes it’s months between the moment of inspiration and when I finally get around to making the video. This was the case with my most recent release, but I’m glad I waited long enough for it to be my first video made with 60-fps gameplay from my PlayStation 5.

It’s not a “quest” video (Bungie removed pinnacle weapons a few years ago), so the scant narrative scaffolding that used to exist is gone now. Instead, I’ve gone back to my roots. I’m just trying to make a good music video. Here’s hoping someone else out there enjoys them as much as I do.

If you don’t want to wade through everything on my channel, here’s a list of my Destiny music videos in reverse-chronological order.

Never Can Say Goodbye – October 13, 2022

The Mountaintop – January 17, 2021

Randy’s Quest – October 26, 2019

Spinning Up – September 6, 2019

Revoker Quest – July 7, 2019

Redrix Quest – April 19, 2019

Luna Quest – March 3, 2019

Snipe’s Awakening – November 8, 2018

切换玻璃 2.0 || SwitchGlass 2.0

2022-10-25T17:38:57+00:00

超批判 SwitchGlass 2.0 2022年10月25日下午1:38，作者John Siracusa SwitchGlass 2.0，我的macOS自定义应用程序切换器的第一个重大更新版本，现已在Mac App Store上发布。这是对现有SwitchGlass用户的免费更新。自2020年首次发布SwitchGlass以来，用户最常请求的功能是能够手动重新排列应用程序切换器中的应用程序。版本2.0新增了这一功能，还包含许多其他改进。如需了解更多关于SwitchGlass的信息，请阅读常见问题解答和2020年的入门文章。尽管SwitchGlass 2.0在外观上看起来变化不大，但自2022年4月上一个1.x版本发布以来，超过50%的代码已更改。应用程序切换器的视图部分经历了最显著的修改，这归功于我从“绝对初学者”到“初级开发者”在SwiftUI编码方面的进步。小步前进。为了在应用程序切换器中实现拖放重新排列功能，我不得不将最低支持的macOS版本提升到12.0 Monterey。这或许是使用仍在macOS上处于初期阶段的框架如SwiftUI所付出的代价。我希望能继续更新和维护运行在macOS 10.15 Catalina及更高版本上的1.x版本，但Mac App Store不允许这样做。购买了SwitchGlass早期版本的用户仍可以在大峡谷之前的系统上使用并重新下载该版本，但我无法在Mac App Store上发布任何新的1.x版本。我开始使用TestFlight for macOS来向一小部分测试人员分发SwitchGlass 2.0的早期版本。感谢所有提供错误报告和功能建议的用户。如果您有兴趣测试SwitchGlass的预发布版本，请告诉我。总还有更多错误需要发现…… © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

SwitchGlass 2.0

October 25, 2022 at 1:38 PM by John Siracusa

SwitchGlass 2.0, the first major update to my customizable app switcher for macOS, is now available on the Mac App Store. It’s a free update for existing SwitchGlass users.

Since the initial release of SwitchGlass in 2020, the top feature request has been the ability to manually reorder apps in the app switcher. Version 2.0 adds that feature, and many more. To learn more about SwitchGlass, read the FAQ and the introductory post from 2020.

Though SwitchGlass 2.0 does not appear very different on the outside, more than 50% of the code has changed since the last 1.x release in April, 2022. The view that runs the app switcher saw the most significant revisions, thanks to my graduation from “absolute beginner” to “novice” when it comes to writing SwiftUI code. Baby steps.

I had to bump up the minimum supported OS to macOS 12.0 Monterey in order to implement drag-and-drop reordering in the app switcher. This is the price of using a framework like SwiftUI that’s still in its infancy on the Mac, I suppose. I would love to continue to update and support the 1.x version that runs on macOS 10.15 Catalina and later, but the Mac App Store does not allow it. Customers who purchased an earlier version of SwitchGlass can still use and re-download that version on pre-Monterey systems, but I can’t publish any new 1.x releases to the Mac App Store.

I started using TestFlight for macOS to distribute early versions of SwitchGlass 2.0 to a small group of beta testers. Thanks to everyone who provided bug reports and feature suggestions. If you’re interested in testing prerelease versions of SwitchGlass, let me know. There are always more bugs to be found…

框架游戏 || Frame Game

2022-04-25T14:23:01+00:00

超批判帧游戏 2019年春天，我正在寻找一种方法来推广我们时间限制的促销商品销售活动，用于意外科技播客。作为这些销售活动的一部分，我们从供应商那里获得促销码，以达到某些里程碑。每个促销码都可以兑换一件免费T恤（包括免费运费）。我决定在推特上将这些促销码送给粉丝。我想以一种有趣的方式进行，也许是一个苹果主题的问答比赛。不幸的是，大多数问答比赛很快就会被网络搜索引擎的力量所击败。我需要一个不容易被谷歌搜索到的东西。我的第一次尝试是发布一些手绘线稿，然后让人们来识别。由于我刚刚画了这幅画，我知道它不会出现在任何搜索结果中。而这些艺术作品的粗糙性质意味着谷歌图片搜索不会找到任何匹配的照片。这有效（我认为），但之后我无法再想出其他东西来画。相反，我发布了一幅更大图像的一部分，让人们来识别。再次成功。我选择的图像恰好是电视剧的一个镜头，这给了我一个想法。从那时起，我开始发布一个镜头的一部分，然后让人们来识别它来自哪部电影或电视剧。我创建了一个笔记文档来记录所有内容，并将其命名为“帧游戏”。从那时起，我已在推特上发布了近六十个镜头，包括几次音频方面的尝试。人们似乎很享受这个游戏。电影和电视剧总是很棒的，谁不喜欢免费的东西呢？我最喜欢“帧游戏”的地方在于，精心选择镜头和裁剪，使得对媒体非常熟悉的人能够猜出答案，而不太熟悉的人则会完全惊讶于有人能猜出来，更不用说这么快了。最好的例子是，我发布了一个极小的64像素正方形，来自1920x800的帧，被猜中用了1分4秒。有没有人用电脑或网络搜索来暴力破解这个游戏？几乎肯定有。但相信大多数人是诚实地玩这个游戏，这让我更开心。我谦虚地建议，真正地玩这个游戏也会让玩家更开心。 “帧游戏”完全在推特上进行，而且它旨在实时进行。不幸的是，我选择的链接方式并不特别便于在推特存档中追踪。为了更好地保存历史记录，我创建了自己的存档，链接如下。帧游戏历史查看器没有计分系统，但你可以通过尝试在点击显示完整帧之前猜出答案来“玩”这个游戏。如果你现在作弊，你只是在欺骗自己！一些帧还包含提示，显示帧的更大部分。（点击按钮时按住选项键以立即显示完整帧，而无需查看任何提示。）我在“帧游戏”过程中不得不几次发布提示，但历史查看器包含了我准备的所有提示帧，无论是否需要。我也链接到原始推文、获胜者声明以及获胜推文本身（如果有的话）。（一些获胜推文之后已被删除。）还显示了自问题发布以来经过的时间。如果你喜欢这种类型的东西，并希望每天玩类似的游戏，请查看最近发布的，受Wordle启发的framed.wtf。 “帧游戏”没有固定的日程安排，除了通常与ATP的季节性促销活动同时进行。我甚至不确定它是否有助于增加销售。它只是我为少数喜欢参与的粉丝做的一项有趣的事情。如果你想玩，关注我的Mastodon账号，并留意以魔法短语“第一个识别出……的人”开头的帖子。 “帧游戏”可以随时开始，所以要保持警惕！ © 2010-2025 约翰·西拉库萨
---------------

Hypercritical

Frame Game

In the Spring of 2019, I was looking for a way to promote one of our time-limited merchandise sales for Accidental Tech Podcast. As part of these sales, we receive promo codes from our vendor for hitting certain milestones. Each promo code is good for a free t-shirt (including free shipping). I decided to give away these promo codes to fans on Twitter.

I wanted to do it in a fun way, perhaps with an Apple-themed trivia contest. Sadly, most trivia succumbs immediately to the power of a web search engine. I needed something that wasn’t so easy to Google. My first attempt was to post some hand-drawn line art, then ask people to identify it. Since I’d just created the drawing, I knew it wouldn’t be in any search results. And the crude nature of the art meant that a Google image search wouldn’t turn up any matching photos.

It worked (I think), but I couldn’t come up with anything to draw after that. Instead, I posted a small portion of a larger image which I asked people to identify. Again, success. The image I’d chosen happened to be a frame from a TV show, and that gave me an idea.

From that point on, I’d post a small portion of a frame and then ask people to identify the movie or TV show from which it was extracted. I created a notes document to keep track of everything, and I titled it “Frame Game.”

Since then, I’ve posted almost sixty frames over three years, including a few excursions into audio. People seem to enjoy it. Movies and TV shows are great, and who doesn’t like free stuff?

What I enjoy the most about Frame Game is the process of carefully selecting the frame and the crop such that people who are very familiar with the piece of media will be able to guess the answer, while people who are not will be absolutely dumbfounded that anyone was able to figure it out at all, let alone so quickly. The best example of this was when I posted a tiny, 64-pixel square from a 1920 x 800 frame that was guessed in one minute and four seconds.

Have some people figured out how to use computers or web searches to brute-force this game? Almost certainly. But it makes me happier to believe that most people are playing it legitimately. I’d like to humbly suggest that playing for real will make the players happier too.

Frame Game has taken place entirely on Twitter, and it’s meant to be played in real time. Unfortunately, the way I’ve chosen to chain the tweets does not make it particularly easy to follow in the Twitter archives. In an effort to better preserve the historical record, I’ve created my own archive, linked below.

Frame Game History Viewer

There is no score-keeping, but you can “play” the game by attempting to guess the answer before clicking to reveal the full frame. If you cheat now, you’re only cheating yourself! Some frames also have hints that show ever-larger portions of the frame. (Hold down the Option key when clicking the button to reveal the full frame immediately without seeing any hints.)

I’ve had to resort to posting hints a few times during Frame Game, but the history viewer contains all the hint frames that I had prepared, regardless of whether or not they were needed. I’ve also linked to the original tweet, the declaration of the winner, and the winning tweet itself, if available. (Some winning tweets have since been deleted.) The time elapsed since the question was posted is also shown.

If you like this kind of thing and want to play something similar every day, check out the recently released, Wordle-inspired framed.wtf.

There is no schedule for Frame Game, other than usually coinciding with one of ATP’s seasonal merchandise sales. I’m not even sure if it helps increase sales at all. It’s just something fun that I like to do for the handful of fans who like to participate. If you want to play, follow me on Mastodon and watch for a post that begins with the magic phrase, “The first person to identify…”

Frame Game can start at any time, so be vigilant!

国庆节 || Independence Day

2022-03-31T01:55:04+00:00

超批判独立日 1997年我大学毕业时，我开始在一家与我大四期间兼职工作的同一家网络初创公司全职工作。在过去的二十五年里，我在同一领域（如今称为“全栈Web开发”）担任了一系列职位。我曾在各种规模的公司工作，从微小的初创公司到拥有数十亿美元和数千名员工的企业公司。我曾在波士顿市中心、剑桥以及西部郊区工作过。我通过火车、汽车甚至完全不上班的方式通勤。我在第一份工作中就远程办公了，而且多年来也间断地进行远程工作。所有这些工作都是典型的朝九晚五模式，我通常在不休息一天的情况下从一份工作转到另一份工作。自从第一份工作开始，我总是还做着一些其他事情——除了我的“日常工作”之外，一些至少有可能带来额外收入的事情。起初我做了一些合同编程，但我发现仅仅重复做自己已经做的事情并不吸引人。 1999年我开始为Ars Technica撰稿，并持续了十五年。我也为Macworld（印刷版和网络版）以及自己的网站和一些其他小型出版物撰稿。我喜欢写作，而且可以从中获得报酬。在十一年前，随着我的写作逐渐减少，我开始播客，我也喜欢播客，并发现可以从中获得报酬。两年前，我写了两款小型Mac应用程序来满足自己的某些需求。与此同时，在我的工作生活之外，我结婚、买房并有了两个孩子。多年来，我不得不学会如何平衡这些相互竞争的方面。随着我生活中财务需求的增加，我不得不找到增加收入的方法。随着家庭责任的增加，我不得不将“额外”工作减少到可管理的水平。在这个过程中，我不得不找到自己认为的“最大承受力”。在达到极限之前，我能承受多少？在第一份工作中，我甚至在有了房子或孩子之前，就因为慢性重复性劳损而撞上了自己的身体极限。后来，我的孩子帮助我探索了睡眠剥夺的深度，同时彻底重新校准了我的价值观。在每个决策点，我都会调整自己的生活以适应最大承受力，通过限制“不必要的”活动。我的家庭和日常工作是必须的，其他的一切都是可选的。随着我年龄的增长，我的最大承受力当然有所下降，而且我多次超出了自己的极限。但总体而言，我能够保持稳定。在过去的二十多年里，一直以“最大承受力”（或略微超出）工作并不总是感觉很好，但在人生这一关键阶段，我一直觉得这是正确的事情。春曦在过去的几年里，一些事情开始发生变化。当被提出有趣的机会而不得不拒绝时（“抱歉，我目前处于最大承受力状态……”），它开始感觉不像有纪律的生活管理，而更像是失望。当我不得不拒绝自己尝试新事物的想法时，感觉也一样糟糕。当我忽视这些感觉并答应了本应拒绝的事情（例如，我决定在两个月内制作两款Mac应用程序）时，我又迅速撞上了自己的身体和心理极限。几年前，我开始质疑一些自己的假设。我在“第二职业”上的数十年工作已经逐渐发展到可以独立维持的程度。我的日常工作真的必要吗？我开始制定辞职的计划。然后是新冠疫情……它一直持续着。不确定性太大了。我的计划被搁置了。对每个人来说，这都是艰难的几年，包括我的家庭。整个经历再次重新校准了我的价值观。我开始更多地思考我剩下的有限年份——与孩子们在一起、身体健康、在这个世界上。我想如何度过这些时光？到2022年，我重新思考不仅认为可以辞职，而且认为必须辞职。因此，2022年3月25日，我离开了我的“正常”工作。我现在正式成为自由职业者。靠自己在2000年代初，我们称之为“独立”（Going indie）。当时，在我的圈子里，通常意味着创建和销售自己的Mac（以及最终的iPhone）应用程序，但每个人走向独立的道路都是不同的。我很幸运地认识了许多在之前已经走过这条路的人。他们都教会了我关于独立意味着什么以及需要付出什么。约翰·格鲁伯在2006年独立时承担了巨大的风险。当时，像约翰一样，我刚有了第一个孩子，辞职“正职”对我来说是不可想象的。而我目前的所有播客主持人都是独立的：梅林·曼自2002年起，马可·阿门特自2010年起，凯西·利斯自2018年起，以及杰森·斯内尔自2014年起。还有更多的人——多得无法一一列举。当我想到我的第二职业所结识的朋友时，常常觉得他们都是独立的。现在，我终于准备好了。我感谢自己在各种“日常职位”上拥有一段传统且相对成功的事业。像许多在1990年代末进入科技世界的人一样，我曾在后来被收购或倒闭的几家公司工作过。而且，像大多数人一样，我从未通过IPO或其他类似的“退出”事件获得巨大财富。但我的“日常职位”带来的固定薪水确实帮助支付了我的房子、我的车、一些不错的假期——为我自己的生活和家庭提供了一切，这正是我一直以来想要的。我也感谢所有让我的第二职业成为可能的人：所有阅读我文章或收听我播客的人。特别感谢那些通过购买赞助商的产品或直接为我的工作支付报酬来支持我的人。没有你们，我无法做到这一点。最后，我想感谢我的妻子蒂娜，她一直支持我的“奇怪爱好”，即使在这些爱好占用的时间远多于带来的收入时。多年来，每当我超出自己的最大承受力时，她总是在那里帮我分担压力，同时也在追求自己的事业。没有她的爱与支持，我无法走到今天。你可以听到我在Reconcilable Differences第179集中更详细地谈论这个话题（从50:47处开始）。如果你想了解如何最好地支持我的工作，目前的答案是通过播客会员支持。这并不是巧合，许多独立播客在新冠疫情爆发后不久都推出了付费会员计划。会员支持在不确定的市场中提供了稳定的收入。我所有的播客都有会员计划，链接如下。意外科技播客可调和的分歧机器人还是人月度和年度会员都可选择。会员福利各有不同，但都包括无广告的节目版本，以及一些额外内容。现在，播客几乎就是我谋生的方式了。（天哪，写这句话真奇怪。我不确定如何当面告诉别人。）我希望你们都能继续收听。祝我好运…… © 2010-2025 约翰·西拉库萨
---------------

Hypercritical

Independence Day

When I graduated college in 1997, I started a full-time job with the same dot-com startup that I had been working for part time during my senior year. In the twenty-five years that have followed, I’ve had a series of jobs in the same field ("full-stack web development," in today’s parlance).

I’ve worked for companies of all sizes, from tiny startups to enterprise businesses with billions of dollars and thousands of employees. I’ve worked in downtown Boston, in Cambridge, and in the western suburbs. I’ve commuted to work by train, by car, and not at all. (I worked remotely at my very first job, and I have done so on and off for many years since.) All these jobs have been in the typical nine-to-five mold, and I’ve usually gone from one to the next without even a single day off in between.

Ever since my first job, I’ve also always done…something else—something besides my “day job,” something that at least had the potential to bring in some extra money. I did a little contract programming at the start, but I didn’t find it appealing to just do more of what I was already doing.

I started writing for Ars Technica in 1999, and I continued doing that for fifteen years. I also wrote for Macworld (for print and the web), for my own website, and for a few other small publications. I enjoyed writing, and I could get paid for it.

Eleven years ago, as my writing tapered off, I started podcasting, which I also enjoyed and found I could get paid for. Two years ago, I wrote two small Mac apps to scratch a few of my own itches.

Meanwhile, outside of my work life, I got married, bought a house, and had two children. Over the years, I’ve had to learn how to balance these competing concerns. As the financial demands of my life have increased, I’ve had to find a way to increase my income. As my family responsibilities have grown, I’ve had to reduce my “extra” work to a manageable level.

As part of this process, I’ve had to find what I think of as my “maximum capacity.” How much can I ask of myself before I fall apart? I learned some important lessons at my very first job, even before I had a house or kids, by slamming hard into the limits of my own body thanks to chronic RSI. Later, my children helped me plumb the depths of sleep deprivation while also entirely recalibrating my value system.

At each decision point, I’ve adjusted my life to fit within my maximum capacity by curtailing “unnecessary” activities. My family and my day job were necessities. Everything else was optional. As I’ve gotten older, my maximum capacity has decreased, of course, and I have exceeded my limits on many occasions. But for the most part, I’ve been able to keep it together.

It hasn’t always felt great to be running “at maximum capacity” (or slightly beyond) for two and a half decades, but it has always felt like the right thing to do during this critical part of my life.

Spring Dawning

Over the past few years, something has started to change. When I’ve been presented with interesting opportunities that I’ve had to turn down (“Sorry, I’m at my maximum capacity right now…”) it has started to feel less like disciplined life-management and more like disappointment. It’s felt similarly lousy when I’ve had to reject my own ideas for new things I’d like to try. And when I’ve ignored those feelings and said yes when I knew I should say no (e.g., when I decided to make two Mac apps in two months), I’ve quickly bumped into my limits yet again—both physical and mental.

A few years ago, I started to question some of my assumptions. My decades of work on my “second career” had slowly built it up to the point where it was plausibly viable on its own. Was my day job really necessary? I started formulating a plan to quit.

Then came COVID-19…and it kept coming. There was just too much uncertainty. My plans were put on hold. It’s been a rough few years for everyone, including my family. The whole experience recalibrated my value system one more time. I started to think more about the limited number of years I have left—with my kids, in good health, on this earth. How do I want to spend that time?

By 2022, I had returned to thinking not only that it’s possible for me to quit my day job, but that it’s necessary for me to do so.

And so, on March 25, 2022, I left my “normal” job. I am now officially self-employed.

On My Own

“Going indie” is what we used to call it in the early 2000s. Back then, in my circles, it usually meant creating and selling your own Mac (and, eventually, iPhone) apps, but each person’s road to independence is different.

I’m lucky to know so many people who have walked this same path before me. They’ve all taught me so much about what it means—and what it takes—to be independent. John Gruber took some huge risks when he went independent back in 2006. At that time, like John, I had recently had my first child, and the idea of quitting my “real job” was unthinkable to me. All my current podcast co-hosts are independent: Merlin Mann since 2002, Marco Arment since 2010, Casey Liss since 2018, and Jason Snell since 2014. And there are many more—too many to list here. When I think about the friends I’ve made as part of my second career, it often seems like they’re all independent. Now, finally, I’m ready.

I am thankful to have had such a conventional, largely successful career at my various day jobs. Like many people who entered the tech world in the late 1990s, I worked for several companies that were later acquired or went out of business. And, like most people, I did not strike it rich at any point via an IPO or similar “exit” event. But the regular salary from my day job did help pay for my house, my car, some nice vacations—a whole life for myself and my family, which is all I ever wanted.

I’m also thankful for everyone who has made my second career possible: all the people who have read my writing or listened to me on a podcast. Special thanks to those of you who have supported me by buying something from a sponsor or paying me directly for my work. I would not be able to do this without you.

Finally, I want to thank my wife, Tina, who has always supported my “weird hobbies,” even back when they took an amount of my time that was far out of proportion with the money they brought in. Each time I have exceeded my maximum capacity over the years, she has been there to pick up the slack, all while pursuing her own career. I would not be where I am today without her love and support.

You can hear me talk more about this topic on episode 179 of Reconcilable Differences (starting at 50:47).

If you want to know how you can best support my work, the answer right now is through podcast memberships. It’s not a coincidence that so many independent podcasts started paid membership programs shortly after COVID hit. Memberships provide reliable income in an uncertain market. Each of my podcasts has a membership program, linked below.

Accidental Tech Podcast

Reconcilable Differences

Robot or Not

Both monthly and annual memberships are available. The member benefits vary, but all include a version of the show without any ads, plus some amount of bonus content.

Podcasts are now literally how I make my living. (Boy, that’s weird to write. I’m not sure how I’m going to say it to people in person.) I hope you’ll all continue to listen. Wish me luck…

流媒体应用情感分析 || Streaming App Sentiments

2022-02-17T19:28:55+00:00

我的未经请求的流媒体应用规格引发了大量反馈。我确信流媒体应用开发者已经从用户那里收集了反馈，我也确信我的帖子语气影响了我所收到的反馈性质。然而，为了记录历史，这里列出人们对于他们所使用的流媒体视频应用的感受。最普遍的抱怨是，流媒体应用让用户难以继续观看他们之前正在观看的内容。正如我之前提到的，相互冲突的利益可以解释这一现象，但人们仍然非常讨厌这一点。一位匿名读者讲述了客户满意度如何在“参与度”的祭坛上被牺牲的故事。去年，Hulu进行了一项实验，将“继续观看”功能移至页面下方（从原来的位置向下移动两行）。这项实验仅针对一小部分用户进行，但其效果非常显著，预计增加的参与度将带来超过2000万美元的年收入。因此，实验立即被终止，并将新位置推广给所有用户。虽然我理解（并很大程度上同意）你们对“进行中”的节目不是顶部功能感到沮丧，但你们可以争论说[突出新内容]能为用户发现他们原本不会观看的内容提供更大价值（因此参与度增加）。这确实是一个“小心你所衡量的”的典型案例。我不怀疑无论使用什么指标来衡量“参与度”，将“继续观看”部分隐藏起来确实能提升这些指标，但我想再次强调，根据我收到的反馈，人们对此做法非常反感。这让他们不喜欢这个应用，有时甚至讨厌整个流媒体服务本身。我认为任何与参与度相关的指标都不值得以这种方式激怒用户——即使它真的帮助用户发现新内容或延长订阅时间。我回想起一句老话：“人们不会记住你说的话，但他们会记住你让他们感觉如何。”这句话同样适用于应用程序。（此外，鉴于似乎每个流行的流媒体应用都在一定程度上存在这种问题，因此成为第一个停止这种用户敌对行为的应用将有机会获得竞争优势。）第二大类反馈是关于检测、保存和修改状态的问题。那些在决定某内容是否已被“观看”时表现不佳的应用引发了大量不满。（提示：大多数人不会看完所有片尾字幕。）这进一步被无法手动标记内容为已观看或未观看的功能所加剧。跨设备状态同步不可靠则是压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草。人们感觉自己对“数据”（如果有的话）没有控制权。应用程序做出错误的猜测或忘记它们应该记住的事情，而用户却无法进行更正。有些人告诉我，他们已经放弃了。现在他们将流媒体应用视为一个华丽的搜索框，每次都要重新寻找想看的内容，并通过其他方式（有时甚至使用其他应用）来记录自己已经观看过的内容。（我想这种每次启动应用时的慌乱可能被解读为“参与度提升”。）最后，还有一系列基本可用性问题的反馈：文本过小；文本被截断且无法查看更多；导航不明显；图标和控制不清晰；以及缺乏基本的偏好或设置选项，导致所有人都只能依赖默认设置。当然，别忘了还有bug。多位用户提到了我最讨厌的bug：暂停播放后恢复播放，却从几分钟前的位置开始。试着快进到你实际离开的位置时，如果不小心跳过了太多内容，可能会不小心剧透了剧情！再次承认我的原始帖子（以及我的受众群体）的性质无疑会影响我所收到的反馈，但我认为有必要指出的是，没有人——没有一个人——写信告诉我他们多么喜欢使用自己的流媒体应用。我本以为针对一个被广泛抱怨的事物进行批评，会收到一些反对意见，但没想到会这么少。我确信许多人确实喜欢他们选择的流媒体应用，尤其是像Plex或Channels这样较为冷门、技术导向的应用，但总体情绪已经很明确。流媒体服务提供商是否在意？我认为他们应该在意。
---------------

My unsolicited streaming app spec has garnered a lot of feedback. I’m sure streaming app developers already gather feedback from their users, and I’m also sure that the tone of my post has skewed the nature of the feedback I received. Nevertheless, for posterity, here’s how people are feeling about the streaming video apps they use.

The number one complaint, by far, was that streaming apps make it too difficult to resume watching whatever you were already watching. As I noted earlier, conflicting incentives easily explain this, but people still hate it. A reader who wished to remain anonymous sent this story of how customer satisfaction gets sacrificed on the altar of “engagement.”

There was an experiment at Hulu last year to move “Continue Watching” below the fold (down 2 rows from where it was). This was done with a very small group of users. It was so successful that the increased engagement was projected to generate more than $20 million a year. The experiment was immediately ended and the new position was deployed to all users.

While I understand (and largely agree with) your frustration that your “in progress” show isn’t the top feature, you can argue that [making new content more prominent] provides the user more value as they discover content they wouldn’t have otherwise (hence the increased engagement).

This is definitely a case of “be careful what you measure.” I don’t doubt that whatever metric is being used to gauge “engagement” is indeed boosted by burying the “Continue Watching” section, but I must emphasize again, according to the feedback I received, people hate this practice with a fiery passion. It makes them dislike the app, and sometimes also the streaming service itself.

I don’t think any engagement-related metric is worth angering users in this way—even if it really does help users discover new content or stay subscribed longer. I’m reminded of the old saying, “People won’t remember what you said, but they will remember how you made them feel.” It applies to apps as well as people.

(Furthermore, given the fact that seemingly every popular streaming app does this to some degree, there’s an opportunity to seize a competitive advantage by becoming the first app to stop this user-hostile practice.)

The second biggest category of feedback was about detecting, preserving, and altering state. Apps that do a poor job of deciding when something has been “watched” drew much ire. (Hint: most people don’t sit through all the ending credits.) Compounding this is the inability to manually mark something as watched or unwatched. Failure to reliably sync state across devices is the cherry on top.

People don’t feel like they are in control of their “data,” such as it is. The apps make bad guesses or forget things they should remember, and the user has no way to correct them. Some people told me they have simply given up. They now treat their streaming app as a glorified search box, hunting anew each time for the content they want to watch, and keeping track of what they’ve already watched using other means, sometimes even using other apps. (I imagine this flailing on each app launch may read as “increased engagement.”)

Finally, there was a long tail of basic usability complaints: text that’s too small; text that’s truncated, with no way to see more; non-obvious navigation; inscrutable icons and controls; and a general lack of preferences or settings, leaving everyone at the mercy of the defaults. Oh yeah, and don’t forget bugs, of course. Multiple people cited my personal most-hated bug: pausing and then resuming playback only to have it start playing from a position several minutes in the past. Have fun trying to fast-forward to where you actually left off without accidentally spoiling anything for yourself by over-shooting!

While again acknowledging how the nature of my original post (and my audience in general) surely affects the feedback I receive, I think it’s worth noting that no one—not a single person—wrote to tell me how much they loved using their streaming app. I didn’t expect to get much pushback on a post criticizing something so widely maligned, but I did expect to get some. I’m sure many people do enjoy their streaming app of choice, especially if it’s one of the more obscure, tech-oriented ones like Plex or Channels, but the overall sentiment is clear. Do streaming services care? I think they should.

未经请求的流媒体应用规格 || An Unsolicited Streaming App Spec

2022-02-15T17:17:59+00:00

我订阅了很多流媒体视频服务，这意味着我使用了很多流媒体视频应用。大多数应用都无法满足我的期望。以下是一个简单的流媒体视频应用规格。遵循这些规范，你的应用将不会让用户失望。这个规格只包含最基本的功能。它为应用提供了一个很大的差异化空间，通过一些未在此列出的巧妙功能来惊喜和愉悦用户。但对所有流媒体应用开发者来说，请在开发你们的独特卖点之前，先确保覆盖这些基础功能。显然，即使是基本功能的列表也会带有主观性。虽然我的喜好无疑影响了这份列表，但我真的认为，任何未能实现这些功能中的大部分的流媒体应用都是在辜负用户。再次强调，这些不是附加功能，而是最基础的要素。启动体验启动时，必须让用户立刻清楚如何继续观看他们之前正在观看的内容。这可能是除了视频播放器本身之外最重要的功能。如果用户正在观看电视剧的一集，屏幕上最突出的应该是继续观看该集的方法。如果用户刚刚看完一集，那么“继续观看”意味着观看下一集，依此类推。继续用户上次停止观看的位置（例如，直接进入视频播放器并暂停在用户停止观看的那一刻）也是可以接受的，前提是用户能清楚地意识到这一点。直接进入一个完全黑屏的视频播放界面则不是好的体验。（我暂时忽略用户资料，因为这个规格如此基础。但一个优秀的应用应该以某种方式支持用户资料，这可能会在用户进入可以继续观看的界面之前增加一个选择资料的步骤。）信息架构应用必须暴露并支持媒体的内在信息层级。电视剧有季，季有集，集由人（演员、编剧、导演）制作。无论应用如何切分它提供的媒体内容，都必须支持最可能符合用户心理模型的简单层级。这个层级应该在视觉和导航上都存在。从电视剧的一集中，用户应该能清楚地知道如何向上导航到该集所属的季，再从季导航到该电视剧的所有季列表，然后可能再向下进入另一个季，再进入该季的一集，依此类推。虽然在导航时有时希望走捷径（例如，在看完电视剧最后一集后直接跳回首页），但这并不意味着层级结构不应该存在。捷径是跳过层级，而不是完全删除它。状态保存记录用户做了什么以及何时做的。用户看了哪些内容？是全部看完还是只看了部分？某内容被观看过多少次？有没有跳过某些部分？这些信息对应用的功能至关重要，应该被当作珍贵信息保存。就像文本编辑器保存用户输入的字符一样，这些信息应该在应用的所有实例中同步保存。视觉传达应用知道的信息应该以视觉方式传达给用户。在观看剧集列表时，屏幕上应有某种方式显示哪些剧集已被观看，哪些尚未观看。也可以考虑显示用户在剧集中观看的进度。没有人喜欢视觉杂乱，但一个简单的进度条（例如）可以在一个窄小的界面元素中同时显示这两项信息。同样，当视频播放时，用户应该能够清楚地知道正在播放什么内容。最直接的方式是在视频暂停时显示一些文字，标明电视剧名称、季号和集号。用户有疑问，而应用应该提供答案。它只需传达这些信息。我正在看什么？它有多长？还剩多少时间？这个演员叫什么名字？这部电影是什么年份制作的？这部电视剧的下一集什么时候发布？这部电视剧是否被取消了？等等。如果这些信息没有在界面中展示出来，它们就是无用的。视觉元素——在合理的信息层级中恰当放置——是解决这个问题的关键。视频播放器以下播放控制功能必须在一次点击或触摸后即可访问，并且要有大而明显的操作目标。播放/暂停。最好是单个控制按钮，可以在两者之间切换。向前或向后跳过几秒钟。开启或关闭字幕。请注意，这与选择要显示的字幕不同，只是开启或关闭字幕。跳转到视频的开始或结束。某种方式让用户停止观看。这可以是一个“关闭”按钮（例如，“X”按钮），或者一种“返回”导航方式。以下播放控制功能必须在不离开视频播放器的情况下即可访问。它们可能需要多次点击或触摸才能访问。选择音频轨道。选择字幕轨道或关闭字幕。向前或向后跳转到任意位置。这通常通过视频时间轴上的进度条来实现。以下信息必须在不离开视频播放器的情况下即可访问。视频的标题，包括其所属的层级信息。例如，电视剧名称、季号和集号。视频的总时长和当前播放位置。当前视频剩余的时间。必须有一种方式让用户暂停视频并看到一个未被遮挡的静止画面。这意味着视频上方不能有播放控制按钮，视频画面也不能被变暗或着色。虽然可能需要几次点击才能达到这种状态，但必须能够实现。当视频结束时，必须有一种方式让用户跳转到下一个视频，假设有一个明显的选择（例如，电视剧的下一集）。我的列表必须有一种方式让用户手动创建媒体列表。在常见情况下，这是一份用户打算观看（最终）的媒体列表，但也可以用于任何目的。重要的是用户有意创建这个列表，而不是自动添加任何内容。至少，这个列表必须接受媒体的顶层项目（例如，电视剧、电影）。这个列表也可以接受更细粒度的项目，例如单个电视剧集。这可能看起来是最不“基础”的功能，但实际上却是必不可少的。如今有如此多优质内容，我们需要应用帮助我们记录所有内容，而不仅仅是当前正在观看的内容。如果状态保存和视觉传达是应用的短期记忆，那么“我的列表”就是应用的长期记忆。一个低标准这似乎是一个相当无聊的列表，对吧？一个只有这些功能的流媒体应用看起来似乎功能有限。但令人遗憾的是，很少有（如果有的话）流行的流媒体应用能够达到甚至这个极低的标准。让我们看看一些例子。 Netflix（iOS）我在应用中最后进行的操作是观看电视剧的一集。启动时，选择我的用户资料后，屏幕上没有任何显示我正在观看的电视剧。在几屏之后的“继续观看”部分，有多个其他电视剧的继续观看按钮，但没有我刚刚观看的那集。（也许是因为我从“我的列表”开始观看的？谁知道呢？）在播放视频时，没有一种方式可以通过单次点击来切换字幕的开启和关闭。（开启字幕需要三次点击，关闭也需要三次。）除了手动拖动进度条外，没有其他方式可以跳转到视频的开始。暂停视频时，会显示季号、集号和标题，但不会显示电视剧名称。除非视频刚刚开始，否则视频的总时长不会显示在任何地方。要获取总时长，用户必须将时间剩余（显示在时间轴末尾）加上当前播放位置（显示在时间轴开始时）。虽然有有限的媒体内在层级访问（例如，我可以从观看电视剧的一集跳转到当前季的剧集列表），但它是不完整的，并且没有暴露所有可用的信息。例如，没有明显的方式从视频播放器跳转到剧集列表，再跳转到单个剧集的详细页面，显示演员表和发布日期等信息。相反，视频必须被“关闭”，这可能会导向剧集详情页面，前提是用户最初是从那里进入该剧集的。现有的信息层级混乱不堪，而且与导航层级的交集也很有限。 HBO Max（iPadOS）我在应用中最后进行的操作是观看电视剧的最新一集。启动时，一个我从未观看过的电视剧的宣传画面占据了大部分屏幕，而一个很小的“继续观看”部分仅在屏幕底部部分可见。它显示了一部我早已看完的电视剧的一集（带有完整的进度条），以及一个月前我跳进中间查看某事的电影。然而，我正在观看的电视剧却不在列表中，尽管过去一周我只在HBO Max应用中观看过这个电视剧的集数。在播放视频时，没有一种方式可以通过单次点击来切换字幕的开启和关闭。（开启字幕需要三次点击，关闭也需要三次。）除非视频刚刚开始，否则视频的总时长不会显示在任何地方。要获取总时长，用户必须将时间剩余（显示在时间轴末尾）加上当前播放位置（显示在时间轴开始时）。 Disney+（Apple TV）我在应用中最后进行的操作是观看电视剧的一集。启动时，选择我的用户资料后，屏幕上没有任何显示我正在观看的电视剧。我必须向下滚动两行才能到达“继续观看”部分，那里才列出了我的剧集。在播放视频时，没有一种方式可以通过单次操作来切换字幕的开启和关闭。相反，我需要向下滑动以显示选项菜单，再滑动到字幕部分，再向下滑动选择语言，然后点击确认——然后再重复这些步骤来关闭字幕。我找不到从视频播放器跳转到该剧集的剧集列表或详细页面的方法。就像Netflix应用（和许多其他应用）一样，信息层级和导航层级之间的关系最多只能说是勉强的。这并不是对这些应用的全面探讨，更不用说所有流媒体应用了。我确信有些人会对我的规格中的细节提出异议。例如，为什么如此强调快速访问字幕？（这是因为我经常需要快速倒带或短暂开启字幕，无论是自己还是应他人的请求。虽然始终保持字幕开启是最常见的使用场景，但短暂开启它们以澄清几行对话则是紧随其后的第二常见需求。）此外，是的，我知道在某些应用中，某些平台上确实有其他“更好的”方法来完成这些任务。例如，我可以按住Apple TV遥控器的麦克风按钮并说出“开启字幕”或“关闭字幕”，通常都能奏效。更棒的是，我可以说“他说了什么？”Apple TV会自动倒带，开启字幕，播放一小段时间，然后再次关闭字幕。惊喜和愉悦！但所有这些都不改变整体情况，即即使是那些最流行、资金最充足的流媒体视频应用，也以惊人的方式未能满足基本需求。冲突的激励因素无疑解释了这些失败（例如，推广新内容而不是让用户快速继续观看他们正在观看的内容），但解释并不能让这些缺陷变得不那么令人困扰。还有那些看似毫无动机的空白。在巨大的iPad或电视屏幕上，真的没有空间在视频暂停时显示我正在观看的电视剧名称吗？为什么从观看电视剧的一集跳转到该电视剧的剧集列表如此困难？为什么在观看视频时，除了语音控制外，没有其他方式开启字幕或更改音频轨道？还有很多低垂的果实可以摘取。从优秀到卓越我试图限制自己只讨论基础功能以证明一个观点，但还有许多优秀的想法就在基础之上。这些是简单且经过验证的技术，例如记住用户上次从菜单中选择的选项，并将其作为首选项显示，或者添加（天哪！）设置选项，让用户根据自己的偏好配置功能，例如快进或快退的秒数，或者默认的字幕或音频轨道，甚至可以为每部剧集进行个性化设置。如果认为这个规格只是我个人的偏好列表，我可以向你保证，这个列表远不止这些。例如，我希望每个流媒体应用都能提供单帧前进或后退的功能。尝试通过精确操作播放/暂停按钮或时间轴进度条来定位到能读取背景文字的精确帧，这并不是我愿意玩的游戏。（响应迟钝、不灵敏的应用会让情况更糟。）此外，考虑创建可重复使用的界面元素。例如，一个良好的过滤和排序列表的控制功能可以在流媒体应用的多个地方使用。（大多数应用根本不提供排序选项，这是犯罪行为。）同样，状态和操作的图标也应该标准化，并在所有地方使用。当原始TiVo的屏幕界面在可预测性、易读性和一致性方面都优于大多数现代流媒体应用时，这确实是一种令人沮丧的现状。让我们不要忘记从竞争对手那里借鉴功能这一经过验证的做法。为什么没有人复制Amazon的X-Ray功能？为什么Apple TV+没有提供手动整理电视剧列表的方式，而似乎它的所有竞争对手都有？为什么更多的应用不提供像Disney+那样的多种内容组织视图？（例如，电影系列的发布顺序与时间顺序。）大多数流媒体应用旨在吸引大众市场，因此不能太复杂。但今天，它们却处于完全相反的极端，缺乏基本功能，而不是被复杂的功能和自定义选项所困扰。这些应用需要先学会走路，才能跑起来。我希望有一天，至少有一两个应用能够飞翔。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

I subscribe to a lot of streaming video services, and that means I use a lot of streaming video apps. Most of them fall short of my expectations. Here, then, is a simple specification for a streaming video app. Follow it, and your app will be well on its way to not sucking.

This spec includes only the basics. It leaves plenty of room for apps to differentiate themselves by surprising and delighting their users with clever features not listed here. But to all the streaming app developers out there, please consider covering these fundamentals before working on your Unique Selling Proposition.

Obviously, a list of even the most rudimentary features can’t help but also be opinionated. Though my tastes have surely influenced this list, I really do think that any streaming app that fails to implement nearly all of these features is failing its users. Again, these are not frills. These are the bare-bones basics.

Launch Experience

On launch, it must be immediately obvious how to resume watching whatever the user was watching previously. This may be the most important feature outside the video player itself.

If the user was in the middle of watching an episode of a TV show, the most prominent thing on the screen should be a way to continue that episode. If the user just finished an episode, then “resuming” means watching the next episode, and so on.

Resuming exactly where the user left off—for example, launching into the video player, paused at the exact moment the user stopped watching—is also acceptable, provided it is made obvious that this has happened. Launching into a completely black video playback screen is not a good experience.

(I am ignoring user profiles for now—that’s how basic this specification is. But a good app should support profiles in some way, and this may add a step for the user to select their profile before getting to the point where they can resume viewing.)

Information Architecture

Expose and support the intrinsic information hierarchy of the media. TV shows have seasons. Seasons have episodes. Episodes are made by people (actors, writers, directors). Whatever other ways an app chooses to slice and dice the media it vends, it must also support the simple hierarchy that is most likely to match the user’s mental model.

This hierarchy should exist both visually and navigationally. From an episode of a TV show, it should be obvious how to go up in the hierarchy to the season that the episode exists within, and from there to the list of seasons in the show, and then perhaps down into another season, then down into an episode of that season, and so on.

Though it’s often desirable to take shortcuts when navigating (e.g., to jump back to the home screen after completing the final episode of a TV series), that doesn’t mean the hierarchy shouldn’t exist at all. A shortcut is a way to skip levels in the hierarchy, not a way to erase it from the app entirely.

State Preservation

Keep track of what the user has done, and when. Which things has the user watched? Were they watched entirely or partially? How many times has something been watched? Were any parts skipped? This information is crucial for the functionality of the app, and it should be treated as precious. Preserve this state the same way a text editor preserves typed characters. Sync it across all instances of the app.

Visual Communication

The things the app knows should be communicated visually to the user. When viewing a list of episodes, put something on the screen to indicate which ones have been viewed and which ones haven’t. Consider showing a user’s progress within an episode as well. No one likes visual clutter, but a simple progress bar (for example) can show both of these things in a single, slim interface element.

Similarly, when video is playing, it should be possible to find out what, exactly, is being played. The most straightforward way to do this is to show some text when the video is paused that identifies the TV show, season number, and episode number.

The user has questions, and the app has the answers. It need only communicate them. What am I watching? How long is it? How much time is left? What is the name of this actor? What year was this movie made? When will the next episode of this TV show be released? Was this TV show cancelled? And on and on. This information is useless if it’s not exposed in the interface. Visual elements—well-placed in a sensible information hierarchy—are the key to solving this problem.

Video Player

The following playback controls must be one tap/click away and must have large, obvious targets.

Play/pause. Ideally, a single control that toggles between functions.

Skip forward/backward by some small number of seconds.

Enable/disable subtitles. Note that this is separate from selecting which subtitles you want to see. This is just to turn them on and off.

Skip to the beginning or the end of the video.

Some way to stop watching. This can be a “close” control (e.g., an “X” button) or a way to navigate “back” or similar.

The following playback controls must be accessible without leaving the video player. They may be more than one tap/click away.

Select audio track.

Select subtitle track or disable subtitles.

Skip forward/backward to some arbitrary position. This is most often accomplished with a scrubber on a video timeline.

The following information must be accessible without leaving the video player.

The title of the video, including its hierarchical context. For example, the TV show, season number, and episode number.

The duration of the video and the current playback position within it.

The time remaining in the current video.

There must be a way to pause the video and get an unobstructed view of a still frame. That means no playback controls on top of the video and no dimming or tinting of the video frame. It’s fine if it takes a few taps to get to this state, but it must be possible.

When a video ends, there must be a way to go to the next video, assuming there is an obvious choice for this (e.g., the next episode in a TV show).

My List

There must be a way for the user to manually create a list of media. In the common case, this is a list of media that the user intends to watch (eventually), but it can be used for any purpose. The important part is that the user makes the list intentionally. Nothing gets added to this list automatically.

At a minimum, the list must accept top-level items in the hierarchy (e.g., TV shows, movies). The list could also accept more granular items, like individual TV episodes.

This is the one feature that may seem the least “basic,” but it really is essential. There’s so much good content available today that we need our apps to help us keep track of it all, not just what we’re currently watching. If state preservation and visual communication are the app’s short-term memory, then “My List” is the app’s long-term memory.

A Low Bar

This is a pretty boring list, huh? A streaming app with only these features seems like it would be quite limited. But the sad fact is that few, if any, popular streaming apps reach even this extremely low bar. Let’s take a look at some examples.

Netflix (iOS)

The last thing I did in the app was watch part of an episode of a TV show. On launch, after selecting my user profile, the show I was in the middle of watching is not visible anywhere on the screen. The “Continue watching for John” section, several screens lower down, contains buttons to resume many other shows, but not the one I was just watching. (Maybe it’s because I started watching it from “My List”? Who knows?)

When playing video, there is no way to toggle subtitles on and off with a single tap. (It takes three taps to turn them on and another three to turn them off.) There is also no way to skip to the beginning other than dragging the scrubber manually.

Pausing the video shows the season number, episode number, and title, but not the name of the TV show.

The duration of the video is not shown anywhere unless the video has just started. To get the duration, the user must add the time remaining (displayed at the end of the timeline) to the current play position (displayed when the scrubber is “grabbed” by holding a finger down on it).

Though there is limited access to the intrinsic hierarchy of the media (e.g., I can go from watching an episode of a TV show to a list of episodes in the current season), it is incomplete, and it does not expose all the available information. For example, there is no obvious way to get from the video player to the episode list and then to a detail screen for an individual episode that shows things like the cast and the date it was released. Instead, the video must be “closed,” which may lead to an episode detail page, provided that’s where you started when navigating to the episode in the first place. The information hierarchy, such as it exists, is quite a muddle, and it only sporadically intersects with the navigation hierarchy.

HBO Max (iPadOS)

The last thing I did in the app was watch the latest episode of a TV show. On launch, a promo for a show I have never watched fills most of the screen, and a small “Continue Watching” section is partially visible at the very bottom. It shows an episode of a TV show that I have already finished watching (complete with an entirely full progress bar) and a movie I skipped into the middle of to check something several months ago. The TV show I was watching is not listed, even though the only thing I’ve done in the HBO Max app for the past week is watch episodes of this show.

When playing video, there is no way to toggle subtitles on and off with a single tap. (It takes three taps to turn them on and another three to turn them off.)

Disney+ (Apple TV)

The last thing I did in the app was watch part of an episode of a TV show. On launch, after selecting my user profile, the show I was in the middle of watching is not visible anywhere on the screen. I had to scroll down two rows to get to the “Continue Watching” section, where my episode was listed.

When playing video, there is no way to toggle subtitles on and off with a single action. Instead, I have to swipe down to display a menu of options, swipe over to subtitles, swipe down to pick a language, and click to select it—then do the same steps again to turn subtitles off.

I could not find a way to get from the video player to either an episode list or a detail page for the episode I’m watching. Like the Netflix app (and many others), the relationship between the information hierarchy and the navigation hierarchy is tenuous at best.

This is not an exhaustive exploration of any of these apps, let alone all streaming apps. And I’m sure some people will quibble with the particulars of my spec. For example, why place so much emphasis on quick access to subtitles? (It’s because being able to quickly skip backwards and briefly enable subtitles is something I do frequently, both on my own and at the request of others. Though keeping subtitles on all the time is surely the most common use case, briefly enabling them to clarify a few lines of dialogue is a close second.)

And, yes, I know that there are often other, “better” ways to accomplish these tasks in some apps on some platforms. For example, I can hold down the microphone button on my Apple TV remote and say “enable subtitles” or “disable subtitles” and it will usually work. Better still, I can ask “What did he say?” and the Apple TV will skip backwards, enable subtitles, play for a short duration, and then disable subtitles again, all on its own. Surprise and delight!

But none of this changes the overall picture, which is that even the most popular, well-funded streaming video apps fail to get the basics right in a shocking number of ways. Conflicting incentives surely explain some of these failings (e.g., promoting new content rather than letting me quickly resume what I was already watching), but an explanation doesn’t make these shortcomings any less bothersome.

And then there are the gaps that seem unmotivated. Is there really no room on a giant iPad or TV screen to show me the name of the TV show I’m watching when the video is paused? Why is it so hard to go from viewing an episode of a TV show to a list of episodes for that show? Why is there sometimes no way other than voice control to enable subtitles or change the audio track while watching a video? There’s plenty of low-hanging fruit waiting to be picked.

From Good to Great

I tried to limit myself to the basics to prove a point, but there is a vast world of good ideas that are just beyond the basics. These are simple, proven techniques like remembering which option a user picked from a menu the last time and bubbling that up as the top choice, or adding (gasp!) settings to let the user configure features according to their preferences, like how many seconds forward or backwards the skip buttons should travel, or which subtitle or audio track should be on by default, perhaps with per-show customizations.

And if you think this spec is just a list of my personal preferences, I can assure you that list is much longer. To give just one example, I wish every streaming app had a way to advance forward and backward by a single frame at a time. Trying to precisely manipulate the play/pause button or the timeline scrubber to get to the exact frame where I can read some bit of background text is not a game I enjoy playing. (Laggy, unresponsive apps make this even worse.)

Also consider creating interface elements that are reusable. A good control for filtering and sorting lists, for example, could be used in many places within a streaming app. (Most offer no sorting options at all, which is criminal.) The same goes for iconography for status and actions: standardize it, and use it everywhere. It’s a sad state of affairs when the original TiVo on-screen interface bests most modern streaming apps in terms of predictability, legibility, and consistency.

And let’s not forget the tried-and-true practice of stealing features from competitors. How has no one yet copied Amazon’s X-Ray feature? Why doesn’t Apple TV+ have any way to manually curate a list of TV shows like seemingly every one of its competitors? Why don’t more apps provide multiple organizational views of the same content like the Disney+ app does? (E.g., release order vs. chronological order for movie series.)

Most streaming apps aim for mass-market appeal, so they can’t get too complex. But today, they’re at the far opposite end of the spectrum, missing basic functionality rather than being bogged down with fancy features and customization. These apps need to walk before they can run. I hope, someday, at least one or two of them can fly.

优质产品 || Good Products

2020-08-31T21:39:10+00:00

苛刻的好产品 2020年8月31日下午5:39，由John Siracusa撰写作为亚马逊关联方，我通过合格购买获得收益。了解更多。由于我性格固执己见，或者因为我多年来在各种播客上表达了自己的观点，人们经常问我推荐产品。我应该买哪款Mac？哪款微波炉最好？我应该为四口之家买什么类型的汽车？现在，我不是Wirecutter或消费者报告那样的机构。我只是一个普通人。除了少数例外，我对某一类别的产品没有个人使用经验。但我知道什么是好产品（当我看到它并使用它时）。本页面列出了一些我认为“好”的产品。这听起来像是一个很低的标准，但有时“好”就是某种产品所能达到的最高水平。即使采用这种宽松的标准，列表也不长。和我的Great Games列表一样，我会随着时间的推移不断更新这个页面。如果出现更好的产品，我可能也会移除或替换现有的产品。如果你通过本页面上的产品链接购买了商品，我可能会通过卖家的联盟计划获得报酬。（并非所有零售商都有联盟计划，也不是所有产品都符合联盟支付条件。）烤面包机我热爱烤面包机，多年来亲自测试了许多型号。我的朋友Casey Liss，ATP的共同主持人，讲述了导致我尝试这么多烤面包机的奇怪事件，并提供了链接，让你可以收听我（音频）对每款产品的评测，如果你想了解所有细节。如果你只需要我的推荐，那还是（仍然）Breville 650 XL。它（也）可以在亚马逊上购买。关于这款烤面包机有两个注意事项。首先，它的尺寸比你想象的要大：宽16.5英寸，深13英寸，高9.5英寸。购买前请先测量你的台面空间。其次，旋钮的手感很糟糕：松散、不精确、不令人满意。作为一款产品，这是一款不错的烤面包机。但如果你能克服它的用户界面小缺陷，它在烘烤（或烹饪）食物方面表现非常出色。我用了十年，至今仍未找到比它更好的产品。如果你的台面空间不足，无法容纳Breville烤面包机，想要一款既能烘烤面包又快的烤面包机，可以考虑松下FlashXpress。我认为它的用户界面不太理想——按钮混乱，排列不佳，集中在门下方——但它的烘烤速度非常快。 Breville还生产一款较小的450 XL型号，其性能不如大号的，速度也不如松下快，但如果你喜欢Breville的尺寸和界面，它是一个不错的选择。（顺便说一句，我没有任何推荐关于插槽式烤面包机。烤面包机万岁！）冰淇淋勺 OXO Good Grips实心不锈钢冰淇淋勺可能是世界上最好的冰淇淋勺。我知道它看起来和你以前用过的那些类似，那些无法在硬冻的冰淇淋上留下痕迹，反而在勺子的凹槽里形成丑陋的锈斑，但可以保证，这是一款完全不同的产品。正如名字所示，它由实心不锈钢制成。它坚固，整体均匀（没有易脱落的涂层），手感沉稳。尖头可以击败最坚硬的冰淇淋。用温水浸泡后，这款重器的热质量会持续工作，一次又一次地舀起冰淇淋，直到你需要为止。手柄是典型的OXO：柔软、有抓力的橡胶。在我写这篇文章时，我正在给自己订购一个备用勺子，以防OXO将来停止生产这款产品。（我唯一能想象出损坏我已有的那个勺子的情况是掉进垃圾处理器，但这种情况在我家确实发生过，所以还是谨慎为好。）更新（2023年1月）：像我似乎喜欢的所有OXO产品一样，看起来这款产品已经不再有售。取而代之的是这款勺子，形状与我的相同，但材质不同，以及这款勺子，材质与我的相同，但形状不同。人们报告在亚马逊上购买到的勺子可能与这两张图片都不匹配，所以请注意。有一个人建议从SUMO购买这款勺子，他说它看起来非常像我推荐的OXO勺子。厨师刀 Victorinox Fibrox Pro厨师刀，8英寸是迄今为止我使用过的最好的廉价厨师刀。有更贵的刀具更好，但在这个价格范围内，没有能与之媲美的。我拥有价格是它两倍的刀具，但它们的性能甚至不到它的一半。在材料方面，其握柄不如OXO的标准，但遵循相同的哲学：有抓力且舒适，不关心外观。刀刃形状完美，保持锋利的时间远比预期的长。而且它易于清洁和打磨：没有奇怪的接缝或倒角。和冰淇淋勺一样，这款产品我喜爱得如此之深，以至于我购买了备用的。我仍然定期购买更贵的厨师刀（我热爱厨房工具），但到目前为止，没有一款能取代这款35美元的全能神器。华夫饼机 Breville BWM640XL Smart 4-Slice华夫饼机价格为350美元。这在华夫饼机上花费350美元是荒谬的。它体积庞大且重量重。我个人更喜欢薄一些的华夫饼，有更多的小方块。（Breville生产四块超过一英寸厚的华夫饼，每块有25个小方块。）尽管如此，它在烘烤华夫饼方面表现相当出色。华夫饼烘烤均匀，容易从不粘表面上脱模。边缘的沟槽用于收集多余的面糊，确实有效。控制面板和液晶屏幕对于仅仅是一个设定烘烤时间的高级方式来说，显然是多余的，但它们运行良好且易于理解。你可能会认为没有可拆卸的加热表面会使得清洁变得困难，但烘烤后的华夫饼在移除后几乎不会留下任何东西。通常用湿纸巾擦拭表面就足够清洁了。永久固定的加热表面使整个设备感觉更坚固，也有助于防止任何面糊进入机器内部。我抵制购买这款昂贵的怪物很久了。我购买并退回了几个糟糕的华夫饼机。我找不到一款价格合理且表现稳定的型号。最后我咬牙买下了Breville。这个价格（仍然）令人难以接受，我（仍然）希望华夫饼更薄一些，有更多的小方块。但在其设计的尺寸限制下，这款该死的东西每次都能做出完美的华夫饼。真的令人恼火。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

Good Products

August 31, 2020 at 5:39 PM by John Siracusa

As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more.

Thanks to either my opinionated nature or the fact that I have voiced my opinions on various podcasts for years, people often ask me to recommend products. Which Mac should I buy? What’s the best microwave oven? What kind of car should I get for a family of four?

Now, I’m no Wirecutter or Consumer Reports. I’m just one person. With a few exceptions, I don’t have personal experience with more than a handful of individual products in a given category. But I know a good product when I see it (and use it).

This page lists some products that I consider “good.” This may sound like a low bar, but sometimes “good” is as good as it gets for a certain type of product. Even with this lenient standard, the list is not long. As with my Great Games list, I will add products to this page over time. I may also remove or replace products if something better comes along.

If you buy something after following a product link on this page, I may receive money through the seller’s affiliate program. (Not all retailers have affiliate programs, and not all products are eligible for affiliate payments.)

Toaster Oven

I love toaster ovens, and I’ve personally tested many of them over the years. Casey Liss, my friend and ATP co-host, tells the tale of the strange confluence of events that led me to try so many toaster ovens, and provides links to listen to my (audio) reviews of each one, if you want all the gory details. If you just want my recommendation, it’s (still) the Breville 650 XL. (It’s also available at Amazon.)

There are two caveats about this toaster oven. First, it’s bigger than you might expect: 16.5 inches wide, 13 inches deep, and 9.5 inches high. Measure your counter space before purchasing this beast. Second, the knob-feel is terrible: loose, imprecise, unsatisfying.

As a product, this is a good toaster oven. But if you can get past its user-interface foibles, it does a great job actually toasting (or cooking) things. I’ve had mine for a decade and, I’ve still not found anything better.

If you have too little counter space for the Breville and want a toaster oven that can toast bread both well and quickly, consider the Panasonic FlashXpress. I think its user interface is subpar—confusing, poorly arranged buttons clustered below the door—but it’s a speed demon when it comes to making toast.

Breville also makes a smaller 450 XL model that is not quite as powerful as its big sister, and not quite as fast as the Panasonic, but it’s a good choice if you like the Breville’s proportions and UI.

(And, no, I don’t have any recommendations for slot toasters. Toaster ovens forever.)

Ice Cream Scoop

The OXO Good Grips Solid Stainless Steel Ice Cream Scoop is (probably) the world’s greatest ice cream scoop. I know it looks like just the ones you’ve used before that can’t make a dent in hard-frozen ice cream and end up forming ugly, rusty pits in the well of the scoop, but I can assure you that this is a different class of product entirely.

As the name suggests, it’s made of solid stainless steel. It’s strong, uniform throughout (no coating to chip away), and pleasingly hefty. The pointed tip can defeat even the hardest ice cream. Soak it in warm water and the thermal mass of this heavy instrument will keep doing work, scoop after scoop, for as long as you need it. The handle is typical Oxo: soft, grippy rubber.

As I am writing this, I am ordering myself a backup scoop just in case Oxo ever stops making this product. (The only thing I can imagine damaging the one I already have is a trip into the garbage disposal…but that is a thing that has been known to happen in my house, so better safe than sorry.)

Update (January 2023): Like seemingly all the Oxo products that I love, it looks like this one is no longer available. In its place, there’s this scoop, which matches the shape of mine, but not the material finish, and this scoop, which matches the material, but not the shape. People have reported getting scoops that don’t match either photo on Amazon, however, so beware. One person suggested this scoop from SUMO, which he said arrived looking very much like the Oxo that I recommend.

Chef’s Knife

The Victorinox Fibrox Pro Knife, 8-Inch is the best inexpensive chef’s knife I have ever used. There are better knives for (much) more money, but none in this price range come close. I own knives that cost twice as much and are not even half as good.

The grip is not quite up to Oxo‘s standards in terms of materials, but it follows the same philosophy: grippy and comfortable, with no concern for how it looks. The blade is shaped perfectly and stays sharp for much longer than you would expect. And it’s easy to clean and sharpen: no weird seams or chamfers.

Like the ice cream scoop, this is a product I love so much that I’ve purchased backup copies just in case it’s ever discontinued. I still routinely purchase more-expensive chef’s knives (I love kitchen tools), but so far, none has displaced this $35 wonder for all-around utility.

Waffle Maker

The Breville BWM640XL Smart 4-Slice Waffle Maker is $350. This is a ridiculous amount of money to spend on a waffle maker. It’s huge and heavy. And I personally prefer thinner waffles with more, smaller squares. (The Breville makes four waffles that are over an inch thick, each with 25 squares.)

All of that said, it does a pretty amazing job. The waffles are evenly cooked and release easily from the non-stick surface. The gutter around the edge, meant to catch excess batter, does actually work. The controls and the LCD screen are surely overkill for what boils down to a fancy way to set the cooking time, but they work well and are easy to understand.

You might think the lack of removable heating surfaces would make it hard to clean, but cooked waffles leave almost nothing behind after they’re removed. Wiping the surfaces with a damp paper towel is usually all the cleaning that’s necessary. The permanently attached heating surfaces make the whole device feel sturdy, and they help prevent any batter from getting inside the machine.

I resisted buying this over-priced monstrosity for a long time. I purchased and returned several waffle makers that were just terrible. I could not find a reasonably priced model that was competent and consistent. I finally bit the bullet and bought the Breville. This price is (still) galling, and I (still) wish the waffles were thinner and had more, smaller squares. But within the size constraints inherent in its design, this damned thing makes perfectly cooked waffles every single time. It’s infuriating, really.

可能的艺术 || The Art of the Possible

2020-06-20T15:30:40+00:00

自从此事曝光以来，我一直有一个核心的想法关于Hey.com应用商店被拒争议。这个观点我之前已经在最近一期的ATP节目和推特上表达过。在WWDC带来其自身的苹果相关新闻之前，我想再尝试一次阐述。以下是我的观点。每个人都希望拥有功能丰富、易于使用、安全且有良好客户支持的应用程序。苹果、开发者和用户都认同这一点。激励措施在此处略有不同。苹果和开发者都希望盈利，而用户则希望应用价格低廉，同时希望应用得到良好的支持和维护。苹果通过控制应用商店，决定了开发者必须同意的条款，以便向用户分发iOS应用程序。苹果的规则决定了各方利益如何平衡。多年来，苹果一直在追求一个雄心勃勃的目标状态：一个充满功能丰富、易于使用、安全的应用商店，应用程序售价符合用户期望，同时以一种既能使开发者保持盈利又能给苹果带来显著收入分成（通常为30%）的方式进行变现。对于订阅服务，第一年的分成是15%，而对于像Netflix或亚马逊这样的科技巨头，通常会有一个低于30%的其他数字分成。应用商店规则是苹果实现其目标的最有力工具。为此，多年来规则已经多次调整。但尽管如此，苹果从未放弃其打造一个让所有用户都满意并为苹果和开发者带来丰厚收益的应用商店的梦想。如今，苹果的立场似乎是：只要坚持一些关键条款，公司就会像过去围绕实体零售店成本构建商业模式一样，围绕苹果的收入分成构建自己的商业模式。苹果似乎坚信，其雄心勃勃的目标状态可以通过当前的应用商店规则实现。这种信念并没有得到证据的支持。多年的历史表明，苹果正越来越远离其目标，而不是更接近。例如，Netflix放弃了应用内购买，苹果不得不与亚马逊达成特别协议，而所有应用程序都在尽可能规避现有规则，损害了用户体验和苹果及开发者的收入。更不用说一直糟糕的客户支持情况，或者像电子书销售这样的业务，它们永远无法拿出额外的30%分成给苹果。苹果的应用商店规则需要改变，不仅仅是因为开发者不喜欢它们。它们需要改变，因为时间与经验已经表明，在现有规则下，没有可行的路径可以实现苹果的目标状态。任何特定的应用商店争议细节往往容易掩盖这一更大的现实。强硬的立场无法改变人们的看法，而且已被证明无法在不牺牲用户体验的情况下改变开发者的商业模式。苹果需要决定，它想要的是“正确”还是想要让大家都开心。
---------------

Ever since the story broke, I’ve had one overriding thought about the Hey.com App Store rejection controversy. It’s a point I’ve already tried to make on a recent episode of ATP and on Twitter. Before WWDC arrives with its own wave of Apple-related news, I’d like to take one more run at it. Here goes.

Everyone wants apps that are feature-rich, easy-to-use, secure, and have good customer support. Apple, developers, and customers all agree on this. Incentives diverge slightly from here. Both Apple and developers want to make money. Customers want app prices to be low, but also want apps that are well-supported and maintained.

Apple, through its control of the App Store, dictates the terms that developers must agree to in order to distribute iOS apps to customers. Apple’s rules determine how the interests of all parties are balanced.

For many years now, Apple has been aiming for an ambitious goal state: an App Store filled with feature-rich, easy-to-use, secure apps, sold at prices customers find attractive, and monetized in a way that keeps developers happy and profitable while also giving Apple a significant percentage of all app-related revenue: 30% for most things, 15% after the first year of subscriptions, and some other, usually non-public number that’s less than 30% if you happen to be a fellow tech giant like Netflix or Amazon.

The App Store rules are the most powerful tool Apple can use to achieve its goal. To this end, the rules have been adjusted many times over the years. But throughout all these changes, Apple has never given up on its dream of an App Store filled with great apps that make everyone happy and make lots of money for both Apple and developers.

Today, Apple’s stance seems to be that if they just hold the line on a few key provisions of the App Store rules, companies will build their business models around Apple’s revenue cut in the same way companies built their business models around the costs of brick-and-mortar retail in the pre-Internet days. Apple seems to firmly believe that its ambitious goal state can be achieved with something close to the current set of App Store rules.

This belief is not supported by the evidence. Years of history has shown that Apple is getting further away from its goal, not closer. Witness Netflix abandoning in-app purchase, Apple having to strike a special deal with Amazon, and all the apps skirting the existing rules as best they can, to the detriment of the user experience and both Apple’s and developers’ revenue. And this is before even considering the customer support situation, which has always been dire, or the existence of businesses like ebook sales that will never have an extra 30% handy to give to Apple.

Apple’s App Store rules need to change not (just) because developers don’t like them. They need to change because time and experience have shown that there is no viable path to Apple’s goal state given the existing rules. The details of any particular App Store controversy can often distract from this larger reality. A hardline stance will not sway hearts and minds, and it has proven unable to change developers’ business models without sacrificing the user experience. Apple needs to decide if it wants to be “right,” or if it wants to be happy.

Switch玻璃 || SwitchGlass

2020-02-13T01:12:44+00:00

超批判 SwitchGlass 2020年2月12日下午8:12 由 John Siracusa 发布当 DragThing 最终因 macOS Catalina 不支持 32 位应用程序而被弃用时，我知道我会错过它的许多功能。我甚至错过了它的（可选）修改 Mac 窗口分层策略的功能，因此我开发了第一个 Mac 应用程序 Front and Center 来替代它。我的第二个 Mac 应用程序 SwitchGlass 也替代了我从 DragThing 中怀念的功能。（感谢 James Thomson，他无意中启动了我的 Mac 开发工作。） SwitchGlass 为您的 Mac 添加了一个专用的应用程序切换器。您可以自定义其在每个连接显示器上的外观、大小和位置，包括在选定显示器上隐藏它。它与 Front and Center 配合得天衣无缝，支持在浮动应用程序切换器中对应用图标进行单击和 Shift 键单击操作。SwitchGlass 在 Mac 应用商店售价为 4.99 美元。如需了解更多，请阅读常见问题解答。我编写了 SwitchGlass 和 Front and Center 来满足自己的需求。我每天都在我的 Mac 上运行这两个应用。我是一名专业程序员，已有近 25 年的从业经验，但直到今年，我从未为我最喜欢的平台编写过任何东西。能够解决自己的需求让我感到非常满足。而且，了解到还有其他人也欣赏我的这些奇怪的小应用，更是令人欣慰。感谢所有购买过我应用的用户。特别感谢 Brad Ellis 为 SwitchGlass 创建了美丽的图标。附言：- 我可能不是唯一一个想念 DragThing 的应用程序切换器的人。强大的 Mac 自动化应用 Keyboard Maestro 最近添加了类似的功能。事实上，SwitchGlass 的默认外观灵感来自于 Keyboard Maestro 的应用程序切换器。如果您想要一个功能强大的 Mac 自动化工具，它恰好内置了一个（可选）的应用程序切换器面板，请查看 Keyboard Maestro。我强烈推荐它。 © 2010-2025 John Siracusa
---------------

Hypercritical

SwitchGlass

February 12, 2020 at 8:12 PM by John Siracusa

When DragThing was finally left behind—after 24 years of service—by macOS Catalina’s lack of support for 32-bit apps, I knew I’d miss many of its features. I missed its (optional) modification of the Mac’s window-layering policy so much that I made my first Mac app, Front and Center, to replace it. My second Mac app, SwitchGlass, also replaces a feature I miss from DragThing. (Thank you, James Thomson, for unwittingly kickstarting my Mac development efforts.)

SwitchGlass adds a dedicated application switcher to your Mac. You can customize its appearance, size, and position on each attached display, including hiding it on selected displays. It pairs perfectly with Front and Center, supporting both click and Shift-click actions on app icons in the floating app switcher. SwitchGlass is available for $4.99 on the Mac App Store. To learn more, please read the FAQ.

I wrote SwitchGlass and Front and Center to satisfy my own needs. I run both apps all day, every day on my Mac. I’ve been a professional programmer for almost 25 years, but until this year, I’d never written anything for my favorite platform. It’s immensely satisfying to be able to scratch my own itch. And it’s even more satisfying to learn that there are other people out there who also appreciate my strange little apps.

Thanks to everyone who has purchased one of my apps. And special thanks to Brad Ellis for creating the beautiful SwitchGlass icon.

P.S. - I may not be the only one who misses DragThing’s application switcher. The phenomenally powerful Mac automation app Keyboard Maestro recently added a similar feature. In fact, SwitchGlass’s default appearance is inspired by Keyboard Maestro’s app switcher. If you want a hugely capable Mac automation tool that just happens to have an (optional) app switcher palette built in, check out Keyboard Maestro. I highly recommend it.