Da leggere, appunto, su Internazionale.

Ai tavolini possiamo vedere qualche studente accanirsi ferocemente sulla tastiera del portatile, speranzoso di finire in tempo qualche progetto.

Prendere l’autobus significa poca conversazione ma un bouquet vario e colorato di lettori MP3.

Musica, libri e studio sono ormai supportati da svariati tipi di strumenti digitali, a diversi gradi di tecnologia, che fanno parte della visione della quotidianità.

I ritmi sempre più frenetici della vita attuale ci hanno fatto perdere alcuni piccoli momenti di pausa lasciati a tecnologie primitive ma essenziali per la felicità della persona. Un’ora passata sul divano a leggere un buon libro, è stata sostituita da tavole digitali prive del piacere tattile della carta sulle mani.

Far girare pazientemente un vinile è ora uno smanettare su tastiere iper piatte dal feedback immediato.

Studiare, sottolineando, e commentando (a volte ahimè a penna) ciò che si legge a bordo pagina, colorando blocchi di testo di accesi colori, sono gesti ora sostituiti da veloci notebook multitasking che permettono un lavoro rapido.

Ogni tanto però spunta qualcuno che dice ancora “hai sentito quel programma in radio ieri sera?”.. e lì ti accorgi che le vecchie abitudini sono davvero dure a morire e che anche se si parla di web radio, quei 5 minuti di piacere non riusciamo a negarceli: cambia solo il modo di cercarli.

The Adams Theory of Content Value: As our ability to search for media content improves, the economic value of that content will approach zero.

I heard someplace, albeit unreliably, that 90% of all music that people own for personal use is stolen. Let’s agree that the real figure is some large number, if not 90%. And you can already obtain every top-selling book, TV show, and movie on the Internet for free, assuming you don’t mind mixing your shopping with your copyright crime sprees. Newspapers, magazines, and comics such as Dilbert have been freely available on the Internet for years.

continua qui

Il web ci offre sempre più strumenti di condivisione ma ancora non è chiaro quali siano le dinamiche di protezione dei dati e soprattutto le responsabilità che poi determineranno l’uso dei dati personali.

David Orban a Frontiers of Interaction 2009 disse che non si poteva parlare di Grande Fratello in quanto la partecipazione ai social network è voluta ,non imposta… ma quanti utenti di Facebook vogliono questo?
Esistono ancora persone che leggano i termini della privacy prima di iscriversi ad un Social Network?
Quante sono le persone che riescono a impostare le preferenze sulla privacy su Facebbok?
Ma soprattutto, le persone che decidono di “condividere” on line foto, video o qualsiasi altra cosa, sanno veramente cosa stanno facendo?

“We no longer search for the news, the news find us… we will no longer search for products and services, they will find us via social media.”

I wanted to jot down some of our thoughts on Adobe’s Flash products so that customers and critics may better understand why we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. Adobe has characterized our decision as being primarily business driven – they say we want to protect our App Store – but in reality it is based on technology issues. Adobe claims that we are a closed system, and that Flash is open, but in fact the opposite is true. Let me explain.

First, there’s “Open”.

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Apple even creates open standards for the web. For example, Apple began with a small open source project and created WebKit, a complete open-source HTML5 rendering engine that is the heart of the Safari web browser used in all our products. WebKit has been widely adopted. Google uses it for Android’s browser, Palm uses it, Nokia uses it, and RIM (Blackberry) has announced they will use it too. Almost every smartphone web browser other than Microsoft’s uses WebKit. By making its WebKit technology open, Apple has set the standard for mobile web browsers.

Second, there’s the “full web”.

Adobe has repeatedly said that Apple mobile devices cannot access “the full web” because 75% of video on the web is in Flash. What they don’t say is that almost all this video is also available in a more modern format, H.264, and viewable on iPhones, iPods and iPads. YouTube, with an estimated 40% of the web’s video, shines in an app bundled on all Apple mobile devices, with the iPad offering perhaps the best YouTube discovery and viewing experience ever. Add to this video from Vimeo, Netflix, Facebook, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ESPN, NPR, Time, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Sports Illustrated, People, National Geographic, and many, many others. iPhone, iPod and iPad users aren’t missing much video.

Another Adobe claim is that Apple devices cannot play Flash games. This is true. Fortunately, there are over 50,000 games and entertainment titles on the App Store, and many of them are free. There are more games and entertainment titles available for iPhone, iPod and iPad than for any other platform in the world.

Third, there’s reliability, security and performance.

Symantec recently highlighted Flash for having one of the worst security records in 2009. We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash. We have been working with Adobe to fix these problems, but they have persisted for several years now. We don’t want to reduce the reliability and security of our iPhones, iPods and iPads by adding Flash.

In addition, Flash has not performed well on mobile devices. We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it. Adobe publicly said that Flash would ship on a smartphone in early 2009, then the second half of 2009, then the first half of 2010, and now they say the second half of 2010. We think it will eventually ship, but we’re glad we didn’t hold our breath. Who knows how it will perform?

Fourth, there’s battery life.

To achieve long battery life when playing video, mobile devices must decode the video in hardware; decoding it in software uses too much power. Many of the chips used in modern mobile devices contain a decoder called H.264 – an industry standard that is used in every Blu-ray DVD player and has been adopted by Apple, Google (YouTube), Vimeo, Netflix and many other companies.

Although Flash has recently added support for H.264, the video on almost all Flash websites currently requires an older generation decoder that is not implemented in mobile chips and must be run in software. The difference is striking: on an iPhone, for example, H.264 videos play for up to 10 hours, while videos decoded in software play for less than 5 hours before the battery is fully drained.

When websites re-encode their videos using H.264, they can offer them without using Flash at all. They play perfectly in browsers like Apple’s Safari and Google’s Chrome without any plugins whatsoever, and look great on iPhones, iPods and iPads.

Fifth, there’s Touch.

Flash was designed for PCs using mice, not for touch screens using fingers. For example, many Flash websites rely on “rollovers”, which pop up menus or other elements when the mouse arrow hovers over a specific spot. Apple’s revolutionary multi-touch interface doesn’t use a mouse, and there is no concept of a rollover. Most Flash websites will need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices. If developers need to rewrite their Flash websites, why not use modern technologies like HTML5, CSS and JavaScript?

Even if iPhones, iPods and iPads ran Flash, it would not solve the problem that most Flash websites need to be rewritten to support touch-based devices.

Sixth, the most important reason.

Besides the fact that Flash is closed and proprietary, has major technical drawbacks, and doesn’t support touch based devices, there is an even more important reason we do not allow Flash on iPhones, iPods and iPads. We have discussed the downsides of using Flash to play video and interactive content from websites, but Adobe also wants developers to adopt Flash to create apps that run on our mobile devices.

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.

Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

Conclusions.

Flash was created during the PC era – for PCs and mice. Flash is a successful business for Adobe, and we can understand why they want to push it beyond PCs. But the mobile era is about low power devices, touch interfaces and open web standards – all areas where Flash falls short.

The avalanche of media outlets offering their content for Apple’s mobile devices demonstrates that Flash is no longer necessary to watch video or consume any kind of web content. And the 200,000 apps on Apple’s App Store proves that Flash isn’t necessary for tens of thousands of developers to create graphically rich applications, including games.

New open standards created in the mobile era, such as HTML5, will win on mobile devices (and PCs too). Perhaps Adobe should focus more on creating great HTML5 tools for the future, and less on criticizing Apple for leaving the past behind.

Steve Jobs
April, 2010

La natura di tutto il fenomeno mobile è essenziale per capirne le evoluzioni, ed è legata al fondatore di Palm Computing Jeff Hawkins (di cui anche Bill Moggridge parla nel suo “Designing Interaction”). La sua figura è importante per noi non tanto per il suo Palm Pilot, primo device veramente mobile, ma perché segna l’incontro tra le scienze della mente e l’interaction design. La prima volta in cui il design trae spunto da una teoria scientifica (memory-prediction framework), che entra così a far parte degli strumenti dell’interaction designer. La teoria che tratta della modalità con cui i mammiferi agiscono basandosi su di un meccanismo di eccitazione dei neuroni nei sei strati di corteccia cerebrale.
Semplificando molto: quando ci troviamo in una situazione nuova (cioè non presente nella memoria) con un dispendio di energia, immagazziniamo la struttura di quello che è successo. Impariamo. Quando una situazione si è già presentata o è simile a una conosciuta, ricorriamo alla memoria e predisponiamo i sensi ed i muscoli a reagire secondo i patterns appresi, prevedendo quello che sta succedendo secondo il ricordo.

Non vogliamo discutere sulla validità delle teorie di Hawkins, solo far notare come siano state centrali e importanti per la creazione di interfacce e comportamenti. Oggi HP ci ha dimostrato che quanto meno si è trattato di un lavoro ben speso.